The Comparative Effectiveness of Web 2.0 Marketing and

Online Technology Tools on Baby-Boomer, Generation X and

Generation Y Trade Show Visitors

By

N. Irem Akin

Supervisor: Robert Davidson

Thesis submitted to the Department of Marketing, Events

and Tourism

School of Business

University of Greenwich

In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

In

Events Management

September 2014

Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................... 1 ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................. 2 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 3 1.1 Aim of the study..................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Objectives of the study........................................................................................... 3 1.3 Hypothesis of the study.......................................................................................... 3 1.4 Background of the study ........................................................................................ 3 1.5 Significance of the study........................................................................................ 4 1.6 Research outline ..................................................................................................... 5 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................... 5 2.1 Trade shows and stakeholders ................................................................................ 5

2.1.1 Visitor Types and Motivations ................................................................... 8

2.1.2 Marketing at trade shows ......................................................................... 10 2.2 The Web 2.0 Concept .......................................................................................... 13

2.2.1 Web 2.0 As A Marketing Tool................................................................. 14

2.2.2 Role of Web 2.0 and Technologies at Tradeshows .................................. 17 2.3 Generation theory and the characteristics............................................................. 18

2.3.1 Generations and marketing ....................................................................... 21

2.3.2 Generations and trade shows.................................................................... 22 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY .............................................................................. 23 3.1 Introduction to the chapter ................................................................................... 23 3.2 Philosophical approach ........................................................................................ 23 3.3 Research approach ............................................................................................... 24 3.4 Research triangulation, reliability and validity .................................................... 26 3.5 Research method and design ................................................................................ 27 3.6 Sampling ............................................................................................................... 30 3.7 Methods of data analysis ...................................................................................... 32 3.8 Ethical considerations........................................................................................... 32 3.9 Limitations of the study ....................................................................................... 33 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND FINDINGS .............................................................. 33 4.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 33

4.2 Statistical Analysis of Results .............................................................................. 34

i. Age distribution .............................................................................................. 34

ii. Main reason for attending the trade show of different generations ............... 34

iii. Webpage and mobile application usage at trade shows of different generations 35

iv. Attitudes towards Web 2.0 tools and trade show social media marketing tools of different generations ...................................................................................... 39

v. Trade show marketing professionals' perspective on social media marketing at trade shows and generations .............................................................................. 43

4.3 Findings ................................................................................................................ 46 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................. 50 5.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 50 5.2 Conclusions about the research............................................................................ 50 5.3 Recommendations ................................................................................................ 52 REFERENCES............................................................................................................ 54 APPENDECIES .......................................................................................................... 62

Appendix-A Sample of Questionnaires ............................................................. 62

Appendix A.1 Questionnaire Sample with Visitors ............................................ 62

Appendix-A.2 Questionnaire Sample with Marketers ....................................... 64

Appendix-B Graphs .......................................................................................... 67

Appendix B.1 Visitor motivations ...................................................................... 67

Appendix B.2 Official Webpage visits ............................................................... 67

Appendix B.3 Online registration rate ............................................................... 67

Appendix B.4 Mobile application downloads .................................................... 68

Appendix B.5 Tweeting about the event ............................................................ 68

Appendix B.6 YouTube video views.................................................................. 68

Appendix B.7 Importance of Web 2.0 tools ....................................................... 68

Appendix B.8 Importance of Web 2.0 tools ....................................................... 69

Appendix B.9 Marketing professionals objectives of using Web 2.0................ 69

Appendix B.10 Success measurements ............................................................... 69

Appendix B.11 Demographic information captures........................................... 70

Table of Figures Figure 1: Trade show Stakeholders and Relationships............................................ 7 Figure 2: Three conceptions of trade fairs: major interactions for a focal exhibitor 10 Figure 3: A theoretical model of antecedent and performance of trade show processes 11 Figure 4: Flow chart of social media decision making process............................ 15 Figure 5: Age distribution ..................................................................................... 34 Figure 6: Preferred device to use internet.............................................................. 35 Figure 7: Web page visit frequency....................................................................... 36 Figure 8: The reason for downloading the mobile application.............................. 38 Figure 9: Checking Seminars/Conferences Online Before Visit .......................... 38 Figure 10: Social Media Tools Preferences .......................................................... 39 Figure 11: Following the official Twitter Account ............................................... 40 Figure 12: Reasons for following the Twitter Account ........................................ 41 Figure 13: Official Facebook Page Likes ............................................................. 42 Figure 14: Reason for following the Facebook page............................................ 42 Figure 15: Preferred Tools for Social Media Marketing ....................................... 44 Figure 16: Importance of the tools........................................................................ 44 Figure 17: Arranging the contents according to generations’ interests or needs.. 46

List of Tables

Table 1: Stakeholders model in governance context .............................................. 7 Table 2: Generations and their birth years............................................................ 19 Table 3: Deductive versus Inductive research ...................................................... 25

Page | 1

ABSTRACT

As Web 2.0 sites growing fast globally, marketers started to shape their marketing

strategies more on these tools than their traditional marketing strategies. However, the

generational cohorts are became a growing theme for marketers. Trade shows

marketers also using Web 2.0 in terms of reaching more people and combining the

generations and marketing together under Web 2.0. This study assessed the differences

between Baby-Boomer, Generation X and Generation Y trade show visitors' Web 2.0

marketing and online technology tools usage. There is a slight difference found

between the generations' usage of the certain tools. However, there are many

similarities found between Generation X and Generation Y members. 106 sample were

collected from trade show visitors in London, United Kingdom. Furthermore, trade

show marketers' perspective to multi-generational marketing were examined and it has

been found that 64% of the trade show marketing professionals are not arrange their

marketing strategies according to multi-generational marketing. 14 sample were

collected from trade show marketers via online survey.

Keywords: Generations, Web 2.0, Social media marketing, Trade shows

Page | 2

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION 1.1 Aim of the study The overall aim of this research is to explore the comparative effectiveness of Web 2.0

marketing tools and online technology tools on Baby-Boomer, Generation X and

Generation Y trade show visitors.

1.2 Objectives of the study The objectives of this research are:

1) To determine how different generations respond to social media marketing

tools

2) To analyse the social media marketing of the trade shows

3) To analyse and determine mobile application, online registration tools and the

internet usage of different generations at tradeshows

4) To analyse trade show marketing professionals' perspective in mult i-

generational marketing utilization

5) Pursue recommendations for future practice in the trade show marketing sector

1.3 Hypothesis of the study It hypothesized that if each generation has different technological tendencies , then

the effectiveness of the Web 2.0 marketing and the Web 2.0 and online technology

tools' usage differs significantly between generations.

1.4 Background of the study Karl Mannheim‟s generational theory argues that individuals are influenced by the

socio-historical situations pertaining in the era which they born (Mannheim, 1964).

This research will focus on three active consumer population generations which are:

Baby-Boomers, Generation X, and Generation Y. Williams and Page (2011) defined

Baby-Boomers as individuals born between 1946-1964, Generation X individuals as

those born between 1965-1976 and Generation Y individuals as those born between

Page | 3

1977-1994. Each generation has their own tendencies and expectations. Some of these

generations are identified as highly technological, some of them are highly traditiona l

and anti-technologic. However, there is a huge fact that social media sites in other

name Web 2.0 tools, such as: Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube and blogging

sites have grown enormously quickly in last ten years. IAB platform report (2008 p.1)

states that: ''In 2008, if you are not on a social media networking site, you are not on

the internet''. To be able to utilise that trend, marketers used social media as a global

marketing tool in various markets. Companies are choosing social media techniques to

communicate with their possible clients or existing clients and boost their brand

awareness. Use of Web.2.0 tools and technologies at trade shows is growing very fast.

In the trade show industry there is 80% of usage of internet to provide information

which is 20% more than other MICE (Meetings-Incentive-Conventions-Exhibitions)

events sectors (Davidson et al. 2002). Yet, applying these social media marketing tools

on different generations involves challenges. Marketers have mainly focused on two

generations; Baby-Boomers and Generation Y. (Kehl, 2005). Marketers should understand and adapt these generations‟ needs and

behaviours to built relationships, customer retention and satisfaction. Most importantly

in terms of increasing the ROI (Return On Investment). Multi-generational marketing

can increase of the attendance such industries like event industry. As a part of the

events industry, trade shows have key role and trade show marketers aim to adapt their

marketing plans and strategies to reach targeted visitors more effectively. However,

generational differences can cause issues and marketing strategies may not engage with

the target visitors.

Consideration needs to be given to the important baseline data on the characterist ics

of Baby-Boomers, Generation X and Generation Y and how they use social media

tools at trade shows, as well as how they respond to social media marketing strategies.

This research will address the experiences and attitudes of different generations at

trade shows in United Kingdom, London area.

1.5 Significance of the study Whilst, there are some relevant studies about the different generations' usage of social

media marketing and the generations' expectations from MICE industry components

as conferences, there is no existing in depth research about those

Page | 4

generations‟ responses to social media marketing specifically at trade shows. The

findings of this research will indicate how to achieve the maximum effectiveness of

the social media marketing on targeted visitors, based on their experiences at trade

shows. Moreover, this research will help trade show marketers to improve their future

practices in terms of marketing strategies and usage of social media tools and mobile

applications.

1.6 Research outline The outline of the dissertation is as follows:

The following chapter includes literature review of the documents relevant to the

investigation gathered from sources including other researches, books and journals.

The literature review chapter has three main sections: Section 1 is related to trade

shows including stakeholders visitor motivations and marketing. Section 2 is related

with Web 2.0 including Web 2.0 marketing and Web 2.0 at trade shows. Section 3 is

related with Generations including marketing to generations and trade show and

generations.

The literature chapter is followed by the methodology chapter which includes a review

of existing research methods and the discussion of choices made.

The methodology chapter is followed by data analysis and findings chapter which

includes in depth analysis of the study and discussion of the findings according to the

existing literature.

The final chapter includes conclusions of overall study and future recommendations

for marketers and academic researches.

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Trade shows and stakeholders Meeting-Incentive-Convention-Exhibition (MICE), also known as business events,

one of the core section of this huge industry is exhibitions. Exhibitions are often

confused with the term 'trade shows'. Rittichainuwat and Mair (2012) explain this

Page | 5

confusion by stating that exhibitions are any showcase of merchandise or services. On

the other hand, they stress that the trade shows differ from exhibitions with the

attendees segment. Exhibitions are open only to specially invited customers and

suppliers. Likewise, Godar and O'Connor, (2001) also state that exhibitions are only

open to prequalified personnel and buyers. Exhibitions, in other words expose the

products or services, while the trade shows focus on business to business sales (Solberg

Søilen, 2013). The definition of trade shows by Bathelt et al. (2014 p.1) is ''Tradeshows

are temporary marketplaces where suppliers from a given industry convene to

showcase their products and services''. Even though there is a difference between trade

shows and exhibitions, both of the events aims to create brand awareness, gathering

the information, building and improving the relationships and networking between

buyers and sellers. Solberg Søilen (2013) notes that the earlier trade shows only

focused on sales but today's modern trade shows industry also focus on build ing

relationships and information exchanging and the author explains that the trade shows

of today arranged for special segment of various industries or can be more general

shows. Current trade shows can be divided as two sub groups such as:

First, horizontal fairs which have a wide range of product exposure and wide visitor

diversity. Second, vertical fairs which include specific displays to increase visitor

purchase and create a tough selling environment for the exhibitors (Solberg Søilen,

2013).

Each trade shows' main objective is creating the business environment and relations

between the exhibitors and visitors. However, there are various relationships within

the trade shows between the main stakeholders. The stakeholders chain can be

explained as: exhibitors are the customers of the organizers, visitors are the customers

of the exhibitors and partly customers of the organizers and the organizers are the

customers of venues (Kay, 2007). The relationships of the main stakeholders of a

tradeshow according to relationship degrees are illustrated in the Figure 1 below.

Page | 6

Figure 1: Trade show Stakeholders and Relationships (Liu 2006, cited in Kay 2007, p. 14).

The trade show stakeholders model in governance context, examined by Bathelt et

al. (2014 pp. 109) and the table below illustrate the United Kingdom trade show

industry.

Table 1: Stakeholders model in governance context

Indicator Trade show industry in United

Kingdom

Main facility ownership Private investors

Main objectives Profit

Main trade show ownership Private organizers

Main objectives Profit

Dominant type of trade shows National import trade shows

Page | 7

Due to main topic of this research paper, the following literature review on this

section will focus mostly on visitors rather than on other stakeholders.

2.1.1 Visitor Types and Motivations Trade show visitors are divided to three sub categories such as:

1. Current buyers

2. Potential buyers

3. Non-buyers

Current buyers are attending these events to decrease the contradiction levels and

finalise the purchase decision. Siskind (2005) indicates that the Centre for Exhibit ion

Industry Research report shows that 76% of attendees planned their visit and decided

to visit certain booths. These potential buyers' plans are include various purchase

options for various reasons such as the firms are already invested some money to send

their people to attend (Godar and O'Connor, 2001). Non-buyers are the majority of the

trade show visitors and most of the visitors are not concerned about purchasing

(Borghini et al, 2006). Trade show visitors' motivations are listed by Rittichainuwat

and Mair (2012) as :

Purchasing

Information search in progress

Educational performances and activities

Networking

However, Bello and Lohtia (1993) states that visitor motivations are really less likely

to be related with purchase decisions. Rosson and Seringhaus' (1995) research held in

four Industrial Exhibitions within U.S and Germany and research results shows that

purchasing is the least ranked reason (6% and 7%) and for other two exhibitions,

purchasing was not ranked as a reason for attending.

Information gaining is an essential deliberation for attendees on trade shows (Berne

and Garcia-Uceda, 2008). A study of 566 attendees on five exhibitions held at the

Orange County Convention Centre, the secondly most ranked reason (41.1%) for

attending was to ''Learn about new products in their respective professional areas''

Page | 8

(Breiter and Milman, 2006 p.1366). Buyers from smaller companies seem to count on

more face-to-face information gaining and needs more in depth information than larger

companies. The main purpose of attendance is gathering information from exhibitors

and investigating products (Rosson and Seringhaus, 1995). This information search at

trade shows also allows the visitors to calculate their own businesses' capabilities in

the market (Blythe, 2002).

Tanner et al. (2001) assert that special events and educational activities at shows are

create attraction and are another major attendance reason for 'self developer' visitor

type. Self developers are most likely to attend seminars to networking for career

opportunities and extend their knowledge. Whitfield and Webber (2011 p.441) state

that ''Attendees can also attend workshops and seminars in pursuit of domain

knowledge through contact with specialists''. Godar and O'connor (2001) also show an

agreement with the previous information and argue that the exhibitors should make

special events to gather the visitors to discuss common interests or concerns.

According to most of the authors' coalesce in the literature, networking is another

fundamental motive, not only to visitors, but for the vendors as well. Buyers and sellers

both use the trade shows as a 'networking site' and while visiting they taking part in

social events to establish and maintain their networks. Within the visitor types

mentioned above, potential buyers want to establish new relationships with the people

whom they can help with broader information if needed to begin a buying decision.

For this reason, exhibition organisers consider social events for those who want to

gather to discuss about their concerns (Godar and O'connor, 2001).

Mattsson (1989) argues that the companies are investing huge amounts of financ ia l

resources and efforts to build ''micro'' and ''macro'' positions in networks. A micro

position has been described as the relationships between two firms and macro position

is a firm's relationships with a number of different firms in terms of creating a network.

Breiter and Milman (2006, p.1366) found that attendees' most popular reason for

visiting was ' networking opportunity ' with 61.1%.

Page | 9

Figure 2: Three conceptions of trade fairs : Major interactions for a focal exhibitor

( Rosson and Seringhaus,1995, p.88)

The figure above illustrate that the trade fairs are suitable places to build both vertical

(suppliers, customers) and horizontal (associations, partners) relationships (Rosson

and Seringhaus, 1995).

2.1.2 Marketing at trade shows According to Ling-Yee (2007), to achieve trade show performance goals and identify

the factors that affecting the trade show effectiveness, trade show organizers must build

up a certain plan to meet marketing objectives. In existing literature most authors agree

that the trade show marketing process has three phases such as:

1) Pre-show promotions

2) At-show selling

3) Post-show follow-up

The figure below illustrates the relations between the trade show performance,

marketing processes and trade show goals.

Page | 10

Figure 3: A theoretical model of antecedent and performance of trade show processes

(Ling-Yee ,2008 pp. 37) The pre-show phase mostly focuses on visitor behaviours to influence their attendance

decisions. A good understanding of these motivations of the potential costumers'

behaviours is essential to reach trade show goals (Berne and Garcia-Uceda, 2007).

Authors like Hough (1988) and Tanner and Chonko (1995) listed 'not to attend' reasons

as lack of time, travel distances, negative past experiences and costs of the trade shows.

According to Williams et al. (1993), small size firms and large size firms differ from

each other in terms of needs of pre-show promotions and small size firms need more

pre-stage promotions. Ling-Yee (2008, p.36) states that '' Pre-show promotion refers

to exhibitors' decisions of inviting customers to visit their booths at trade shows by

phone, using direct mail, magazines''. Herbig et al. (1998) state that invitations are the

first place of the choice of exhibitors' pre-show activities, with direct mail invitations.

The research results of the study show that complimentary activities such as free tickets

and mass media advertisements are next in popularity.

At-show activities can be two types such as outside of the booth or inside booth

activities. Outside of the booth activities are listed as: hospitality suits, cocktails or

banquets, or private viewings for the products (Herbig et al., 1998). However, booth

related activities are highly stressed by many authors on existing literature. These

promotional activities are mainly under two concepts such as impersonal and personal

activities. Gopalakrishna and Williams (1992) explain the impersonal booth

Page | 11

promotions with some factors such as: bigger booth space, locations of the booth and

design of the booth which attracts the attentions of the visitors. According to Smith et

al. (2004), impersonal activities are more effective for sales objectives at the beginning

of the process. The impersonal promotions are linked with pre-show activities and the

pre-show activities gives more opportunities for exhibitors to interact with the planned

visitors and give image-building opportunity as well (Lee and Kim, 2008). However,

those two phases are weakly linked for personal promotions. (Lee and Kim, 2008).

Personal promotions can be conducted by booth personnel, thus they play a key role in

this phase. By this reason, the number of booth personnel and well trained booth

personnel are the main two essentials (Gopalakrishna, and Lilien, 1995). Booth

personnel efficiency is directly related with personal selling at show. Explanations

about the company, demonstrations with using promotional materials by the booth

personnel boost their relations with costumers and help them to transmit the right brand

image to their costumers (Ling-Yee, 2008). A sufficient amount of at-show selling

activities improves number of sales (Gopalakrishna, and Lilien, 1995).

Post-show activities are for extending the impact of the trade show and maintaining

the relationships and communications with the costumers (Stevens, 2005). Lee and

Kim (2008) add another point to post-show activities as this phase gives opportunity

to the exhibitors to calculate their own performance and see if they were met their

objectives or not. Herbig et al. (1998) list the post-show activities based on the research

results with the exhibitors, direct mail follow-ups and direct sales contacts as being the

most common post-show activities. However, Herbig et al. (2008) also mention that

the telemarketing has the lowest rate for post-show activities and they consider that the

telemarketing element should be stressed more and should also be improved. Tanner

(2002) indicates that successful exhibitors tend to follow-up their customers more after

the show. Ling-Yee (2007) argues that post-show follow-up effort and quality directly

link with the actual sales. The post-show activities are finalise the marketing phases by

supporting the pre-show and at-show activities and Herbig et al. (1998) support this

view by considering that well-planned post-show activities are mandatory. As a result,

the message aimed by pre-show and at-show activities can be successfully transmitted

to the customers.

Page | 12

2.2 The Web 2.0 Concept Before 2004 the term Web 2.0 was already in use. However, the term became more

popular with a conference brainstorming session between O'Reilly and MediaLive

International and it was born from the fact that the internet became such an important

tool with new innovations. This was a breaking point for the web (O'Reilly, 2005).

O'Reilly's concept of Web 2.0 can be defined as a business revolution within the

industry with major changes like the Internet as a platform with harnessing collective

intelligence, making that platform more enjoyable and making it interactively social to

the engaged consumers (Fagerstrom and Ghinea, 2010). The most common Web 2.0

tools are described and explained below.

Kaiser et al. (2007) state that the term 'blog' stands for a combination of two words

which are ''web'' and ''log''. Davidson (2011, p.119) defines the blogs as ''Blogs are

customisable personal web sites that allow authors to contribute regular or irregula r

entries that are displayed on their sites in reverse chronological order''. Likewise,

Bronstein (2013) explains the blogs as certain web pages where people write about

themselves and about their experiences online where accessible by others. Blogging is

generally characterized as self-disclosure (Chen, 2012). Baxter and Connolly (2013)

add that personal or work-related blogs' conversational nature beneficial for the

communication process between blog users.

Social networking services allows users to create their own profiles and descriptions

about themselves at a networking platforms where users can link with colleagues or

friends (Fagerstrom and Ghinea, 2010). Dao et al. (2014) note that social networking

services allow users to make their public or semi-public profiles in a bounded system,

communicational environment with whom they choose to connect, view and create

cross networking by using the list created by other users within the system. According

to Bergh et al. (2011), social networking services are mainly focused on individua ls.

Likely to what Bergh et al. (2011) mentioned, Fagerstrom and Ghinea (2010) state that

the networking sites such as Facebook and LinkedIn have become important

networking services targeting adult individuals. Dao et al. (2014) consider that social

networking users put more importance on social interaction as connection to create and

maintain their relationships in terms of belongingness.

Page | 13

File Sharing communities, used to describe ''peer to peer'' (Davidson, 2011 p.119) or

alternatively called as ''Content Community Sites'' allow people to share specific

content at specific platforms such as: videos (eg.Youtube), photographs (eg.Instagram

or Flickr) or presentations (eg Slideshare.) (Dao et al. 2014). Shao (2009) considers

these platforms are increasing the knowledge of users since these platforms includes

specific materials. These sites are also related to the term folksonomy. Avram (2006

p.4) describes the term as ''Folksonomy is a neologism for the practice of collaborative

categorisation using freely chosen key-words.'' and this allows users to list their

contents under tags and easily access the reliable related content that they interested

in.

As Web 2.0 has developed, some sites are combining the elements of Web 2.0. Twitter

allows users to network and micro-blogging opportunity at the same time, which users

can write posts called 'tweets' with limited word counts (Davidson, 2011).

2.2.1 Web 2.0 As A Marketing Tool The internet offers new and valuable benefits to the marketing industry and beginning

of the usage of the Internet marketing, marketing professionals mostly aimed lowering

the costs and distribution of the media and the information spreading globally

(Fagerstrom and Ghinea 2010). Ling-Yee (2010, p.273) states ''Internet-enabled

promotion before shows refers to usage of the company website functions for pre-show

promotion purpose''. Ling-Yee's (2010) research also found that greater usage of the

website comes from a higher customer orientation. Kellezi (2014) holds the view that

today's market using different channels to reach their consumers in both traditional and

non-traditional media. With reference to Kellezi (2007), Stern and Wakabayashi

(2007) state that Web 2.0 and social network services and communities are a massive

threat for the traditional practices and media. Tiago and Tiago (2012) discuss that there

is a strong link between traditional marketing and Internet marketing. Fisher (2009)

argues that marketing professionals are stuck between participating into Web 2.0

communications and started to calculate the cost using traditional marketing tools

instead of online tools. Tsimonis and Dimitriadis (2014, p.336) made a flow chart that

illustrates the decision making process of Web 2.0 usage by marketing professionals.

Page | 14

Figure 4: Flow chart of social media decision making process

segments which are B2C and C2C segment. The nature of the Web 2.0 allows the

companies to interact with their customers is called the B2C perspective and the

interactions that allows customers to communicate with each other is called C2C

perspective. Mangold and Faulds (2009) state that social media platforms create and

strengthens relations between the organizations and customers and makes relationship s

more trustworthy than traditional marketing. Kirtis and Karahan (2011) state that

organizations which use social media, with more networking with more organizations

become more successful on long-run benefits, which makes them increase their

performance in a positive way. Kirtis and Karahan (2011) state on their research that

70% of consumers have used social media sites as much as they use official websites

to gain information, 60% of the consumers using social media sites to deliver

information and almost 60-70% of the people noted that recommendations from other

people online are valuable and honest.

Tsimonis and Dimitriadis (2014) mention on their research, a survey conducted with

the list of Fortune magazine's World's top 100 companies around Europe, Asia-Pacific,

and Latin America. The results of the survey show at least 8% of the companies use at

least one social media tool. Twitter is the most popular answer with

Page | 15

82%, followed by YouTube with 79% and lastly, Facebook with 74% on the last

place.

The organizations' social media usage trends are defined and summarized by Dooley

et al. (2012) as :

Consumer orientation: Commercial and social marketing on Web 2.0 platforms

are consumer oriented and campaign strategies are created aiming target

consumer needs and perceptions.

Behaviour change: Marketers use check-in applications ( Eg.Foursquare) to

measure behaviour changes by following consumers experiences on Web 2.0

sites.

Segmentation and targeting: Specific segment targeting is essential to create

campaigns for right sub-groups. (Eg. seniors, sex gender differences,

occupation)

Exchange: Demonstrating exchange offerings such as benefits or rewards to

consumers increases the campaign participation.

Competition: Campaigns on Web 2.0, (Eg. YouTube video creating

competition), allow marketers to promote and transmit the marketing message

with the target consumers.

The marketing mix: Web 2.0 campaigns also includes 3Ps in the Marketing

Mix ( “Product”, “Price”, and “Place” p.217) both Web 2.0 commercial and

social marketing campaigns, target consumers can share pictures through

networking sites engaging in campaign behaviour at the related place. (eg.

Foursquare check-ins , associated hashtag usage)

Alternatively, Tsimonis and Dimitriadis' (2014) research findings show that all the

companies that participated in the research have a Facebook page and that the most

common activity is creating competitions with prizes. Next most common activity is

creating and maintaining the daily communication to create awareness and customer

engagement by posting simple sentences such as "Have a good day". The other two

activities are giving tips and information about their products, while exposing on Web

2.0 and the nature of Web 2.0 platforms makes them accessible 24 hours. The last

activity is giving customer service through answering their complaints or questions.

Page | 16

2.2.2 Role of Web 2.0 and Technologies at Tradeshows Trade shows have usually taken advantage of information technologies and

communications technologies with benefits to all stakeholders (HyunJeong and

Verma, 2014). Networking and interacting with others are the most important benefits

of the trade show participators and a strong motivation attendance for trade shows

(Hultsman, 2011). Web 2.0 tools making the connections at tradeshows easier, cost-

effective and efficient also sustain the organization and structure of the shows

(HyunJeong and Verma, 2014). Borges (2009) explains the Web 2.0 usage process at

tradeshows as follows: blogging about the event three months in advance and creating

awareness on Twitter with the users and creating discussion topics. Furthermore,

Borges (2009) states that due to the nature of the trade shows, buyers and sellers are

mostly trying to communicate at professional private areas and Web 2.0 tools makes

the engagement more effective before, during and after the show. As a result of these,

ROI of the tradeshow will be more effective. Using hashtags (eg.

#TRADESHOW2014) became a common trend in any trade show and the idea behind

it was to give an opportunity to gather everyone under the same topic about the event

to expand the audience and vendors' communication and engagement (Browne, 2012).

Twitter is by far the most common tool used at trade shows over Facebook, Youtube

and Instagram. Creating a real time interaction around the booths and letting the

visitors know about what/where is happening with these tools and WIFI (Wireless

Fidelity) connection at the venue is a key to attract potential customers (Holloman,

2013). A modern trend at tradeshows is creating the 'hybrid events'. These events add

virtual content inside the event for the attendees who cannot be at the show physically

and the strategy behind it is to connect the members of the audiences to one another

(Browne, 2012). A huge company in technology industry, AMD, typically having ten

thousand visitors at their real-life events, held a virtual event between September 2006

to January 2007 with huge firms such as: Microsoft , Dell , Oracle. The show attracted

over one million visitors (LaMotta, 2007). Another common technological trend at

tradeshows this paper will focus on, the use of mobile applications. The tradeshow

applications can be categorized as B2B applications as it allows attendees to interact

with exhibitors and other attendees as well (Procopio et al., 2012). The mobile

applications brings new facilities and benefits to the tradeshow industry such as:

Page | 17

Real time distribution to the show with instant access to the programme and

any other changes

Can be used as a map of the hall. This map can even be use to find other

application users who pinned themselves at the exhibition hall.

Helps to reduce the costs of printing tradeshow information booklets (such as:

booth information, conference programmes, exhibitor information) and easily

portable.

Improves the onsite networking with contact lists, online appointment systems

and more efficient on CRM

Helps to improve real time feedbacks and polling. Better response rate with

easy access than paper feedback forms.

Gives a more technologically engaged and modern impression on attendees.

Increases the business value of events with new capabilities and gives better

experience to all trade show stakeholders.

(Ball,2011)

Lastly, online registration is growing fast in trade show industry, this tool offers

registration process being more convenient and fast (Davidson et al., 2002). Smith

(1999, p.4) states that ''With online registration, once we captured their e-mail details,

we can keep in touch with them far more closely''. Davidson et al. (2002) also argue

that webpage hyperlinks can lead visitors to other information once they register online

and large events visitors can access the hall maps and other highlighted areas at the

venue with online appointments opportunities through webpage.

2.3 Generation theory and the characteristics The first modern scholar investigation describing and explaining generation theory was

made by German sociologist Karl Mannheim. Mannheim (1964) describes social

phenomenon generations as a kind of identity in which related age groups are

embedded within their historical and social environment and he described the

fundamental facts of generations as :

New participants in the cultural process are emerging

Former participants are repeatedly vanishing

Page | 18

Each generations participants can be limited only in a temporary historica l

process

Cultural transmission between generations is a continuous process

Pilcher (1994) describes Mannheim‟s generations theory as a clarification of

''complexity of times''. Demographers agree that generational cohorts share cultura l,

political and economic experiences and values (Kotler and Keller, 2006).

Later, William Strauss and Neil Howe developed this theory and it is known as

Strauss-Howe theory in literature. They define and speculate the generations in

different groups living in 1991.

Table 2: Generations and their birth years (Strauss and Howe, 1991)

Missionary Generation 1860-1882

Lost Generat ion 1883-1900

The GI 1901-1924

The Silent Generation 1925-1942

Boom Generation 1943-1960

Generation X 1961-1981

The Millennial 1982-2003

Generation

Strauss-Howe theory claims that each generation is available for 20 years of period

and each generation experiences four turnings in their cycle that considered as

formative, Strauss and Howe (1998) explained the ''Fourth Turning Cycle '' theory as:

Crisis High

Unraveling Awakening

The first turning named as ''High'', this is the period of significant secular upheaval

while society is working on reorganizing the institutions and behaviours of the public.

The Silent Generation is considered as the members of this era.

Page | 19

The second turning is named as ''Awakening'', this is the period of the threatening of

the institutions with the aim of personal and spiritual autonomy. Members of this era

want to reach personal authenticity. Boomer Generation is considered as the members

of this era.

The third turning is named as '' Unraveling'', in contrast of Awakening, institutions are

weak and distrusted and while individualism is still strong. Generation X is considered

as the members of this era.

The fourth is turning named as ''Crisis'', this is the period during which that institutiona l

life has rebuilt from the beginning and the people begin to feel as a part of a larger

group. Generation Y is considered as the members of this era.

This research will only focus on three generations, Boomers, which will be also

mentioned as Baby-Boomers for the rest of the study, Generation X and the Millennia l

Generation which will be also referred to as Generation Y.

These three generations are described as follows:

o Baby-Boomer Generation

They were born during the end of World War II and many of them are considered as

politically conservative (Madison and Bockanic, 2014). They value individualizat ion,

self-expression and optimism (Hawkins and Mothersbaugh, 2010). They were raised

to be independent and they defining themselves by their professions and most of them

are workaholics (Koco, 2006). Similarly, most of the members of this generation built

a good career and reached the goals that they set for themselves (Madison and

Bockanic, 2014). Thus, during the 1990s Boomers became youngest ever presidents

and prime ministers and brought new changes to the world (Codrington, 2011).

Technologically, Boomers are can still be considered as ''old-fashioned'', yet most of

them embraced the new technologies (Madison and Bockanic, 2014).

o Generation X

The term Generation X is born from Douglas Coupland's novel '' Generation X: Tales

for an Accelerated Culture'' (Mitchell et al. 2005). The members became adults during

different economical crises (Regnier, 2009). Their experiences were also

Page | 20

shaped by the wars such as The Vietnam War or other events such as the fall of Berlin

Wall (Barber, 2013). They value family and their characteristics defined as pessimist ic,

sceptical, disillusioned (Moore and Carpenter, 2008). Generation X members'

characteristics are also defined as rebellious and in relation with to value the family as

mentioned before, members of this generation said ''They feel alienated from their

absentee parents'' (Barber, p. 2013). They grew up with ''stranger fear'', which caused

them to feel they can only rely on their own judgements and their own experiences

(Barber, 2013). They tend to be risk averse and have lower self-esteem than any other

generations (Reisenwitz and Iyer, 2009). They are technology savvy and they are the

first generation had connection with the close relation with television, video games and

the Internet (Mitchell et al. 2005).

o Generation Y

Members of Generation Y were born into a technological society with no boundaries

with the global world, they value customization, integrity and innovation and this

generation‟s members are open-minded, optimistic and highly motivated (Williams

and Page, 2011). Codrington (2011, p.9) stated that ''They are living in an age of

unprecedented diversity and exposure to other cultures''. As a result, Generation Yyers

are more tolerant in relation to racial and cultural issues than other generations (Barber,

2013). Unlike the Generation X, members of this generation show high level of

confidence (Nicholas, 2009). Generation Y members are also technology savvy and

They are the first generation having interaction with e-mails, text massages and mobile

phones since childhood .

2.3.1 Generations and marketing Some of the authors have argued the links between generational theories and

marketing. Consumer characteristics are the major determining factor in marketing.

Generation theory has been partially acknowledged and adopted by the marketer.

However, Multi-generational marketing is significant to marketers (Walker, 2003).

Marketing to generations involves extremely specific and individualized marketing

strategies that requires an understanding of different generations' cultural and politica l

influences that shaped their characteristics (Mathews-Wadhwa, 2012). Product and

service marketing professionals must shape their segmentation strategies according to

the dynamic consumer needs of generational cohorts (Reisenwitz and

Page | 21

Iyer,2009). However, according to Reisenwitz and Iyer (2009), Generation X and

Generation Y are often considered a homogeneous segment and the clash between

Generation X and Generation Y inevitable. For comparing the generational cohorts

according to their loyalty towards brands, lack of brand loyalty of Generation X and Y

members can change if they trust the brand but it lasts for six to eight months

(Reisenwitz and Iyer, 2009). Nevertheless, Generation X members show less brand

loyalty than the Boomer generation (Mitchell et al. 2005). The Hale‟s (2010) report

indicates how different marketing strategies creates an impact on different generations.

Baby-boomer generation increased their Twitter utilization 469% in 2009 and Twitter

asserts that Twitter is a good source of marketing to this generation. For both

Generations X and Generation Y, the results show that these generations are often

checking their e-mails but for Generation Y, YouTube promotions are more effective.

Ellison et al.(2007) stated that as a result of 'need for popularity' of Generation Y,

promoting on Facebook is also a way to attract this generation. Whereas, Williams and

Page (2011) state that for Baby-Boomer generation, marketers should focus on building

values and promote their brands with relevant promotions appropriate to their life stage,

not their age. Blogs can be particularly effective on Baby-boomer generation (Kumar

and Lim, 2008). For Generation X, Posnoc (2004) argues that this generation is

responding to direct mails. For Generation Y, which considered as Net generation or

digital natives on some sources, the results of the study by Ezumah (2013) mentions

that generation Y has great insight into digital marketing. Similarly McMillan and

Morrison (2006) state that Generation Y segment wants to receive the information

through the Internet.

2.3.2 Generations and trade shows The existing literature was not found directly about generations and exhibitions. The

rest of this research paper aims to fill this gap within the literature. However, one of

the component of MICE industry is conferences and some authors like Davidson and

McMillin, researched the links between generations and conferences. Davidson (2008)

states that the conference industry should gather the wants and objectives of each

generation of participants. Davidson (2008) also stated that Generation X and Generation Y is increasingly represented in business and they „‟out-vote‟‟ the Baby-

boomer generation. In contrast, McMillin (2014) states that Baby-boomer generation

has a reputation that they are anti-technological but preventing this stereotype and

Page | 22

focusing on reorganization on these areas can boost conference attendance from Baby-

boomer delegates. Young age delegates are expecting usage of technology

appropriately in conferences (Davidson and Rogers, 2006). This information about

conferences helps to form some general conclusions related to trade shows.

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction to the chapter This chapter outlines the research methodology of this research. This chapter aims to

establish the possible research designs and to explain choices made in order to achieve

the best quality results. Details of the methodologies used will be explained in detail

in this chapter.

3.2 Philosophical approach The philosophical approach is an essential first step of the research. The adopted

philosophy includes crucial assumptions which shape the research strategy and

methods of the study (Saunders et al., 2012). It is also important to reflect upon the

philosophical approach adopted and defend it with the alternative options could have

adopted (Johnson and Clark, 2006). For this reason, the following part will explain the

possible philosophical approaches and the choice made in detail.

According to Mackenzie and Knipe, (2006), the most common research philosophies

are positivism, interpretivism, transformatism and pragmatism. Explanations of these

philosophical approaches as follows:

The positivist approach emphasizes the concepts of independence of reality and the

aim of this philosophy is to discover the theories (Collis and Hussey, 2009). In other

words, positivism focused on facts, not impressions. (Saunders et al. ,2012). The

knowledge is provided from positive information in this approach. Walliman (2001,

p.15) describes positivist approach as ''Every rationally justifiable assertion can be

scientifically verified or is capable of logical or mathematical proof''.

Interpretivism is not an objective paradigm, it is highly subjective and this paradigm

claims that the reality is affected by the act of investigating it (Collis and Hussey,

Page | 23

2009). The main difference of interpretivism from the other paradigms is the data is

not collected by quantitative methods (Strauss and Corbin, 1990).

The transformatist approach is generally against the interpretivist approach in terms of

addressing the questions in an appropriate way (Mackenzie and Knipe, (2006). The

transformatist approach may use the qualitative and quantitative approach. However,

the mixed methods also can be used in transformative paradigm to structure the

development of the research more completely (Mackenzie and Knipe, 2006).

The pragmatist approach emphasizes the concepts are only relevant where they support

the action (Kelemen and Rumens, 2008). According to Rossman and Wilson (1985),

pragmatist researcher emphasizes the question and uses all relevant approaches rather

than focusing on methods. The pragmatist approach asks „how‟ and „what‟ questions.

Whilst, looking at their answers at the same time and pragmatists put the research

question in the heart of the research, then develop the research using all approaches to

understand the question (Creswell, 2003). The pragmatist approach provides

fundamental philosophy for mixed method researches (Tashakkori and Teddlie , 2003).

This study has adopted the positivist approach since the research is based on an

existing theory and the data collection techniques that will be explained and discussed

in future sections, the most relevant approach to use to test the theory with statistica l

relevance was the positivist paradigm.

3.3 Research approach Quantitative and qualitative research methods are the most often used types in

researches. These methods are explained in detail below.

Mujis (2004) states that quantitative design may be used in situations where

researchers have specific questions in mind which can be answered 'yes' or 'no' type of

closed questions. Saunders et al. (2012) state that quantitative methods refer to both

primary and secondary data.

The qualitative method is described as ''Qualitative researchers are interested in

understanding the meaning people have constructed, that is, how people make sense

Page | 24

of their world and the experiences they have in the world'' (Merriam, 2009, p.13). This

method is used for understanding participants‟ knowledge, experience, process and

systems and so forth.

However, besides the two main methods mentioned above, mixing the quantitative and

qualitative methods called mixed methods. Mixed method research is defined as ''The

class of research where the researcher mixes or combines quantitative and qualitat ive

research techniques, methods approaches, concepts, or language into a single study”

(Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004, p. 17). Mixing both methods will help to understand

and analyse the details of the research topic.

Induction and deduction are two ways to find out what is true and what is false and

these are two stages of creating theories, either with empirical observations or with

logical reasoning (Ghauri and Grønhaug, 2005). Crowther and Lancaster (2009) link

the deductive approach to positivist philosophy and inductive approach to interpretivis t

approach.

Table 3: Deductive versus Inductive research (Saunders et al. 2009, p.144)

Deduction Induction

Logic When the ideas are true, the The ideas are used to generate

results must be true as well

untested conclusions

Generalisability From general to specific From specific to general

Data Use Data collection is used to Data collection is used to

evaluate hypotheses related to

explore a phenomenon and to

existing theory crea te a conc e ptu al fram e w or k

Theory Theory falsification or Theory generation and

veri fica t ion building

In the light of the methodology literature discussed above, this research is conducted

on quantitative approach since the hypothesis was built on an existing theory and the

nature of the research includes a great number of respondents. The most appropriate

method to use was the quantitative method. Since the hypothesis made is based on a

theory, deductive approach was adopted.

Page | 25

3.4 Research triangulation, reliability and validity Triangulation is another technique to strengthen the study conducted. Triangulation is

the use of various sources of data with various methods and searching the same

phenomenon with different sources to increase the validity and reliability of the

research (Collis and Hussey, 2009).

According to Easterby-Smith et al. (1991) triangulation has different types such as:

Theory triangulation : Explaining the phenomenon with the theory taken from

a discipline into another discipline.

Data Triangulation : Collecting the data from different sources or at a different

time.

Investigator Triangulation: Data collection by different researchers to

investigate the phenomenon.

Methodological Triangulation: Using multiple methods to collect or analys ing

the data from the same paradigm.

Altrichter et al. (2008, p.147) describe triangulation "Gives a more detailed and

balanced picture of the situation''. According to this statement, this study used data

triangulation in order to maximize the understanding of the research question.

Golafshani (2003, p.599) summarizes the reliability and validity of the quantitat ive

researches as " Firstly, with regards to reliability, whether the result is replicable.

Secondly, with regards to validity, whether the means of measurement are accurate and

whether they are actually measuring what they are intended to measure". This research

conducted questions in order that the results can be replicable for future studies.

Crocker and Algina (1986) discuss the issue of whether a respondent answer only one

set of questions, the researcher only can obtain limited behaviours. This research only

focused on generations‟ social media usage behaviours. For validity of the research is

construct validity was adopted as general approach in quantitative researches. The data

were gathered and constructed in the hypothesis (Wainer and Braun, 1988).

Page | 26

3.5 Research method and design

A research can use different methods according to adopted research philosophy.

Table 4: Research Methods According to Paradigms Adapted from (Mackenzie and Knipe, 2006)

Paradig m Method Data Collect io n

Positivism Quantitative Expe rim e n ts, surve ys , scale s

Qual i tat ive Intervie w s, obser va t ion s, docum e n t

Interpret iv is m reviews and data analysis

Transforma tiv e Quant i tat ive with qual ita t ive Mixe d range of tools part ic ula r need to

metho d s and mixe d metho ds

avoid discrimination. Eg. Sexism,

racism

Pragmatic Quali ta tiv e and/or quant i tat ive . Tools from both Posit ivist and

Meth od s are matc he d with the Interp ret ivist para dig m s.

specific questions and purpose of Intervie w s and surve y s can be used

the rese a rc h togeth e r.

Interviews ,observations, focus groups and surveys are the most common methods to

use in a study. A brief description of these methods is explained below.

McNamara (1999) found interviews useful in order to understand interviewees‟

experiences and getting in depth information about the background of the answer

given.

Interviews are divided three groups by King and Horrocks (2010) as :

Structured interviews

Semi-structured interviews

Unstructured or in-depth interviews

Observations are concerned with what sampling population in their natural

environment and according to Collis and Hussey (2009 p.154) ''Observation is a

method for collecting the data in a laboratory or natural setting to observe and record

the participants' actions and behaviours''.

Page | 27

Types of observations are :

Non-participant observations

Participant observations

Focus groups are used to gather information with certain group of people's opinions or

emotions and this method can be used to obtain feedback or developing knowledge

about a phenomenon (Collis and Hussey, 2009)

Surveys are another method to collect data in which respondents are asked to the

answer same set of questions (De Vaus, 2002). Ghauri and Grønhaug (2005) argue that

questionnaires are effective tool to understand the opinions and to get descriptions with

cause and effect relation.

After evaluating the possible methods, this study used questionnaires to match with

the research objectives. Since the research question includes population of visitors

from different generational cohorts visitors, it was not suitable to interview a large

number of people. Observation was not a possible method to understand the visitors'

attitudes about social media tools at a trade show. The only possible option to use a

different method was by exploring the marketing professionals. However, interviewing

the professionals was not possible and the reason for this choice is explained in

limitations part of the study.

Saunders et al. (2012) listed the types of questionnaire as:

Self-completed questionnaires

Web based questionnaires

Postal questionnaires

Collection questionnaires

Interviewer completed questionnaires

Telephone questionnaires

The chosen type of questionnaires was interviewer completed questionnaires with

visitors and web based questionnaires with marketing professionals. Designing the

questions of the questionnaire is an important factor for meeting the aimed data. Thus,

the busy nature of the trade shows was a determining factor for chosen type of

questionnaires. Interviewer completed questionnaires have better response rate than

Page | 28

self-completed questionnaires (Saunders et al., 2012). Questionnaires can be either

analytic surveys, which tests a theory with logic, descriptive surveys which are

concerned with identifying the phenomena (Ghauri and Grønhaug, 2005). Descriptive

surveys are mostly used to identify customer attitudes towards a product or a service

and the aim of the questions are to establish the attitudes towards social media

marketing of different generations (Reeves and Harper, 1981). Therefore, a descriptive

questionnaire was designed. To decide whether the questions will be open ended or

close ended questions is crucial for questionnaire design. Open ended questions may

affect the structure of the questionnaire and since the target population was large, close

ended questionnaire was designed in order to make the coding process easier.

Over all, in total 16 closed questions with four filter questions were designed and

completed by the researcher .The sample of questionnaire can be found in the

Appendix A.1. The questionnaire comprises as follows :

1. Age distribution

2. Main Reason for attending

3. Preferred device to use internet

4. Webpage usage

5. Webpage usage frequency

6. Online registration rate

7. Mobile application download rate

8. The reason for downloading the mobile application

9. Online additional informative event checking rates

10. Social Media Tools Preferences

11. Official Twitter account following

12. Reason for following the Twitter account

13. Tweeting rates

14. Official Facebook page likes

15. Reason for liking the Facebook page

16. YouTube video views

Page | 29

A web-based questionnaire, with eight closed questions including three interva l

questions was designed. The sample of questionnaire can be found in the Appendix

A.2.

The questionnaire comprises as follows :

1. Importance of social media

2. Social media tools preferences

3. Preferred tools use durations

4. Importance of preferred tools

5. Primary objectives for using social media

6. Success measurement of social media

7. Demographic information captures

8. Arranging the content according to different generational cohorts

3.6 Sampling Once the research problem specified and the appropriate research design and the

instruments developed the sampling is an extremely important phase for quantitative

research. (Ghauri and Grønhaug, 2005). Saunders et al. (2012) divide the main

sampling techniques into two groups:

Probability sampling

Non-probability sampling

Probability sampling is defined as each unit in the target population having a chance

of being selected and this type of sampling is aimed at reducing the sampling errors

(Ghauri and Grønhaug, 2005). Probability sampling is divided into four groups by

Brotherton (2008) such as: simple random, systematic random, stratified random and

cluster sampling. Brink and Wood (1994) associate the random sampling with

generalisability in terms of greater sampling sizes directly affecting the generalisabil ity

of the study on entire population.

In contrast, in non-probability sampling not all the units in the population has an equal

chance of being selected. However, this sampling type can cause non-response error

which means some people refuse to participate (Ghauri and Grønhaug, 2005).

Page | 30

Non-probability sampling is also divided into different groups such as: quota

sampling, purposive sampling, volunteer sampling and haphazard sampling.

This study used non-probability purposive sampling strategy for first set of

questionnaires The target population of this questionnaire includes trade show visitors.

The data was collected at three different trade shows in London area. First set of was

data collected from The Meetings Show at Olympia on 9th of July 2014. This trade

show was for meetings industry professionals. 33 samples were collected from this

show. A pilot study was conducted on 6 participants and the second question was re-

designed after this pilot test. This question was designed as likert scale style. However,

this caused non-response error because of the lack of time for the respondents and the

question was affecting the sampling rate. Thus, 6 of these responses were not analysed.

At the end, only 27 responses were used from this show.

The second set of data was collected from Bubble London at Business Design Centre

on 13th and 14th of July 2014. This trade show was for children clothing and

accessories industry professionals. 32 samples were collected from this show.

The third set of data was collected from London Textile Fair at Business Design Centre

on 16th and 17th of July 2014. This trade show was for textile industry professiona ls

and 47 samples were collected from this show.

Overall, in total 106 samples were collected all the data was completed by the

researcher.

This study used non-probability volunteer sampling strategy for the second set of

questionnaires. The target population of this questionnaire includes trade show

marketing professionals.

The data was designed in web-based survey tool called ''Kwik Surveys''

(www.kwiksurveys.com) and published at LinkedIn on trade show and trade show

marketing professionals groups. These groups are as follows : Tradeshow Marketing

Pros, Tradeshow Marketing, The Exhibition and Events Platform, The Internationa l

Association of Exhibitions and Events, Exhibition News Magazine and Exhibitors.

Page | 31

Non-probability sampling was also used for this set of questionnaire. Total of 14

samples were collected by 21st of August.

3.7 Methods of data analysis Ghosh (2002) discusses the purpose of data analysis as building an intellectual model

which helps to create relationships and to draw meaningful conclusions.

For quantitative data analysis, the results were entered into Microsoft Excel and the

results from KwikSurveys also entered into an Excel table to draw frequency tables,

and graphs to identify valid percentages of the survey questions. Both of the

questionnaires included questions that allowed respondents to select more than one

answer. These questions were analysed in SPSS by coding each response as a separate

variable and then grouped under a multiple response set of variables and used for

frequency counts. Then the results were also added into Excel. The graphs of each

question can be found in the appendices section.

3.8 Ethical considerations Ethical issues was considered in each step of the study, which involves human beings.

Ethical compliance form was filled out for two sets of surveys which includes project

title, brief outline of the study. The questionnaires were conducted only after the

approval of the ethical form. The permission e-mails for making the surveys at venues,

were sent to the organizers. However, only one acceptance came from the organizers

of London Textile Fair, from Bubble London there was no reply from the organizers,

though there were no rejection e-mail were sent either. For The Meetings Show, the

surveys were collected outside of the venue. The only sensitive question was asked is

the participants age. For dealing with this problem, while the respondents been

informed about the project title before participation, they were also informed that the

first question would be focus on their age. Only over 18 years old were involved to the

surveys. All the survey papers had a introductory paragraph, which included the

information about confidentiality and the collected data be kept and guaranteed under

the Data Protection Act 1998. All the data was collected was kept in researcher‟s

password protected computer and the written documents were kept in a locked drawer.

Page | 32

3.9 Limitations of the study The chosen trade shows were located United Kingdom, London area, as a result of this,

the findings will be restricted within this area. This limitation might affect the

universalism of the study. Another limitation of the study was the sampling size. The

low response rate experienced in this study due to busy business environment of the

trade shows. Higher response rate would potentially have led to more statistica lly

significant results. As a result of low response rate, the sampling sizes between the

generations were not equally distributed . Since non-probability sampling was used,

this may affect the generalisability of the research.

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND FINDINGS

4.1 Introduction First chapter explains the results of the questionnaires conducted with trade show

visitors. This chapter includes an analysis of the different variables to establish the

trade show visitor attitudes towards Web 2.0 marketing and other online technology

tools at trade shows and this followed by the analysis of the trade show marketing

professionals' practices on social media marketing and generations. This section is

explained under five different sub-sections of :

i. Age distribution

ii. Main reason for attending the trade show of different generations

iii. Webpage and mobile application usage at trade shows of different generations

iv. Attitudes towards Web 2.0 tools and trade show social media marketing tools Of

different generations

v. Trade show marketing professionals' practices towards social media marketing

usage.

Finally, this chapter ends with a critical discussion of the findings and their connections

with the existing literature in order to see if the results support the literature or

contradict it.

Page | 33

4.2 Statistical analysis of results

i. Age distribution The first question of the questionnaire was a filter question, which was used to analyse

and separate the generational cohorts. As noted on methodology chapter in details, the

research population at trade shows comprised 106 participants. The age distribution of

the participants is shown in figure 5 below:

12.2%

54-71 Baby- Bo om er 25.5% Generation

62.3% 33-53 Generation X

18-32 Generation Y

Figure 5: Age distribution

As can be seen from the figure 5, 12.2% of the participants are between the ages 54-

71, which represents the Baby-Boomer Generation. 25.5% of the participants are

between the ages 33-53, which represents the Generation X. Finally, 62.3% of the

participants are between the ages 18-32, which represents the Generation Y.

ii. Main reason for attending the trade show of different generations

The second question sought to establish reasons for attending the trade show in order

to form a conclusion about the social media tools usage according to their motivations.

The result of the question is shown Appendix B.1.

The results show that the main attendance motivations for Baby-Boomers is making

business contacts (30.8%), followed by general interest with 23.1%, to gather specific

product information 15.4%. To gather industry information for purchasing and

attending seminars and conferences are equal reasons with 7.7% for the Baby-Boomer

Generation. However, seeing new products is not a motivation for Baby-boomers

(0%). For Generation X , the highest motivation for attendance is making business

contacts (33.3%). The next motivation for this generation is to gather

Page | 34

industry information for purchasing with 29.6%. This is followed by seeing new

products 25.9% , purchasing 7.4% and gathering specific product information 3.7%.

However, attending seminars/conferences and general interest was not ranked as a

reason by Generation X population. Finally, for Generation Y population, the strongest

motivation for attending is gathering information for purchasing with 36.4%, followed

by seeing new products with 21.2 %, making business contacts 18.2%, general interest

10.6%, purchasing 3.0%, while the lowest motivational factor was gathering specific

product information. In the light of these results, each generational cohort has different

motivations for attending a trade show. However, the Baby-Boomer Generation and

Generation X population attended trade shows primarily for networking reasons.

iii. Webpage and mobile application usage at trade shows of

different generations

The following question on the questionnaire sought to establish the types of devices

used by the different generations in order to determine if the preferences for devices

is portable as opposed to not portable, which affects the accessibility to internet at

trade shows. This question can also indicate some information on social media tools

usage at trade shows. Another reason is to establish the mobile application

improvements if needed, according to their smart device usage.

(%)

Baby-boomers Generation X Generation Y

47.0

40.7 38.5 37.9

23.1 25.9 25.9

15.4 15.4

7.4 3.0 4.5 7.4 0.0

0.0

Desktop comp ute r Laptop Tablets Smart phones PDA

Figure 6: Preferred device to use internet

Page | 35

Figure 6 above shows that both Generation Y (47.0%) and Generation X (40.7%)

members mostly use their laptops to access the internet. However, Baby-Boomers

prefer to use tablets more than the other two generations (38.5%). Generation X

members are use tablets and smartphones equally (25.9%). The lowest rate of tablet

usage occurred among the Generation Y population (4.5%) and for the smartphone

usage, the lowest rate was given by the Baby-Boomer members (15.4%). Desktop

computers are mostly preferred by the Baby-Boomer Generation (23.1%) and are the

least preferred device for both Generation Y (3.0%) and Generation X (7.4%).

However, PDA (Personal Digital Assistants) are only used by the Baby-Boomer

Generation (7.4%). Yet, this is the lowest preference for the Baby-Boomer Generation.

These results show that all generational cohorts mostly preferred portable devices and

the results indicate some similarities between Generation Y and Generation X

preferences.

The next question sought to establish the official web page usage and traffic in order

to see if the visitors prefer to gain information via a webpage instead of social media

marketing tools, as well as to establish the efficiency of the webpage as a marketing

tool.The graph related with this question can be found in appendix B.2. The results

show that a large portion of each generational cohorts visited the webpage and the

highest website visits were by the Baby-Boomer Generation (92.3%), followed by

Generation X (85.2%) and then followed by Generation Y( 81.8%).

The following question related to

analyse webpage usage frequency

figure 7 below.

each generations' webpage usage in order to by

each generation. The results are shown in

Baby-boomers Generation X Generation Y

78.3%

66.7% 61.1%

33.3% 27.8%

8.7% 8.3% 8.7% 9.3% 0.0%

4.3% 1.9%

only once 2-5 times 6-10 times More than 10 times

Figure 7: Web page visit frequency

Page | 36

It is immediately apparent that within each generation, most participants visited the

webpage 2 to 5 times. The rate of single webpage visits by each generation decreases

considerably, with a further decrease in the percentage of participants from each

generation visiting the website between 6 to 10 times. A small portion of the

Generation X (4.3%) and Generation Y (1.9%) members visited the webpage more

than 10 times while no Baby-Boomers visited the website more than 10 times.

The online registration rates at trade show results are directly related to the website

visits (see Appendix B.3). A possible reason for this relationship is that the online

registration directions are mainly located on the event's official webpage. All

generations who registered online automatically visited the web site. The results are as

follows: the Baby-Boomer Generation registered 92.3% online and 7.7% registered

offline. These results are followed by Generation X registered 85.2% online and 14.8%.

registered offline. The final and lowest online registration (81.8%) and lowest offline

registration results (12.8%) was given by Generation Y.

The next stage of this line of research was to establish whether visitors downloaded

the mobile applications or not and to establish the reason for downloading the

application.

Surprisingly, the greatest number of respondents from each generational cohort were

not interested in trade show mobile applications (see Appendix B.4). Generation X

members were the highest population to indicate they had not downloaded the mobile

application (92.6%), followed by Generation Y (78.8%). Lastly, 69.2% of Baby-

Boomers did not download the mobile application.

The next question was designed to discover the reasons behind downloading the

mobile application. Reponses to this question only include the visitors who

downloaded the mobile application and as the respondents could choose multip le

answers, this question was analysed in SPSS using the dichotomy technique in order

to obtain the percentage of each answer by using the multiple response set.

Page | 37

64.3% Gaining information about the

44.4% 50% 50% show programme

33.3% Online bookings with the

22.2% 21.4% exhibitors

14.3% Networking

0

Baby-boomers Gene ra tio n X Generation Y

Figure 8: The reason for downloading the mobile application

The results illustrate that the Baby-Boomer Generation mostly downloaded the mobile

application for networking reasons (44.4%). This reason is closely followed by gaining

information about the show programme (33.3%). The weakest reason for this

generation was online booking with the exhibitors (22.2%). Generation X respondents'

results were evenly distributed with regard to the reason of gaining information about

the programme (50%) and networking (50%). Surprisingly, Generation X respondents

did not choose online bookings with exhibitors as a reason for downloading the mobile

application. The largest number of Generation Y participants downloaded the mobile

application to gain information about the programme (64.3%). This choice was

followed by networking reasons (21.4%) and online bookings with exhibitors (14.3%).

Question 7 of the questionnaire sought to establish if trade show visitors were attracted

or not attracted by the distribution of additional event information through the online

tools. The results of this question are displayed in figure 9 below.

Baby-Boomers Generation X Generation Y

37%

23.1% 23.7%

Figure 9: Checking Seminars/Conferences Online Before Visit

Page | 38

The results of this question clearly show that finding online event information

distribution is generally less attractive to all three generations, compare to other

reasons. Only 37% of the Generation X population answered that they checked the

additional informative events online followed almost evenly with by Generation Y

23.7% and of the Baby-Boomer generation 23.1%. Interestingly, the highest results

belong to Generation X. However, comparing this information with the attendance

motivation results, attending conferences and seminars were not a motivation for

Generation X. On the other hand, the results of question 7 are generally in line with

the attendance motivations for Generation Y and the Baby-Boomer generation.

iv. Attitudes towards Web 2.0 tools and trade show social media

marketing tools of different generations

The following analysis sought to establish the attitudes towards Web 2.0 tools of

different generations in order to analyse if their general Web 2.0 usages met with the

results of at show usages. The Results for this question are shown below in figure 10.

(%)

Baby -b oo m e r sG e n e rat io n X Generation Y

96.3 95.5

85.2 84.8

81.5 84.6

69.2 74.2

57.6 55.6 61.5

53.8

53.0

48.1 53.0

40.7

38.5

30.8

25.9 27.3

14.8

7.7 7.1 7.6

Facebook Twitter Linkedin Youtube Pinterest Google+ Blogging sites Others

Figure 10: Social Media Tools Preferences

In general, Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn are the most preferred social media tools

of all the generations. However, LinkedIn is the only equally preferred tool of all the

generations and most preferred tool of the Baby-Boomer Generation. On almost every

social media tool there is a similarity between Generation X and Generation Y. The

YouTube preferences decrease starting with Generation Y to Baby-boomers. With

Pinterest, the results show that more than half of the Generation X (55.6%) and

Page | 39

Generation Y (53%) populations preferred to use it. However, for Pinterest the lowest

result belongs to the Baby-Boomer Generation (38.5%). Google+ was the third most

preferred tool of the Baby-Boomer Generation with 61.5%, followed by Generation Y

(53%) and Generation X with 40.7%. Blogging sites had lower results compared with

the previous tools on all generations. However, the respondents were invited to specify

other Web 2.0 tools that they used; 14.8% of Generation X members added other social

media tools such as Instagram (3 respondents) and Tumblr (1 respondent). 7.6% of the

Generation Y population specified the same social media tools as Generation X -

Instagram (4 respondents) and Tumblr (1 respondent). These additions are parallel with

other social media preferences for both generations. Lastly, 1 respondent from the

Baby-Boomer Generation population at 7.1%, specified another social media tool

called Baidu.

The final five questions were designed to establish the at-show social media tools usage

by the different generations. Accordingly, the next question sought to establish the

official Twitter account usage by the three different generations. This question was

answered only by the respondents who had a Twitter account. The percentages do not

indicate the total number of respondents. The results shown in figure 11 below.

Baby-Boomers Generation X Generation Y

31.8% 28.6%

18.4%

Figure 11: Following the official Twitter Account Interestingly, the greatest proportions of respondents who have Twitter accounts do

not use this tool. Highly significantly, 81.6% of Generation Y respondents do not

follow the official Twitter account of the trade show. This result is followed by the

Baby-Boomer Generation with 71.4% and 68.2% of Generation X respondents.

Official Twitter account following rates start to decrease from Generation X (31.8%),

followed by the Baby-Boomer Generation (28.6%) and Generation Y (18.4%). More

Page | 40

than a quarter of Baby-Boomer and Generation X members were interested in the trade

show Twitter account.

The next question sought to establish the reasons for visitors following Twitter in order

to determine the possible motivations for subsequent use.

Gaining information about the event Finding out about the competitors Networking

50% 50%

40% 40%

33.3%

25% 25% 20%

16.7%

Baby-boomers Gene ra tio n X Gene ra tio n Y

Figure 12: Reasons for following the Twitter Account

As the results of the question are displayed in the figure 12 above, it is apparent that

the most popular reason for following the Twitter account for both the Baby-Boomer

Generation and Generation Y was gaining information about the event with 50% for

both generations. A quarter of Baby-Boomer Generation participants gave even

importance to finding out about the competitors and networking with 25%. Likewise,

Generation X participants gave an even importance to gaining information about the

event and finding out about the competitors with 40%. However only 20% of

Generation X participants followed the Twitter account for networking purposes.

Generation Y members followed the Twitter account secondly for finding out about

the competitors (33.3%) and lowest portion of this population used the Twitter account

for networking reason (16.7%). It can be generalized that each generations commonly

followed the Twitter account for gaining information about the event.

The last question related to Twitter sought to establish the tweeting action about the

event.

Despite the fact that 28.6% of Baby-Boomer Generation participants followed the

Twitter account, only 14.3% of them tweeted about the trade show, which is the lowest

result compared with the other two generations. However, for both Generation X

(22.7%) and Generation Y (16.3%) a similar number of each group that followed

Page | 41

the trade show Twitter account, also tweeted about the event as well. of the Generation

Y members tweeted about the trade show. Generation X population showed the highes t

rate of tweeting about the event.( Appendix B.5)

The following two questions of the questionnaire sought to establish official Facebook

page likes and the reasons behind it in order to determine the possible motivations for

subsequent use.

Baby-Boomers Generation X Generation Y

19.2% 20.6%

11.8%

Figure 13: Official Facebook Page Likes As with Twitter, Facebook page likes from each generations were generally very low.

However, comparing these two social media tools results, Facebook likes are slightly

lower than Twitter results. Generation Y (20.6%) and Generation X (19.2%) show very

similar percentages. However, the Baby-Boomer Generation population's results are

the lowest (11.8%).

Gaining information about the event Finding out about the competitors Networking

66.7%

50% 50%

42.9% 42.9%

14.3%

20%

13.3%

0%

Baby -bo o m er s Generation X Gene ra tio n Y

Figure 14: Reason for following the Facebook page It can be seen from the preceding graph that 50% of the Baby-Boomer Generation

liked the official Facebook page for gaining information. This is similar to the

Page | 42

Twitter results. However, for Facebook, none of the Boomer population gave

importance to finding out about the competitors and networking purposes was doubled

to 50%. For Generation Y, it is clear that gaining information about the event and

finding out about the competitors were evenly important (42.9%). Yet, networking as

a reason is only 14.3%. Generation Y gave the main reason for liking the Facebook

page as gaining information about the event (66.7%) and a dramatic decrease can be

seen from the table, when compared to the Twitter results related to finding out about

the competitors (20%) and networking purposes (13.3%).

Finally, visitors were asked whether they had watched the official YouTube video of

the trade show.

As with the other three social media tools, YouTube video views rates are low.

However, the most significant finding is that the Baby-Boomer Generation preferred to

watch YouTube video more than other generations (23.1%). Generation X (12.1%) and

Generation Y (7.4%) participants showed a similar attitude towards watching the

official YouTube about the trade show as each other.(Appendix B.6)

Also another significance fact that almost all participants indicated that they were not

aware that these tools existed for these events because they simply had not noticed the

icons on the webpage of the event.

v. Trade show marketing professionals' perspective on social

media marketing at trade shows and generations

The first question asked of the trade show marketing professionals aimed to analyse

marketers' perspective on social media marketing at trade shows. 42.8% of the

respondents found social media marketing very important according to their marketing

plans and 35.7% of the respondents found social media marketing important according

to their marketing plans. However 21.4% of respondents are still neutral to social

media marketing. None of the respondents ranked the social media unimportant or very

unimportant. This shows social media marketing has a role in trade show

marketing.(Appendix B.7)

Page | 43

On the following question of the questionnaire, professionals were asked to choose

social media tools which they use on their social media marketing plans, The results

of this question can be found in figure 15.

20.4%

18.6% 18.6%

14.8%

11%

7.4% 5.6% 3.6%

Faceb oo k TwitterLinkedin Youtube Pinterest Google + Blogs Mobile Apps

Figure 15: Preferred Tools For Social Media Marketing

20.4% of the professionals preferred to use LinkedIn primarily. Next Facebook and

Twitter were evenly distributed at 18.6%. These results were followed by YouTube

(14.8%), Blogs (11%) and mobile applications(5.6%). The least ranked tool was

Pinterest with 3.6%.

The next question sought to establish the importance of each tool to professiona ls

according to their trade show marketing plans.

Very Unimportant Neutral Important Very Unimporta n t Importa nt

Facebook

(14.2% ) (0.0%) (28.5% ) (42.8%) (14.2% )

Twitter

(14.2% ) (7.1%) (28.5%) (21.4% ) (28.5%)

Linkedin

(7.1%) (14.2%) (28.5% ) (14.2% ) (35.7%)

Youtube

(7.1%) (28.5%) (21.4% ) (7.1%) (35.7%)

Pinterest

(21.4% ) (42.8%) (28.5% ) (7.1%) (0.0%)

Google +

(28.5%) (28.5%) (7.1%) (21.4% ) (14.2% )

Blogs

(14.2% ) (21.4%) (21.4% ) (35.7%) (7.1%)

Mobile

Apps (42.8%) (14.2%) (14.2% ) (14.2% ) (14.2% )

Figure 16: Importance of the tools

Page | 44

The results shows that the two most important tools were LinkedIn and YouTube for

professionals, evenly distributed at 35.7%. The third ranked tool was Twitter (28.5%).

However, 28.5% of the professionals considered Twitter neutral to their marketing

plans. Facebook was next ranked as an important tool by marketers with 42.8%,with

Blogs ranked at 35.7%., Pinterest (42.8%) and Google + (28.5%) were considered an

unimportant tools for trade show marketing. However, 28.5% of professionals ranked

Google+ very unimportant. Surprisingly , mobile applications were seen as a very

unimportant for trade show marketing plans. Even so, 14.2% of the professiona ls

ranked mobile applications as very important.

The next question sought to establish the engagement of marketing professionals with

the given tools. The graph related with this question can be found in appendix B.8. The

results show that professionals had utilised YouTube (55.5%), LinkedIn (55.5%),

Facebook (40%), Blogs (40%) and Twitter (36.3%) for more than 2 years. Pinterest

and Google+ are just beginning to be used by most professionals, with 50% of them

indicating that they had only started using these tools within the last 6 months.

However, mobile applications are considered by the professionals as a very

unimportant tool, as 40% of the professionals had used mobile applications for between

6 months to 1 year.

The next question sought to establish the objectives of the professionals in using social

media tools. The graph related with this question can be found in appendix B.9.Brand

awareness and customer engagement were the highest (and evenly) ranked reasons

with 32.4% of the professionals. Customer support (18.9%) was closely followed by

customer loyalty (16.2%).

The next question sought to analyse the success measurements in social media

marketing of the professionals. The graph related with this question can be found in

appendix B.10. Most of the trade show marketing professionals responded that they

measure the success of their social media marketing performance with

followers/shares/likes (42.3%). 30.8% of the respondents choose to check comments

to measure success and 26.9% of the respondents choose to monitor hashtags to

measure the success of their practices.

The last two questions of the questionnaire were designed to establish the

professionals' perspective to multi-generational marketing.

Page | 45

On the following question, professionals were asked if they capture demographic

information on their social media marketing efforts. The graph related with this

question can be found in appendix B.11. More than half of the respondents answered

that they are not currently capturing the demographic information (64.3%). Only

21.4% of the professionals captured the demographic information and other 14.3% of

the participants do not think that this is important.

Lastly, the professionals were asked if they arrange their social media contents

according to different generations' interests or needs.

Arranging

Not arran ging

36%

64%

Figure 17: Arranging the contents according to generations interests or needs As can be seen from the figure 17 above, 64.3% of the respondents answered they do

not. However, 35.7% of the professionals arrange their contents according to different

generations' interest or needs.

4.3 Findings This chapter aims to give a critical discussion of the findings and the analysis, in the

light of existing literature as discussed previously in chapter two. The overall aim of

this study was to examine the effectiveness of social media marketing tools on the

Baby-Boomer Generation, Generation X and Generation Y trade show visitors.

As noted in the literature review, there is not too many academic research which

demonstrates the social media marketing effects on different generational cohorts at

trade shows. Rittichainuwat and Mair (2012) explain the motivational factors under

four main titles. The results show the main attendance motivations distribution

supporting the information that they gave. Applying these motivational factors to each

generation, as Breiter and Milman (2006) found in their research the most

Page | 46

popular reason given is networking opportunities with 61.6%. That is strongly

evidenced in the results section. 33.3% of Generation X and 30.8% of the Baby-

Boomer Generation main reason for attendance is networking. As Rosson and

Seringhaus (1995) discuss another major purpose of attendance is gathering

information from exhibitors and investigating products. For 36.4% of the Generation

Y population, gathering industry information for purchasing was the main reason.

The results of the preferred device for connecting to internet are quite surprising. The

Baby-Boomer Generation are considered as technologically old fashioned. However,

for 38.5% of them , the most preferred device was tablets, which supports the Madison

and Bockanic (2014) statement that most of the Boomer Generation members has

embraced the new technologies. As discussed by many authors, Generation X and

Generation Y are highly technology savvy ,with 40.7% of Generation X and 47% of

Generation Y preferring laptops as a primary device. However, as Reisenwitz and Iyer

(2009) mentioned, Generation Y is the only generation having interaction with phones

since their childhood. As a result of this, Generation Y population's second choice of

device was their smartphones.

The results of webpage usage of the trade shows are significant. More than 80% of all

generations visited the website, and a large proportion of all three generations visited

the website between 2-5 times. As Ling-Yee (2010) discusses, greater usage of the

website comes from a higher customer orientation. In the light of the existing literature,

this indicates trade shows are successful with their customer orientation.

The Baby-Boomer Generation is the most online registered generation, while

Generation Y is the least online registered generation. Online registration rates are

directly linked with the webpage visits. Visitors who visit the webpage also registered

online . This conclusion supports Davidson et al. (2002) suggestion that the visitors

having registered online are led to seek other information on the webpage. Thus, the

online registration indirectly increases the webpage visit rate.

Generation X is the generation least interested in mobile applications, while the Baby-

Boomer Generation is the generation most interested in mobile applications. The

reason given for the Baby-Boomer Generation population's usage of mobile

applications is for networking, for Generation X the two reasons given are networking

and gaining information about the show programme, while for

Page | 47

Generation Y gaining information about the event programme is the main reason given.

Overall , rates of mobile application downloads were very low compared to webpage

usage. This supports the argument of Davidson et al. (2002) that the webpage may

contain the show programme and online appointment opportunities are mainly

accessed through the webpage instead of mobile applications.

The information distribution of the additional events such as seminars and conferences

online was not effective on the three generations. However, the results show that the

motivational factors are also in line with checking additional information online. For

Generation X, attending seminars and conferences was not a reason for attending. This

generation's strongest motivation was networking though the highest results belongs

to this generation. This clearly supports Tanner et al. (2001) statement that seminars and conferences are important at tradeshows in terms

of networking. Therefore, these results are not surprising.

The generations' social media tools preferences clearly supports the argument of

Reisenwitz and Iyer, (2009) that in terms of Generation Y and Generation X tendencies

are similar. Thus, these two generations can be considered as a homogenous segment.

When compared to the Baby-Boomer Generation the difference is clear.

According to Holloman (2013) Twitter is by far the most common tool at trade shows

rather than Facebook However, the results of this study show this can only be

generalized for Baby-Boomer and Generation X members. Generation Y differs from

what Holloman (2013) stated. Facebook is the most appropriate channel to reach the

Generation Y population. According to the Hale's (2010) report, Twitter is a good

source of marketing to Baby-Boomer Generation and the results of the research support

this statement. However, according to the same report, YouTube is an effective

marketing channel to use on Generation Y. The results of the research contradict Hale's

(2010) report as with 7.4% Generation Y is the generation least interested in YouTube

video of the trade show. Ezumah (2013) argues that Generation Y has great insight to

digital marketing. However, generally this contradicts with the Ezumah's (2013)

statement as well, since Generation Y population did not show significant positive

differences compared to the other two generations. Moreover, a considerable

proportion of all generations used these tools

Page | 48

for gaining information about the event, which supports Kirtis and Karahan (2011)

research results that 60% of the respondents use social media sites to deliver

information.

The results of the questionnaire with trade show marketing professionals, contradicts

Tsimonis and Dimitriadis's (2014) argument that Twitter is the most popular

communication channel, followed by YouTube in second place with Facebook in third

place. However, the results of this research show that LinkedIn is the most common

tool followed by Twitter and Facebook, while Youtube comes in third place. However,

the importance ranking on these tools also shows an instability with the existing

literature, since trade marketing professionals ranked Twitter as the most used tool

followed by Youtube and LinkedIn, with Facebook coming in last place.

Browne (2012) argues that creating hashtags is common trend and it expands

communication and engagement at tradeshows. However, monitoring the hashtags is

a lower ranked reason for success measurement for professionals.

Dooley et al. (2012) argue that market segmentation on different demographic sub-

groups are essential for social media marketing, More than half of the respondents

answered that they are not capturing the demographic information. Moreover, 14.3%

of the participants do not think that this is important.

Walker (2003) argues the importance of multi-generational marketing in order to

increase customer loyalty. Reisenwitz and Iyer (2009) argue that marketing

professionals must shape their segmentation strategies according to the needs of

different generational cohorts. It appears that a significant proportion of the

respondents (64.3%) stated that they are not currently arranging their social media

efforts according to different generations' interest or needs.

It is observed in the primary analysis of this study with trade show visitors and trade

show marketing professionals that the results of this study are partly supported by

existing literature. However, there are many inconsistencies.

Based on the limited sample, the study found little evidence to support the hypothesis

that if each generation has different technological tendencies. However, the

effectiveness of the Web 2.0 marketing and the Web 2.0 and online technology tools'

usage differs slightly between generations and Generation X and Generation Y have

Page | 49

similar tendencies. The reasons of this justification of the hypothesis is explained in

details in following conclusion section.

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Introduction In the previous chapter, the results of the questionnaires were analysed and the findings

of the study were discussed in detail. This chapter provides an overview of the study,

together with the conclusions drawn and the resulting recommendations for future

researches.

The overriding purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of Web 2.0

marketing tools on Baby-Boomer, Generation X and Generation Y trade show visitors.

As discussed in chapter 1, this study has five main objectives of this study as follows:

1) To determine how different generations respond to social media marketing

tools

2) To analyse the social media marketing of the trade shows

3) To analyse and determine mobile application, online registration tools and the

internet usage of different generations at tradeshows

4) To analyse trade show marketing professionals' perspective in mult i-

generational marketing utilization

5) Pursue recommendations for future practice in the trade show marketing sector

5.2 Conclusions about the research Regarding the motivational factors for attending a trade show for the different

generations, this study has found that generally there are two main reasons. the Baby-

Boomer Generation and Generation X attend the trade shows for the same reason,

which is for networking. Generation Y trade show visitors attend the trade shows for

Page | 50

gaining information for purchasing. The results confirm existing literature about

visitors' motivations. This study did not confirm the Baby-Boomer generation's perceived lack of technology

use. By considering their webpage usage, tablets were found to be their preferred

device for accessing the internet, which can be considered as the most technologica lly

advanced device. This study did partially substantiate their trade show related tools

usage. Within all the generations, most preferred to use portable devices to access the

internet. However, the results do not show that this is a significant reason related to

their use of Web 2.0 tools at the trade shows. Generation X members do not visit trade

shows to attend additional informative events such as seminars and conferences.

However, they prefer to check if the event has any of these type of events in their

programme more than the other two generations.

The Web 2.0 tools use at trade shows and multi-generational strategies of the marketers

has also been researched. Some of the results contradict existing literature regarding

the appropriate Web 2.0 channels to use with different generations. The generation

considered as the most technologically skilled which is Generation Y, show much less

interaction with the trade show via YouTube videos, which is a surprising finding in

this research. The study confirmed Kirtis and Karahan (2011) that considerably high

numbers of Baby-Boomer, Generation X and Generation Y visitors used the Web 2.0

tools to deliver information.

It has been found that use of official event webpage from each generations are highly

positive and most of the different generation members visited the websites around 2 to

5 times. Giving an online registration option to the visitors indirectly affects the

webpage visits as well. The results of this investigation show that mobile applicat ion

usage is relatively low. Furthermore, another contradiction appeared in existing

literature about generations' technological behaviours, which is the Baby-Boomer

generation were the most responsive generation to mobile applications. The main

reason given by the Baby-Boomer Generation for downloading the application was

networking. For Generation X visitors, the two main reasons given were networking

and gaining information about the event. For Generation Y the most popular reason

given for using the application was to gain information about the event.

Page | 51

To conclude, it was determined that all the generations have a negative response to

Web 2.0 marketing tools at trade shows. Almost more than 70% of the three

generational cohorts were not interested in these marketing tools. The technologica l

behaviour differences of the generations discussed at chapter 2 cannot be generalized

to account for their social media marketing tools usage at tradeshows. However, as

discussed on the findings and literature review sections, there are many similarit ies

between Generation X and Generation Y members' responses to social media

marketing tools. The results of the study support what Reisenwitz and Iyer, (2009)

argue, that Generation X and Generation Y members may be considered as one

segment by the marketers since their behaviours show significant similarit ies.

However, Ezumah's (2013) statement was not supported in this research since the

Generation Y event attendees did not indicate a significant positive attitude to Web 2.0

tools in comparison to the other two generations. This study also found significant results regarding marketers' points of view on Web

2.0 tools and multi-generational marketing strategies. The most significant results

were firstly, Web 2.0 tools have a very important role in trade show marketing plans.

The most preferred tool for Web 2.0 marketing is LinkedIn for trade show marketing

professionals. According to literature, creating and monitoring the hashtags are

essential for creating a synchronisation between the visitors, yet the results show that

most professionals are unlikely to monitor the hashtags.

The final and major finding of the research is that most of the marketing professiona ls

are not capturing the demographic information of the users. Moreover, although over

60% of the respondents are not using multi-generational marketing strategies, the

marketers are not arranging their contents according to different generations' wants

and interests.

5.3 Recommendations The results of this research give some indication of how the different generations use

Web 2.0 tools at trade shows. Accordingly, some of the recommendations in order to

develop and improve Web 2.0 tools' usage by the different generations are described

below.

Page | 52

Due to the limitations of the study as mentioned previously in the methodology

chapter, future research should be conducted on a wider range of the population and locations over a wider area should be used.

A deeper investigation related to different generational cohorts and trade shows

should be conducted in order to draw more robust conclusions about

their behaviours at trade shows.

Research on the marketers' perspectives on multi-generational Web 2.0 marketing at trade shows should be repeated, since the results show that

marketers have still not completely embraced multi-generational strategies.

As mentioned in the results section, most of the visitors were not aware of the Web 2.0 tools' existence, therefore trade show marketers must update the

official event webpage with more visible icons of the Web 2.0 tools in use.

The findings of the research clearly indicate that trade show marketers have not embraced multi-generational marketing strategies yet; in the light of the

literature and the findings of this study it is recommended that they re-shape

their marketing strategies in order to reach different generations more

successfully.

Page | 53

REFERENCES

Altrichter, H., Feldman, A., Posch, P. and Somekh, B. (2008). Teachers investigate their work; An introduction to action research across the professions. Routledge

Avram, G. (2006) At the crossroads of knowledge management and social software, Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(1), pp. 1-10.

Ball, C. (2011) The Business Value of Mobile Apps for Meetings', Corbin Ball's

TechTalk Blog, Available at: http://corbinball.wordpress.com/2011/05/04/the-

business-value-of-mobile-apps-for-meetings (Accessed 5 August 2014).

Barber, N. (2013) 'Investigating the Potential Influence of the Internet as a New

Socialization Agent in Context with Other Traditional Socialization Agents', The

Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 21(2), pp. 179-194.

Bathelt, H. (2014) Trade shows in the globalizing knowledge economy, 1st ed, Oxford University Press. Baxter, G. and Connolly, T. (2013) The “state of art” of organisational blogging', The Learning Organization, 20(2), pp. 104-117

Bello, D. and Lohtia, R. (1993) Improving trade show effectiveness by analyzing attendees', Industrial Marketing Management, 22(4), pp. 311-318.

Bergh, B., Lee, M., Quilliam, E. and Hove, T. (2011) The multidimensional nature and

brand impact of user-generated ad parodies in social media, International Journal of

Advertising, 30(1), pp. 103-131.

Berne, C. and Garcia-Uceda, M. (2007). Targeting efficiencies among trade show non

attendees. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 15(3),

pp.146-157.

Berne, C. and Garcia-Uceda, M. (2008) 'Criteria involved in evaluation of trade shows to visit, Industrial Marketing Management, 37(5), pp. 565-579

Blythe, J. (2002) Using trade fairs in key account management, Industrial Marketing Management, 31(7), pp. 627-635. Borges, B. (2009) Marketing 2.0, 1st ed, Tucson: Wheatmark.

Borghini, S., Golfetto, F. and Rinallo, D. (2006) Ongoing search among industr ia l buyers, Journal of Business Research, 59(10), pp. 1151-1159.

Breiter, D. and Milman, A. (2006) Attendees‟ needs and service priorities in a large

convention center: Application of the importance performance theory, Tourism

Management, 27(6), pp. 1364-1370.

Page | 54

Brink, P. and Wood, M. (1994). Basic steps in planning nursing research. 4th ed. Boston: Jones and Bartlett.

Bronstein, J. (2013) Personal blogs as online presences on the internet: exploring self-

presentation and self-disclosure in blogging, New Information Perspectives,65(2), pp.

161-181.

Brotherton, B. (2008) Researching Hospitality and Tourism, 1st ed, Los Angeles:SAGE. Browne, T. (2012) The social trade show, 1st ed, Indianapolis: Que.

Chen, G.M. (2012), Why do women write personal blogs? Satisfying needs for self-

disclosure and affiliation tell part of the story, Computers in Human Behavior, 28 (1),

pp. 171-80.

Codrington, G. (2011) Detailed introduction to generational theory in Asia, Tomorrow Today.

Collis, J. and Hussey, R. (2009) Business research, 3rd ed, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Crocker, L.,and Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Toronto: Holt, RineHart, and Winston, Inc.

Crowther, D., Lancaster, G. (2009) Research methods, 1st ed, Amsterdam: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Dao, W., Le, A., Cheng, J. , (2014) Social media advertising value: the case of

transitional economies in Southeast Asia, International Journal of Advertising, 33(2),

pp. 271-294..

Davidson R. (2010) What Does Generation Y want from Conferences and Incentive

programmes? Implications for the Tourism Industry. In: Yeoman, I. et al. (eds.)

Tourism and Demography, Goodfellow Publishers.

Davidson, R. and Rogers, T. 2006. Marketing destinations and venues for conferences, conventions and business events. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Davidson, R., Alford, P. and Seaton, T. (2002). The use of information and

communications technology by the European meetings, incentives, conferences, and

exhibitions (MICE) sectors. 4(2), pp.17-36. De Vaus, D. (2002) Surveys in social research, 1st ed, London: Routledge.

Page | 55

Dooley, J., Jones, S. and Iverson, D. (2012) Web 2.0: an assessment of social marketing principles', Journal of Social Marketing, 2(3), pp. 207-221.

Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., Jackson, P. (1991) Management research: An Introduction, 1st ed, Los Angeles: SAGE.

Ellison, N.B., Steinfeld, C. and Lampe, C. (2007), The benefits of Facebook „friends‟ :

social capital and students‟ use of online social network sites, Journal of Computer-

Mediated Communication, 12(4), pp. 1143-1168

Ezumah, B. 2012. Generation Y and Online Advertising: Perceptions and Preferences of Social Media Networking Sites. Available at SSRN.

Fagerstrom, A. and Ghinea, G. (2010) Web 2.0‟s marketing impact on low-involvement consumers, Journal of Interactive Advertising, 10(2), pp. 67-71.

Fisher, T. (2009) ROI in social media: A look at the arguments, Journal of Database Marketing and Customer Strategy Management, 16(3), pp. 189-195.

Ghauri, P., Grønhaug, K. (2005) Research methods in business studies,3rd ed, New York: Prentice Hall.

Ghosh B (2002) Scientific method of Social Research, 3rd ed , Mumbai: Sterling Publishers.

Godar, S. and O'connor, P. (2001) Same time next year buyer trade show motives', Industrial Marketing Management, 30(1), pp. 77-86. Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597-606.

Gopalakrishna, S. and Lilien, G. (1995). A three-stage model of industrial trade show performance. Marketing Science, 14(1), pp.22-42.

Gopalakrishna, S. and Williams, J. (1992). Planning and performance assessment of

industrial trade shows: An exploratory study. International Journal of Research in

Marketing, 9(3), pp.207-224. Hale, T. (2010). Marketing across the Generations. [report] The Nielsen company.

Hawkins, D. I. and Mothersbaugh, D. L. 2010. Consumer Behaviour. Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Herbig, P., O‟Hara, B. and Palumbo, F. (1998). Trade show: who, what, why. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 16(7), pp.425-435. Holloman, C. (2013) The Social Media MBA in Practice, 1st ed, Hoboken:Wiley.

Page | 56

Hough, J. (1988). Attitudes and opinions of computer executives regarding attendance

information technology events'. Audience Characteristics #1080. East Orleans,MA:

Trade Show Bureau.

Hultsman, W. (2001) 'From the eyes of an exhibitor: Characteristics that make

exhibitions a success for all stakeholders, Journal of Convention and Exhibition

Management, 3(3), pp. 27-44.

HyunJeong, H. and Verma, R. (2014) The Future of Tradeshows Evolving Trends, Preferences, and Priorities, 14(13), New York: Cornell Hospitality Report.

Internet Advertising Bureau, (2008) User Generated Content, Social Media, and Advertising An Overview, Internet Advertising Bureau.

Johnson, P. and Clark, M. (2006) Business and Management Research Methodologies, 1st ed, London: SAGE.

Johnson, R. and Onwuegbuzie, A. (2004) Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come, Educational researcher, 33(7), pp. 14-26.

Kaiser, S., Muller-Seitz, G., Pereira Lopes, M. and Pina e Cunha, M. (2007), Weblog-

technology as a trigger to elicit passion for knowledge, Organization, 14(3), pp. 391-

412.

Kaplan, A. and Haenlein, M. (2010) Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media, Business Horizons, 53(1), pp. 59-68.

Kay, L. (2007) 'International Exhibition Organizers In China And Their Performance',

Ph.D, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University Available at:

http://www.cpbjlf.com/introd/Kay%20DBA.pdf

Kehl, M. R. (2005). Advertising, perversions, neurosis. International Forum of Psychoanalysis,14 (3-4), pp. 210-216.

Kelemen, M. and Rumens, N. (2008). An introduction to critical management research. Los Angeles: SAGE.

Kellezi, J. (2014) Trade Shows: A Strategic Marketing Tool for Global Vompetit ion, Procedia Economics and Finance, 9, pp. 466-471.

King, N. and Horrocks, C. (2010) Interviews In Qualitative Research, 1st ed, Los Angeles: SAGE.

Kirtis, A. and Karahan, F. (2011) To be or not to be in Social Media arena as the most

cost-efficient marketing strategy after the global recession, Procedia Social and

Behavioral Sciences, 24, pp. 260-268

Koco, L. 2008. Use generational marketing to reach boomers, younger clients. National Underwriter Life and Health, 110 (20), pp. 26-27.

Page | 57

Kotler, P. and Keller, K. (2006) Marketing Management, 12th ed, Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Kumar, A. and Lim, H. (2008). Age differences in mobile service perceptions:

comparison of Generation Y and baby boomers. Journal of Services Marketing, 22 (7),

pp. 568-577.

LaMotta, L. (2007) 'Trade Shows, Web 2.0 Style', Forbes, Available at:

http://www.forbes.com/2007/09/14/amd-ibm-microsoft-ent-sales-

cx_ll_0913virtual.html (Accessed 5 August 2014).

Lee, C. and Kim, S. (2008). Differential effects of determinants on multi-dimensions

of trade show performance: By three stages of pre-show, at-show, and post-show

activities. Industrial Marketing Management, 37(7), pp.784-796.

Leedy, P. and Ormrod, J. (2005) Practical research, 1st ed, Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Ling-Yee, L. (2007). Marketing resources and performance of exhibitor firms in trade

shows: A contingent resource perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 36(3),

pp.360-370.

Ling-Yee, L. (2008). The effects of firm resources on trade show performance: how

do trade show marketing processes matter? Journal of Business and Industrial

Marketing, 23(1), pp.35-47.

Ling-Yee, L. (2010) Antecedents and effect of internet implementation for trade shows, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 25(4), pp. 272-283.

Mackenzie, N. and Knipe, S. (2006) Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and methodology, Issues in Educational Research, 16(2), pp. 193-205. Madison, R, and Bockanic, W (2014), Retirement: Don‟t Slow Down, Speed Up!, Strategic Finance, 96(6), pp. 56-59

Mangold, W. and Faulds, D. (2009) Social media: The new hybrid element of the promotion mix, Business Horizons, 52(4), pp. 357--365.

Mannheim, K. (1964). The Sociological Problem of Generations. Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge, London : Routledge.

Mathews-Wadhwa, A. 2012. How Generational Values Affect Brand Marketing. Branding Magazine.

Mattsson, L. (1989). Development of Firms in Networks : Positions and Investments. Advances in International Marketing, 3, pp.121-139.

Page | 58

McMillan, S. and Morrison, M. (2006) Coming of age with the internet A qualitat ive

exploration of how the internet has become an integral part of young people‟s lives,

New Media and Society, 8(1), pp. 73--95.

McMillin, D (2014) 4 Tips to Manage Your Multi-generational Attendee Base „, (PCMA), February 2014.

McNamara, C. (1999) General Guidelines for Conducting Interviews , Minnesota :

Authenticity Consulting LLC, Available at:

www.managementhelp.org/evaluatn/intrview.htm Merriam, S. (2009) Qualitative Research, 1st ed, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Mitchell, M., McLean, P. and Turner, G. (2005) Understanding Generation X ... Boom or bust introduction., Business Forum, 27, pp. 26-31.

Moore, M. and Carpenter, J. M. (2008). Intergenerational perceptions of market cues

among US apparel consumers. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 12

(3), pp. 323-337.

Muijs, D. (2004) Doing Quantitative Research In Education With SPSS, 1st ed, London: SAGE.

Nicholas, A. J. (2009). Generational perceptions: Workers and consumers. Journal of Business and Economics Research, 7(10), pp. 47-52.

O'Reilly, T. (2005) What Is Web 2.0? Design Patterns and Business Models for the

Next Generation of Software , Available at: http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what- is-

web-20.html (Accessed 28 July 2014).

Pilcher, J. (1994). Mannheim's sociology of generations: an undervalued legacy. British Journal of Sociology, pp. 481-495

Posnoc, S. 2004. Solutions for Evolving Consumer Needs. American Demographics, 24 (4), p. 44.

Procopio, M., Spielvogel, P. and Thomson, N. (2012) 42 rules for B2B social media marketing, 1st ed, California: Super Star Press. Reeves, T. and Harper, D. (1981) Surveys At Work, 1st ed, London: McGraw-Hill. Regnier, P. (2009). Oh, to be young again (for real). Money, 38 (9), p. 124.

Reisenwitz, T. and Iyer, R. (2009) Differences In Generation X and Generation Y :

Implications For The Organization and Marketers, Marketing Management, 19(2), pp.

91-101.

Rittichainuwat, B. and Mair, J. (2012) Visitor attendance motivations at consumer travel exhibitions, Tourism Management, 33(5), pp. 1236-1244.

Page | 59

Rossman, G. B. and Wilson, B. L. (1985). Numbers and words: Combining quantitative and qualitative methods in a single large-scale evaluation study. Evaluation Review, 9(5), 627-643.

Rosson, P. and Seringhaus, F. (1995) Visitor and exhibitor interaction at industr ia l trade fairs', Journal of Business Research, 32(1), pp. 81-90.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2012) Research methods for business students, 6th ed, Harlow: Prentice Hall.

Shao, G. (2009) Understanding the appeal of user-generated media: a uses and gratification perspective, Internet Research, 19(1), pp. 7-25. Siskind, B. (2005) Powerful Exhibit Marketing, 1st ed, Mississauga: Wiley & Sons.

Smith, T., Gopalakrishna, S. and Smith, P. (2004). The complementary effect of trade

shows on personal selling. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(1),

pp.61-76. Smith, W. (1999). Easy Entrance. Marketing Week, 22(25), pp.41-44.

Solberg Søilen, K. (2013) Exhibit Marketing and Trade Show Intelligence, 1st ed, Berlin: Springer.

Stern, A. and Wakabayashi, C. (2007) Are you Ready for Web 2.0 Marketing?, Japan

Inc, Available at: http://www.japaninc.com/mgz_summer_2007_web_2-0_marketing

(Accessed 2 August 2014).

Stevens, R. (2005). Trade show and event marketing : Plan, promote and profit . 1st ed. Toronto: Thomson.

Strauss, A., and Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. California: Sage.

Strauss, W. and Howe, N. (1998) The Fourth Turning, 1st ed, New York: Broadway Books. Strauss, W. and Howe, N. 1991. Generations. New York: Morrow.

Tanner Jr, J. and Chonko, L. (1995). Trade show objectives, management, and staffing practices. Industrial Marketing Management, 24(4), pp.257-264.

Tanner Jr, J., Chonko, L. and Ponzurick, T. (2001) A learning model of trade show attendance', Journal of Convention and Exhibition Management, 3(3), pp. 3-26.

Tanner, Jr, J. (2002) Levelling the playing field: factors influencing trade show success for small companies, Industrial Marketing Management, 31(3), pp. 229-239.

Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and Behavioral Research, California: SAGE

Page | 60

Tiago, M. and Tiago, F. (2012) Revisiting the Impact of Integrated Internet Marketing on Firms‟ Online Performance: European Evidences , Procedia Technology, 5, pp. 418-426.

Tsimonis, G. and Dimitriadis, S. (2014) Brand strategies in social media, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 32(3), pp. 328-344.

Wainer, H., and Braun, H. I. (1988). Test Validity. New Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

Walker, E. 2003. The Value of Generational Marketing. National Underwriter, 107 (29), p. 24. Walliman, N.. (2001) Your Research Project, 1st ed, London: Sage.

Whitfield, J. and Webber, D. (2011) Which exhibition attributes create repeat visitation?, International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(2), pp. 439-447.

Williams, J., Gopalakrishna, S. and Cox, J. (1993). Trade show guidelines for smaller firms. Industrial Marketing Management, 22(4), pp.265-275

Williams, K. C. and Page, R. A. (2011). Marketing to the Generations. Journal of Behavioral Studies in Business, 3 (1), pp. 37-53.

Page | 61

APPENDECIES

Appendix-B Graphs Appendix B.1 Visitor motivations

Baby boomers Generation X Generation Y

36.4%

33.3%

29.6% 30.8%

25.9%

21.2% 23.1%

18.2%

15.4% 15.4%

7.7%

9.1% 10.6%

7.7%

7.4%

3.7% 3.0%

0.0%

0.0%

1.5% 0.0%

See new Gath e r Gather specific To attend Making Purchasing General

products indust ry product seminars and busine ss Interest

infor m at io n for infor m at io n confe re n ce s contacts

purchasing

Appendix B.2 Official Webpage visits

92.3% 85.2% 81.8%

7.7% 14.8% 18.2%

Baby-Boomers Generation X Generation Y

Visite dN ot visited

Appendix B.3 Online registration rate

92.3%

Onlin e regist rate d O f fl ine regist ra ted

85.2%

81.8%

14.8% 18.2%

7.7%

Baby-Boomers Generation X Generation Y

Page | 67

Appendix B.4 Mobile application downloads

Downloaded Not downloaded 92.6%

78.8% 69.2%

30.8%

21.2% 7.4%

Baby-Boomers Generation X Generation Y

Appendix B.5 Tweeting about the event

Baby -B o om er sG e n e ra tio n XGe ne r at ion Y

85.7% 83.7% 77.3%

22.7%

16.3%

14.3%

Twee ted Not Tweeted

Appendix B.6 Youtube video views

Baby-Boomers Gene ra tio n X Generation Y

92.6% 87.9%

69.2%

23.1%

7.4% 12.1%

Yes No

Appendix B.7 Importance of Web 2.0 tools

Very Unimportant

Neutral

Important

Very

Unimportant

Important

(0.00%) (0.00%) (21.4%) (35.7%) (42.8%)

Page | 68

Appendix B.8 Importance of Web 2.0 tools Less than 6 6 months-1

1-2 years Over 2

months

year years

Facebook (20.0%) (10.0%) (30.0%)

(40.0%)

Twitter (18.1%) (18.1%) (27.2%)

(36.3%)

Linkedin (18.1%) (9.1%) (18.1%)

(54.5%)

Youtube (11.1%) (0.0%) (33.3%)

(55.5%)

Pinterest (50.0%) (0.0%) (50.0%)

(0.0%)

Google + (50.0%) (50.0%) (0.0%)

(0.0%)

Blogs (20.0%) (0.0%) (40.0%)

(40.0%)

Mobile apps (20.0%) (40.0%) (20.0%)

(20.0%)

Appendix B.9 Marketing professionals objectives of using Web 2.0

32.4% 32.4%

18.9% 16.2%

Brand Awareness Customer support Customer loyalty Customer engagement

Appendix B.10 Success measurements

42.3%

30.8% 26.9%

Followers/Shares/Likes Comm e nts Hashtag monitoring

Page | 69

Appendix B.11 Demographic information captures

64.3%

21.4% 14.3%

Yes No Don' think it is important