Exploring the Knowledge Strategiesof Temporary Cluster Organizers:A Longitudinal Study of the EU FabricIndustry Trade Shows (1986–2006)

Diego RinalloMarketing Department

Centre for Research onMarketing and Services

Bocconi UniversityVia Röntgen 120136 Milan, Italydiego.rinallo@unibocconi.it

(corresponding author)

Francesca GolfettoMarketing Department

Centre for Research onMarketing and Services

Bocconi UniversityVia Röntgen 120136 Milan, Italyfrancesca.golfetto@

unibocconi.it

Key words:trade showstemporary clustersinteractive learningorganized proximitytextile industry

abst

ract Trade shows and other temporary clusters have

recently emerged as key sites of theoretical relevancefor scholars who are interested in the spatial conse-quences of interactive learning. Recent research hasviewed these events as relational spaces in whichcountless actors interact and learn spontaneouslywithout a central actor governing the process. In thecase of permanent clusters, however, studies havestarted to unpack the practices through which keyactors, such as entrepreneurial and professional asso-ciations, stimulate learning and interaction. In thisarticle, we hold that these central subjects also havean important role in activating the benefits of colo-calization with regard to temporary clusters. In anempirical study of the European Union clothingfabric trade shows between 1986 and 2006, we iden-tified four types of practices through which tradeshow organizers shape learning and interaction attheir events. Contrary to current views, our studyfound that exchanges of knowledge at these events donot always occur at the global level. Instead, thegeographic scale of the processes of exchanging andacquiring knowledge in temporary clusters is sociallyand politically constructed at several levels—fromthe merely local to the truly global. We also foundthat organizers of trade shows facilitate verticalrelationships between exhibitors and typical visitors(i.e., buyers), whereas other knowledge flows areneglected or even hindered. We conclude this articleby highlighting the theoretical implications of ourstudy for the literature on the spatial consequences ofinteraction and innovation.ecge_1127 453..476

453

ECO

NO

MIC

GEO

GR

APH

Y87(4):453–476.©

2011C

larkU

niversity.w

ww

.economicgeography.org

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefullyacknowledge the editor andthree anonymous EconomicGeography reviewers fortheir constructive criticism;Harald Bathelt for hisinsightful comments onprevious versions of themanuscript; and BocconiUniversity’s Center forResearch on Marketing andServices for its generousfinancial and organizationalsupport.We are alsoindebted to our informantsfor their time and patience inanswering our questionsabout clothing textiles, tradeshows, and theirorganizations’ history and totrade show organizers forgranting us access to theirevents.

The knowledge-based theory of spatial cluster-ing (Maskell 2001; Malmberg and Maskell 2002)considers innovation, learning, and the creation ofknowledge to be the result of collaborative processesinvolving numerous actors who are endowed withdifferent knowledge bases and competencies andinteract to solve common problems (Lundvall 1992).When innovation depends on valuable and difficult-to-reproduce tacit knowledge, firms benefit fromspatial proximity with similar and related firms. Inindustrial clusters, firms may have access to buzz(Storper and Venables 2004; Bathelt, Malmberg, andMaskell 2004; see also Grabher’s 2002 concept ofnoise), which is a web of specialized information andflows of knowledge that occurs as a result of organizedinteractions and unplanned encounters between localactors. However, recent contributions have high-lighted the complementary role of external sourcesof knowledge in stimulating learning and innovationin firms that are embedded in local clusters. Conse-quently, it has been suggested that local buzz,obtained by “being there” (Gertler 1995), and globalpipelines, which require specific investments, areimportant mechanisms in explaining the vitalityand success of local clusters in globalizing andhypercompetitive marketplaces (Bathelt et al. 2004).Subsequent criticism of the local buzz and globalpipeline model—see Moodysson (2008) for a thor-ough review—has led to more sophisticated theoriza-tions of the relative importance of different sourcesof knowledge for industries drawing on differentknowledge bases.

In the ongoing debate on the spatial configurationof interactive learning, events that temporarily bringtogether otherwise distant actors have emerged asresearch sites of theoretical interest. Forms of tempo-rary, organized proximity (Torre 2008) can providefirms with access to knowledge and opportunities forinteraction similar to those provided by permanentgeographic proximity. Trade shows and similar recur-rent events (e.g., professional gatherings and scientificconferences) may thus be considered temporaryclusters (Maskell, Bathelt, and Malmberg 2006;Bathelt and Schuldt 2008) because they form centralrelational spaces for knowledge and market processesin the globalizing learning economy (Rosson andSeringhaus 1995; Norcliffe and Rendace 2003;Borghini, Golfetto, and Rinallo, 2006; Jansson andPower 2008). By bringing together actors from differ-ent geographic origins and endowed with different

ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY

454

resources and competencies, these initiatives are instrumental in establishing externalknowledge channels for actors who are embedded in local clusters.

Like previous empirical investigations of these events, we consider trade shows aresearch site that may shed light on the role of organized proximity in interactive learningprocesses. Research on temporary clusters implies that interaction, learning, and inno-vation occur spontaneously by merely gathering geographically distant actors. However,despite theoretical emphasis on proximity as organized in temporary relational places, thepractices through which organizers of temporary clusters stimulate interaction and facili-tate learning among distant actors have been largely unexplored. In this article, we showthat the synergies deriving from temporary geographic proximity may be activated andreinforced through the knowledge-generating practices of a central subject (a meta-actor), which shapes and coordinates the interactions between the convening actors.

Empirically, our study was based on a longitudinal investigation of the European Union(EU) clothing fabric trade shows between 1986 and 2006. Our research highlights thenumerous backstage activities of organizers that are invisible to most exhibitors andvisitors but nevertheless affect their interactions and knowledge-acquisition activities attrade shows. We identify four broad categories of practices through which organizersshape interaction and learning at their events. By marking the boundaries of temporaryclusters, improving the release and acquisition of knowledge, hindering undesired knowl-edge spillovers, and investing in the development of new knowledge, organizers bring tolife knowledge-rich spaces that are currently attended for learning purposes, rather thanfor economic exchange. While the specific practices of trade show organizers thatstimulate interaction and learning among convening actors are somewhat industry spe-cific, we believe that our findings are useful for organizers of other types of temporaryclusters (e.g., conferences, conventions, and professional gatherings).

This article also contributes to research on the geographic scale of exchanges ofknowledge in temporary clusters. Reliance on the local buzz and global pipeline modelsreproduces an a priori view of scale (i.e., the local versus the global), which obscures thespecific scalar configurations of temporary clusters, the processes through which theclusters emerge, and the effects the clusters have on learning. We empirically identifytrade shows of various geographic scales (from the local to the international), each ofwhich fosters distinct learning environments. Moreover, the organizers’ involvement withnonlocal actors may be focused mainly on exhibitors or visitors, resulting in intermediateevents that are neither merely local nor truly global.

This article is organized as follows: In the following section, we present a brief reviewof the literature on interactive learning and temporary geographic proximity. We alsocritically discuss the emerging stream of research on trade shows as temporary clusters.Thereafter we provide a methodological note on the scope of our analysis as well as on thedata gathering and analysis procedures. We then report the research findings regardinghow organizers shape different typologies of temporary clusters and the practices throughwhich they influence the acquisition of knowledge at trade shows. We conclude byhighlighting the article’s contributions to the research on temporary clusters and addressthe extent to which the findings can be generalized.

Theoretical BackgroundInteractive Learning and Temporary Geographic Proximity

Knowledge-based explanations of industrial clusters (Maskell 2001; Malmberg andMaskell 2002) are based on the idea that tacit knowledge is sticky and difficult to transferover long distances (Von Hippel 1994), therefore requiring geographic proximity if it is to

Vol. 87 No. 4 2011

455

EXPLO

RIN

GK

NO

WLED

GE

STR

ATEG

IES

be generated and disseminated. Recently, however, an increasing number of studies havechallenged this idea (Torre and Gilly 2000; Boschma 2005; Torre and Rallet 2005) andhave suggested that geographic colocalization interacts with other forms of proximity(i.e., cognitive, organizational, social, and institutional) to produce effects on interactivelearning and innovation (Boschma 2005). Relational proximity may thus be as importantas geographic proximity in enabling the generation and transfer of tacit knowledge(Gertler 2003; Amin and Cohendet 2004).

Another research stream suggests that the transmission of tacit knowledge does notrequire permanent colocalization. Rather, certain phases of the innovation process may besupported by temporary geographic proximity with otherwise distant actors (Torre 2008).Despite its critics (see Moodysson 2008), the local buzz and global pipeline model(Bathelt et al. 2004; Bathelt 2005) has recently stimulated debate by proposing thatestablishing relational proximity with external sources of knowledge (i.e., pipelines) maycomplement local knowledge and buzz (Storper and Venables 2004) acquired by “beingthere” (Gertler 1995).

These developments have renewed theoretical interest in trade shows and other events,although from a different perspective than in the past. Trade shows1 are traditionallyunderstood as temporary marketplaces where suppliers from a given industry convene toshowcase their products and services. Their existence was thus mainly a means to reducethe transaction costs inherent in finding suitable exchange partners (Florio 1994).However, recent contributions have conceived these events as relational spaces that fosterforms of organized, temporary proximity between actors who are otherwise geographi-cally and technologically distant (Norcliffe and Rendace 2003; Torre and Rallet 2005;Maskell et al. 2006; Bathelt and Schuldt 2008; Jansson and Power 2008; Torre 2008).Accordingly, these spaces are viewed as temporary clusters “because they are character-ized by knowledge-exchanging mechanisms similar to those found in permanent clusters,albeit in a short-lived and intensified form” (Maskell et al. 2006: p. 999).

At most international trade shows, firms are said to have access to global (rather thanlocal) buzz (Bathelt and Schuldt 2008). Knowledge circulation is based on variousmechanisms, including direct interaction with counterparts and third parties, observation,and comparison (Bathelt and Schuldt 2008). Consequently, firms can access knowledgeabout what is going on in the industry, evaluate their own achievements, and makedecisions about their future strategies and the development of new product. Moreover,trade shows influence exhibitors and visitors long before and after the exhibition days,since the international calendar of these events creates a rhythm within the underlyingindustries’ innovation and purchase processes (Jansson and Power 2008).

The Organizers of Organized ProximityContributions on industrial clusters, permanent and temporary alike, evoke a picture of

countless actors convening and interacting spontaneously without central actors govern-ing the process. Research has only recently started to analyze how certain key actorsfurther interaction and learning inside permanent clusters. Benner (2003) and Faulcon-bridge (2007a, 2007b) explored the specific practices through which professional asso-ciations stimulate collective learning in local clusters. Filippi and Torre (2003) showedthat entrepreneurial associations and public authorities may activate the benefits ofgeographic colocalization by mobilizing member firms for communal projects. These

1 This study refers expressly to business-to-business trade fairs (i.e., those that target industrial buyers). Ourfindings and the resulting implications do not hold in the case of trade fairs dedicated to consumers, giventhe visitors’ limited geographic mobility and their prevailing interest in entertainment experiences.

ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY

456

studies share the premise that central subjects put practices in place that may accele-rate local actors’ naturally occurring interactions, resulting in greater learning andcompetitiveness.

We have not seen similar developments in the literature on temporary clusters,even though these events have a clear decision-making center that is responsible foradapting to environmental changes and coordinating physical proximity between actors.The occasional references in the literature do not provide a comprehensive theoreticaltreatment of the practices through which organizers affect the circulation of knowledge.For example, Torre (2008) merely observed that trade shows and similar events are spaces“specifically designed and organized to facilitate exchanges between actors” (p. 881);Jansson and Power (2008) noted that organizers affect the microgeographies of tradeshows and are important counterparts with whom exhibitors negotiate a better position inthe exhibition hall. Paradoxically, although trade shows are emphasized as forms oforganized temporary proximity, little is said about the organizers of such proximity.

In our view, organizers are key agents because they both constrain and enable theconvening actors by continuously reproducing the social and material environments oftheir interactions and ordering their practices across space and time. When a relationalapproach is adopted (Dicken and Malmberg 2001; Bathelt and Glückler 2003; Boggs andRantisi 2003; Sunley 2008), key agents’ interactions are a central focus. The typical levelof analysis of relational studies is the firms or even individuals within firms (Boggs andRantisi 2003). However, in the analysis of proximity and economic coordination, “the keyactors are those who play a mediation/hybridization role between the local level and theglobal level” (Torre and Gilly 2000, 178).

By focusing on a mesolevel of analysis (i.e., the organizer instead of the firms orindividuals attending trade shows), we can also shed light on the scale of exchanges ofknowledge in temporary clusters. Building on the local buzz and global pipeline model(Bathelt et al. 2004; Bathelt 2005), research on temporary clusters has assumed thatlearning at trade shows always occurs at the global level (Maskell et al. 2006; Bathelt andSchuldt 2008; see also Skov 2006). While this may be true in some cases, research onscale making (for extensive reviews, see Howitt 2003; McMaster and Sheppard 2004;Marston, Jones, and Woodward 2005; Moore 2008) has suggested that the geographicscale of economic, cultural, and political processes is never fixed but is socially con-structed (Marston 2000). Accordingly, whether and to what extent phenomena are orga-nized according to scalar precepts is “an open question to be addressed empirically, ratherthan treated as a starting point” (Moore 2008, 218). We concur with this line of argumentand propose that the scale of interactions and exchanges of knowledge should be treatedas an empirical question also in the case of trade shows and other temporary clusters.

A theoretical focus on organizers calls for relational analyses that focus on how scalecan be deployed to further specific political projects. Geographers have long beenconcerned with politics of scale (Smith 1996; Kelly 1997; Swyngedouw 1997; Cox 1998;Moore 2008) and have investigated the various ways actors use scalar categories toconstruct space and social relations for specific political aims. With specific reference tolearning in permanent clusters, Faulconbridge (2007b) showed that the ways in whichprofessional associations organize and stimulate collective learning in permanent clustersmay be influenced by sociopolitical dynamics that exclude certain actors from the benefitsof interaction and learning. In temporary clusters, similar dynamics may occur. Differentpolitics of scale may lead to different temporary configurations of clusters. However,empirical investigations of these events have yet to provide evidence of similar sociopo-litical dynamics and the resulting learning and networking implications for participatingactors.

Vol. 87 No. 4 2011

457

EXPLO

RIN

GK

NO

WLED

GE

STR

ATEG

IES

Temporary Clusters or Temporary Markets:The Role of Traded InteractionsWhen comparing management scholarship on trade shows and the more recent litera-

ture on temporary clusters in economic geography, an important disagreement emergesregarding the theoretical relevance attributed to visitors who attend trade shows but arenot interested in doing business with exhibitors. Management scholarship regards tradeshows as temporary marketplaces where industrial marketers (exhibitors) invest in exhib-its and presentations to interact with customers and prospects (typical visitors; seeBorghini et al. 2006). These studies have acknowledged that attendance also involvesatypical visitors (mostly competitors and firms from upstream and related industries).However, these companies are of marginal theoretical importance because they are not theexhibitors’ communication target. On the contrary, from economic geography’s perspec-tive, the presence of atypical visitors is extremely significant since it confirms theincreased relevance of exchanges of knowledge beyond market relationships. Accord-ingly, empirical studies on temporary clusters have shown that trade shows provideboth vertical opportunities for learning and interaction along the value chain (i.e., withfirms belonging to upstream and downstream industries) and horizontal opportunities(i.e., among competing firms). Initially, there was so much emphasis on learning thatthe first contribution in this stream of research (Maskell et al. 2006) was criticized formarginalizing trade and ignoring the distinct market interactions at these events (Skov2006).

In this section, we raise a similar point and propose that if trade shows are regarded astemporary markets, the most important flows of knowledge are those generated byvertical interactions between exhibitors and typical visitors (current or potential buyers).In fact, trade shows’ revenues originate mostly from exhibitors’ investments to meetbuyers. Organizers thus seek to facilitate these vertical relationships, whereas they maynot cater to other types of interaction or, as we show in the Findings section (in thesubsection Hindering Undesirable Knowledge Spillovers), may even actively constrainatypical visitors’ access to learning and knowledge.As a theoretical point of departure, weelaborate on this observation and specify its implication for research on trade shows astemporary clusters through a selective review of management scholarship on visitors’ andexhibitors’ behavior at trade shows.

Industrial buyers (the typical visitors) attend trade shows to learn about new solutions,suppliers, and products (Gopalakrishna, Lilien, Williams, and Sequeira 1995; Rosson andSeringhaus 1995). By interacting with products and prototypes, the exhibitors’ staff, andother customers, the visitors obtain tacit knowledge about market offerings that wouldotherwise be difficult to acquire (Borghini et al. 2006; Rinallo, Borghini, and Golfetto2010). However, visitors’ learning is often related to broader issues (e.g., the future of theindustry and evolutions in markets and technologies), rather than to specific purchase acts(Borghini et al. 2006). It is interesting that visitors maintain that exhibitors do notcontribute equally to the knowledge-acquisition processes (Borghini et al. 2006; Rinalloet al. 2010). Market leaders are considered the industry’s innovation sources and the mostimportant sources of information on current technology and market trends. Consequently,these players are visited first and are the subject of many conversations, especiallyin subsequent contacts between visitors and current suppliers. The presence of marketleaders as part of a trade show’s exhibitor base is thus fundamental in creating aknowledge-rich environment for all visitors.

Exhibitors are well aware of customers’ behavior at trade shows and base theircommunication at these events on the free provision of expertise for promotional reasons.In other words, exhibitors maintain the large investments (Bonoma 1983) required to

ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY

458

bring their innovations, prototypes, and expert personnel to trade shows to signal theircompetencies to current and potential customers (Golfetto and Mazursky 2004; Golfettoand Gibbert 2006; Zerbini, Golfetto, and Gibbert 2007). Exhibitors’ release of knowledgeis largely proportional to the number and importance of the buyers who are met during atrade show. The knowledge-rich environment that fosters learning for all visitors is thusmostly a by-product of exhibitors’ promotional activities.

However, exhibitors usually consider the presence of atypical visitors who are notinvolved in purchase processes (e.g., other exhibitors’ personnel, competitors, or firmsfrom other industries) as a source of distraction or even annoyance (Borghini et al. 2006).Fear of imitation by competitors may eventually induce exhibitors to adopt closed standdesigns based on physical barriers that limit external viewers’ visual access (Rinallo andBorghini 2003). Such practices may reduce the knowledge-circulation potential of tradeshows, which is largely dependent on visual stimuli (Maskell et al. 2006).

From the organizers’ perspective, visitors’ and exhibitors’ needs and behaviors areequally important. Trade show organizers are on the market and, to make a profit (or atleast break even), they must satisfy these needs, thus ensuring that exhibitors and visitorscontinue to attend events and provide stable revenue streams. As we previously noted,trade shows are primarily promotional events for exhibitors, and knowledge-relatedactivities are not their main reason for attending (see also Jansson and Power 2008). Onlythe expected interaction with current and potential buyers justifies their exorbitantinvestments in trade shows, which also result in knowledge spillovers benefiting otheractors (e.g., competing exhibitors and atypical visitors). Trade shows would not survive ifa sufficient proportion of typical visitors (buyers) were not present. We therefore hypoth-esize that trade show organizers systematically support vertical interactions betweenexhibitors and typical visitors and that they cater less to the knowledge needs ofactors who are interested in “free” knowledge spillovers that are not embedded in marketexchanges. As we show in our empirical section, this focus has implications for thespecific ways in which organizers arrange temporary proximity at their events.

MethodThis article reports the findings of an empirical study on the main international trade

shows in the EU clothing fabric industry (see Table 1). Following previous empiricalinvestigations of organizations that aim to foster collective learning in permanent clusters(e.g., Benner 2003; Faulconbridge 2007a, 2007b), our study focused on identifying thespecific practices that trade show organizers use to organize temporary proximity andshape interactions at their events. Furthermore, following scholarship on the sociopoliti-cal construction of scale, we sought to empirically identify the geographic scale ofknowledge exchanges at trade shows, as well as the extent to which organizers adoptscalar thinking when defining their activities’ geographic scope.

Our empirical evidence is based on 12 clothing fabric trade shows—concentratedmainly in Germany, France, and Italy—whose characteristics and evolution we trackedfrom 1986 to 2006 (see Table 1 for a summary). Over this period, we followed theemergence of new trade shows and the cessation of existing events. In the Findingssection, we report evidence based mostly on Première Vision (one of the leading events inthe industry), but our empirical study benefits from a comparative perspective developedin the context of a broader research on various European trade fairs.

Our investigation was based on three complementary data sets: (1) interviewswith trade fair organizers and leading firms in the fabric industry, (2) trade fair statisticsfor the period under study, and (3) news articles covering the textile/clothing industry in

Vol. 87 No. 4 2011

459

EXPLO

RIN

GK

NO

WLED

GE

STR

ATEG

IES

Tabl

e1

Inte

rnat

iona

lFab

ricTr

ade

Show

sin

Euro

pe(1

986–

2006

)

Tra

deS

how

Loca

tion

(Per

iod)

Org

aniz

er

Key

Indi

cato

rs(S

prin

gEd

ition

s)

2006

Dat

es19

8619

9620

06

Par

kL

ane

Co

llect

ions

Briti

shN

atio

nalW

oolT

extil

eEx

port

Cor

p.(N

WT

EC).

Sam

eda

tes

asFa

brex

.Sq

uare

met

ers

900a

**

*Lo

ndon

Exhi

bito

rs(fo

reig

n)29

a(n

.a.–

1993

)V

isito

rs(fo

reig

n)N

.A.

Fabr

exPh

ilbea

chEv

ents

,sup

port

edby

NW

TEC

.Sam

eda

tes

asPa

rkLa

ne.

Squa

rem

eter

s8,

000

a*

**

Lond

onEx

hibi

tors

(fore

ign)

447

(53%

)a

(197

9–19

92)

Vis

itors

(fore

ign)

10,4

00(6

%)

aIn

ters

toff

Mes

seFr

ankf

urt

Gm

bH—

owne

dby

loca

lsta

keho

lder

s.Sq

uare

met

ers

40,5

124,

216

**

Fran

kfur

tEx

hibi

tors

(fore

ign)

1,04

4(7

8%)

147

(69%

)(1

959–

1999

)V

isito

rs(fo

reig

n)23

,248

(45%

)5,

034

(38%

)P

rem

ière

Vis

ion,

Prem

ière

Vis

ion

leSa

lon

s.a.

—la

unch

edby

Fren

chte

xtile

indu

stry

asso

ciat

ions

.Sq

uare

met

ers

17,8

5140

,180

35,4

989–

12M

arch

Pari

sEx

hibi

tors

(fore

ign)

471

(55%

)82

1(7

1%)

700

(82%

)(fr

om19

79)

Vis

itors

(fore

ign)

27,6

09(5

7%)

71,4

10(7

4%)

30,2

12(7

6%)

Pra

toE

xpo

Prat

otra

de—

anin

itiat

ive

ofth

eTe

xtile

Indu

stry

Ass

ocia

tion

ofPr

ato.

Squa

rem

eter

sN

.A.

6,65

0b

3,00

014

–17

Febr

uary

Flor

ence

,now

Mila

noU

nica

Exhi

bito

rs(fo

reig

n)11

1(1

%)

b81

(2%

)(fr

om19

79)

Vis

itors

(fore

ign)

6,11

7(3

8%)

b35

,765

(35%

)cId

eaco

mo

E.F.

Idea

com

o—fo

unde

dby

agr

oup

ofsi

lkpr

oduc

ers

inth

eC

omo

area

.Sq

uare

met

ers

9,55

04,

700

1,85

214

–17

Febr

uary

Cer

nobb

io-C

O,n

owM

ilano

Uni

caEx

hibi

tors

(fore

ign)

90(1

8%)

77(1

6%)

55(1

1%)

(from

1975

)V

isito

rs(fo

reig

n)3,

871

(31%

)2,

238

(38%

)35

,765

(35%

)cId

eabi

ella

Ass

ocia

zion

eId

eabi

ella

—fo

unde

dby

man

ufac

ture

rsfr

omth

eBi

ella

area

.Sq

uare

met

ers

6,11

05,

080

5,07

014

–17

Febr

uary

Cer

nobb

io-C

O,n

owM

ilano

Uni

caEx

hibi

tors

(fore

ign)

50(0

%)

58(0

%)

75(2

5%)

(from

1978

)V

isito

rs(fo

reig

n)2,

150

(60%

)81

0(7

4%)

35,7

65(3

5%)c

Mo

daIn

S.I.T

exs.

p.a.

—fo

unde

dby

Ital

ian

text

ileas

soci

atio

ns.

Squa

rem

eter

s10

,680

16,5

6215

,284

14–1

7Fe

brua

ryM

ilan,

now

Mila

noU

nica

Exhi

bito

rs(fo

reig

n)27

9(2

5%)

454

(23%

)44

1(2

6%)

(from

1984

)V

isito

rs(fo

reig

n)13

,525

(16%

)22

,437

(25%

)35

,765

(35%

)cS

hirt

Ave

nue

Con

sort

ium

ofIt

alia

nsh

irt

prod

ucer

s.Sq

uare

met

ers

****

2,59

414

–17

Febr

uary

Cer

nobb

io-C

O,n

owM

ilano

Uni

caEx

hibi

tors

(fore

ign)

39(2

8%)

(from

1999

)V

isito

rs(fo

reig

n)35

,765

(35%

)cT

issu

Pre

mie

rEu

rove

t—co

ntro

lled

byFé

déra

tion

dela

Mai

lle.

Squa

rem

eter

sN

.A.

N.A

.5,

750

25–2

6Ja

nuar

yLi

lleEx

hibi

tors

(fore

ign)

346

(57%

)(fr

om19

85)

Vis

itors

(fore

ign)

6,65

1(4

3%)

Texw

orl

dM

esse

Fran

kfur

tFr

ance

s.a.

s—ac

quir

edin

Dec

embe

r20

01.

Squa

rem

eter

s**

**13

,100

20–2

3Fe

brua

ryPa

ris

Exhi

bito

rs(fo

reig

n)69

0(1

00%

)(fr

om19

98)

Vis

itors

(fore

ign)

19,2

88(8

6%)

Text

ilMo

daIF

EMA

—Fe

ria

deM

adri

d.Sq

uare

met

ers

****

3,50

927

Febr

uary

–1M

arch

Mad

rid

Exhi

bito

rs(fo

reig

n)17

0(5

4%)

(from

2001

)V

isito

rs(fo

reig

n)3,

630

(4%

)

Sour

ce:E

labo

ratio

nson

FKM

,OJS

,Ita

lian’

sM

inis

try

ofPr

oduc

tive

Act

iviti

esan

dO

rgan

izer

data

.a

Dat

are

fer

to19

89.

bD

ata

refe

rto

1998

.c

Beca

use

thes

etr

ade

show

sar

eno

wco

loca

ted,

the

num

ber

ofvi

sito

rsha

sre

mai

ned

cons

tant

.*

Trad

esh

owno

tex

istin

gin

the

refe

renc

eye

ar(t

erm

inat

edat

anea

rlie

rda

te).

**Tr

ade

show

not

exis

ting

inth

ere

fere

nce

year

(foun

ded

ina

late

rda

te).

ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY

460

the period under observation. We also gathered data from trade show organizers(e.g., catalogs, press releases, and Web documentation) on a semistructured basis.Between 2003 and 2006, we also visited most EU textile events to undertake ethnographicstudies of visitors’ behavior, which we reported elsewhere (Borghini et al. 2006; Rinalloet al. 2010). While the fieldwork conducted on those occasions is not specified in thisarticle, it has given additional depth to the interpretation of the data gathered for ourstudy.

Between 2003 and 2006, we conducted a total of 34 interviews with trade showorganizers and leading firms in the fabric and clothing industry in France, Germany, andItaly. The organizers were questioned about their events’ history and development, the keyexhibitor and visitor groups that were targeted, the influence of stakeholders in the shows’developmental trajectories, the strategies used to shape learning at their events, exhibi-tors’ reactions to changes in trade fair formats, and several other relevant aspects (theorganization of the layout, protection of exhibitors’ intellectual property rights, and soforth). The managers of clothing fabric producers and buyers were asked about the role oftrade shows as promotional or knowledge-acquisition tools and the key differences in theindustry events.

Statistical indicators of the number and origin of exhibitors and visitors between 1986and 2006 at the shows under investigation were obtained from the Trade Fair Observatoryof Bocconi University’s Centre for Research on Marketing and Services in Milan, aspecialized academic research center that collects data from organizers and officialcontrol bodies. We used these statistics to evaluate structural differences in the size andinternationalization of events and in their evolution over time, thus anchoring our analysisin objective indicators.

Our investigation also included analyses of news articles from the international tradepress covering textile industry trade shows between 1986 and 2006: Daily News Record(United States), Woman’s Wear Daily (United States), Drapers Records (UnitedKingdom), MF Fashion (Italy), and Textil Wirtschaft (Germany). We searched the elec-tronic database of news sources, Factiva, using the names of trade shows as keywords. Outof the total of 2,332 articles we identified, we manually coded articles for relevance andused 263 articles for the following two-stage analysis. First, we created a database of tradeshows that included (1) ownership and the supporting stakeholders; (2) a time line ofevents, along with changes in formats; (3) the origins of exhibitors and visitors (seeFigure 1) over time; and (4) other key indicators.

Second, we conducted a cross-case analysis and identified four practices through whichorganizers affect learning and interaction at their events (see Table 2). On the basis of thisanalysis, we identified two periods of heightened competition between events, which ourinformants and the media referred to as “trade show wars.” Organizers’ knowledge-basedstrategies were the cause of a strategic game of moves and countermoves resulting in thedemise of some events, while others became established at the ultimate clothing fabricevents.

FindingsThe findings we present in this section are thematically organized around four sets of

practices through which trade show organizers affect learning and interaction at theirevents (see Table 2). In the first subsection, the findings are related to the complete fabrictrade show panorama. In those that follow, we focus mainly on Première Vision, which isthe leading exhibition in the industry and the first adopter of the practices reported in thisstudy, most of which later diffused to other events.

Vol. 87 No. 4 2011

461

EXPLO

RIN

GK

NO

WLED

GE

STR

ATEG

IES

Marking the Boundaries of the Temporary ClusterTrade show organizers set the boundaries of the clusters they periodically convene at

their events by including some firms and excluding others on the basis of the firms’origins and product groups. Attendance at trade shows generally corresponds to thenumber of suppliers and buyers in the shows’ catchment basins, the extension of which isalso based on the location’s relative accessibility (Golfetto 2004). However, organizershave some freedom in deciding which exhibitors and visitors are allowed to participate intheir shows (Jansson and Power 2008) since they set formal or informal guidelines totarget the right market segments and to exclude others.

By focusing on these vertical and traded interactions between exhibitors and typicalvisitors from different areas of the world, it is possible to identify different archetypes ofevents by import or export functions in the host area (see Figure 1 for a visual represen-tation based on our statistical data on the origins of exhibitors and visitors). Our longi-tudinal approach enabled us to follow the evolution of certain temporary clusters from aregional to a national or international scale. We identified frequent tensions emergingfrom contested choices (e.g., the admission of nonregional exhibitors and the displace-ment of trade shows from regional clusters to more accessible cities).

Export-oriented Trade Shows at Various LevelsThe presence of suppliers from the hosting area as exhibitors and the predominance of

nonlocal buyers as visitors characterize export-oriented trade shows. These events facili-tate local manufacturers’ exports and typically emerge as collective promotional projectsfor these producers. Although all export-oriented trade shows qualify as internationalbecause of the significant presence of foreign buyers as visitors,2 export-oriented tradeshows operate at various geographic scales for exhibitors. In the case of export-orientedtrade shows at the regional level, most of the exhibitors originate from the immediate

2 According to UFI, the global association of the exhibition industry, international trade shows are those thatattract at least 4 percent of their total visitors or 20 percent of their total exhibitors from abroad.

Figure 1. The size and import-export function of international fabric trade shows in Europe(Spring Editions, 2006).

ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY

462

proximity of the city hosting the event (e.g., a nearby industrial cluster), and only a fewexhibitors originate from other areas within the same country or from abroad. At thenational level, export-oriented trade shows draw most of their exhibitors from beyond asingle region but within the same country. Trade shows can be considered export-orientedat the European level if they predominantly attract exhibitors from various Europeancountries and, simultaneously, attract visitors (buyers) from other continents (e.g., Asiaand the Americas in our empirical context). In Figure 1, national-level export-orientedtrade shows are represented on the right side of the graph, with a small percentage offoreign exhibitors and a large percentage of international visitors3.

3 To visualize export trade shows at the regional (European) level, one can build similar figures bydifferentiating the share of nonregional (non-European) visitors and exhibitors.

Table 2

Knowledge-based Practices of Trade Show Organizers

Practice Empirical Illustrations

Marking the boundaries of thetemporary cluster� Selection of the actors allowed

to participate in the temporarycluster.

� Different event archetypes:� Supply (export) trade

shows� Demand (import) trade

shows

� Interstoff: exhibitors from all over the globe; no selection; wide range ofclothing fabrics; all quality levels.

� Première Vision: only West European exhibitors; wide range but high-qualityproducts only.

� Moda In: mostly Italian exhibitors; wide range; high-quality products.� Ideacomo, Ideabiella, Prato Expo: local exhibitors specialized in silk fabrics for

women’s wear; wool fabrics for formal men’s wear; wool fabrics for trendywomen’s wear.

� Textworld: mostly extra-European exhibitors; no selection; wide range; low tomedium quality.

� Textilmoda: foreign exhibitors welcome; distributors admitted; wide range.

Improving knowledge release andacquisition� Active search for and visibility

of innovative producers andmarket leaders

� Organizing market-sensitiveexhibition layout solutions

� Highlighting key innovationsthrough trend areas

� Interstoff: distributors admitted; layout mainly by country of origin.� Première Vision, Moda In: leading producers only; active search for innovation

leaders; layout according to market destination; numerous trend areasrelated to different raw materials and market destinations.

� Ideabiella, Ideacomo, Pratoexpo: producers only.

Hindering undesired knowledgespillovers� Restrictions regarding

nonbuyers, photo ban,intellectual property protectionmeasures

� Ideabiella, Ideacomo: access restricted to buyers invited by exhibitors; closedstands are admitted; photo ban.

� ModaIn: closed stands are admitted; photo ban.� Première Vision: higher admittance fee for nonbuyers; special preview day for

buyers; seminars and presence of experts on intellectual propertyprotection during the show; photo ban and increased controls.

Investing in new knowledgedevelopment� Investing in research and

development activities� Mobilizing actors to generate

new relevant knowledge

� Première Vision: “Trend concertation” process:1. Forecasting of various trends in consumption and fashion (supported

by experts and leading exhibitors).2. Selection and political validation of selected trends (guided by leading

firms within the association).3. Communication of selected trends to exhibitors.4. Incorporation of trends into new fabric collections by exhibitors.5. Emphasizing of selected trends at the show by the organizer (exhibitor

layout, trend area, documentation and seminars for visitors, andcommunication with media).

Vol. 87 No. 4 2011

463

EXPLO

RIN

GK

NO

WLED

GE

STR

ATEG

IES

At the regional level, we identified three export-oriented trade shows: Ideacomo,Ideabiella, and Prato Expo, which—for most of the observation period—were held inlocations near the eponymous Italian textile industrial districts (see Table 1). Founded bylocal textile associations in the 1970s, these events limit the presence of nonlocalexhibitors from both other Italian textile districts and abroad, because their presencewould bring “the enemy into our own camp.” These regional export-oriented trade showsare thus promotional projects with which local fabric manufacturers try to overcome theirdependence on local demand (Cox and Mair 1988) by creating, protecting, and enhancingrelationships with distant customers from other Italian regions and abroad. Exhibitingcompanies greatly appreciated the “intimacy” that these smaller events provide, perceiv-ing them as emanations of the local cluster. In the words of one informant regarding thePrato Expo: “Here [at the show] it’s like being in our hometown. We [people from rivallocal firms] gather together at the association, at soccer matches, and . . . at the show.”

At these three smaller, export-oriented trade shows, nearby industrial clusters are wellrepresented since exhibitors from such clusters have access to better positions regardingthe layout and have larger stands.4 In comparison to the larger shows with their morediversified exhibitor bases, we found that at these events, the direct comparison withneighboring exhibitors results in local producers engaging in greater efforts to show offtheir competencies to both competing fabric manufacturers from the same clusters andnonlocal buyers. For example, stands are open and present a great variety of innovativefabric samples that are relatively easy to observe because exhibiting manufacturers feelprotected from nonlocal competitors’ prying eyes. We found that the possibility ofexamining competitors’ innovations makes these regional shows a pivotal moment in thelives of the nearby fabric clusters. Horizontal interactions with local rivals, which arebased on observation and comparison (Maskell 2001), occur in a more intensified formduring these events than in everyday exchanges during which new products cannot beexamined.

In addition, the geographic proximity to firms’ premises enable these fabric producersto invite buyers from abroad to their factories and showrooms during the trade show, thusgiving these producers ample opportunities to show their expertise and potential forinnovation, allow their technician to interact with buyers, and learn about customers’needs. By interacting intensively with, say, U.S. clothing producers, these manufacturerscan adapt their production to that market’s requirements. However, the fear of bringingthe “enemy” into the trade show reduces the amount of learning and the stimuli forinnovation that can arise from observation of and comparison to competitors withdifferent technological, organizational, and market cultures.

From the perspective of fabric buyers, visits to regional export-oriented trade showsallow for the gathering of information about new textile collections and trends developedby the local innovation system. However, we found that many buyers (mainly clothingproducers from other European countries and North America) previously considered thelarge number of Italian regional trade shows confusing and even annoying. “Here [atIdeabiella], we can examine the new fabrics and at the end of the show, we have a clearidea of what is going on in high-quality menswear fabrics. But that’s it: here we learn onlyabout menswear fabrics. . . . We also produce women’s wear, and the two collections haveto be compatible, so we also need to visit other shows before we can decide what to buy,”said one informant from a clothing company during an interview. To obtain a complete

4 For example, in their 1990 spring-summer editions, the average stand size at Ideacomo and Ideabiella was,respectively, 120 and 85 square meters. In contrast, the average stand size at the larger events wassignificantly smaller (e.g., 43 square meters at Moda In and 44 square meters at Première Vision).

ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY

464

view of the variety of Italian textile offerings, fabric buyers had to travel to different citiesat different times. Although these shows protected exhibitors from nearby clusters fromundesired comparisons, the absence of competing fabric manufacturers located elsewherereduced these events’ informative value for fabric buyers. Consequently, despite main-taining separate organizers and brand identity, all Italian regional-level shows relocated toMilan under the umbrella brand Milano Unica in 2005. While select Western Europeanproducers (mostly from France, Spain, the United Kingdom, and Germany) are allowedto exhibit at the show (the percentage of exhibitors from abroad was 21.4 percent duringthe first edition of the trade show in September 2005), Milano Unica is the de factopromotional showcase of fabric manufacturers from Lombardy, Piedmont, Tuscany,Emilia Romagna, Veneto, and other Italian regions. The “unification of Italy,” as theinternational press labeled the initiative, according to the organizers “underlined theimportance of the Italian textile industry by bringing it under one roof,” and wasstrategically used “as a tool to show the importance of Italian mills” (Collins 2005, 33).Most buyers agreed that the unification would make “commercial sense” because it wouldmean “a more efficient use of time and money.”

National-level export-oriented trade shows like Milano Unica (with foreign attendance,mostly from Europe, representing about 40 percent of the total visitors/buyers), providefabric producers (exhibitors) and buyers (visitors) with learning opportunities of reduceddepth but of a greater variety than the more homogeneous regional export-oriented events.Specifically, this type of trade show reduces the knowledge-acquisition costs amongbuyers who visit the show and enables manufacturers who exhibit to observe and comparetheir fabrics with those of competitors from different parts of the country and with variousproduct specializations. However, it is only at the international-level export-orientedtrade shows that gather exhibitors from different European countries and have a widerproduct range that horizontal and vertical knowledge pipelines can be established at theglobal level. In our sample, Première Vision (Paris)—with its 80–85 percent non-Frenchexhibitors (mostly from Italy, Germany, the United Kingdom, Spain, Portugal, andSwitzerland)—can be considered an export-oriented trade show at the European level, asits foreign visitors (70–75 percent of the total) include significant presences from NorthAmerica, the Middle East, and Asia.

Première Vision was created as a joint promotional event by a group of fabric producersfrom the Lyon area in 1973 and was later opened to producers from other French regionsas well as selected West European manufacturers. Originally conceived as an export-oriented trade show similar to the Italian initiatives discussed earlier, Première Visionevolved to become what may be termed a hub event devoted to exchanges unrelated to thehost country. The organizer, a French association of textile producers, sought to create anevent at which select West European fabric producers present collections of superiormaterials and innovative styles. Its rigorous selection criteria for exhibitors exclude mostmanufacturers from outside Europe. Première Vision creates a knowledge environmentthat is much richer than that of other shows in the industry. Exhibitors can observe andcompare themselves with other manufacturers that adopt similar strategies based on thequality, creativity, and innovation, of many European industrial clusters thus ensuring richhorizontal learning. Furthermore, by aggregating so many leading manufacturers, thisshow attracts buyers from across the world—beyond what could be achieved by anational- or regional-level export-oriented trade show.

Import-oriented Trade ShowsImport-oriented trade shows function as an import promotion because they attract a

large proportion of nonlocal producers as exhibitors, and the visitors are mostly buyers

Vol. 87 No. 4 2011

465

EXPLO

RIN

GK

NO

WLED

GE

STR

ATEG

IES

from the surrounding area. These events are typically organized by organizations that alsorun exhibition venues that are supported by local territorial stakeholders who regard thesefacilities as an instrument to generate economic benefits from the expenditures ofexhibitors and visitors in the host area. Consequently, unlike export-oriented trade shows,import-oriented events welcome exhibitors regardless of their geographic origin. Similarto the export-oriented trade shows, however, these events all qualify as internationalbecause of the significant number of foreign exhibitors (see footnote 2) but may operateat various geographic levels with regard to the visitors: regional (with most of the visitorsfrom the region hosting the event), national (with visitors from different regions withinthe same country), and European (with mainly visitors from other European countries).In our analysis, national-level import trade shows are represented on the left side ofFigure 1, with a large percentage of foreign exhibitors and a reduced percentage ofinternational visitors.

Although there are regional import-oriented trade shows in other industries, we did notfind any in the European Union fabric industry. One national-level event that falls into thiscategory is Textilmoda (Madrid), with its more than 50 percent foreign exhibitors andalmost exclusively Spanish visitors (concentrated in the Madrid area, with visitors fromAndalusia, Valencia, Cataluña, and Galicia; foreign buyers are limited and predominantlyPortuguese, confirming the reduced attractiveness of this trade show for more distantbuyers). Textilmoda was founded in 2001 by IFEMA, the organization that runs the venueand organizes many other trade shows for various industries, to satisfy the demand fortextiles and related accessories by Spanish apparel manufacturers. IFEMA’s shareholdersinclude the Madrid Regional Government and Madrid City Council; thus generatingwealth and development for the Madrid region is the organization’s primary strategicgoal.

From an international exchange perspective, import-oriented events enable foreignfabric manufacturers to showcase their products to the host market. Trade shows likeTextilmoda enable these fabric producers (exhibitors), who come predominantly fromItaly, France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Portugal, and Turkey, to develop specializedvertical knowledge pipelines with Spanish clothing producers (visitors) and to compareand observe different competitors in the same market. From the buyers’ perspective,import-oriented events enable them to learn about new textile collections and about aselection of producers who are interested in interacting with them. The variety in thecollections and suppliers and the resulting exchanges of knowledge are limited incomparison to international events like Première Vision, but the reduced visitation andtime costs partially compensate for this. However, at this event, manufacturers tend not toexhibit directly; instead, they are represented by domestic distributors who releasecommercial, rather than product, information (e.g., product range, prices, and deliverydates). “Trade shows like Textilmoda have a good market potential, so we have to be there.But we export to many countries in Europe, Russia, Asia. . . . We can’t afford to exhibitat all the trade shows in those markets, the investment would be prohibitive. . . . So weexhibit indirectly through our local agents. . . . The great part of our investments areabsorbed by the very international shows, where it is important to make a good impressionand where we need to keep up with the competition. . . . At these events we presentourselves by means of the largest stand that we can afford, we bring the entire headquar-ters staff, and make an effort to present very innovative products,” a fabric manufacturertold us. Owing to exhibitors concentrating their promotional efforts on the more interna-tional export-oriented events, the learning opportunities that are available at the import-oriented trade shows are reduced since distributors do not have the same knowledge ofproducts, technologies, and industry trends as producers do.

ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY

466

Two other events in our sample can be characterized as import-oriented trade shows atthe international level: Interstoff (Frankfurt) and Texworld (Paris). Like Première Vision,these events may be considered hubs because they are devoted to trade exchanges that aremostly unrelated to their host country (see also Skov 2006 for a similar point). However,if the origin of the exhibitors and visitors is further divided into European and extra-European, Interstoff and Texworld can be considered European import-oriented tradeshows in that they facilitate East European and Asian fabric producers’ entry into the EUmarket. Interstoff, which closed in 1999, was founded 40 years before by Messe FrankfurtGmbH, the owner of the local exhibition venue. It was the first exhibition in the worlddedicated exclusively to clothing fabric. Owned by the City of Frankfurt and the State ofHesse, the exhibition center’s mission was to organize large events to maximize the localeconomic impact. Unhindered by regional or national entrepreneurial associations’ pro-tectionist goals, such exhibition centers defined their events’ scale at the global level andwere the first in the industry to welcome exhibitors irrespective of origin, product quality,and level of innovation. Messe Frankfurt’s corporate claim is, significantly, “We makemarkets. Worldwide,” thus hinting at its events’ intended global reach from both theexhibitors’ and visitors’ perspectives.

From a knowledge-exchange point of view, fabric producers who exhibited at Interstoffwere able to observe and compare themselves with a broad set of foreign competitors withdissimilar strategies in terms of markets served, manufacturing processes, raw materialsused, the innovativeness of the collections, the quality of products, and price levels. “Thewhole world used to exhibit at Interstoff. We had the opportunity to see our bestcompetitors and to really evaluate our opportunities worldwide. We also learned a lotabout the different needs of international markets,” declared a leading fabric manufac-turer about its past experience as an exhibitor at the show. On the other hand, fabric buyersvisiting Interstoff could access information about a broad range of solutions, suppliers,and products and select the best alternatives for purchase. However, at the end of the1980s, visitors began to find that the event had simply become too big. A buyer whoattended Interstoff regularly said: “Interstoff was really a giant. . . . From year to year, itbecame more time-consuming and tiring to visit all the exhibitors. You went homeconfused because you could not work out the direction that fashion was taking.” Thesedifficulties, along with Première Vision’s success, led to the decline and eventual demiseof Interstoff and the subsequent development in Paris of Texworld (100 percent foreignexhibitors, 85 percent foreign visitors), an event almost completely dominated by Asianproducers as exhibitors, with mostly European buyers as visitors. With just one trip to theFrench capital, visitors could now visit both Première Vision and Texworld, thus gainingaccess to knowledge on the entire range of clothing textiles (high and low quality, fromEurope and the rest of the world).

To conclude, in this section we described a practice through which trade show orga-nizers affect interaction and learning at their events. By selecting exhibitors, organizersmark the boundaries of the temporary clusters they convene. Export-oriented trade showsare typically organized by regional or national associations of manufacturers that usethese initiatives to overcome local dependence and to stimulate their members’ exports.Import-oriented trade shows are usually run by venues that organize events for differentindustries with the aim of stimulating business tourism without identifying them-selves with nearby manufacturer-based clusters. These two types of trade shows havedistinct implications for learning and interactions. Export-oriented trade shows enable theestablishment of vertical knowledge pipelines between producers in a specific area andbuyers from different parts of the world. Conversely, import-oriented trade shows supportthe establishment of external links between buyers from a given area and nonlocal

Vol. 87 No. 4 2011

467

EXPLO

RIN

GK

NO

WLED

GE

STR

ATEG

IES

manufacturers. Moreover, events that aggregate suppliers from different local clustersfoster broader horizontal knowledge spillovers because they enable exhibiting manufac-turers to observe and compare themselves with competing firms from different parts ofthe world.

Improving the Release and Acquisition of KnowledgeTrade show organizers facilitate the circulation of knowledge at their events through

practices that are intended to improve exhibitors’ release of knowledge and simplifyvisitors’ acquisition of knowledge. On the former, we found that some organizers selectmanufacturers from market leaders that are considered to be at the forefront of innovation.These leading companies, which usually present numerous prototypes and fashion ideas,are invited to participate directly in the show with their research and developmentpersonnel (instead of allowing local branches or distributors to represent them). Forexample, Première Vision started its “war” against Interstoff with a strategy of attractingthe more important French and Italian fabric manufacturers that enjoy worldwide recog-nition for their fabrics’ high quality and creativity. More recently, Première Vision beganto search actively for emerging innovative fabric producers to participate in the show, thusproviding visitors with a more comprehensive view of key market developments. Forexample, in 2002 the show opened for the first time to carefully selected non-Europeanexhibitors from Japan, Turkey, Bulgaria, and Uruguay. In a statement, the organizerssuggested that the “policy is another way of expressing our constant desire to presentbuyers with the finest clothing on offer. Each of these new exhibitors, richly steeped in thetextile tradition of their country, brings an original know-how to the salon.”

To ensure market leaders’ greater involvement in the show, Première Vision invitesthese companies to serve on the exhibition’s steering committee and gives their productsmore visibility in the special exhibition spaces called trend areas (for more details, see thesection Investing in New Knowledge Development) and in the media. Interstoff’s crisisand sudden collapse may be largely ascribed to its progressive loss of market leaders fromits exhibitor base. In a sense, it is the presence of these leaders that has enabled thesurvival of some of the smaller and more specialized Italian district-level trade shows(e.g., Ideabiella and Ideacomo), despite their limited accessibility and limited variety ofproducts.

Organizers also try to simplify visitors’ acquisition of knowledge through exhibitors’layout solutions. One of the key challenges that visitors face is swiftly locating relevantinformation at trade shows. They face time pressures, which are particularly evident in thecase of larger events.5 Contrary to online directories with search functions, trade showscan physically arrange the exhibitors in the exhibition space only by applying one or twolayout criteria at most (e.g., country of origin, market destination, and/or price or qualitylevels). The architectures of interaction and learning derived from privileging one or theother of these criteria differ greatly.

In the past, all trade shows in the textile industry arranged their exhibitors by nation-ality; for example, French exhibitors were grouped in one location along with their Frenchcompetitors. A buyer who was interested in silk fabrics would therefore have to visitvarious locations to identify relevant suppliers. Visitors were often unable to visit all thepavilions because of the sheer number of exhibitors and limited time. Première Vision was

5 Consider, for example, Ideabiella, which is among the smaller trade shows in our sample. Since the showlasts 4 days, a visitor in 2006 could spend a maximum of 38 minutes per exhibitor (i.e., 4 days, 8 hours perday, 50 exhibitors). At Première Vision, with its 700 exhibitors, the same visitor can spend fewer than 3minutes per exhibitor (i.e., 4 days, 8 hours per day, 700 exhibitors).

ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY

468

the first event to consider changing the layout by product typology (e.g., silk, wool, cotton,and knits). The introduction of a new layout initially faced resistance from the exhibitors,since they feared direct comparisons with foreign competitors. To counter such resistance,Première Vision conducted a survey that showed visitors’ overwhelming preferencefor layout by product typology, and the new layout was launched from 1990onward.

“Our aim is to make the fair more easily accessible and approachable to visitors, mostof whom . . . [spend an average of] just two days at the fair,” Bernard Dupasquier, themanaging director of Première Vision, told the media (“Plan Attractive New Format”1989, 8). In the years that followed, the product typology was further refined withmarket segments (e.g., city wear and casual wear). “So a buyer from, say, BananaRepublic can come here and know where exactly to look and not lose time in an area thatisn’t of interest to him,” said Dupasquier (quoted in D’Aulnay 1993, 2). Subsequentyears showed frequent reorganizations of the exhibition’s layout to adapt to technologi-cal and market trends, all aimed at simplifying visitors’ search for information. “Themarket has become more difficult, with buyers having to work faster. . . . Buyers need tofind specific products that fit into their business. This new segmentation will help buyersfind what they need more quickly” (“Première Vision to Reveal Revolutionary NewLayout” 2005, 4).

In sum, organizers affect the microgeography of trade shows by imposing stringentcriteria for the selection of exhibitors and frequently reorganizing exhibitors’ layouts tocorrespond to changing market demand. Through these strategies, Première Vision’sorganizers fundamentally altered the interactions at the show. Exhibitors can observe aswell as compare themselves with rival fabric manufacturers serving the same markets,irrespective of national origin, and buyers who are interested in their products can findthem more easily. Exhibitors’ layouts thus have learning implications at both the hori-zontal and vertical levels. “This year there was a rearrangement of the layout, and I foundmy stand in front of one of my most direct competitors. To be honest, I didn’t likethat. . . . Customers come here immediately after visiting them and ask us if we have . . . Idon’t know, blue velvet of comparable quality, and if our price is better. . . . Customersdisclose this kind of information to get a better price, you know? So we learn a lot of whatthey are doing. . . . It’s tough, it’s more competitive. . . . But I guess this way we’re forcedto give the best . . . ,” commented an exhibitor. Although every layout change wasresented by the exhibitors, the organizers ensured that Première Vision responded toevolving marketplace conditions.

Hindering Undesirable Knowledge SpilloversAttendance at trade shows also involves atypical visitors (Borghini et al. 2006). In our

empirical context, some were executives from other industries (e.g., cosmetics or auto-motive) who sought information about colors and fabrics but had no need for appareltextiles. Others were fabric buyers who visited the show for inspiration and to gatherknowledge about trends and who would later order cheaper versions of the fabrics theysaw at the show from other companies. In the case of Première Vision, some visitors werenon-European fabric producers or European producers lacking the creativity or designcapabilities to exhibit at the event. The exhibitors were concerned that these firms wouldsteal their designs (see Jansson and Power 2008 and Skov 2006 for similar findings).Some asked the visitors to disclose their identities before being admitted inside the stand:“We have a blacklist of companies that used to visit us, take samples of our fabrics, butnever placed an order. . . . And later we would find that they had fabrics of a similar design

Vol. 87 No. 4 2011

469

EXPLO

RIN

GK

NO

WLED

GE

STR

ATEG

IES

but a lower quality produced by their subcontractors. . . . We now do not permit thesecompanies to enter our stand,” said a French exhibitor. To reduce undesired knowledgespillovers and overcrowding, Première Vision implemented systems to identify buyersand enforced copyright protection measures. In 1994, the show introduced a relativelyhigh entrance fee and a ranking of visitors to discourage nonprofessionals. Those whoqualified as buyers had to show proof of a certain level of purchases with exhibitors in theprevious year (i.e., 50,000 FF or roughly $10,000); they were offered personal badges, amodest reduction in fees, and an expedited cue. From 1997, preregistered buyers weregranted an exclusive preview day before the official opening of the show.

Première Vision pioneered in the crusade against copyright infringements, whichsubsequently became adopted as industry norms. Since 1993, visitors with cameras mustobtain formal authorization on photography or face confiscation. A copyright booth wasestablished in 1994 with specialized lawyers available for advice. The show also orga-nized seminars on the protection of copyrights and intellectual property rights and, in1997, introduced a Copyright Unit that patrols the show to prevent industrial espionageand prevent behavior, such as taking unauthorized pictures of textiles, making precisesketches of the fabrics shown in the trend areas, or taking cutoff bits of fabrics. Throughthese practices, the organizers systematically favor vertical interactions between exhibi-tors and buying visitors and discourage free riders’ access to observation-based knowl-edge spillovers.

Investing in New Knowledge DevelopmentBesides providing a relational space for the exchange of knowledge between the

participating actors, trade show organizers may actively develop new knowledge byinvesting in research activities and mobilizing a variety of actors. Première Visionengages in practices that are intended to forecast and codify fashion trends so that theshow can inspire its exhibitors’ development of new collections and, later, help visitorsmake sense of the general direction of the textile and clothing industries’ innovations.Since textile producers develop their collections some two years before their products(incorporated in clothing) are chosen by retailers and subsequently made available toconsumers (Dunford 2006), Première Vision’s coordination of seasonal colors and fabrictrends reduces exhibitors’ risk of developing deviant innovations that do not fit withemerging trends. The process, known as trend concertation, involves numerous actorswho contribute specialized knowledge and skills (see Table 2 for a stylized phase modelof trend concertation).

Every semester, a few months before the trade show, Première Vision forecaststrends in social values, consumer behavior, and fashion design. With the help ofexperts, the organization selects a relatively small set of fashion trends and the corre-sponding fabric design “instructions.” During concertation meetings, the textile andrelated industries’ associations subsequently negotiate and eventually agree upon whichtrends are to be supported. For example, in 1992, “Germany insists on colors inspired byflowers and nature, while Austria invokes us to discover the five continents and their owncolor moods. France definitely turns her back on melancholy to invoke energy, harmonyand light in a simple and well-aimed message about yellows” (Mazzaraco 1993, 23). Theresulting trends are given poetic names—such as “electric shocks” or “flamboyantresonance”—and are communicated to exhibitors through workshops and supportingdocumentation.

At the show, the trends are divulged to visitors through conferences, documentation,trend areas, and forums where fabric samples exemplify these trends in a visually

ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY

470

appealing manner. In these areas, large boards of swatches are combined with artwork,photographs, and multimedia displays. Currently, there are numerous trend areas: ageneral forum, which highlights the season’s broader trends, along with specialized onesthat, edition after edition of the show, evolve with the trade fair layout. These areas areextremely popular with the visitors, many of whom spend extended periods there andwrite extensive notes before visiting the exhibitors. The trends areas, the supportingdocumentation, and the resulting media coverage in the specialized press combined allowPremière Vision’s exhibitors to affirm their innovations as the dominant design in thefabric industry (Golfetto and Rinallo 2008).

By developing new knowledge about downstream markets, Première Vision rapidlybecame a central learning place in the global fashion business. Most trade shows in theclothing fabric industry have adopted Première Vision’s formula and have reconceivedtheir business, which now involves the provision of relevant and timely information toindustrial buyers, rather than the mere renting of space to exhibitors. However, thisknowledge-enhancing mechanism comes at a cost. The trend concertation process, whichincludes direct cost items, such as the organizations of several concertation meetings andworkshops, fees for trend forecasting experts, the staging of trend areas at the show, andthe production of supporting documentation, leads to some of the highest figures in thePremière Vision budget because it is a core process that absorbs the time of a significantnumber of the organizer’s personnel.

DiscussionTrade shows have recently emerged as key research sites for scholars who are interested

in the spatial consequences of interactive learning (Maskell et al. 2006; Bathelt andSchuldt 2008; Jansson and Power 2008). Our study highlighted that the practices of tradeshow organizers have a significant impact on the dissemination of knowledge; moreover,we also showed that organizers systematically favor vertical relationships between exhibi-tors and typical visitors while, simultaneously, hindering atypical visitors’ learning attheir events.

Following a relational approach, our study adopted a mesolevel of analysis anddocumented the practices through which organizers constrain and enable visitors’ andexhibitors’ knowledge-acquisition practices. To recapitulate, our study identified fourtypes of knowledge-shaping practices undertaken by trade show organizers: (1) markingthe temporary cluster’s boundaries, (2) improving the release and acquisition of knowl-edge, (3) hindering undesired knowledge flows, and (4) investing to develop new knowl-edge. Studies on permanent clusters have started unpacking the practices through whichkey actors, such as entrepreneurial and professional associations, stimulate interactionsand learning among local actors (Benner 2003; Faulconbridge 2007a, 2007b; Filippi andTorre 2003). Our study sought to contribute to this research stream by demonstrating thatkey actors can also activate the benefits of temporary geographic proximity. Although thespecific practices we identified are limited to trade shows, organizers of other types oftemporary clusters (e.g., scientific conferences and professional conventions) may alsoshape learning and interaction through specific practices, therefore deserving furtherinvestigation.

Our findings have several implications for scholars who are interested in the spatialimplications of interaction and innovation. First, we emphasize that the geographic scaleof the practices of exchanging and acquiring knowledge at temporary clusters is sociallyand politically constructed at several levels. Previous studies of temporary clusters weretheoretically founded on the local buzz and global pipeline model (Bathelt et al. 2004).

Vol. 87 No. 4 2011

471

EXPLO

RIN

GK

NO

WLED

GE

STR

ATEG

IES

However, the construction of scale is a socially constructed process (Marston 2000) thatunfolds over long periods. An a priori local-global dichotomization may obscure ratherthan illuminate phenomena of interest (see Faulconbridge 2007b for a similar point onpermanent clusters). We found that different trade show organizers frame their events ondifferent scales, from the merely local (e.g., small trade fairs in industrial districts, suchas the Prato Expo) to the truly global (e.g., the Frankfurt Messe’s now-defunct Interstoff).Such framings have tangible consequences for the microgeographies of trade shows andresult in distinct knowledge environments.

Furthermore, a trade show’s scale evolves over time as a result of intensely politicalprocesses. Export-oriented trade shows are created by regional or national entrepreneurialassociations to escape dependence on local markets and engage with nonlocal customers(Cox and Mair 1988; Cox 1998). These events tend to exclude nonlocal exhibitors toprotect member firms from undesired competition; over the years, however, these eventsmay redefine their geographic scale by aggregating together producers from differentareas in accessible locations to respond better to evolving market needs. Import-orientedtrade shows are thus the municipal or regional government’s attempt to attract businesstourism. Consequently, their organizers generally do not have difficulty framing the scaleof their activities at the national or international levels.

Our empirically grounded categorization of trade shows may be used to gain a betterunderstanding of previous studies on trade shows. For example, Bathelt and Schuldt(2008) analyzed exhibitors’ and visitors’ learning at two Frankfurt events that, followingour terminology, are import-oriented trade shows at the European level. One of Janssonand Power’s (2008) research sites was Salone del Mobile in Milan, a national export-oriented trade show with exhibitors from Italy and other selected European countries.Since differences between trade shows in terms of exhibitor/visitor configurations affecttheir learning opportunities, future research on temporary clusters could benefit from thedistinctions introduced in this article with regard to the theoretical sampling of cases.

Second, our study contributes to a refined understanding of the knowledge linksobtained by different actors at trade shows. Following Trippl, Todtling, and Lengauer’s(2009) attempt to go beyond the local buzz and global pipeline approach, we propose thatresearch on temporary clusters should not conflate traded and untraded relations, or thetransfer of existing knowledge and the creation of new knowledge. With respect to the firstpoint, we found that trade shows create a relational space favoring the establishment ofmarket relationships between exhibitors and buyers (i.e., traded relations), whereasatypical visitors’ learning (i.e., untraded knowledge spillovers) is actively hindered byboth exhibitors and organizers. Regarding the second point, we found that trade showsmay be instrumental in the creation of new knowledge through specific investments andbroad mobilization processes involving a variety of actors from different locales and withheterogeneous competencies and knowledge assets. In the clothing fabric industry, thenew knowledge generated is about new trends in consumer markets and their implicationsfor clothing and textile innovation. Other trade shows (and, more generally, other types oftemporary clusters) may facilitate similar forms of mobilization to develop the forms ofknowledge that are more relevant for their underlying industries.

Finally, our study contributes to the current debate on the relative role of local andnonlocal sources of knowledge for firms embedded in local clusters by specifying thenature of the knowledge obtained at trade shows. Geographic proximity is needed mainlyfor certain stages of the innovation process (Torre 2008). Trade shows provide exhibitorswith a unique opportunity to gather crucial downstream knowledge by matching artifactswith market needs (Pavitt 2005). Firms that are embedded in local clusters in peripheralregions or in areas with small local markets find it difficult to acquire knowledge about the

ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY

472

needs of nonlocal, distant markets (usually referred to as marketing intelligence; seeCornish 1997). By exhibiting at trade shows, firms may tap into specific bases of marketknowledge and develop innovations that are suited to a variety of foreign needs andpreferences. Moreover, exhibitors also refine their marketing skills by observing thepromotional efforts of competitors serving similar markets. Consequently, trade showssupport firms in the development of so-called complementary assets (Teece 1986)—theresources and competencies needed to support the successful commercialization andmarketing of innovations. Research has found that marketing capabilities are fundamentalfor effective innovation and competitive advantage (Narver and Slater 1990; Kohli andJaworski 1990). Conversely, innovative firms lacking complementary assets tend to beoutperformed by market-savvy imitators (Rothaermel 2001a, 2001b). Such complemen-tary assets are difficult to obtain in local clusters because knowledge is dominated bytechnological/productive assets and marketing know-how to nearby customers.

Since our study was based on empirical evidence from a single industry and its tradeshows, we conclude by discussing the generalizability of the points we raised. Theclothing fabric industry is fragmented and consists mainly of small and medium-sizedenterprises that are often geographically concentrated in industrial districts (EuropeanComission 2001; Dunford 2006). As in other cases of low-technology and labor-intensiveindustries (Scott 2006), competition is based mostly on product differentiation by meansof aesthetic and symbolic elements. In our field observations, the informants stressed thesticky nature of knowledge of fabrics since photographic representations alter colors andindustry insiders may access multilayered information by touching fabric swatches (seealso Weller 2007). Our findings on trade shows as key sites of learning and the relevanceof some of the identified mechanisms of knowledge transfer are thus not generalizable tocontexts in which sensorial and aesthetic elements are less important and products are lessdependent on physical inspection for thorough evaluation. Similarly, our study wasempirically situated in a traditional manufacturing sector in which innovation is based ona synthetic mode of knowledge production (Asheim, Coenen, and Vang 2007; Moodys-son, Coenen, and Asheim 2008) fueled by interactive learning between customers andsuppliers. In science- or technology-based industries, other types of temporary clusters orinstitutional arrangements for the circulation of knowledge may play a more prominentrole. In such contexts, companies have stronger legal instruments (e.g., patents) to protecttheir intellectual property rights, and knowledge spillovers to atypical visitors may be lessof a problem.

Amin, A., and Cohendet, P. 2004. Architectures of knowledge: Firms, capabilities andcommunities. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.

Asheim, B. T.; Coenen, L.; and Vang, J. 2007. Face-to-face, buzz, and knowledge bases:Sociospatial implications for learning, innovation and innovation policy. Environmentand Planning C: Government and Policy 25:655–70.

Bathelt, H. 2005. Geographies of production: Growth regimes in spatial perspective(II)—Knowledge creation and growth in clusters. Progress in Human Geography29:204–16.

Bathelt, H., and Glückler, J. 2003. Toward a relational economic geography. Journal ofEconomic Geography 3:117–44.

Bathelt,H.;Malmberg, A.; and Maskell,P. 2004.Clusters and knowledge:Local buzz,globalpipelines and the process of knowledge creation. Progress in Human Geography28(2):31–56.

Vol. 87 No. 4 2011

473

EXPLO

RIN

GK

NO

WLED

GE

STR

ATEG

IES

Ref

eren

ces

Bathelt, H., and Schuldt, N. 2008. Between luminaries and meat grinders: International trade fairsas temporary clusters. Regional Studies 42:853–68.

Benner, C. 2003. Learning communities in a learning region: The soft infrastructure of cross-firmlearning networks in Silicon Valley. Environment and Planning A 35:1809–30.

Boggs, J. S., and Rantisi, N. M. 2003. The “relational turn” in economic geography. Journal ofEconomic Geography 3:109–16.

Bonoma, T. V. 1983. Get more out of your trade shows. Harvard Business Review, January-February:75–81.

Borghini, S.; Golfetto, F.; and Rinallo, D. 2006. Ongoing search among industrial buyers. Journal ofBusiness Research 59(10–11):1151–59.

Boschma, R. A. 2005. Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies 39(1):61–74.

Collins, J. 2005. The unification of Italy. Drapers Record, September 24:33.Cornish, S. 1997. Product innovation and the spatial dynamics of market intelligence: Does

proximity to markets matter? Economic Geography 73(2):143–65.Cox,K.R. 1998. Spaces of dependence, spaces of engagement and the politics of scale,or: Looking

for local politics. Political Geography 17(1):1–23.Cox, K. R., and Mair, A. 1988. Locality and community in the politics of local economic

development. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 78(2):307–25.D’Aulnay, S. 1993. U.S. attendance, mood high at Première Vision. Daily News Record, March 17:2.Dicken, P., and Malmberg, A. 2001. Firms in territories: A relational perspective. Economic

Geography 77:345–63.Dunford,M. 2006. Industrial districts,magic circles, and the restructuring of the Italian textiles and

clothing chain. Economic Geography 82(1):27–59.European Commission. 2001. The textile and clothing industry in the EU: A survey. Enterprise

papers, no. 2. Brussels: European Comission. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/textile/doc_miscel.htm

Faulconbridge, J. R. (2007a). Exploring the role of professional associations in collective learningin London and New York’s advertising and law professional-service-firm clusters. Environmentand Planning A 39:965–84.

Faulconbridge, J. R. (2007b). London’s and New York’s advertising and law clusters andtheir networks of learning: Relational analyses with a politics of scale? Urban Studies 44:1635–56.

Filippi, M., and Torre, A. 2003. Local organizations and institutions. How can geographicalproximity be activated by collective projects? International Journal of Technology Management26(2–3–4):386–400.

Florio, M. 1994. Fair trades by trade fairs: Information providing institutions under monopolisticcompetition. Small Business Economics 6:267–81.

Gertler, M. S. 1995. “Being there”: Proximity, organization, and culture in the development andadoption of advanced manufacturing technologies. Economic Geography 71:1–26.

——.2003. Tacit knowledge and the economic geography of context,or the undefinable tacitnessof being (there). Journal of Economic Geography 3:75–99.

Golfetto, F. 2004. Fiere e comunicazione: Strumenti per le imprese e il territorio [Trade fairs andcommunication: Instruments for businesses and territories]. Milan: EGEA.

Golfetto, F., and Gibbert, M. 2006. Marketing of competencies and the sources of customer valuein business markets. Industrial Marketing Management 35:904–12.

Golfetto, F., and Mazursky, D. 2004. Competence-based marketing. Harvard Business Review 51(November):26.

ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY

474

Golfetto, F., and Rinallo, D. 2008. Reshaping markets through collective marketing strategies:Lessons from the textile industry. In Strategic market creation: A new perspective on marketing andinnovation management, ed. K. Tollin and A. Carù, 97–123, Chichester, U.K.: Wiley.

Gopalakrishna, S., Lilien, G. L., Williams, J. D., and Sequeira, I. K. 1995. Do trade shows pay off?Journal of Marketing, 59(3):75–83.

Grabher, G. 2002. Cool projects, boring institutions: Temporary collaboration in social context.Regional Studies 36:205–14.

Howitt, R. 2003. Scale. In A Companion to Political Geography, ed. J. Agnew, K. Mitchell, and G. Toal,138–57. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell.

Jansson, J., and Power, D. 2008. Cyclical clusters in global circuits: Overlapping spaces in furnituretrade fairs. Economic Geography 84:423–48.

Kelly, P. F. 1997. Globalization, power and the politics of scale in the Phillippines. Geoforum28:151–71.

Kohli, A.K., and Jaworski, B. J. 1990.Market orientation: The construct, research propositions, andmanagerial implications. Journal of Marketing 54(2):1–18.

Lundvall, B.-Å. 1992. National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactivelearning. London: Pinter.

Malmberg, A., and Maskell, P. 2002. The elusive concept of localization economies.: Towardsa knowledge-based theory of spatial clustering. Environment and Planning A 34:429–49.

Marston, S. A. 2000. The social construction of scale. Progress in Human Geography 24:219–42.

Marston, S.; Jones, J. P.; and Woodward, K. 2005. Human geography without scale. Transactions ofthe Institute of British Geographers 30:416–32.

Maskell, P. 2001. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the geographical cluster. Industrial andCorporate Change, 10:921–43.

Maskell, P.; Bathelt, H.; and Malmberg, A. 2006. Building global knowledge pipelines: The role oftemporary clusters. European Planning Studies 14:997–1013.

Mazzaraco, M. 1993. Word is out: Yellow is in for spring-summer ‘94. Women’s Wear Daily,January 20:23.

McMaster, R., and Sheppard, E. 2004. Introduction. In Scale and Geographic Inquiry, ed. E. Sheppardand R. McMaster, 1–22. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.

Moodysson, J. 2008. Principles and practices of knowledge creation: On the organization of“buzz” and “pipelines” in life science communities. Economic Geography 84:449–69.

Moodysson, J.;Coenen,L.;and Asheim,B. 2008.Explaining spatial patterns of innovation: Analyticaland synthetic modes of knowledge creation in the Medicon Valley life science cluster.Environment and Planning A 40:1040–56.

Moore, A. 2008. Rethinking scale as a geographical category: From analysis to practice. Progress inHuman Geography 32:203–25.

Narver, J. C., and Slater, S. F. 1990. The effect of a market orientation on business profitability.Journal of Marketing 54:20–35.

Norcliffe,G.,and Rendace,O. 1989.Plan attractive new format for spring ‘90 Première Vision.DailyNews Record, July 6:8.

——. 2003. New geographies of comic book production in North America: The new artisan,distancing, and the periodic social economy. Economic Geography 79:241–63.

——. 2005. Première Vision to reveal revolutionary new layout. Drapers Record, December 10:4.Pavitt, K. 2005. Innovation processes. In The Oxford handbook of innovation, ed. J. Fagerberg, D. C.

Mowery, and R. R. Nelson, 86–114. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.

Vol. 87 No. 4 2011

475

EXPLO

RIN

GK

NO

WLED

GE

STR

ATEG

IES

Rinallo, D., and Borghini, S. 2003. A fair(y) tale: The semiotics of b2b communication. IndustrialMarketing and Purchasing Conference,online proceedings. Available online:http://www.impgroup.org/paper_view.php?viewPaper=4401

Rinallo, D.; Borghini, S.; and Golfetto, F. 2010. Exploring visitor experiences at trade shows. Journalof Business and Industrial Marketing 25:249–58.

Rothaermel,F. T. 2001a.Complementary assets, strategic alliances,and the incumbent’s advantage:An empirical study of industry and firm effects in the biopharmaceutical industry. ResearchPolicy 30:1235–51.

Rothaermel, F. T. 2001b. Incumbent’s advantage through exploiting complementary assets viainterfirm cooperation. Strategic Management Journal 22(6–7):687–99.

Rosson, P. J., and Seringhaus, F. H. R. 1995. Visitor and exhibitor interaction at industrial tradefairs. Journal of Business Research 32(1):81–90.

Scott, A. J. 2006. The changing global geography of low-technology, labor-intensive industry:Clothing, footwear, and furniture. World Development 34:1517–36.

Skov, L. 2006. The role of trade fairs in the global fashion business. Current Sociology 54:764–83.Smith, N. 1996. Spaces of vulnerability: The space of flows and the politics of scale. Critique of

Anthropology 16:63–77.Storper, M., and Venables, A. J. 2004. Buzz: Face-to-face contact and the urban economy. Journal

of Economic Geography 4:351–70.Sunley, P. 2008. Relational economic geography: A partial understanding or a new paradigm?

Economic Geography 84:1–26.Swyngedouw, E. 1997. Neither global nor local:“Glocalization” and the politics of scale. In Spaces

of globalisation, ed. K. Cox, 137–66. New York: Guilford Press.Teece, D. J. 1986. Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collabora-

tion, licensing and public policy. Research Policy 15:285–305.Torre, A. 2008. On the role played by temporary geographical proximity in knowledge transmis-

sion. Regional Studies 42(6):869–89.Torre, A., and Gilly, J.-P. 2000. On the analytical dimension of proximity dynamics. Regional Studies

34:169–80.Torre, A., and Rallet, A. 2005. Proximity and localization. Regional Studies 39:47–59.Trippl, M., Todtling, F., and Lengauer, L. (2009), Knowledge sourcing beyond buzz and pipelines:

Evidence from the Vienna software sector. Economic Geography 85:443–62.Von Hippel, E. 1994. “Sticky information” and the locus of problem solving: Implications for

innovation. Management Science 40:429–39.Weller, S. 2007. Fashion as viscous knowledge: Fashion’s role in shaping transnational garment

production. Journal of Economic Geography 7:39–66.Zerbini, F.; Golfetto, F.; and Gibbert, M. 2007. Marketing of competence: Exploring the resource-

based content of value-for-customers through a case study analysis. Industrial MarketingManagement 36:784–98.

ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY

476