CEIR Update Especially Prepared for MATSO Orlando, FL Presented By: Douglas L. Ducate, CEM, CMP...
-
Upload
eugenia-mclaughlin -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of CEIR Update Especially Prepared for MATSO Orlando, FL Presented By: Douglas L. Ducate, CEM, CMP...
CEIR UpdateEspecially Prepared for MATSO
Orlando, FL
Presented By: Douglas L. Ducate, CEM, CMP
President & CEO Center for Exhibition Industry Research
Role and Value of
Face-to-Face Marketing Study
Role and Value of Face-to-Face Study
• Conducted by CEIR (to be released in early 2003)
• Objectives:
• Role exhibitions play in the Customer Continuum
• Value attendees and exhibitors place on exhibitions – now and in the future
• Use and value of exhibitions compared to other types of face- to-face activities
• How can exhibitors maximize ROI/ROO?
• Trends in use of exhibitions for 2003
• Respondents from all major industry segments (2,718 attendees and 916 exhibitors)
Importance of Face-to-Face Interaction
• High importance placed on face-to-face (f-to-f) :
• 76% of attendees rate f-to-f with potential new vendors very or extremely important
• 87% of exhibitors rate f-to-f very or extremely important in marketing to prospects
• Economy, Internet, videoconferencing and/or tele- conferencing has not negatively impacted the importance of f-to-f even in a post 9/11 era.
Face-to-Face Activity
Attendees Exhibitors
Exhibitions 100% 100% Sales Calls 72% 93%
Private Events (Net)* 71% 47%
Avg. # Exhibitions Attended 3.5 Avg. # Private Events Attended 3.3 Avg. # Shows Exhibited - 2003 13.7 Anticipated Change Next 2 Yrs.: Increase 27% Decrease 13%
*Vendor produced user groups, conferences, exhibitions, road shows, mobile truck exhibits, briefing centers
Value of Face-to-Face Interactions
Attendees, %* Exhibitors, %**
Exhibitions 70 77 Sales Calls 71 95
Private Events:
User Groups 57 75 Technical Conferences or Exhibitions
60 64
Road Shows/Mobile Truck Exhibits
45 78
Permanent Briefing/Demo Centers
52 86
* Value in performing their jobs
** Value in marketing their products or services
% Rating Very/Extremely Valuable
Change in Value Over Past Two Years
Attendees,% Exhibitors,% More Less More Less Exhibitions 40 11 34 23 Sales Calls 38 11 50 3
Private Events:
User Groups 35 10 38 9 Technical Conferences or Exhibitions
38 9 43 13
Road Shows/Mobile Truck Exhibits
29 15 48 10
Permanent Briefing/Demo Centers
33 13 47 1
Change in Value Over Next Two Years
Attendees,% Exhibitors,% More Less More Less Exhibitions 35 9 33 15 Sales Calls 32 13 58 2
Private Events:
User Groups 19 15 17 9 Technical Conferences or Exhibitions
30 9 30 10
Road Shows/Mobile Truck Exhibits
16 17 20 12
Permanent Briefing/Demo Centers
19 15 17 9
Importance of Exhibition Face-to-Face in Purchasing Process &
Customer Relationships
Customer Continuum Attendees, %* Exhibitors, %**
Awareness 76 86
Evaluate & Compare 67 74
Narrow to Preferred Vendors 50 59
Make Purchase Decision 32 48
Implementation 37 45
Maintain Relationship 51 76
Upgrade/Re-purchase 40 51
% Very/Extremely Important
Conclusions
Face-to-Face (f-to-f) overall continues to be important, and of more value today than two years ago.
Perceived value of f-to-f at exhibitions is strong relative to other f-to-f.
• Exhibitions play a strong role in the purchasing/sales process, not just marcom and branding.
• Private events compete heavily for marketing budgets. More importantly, they compete for attendees.
• Private events not just a large company trend.
• Private events are often successful because they deliver high value and focused information. Lesson: segment and “customize”
shows to deliver high value information.
Conclusions
•Disconnect between attendees and exhibitors as to the relative perceived value of exhibitions and private events. Private events of secondary value to attendees compared to exhibitions as an opportunity for face-to-face with vendors.
•Quality f-to-f interaction is critical to providing high value to attendees. Communicate to exhibitors:
•Exhibitions are an important part of the sales process. Be prepared to advance attendees along the purchasing path with specific info.
• Attendees prefer “one-on-one” as opposed to “one-on-many” approaches for delivering information.
• Knowledge of product is most important staff attribute
• They prefer to talk to people who know the product more than top management
• Train staff. Only 2% use outside vendors for training
Event Marketing Definition
Events are face to face experiences designed to educate and motivate customers and
prospects to accelerate the sales cycles more efficiently, effectively and consistently than a
sales call alone can.
To retain and grow my existing customer base
To educate and demonstrate thought leadership
To provide a forum for rich conversations
To build a community around my brand
Key Marketing Objectives in a Tight Economy
Key takeaways from global research results
High touch matters more than ever: events (not tradeshows) are an increasingly important part of the marketing mix
Globally, ‘event marketing’ represents from 12.5% to 30% of the respondents’ marketing budgets (25-50% of that is tradeshows).
Event are used primarily for building relationships and increasing product knowledge…Tradeshows for building awareness and capturing
leads.
Measurement is critical, but appropriate tools and cost are obstacles
How do you get more share of the mix?
The role of shows and events in marketing
Leadership
Share of Voice
Trade Shows Channel Events
Proprietary Events
The role of shows and events in marketing
Sponsorships
1. Support and deliver marketing metrics that matter
2. Redesign shows to support key marketing objectives
3. Consider roadshows, regionalization and consumer expansion
4. Deepen relationships with largest customers to provide more strategic and creative events
Four things to consider
There is a Perceived Value Decline in Some
Exhibitions
To Analyze Problem
Understand business model
Identify results concerns
Identify costs concerns
Develop remedies
IAEM - Publish manifesto
The U.S. Exhibition Industry
Business Model
Hotel to Exhibit Hall
Show RoomBellmanCateringBanquetEngineeringHousekeepingAmbiance in Place
ConcreteDrayageFood ServiceFurniture RentalUtility ServiceCleaning ServiceAmbiance Temporary
Access to a Market
Organizers Facilities
Facilities
Control services that invade building systems
• Electrical• Telephone• Water/Waste• Gas• Food Service
Organizers
Official Contractors
Exclusive Contractors
The price for access to a market is free services and/or revenue sharing
Free services and revenue sharing result in cost shifting
Cost shifting is allocating the cost of market access to revenue centers
Allocating costs creates above market pricing for products and services that are then considered out of value
There is a Perceived Value Decline in Some
Exhibitions
Why?
Results Costs
Exhibit Performance Model
EXHIBIT ATTRACTION• Exhibit Size • Promotion
• Awareness/Perception• Products Exhibited• Design/Graphics• Attention-getting Techniques
POTENTIAL AUDIENCE
EXHIBIT EFFICIENCY(Person-to-Person Contact)
• Profile of Staff• Staff Knowledge
• Training
RESULTS• Messaging• Leads
• Brand Enhancement• Awareness Building
• Sales• PR
• No. of Staff• Staff Performance
Source: Exhibit Surveys
EXHIBIT TEAM EFFICIENCY(Personal Contact Achieved With Visitors Attracted)
58%
59%
63%
60%
63%64%
66%65%67%
50%
55%
60%
65%
70%Exhibit Team
Efficiency
Industrial 59%
Medical 76%
Retail 61%
Computer 62%
Telecom 63%
Less Face to Face InteractionLess Face to Face Interaction
Source: Exhibit Surveys
56%
53%57%
63%62%61%
63%
68%63%63%62%
62%
50%
55%
60%
65%
70%
75%
80%
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Total Buying Plans (TBP)
TBP
Industrial 49%
Medical 62%
Retail 59%
Computer 56%
Telecom 51%
Changing Attendee ActivityChanging Attendee Activity
Source: Exhibit Surveys
9.2 9.1
9.6
8.88.4
8.6
7.5
7.97.67.6
8.0 7.8
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Average Hours Spent at Exhibits
Average Hours
Industrial 10.4
Medical 7.4
Retail 10.1
Computer 9.3
Telecom 9.6
Changing Attendee ActivityChanging Attendee Activity
Source: Exhibit Surveys
Traffic Density (Td) Lower(Td = Attendees/100 sq.ft.)
2.12.2
2.52.6
2.62.72.6
3.02.8
3.13.0
2.9
3.2
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
TD
Industrial 2.0
Medical 2.2
Retail 1.6
Computer 4.2
Telecom 2.6
Changing Attendee ActivityChanging Attendee Activity
Source: Exhibit Surveys
Traffic Density (No. Attendees/100 sq. ft.) Sq. Ft.
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
50k
1,250
2,500
3,750
5,000
100k
2,500
5,000
7,500
10,000
150k
3,750
7,500
11,250
15,000
200k
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
Low Exhibitor Satisfaction High
Low
Attendee &Organizer
Satisfaction
High
Assumptions: Average Hours Viewing Exhibits = 8.0 hrs. Total Show Hours = 20 hrs.
Traffic Density Relative to SatisfactionTraffic Density Relative to Satisfaction
Source Exhibit Surveys
Why?
Results Costs
Nominal Air Fare
1982 2000 Total % Increase
$122.77 $143.58 16.9%
Source: Air Transport Association
Average Annual Room Rates
1982 2000 Total % Increase
$50.56 $85.89 69.8%
Source: American Hotel & Motel Association
Occupancy tax Rate
1995 1998 2001
Anaheim 13% 15% 15%Atlanta 13% 12%14%Chicago 7% 15% 15%Dallas 13% 13%15%Las Vegas 8% 9% 11%Orlando 11% 11% 11%Philadelphia 12% 13%14%Average 11% 12.6%13.6%
Source: IACVB
Consumer Price Index
1982 2001 Difference % Increase
96.5 177.1 80.6 83.5
1992 2001 Difference % Increase
140.3 177.1 36.826.2
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics U.S. Department of Labor
How the Exhibit Dollar is Spent
1982 1996 2001
Exhibit Space 21% 29%28%Exhibit Design 18%12%T & E 13% 21%Shipping 12% 9%Show Service 18%19%Promotion 9% 5%Other 1% 5%
Source: CEIR/TSEA
Exhibit Space Rates
1982 1987 1992 1997 2002
$9.25 $11.57 $14.15 $18.14 $21.40
1982-2002
131% increase
Source: Trade Show Week
National Average Labor Rate
1982 1992 2002 Total %Increase
AV Technicians $37.76 $57.39 52%
Booth cleaning (per sf/per day) $0.09 $0.13 $0.24 167% Carpenters $26.56$38.04 $64.60 143%
Decorator $25.41$37.48 $64.37 153%
Drayage per CWT (direct to hall) $12.68$24.23 $44.00 247%*
Source: Trade Show Week - *Adjusted
National Average Labor Rate (cont.)
1982 1992 2002 Total %Increase
Draymen $24.47$37.18 $63.45 159%
Electricians $32.24$43.30 $60.48 88%
Forklift with operator (highest weight range) $50.12$83.85 $150.38 200%
Forklift with operator (lowest weight range) $47.84$68.24 $126.61 165%
National Average Labor Rate (cont.)
1982 1992 2002 Total %Increase
Plumber $33.42$41.92 $60.12 80%
Riggers $28.09$43.39 $79.31 182%
Security Guard $8.61 $12.28 $17.88 108%
National Average Furnishings
1992 1997 2001 Total %Increase
Side Chair $21.00 $32.35 $38.82 85%
Standard Carpet $1.41 $2.86 $2.32 65%(Cut & Lay Per SF)
22x28 sign $43.38 $56.70 $63.33 46%
Color Monitor $175.89 $204.45 $215.35 22%(3 Day)
Lighting Outlet $51.12$63.69$68.23 33%(120V 500 Watt)
Source: Trade Show Week
Cost to Close A Sale
1984 2001 Total %Increase
Close sale w/oexhibition lead $1,130 $1,140 1%
Close sale with an exhibition lead $254 $705 178%
Cost of a typical field sales call $205 $308 50%
Average cost per visitor reachedat an exhibition $90 $212 136%
Source: CEIR
The Value Gap Still Exists but it is Incumbent UponUs to Stop the Shrinkage
Exhibit Dollars (In Billions)
1996 2001 Total % Increase
$16.5 $20.5 24%
Source: CEIR/TSEA
There is a Perceived Value Decline
in Some Exhibitions
Without Real Value We Cannot Succeed
With Real Value and Responsible Stewardship
We Cannot Fail
Voluntary Contribution Program
(VCP)
Exhibition Industry Foundation
(EIF)