View
1
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
0
2009 Exhibitor Show Evaluation Report
Report prepared by
Deborah I. Barrash, Ph.D.
Cheri A. Young, Ph.D.
Corsun, Young & Associates
1
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... 3
Demographics ......................................................................................................................... 3
Satisfaction, Value, and Return Intentions ........................................................................... 3
Features of The NAFEM Show ................................................................................................. 5
Positioning of The NAFEM Show ............................................................................................. 5
Improvements and Recommendations ............................................................................... 6
1 Methodoloy ............................................................................................................. 7
1.1 Survey Methodology .................................................................................................... 7
1.2 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................. 8
1.3 p-values ......................................................................................................................... 9
1.4 Correlation Coefficients ............................................................................................ 10
1.5 Reliability Tests and Alpha Reliability ........................................................................ 10
1.6 Regression ................................................................................................................... 10
1.7 Margin of Error ............................................................................................................. 11
2 Demographics .......................................................................................................12
2.1 Annual Sales ................................................................................................................ 12
2.2 Primary Source of Sales .............................................................................................. 13
2.3 Job Titles ...................................................................................................................... 14
2.4 Domestic Trade Shows ............................................................................................... 14
2.5 International Trade Shows ......................................................................................... 15
2.6 NAFEM Show Attendance ......................................................................................... 16
2.7 Sold Direct to End-users ............................................................................................. 17
2.8 Sold through Dealer/Distributor outside North America ........................................ 17
2.9 Punch Line ~ Implications for NAFEM ....................................................................... 18
3 Satisfaction, Value and Return Intention .............................................................20
3.1. Goals ............................................................................................................................ 20
3.2. Attendees .................................................................................................................... 26
3.3. Satisfaction .................................................................................................................. 34
3.4 Value of The NAFEM Show ........................................................................................ 37
3.5 Return Intentions ......................................................................................................... 40
3.6 Punch Line ~ Implications for NAFEM ....................................................................... 45
4 Features of The NAFEM Show ................................................................................50
4.1 Show Enhancements ................................................................................................. 50
4.2 Punch Line ~ Implications for NAFEM ....................................................................... 53
2
5 Positioning of The NAFEM Show ............................................................................54
5.1 Competition from Domestic Shows .......................................................................... 54
5.2 Competition from International Shows .................................................................... 59
5.3 Punch Line ~ Implications for NAFEM ....................................................................... 61
6 Improvements and Recommendations ...............................................................63
6.1 Improvements ............................................................................................................. 63
6.2 Recommendations .................................................................................................... 71
7 Appendix ...............................................................................................................75
3
Executive Summary
In 2007, the Exhibitor Survey was administered using a third-party Web-hosted on-line
survey instrument. This year, the Exhibitor Survey was sent to twice as many potential
respondents since it was sent to booth contacts, sales & marketing executives as well as
NAFEM member company principal representatives. Of the 1,916 members sent E-mails,
12.4% completed the survey, representing a 50+% decrease in response rate; however, it
represented an increase of 16.7% in the raw number of respondents from 2007.
Demographics
Although the distribution of annual sales for the respondents to the 2009 Exhibitor
Survey was similar to that of the 2007 Exhibitor Survey, the average annual sales
was 50% higher ($24.4 vs. $16 million) than in 2007. Almost half of the respondents
reported their primary source of sales was from Refrigeration & Ice Machines,
Smallwares, Cookware & Kitchen Tools or Primary Cooking Equipment. A smaller
percentage of respondent reported Food Preparation as their primary source of
sales compared to 2007. There were more President/CEO/Principal respondents
this year compared to 2007 and far fewer Senior Marketing Executives, Marketing
Managers/Coordinators and Trade Show Managers/Coordinators. We had a
lower percentage of respondents who had exhibited at one, three, four, and five
domestic trade shows and a much larger percentage of respondents who
reported exhibiting at either one or six international trade shows in the past three
years compared to 2007. As in 2007, there were more long-term NAFEM Show-
goers and fewer first-timers among the 2009 respondents.
Over two-thirds of respondents reported selling less than 10% of their annual sales
directly to end-users, while 6.5% reported that between 76-100% of their sales
were made directly to end-users (in 2007 it was only 5%). Additionally, roughly the
same percentage of respondents reported selling 10% or less of their annual sales
through dealers/distributors outside of North America as in 2007.
Satisfaction, Value, and Return Intentions
Respondents‘ goals for having exhibited at The NAFEM Show this year grew in
importance from 2007. Building relationships with new customers, maintaining
relationships with current customers, and building their company‘s brand image
and reputation were the most important goals this year.
Interestingly, respondents‘ level of satisfaction with accomplishing these goals
through their exhibiting at The NAFEM Show did not decrease much from 2007.
However, due to the large increases in importance, goal gaps (representing
dissatisfaction) were significant. Exhibitors expressed their greatest dissatisfaction
with initiating new customer relationships, followed by meeting with current
customers. Of note is that this focus on relationship building and maintenance
was significant for attendees of The NAFEM Show as well.
Respondents‘ ratings of importance for all attendee classifications increased from
2007 (with the exception of service agencies), while the average satisfaction
[This column can be used to highlight key statements, quotes, statistics, or graphics. It also provides space for the client to write comments on a printed version of the document.]
4
ratings for all attendee classifications (with the exception of service agencies)
decreased. The most important classifications of attendees for the respondents
were dealer/distributors and full-service restaurant chains (as in 2007). The
respondents were most satisfied with the number and/or quality of
dealer/distributor and consultant/specifier/architect/designer attendees.
However, for all categories of attendees, except service agencies, negative gaps
(expressing dissatisfaction) increased from 2007.
The attendee classifications with which respondents had the greatest
dissatisfaction (as evidenced by large negative gaps) in 2009 included full-service
restaurant chains, government/military and colleges/universities. Exhibitors
reported their greatest dissatisfaction with the attendance levels of these three
classes of attendees in 2007 as well.
A new finding this year is that exhibitors that sold more directly to their end users
appear to have different attitudes about The NAFEM Show. As a group, they
were less satisfied with their ability to satisfy their goals of initiating new customer
relationships and building their brand‘s image and reputation. They were also less
satisfied with the number of qualified decision makers who visited their booths. As
a result of being less satisfied with the number of decision makers at the show,
they perceive less relative value from exhibiting at The NAFEM Show compared to
other shows. Additionally, the return intention for this group of respondents is
lower than those who sell less directly to end users.
Exhibitors are increasingly less satisfied with their experience of exhibiting at The
NAFEM Show. They rated their satisfaction overall at a 3.31 (out of 5), the third
consecutive decrease and the lowest rating (with the exception of 2001) since
1991.
Much (almost 71%) of the variability in exhibitors‘ ratings of absolute (overall)
satisfaction can be explained by their level of satisfaction with the number of
qualified decision makers who visited their booth, and the dissatisfaction gaps in
being able to build their company‘s brand image and to gather information
about their competitors, and in the number and quality of consultant/
specifier/architect/designer attendees at the show. Of these explanatory
variables, the level of satisfaction with decision makers provides the most
explanatory power (it explains 64.1% of the variance in overall satisfaction with
the show).
Besides overall satisfaction decreasing, absolute and relative value have
decreased compared to 2007 and 2005. A significant 46.7% (compared to only
28.9% in 2007) of variance in relative value could be explained by the variability in
the quality of leads received, dissatisfaction gaps in getting an edge on non-
exhibitors, the number and quality of convenience store attendees, and the
number of orders received at The NAFEM Show. Of these explanatory variables,
the quality of leads has the most explanatory power, accounting for 33.7% of the
variance in relative value.
5
A greater portion of the variance in absolute value could be explained this year
compared to 2007 when only 44% was explained. Absolute satisfaction, the
number of orders received, the quality of the leads, and the dissatisfaction gaps
in the number and quality of full-service restaurant chains attending and the
exhibitors‘ ability to get an edge on non-exhibitors accounted for 64.1% of the
variability in absolute value. Of these explanatory variables, absolute satisfaction
has the most explanatory power, accounting for 49.6% of the variance of
absolute value.
Exhibitors‘ return intentions have decreased as well. The average likelihood of
exhibiting in 2011 was 86.5%, compared to 95.8% in 2007 and 91% in 2005.
A little over 51% of the variability in exhibitors‘ return intentions can be explained
by exhibitors‘ ratings of relative value, absolute satisfaction, and the
dissatisfaction gap in them being able to meet with current customers. Of these
explanatory variables, the relative value rating provides the most explanatory
power (it explains 45.6% of the variance in return intentions).
Features of The NAFEM Show
Of the possible show enhancements, respondents rated the value of segmenting
the show floor and adding specialty pavilions higher than the other two
enhancements. This same priority ranking was found with attendees. Regarding
their top choices of specialty pavilions, exhibitors requested industry segment
pavilions and ―green‖ pavilions. Attendees, likewise, requested these top two
pavilions, although ―green‖ pavilions were the top choice followed by industry
segment pavilions.
Respondents reported that they were interested in marketing to convenience
stores, warehouse clubs, and supermarkets. However, exhibitors did not rate the
importance of these attendee classifications very high. Of all the attendee
classifications, only food manufacturers and service agencies rated lower in
importance. Also, the importance that exhibitors attach to seeing convenience
stores, warehouse clubs, and supermarkets at The NAFEM Show has not risen
much from 2007 to 2009.
Positioning of The NAFEM Show
Attendance by NAFEM exhibitors across all domestic trade shows has decreased
since 2007. Relatedly, the value received from exhibiting at these shows and at
The NAFEM Show has decreased since 2007 as well, although the relative value of
The NAFEM Show has been steadily declining since 2003. All other domestic trade
shows experienced a peak in 2007, while The NAFEM Show has continued to
decline slightly. The NAFEM Show still receives the highest value rating compared
to the other shows, but given its decline, it represents an area of vulnerability.
In terms of the quality of leads and orders received from exhibiting at domestic
trade shows, The NAFEM Show received the highest ratings for leads, while the
NRA Show received the highest rating for orders.
6
Respondents who have exhibited at many international shows are less satisfied
with the quality of leads and orders received from exhibiting at The NAFEM Show.
The number of NAFEM exhibitors who are exhibiting at international shows has
been increasing since 2005, so this is a trend that should be monitored for if more
and more NAFEM exhibitors become frequent international exhibitors, they may
be increasingly demanding and may rate the value of The NAFEM Show lower in
the future.
Those exhibitors selling more directly to end-users are less satisfied with the quality
of leads they received from exhibiting at The NAFEM Show. They also rate the
relative value of the NRA Show higher than those who do not sell as much directly
to end-users. Respondents that exhibit at more domestic trade shows also rate
the relative value of the NRA Show higher than those who do not exhibit at as
many domestic trade shows. Because the NRA Show attracts more end-users,
these groups of exhibitors may perceive it to be of higher value.
Additionally, those exhibitors who exhibit at more domestic trade shows rate the
quality of the leads and the relative value received from exhibiting at the FMI
lower than those who do not exhibit at as many domestic trade shows. It
appears that the FMI is not a favorite show among this group of exhibitors.
The most popular international trade show at which to exhibit in the last three
years was HOSTEX (Toronto), as has been the case since 2003, followed by
Hotelympia (London), also the case since 2003.
All six international trade shows received lower average ratings in 2009 than in
previous years. HOST (Milan) received the highest overall average value rating
this year (3.72) among the six shows and earned the highest rating in 2005 as well,
but in 2007, HOFEX (Hong Kong) was the highest rated international trade show.
Improvements and Recommendations
For improvements suggested by respondents and recommendations formulated
based on analysis of the data from the Exhibitor Survey, please see Section 6 of
the report.
7
1 Methodoloy
The following section provides details regarding survey development and
administration as well as data analysis procedures.
1.1 Survey Methodology
Survey development: The 2009 Exhibitor Show Evaluation Survey (ESES) was
developed using the models developed from the analysis of the data in the
2005 and 2007 Exhibitor Surveys. After consultation with NAFEM staff
members, emphasis was placed on streamlining the survey. As a result, the
questions are strictly focused on exhibitors‘ objectives for exhibiting, their ROI,
the quality of leads and orders received, and what The NAFEM Show needs to
do to maintain their position as the leading trade show for foodservice
equipment and supplies.
A total of 23 questions tapped such areas as overall satisfaction, features of
The NAFEM Show, potential show enhancements, and competition. The
average time members logged on to complete the survey was 13 minutes.
Of the 1,916 exhibitors who were sent an electronic survey, 14.25% logged on
and completed at least part of the survey, with 12.42% completing the
survey. This response rate represents a 45.5% decrease since the last
assessment in 2007 that garnered a response rate of 22.8%. However, it is a
16.7% increase in the actual number of completed surveys. Table 1 shows
historical response rates since 2005.
Table 1 ~ Historical Response Rates
Survey administration: An online survey administration tool, Qualtrics, was
used to administer the ESES. Exhibitors at The NAFEM Show in 2009 were E-
mailed requesting their participation in completing the survey:
Initial E-mail sent: Tuesday, February 10th
First E-mail reminder notice sent: Tuesday, February 17th
Second E-mail reminder notice sent: Tuesday, February 24th
Survey closed: Tuesday, March 3rd
The E-mails (initial and reminders) were sent directly from NAFEM. The subject
line of the E-mail messages stated: ―We want your feedback on The NAFEM
Show‖ and the final message one week before the survey was closed read
―Final days to offer your feedback on The NAFEM Show.‖ Respondents were
Response Rates 2009 2007 2005
E-mails sent 1,916 895 879
# of exhibitors who logged on 273 268 301
% of exhibitors who logged on 14.25% 29.94% 34.24%
# completed 238 204 260
% completed 12.42% 22.79% 29.58%
8
ensured of the confidentiality of their responses as indicated in the E-mails
sent with survey log-on information.
1.2 Data Analysis
For the majority of the questions, we evaluated the overall responses,
including averages and standard deviations (as an indication of the
variability in respondents‘ answers), as well as any statistically significant
differences in how respondents answered these questions based on
demographic factors (see Table 2).
Table 2 ~ Demographic Variables Used to Evaluate Differences
Q# Question Scale
1 Indicate your job title/role
within your organization
President/CEO/Principal
Senior Marketing Executive
Senior Sales Executive
Marketing Manager/Coordinator
Trade Show Manager/Coordinator
Other
10 Number of domestic shows
exhibited (out of 6 possible)
1 - 6
11 Number of international shows
exhibited (out of 6 possible)
0 - 6
19 What is your PRIMARY source of
sales in the foodservice
industry?
Food Preparaion Equipment
Primary Cooking Equipment
Refrigeration & Ice Machines
Serving Equipment
Smallwares, Cookware & Kitchen Tools
Storage & Handling Equipment
Tabletop & Servingware
Warewashing, Janitorial & Safety
Equipment
Furnishing, Décor & Custom Fabrication
Other
20 Approximately what were the
annual sales of your company
or division to the foodservice
industry in 2008?
$0 - $55+ million
21 What percentage of your
annual sales are sold directly to
end-users?
0% - 100%
9
22 What percentage of your
annual sales are sold through
dealers/distributors outside
North America?
0% - 100%
23 How many NAFEM shows have
you personally attended?
1 - 10+
For open-ended questions in which exhibitors were asked to write in their
answers, we analyzed these data by looking for recurring themes and
patterns and computed frequency counts where applicable.
1.3 p-values
To determine whether demographic differences exist, we conducted various
statistical tests. All possible pairwise combinations of responses to each
demographic factor were evaluated (see Table 3) and we report only those
pairwise combinations that accounted for statistical differences. These
statistical differences were based on the p-value, which measures the
confidence in the calculation. The p-value is the probability that the results
were not statistically significant. For example, a p-value of 0.05 means that
there are 5 chances in 100 that the results were due to random error. Thus,
the lower the p-value, the more confident we are that the results are due to a
true association among the variables measured. Only those relationships with
a p-value equal to or lower than 0.05 will be considered statistically
significant.
Table 3 ~ Example of Pairwise Combinations of Title with Possible p-values
A B p-value Statistically
significant?
President/CEO/Principal Sr. Marketing Exec. 0.000 Yes
President/CEO/Principal Sr. Sales Exec. 0.350 No
President/CEO/Principal Marketing Mgr 0.050 Yes
President/CEO/Principal Trade Show Mgr 0.100 No
President/CEO/Principal Other 0.005 Yes
Sr. Marketing Exec. Sr. Sales Exec. 0.010 Yes
Sr. Marketing Exec. Marketing Mgr 0.025 Yes
Sr. Marketing Exec. Trade Show Mgr 0.005 Yes
Sr. Marketing Exec. Other 0.060 No
Sr. Sales Exec. Marketing Mgr 0.085 No
Sr. Sales Exec. Trade Show Mgr 0.001 Yes
Sr. Sales Exec Other 0.500 No
Marketing Mgr Trade Show Mgr 0.040 Yes
Marketing Mgr Other 0.000 Yes
Trade Show Mgr Other 0.250 No
10
1.4 Correlation Coefficients
A correlation coefficient is a number between -1 and 1 that measures the
degree to which two variables are linearly related. Correlation coefficients
can be calculated to determine the association between any two
quantitative variables. The closer the correlation coefficient is to -1 or 1, the
stronger the association between the two variables. The closer the
correlation coefficient is to 0, the less association between the two variables.
A positive correlation coefficient (between 0 and 1) means that as one
variable increases in value, so will the other, whereas a negative correlation
coefficient (between -1 and 0) means that as one variable increases, the
other one decreases.
Although the p-value for correlation coefficients may be statistically
significant, the effect of the correlation coefficient may still be slight. For
instance, if the correlation coefficient between the number of NAFEM shows
previous attended and satisfaction relative to other shows was -0.18 with a p-
value of 0.000, this would mean that as the number of NAFEM shows attended
increased by one unit, satisfaction would decrease by 0.18 units. So although
the p-value shows a statistically significant relationship, the ―pulling down‖
effect on the rating of satisfaction because of having attended more NAFEM
shows is quite minor, indicating that there are many other variables which
affect satisfaction.
1.5 Reliability Tests and Alpha Reliability
Alpha reliability is the extent to which a group of questions measure the same
concept. For example, respondents were asked about their satisfaction with
a number of specific aspects of The NAFEM Show (i.e., number of contacts
made, variety of manufacturers, etc.). We ran a ―reliability test‖ to determine
if the questions about these satisfaction items were all measuring the same
concept. If the reliability test yields an alpha coefficient of 0.7 or greater, this
is an indication that the questions basically tap the same concept. The
higher the alpha coefficient, the more confidence one has in the association
among the questions. This allows one to use the questions as a set, rather
than using them individually, and thereby simplifies the analysis and
interpretation of the data.
1.6 Regression
The purpose of multiple regression is to investigate the relationship between
several independent or predictor variables and a dependent variable. Many
independent variables can be included in a regression model but in order for
the model to be considered statistically significant the p-value should be
below 0.05. Adjusted r-squared is the value used to judge the goodness-of-fit
of a regression model. The stronger the relationship between the
independent variables and the dependent variable, the higher the adjusted
r-squared value. The adjusted r-squared is the relative predictive power of a
model, which means that the closer the adjusted r-square value is to 1, the
11
more variability in the dependent variable that is accounted for by the
independent variables.
As an example, we may want to know what variables predict (are associated
with) a respondent‘s likelihood of returning to The NAFEM Show in 2011.
Likelihood of returning is the dependent variable, and independent or
predictor variables that we might investigate would include relative
satisfaction with The NAFEM Show compared to other trade shows, value
received from attending The NAFEM Show, etc.
1.7 Margin of Error
The data provided in this report are representative of the entire population of
attendees within 5.95% (based on a 95% confidence interval). This means
that, of the 238 respondents who completed the survey from the population
of 1,916 exhibitors, we are certain that their responses are within 5.95% of the
―true‖ results (which would come from all 1,916 exhibitors).
This margin of error calculation should be treated as an approximation only,
since such calculations are based on pure random selection, which is not
often the case in traditional survey settings. While all exhibitors may have
received the survey, responding to the survey was voluntary, thereby
producing the possibility of non-response bias (meaning that those who chose
not to respond to the survey are somehow ―different‖ from those who
responded). For the purposes of this report, however, we will assume there
are no significant differences in the opinions and perceptions between those
who responded to the survey and those who did not.
12
2 Demographics
To better understand the type of exhibitors responding to the 2009 ESES, we
collected information about each respondent. The demographic variables we
assessed included annual sales, primary source of sales, job title, number of
domestic trade shows at which exhibited, number of international trade shows at
which exhibited, number of NAFEM shows attended, percent of sales sold through
dealer/distributors outside North America, and percent of sales sold directly to end-
users.
2.1 Annual Sales
The average annual sales for the respondents was $24.4 million (see Figure 1),
compared to $16 million in 2007. The most common annual sales categories
was $10-14.9 million, whereas in 2007 the most common sales category was
$1-2.9 million. There were more respondents (13.5%) from the largest sales
category ($55+ million) this year than in 2007 (9.4%).
Figure 1 ~ Annual Sales of Respondents
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
< 1 1-3 3-5 5-7 7-10 10-15 15-25 25-35 35-45 45-55 55+
Pe
rce
nt o
f R
esp
on
de
nts
Sales Categories ($)
Annual Sales of Respondents2007 Sales 2009 Sales
13
2.2 Primary Source of Sales
The most common primary sources of sales of the respondents were
Refrigeration and Ice Machines; Smallwares, Cookware and Kitchen Tools;
and Primary Cooking, representing 45.6% of all sources of sales (see Table 4).
In 2009, representation changed most in the ―Other‖ category (see Figure 2).
Table 4 ~ Primary Source of Sales Percentages
Figure 2 ~ Primary Source of Sales Compared to 2007
2005
Frequency % Frequency % %
Refrigeration & Ice Machines 42 16.0% 30 15.2% 14.9%
Smallwares, Cookware & Kitchen Tools 40 15.2% 24 12.2% 13.6%
Primary Cooking 38 14.4% 27 13.7% 15.3%
Other 31 11.8% 10 5.1% 3.0%
Food Preparation 23 8.7% 26 13.2% 9.8%
Tabletop & Servingware 21 8.0% 14 7.1% 6.8%
Serving Equipment 16 6.1% 14 7.1% 6.8%
Furnishing, Decor & Custom Fabrication 14 5.3% 15 7.6% 5.1%
Warewashing, Janitorial & Safety Equipment 13 4.9% 19 9.6% 11.5%
Storage & Handling Equipment 13 4.9% 12 6.1% 7.2%
Component Parts Manufacturer 8 3.0% 2 1.0% 2.1%
Technology 4 1.5% 2 1.0% 3.4%
Allied Member 0 0.0% 2 1.0% 0.4%
Total 263 100.0% 197 100% 100%
Primary Source of Sales2009 2007
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
16.0%
18.0%
Re
frig
era
tio
n &
Ic
e M
ac
hin
es
Pri
ma
ry C
oo
kin
g
Fo
od
Pre
pa
rati
on
Sm
allw
are
s, C
oo
kw
are
&
Kitc
he
n T
oo
ls
Wa
rew
ash
ing
, Ja
nito
ria
l &
Sa
fety
Eq
uip
me
nt
Fu
rnis
hin
g, D
ec
or &
Cu
sto
m
Fa
bri
ca
tio
n
Se
rvin
g E
qu
ipm
en
t
Tab
leto
p &
Se
rvin
gw
are
Sto
rag
e &
Ha
nd
lin
g E
qu
ipm
en
t
Oth
er
Tec
hn
olo
gy
Allie
d M
em
be
r
Co
mp
on
en
t P
art
s M
an
ufa
ctu
rer
Pe
rce
nt o
f R
esp
on
de
nts
Primary Source of Sales
Primary Source of Sales of Respondents
2005 2007 2009
14
2.3 Job Titles
In 2009, over one-third of the respondents completing the survey defined
themselves as a President, CEO, or Principal of their companies, which is an
increase of over 7 percentage points. There were also more respondents
defining themselves as Senior Sales Executives (28.2%) compared to 2007
(19.2%). There were far fewer respondents defining themselves as Senior
Marketing Executives, Marketing Managers/Coordinators and Trade Show
Managers/Coordinators than in previous years (see Table 5).
Table 5 ~ Job Titles
2.4 Domestic Trade Shows
Respondents were asked at which of six domestic tradeshows (of which The
NAFEM Show was included) they had exhibited in the last three years. On
average, respondents reported exhibiting at 3.06 domestic tradeshows (up
slightly from the 2007 figure of 2.94). The distribution of the number of
domestic tradeshows at which they had exhibited followed a similar, but not
exact, pattern to that of 2007. The slight change in distribution this year may
be attributed to the addition of the Food Marketing Institute show as an
option on the survey (see Figure 3).
2005
Frequency % Frequency % %
President/CEO/Principal 80 34.2% 70 26.8% 26.3%
Senior Marketing Executive 16 6.8% 35 13.4% 15.9%
Senior Sales Executive 66 28.2% 50 19.2% 24.6%
Marketing Manager/Coordinator 39 16.7% 54 20.7% 13.8%
Trade Show Manager/Coordinator 17 7.3% 28 10.7% 10.0%
Manufacturer's Representative 2 0.9% N/A N/A N/A
Other 14 6.0% 24 9.2% 9.3%
Total 234 100.0% 261 100% 100%
20072009Title
15
Figure 3 ~ Number of Domestic Shows Exhibited in the Last Three Years
2.5 International Trade Shows
Respondents were asked at which of six international trade shows they had
exhibited in the last three years. Ninety-five (95) respondents indicated they
had exhibited at no less than one international trade show. Of these
respondents, almost half had exhibited at only one during that time period
(see Figure 4). The average number of international trade shows at which
they exhibited in 2009 was 2.74, as compared to 2.04 in 2007.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
1 2 3 4 5 6
Pe
rce
nt o
f R
esp
on
de
nts
Number of Domestic Shows
Number of Domestic Shows Exhibited2007 2009
16
Figure 4 ~ Number of International Shows Exhibited in the Last Three Years
2.6 NAFEM Show Attendance
We asked respondents about their previous NAFEM show attendance. The
average number of shows personally attended by respondents was 5.64 with
a standard deviation of 5.68. Almost one-third of respondents reported
attending at least 10 previous shows (31.2%) which is roughly the same
percent that reported having been to three or fewer shows (see Table 6). In
this group of 2009 respondents, we have more long-term NAFEM show-goers
and slightly fewer first-timers compared to 2005 and 2007.
Table 6 ~ Number of NAFEM Shows Attended
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
1 2 3 4 5 6
Pe
rce
nt o
f R
esp
on
de
nts
Number of International Shows
Number of International Shows Exhibited2007 2009
Frequency % Frequency %
1 29 11.5% 24 12.2% 16.8%
2 19 7.5% 24 12.2% 10.5%
3 32 12.6% 22 11.2% 12.2%
4 21 8.3% 20 10.2% 9.2%
5 21 8.3% 14 7.1% 6.3%
6 12 4.7% 11 5.6% 5.9%
7 10 4.0% 12 6.1% 6.7%
8 15 5.9% 12 6.1% 6.3%
9 15 5.9% 3 1.5% 3.8%
10+ 79 31.2% 55 27.9% 22.3%
Total 253 100.0% 197 100.0% 100.0%
2009 20072005# of Shows
17
2.7 Sold Direct to End-users
In the 2009 Exhibitor Survey, we asked participants to report what percentage
of their annual sales was sold directly to end-users. While over a quarter
(27.2%) reported not selling directly to end-users, 6.5% reported selling
between 76-100% of their annual sales directly to end-users (see Figure 5).
Figure 5 ~ Percent of Sales Sold Directly to End-users
2.8 Sold through Dealer/Distributor outside North America
Participants were also queried regarding what percentage of their annual
sales was sold through dealers/distributors outside North America. Almost the
same percentage of respondents reported not selling through
dealers/distributors outside North America (11.6%) as those who reported
selling between 76-100% of their products in this manner (11.2%) (see Figure 6).
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
0% 1% 2-3% 4-7% 8-10% 11-20% 21-30% 31-40% 41-50% 51-75% 76-100%
Pe
rce
nt
Re
spo
nd
ing
Percent Direct to End-users
Percent of Annual Sales Sold Directly to End-users2007 2009
18
Figure 6 ~ Percent of Sales Sold through Dealers/Distributors Outside North
American
2.9 Punch Line ~ Implications for NAFEM
In summary, the demographic characteristics of the respondents to the 2009
ESES are quite similar to those of the 2007 ESES. Of the 2009 attendees, slightly
fewer were first time attendees and there were more frequent NAFEM show
attendees. Slightly over 32% of respondents had attended 10 or more NAFEM
shows. Over the past three shows, the percentage of first time attendees
completing the survey has declined while the number of 10+ show attendees
has increased. This may reflect the show attracting fewer first timers and
retaining more ―tenured‖ attendees. Or, it may be that the show is not
attracting any fewer first timers or retaining any longer tenured attendees
over the years. It may be simply that fewer first timers are completing the
survey (as the general population is increasingly surveyed) and more tenured,
loyal attendees are completing the survey (as perhaps NAFEM has done a
better job over the years of increasing these attendees‘ commitment).
Across the different job classifications of exhibitors, their representation at The
NAFEM Show in 2009 was quite similar to that of the 2007 show with a few
deviations. More Presidents/CEOs/Principals and Senior Sales Executives
completed the survey this year than in 2007, but fewer Senior Marketing
Executives, Marketing Managers/ Coordinators and Trade Show
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
0% 1% 2-3% 4-7% 8-10% 11-20% 21-30% 31-40% 41-50% 51-75% 76-100%
Pe
rce
nt R
esp
on
din
g
Percent Outside North America
Percent of Annual Sales Sold through Dealer/Distributors Outside North
America 2007 2009
19
Managers/Coordinators did so in 2009. This may reflect their lower
participation in the show or their lower response rate to the survey this year.
Respondents this year had exhibited at almost the same number of domestic
foodservice trade shows (average of 3.06) as in 2007 (when it was 2.94), but
had significantly increased their exhibiting at international foodservice trade
shows. The average number of international trade shows at which they
exhibited increased from 2.04 to 2.74. Since 2005, the percentage of NAFEM
exhibitors exhibiting at these international trade shows has slowly but steadily
increased. This is a trend that NAFEM may want to monitor.
Finally, in terms of their primary source of sales, more Smallwares, Cookware,
and Kitchen Tool manufacturers were represented in the sample, as were
―other‖ manufacturers and component parts manufacturers (although the
sample size is very small). Fewer Food Preparation and Warewashing,
Janitorial, and Safety Equipment manufacturers completed the 2009 ESES.
20
3 Satisfaction, Value and Return Intention
In this section, we attempt to uncover those factors responsible for exhibitors‘ return
intentions to The NAFEM Show in 2011. Research has demonstrated that return
intention is driven by the value that one derives from the product/service
consumed or experienced. Value is subsequently driven by overall satisfaction.
We examined the extent to which: (1) the importance of and satisfaction with
achieving certain goals by exhibiting at The NAFEM Show; (2) importance of and
satisfaction with attendance levels of certain types of attendees; and (3) number
of qualified leads and orders received and decision makers present, contributed to
the respondents‘ overall satisfaction with The NAFEM Show.
Following this examination, we evaluated the extent to which overall satisfaction
drove the value these respondents received from having exhibited. Next, to
complete the equation, we examined how much value influences their return
intention. Although other factors influence return intention beyond the control of
NAFEM (company travel budgets, economic outlook, etc.), it is important to look at
those variables over which NAFEM does have control.
Finally, we examined demographic differences to see if some respondents differed
in the importance of and their satisfaction with achieving their goals via their
exhibiting at The NAFEM Show, experienced greater satisfaction, perceived the
show to be of greater value and/or had greater return intentions based on who
they are rather than on features of the show.
3.1. Goals
Q2 & Q3 ~ Importance of and Satisfaction with Achieving Goals by Exhibiting
at The NAFEM Show
To help explain the variance in respondents‘ ratings of overall satisfaction, we
asked the 2009 respondents to tell us their goals or motivations for exhibiting
at The NAFEM Show. Overall, initiating new customer relationships had the
highest importance rating (see Table 7). However, meeting with current
customers and building their company‘s brand image and reputation
followed closely in importance. The top three goals are the same top three
goals respondents reported in 2007 as well, though the importance ratings are
significantly higher in 2009. These goals take precedence over getting an
edge on non-exhibitors, gathering new product information and gathering
information about their competitors.
21
Table 7 ~ Importance of Goals
In general, respondents‘ ratings of satisfaction were slightly lower than their
ratings of importance for these goals, with the exception of initiating new
customer relationships in which there was a large gap between importance
and satisfaction (see Table 9). This focus on meeting with current customers
and building relationships with new ones speaks to the importance of
relationships, something also expressed by the 2009 attendee survey
respondents. Additionally, it should be noted that respondents‘ level of
satisfaction with achieving all these goals has decreased from 2007, with the
exception of getting an edge on non-exhibitors (see Table 8).
Table 8 ~ Satisfaction with Goals
A ―gap‖ was calculated between respondents‘ ratings of satisfaction and
their corresponding ratings of importance for each NAFEM show goal.
Negative gaps demonstrate areas where importance exceeds satisfaction
(i.e., highly important goals but lower levels of having satisfied these goals).
Mean Std Dev n Mean Std Dev n
Meet with current customers 4.79 0.56 268 4 1.64 249
Initiate new customer relationships 4.92 0.47 267 4.07 1.65 250
Build your company‘s brand image
and reputation4.79 0.57 267 4.08 1.64 251
Gather information about your
competitors4.03 0.82 265 3.59 1.35 250
Learn about industry trends 4.26 0.82 266 3.76 1.42 252
Gather new product information 4.00 0.91 263 3.67 1.35 250
Benchmark your company
compared to the competitionN/A N/A N/A 3.7 1.41 246
Get an edge on non-exhibitors 4.00 0.97 262 3.4 1.28 239
2009 2007Importance
Mean Std Dev n Mean Std Dev n
Meet with current customers 3.98 1.00 266 4.05 1.29 240
Initiate new customer relationships 3.75 1.10 267 3.9 1.28 241
Build your company‘s brand image
and reputation4.05 0.94 264 4.06 1.24 242
Gather information about your
competitors3.64 0.77 253 3.64 1.05 236
Learn about industry trends 3.6 0.82 260 3.62 1.05 237
Gather new product information 3.6 0.80 255 3.65 1.07 236
Benchmark your company
compared to the competitionN/A N/A N/A 3.81 1.13 236
Get an edge on non-exhibitors 3.52 0.77 250 3.47 1.06 220
2009 2007Satisfaction
22
Respondents expressed dissatisfaction with all of the goals in 2009 (see Table
9). The goal with which respondents were the most dissatisfied was initiating
new customer relationships, followed by meeting with current customers.
Table 9 ~ Gaps Between Satisfaction and Importance of Goals
These large gaps represent a significant change from 2007. It appears that in
2009 respondents not only rated the importance of all the goals much higher
than in 2007, but they were less satisfied across the board as well in 2009,
leading to these tremendous gaps.
We examined any statistically significant differences among respondents‘
answers to Question 2 and Question 3 based on demographic factors (see
Table 10). We report only those differences found that were statistically
significant.
Table 10 ~ Demographic Differences about Goals
Demographic
Variable Q2a ~ Importance of Meeting with Current Customers
# NAFEM
Shows
There is a statistically significant positive correlation (0.177)
between the number of NAFEM shows attended by a
respondent and the importance he/she places on meeting
with current customers (p=0.005), indicating that the greater
the number of NAFEM shows attended, the more important
it is to the respondent to meet with current customers.
Annual Sales There is a statistically significant positive correlation (0.140)
between the annual sales of a respondent's company and
the importance he/she places on meeting with current
customers (p=0.041), indicating that the greater the annual
sales of a respondent‘s company, the more important it is to
the respondent to meet with current customers.
Sat Imp Diff Sat Imp Diff
Meet with current customers 3.98 4.79 -0.81 4.05 4 0.05
Initiate new customer relationships 3.75 4.92 -1.17 3.9 4.07 -0.17
Build your company‘s brand image
and reputation4.05 4.79 -0.74 4.06 4.08 -0.02
Gather information about your
competitors3.64 4.03 -0.39 3.64 3.59 0.05
Learn about industry trends 3.6 4.26 -0.66 3.62 3.76 -0.14
Gather new product information 3.6 4.00 -0.4 3.65 3.67 -0.02
Benchmark your company
compared to the competitionN/A N/A N/A 3.81 3.7 0.11
Get an edge on non-exhibitors 3.52 4.00 -0.48 3.47 3.4 0.07
Goals2009 2007
23
Q2g ~ Importance of Getting an Edge on Non-
exhibitors
Annual Sales There is a statistically significant negative correlation (-0.162)
between the annual sales of a respondent's company and
the importance of getting an edge on non-exhibitors
(p=0.019), indicating that the higher the annual sales of a
respondent‘s company, the less important it is to the
respondent to get an edge on non-exhibitors.
Q3b ~ Satisfaction of Initiating New Customer
Relationships
% Sold Directly
to End-users
There is a statistically significant negative correlation (-0.170)
between the percentage of products sold directly to end-
users and the satisfaction of initiating new customer
relationships (p=0.000).
Q3c ~ Satisfaction of Building Company’s Brand Image
and Reputation
% Sold Directly
to End-users
There is a statistically significant negative correlation (-0.144)
between the percentage of products sold directly to end-
users and the satisfaction of building a respondent‘s
company‘s brand image and reputation (p=0.029).
Q3d ~ Satisfaction of Gathering Information about
Competitors
Annual Sales There is a statistically significant positive correlation (0.170)
between the annual sales of a respondent's company and
the respondent‘s satisfaction with gathering information
about his/her competition (p=0.015).
(Q3a – Q2a) ~ Gap of Meeting with Current Customers
# NAFEM
Shows
There is a statistically significant negative correlation (-0.163)
between the number of NAFEM shows attended by a
respondent and the gap between satisfaction and
importance of meeting with current customers (p=0.010),
indicating that the greater the number of NAFEM shows
attended, the smaller the gap between satisfaction and
importance of meeting with current customers.
(Q3b – Q2b) ~ Gap of Initiating New Customer
Relationships
24
% Sold Directly
to End-users
There is a statistically significant negative correlation (-0.170)
between the percentage of products sold directly to end-
users and the gap between satisfaction and importance of
initiating new customer relationships (p=0.010).
(Q3c – Q2c) ~ Gap of Building Company’s Brand
Image and Reputation
% Sold Directly
to End-users
There is a statistically significant negative correlation (-0.156)
between the percentage of products sold directly to end-
users and the gap between satisfaction and importance of
building a respondent‘s company‘s brand image and
reputation (p=0.018).
(Q3e – Q2e) ~ Gap of Learning about Industry Trends
# NAFEM
Shows
There is a statistically significant positive correlation (0.127)
between the number of NAFEM shows attended by a
respondent and the gap between satisfaction and
importance of learning about industry trends (p=0.047),
indicating that the greater the number of NAFEM shows
attended, the greater the gap between satisfaction and
importance of learning about industry trends.
(Q3g – Q2g) ~ Gap of Getting an Edge on Non-
Exhibitors
Annual Sales There is a statistically significant positive correlation (0.153)
between the annual sales of a respondent's company and
the gap between satisfaction and importance of getting an
edge on non-exhibitors (p=0.030).
In terms of significant demographic differences, it appears that those
exhibitors who have exhibited at many NAFEM shows place greater
importance on their goal of meeting with current customers. They also are
likely to experience a lower gap between the level of satisfaction of this goal
and the level of importance of this goal through exhibiting at The NAFEM
Show. Thus, they experience greater dissatisfaction because they have a
very important goal and the importance is exceeding their level of
satisfaction with fulfilling this goal.
The higher the annual sales of the exhibitors, the more important it is for them
to meet with their customers, but the less important it is for them to get an
edge on non-exhibitors. Continuing to satisfy their current customers may be
the reason for their higher sales, and because of their size and the market
power they command, they perhaps do not feel the need to compete with
companies that do not exhibit as these companies are not a threat. As a
25
result of the lower importance they place on this goal, the gap associated
with gaining an edge on non-exhibitors is less negative, as the importance
may be lower than their satisfaction with achieving this goal. Additionally,
these exhibitors tend to be more satisfied with their ability to satisfy their goal
of obtaining information on their competitors at the show. Perhaps these are
competitors they do want to keep an eye on.
The higher the percentage of sales exhibitors sold directly to their end-users,
the less satisfied they were with their ability to satisfy their goals of initiating
new customer relationships and building their brand‘s image and reputation.
This may be attributed to The NAFEM Show having attracted more dealers,
distributors, consultants, and manufacturer‘s reps over the years than end-
users and for these exhibitors they may want more access and networking
opportunities with end-users directly. As a result, these exhibitors also had
greater dissatisfaction (as expressed as a larger negative gap) for being able
to initiate new customer relationships and building their brand image through
their having exhibited at The NAFEM Show.
26
3.2. Attendees
Q7 & Q8 ~ Importance Of and Satisfaction With Attendees From Different
Classifications
Respondents were asked to rate the importance of 17 different classifications
of attendees, and their satisfaction with the number and quality of them at
The NAFEM Show, on a 5-point Likert-type scale (where 1 = very unimportant
or very unsatisfied and 5 = very important or very satisfied) (see Table 11 and
Table 12).
Overall, respondents‘ ratings of importance for all these classifications
increased from 2007 (with the exception of service agencies). The most
important classifications of attendees for the respondents were dealer/
distributors and full-service restaurant chains in 2009 as well as in 2007
(importance questions were not asked in 2005).
Table 11 ~ Importance of Attendees
Additionally, the average satisfaction ratings for all attendee classifications
declined slightly from 2007 levels (with the exception of service agencies).
The respondents were most satisfied with the number and/or quality of
dealer/distributor and consultant/specifier/architect/designer attendees in
2009, 2007, and 2005.
Mean Std Dev n Mean Std Dev n
Consultant/Specifier/Architect/
Designer4.31 1.023 261 3.95 1.41 224
Dealer/Distributor 4.58 0.751 264 4.38 1.14 225
Full-Service Restaurant Chain 4.56 0.785 261 4.38 1.20 225
Quick-Service Restaurant Chain 4.28 1.055 260 4.13 1.31 225
Independent Restaurant 4.1 0.956 261 3.93 1.21 223
Colleges/Universities 4.17 0.938 263 4.01 1.13 222
Primary/Secondary Schools 3.8 1.128 261 3.72 1.24 223
Government/Military 4.07 0.913 260 3.94 1.05 225
Correctional Facility 3.67 1.23 261 3.52 1.27 222
Employee Feeding 3.62 1.094 261 3.55 1.18 218
Hospital/Health Care Facility 4.04 1.063 261 3.87 1.23 224
Food Manufacturer 2.87 1.294 255 2.81 1.24 218
Convenience Store 3.47 1.321 262 3.42 1.38 222
Warehouse Club 3.05 1.316 257 3.08 1.26 218
Supermarket 3.6 1.307 260 3.53 1.30 219
International Attendees 3.75 1.159 254 3.58 1.31 222
Service Agencies 3.05 1.194 253 3.08 1.11 217
20072009Importance
27
Table 12 ~ Satisfaction with Attendees
A ―gap‖ was calculated between respondents‘ ratings of satisfaction and
their corresponding ratings of importance for each attendee classification
(see Table 13). Negative gaps demonstrate areas of dissatisfaction where
importance of these classifications for the respondents exceeds their
satisfaction in terms of attendance of these classifications.
2005
Mean Std Dev n Mean Std Dev n Mean
Consultant/Specifier/Architect/
Designer3.37 1.04 243 3.46 1.19 196 3.37
Dealer/Distributor 3.56 1.02 254 3.78 1.25 199 3.33
Full-Service Restaurant Chain 3.12 1.06 247 3.36 1.18 196 2.86
Quick-Service Restaurant Chain 3.15 1.05 239 3.28 1.16 193 2.8
Independent Restaurant 2.97 0.94 237 3.1 0.97 192 2.67
Colleges/Universities 2.98 0.93 236 3.13 0.94 188 2.83
Primary/Secondary Schools 2.86 0.90 228 3.02 0.86 185 2.72
Government/Military 2.88 0.94 232 2.93 0.91 186 2.62
Correctional Facility 2.83 0.88 221 2.89 0.80 184 2.59
Employee Feeding 2.85 0.79 220 2.93 0.85 181 2.65
Hospital/Health Care Facility 2.9 0.90 225 3.01 0.98 186 2.63
Food Manufacturer 2.82 0.73 200 2.87 0.72 176 N/A
Convenience Store 2.78 0.89 222 2.94 0.88 178 2.52
Warehouse Club 2.82 0.86 208 2.87 0.83 176 N/A
Supermarket 2.74 0.89 216 2.9 0.95 176 2.52
International Attendees 3.1 0.95 223 3.19 1.00 182 N/A
Service Agencies 3.14 0.79 200 3.03 0.88 171 2.84
2007Satisfaction
2009
28
Table 13 ~ Gaps Between Importance and Satisfaction
For all categories of attendees, except service agencies, the negative gaps
increased from 2007, similarly to the increase in gaps for goal achievement,
although the increase in goal achievement negative gaps was much larger
than that of the attendee classifications. The attendee classifications with
which respondents had the greatest dissatisfaction (as evidenced by large
negative gaps) in 2009 included full-service restaurant chains, government/
military and colleges/universities. Exhibitors reported their most dissatisfaction
with the attendance levels of these three classes of attendees in 2007 as well.
We examined any statistically significant differences among respondents‘
answers to Question 7 (importance) and Question 8 (satisfaction) regarding
attendees based on demographic factors (see Table 14). We report only
those differences found that were statistically significant.
Table 14 ~ Demographic Differences about Attendees
Demographic
Variable Q7b ~ Importance of Dealer/Distributor
% Sold Directly
to End-users
There is a statistically significant negative correlation (-0.241)
between the percentage of products sold directly to end-
users and the importance of Dealer/Distributor attendees
(p=0.000).
Q7c~ Importance of Full-Service Restaurant Chain
Sat Imp Gap Sat Imp Gap
Consultant/Specifier/Architect/
Designer3.37 4.31 -0.94 3.46 3.95 -0.49
Dealer/Distributor 3.56 4.58 -1.02 3.78 4.38 -0.6
Full-Service Restaurant Chain 3.12 4.56 -1.44 3.36 4.38 -1.02
Quick-Service Restaurant Chain 3.15 4.28 -1.13 3.28 4.13 -0.85
Independent Restaurant 2.97 4.1 -1.13 3.1 3.93 -0.83
Colleges/Universities 2.98 4.17 -1.19 3.13 4.01 -0.88
Primary/Secondary Schools 2.86 3.8 -0.94 3.02 3.72 -0.7
Government/Military 2.88 4.07 -1.19 2.93 3.94 -1.01
Correctional Facility 2.83 3.67 -0.84 2.89 3.52 -0.63
Employee Feeding 2.85 3.62 -0.77 2.93 3.55 -0.62
Hospital/Health Care Facility 2.9 4.04 -1.14 3.01 3.87 -0.86
Food Manufacturer 2.82 2.87 -0.05 2.87 2.81 0.06
Convenience Store 2.78 3.47 -0.69 2.94 3.42 -0.48
Warehouse Club 2.82 3.05 -0.23 2.87 3.08 -0.21
Supermarket 2.74 3.6 -0.86 2.9 3.53 -0.63
International Attendees 3.1 3.75 -0.65 3.19 3.58 -0.39
Service Agencies 3.14 3.05 0.09 3.03 3.08 -0.05
20072009Attendees
29
# Domestic
Shows
Exhibited
There is a statistically significant positive correlation (0.182)
between the number of domestic trade shows at which
respondents exhibited and the importance of Full-Service
Restaurant Chain attendees (p=0.004).
Q7e ~ Importance of Independent Restaurant
# Domestic
Shows
Exhibited
There is a statistically significant positive correlation (0.166)
between the number of domestic trade shows at which
respondents exhibited and the importance of Independent
Restaurant attendees (p=0.009).
Q7f ~ Importance of College/University
# Domestic
Shows
Exhibited
There is a statistically significant positive correlation (0.279)
between the number of domestic trade shows respondents
attended and the importance of College/University
attendees (p=0.000).
% Sold Directly
to End-users
There is a statistically significant negative correlation (-0.142)
between the percentage of products sold directly to end-
users and the importance of College/University attendees
(p=0.031).
Q7g ~ Importance of Primary/Secondary School
# Domestic
Shows
Exhibited
There is a statistically significant positive correlation (0.198)
between the number of domestic trade shows respondents
attended and the importance of Primary/Secondary School
attendees (p=0.002).
Q7h ~ Importance of Government/Military
# Domestic
Shows
Exhibited
There is a statistically significant positive correlation (0.184)
between the number of domestic trade shows respondents
attended and the importance of Government/Military
attendees (p=0.004).
Q7j ~ Importance of Employee Feeding
# Domestic
Shows
Exhibited
There is a statistically significant positive correlation (0.244)
between the number of domestic trade shows respondents
attended and the importance of Employee Feeding
attendees (p=0.000).
Q7k ~ Importance of Hospital/Health Care
30
# Domestic
Shows
Exhibited
There is a statistically significant positive correlation (0.190)
between the number of domestic trade shows respondents
attended and the importance of Hospital/Health Care
attendees (p=0.002).
Q7l ~ Importance of Food Manufacturer
# International
Shows
Exhibited
There is a statistically significant positive correlation (0.235)
between the number of international trade shows
respondents attended and the importance of Food
Manufacturer attendees (p=0.022).
Q7m ~ Importance of Convenience Store
Annual Sales There is a statistically significant positive correlation (0.183)
between the annual sales of a respondent's company and
the importance of Convenience Store attendees (p=0.007).
Q7n ~ Importance of Warehouse Club
# NAFEM
Shows
There is a statistically significant negative correlation (-0.140)
between the number of NAFEM shows respondents
attended and the importance of Warehouse Club
attendees (p=0.029).
# Domestic
Shows
Exhibited
There is a statistically significant positive correlation (0.131)
between the number of domestic trade shows respondents
attended and the importance of Warehouse Club
attendees (p=0.039).
Q7o ~ Importance of Supermarket
# International
Shows
Exhibited
There is a statistically significant positive correlation (0.219)
between the number of international trade shows
respondents attended and the importance of Supermarket
attendees (p=0.036).
Q7p ~ Importance of International Attendee
# NAFEM
Shows
There is a statistically significant positive correlation (0.139)
between the number of NAFEM shows respondents
attended and the importance of International attendees
(p=0.030).
# Domestic
Shows
Exhibited
There is a statistically significant positive correlation (0.262)
between the number of domestic trade shows respondents
attended and the importance of International attendees
31
(p=0.000).
# International
Shows
Exhibited
There is a statistically significant positive correlation (0.327)
between the number of international trade shows
respondents attended and the importance of International
attendees (p=0.001).
Annual Sales There is a statistically significant positive correlation (0.156)
between the annual sales of a respondent's company and
the importance with the International attendees (p=0.024).
% Sold Directly
to End-users
There is a statistically significant negative correlation (-0.144)
between the percentage of products sold directly to end-
users and the importance of International attendees
(p=0.031).
% Sold Outside
North America
There is a statistically significant positive correlation (0.134)
between the percentage of products sold outside North
America and the importance of International attendees
(p=0.045).
Q8b ~ Satisfaction with Dealer/Distributor
# NAFEM
Shows
There is a statistically significant negative correlation (-0.150)
between the number of NAFEM shows respondents
attended and their satisfaction with Dealer/Distributor
attendees (p=0.030).
Q8c ~ Satisfaction with Full-Service Restaurant Chain
# NAFEM
Shows
There is a statistically significant negative correlation (-0.135)
between the number of NAFEM shows respondents
attended and their satisfaction with Full Service Restaurant
Chain attendees (p=0.039).
% Sold Directly
to End-users
There is a statistically significant negative correlation (-0.159)
between the percentage of products sold directly to end-
users and their satisfaction with Full Service Restaurant
Chain attendees (p=0.019).
Q8d ~ Satisfaction with Quick Service Restaurant
Chain
# International
Shows
There is a statistically significant positive correlation (0.243)
between the number international trade shows respondents
attended and their satisfaction with Quick Service
Restaurant Chain attendees (p=0.023).
32
% Sold Directly
to End-users
There is a statistically significant negative correlation (-0.144)
between the percentage of products sold directly to end-
users and their satisfaction with Quick Service Restaurant
Chain attendees (p=0.036).
Q8e ~ Satisfaction with Independent Restaurant
# NAFEM
Shows
There is a statistically significant negative correlation (-0.137)
between the number of NAFEM shows respondents
attended and their satisfaction with Independent
Restaurant attendees (p=0.041).
Q8g ~ Satisfaction with Primary/Secondary School
# NAFEM
Shows
There is a statistically significant negative correlation (-0.180)
between the number of NAFEM shows respondents
attended and their satisfaction with Primary/Secondary
School attendees (p=0.008).
Q8h ~ Satisfaction with Government/Military
# NAFEM
Shows
There is a statistically significant negative correlation (-0.160)
between the number of NAFEM shows respondents
attended and their satisfaction with Government/Military
attendees (p=0.017).
Q8j ~ Satisfaction with Employee Feeding
# NAFEM
Shows
There is a statistically significant negative correlation (-0.162)
between the number of NAFEM shows respondents
attended and their satisfaction with Employee Feeding
attendees (p=0.019).
Q8k ~ Satisfaction with Hospital/Health Care
# NAFEM
Shows
There is a statistically significant negative correlation (-0.173)
between the number of NAFEM shows respondents
attended and their satisfaction with Hospital/Health Care
attendees (p=0.011).
Q8l ~ Satisfaction with Food Manufacturer
# NAFEM
Shows
There is a statistically significant negative correlation (-0.208)
between the number of NAFEM shows respondents
attended and their satisfaction with Food Manufacturer
attendees (p=0.004).
33
Q8m ~ Satisfaction with Convenience Store
# NAFEM
Shows
There is a statistically significant negative correlation (-0.236)
between the number of NAFEM shows respondents
attended and their satisfaction with Convenience Store
attendees (p=0.001).
Q8n ~ Satisfaction with Warehouse Club
# NAFEM
Shows
There is a statistically significant negative correlation (-0.231)
between the number of NAFEM shows respondents
attended and their satisfaction with Warehouse Club
attendees (p=0.001).
Q8o ~ Satisfaction with Supermarket
# NAFEM
Shows
There is a statistically significant negative correlation (-0.229)
between the number of NAFEM shows respondents
attended and their satisfaction with Supermarket attendees
(p=0.001).
Q8p ~ Satisfaction with International Attendee
# NAFEM
Shows
There is a statistically significant negative correlation (-0.143)
between the number of NAFEM shows respondents
attended and their satisfaction with International attendees
(p=0.037).
Interestingly, two very clear patterns emerge from these demographic
differences concerning the importance respondents place on different
attendee classifications and their satisfaction with the number and quality of
them in attendance at The NAFEM Show. The more domestic trade shows at
which respondents exhibit, the greater importance they place on almost all
the end-user classifications of attendees. It appears that for this segment of
exhibitors, they may be exhibiting at many trade shows as a means to access
these end-users who are very important to them. Additionally, these exhibitors
may be more demanding ―consumers‖ of trade shows, and as such they
want to see lots of end-users at the show.
Those respondents who have exhibited at more NAFEM shows experienced
lower satisfaction in the number and quality of almost all end-user
classifications of attendees and dealers/distributors as well. These exhibitors,
perhaps because they have exhibited at so many NAFEM shows, have grown
increasingly more difficult to please. It may be that they expect a great deal
out of The NAFEM Show in exchange for their commitment over the years.
34
3.3. Satisfaction
Question 4a ~ Overall Satisfaction (“Absolute” Satisfaction)
Respondents were asked about their overall satisfaction with this year‘s
NAFEM show. On a five-point Likert scale (where 1 = much worse than
expected and 5 = much better than expected), they reported an average
overall satisfaction of 3.31. This represents the third consecutive decrease (a
7.54% decline from 2007 to 2009, a 2.98% decline from 2005 to 2007, and a
3.7% decline from 2003 to 2005) in overall satisfaction ratings, and is the lowest
rating (with the exception of 2001) since 1991 (see Figure 7).
Figure 7 ~ Historical Satisfaction Ratings
Q4b, Q4c & Q4d ~ Satisfaction with Decision Makers, Leads and Orders
We measured respondents‘ satisfaction overall and with various aspects of
The NAFEM Show (see Table 15). These aspects (measured on a 5-point Likert-
type scale where 1 = much worse than expected and 5 = much better than
expected) included:
• Overall satisfaction (Q4a)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Atlanta
(1991)
New
Orleans (1993)
Las Vegas
(1995)
New
Orleans (1997)
Dallas
(1999)
Orlando
(2001)
New
Orleans (2003)
Anaheim
(2005)
Atlanta
(2007)
Orlando
(2009)
Ove
rall S
atisf
ac
tio
n
Show Locations
Historical Overall Satisfaction
35
• Number of decision makers visiting your booth at The NAFEM Show in
2009 (Q4b)
• Quality of leads received at The NAFEM Show in 2009 (Q4c)
• Number of orders received at The NAFEM Show in 2009 (Q4d)
The highest satisfaction rating was for The NAFEM Show overall (3.31) followed
by the quality of leads received at The NAFEM Show in 2009 (3.23) and then
the number of qualified decision makers that visited their booth at The NAFEM
Show in 2009 (3.19). Respondents were least satisfied with the number of
orders received at The NAFEM Show in 2009 (2.60). All of these results are
lower than the responses in 2007 and 2005. (In 2009, we did not ask
respondents to compare leads and orders to previous NAFEM shows).
Table 15 ~ Satisfaction with Various Aspect of The NAFEM Show
Satisfaction Model
To determine what variables contributed to respondents‘ ratings of absolute
(overall) satisfaction, we used a linear regression model. We refer to
satisfaction as ―absolute‖ since we did not ask respondents to rate their
satisfaction with The NAFEM Show in comparison to other shows. We
examined the following variables to determine their effect on explaining the
variance (variation) in absolute satisfaction ratings among respondents:
• ―Gap‖ for goals (Q3 – Q2)
• ―Gap‖ for various attendee classifications (Q8 – Q7)
• Number of decision makers visiting their booth (Q4b)
• Quality of leads received (Q4c)
• Number of orders received (Q4d)
When using regression, which allows one to make a prediction about a
dependent variable (in this case, absolute satisfaction with The NAFEM Show
Mean Std Dev n Mean Mean
Overall 3.31 1.074 265 3.58 3.69
Decision Makers 3.19 1.15 265 3.49 3.37
Leads 3.23 1.009 262 3.3 3.27
Orders 2.6 0.904 213 2.87 2.72
Leads Compared to
Previous ShowsN/A N/A N/A 3.4 3.14
Orders Compared to
Previous ShowsN/A N/A N/A 2.9 2.72
20052007Satisfaction with
2009
36
in 2009) using one or more independent variables, the only independent
variables that significantly influence respondents’ absolute satisfaction are:
Number of qualified decision makers who visited their booth
(Q4b)
Gap – Building your company‘s brand image and reputation
(Q3c – Q2c)
Gap – Consultants/Specifiers/Architects/Designers (Q8a – Q7a)
Gap – Gathering information about their competitors (Q3d –
Q2d)
Our regression model generated an adjusted r-squared of 0.709, meaning
that 70.9% of the variability in absolute satisfaction can be explained by the
variability of the independent variables listed above (p=0.000).1 This also
means that the remaining variability in absolute satisfaction is explained by
variables other than those originally entered into this regression model (see
Figure 8).
Figure 8 ~ Satisfaction Model
In 2007, 70.1% of the variance in overall satisfaction was explained by the
number of decision makers at the show and leads received compared to
previous shows. The consistency of decision makers in the satisfaction model
from 2007 to 2009 demonstrates how critical they are for exhibitors.
1 It should be noted that explaining human behavior and attitudes is an imprecise science, and thus explaining
over 70% of the variance in satisfaction should be considered outstanding given that in most research of this
type, average explanations fall in the 20-30% range.
Decision Makers (Q4b)
Gap – Building Brand Image (Q3c – Q2c)
Absolute Satisfaction
(Q4a)
r2 = 70.9%
Gap –Consultants/
Architects, etc. (Q8a – Q7a)
Gap – Gather Information on
Competitors (Q3d – Q2d)
37
Differences Accounted for by Demographic Variables
We examined any statistically significant differences among respondents‘
answers to Question 4 based on demographic factors (see Table 16). We
report only those differences found that were statistically significant.
Table 16 ~ Demographic Differences in Satisfaction
Demographic
Variable Q4b ~ Satisfaction with Decision Makers
% Sold Directly
to End-users
There is a statistically significant negative correlation (-0.147)
between the percentage of products sold directly to end-
users and their satisfaction with the number of qualified
decision makers who visited their booth at The NAFEM Show
in 2009 (p=0.026).
The more respondents sell directly to end-users, the less satisfied they were
with the number of qualified decision makers who visited their booths. For
them, end-users are the decision makers in which they are most interested.
Yet the biggest gaps revealing respondents‘ dissatisfaction were with many
classes of end-users (e.g., full-service restaurant chains, colleges/universities,
government/military, quick-service restaurant chains, independent
restaurants). Thus, it is not surprising that exhibitors that sell a greater
percentage of products directly to the end-users will be less satisfied with the
number of decision makers at the show.
3.4 Value of The NAFEM Show
Q9 & Q10a ~ Absolute and Relative Value of The NAFEM Show
Respondents were asked two questions about the value of The NAFEM Show.
Question 9 asked them how much value they believed their participation in
The NAFEM Show would bring to their businesses. We refer to this as
“absolute” value as we did not ask respondents to compare the value of The
NAFEM Show to other trade shows. This question was rated on a 10-point
Likert scale (where 1 = low value and 10 = high value).
Question 10a asked respondents to evaluate the value of six domestic trade
shows in which The NAFEM Show was among them. We refer to this as
“relative” value as we asked respondents to compare the value of The
NAFEM Show to other trade shows. This question was based on a 5-point Likert
scale (where 1 = low value and 5 = high value).
38
The results of the analysis of these two questions are provided in Table 17
below. It should be noted that The NAFEM Show’s value (both absolute and
relative) has decreased compared to the 2007 and 2005 results. In addition,
the standard deviations for absolute value have increased, indicating less
agreement among respondents regarding the perceived value of exhibiting
at The NAFEM Show.
Table 17 ~ Value of NAFEM Show to Respondents
Value Model
To determine what variables contributed to respondents‘ ratings of value
(both absolute and relative), we used a linear regression model. We
examined the following variables to determine their effect on absolute and
relative value ratings:
• Absolute satisfaction (Q4a)
• ―Gap‖ for goals (Q3 – Q2)
• ―Gap‖ for various attendee classifications (Q8 – Q7)
• Number of decision makers visiting their booth (Q4b)
• Quality of leads received (Q4c)
• Number of orders received (Q4d)
• Relative satisfaction with quality of leads (compared to other
domestic trade shows) (Q5)
• Relative satisfaction with quality of orders (compared to other
domestic trade shows) (Q6)
We wanted to know whether absolute satisfaction and all the other items
used to try to explain the variance in absolute satisfaction contributed to
respondents‘ perceptions of absolute and relative value. We did this using a
linear regression model, which allows one to make a prediction about a
dependent variable (in this case, absolute and relative value) using one or
more independent variables.
Abs Rel Abs Rel Abs Rel
Mean 6.46 3.64 6.96 4.27 7.43 4.29
Std Dev 2.25 0.86 2.11 0.93 1.84 0.86
n 243 253 209 196 296 261
Scale 10-point 5-point 10-point 5-point 10-point 5-point
2007 2005Value
2009
39
The regression model for relative value generated an adjusted r-squared
value of 0.467 (at p=0.000 significance level), meaning that 46.7% of the
variability in “relative value” (Q10a) can be explained by the variability of:
Quality of leads received at The NAFEM Show in 2009 (Q4c)
Gap – Getting an edge on non-exhibitors (Q3g – Q2g)
Gap – Convenience Stores (Q8m – Q7m)
Number of orders received at The NAFEM Show in 2009
(Q4d)
None of the other items entered into the model explained any of the
variability in relative value. This also means that the remaining variability in
relative value is explained by variables other than satisfaction, leads, orders,
goals, etc. in this regression model (see Figure 9).
Figure 9 ~ Value Model
The other regression model for absolute value generated an adjusted r-
squared value of 0.641 (at p=0.000 significance level), meaning that 64.1% of
the variability in “absolute value” can be explained by the variability of:
Absolute satisfaction (Q4a)
Number of orders received at The NAFEM Show in 2009
(Q4d)
Leads(Q4c)
Gap – Edge on Non-Exhibitors
(Q3g – Q2g)Relative Value
(Q10a)
r2 = 46.7%
Gap –Convenience
Stores (Q8m – Q7m)
Orders (Q4d)Absolute Value
(Q9)
Decision Makers (Q4b)
Gap – Building Brand Image (Q3c – Q2c)
Absolute Satisfaction
(Q4a)
r2 = 70.9%
Gap –Consultants/
Architects, etc. (Q8a – Q7a)
Gap – Gather Information on
Competitors (Q3d – Q2d)
Gap – Full-Service Chains
(Q8c – Q7c)
r2 = 64.1%
40
Quality of leads at The NAFEM Show in 2009 (Q4c)
Gap – Full-service Chain Restaurants (Q8c – Q7c)
Gap – Getting an edge on non-exhibitors (Q3g – Q2g)
None of the other items entered into the model explained any of the
variability in absolute value. This also means that the remaining variability in
absolute value is explained by variables other than satisfaction, leads, orders,
goals, etc. in this regression model (see Figure 9).
Differences Accounted for by Demographic Variables
We examined any statistically significant differences among respondents‘
answers to Question 9 (absolute value) and Question 10a (relative value)
based on demographic factors (see Table 18). We report only those
differences found that were statistically significant.
Table 18 ~ Demographic Difference in Value
Demographic
Variable Q10a ~ Relative Value of The NAFEM Show
% Sold Directly
to End-users
There is a statistically significant negative correlation (-.221)
between the percentage of products sold directly to end-
users and the relative value of The NAFEM Show (p=0.001).
Once again, we see that exhibitors that are generating a greater percentage
of sales directly to end-user perceive The NAFEM Show differently. They were
less satisfied with the number of decision makers at the show, and now they
perceive less value from exhibiting at The NAFEM Show compared to other
shows.
That there was only one statistically significant difference in perception of
value, and only two statistically significant differences in value in 2007, speaks
to the fact that the value exhibitors receive from exhibiting at the show does
not appear to differ much regardless of the type of exhibitor.
3.5 Return Intentions
Q12 ~ Return Intentions
Respondents were asked how likely they are to exhibit at The NAFEM Show in
2011. Only 64% of the respondents said the likelihood of their exhibiting in
2011 was 100%; in 2007, over 86% reported the likelihood of their exhibiting in
2009 at 100%. This is a decrease of almost 20 percentage points from 2007 (or
25%). The average likelihood of exhibiting in 2011 was 86.5%, compared to
over 95% in 2007 (see Table 19).
41
Table 19 ~ Likelihood of Exhibiting in 2011
Return Intentions Model
To determine what factors contributed to respondents‘ intentions to exhibit at
The NAFEM Show in 2011, we used a linear regression model (see Figure 10),
which allows one to make a prediction about a dependent variable (in this
case, return intentions) using one or more independent variables. We
examined the following variables to determine their potential effect on return
intentions:
• Relative value (Q10a)
• Absolute value (Q9)
• Absolute satisfaction (Q4a)
• Relative satisfaction with leads (compared to other domestic trade
shows) (Q5)
• Relative satisfaction with orders (compared to other domestic trade
shows) (Q6)
• ―Gap‖ for goals (Q3 – Q2)
• ―Gap‖ for various attendee classifications (Q8 – Q7)
• Number of decision makers visiting their booth (Q4b)
• Quality of leads received at The NAFEM Show in 2009 (Q4c)
• Number of orders received at The NAFEM Show in 2009 (Q4d)
The regression model generated an adjusted r-squared of 0.516 (at p=0.000
significance level), which means that 51.6% of the variability in return
intentions can be explained by the variability of
Relative value of The NAFEM Show (Q9a)
Absolute satisfaction (Q4a)
Gap – Meeting with current customers (Q3a – Q2a)
None of the other items entered into the model explained any of the
variability in return intentions. This also means that the remaining variability in
return intentions is explained by variables other than satisfaction, leads,
orders, decision makers, relative value, and absolute value in this regression
model (see Figure 10). The economic situation and the uncertainty
surrounding it may explain some of the remaining 48.4% of the variance in
return intentions.
Return Intention 2009 2007 2005
Mean 86.5% 95.8% 91.0%
Median 100% 100% 100%
Mode 100% 100% 100%
Std Dev 20.99% 12.28% 17.14%
n 219 172 294
42
Figure 10 ~ Return Intentions Model
It should be noted that in 2007 only 7.7% of the variability in return intentions
could be explained, and it was explained only by absolute value and no
other variables. It was hypothesized that regardless of whether an exhibitor
received high value or low value from exhibiting, he/she planned on returning
in 2009. Thus, there was little variability among exhibitors to explain, and all of
the variables we had entered into the regression equation (with the
exception of absolute value) in hopes of explaining why they would or
wouldn‘t return did not work.
This year, however, it appears that exhibitors have broken away from the
―we‘re coming back no matter what‖ mentality. Perhaps the economy has
made them more discriminating consumers, and as a result, their satisfaction
with, and value derived from exhibiting at The NAFEM Show is now explaining
their decision to return.
To get more information from those respondents who were unsure of their
intention to return, we asked respondents why they wouldn‘t exhibit at The
NAFEM Show in 2011 (if they answered the previous question at 50% or less).
Leads(Q4c)
Gap – Edge on Non-Exhibitors
(Q3g – Q2g)Relative Value
(Q10a)
r2 = 46.7%
Gap –Convenience
Stores (Q8m – Q7m)
Orders (Q4d)Absolute Value
(Q9)
Decision Makers (Q4b)
Gap – Building Brand Image (Q3c – Q2c)
Absolute Satisfaction
(Q4a)
r2 = 70.9%
Gap –Consultants/
Architects, etc. (Q8a – Q7a)
Gap – Gather Information on
Competitors (Q3d – Q2d)
Gap – Full-Service Chains
(Q8c – Q7c)
r2 = 64.1%
Return Intention (Q12)
Gap – Meet Current
Customers (Q3a – Q2a)
r2 = 51.6%
43
Q12 ~ Why wouldn't your company exhibit at The NAFEM Show in Orlando,
Florida in 2011 (February 10 - 12)?
Respondents who received this question were asked to explain why his/her
company was not planning on exhibiting in 2011.
Of the 23 exhibitors who attempted to answer this question, 22 usable
responses were recorded. The top three reasons that manufacturers may not
exhibit at The NAFEM Show in 2011 are because of the lower attendance this
year, the economy, and the East Coast location. Because of the lower
attendance at the 2009 show, exhibitors fear that the ROI, particularly given
the uncertainty of the economy, may not warrant exhibiting at the next show.
For those exhibitors with a primarily West Coast audience, they fear their
customers will not attend the next NAFEM show and as a result, the exhibitors
are uncertain whether they will exhibit again.
Attendance (n=6)
The most common reason for possibly not exhibiting at The NAFEM Show in
2011 given by exhibitors was because of the ―poor attendance‖ at the
2009 show. Six (6) exhibitors said they were ―very disappointed with the
overall attendance.‖ Said one, ―[The] money is there to exhibit, but [the]
ROI is very uncertain [because of the] fear of poor attendance.‖
Remarked another, ―Because of the extremely poor attendance of this
year's show, we will really have to consider if we would exhibit in 2011.‖
Two (2) of these six exhibitors were frustrated with the lower attendance
coupled with poor service and the layout of the show floor. Commented
one, ―Freeman and [the] OCCC were useless. The cost incurred was way
too high for no service. I am unsure why I even paid for any of their
services, that is how pathetic their teams were. I am very disappointed
with the overall attendance and show floor setup.‖ The other exhibitor
remarked that the 2009 show ―was the slowest show [he/she has] ever
attended. The overall layout of the show was poor and confusing. The
few customers looking for our booth could not find us.‖
Economy (n=4)
Four (4) respondents indicated that the ―economy of [the] country‖ would
perhaps dictate if they would exhibit again in 2011, ―especially in light of
how poorly attended the 2009 show was.‖ ―[Our] Intentions are to
exhibit,‖ said one exhibitor. ―[The] only reason we would not is if the
economic downfall [affected] us to where it was not financially wise to do
so.‖
44
West Coast (n=2)
Two (2) exhibitors said that because of the lack of West Coast customers
they may not exhibit at the 2011 show. Said one, ―We are a West Coast
company [and] we did not see a lot of West Coast folks.‖ Another
echoed a similar sentiment. ―It's not very convenient for our West Coast
customers,‖ he/she commented. ―If they stay away, we will probably stay
away also.‖
Miscellaneous (n=2)
There were two (2) responses that did not fit into any of the previous
categories. There were as follows:
We are still considering. There was poor response to our concerns at
the show and so far no follow-up by NAFEM management as promised
to address them. Jay Williams 941-661-6774
I am VERY concerned by the question and the consideration of
opening NAFEM to fixture manufacturer exhibitors on the show floor.
NAFEM by FAR is the best trade show for our products, heavy
equipment, cooking, ventilation and warewashing. The name NAFEM,
[its] roots and founding vision was to create an expo to separate
heavy equipment from the mass of smallwares, dealers and
miscellaneous exhibitors that cluttered and became to dominate the
likes of the NRA, WRA, FRA, IHM&RS. ALL these shows are suffering the
withdrawal or downsizing of manufacturers and NAFEM members
because they DO NOT MEET our needs. Why in the world would we
want to emulate them? NAFEM - National Assoc of Food Equipment
Manufacturers, later to become North American Food Equipment
Mfg's.... Why are we looking to destroy our successes? I am very
concerned in the direction we are even CONSIDERING to look at this
as a good idea.
Will Exhibit (n=8)
Eight (8) exhibitors stated they ―will exhibit‖ perhaps missing the previous
question or perhaps not paying attention. Said one, ―We WILL exhibit in
the next NAFEM show in 2011. This is our most important show and [we]
appreciate the huge efforts on the part of NAFEM to put this together. For
the state of the economy, this year‘s show was very good.‖
Differences Accounted for by Demographic Variables
We examined any statistically significant differences among respondents‘
answers to Question 12 (return intentions) (see Table 20). We report only those
differences found that were statistically significant.
45
Table 20 ~ Demographic Difference about Return Intentions
Demographic
Variable Q12 ~ Return Intentions
% Sold Directly
to End-users
There is a statistically significant negative correlation
(-0.254) between the percentage of products sold directly
to end-users and respondents' likelihood of returning to
exhibit at The NAFEM Show in 2011 (p=0.000), indicating
that the greater the percentage of products sold directly
to end-users, the less likely the company is to exhibit at The
NAFEM Show in 2011.
The return intention of those who sell more directly to the end-users is not as
high as those who do not sell much directly to the end-users. This is likely
driven by the fact that The NAFEM Show attracts not just end-users, but also
specifiers, designers, dealers, distributors, etc. Also, given these respondents‘
lower ratings for decision makers at the show and the value they derive from
the show compared to other shows, lower return intentions are hardly
surprising.
3.6 Punch Line ~ Implications for NAFEM
Respondents‘ goals for having exhibited at The NAFEM Show this year grew in
importance from 2007, not surprising given the recession currently plaguing
the US and much of the world. Building relationships with new customers,
maintaining relationships with current customers, and building their
company‘s brand image and reputation take on increased significance
when sales are hard to come by and only the strongest survive.
Interestingly, respondents‘ level of satisfaction with accomplishing these goals
through their exhibiting at The NAFEM Show did not decrease much from
2007. Compared to the decrease in satisfaction with the number and quality
of classifications of attendees, the decrease in satisfaction with
accomplishing goals seems minor. However, due to the large increases in
importance, the goal gaps were significant. Exhibitors expressed their
greatest dissatisfaction with initiating new customer relationships, followed by
meeting with current customers. Of note is that this focus on relationship
building and maintenance was significant for the attendees of The NAFEM
Show as well.
Like with the goals for exhibiting, respondents‘ ratings of importance for all
attendee classifications increased from 2007 (with the exception of service
agencies), while the average satisfaction ratings for all attendee
classifications (with the exception of service agencies) decreased. The most
46
important classifications of attendees for the respondents were
dealer/distributors and full-service restaurant chains (as in 2007). The
respondents were most satisfied with the number and/or quality of
dealer/distributor and consultant/specifier/architect/designer attendees in
2009, 2007, and 2005. However, for all categories of attendees, except
service agencies, negative gaps (expressing dissatisfaction) increased from
2007.
The attendee classifications with which respondents had the greatest
dissatisfaction (as evidenced by large negative gaps) in 2009 included full-
service restaurant chains, government/military and colleges/universities.
Exhibitors reported the most dissatisfaction with the attendance levels of these
three classes of attendees in 2007 as well. Thus, once again, the greatest
dissatisfaction in terms of attendance is with classes of end-users.
Those respondents who have exhibited at many NAFEM shows place greater
importance on their goal of meeting with current customers. As a result, they
experience greater dissatisfaction because they have a very important goal
and the importance is exceeding their level of satisfaction with fulfilling this
goal. This segment of exhibitors also expressed significantly lower levels of
satisfaction with the number and quality of almost all end-user classifications
of attendees. This loyal group of exhibitors appears to be very demanding in
wanting more and/or better quality end-user attendees. NAFEM should pay
particularly close attention to pleasing this important group of exhibitors as it
does not want to lose its commitment. It is typically much easier and less
expensive to keep a customer than to find a new one. NAFEM wants to keep
these loyal customers.
Those respondents who have exhibited at many domestic trade shows place
greater importance on almost all the end-user classifications of attendees.
For this segment of exhibitors, they may be exhibiting at many trade shows as
a means to access these end-users who are very important to them. They are
also the ones who are likely exhibiting at the NRA Show as well and as such,
make comparisons between it and The NAFEM Show. As the NRA Show and
other foodservice trade shows may attract more end-users, this segment
wants to NAFEM to do the same at The NAFEM Show.
Those respondents with higher annual sales place greater importance on
meeting with their customers, but less importance on getting an edge on non-
exhibitors. Their ability to meet the needs of their current customers may be
the reason for their higher sales, and because of their size and the market
power they command, they are not compelled to compete with and are not
threatened by companies that do not exhibit. Such companies may not be
seen as a threat. Thus, this segment of exhibitors with higher annual sales
experiences less dissatisfaction with gaining an edge on non-exhibitors.
Additionally, these exhibitors tend to be more satisfied with their ability to
satisfy their goal of obtaining information on their competitors at the show.
The NAFEM Show is meeting these exhibitor‘s need to do just that.
47
A new finding this year is that exhibitors that sold more directly to their end-
users appear to have different attitudes about The NAFEM Show. As a group,
they were less satisfied with their ability to satisfy their goals of initiating new
customer relationships and building their brand‘s image and reputation.
Since the show has traditionally attracted more dealers, distributors,
consultants, and manufacturer‘s reps over the years than end-users, these
exhibitors are less satisfied as they likely want more access and networking
opportunities with end-users directly. As a result, these exhibitors also had
greater dissatisfaction (as expressed as a larger negative gap) for being able
to initiate new customer relationships and building their brand image through
their having exhibited at The NAFEM Show.
Not unexpectedly, these exhibitors were also less satisfied with the number of
qualified decision makers who visited their booths because for them, end-
users are the decision makers they are most interested in. Yet the biggest
gaps revealing respondents‘ dissatisfaction were with many classes of end-
users (e.g., full-service restaurant chains, colleges/universities,
government/military, quick-service restaurant chains, independent
restaurants). Thus, it is not surprising that exhibitors that sell a greater
percentage of products directly to the end-users will be less satisfied with the
number of decision makers at the show.
As a result of being less satisfied with the number of decision makers at the
show, they now perceive less relative value from exhibiting at The NAFEM
Show compared to other shows. These exhibitors who sold more directly to
their end-users were the only segment of respondents who differed in their
perception of the value of exhibiting at The NAFEM Show.
The return intentions for this group of respondents is lower than those who sell
less directly to end-users, as return intentions are explained at least partially by
the perceived relative value received from exhibiting at the show.
Overall, this group of exhibitors perceives The NAFEM Show differently and
tends to behave differently as a result. If exhibitors are going to attempt to
sell more products directly to end-users, then NAFEM will need to more
rigorously identify the needs of this particular segment and devise ways in
which the show can help meet those needs if this is in keeping with The
NAFEM Show‘s mission and positioning.
Exhibitors are increasingly less satisfied with their experience of exhibiting at
The NAFEM Show. They rated their satisfaction overall at a 3.31 (out of 5), the
third consecutive decrease and the lowest rating (with the exception of 2001)
since 1991. This year, exhibitors were less satisfied not only with the number of
orders received at The NAFEM Show in 2009, but all aspects of the show.
Some of this may be a reflection of exhibitors‘ dissatisfaction with the
48
economy; nevertheless, an overall satisfaction rating decline since 1991 is not
good news.
Much (almost 71%) of the variability in exhibitors‘ ratings of absolute (overall)
satisfaction can be explained by their level of satisfaction with the number of
qualified decision makers who visited their booth, and the dissatisfaction gaps
in being able to build their company‘s brand image and gather information
about their competitors, and in the number and quality of consultant/
specifier/architect/designer attendees at the show. Of these explanatory
variables, the level of satisfaction with decision makers provides the most
explanatory power (it explains 64.1% of the variance in overall satisfaction
with the show). More than leads, more than orders, exhibitors are satisfied
with their having exhibited at The NAFEM Show when decision makers are in
attendance. The exhibitors want to build relationships with new decision
makers and maintain relationships with current decision makers.
Besides overall satisfaction decreasing, absolute and relative value have
decreased compared to 2007 and 2005. While not as much variability in
relative value could be explained as for absolute satisfaction, a significant
46.7% could be explained (compared to only 28.9% in 2007). The variance in
relative value can be explained by the variability in the quality of leads
received, dissatisfaction gaps in getting an edge on non-exhibitors and the
number and quality of convenience store attendees, and the number of
orders received at The NAFEM Show. Of these explanatory variables, the
quality of leads has the most explanatory power, accounting for 33.7% of the
variance in relative value.
A greater portion of the variance in absolute value could be explained this
year compared to 2007 when only 44% was explained. Absolute
satisfaction, the number of orders received, the quality of the leads, and the
dissatisfaction gaps in the number and quality of full-service restaurant chains
attending and the exhibitors‘ ability to get an edge on non-exhibitors
accounted for 64.1% of the variability in absolute value. Of these explanatory
variables, absolute satisfaction has the most explanatory power, accounting
for 49.6% of the variance in absolute value.
Exhibitors‘ return intentions have decreased as well. The average likelihood of
exhibiting in 2011 was 86.5%, compared to 95.8% in 2007 and 91% in 2005.
A little over 51% of the variability in exhibitors‘ return intentions can be
explained by exhibitors‘ ratings of relative value, absolute satisfaction, and
the dissatisfaction gap in them being able to meet with current customers.
Of these explanatory variables, the relative value rating provides the most
explanatory power (it explains 45.6% of the variance in return intentions).
In 2007 only 7.7% of the variability in return intentions could be explained, and
it was explained only by absolute value and no other variables. It was
hypothesized that regardless of whether an exhibitor received high value or
49
low value from exhibiting, he/she planned on returning in 2009. Thus, there
was little variability among exhibitors to explain, and all of the variables we
had entered into the regression equation (with the exception of absolute
value) in hopes of explaining why they would or wouldn‘t return did not work.
This year, the variability (45.6%) of return intentions can be explained by
relative value as opposed to absolute value. Perhaps due to the economy,
exhibitors are making their decisions about exhibiting at the 2011 show in
comparison to the value received at other shows. On the one hand, this
bodes well because The NAFEM Show‘s relative value ratings have always
been higher than its absolute value ratings—it‘s not just that the show is
valuable, it‘s that it is really valuable in comparison to all the other shows.
However, this relative value rating has decreased steadily over the years, and
as such, The NAFEM Show is vulnerable.
As noted earlier, exhibitors appear to have broken away from the ―we‘re
coming back no matter what‖ mentality. It is likely that the economy has
made them more discriminating consumers, and as a result, the value derived
from exhibiting at The NAFEM Show compared to exhibiting at other shows is
now explaining their decision to return.
50
4 Features of The NAFEM Show
Exhibitors were queried regarding their interest in different potential NAFEM show
enhancements, as well as their interest in different types of fixture manufacturers.
Different focus areas for specialty pavilions were also suggested.
4.1 Show Enhancements
Q14, Q15, & Q16 ~ Show Enhancements
On this year‘s survey, respondents were asked to rate the value of four new
potential NAFEM show enhancements (on a 10-point scale with 1 = low value
and 10 = high value). None of the show enhancements listed garnered a very
high value rating but the enhancement with the highest value rating (5.05 out
of 10) was organizing exhibitors into two major sections on the show floor. The
enhancement that had the lowest value rating (2.85 out of 10) was adding
food distributors to the show floor (see Table 21).
Table 21 ~ Value of Potential Show Enhancements
Respondents were also asked if NAFEM expanded future shows to include
fixture manufacturers, which types of fixture manufacturers they would like to
see at a future NAFEM show? They were asked to select all options that
applied. The most common response to this question was lighting for which
23.8% of the respondents chose. HVAC (19.4%) and millwork (15.0%) were the
next most common choices. Wall/ceiling coverings (5.9%) and doors/
windows (7.3%) were at the bottom of the list (see Table 22).
Potential Show Enhancements Mean Stdev n
Organizing exhibitors into two major
sections on the show floor: (1) Front-of-
house (e.g., Smallwares) and (2) Back-
of-house (e.g., Heavy
equipment/Middleware
5.05 3.20 263
Adding specialty pavilions to the show
floor4.17 2.80 263
Adding fixture manufacturers as
exhibitors on the show floor3.08 2.35 261
Adding food distributors to the show
floor2.85 2.60 260
51
Table 22 ~ Preferred Fixture Manufacturers
Q15 ~ “Other” Fixture Manufacturers
Twenty-eight (28) exhibitors marked the ―other‖ category of desired fixture
manufacturers, but only six (6) indicated a type of fixture manufacturer that
should be added. They were as follows:
Hotel furniture
Custom cabinetry
Bath
Wine cellars & wine racks
Displays
Point of purchase displays
Twenty (20) respondents either said there were ―none‖ wanted or that fixtures
were ―not important to [them]‖ as they ―had no interest in fixture
manufacturers being added.‖
Respondents were asked what their top two choices for types of specialty
pavilions would be. The focus area of most interest to respondents was
industry segments (51.3%) and the area of least interest (6.2%) was fixtures
(see Table 23).
Table 23 ~ Preferred Specialty Pavilions
Which types of fixtures manufacturers would you
like to see at a future NAFEM show?Frequency %
Lighting 65 23.8%
HVAC (Heating/Ventilation/Air Conditioning) 53 19.4%
Millwork 41 15.0%
Other 28 10.3%
Flooring (Carpet/Tile) 24 8.8%
Plumbing 22 8.1%
Doors/Windows 20 7.3%
Wall/Ceiling Coverings (Wallpaper/Tile) 16 5.9%
Which types of fixtures
manufacturers would you like to
see at a future NAFEM show
Frequency Percent
Millwork 612 39.16%
Lighting 543 34.74%
HVAC (Heating/Venting/Air
Conditioning)414 26.49%
Flooring (Carpet/Tile) 356 22.78%
Plumbing 287 18.36%
Wall/Ceiling Coverings
(Wallpaper/Tile)249 15.93%
Doors/Windows 170 10.88%
Other 76 4.86%
Does Not Apply to Me 513 32.82%
Top two focus areas you would like
to see in a specialty pavilionFrequency %
Industry segment (e.g., healthcare,
supermarket, schools)140 51.3%
Sustainability/''Going Green'' 117 42.9%
Global cuisine trends (tastes,
merging ethnic preferences)35 12.8%
Other 20 7.3%
Country-specific exhibitors 19 7.0%
Fixtures 17 6.2%
52
Q16 ~ “Other” Specialty Pavilions
Twenty (20) respondents marked ―other‖ in response to the question about
specialty pavilions that they would like to see added to future NAFEM shows.
While eight (8) of them simply wrote ―none‖ or ―not important to us,‖ twelve
(12) did have specific suggestions.
Four (4) exhibitors are interested in ―beverage,‖ ―beverage trends,‖ or ―coffee
and beverage.‖ The other suggestions for specialty pavilions were as follows:
Bakery Specific equipment
Bar
Emerging Segment trends
Energy
General contracting
GSA
Innovation, new products
Technology
Finally, respondents were asked how interested their companies were in
marketing to convenience stores, warehouse clubs, or supermarkets (on a 5-
point scale with 1 = not interested at all and 5 = extremely interested).
Exhibitors are interested in marketing to this group of end-users as the average
value rating was 4.26 (see Table 24).
Table 24 ~ Interest in Convenience Stores, Warehouse Clubs, or Supermarkets
Differences Accounted for by Demographic Variables
We examined any statistically significant differences among respondents‘
answers to Question 14 (show enhancement) (see Table 25). We report only
those differences found that were statistically significant.
Mean 4.26
Median 4.00
Stdev 1.32
n 249
How interested is your company in
marketing to convenience stores,
warehouse clubs, or supermarkets?
53
Table 25 ~ Demographic Difference about Show Enhancements
Demographic
Variable
Q14c ~ Potential Show Enhancements – Food
Distributors
Job Title President/CEO/Principal respondents rated the value of
adding food distributors to The NAFEM Show statistically
significantly lower than Trade Show Manager/Coordinator
and Marketing Manager/Coordinator respondents
(p=0.008 and p=0.027, respectively).
That presidents, CEOs, and principals are not as keen on adding food
distributors may be because they have a more strategic as opposed to
tactical perspective and are more likely to be aligned with the founding
values of NAFEM. Adding food distributors may be seen as becoming too
much like the NRA Show, something that many exhibitors have strong opinions
about.
4.2 Punch Line ~ Implications for NAFEM
Of the possible show enhancements, respondents rated the value of
segmenting the show floor and adding specialty pavilions higher than the
other two enhancements. This same priority ranking was found with
attendees, although attendees rated the value of segmenting the show floor
and adding specialty pavilions higher, 7.44 and 6.00, respectively (out of 10)
compared to exhibitors (5.05 and 4.17, respectively). Regarding their top
choices of specialty pavilions, exhibitors requested industry segment pavilions
(51.3%) and ―green‖ pavilions (42.9%). Attendees, likewise, requested these
top two pavilions, although ―green‖ pavilions were the top choice (63.6%)
followed by industry segment pavilions (57.1%). Hence, there is strong
consistency of opinion in terms of show enhancements, although the
attendees would value them more.
Respondents reported that they were interested in marketing to convenience
stores, warehouse clubs, and supermarkets (mean score of 4.26 out of 5).
However, exhibitors did not rate the importance of these attendee
classifications very high. Of all the attendee classifications, only food
manufacturers and service agencies rated lower in importance. Also, the
importance that exhibitors attach to seeing convenience stores, warehouse
clubs, and supermarkets at The NAFEM Show has not risen much from 2007 to
2009 (3.42 to 3.47; 3.08 to 3.05; and 3.53 to 3.6, respectively, out of 5). In fact,
the importance ratings for warehouse clubs has actually decreased slightly.
Thus, although exhibitors say they are interested in marketing to these
attendee segments, they do not rate them as very important.
54
5 Positioning of The NAFEM Show
To assist The NAFEM Show in strengthening its position in relation to competing
domestic and international trade shows, respondents were asked to: (1) report how
many trade shows at which they had exhibited (domestic and international); (2)
rate the quality of leads and orders received as a result of exhibiting at six different
domestic trade shows (of which The NAFEM Show was one); and (3) evaluate the
value of six domestic and six international trade shows.
5.1 Competition from Domestic Shows
Attendance at all competing trade shows by NAFEM show exhibitors is
decreasing (see Table 26). The shows respondents were asked to report on
included:
The NAFEM Show
National Restaurant Association (NRA) Show
Western Restaurant Association (WRA) Show
International Hotel, Motel & Restaurant Show(IH/MR&S)
Florida Restaurant Association (FRA) Show
Food Marketing Institute (FMI)
Table 26 ~ Comparative Percent of Exhibitors at Domestic Trade Shows
between 2003 and 20092
Q5 & Q6 ~ Leads and Orders Relative to Investment
Exhibitors were asked to rate the quality of the leads and orders they received
as a direct result of exhibiting at these six different domestic trade shows
within the past three years based on their expenses vs. their return on
2 In 2003, respondents were asked if they had ‗regularly or recently‘ exhibited at these shows; in
2005, respondents were asked if they had exhibited in the last five years; in 2007 and 2009,
respondents were asked if they had exhibited in the last three years.
Show 2009 2007 2005 2003NAFEM 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
NRA 71.21% 76.88% 76.20% 79.30%
WRA 36.96% 58.64% 51.00% 62.60%
IH/M&RS 42.86% 55.32% 50.20% 62.60%
FRA 39.77% 57.75% 51.00% 57.00%
FMI 13.90% N/A N/A N/A
TRA N/A N/A 42.10% 52.50%
% of Respondents Reporting Exhibiting at
55
investment (on a 5-point Likert scale where 1 = much worse than expected
and 5 = much better than expected).
In terms of quality of leads, The NAFEM Show received the highest rating (3.13)
but the National Restaurant Association Show (NRA) was not far behind with a
rating of 3.10. The other four trade shows received ratings of 3.00 or below
(see Table 27).
Table 27 ~ Quality of Leads as a Direct Result of Exhibiting
When it came to rating quality of orders, the NRA received the highest rating
(3.02) and Food Marketing Institute (FMI) received the second highest rating
(2.90). The NAFEM Show received the third highest rating (2.83) which fell
below the median (see Table 28).
Table 28 ~ Quality of Orders as a Direct Result of Exhibiting
Q10 – Domestic Trade Show Evaluations
If respondents had exhibited at any of the six domestic trade shows within the
last three years, they were asked to rate the value of the show on a 5-point
Likert scale (where 1 = no value and 5 = very high value).
Although The NAFEM Show received the highest average value rating (3.64)
among the six shows evaluated (see Table 29), the rating is significantly lower
than the rating in 2007 (when it 4.27). The next most valuable show was the
National Restaurant Association (NRA) Show in Chicago, at which just over
71% of respondents reported exhibiting. Its average value rating was 3.37,
which was also far below respondents‘ rating in 2007 (when it 3.99). Although
The NAFEM Show is seen by respondents to be the most valuable domestic
trade show for equipment and supplies manufacturers, all shows scored lower
this year than in previous years indicating that trade shows in general are less
Value NAFEM NRA IH&M/RS WRA FRA FMI
Mean 3.13 3.10 3.00 2.72 2.84 2.93
Median 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Stdev 0.98 0.79 0.87 0.87 0.77 0.86
N 260 176 105 85 81 28
Value NAFEM NRA IH&M/RS WRA FRA FMI
Mean 2.83 3.02 2.79 2.65 2.74 2.90
Median 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Stdev 0.89 0.79 0.82 0.85 0.81 0.75
N 248 167 97 82 78 31
56
valuable than in years past. However, all trade shows experienced a peak in
their value rating in 2007, with the exception of The NAFEM Show. Thus The
NAFEM Show is the only show to have gradually declined in value since 2003.
Table 29 ~ Domestic Trade Show Evaluations
Differences Accounted for by Demographic Variables
We examined any statistically significant differences among respondents‘
answers to Q5, Q6 and Q10 (see Table 30). We report only those differences
that were statistically significant.
Table 30 ~ Demographic Differences in Leads, Orders, and Value Ratings
Demographic
Variable Q5a ~ Leads at The NAFEM Show
Mean Std Dev n
2009 3.64 0.86 253
2007 4.27 0.93 196
2005 4.29 0.86 261
2003 4.47 N/A 179
2009 3.37 0.87 188
2007 3.99 0.97 153
2005 3.47 1.09 199
2003 3.49 N/A 142
2009 3.03 0.86 111
2007 3.46 1.02 84
2005 2.86 1.07 131
2003 2.84 N/A 112
2009 2.73 0.82 95
2007 2.95 1.13 79
2005 2.58 1.09 133
2003 2.8 N/A 112
2009 2.76 0.86 103
2007 3.08 0.92 79
2005 2.68 0.99 133
2003 2.72 N/A 102
FMI 2009 2.92 1.03 36
Value of
FRA
NAFEM
NRA
IHMRS
WRA
57
% Sold Directly to
End-users
There is a statistically significant negative correlation (-0.153)
between the percentage of products sold directly to end-
users and the value of the quality of leads respondents
received at The NAFEM Show (p=0.021), indicating that the
greater the percentage of products sold directly to end-
users, the lower the respondent rated quality of the leads
he/she received at The NAFEM Show.
Q5b ~ Leads at NRA Show
# International
Shows
There is a statistically significant negative correlation (-0.305)
between the number of international trade shows
respondents attended and the quality of leads respondents
received at the NRA Show (p=0.021), indicating that the
greater the number of international trade shows at which a
respondent exhibited, the lower the respondent rated
quality of the leads he/she received at the NRA Show.
Q5f ~ Leads at FMI
# Domestic
Shows
There is a statistically significant negative correlation (-0.376)
between the number of domestic trade shows respondents
attended and the quality of leads respondents received at
FMI (p=0.048), indicating that the greater the number of
domestic trade shows at which a respondent exhibited, the
lower the respondent rated quality of the leads he/she
received at FMI.
Q6b ~ Orders at NRA Show
# International
Shows
There is a statistically significant negative correlation (-0.248)
between the number of international trade shows
respondents attended and the number of orders
respondents received at the NRA Show (p=0.041), indicating
that the greater the number of international trade shows at
which a respondent exhibited, the lower the respondent
rated number of orders he/she received at the NRA Show.
Q10a ~ Relative Value of The NAFEM Show
% Sold Directly to
End-users
There is a statistically significant negative correlation (-0.221)
between the percentage of products sold directly to end-
users and the relative value of The NAFEM Show (p=0.001).
Q10b ~ Relative Value of NRA Show
58
# Domestic
Shows
There is a statistically significant positive correlation (0.162)
between the number of domestic trade shows respondents
attended and the relative value of the NRA Show (p=0.026),
indicating that the greater the number of domestic trade
shows at which a respondent exhibited, the higher the
respondent rated the relative value of the NRA Show.
% Sold Directly to
End-users
There is a statistically significant positive correlation (0.285)
between the percentage of products sold directly to end-
users and the relative value of the NRA Show (p=0.004).
Q10e ~ Relative Value of the FRA Show
# NAFEM Shows There is a statistically significant negative correlation (-0.220)
between the number of The NAFEM Shows respondents
attended and the value they received given the investment
for the FRA Show (p=0.029), indicating that the more NAFEM
shows at which a respondent has exhibited, the lower
he/she rates the value of the FRA Show.
Q10f ~ Relative Value of FMI
# Domestic
Shows
There is a statistically significant negative correlation (-0.436)
between the number of domestic trade shows respondents
attended and the relative value of FMI (p=0.008), indicating
that the greater the number of domestic trade shows at
which a respondent exhibited, the higher the respondent
rated the relative value of FMI.
For those respondents who have exhibited at many international shows, they
are less satisfied with the quality of leads and orders received from exhibiting
at The NAFEM Show. For some reason these exhibitors are a bit more
demanding of The NAFEM Show in comparison to other domestic trade
shows.
The relative value of the NRA Show is perceived as higher for those exhibitors
that sell a greater percentage directly to end-users or exhibit at more
domestic trade shows. Those selling more directly to end-users are less
satisfied with the quality of leads they received from exhibiting at The NAFEM
Show. Given that they were also less satisfied with the number of decision
makers at the show as well, and decision makers are the ones who provide
leads, their lower satisfaction with the leads at The NAFEM Show is a logical
result. Because the NRA Show attracts more end-users, this group of exhibitor
may perceive it to be of higher value.
59
Finally, those exhibitors who exhibit at many domestic trade shows rate the
quality of the leads and the relative value received from exhibiting at the FMI
lower than those who do not exhibit at as many domestic trade shows. It
appears that the FMI is not a favorite show among this group of exhibitors.
5.2 Competition from International Shows
Respondents were queried about their exhibition at international trade shows.
The shows respondents were asked to report on included:
HOSTEX (Toronto)
Hotelympia (London)
Food & Hotel Asia (Singapore)
HOST (Milan)
HOTELEX (Shanghai)
HOFEX (Hong Kong)
The international trade show at which most respondents reported exhibiting in
the last three years was HOSTEX (Toronto) (26.6%), as has been the case since
2003, followed by Hotelympia (London) (19.0%) (also the case since 2003) (see
Table 31). All six international shows saw an increase in the percentage of
NAFEM exhibitors who also exhibited at them.
Table 31: Comparative Percent of Exhibitors at International Tradeshows
between 2005 and 20073
Q11 – Value of International Trade Shows
Respondents were asked about the value they receive from exhibiting at six
different international trade shows. If they exhibited at any of these trade
shows within the last three years, respondents were asked to rate the value of
the show on a 5-point Likert scale (where 1 = no value and 5 = very high
value).
As in 2007, none of the international shows received an average value rating
over a 4.0. Although every international trade show received lower average
2009 2007 2005 2003*
HOSTEX (Toronto) 26.6% 25.5% 24.1% 24.0%
Hotelympia (London) 19.0% 16.8% 14.2% 18.4%
Food & Hotel Asia (Singapore) 15.7% 13.7% 10.0% 14.5%
HOST (Milan) 15.7% 14.5% 10.0% 14.5%
HOTELEX (Shanghai) 13.8% 9.3% N/A N/A
HOFEX (Hong Kong) 13.3% 12.1% 11.1% 14.0%
Show% of Respondents Reporting Exhibiting at
60
ratings in 2009 than in previous years, HOST (Milan) received the highest
average value rating this year (3.72) among the six shows (see Table 32).
HOST (Milan) also garnered the highest rating in 2005, but in 2007, HOFEX
(Hong Kong) was the highest rated international trade show.
Table 32: Comparative Value of International Tradeshows3
Differences in Trade Show Competition Accounted for by Demographic
Variables
We examined any statistically significant differences among respondents‘
answers to Q11 (see Table 33). We report only those differences that were
statistically significant.
Table 33 ~ Demographic Differences in Value of International Shows
Demographic
Variable Q11a ~ Value of the HOST (Milan)
# International
Shows
Exhibited
There is a statistically significant positive correlation (0.391
between the number of international trade shows at
which respondents have exhibited and the value they
received given the investment for HOST (Milan) (p=0.014),
indicating that the more international trade shows at
which a respondent has exhibited, the higher he/she
rates the value of HOST (Milan).
% Sold Outside
North America
There is a statistically significant positive correlation (0.470)
between the percentage of products sold outside of
North America and the value the respondent received
given the investment for HOST (Milan) (p=0.006),
3 In 2003, respondents were asked if they had ‗regularly or recently‘ exhibited at these shows; in
2005, respondents were asked if they had exhibited at these shows in the last five years; in 2007
and 2009, respondents were asked if they had exhibited at these shows in the last three years.
Mean Std Dev n Mean Mean Mean
HOST (Milan) 3.72 0.944 39 3.89 4.04 2.46
HOSTEX (Toronto) 3.19 0.738 68 3.69 3.25 3.28
Hotelympia (London) 3.38 0.848 47 3.87 3.38 3.03
HOFEX (Hong Kong) 3.45 0.666 33 3.95 3.41 2.56
Food & Hotel Asia
(Singapore)3.46 0.756 39 3.88 3.54 2.73
HOTELEX (Shanghai) 3.59 0.743 34 3.71 3.59 N/A
2007 2005 2003*International Shows
2009
61
indicating that the greater the percentage of products
sold outside North America, the higher the respondent
rated the value received from HOST (Milan).
Q11d ~ Value of HOFEX (Hong Kong)
% Sold Outside
North America
There is a statistically significant positive correlation (0.411)
between the percentage of products sold outside of North
America and the value the respondent received given the
investment for HOFEX (Hong Kong) (p=0.033), indicating
that the greater the percentage of products sold outside
North America, the higher the respondent rated the value
received from HOFEX (Hong Kong).
Those respondents who exhibit at more international shows or sell a greater
percentage of products outside of North America find the value of HOST and
HOFEX greater than those who do not exhibit at many international show or
who do not sell much outside of North America.
5.3 Punch Line ~ Implications for NAFEM
Attendance by NAFEM exhibitors across all domestic trade shows has
decreased since 2007, likely a result of the economic downturn. Related, the
value received from exhibiting at these shows and at The NAFEM Show has
decreased since 2007 as well, although the relative value of The NAFEM Show
has been steadily declining since 2003. All other domestic trade shows
experienced a peak in 2007, while The NAFEM Show continued to decline
slightly. The NAFEM Show still receives the highest value rating compared to
the other shows, but given its decline, it represents an area of vulnerability.
In terms of the quality of leads and orders received from exhibiting at
domestic trade shows, The NAFEM Show received the highest ratings for
leads, while the NRA Show received the highest rating for orders. Obviously
the NRA Show is perceived as more of an ―order-taking‖ type of show. This
perception was revealed in one respondent‘s comments as to how The
NAFEM Show can maintain its leading position. He/she warned NAFEM not to
―lose focus‖ as The NAFEM Show ―is about equipment, nothing more and
nothing less.‖ He/she continued to argue that the show should ―not become
a traveling NRA [and that NAFEM should] keep in mind that [The] NAFEM
[Show] is not an order writing or order taking show. It's about education.‖
For those respondents who have exhibited at many international shows, they
are less satisfied with the quality of leads and orders received from exhibiting
at The NAFEM Show. For some reason these exhibitors are a bit more
demanding of The NAFEM Show in comparison to other domestic trade
shows. The number of NAFEM exhibitors who are exhibiting at international
shows has been increasing since 2005, so this is a trend that should be
62
monitored for if more and more NAFEM exhibitors become frequent
international exhibitors, they may be increasingly demanding and may rate
the value of The NAFEM Show lower.
Those exhibitors selling more directly to end-users are less satisfied with the
quality of leads they received from exhibiting at The NAFEM Show. They also
rate the relative value of the NRA Show higher than those who do not sell as
much directly to end-users. Respondents that exhibit at more domestic trade
shows also rate the relative value of the NRA Show higher than those who do
not exhibit at as many domestic trade shows. Because the NRA Show attracts
more end-users, these groups of exhibitors may perceive it to be of higher
value.
Additionally, those exhibitors who exhibit at more domestic trade shows rate
the quality of the leads and the relative value received from exhibiting at the
FMI lower than those who do not exhibit at as many domestic trade shows. It
appears that the FMI is not a favorite show among this group of exhibitors.
The most popular international trade show at which to exhibit in the last three
years was HOSTEX (Toronto), as has been the case since 2003, followed by
Hotelympia (London), also the case since 2003. Given that NAFEM show
exhibitors have increased their exhibiting at all six international shows since
2005, these two international shows in particular should be considered
competition, and perhaps HOFEX as well.
All six international trade shows received lower average ratings in 2009 than in
previous years. HOST (Milan) received the highest overall average value
rating this year (3.72) among the six shows and earned the highest rating in
2005 as well, but in 2007, HOFEX (Hong Kong) was the highest rated
international trade show.
Finally, those respondents who exhibit at more international shows or sell a
greater percentage of products outside of North America find the value of
HOST and HOFEX greater than those who do not exhibit at many international
show or who do not sell much outside of North America.
63
6 Improvements and Recommendations
Respondents were asked how The NAFEM Show can maintain its position as the
leading trade show for foodservice equipment and supplies.
6.1 Improvements
Q18 ~ What should The NAFEM Show do to maintain its position as the leading trade
show for equipment and supplies?
Not surprisingly, this year exhibitors had the economy on their minds. It surfaced in
comments about costs of the show, lower attendance, and too much space in the
OCCC. Interestingly, some attendees actually commented that the lower
attendance was a plus for them, as they got to meet with some vendors that they
normally might not have gotten to see.
While for attendees the thought of a ―one stop shop‖ with equipment, supplies,
and food products is appealing, and may be particularly so as ―disposable
income‖ for trade show attendance decreases, the responding exhibitors clearly
want The NAFEM Show to stay focused on equipment and supplies. Keeping ―food
out‖ and not expanding it to be another "everything" and "everybody" show was
clearly on their minds this year.
Promotion/Attract More Attendees (n = 29)
Twenty-nine (29) exhibitors mentioned promoting to and increasing the number
of attendees at the show, with many (n=14) mentioning end-users specifically.
This is hardly surprising given the perhaps lower attendance or perceived lower
attendance. Also, if the floor space was greater than at the Georgia World
Congress Center in Atlanta, the Orange County Convention Center might have
appeared to be emptier, thus reinforcing exhibitors‘ propensity to perceive
lower attendance.
Fourteen (14) of these 29 exhibitors wanted NAFEM to ―bring in more end-users
[as] this past NAFEM [show] was very disappointing in that regard‖ and to make
sure they were ―decision making end-users.‖ ―We need more high profile end-
users,‖ stated one respondent while another called for ―show attendance [to]
improve dramatically.‖ NAFEM should ―strive to bring as many quality end-users
into the show as possible (not just dealers) as everyone's goal is to spark interest
in the end-user, not the dealer,‖ remarked another exhibitor.
Two (2) respondents asked that NAFEM ―get highly qualified consultants and
chains to attend the show,‖ and another one said it needs to ―increase
awareness by hotel operators and contract feeders.‖ A different exhibitor
requested more ―dealers and end-users to attend,‖ and another suggested
―offer[ing] travel incentives to key industry accounts – i.e., McDonald's, etc.‖
64
The other 15 exhibitors had suggestions and comments about ―bringing in more
attendees‖ in general, ―increasing qualified traffic (not just anybody),‖ and/or
promoting more to increase attendance. Exclaimed one exhibitor,
―Communicate to prospective attendees that this is THE place and missing it
would be a major professional blunder!‖ ―Reduc[ing] costs to gain more
attendees and manufacturing groups,‖ was an idea of another respondent.
The desire to ―get potential customers to come to the show‖ was evident in
another respondent‘s comments who said that ―customers indicated that this
show has decreased dramatically in size. [His/her] international customers were
surprised when they had walked the entire show in one day.‖ One exhibitor
suggested that there was ―not much you can do about national economic
conditions, but attendance was a huge disappointment for all this year.‖
Two (2) of these exhibitors suggested ―just keep[ing] NAFEM in front of everyone
until the next show‖ by being ―present in magazines, websites, direct mails, etc.
so people keep in mind the show name.‖ Another respondent suggested
―promot[ing] the show in a more positive way. Additional marketing is
necessary during tough economic times to attract end customers to fill the
potential. The show has become a party for dealers and consultants and less
from the education side.‖ Concerning education, one exhibitor proposed that
NAFEM ―help the attendees from various groups come to the show by offering
pertinent education they require in those fields.‖
While not helpful in terms of a specific suggestion, one respondent
recommended that NAFEM ―give potential buyers an irrefutable reason to
attend [the show]—an enticement that they could not possibly pass up. Use
your imagination‖ he/she suggests. Another exhibitor, however, did have
specific suggestions for increasing attendance. ―Attract more attendees by
using drawings for prizes or other incentives,‖ he/she said, ―[and]…market
OCCC/OC development plans to attendees and potential attendees to help
make Orlando a more attractive venue.‖ He/she jokes, ―Offer a ‗not below
freezing‘ guarantee!‖
Stay Focused (n = 18)
The next most frequent response to how The NAFEM Show can maintain its
leading position concerned the show staying focused and not moving into
food retail, fixtures, or trying to attract end-users. It should remain ―focus[ed] on
the equipment and supplies industry,‖ said one exhibitor, ―instead of trying to
show a bunch of other things‖ as another exhibitor stated.
Eighteen (18) exhibitors essentially stated that the show should keep its focus
―instead of trying to show a bunch of other things.‖ Explained an exhibitor,
―Focus hard on keeping the show specific and not be tempted with too much
diversification as it will dilute the message and strength of the show. It cannot
be everything to everyone. Don‘t need to try and pick up the FMI fragments or
to become a food show.‖ Recommended another respondent, ―Continue to
promote [the show] as an equipment and supplies show [and] keep it from
becoming a full service, serving and sampling show.‖
65
Two (2) of these 18 exhibitors cautioned against moving into food retail. Stated
one, ―I would also continue to focus on foodservice and not food retail. ―Food
retail is often serviced separately by our members (different sales forces, reps,
divisions, etc) because the channel distribution and purchasing is much
different. Food retail (c-store, grocery, warehouse, etc.) already [has its] own
trade shows. By including those segments, the value of the show to foodservice
would be diminished.‖
Other exhibitors discussed the value of trying to attract end-users, and
suggested the show stay focused on the distribution channel. Suggested one,
―Return the focus of the show to being the most attended show by distribution
with their sales and purchasing teams for training and education. Support the
NRA show as the show attended by end-users. Do not try to have the two shows
compete against each other—rather [they should] compliment.‖ Warned
another respondent, ―Be careful not to stray too far from the base. Our goal is
market to our reps, dealers, and consultants during the show. We also hope to
connect with end-users, but this is secondary to the first three groups.‖
Finally, one exhibitor had a rather lengthy but informative comment about The
NAFEM Show maintaining its leading position:
―It is true... The NAFEM Show is the leading show in the U.S., arguably the
world, for our segment, kitchen equipment and supply. It is the leading
trade show that holds that coveted position because it is a targeted
show that provides the gathering forum to best show these items that
make up the NAFEM membership. It offers a trade show based on
quality of exhibitors and relevance, not on size of the floor space sold,
allowing our target audience of decision makers and influencers of
these items a focused expo. Simply and fundamentally The NAFEM Show
meets and exceeds the needs for showcasing EQUIPMENT and relevant
supporting products. This is NAFEM‘s strongest and most important asset.
It should be our most coveted as well. If you dilute this fundamental
keystone, NAFEM will become like most other shows, irrelevant and non
important to our key and core audience and the attraction to
consultants, food facility designers, chains, and dealers. Please note
that NRA once was considered the best show in our industry and most, if
not all, of the allied organizations would host annual meetings and
awards around the expo, including the FFP, FCSI. This WAS true until the
show became too large and too fragmented to remain of any real
significance. We have too many ‗NRAs‘ that serve the ‗one stop
platform‘ and it is our focus that differentiates NAFEM from what has
become just short of a bazaar, souk and thrift store of janitorial supplies,
restaurant marquee lighting, waitress shoes, pagers and yes, french fries.
Does NAFEM really want to follow this path with furnishings, and decor,
mill work, lighting and plumbing? If we want to become diluted, less
important and even irrelevant, then [the] answer would be yes. The
consequence of panhandling to this thinking [is that] we will certainly
follow the other shows [in] becoming less important, our audience
indifferent and the NAFEM show inconsequential of real influence.
66
NAFEM should NOT consider wavering from our charter that has made it
the great show it is; maintain its position as the leading trade show for
equipment and supplies. After all, that‘s how we started, it is who we
are and who we should be.‖
It’s Working (n = 12)
Twelve (12) respondents to this question said that ―no change is needed‖ or
―keep up the good work!‖ One pleased exhibitor exclaimed, ―Just keep doing
what you are doing. This was the best NAFEM show (orders and leads) I have
ever had!‖ ―Keep with [the] winning format. Don‘t change,‖ praised another
respondent. This sentiment was mimicked by another who remarked that
NAFEM should ―keep up the good work in planning and orchestrating the
show.‖
Costs (n = 12)
Twelve (12) respondents indicated that ―reduc[ing] costs for exhibitors‖ is a way
that The NAFEM Show can maintain its leading position. Given the current
economic situation, this is hardly surprising, and even in the 2007 report
exhibitors complained about costs.
One respondent noted that ―the economy is the biggest issue. NOT raising
booth fees for the 2011 show would be a huge plus for exhibitors.‖ Besides all 12
of these respondents wanting lower costs, two (2) exhibitors also requested
better service in combination with the lower costs. Said one, ―Make it much
easier and less costly to work with the show people—i.e., Freeman, electrical,
plumbing, lighting, florists, etc. [are] now becoming 40 to 50% of show costs….
[The] cost of renting floor space is driving manufacturers to reduce [the]
number of shows and the amount of floor space being taken.‖
Pleaded another exhibitor, ―Keep costs low [and] offer better services to
exhibitors prior to opening day, i.e., directions to show floor, setup, air
conditioning when hot, heater when cold, better signage before show at
entrance...more assistance (people) around facility to direct and instruct....it
was like a ghost-town.‖
Food Out vs. Food In (n = 11)
While one (1) exhibitor is in favor of ―open[ing The NAFEM Show] to all types of
food products,‖ ten (10) other respondents are not. Four (4) respondents
essentially all said, ―Keep the food vendors out!‖ the other six (6) exhibitors
provided a rationale for wanting to ―keep out the food companies.‖ Said one,
―The presence [of food companies] would make the NAFEM Show similar to the
NRA Show, in a negative way. The food companies draw distracting nibblers,
make a mess, with most nibblers tending not to be the important decision
makers we wish to see.‖
67
This comparison to the NRA Show was made by another three (3) respondents
as well. One remarked, ―Don't turn NAFEM into the NRA Show with every booth
handing out food samples or hiring booth models to attract customers.‖ He/she
explained, ―We invest a large portion of our annual marketing budget on
NAFEM and plan all of our objectives around this show because we know we
will be meeting with key decision makers in our industry.‖ ―Do not try to mimic
NRA with free food and high numbers of people just looking to graze for their
admission ticket,‖ stated another exhibitor. ―Take the high road and set the bar
higher than other shows can reach.‖ Another respondent urged NAFEM, ―Do
not lose focus. NAFEM is about equipment, nothing more and nothing less. Do
not become a traveling NRA. Please keep in mind that NAFEM is not an order
writing or order taking show. It's about education.‖
Finally, one respondent asked that NAFEM ―keep [the] show strictly for
manufacturers of food equipment—no food or unrelated manufacturers.
He/she continued, ―This is a 'business' oriented show and is valued as such.‖
Another pleaded to ―keep [the show] as equipment and supplies. Other
industry trade shows (FMI and NACS) have allowed food and beverage
manufacturers, food and beverage distributors, trinkets and trash, etc. The
equipment side of these shows has diminished over the years and many have
or are pulling out.‖
Move Location (n = 10)
While attendees were split on whether the move to Orlando was a good one,
ten (10) exhibitors were unified in their displeasure with the move. Four (4)
called for the show ―to move around‖ because ―five shows in Florida will greatly
reduce wide spread attendance,‖ and five (5) other exhibitors were concerned
with finding a ―more ‗middle of the country‘ site‖ so as not to ―lose attendees
from the Mountain West and West Coast.‖ Another (1) exhibitor simply stated,
―Get out of Orlando.‖
One exhibitor explained his reasons for not liking the Orlando location. ―I
honestly think that this show should be rotated. 10 years in Orlando is a long
time, and not a favorite destination for a lot of people. Why not Las Vegas or
New Orleans? I highly recommend New Orleans. It has been four years since
Katrina, and as [an] American, I think it is important that we support New
Orleans. Shows have been held there in the past, so I don't think it is a capacity
issue. In Orlando, it's a tourist destination for families. The hotels are not
interesting or even that nice. You must drive everywhere. I really suggest you
look at this.‖
Commented another respondent, ―It was a very poor decision to hold the show
in Orlando for so many successive years.‖ He/she continued, ―I heard many
times how West Coast people were boycotting due to this decision. Orlando is
a poor business location; it's a family vacation destination, not an adult business
location! It is certainly not a destination which will lure international business
people. What's the draw, Mickey?‖ Another exhibitor, reacting to the Orlando
location, said, ―Stop committing to ten years at any one location. This is just a
68
bad business decision no matter how attractive the contact seemed to be at
the time. You effectively made two thirds of the country question the merits and
necessity of attending your show.‖
International (n = 10)
Ten (10) exhibitors were split down the middle in terms of whether increasing the
international presence at The NAFEM Show would help it maintain its leading
position. Five (5) were in favor of increasing the international presence, with
two (2) respondents called for ―bringing in foreign companies to expand the
show‖ and to have ―more international emphasis.‖ Another said that NAFEM
―should encourage more international travelers,‖ while one other respondent
said it should ―continue to work on increasing the number of international
buyers [as] many [NAFEM] members attend the international shows but few
international players attend [The NAFEM] Show.‖ By ―open[ing] the show to
international manufacturers,‖ stated one exhibitor, ―[The NAFEM Show can]
become the leading global food equipment manufacturer show.‖
Five (5) other respondents were clearly against international expansion. They
called for ―[preventing] all ‗foreign‘ companies from exhibiting.‖ One exhibitor
said he/she ―noticed a lot of ‗foreign‘ companies that have no place in a
NORTH AMERICAN foodservice equipment manufacturer's show.‖ Another
exhibitor said that The NAFEM Show should ―only show equipment made in the
USA.‖ Warned another respondent, ―Be very careful that this ‗North American
Food Equipment Manufacturers‘ show maintains its focus on products made in
the USA. Too many imports cloud the purpose of this show and the
organization.‖ Finally, one exhibitor believes that ―the show is already
becoming diluted with the amount of international presence,‖ while another
fears that ―including foreign exporters will dilute it and make it less valuable for
U.S. equipment and smallwares manufacturers.‖
Saturday (n = 7)
Seven (7) exhibitors had complaints and suggestions about the third day of the
show. They called for ―shorten[ing] the hours on the final day‖ by ―end[ing] the
show at noon,‖ ―at 2PM,‖ or ―at 3PM [as] nothing is going on the last two hours
as everyone tries to get out the same night.‖ Another exhibitor said that
NAFEM need to ―improve attendance the last day of the show.‖ Elaborated
one respondent, ―NAFEM MUST find a way to attract more attendees on
Saturday. Exhibitors pay a high price to exhibit at a THREE day show and the
third day is a waste of time. How about raising the price of badges for Thursday
and Friday and offer a second (lower) price admission good only on Friday and
Saturday?‖
69
Services/Support for Exhibitors (n = 5)
Five (5) exhibitors believe that by providing better service/support and ―taking
better care of the exhibitors‖ that The NAFEM Show will be able to maintain its
position as the leading trade show for equipment and supplies. What these
exhibitors want is for NAFEM to ―continue being easy to do business with from
an exhibitor‘s standpoint.‖ One exhibitor pleaded with NAFEM to ―improve
communication!‖ He/she continued, ―The show organizers did not adapt to the
changing level of attendance. Our booth was almost the only one left in the
entire row and we were not notified in advance so that we could move to a
better location. The organizers should have been proactive and offered to
move us and others into a tighter configuration. When we spoke with exhibitor
services, they were not understanding.‖
Said another respondent, ―Get a better [handle] on the freight to the booths
after the show is closed. We had to wait five hours once the show closed to find
out that we were not going to receive our crates to pack up. We then had to
return at 8:00AM the following morning to pack up. This was the worst
experience regarding show breakdown that I have ever experienced in the 15
years of doing tradeshows.‖ Finally, one exhibitor stated that ―being an
equipment show requires the ability to service your exhibitors efficiently.‖
He/she observed that ―Orlando needs more forklift operators to expedite move-
in and tear-down of large equipment.‖
Dates of Show (n = 4)
Four (4) exhibitors had opinions about the new show dates in February. While
one simply requested NAFEM to ―return to the fall show date,‖ another asked
that NAFEM ―research other shows going on at the same time [as his/her
company] ended up splitting sales staff to two shows in 2009 at the exact same
time: NAFEM & Golf Industry Show/Club Managers of America.‖ A similar
situation in terms of trade show conflicts was noted by another exhibitor.
He/she asked NAFEM to ―move the show into the latter part of the year.
Atlanta in October was better in that the back end of the year is much quieter
in terms of the trade show calendar. I would suggest September/October [as
my company] is involved in seven trade shows (plumbing/restaurant) between
February and May. There is nothing in Q3/Q4 of any significance.‖
Finally, like a few attendees who made a similar recommendation, one
exhibitor requested that NAFEM ―work with some of the other big shows like NRA
and Hostex in regards to timing so that they are about six months apart. Having
The NAFEM Show in February and the NRA Show in May of the same year is not
good timing.‖
Enforce NAFEM Rules (n = 4)
Two (2) exhibitors had concerns about showing ineligible products, one (1) was
concerned with membership eligibility, and one (1) had concerns about booth
location. One exhibitor asked NAFEM to ―keep out non-conforming exhibitors,‖
70
while another exhibitor asked the same thing. ―Make certain that all exhibitors
follow all of the rules as to what products they can have [in] their booth,‖
he/she said. ―I saw several of my competitors with products that they do not
manufacture, brand or have exclusive rights to. I say this because I made
certain that only our products that fit your rules were [in] our booth and took a
tremendous amount of heat from senior management regarding my position
on this matter.‖
Another exhibitor requested that NAFEM ―enforce existing policies regarding
membership eligibility in a uniform manner.‖ And finally, one respondent asked
NAFEM to ensure that ―all exhibitors receive a fair position on the show floor that
ensures traffic and visibility. The current ‗rules‘ favor the largest booths while
putting smaller ones at a disadvantage.‖
Providing Valuable Show Features (n = 3)
Three (3) exhibitors believe that by starting or continuing to ―offer additional
value [through] specialty pavilions‖ that The NAFEM Show will maintain its
leading position. Said one, ―Definitely continue with the ‗What's Hot, What's
Cool‘ new product gallery. We would like to see something in the future where
people can scan for more information regarding our product and to also see a
list of the people who visited the WHWC booth. Maybe it's coming?‖ From
another exhibitor‘s comments it appears that he/she was not aware of the
What‘s Hot! What‘s Cool! new product gallery as he/she recommended
―open[ing] up a pavilion/space that invites companies with emerging
technologies to show potential ideas. Can be energy savings, labor issues, [or]
safety concerns. Do not have to be manufacturers but base technology ideas
that can be put into use in the foodservice industry.‖
Miscellaneous (n = 14)
Fourteen (14) responses were provided that did not fit into any of the
aforementioned categories. They were as follows:
Keep having it every other year.
More support for member innovation
Utilize lead software that allows customization & multi-level
question/response trees
It should stress that it is the premium show in the world for equipment and
supplies....one that expects and demands that its members bring their
finest exhibit booths and presents their companies in the finest tradition of
American business. I believe the member companies do that now. In
the same manner, somehow, NAFEM needs to present this show as
business trade show and as such all groups of people attending should be
encouraged to dress as if they are working in their finest tradition. NAFEM
states that business casual is accepted at the Show---however, in my
opinion many, many people just looked terrible (and that's not my first
71
choice of words to describe their attires!!) This is a very difficult issue to
manage, but NAFEM attendees should be encouraged to dress up. For
starters I don't think tennis shoes/athletic shoes, shorts, or levis/jeans should
be allowed on the floor---but this is just my opinion.
Provide edible food choices for attendees/exhibitors
Increase quantity of badges for 100 sq. ft. booth from 3 to 5 / Increase
density of display area to promote excitement; this show was spread out
over too much space and there were too many empty booths.
Clearly mark the exhibitor map with entrances that will carry most of the
traffic. Hard to tell when booth was picked. Organize by specialty--
smallwares, etc.
Offer venues for related industry groups to convene annual meetings.
Continue to make it a one stop option for current and future equipment
trends.
Continue to promote the manufacturers that are members of NAFEM.
Education should also be a priority.
Focus on cost saving products / i.e., Edgecraft (Chef'sChoice) knife
sharpeners versus the knife sharpening service companies.
Make sure to keep the dealer/distributor community excited as to a value
to being there. Especially to the West Coast as it can now be viewed as a
regional show in that it is always in Florida.
Have the free internet use on the show floor. That was a big
disappointment this year!
Organize the floor aisles so that the large island booths do not break the
aisle flow. People got lost in the maze of aisles disappearing and re-
appearing.
6.2 Recommendations
Given the results of the analysis above, we make the following
recommendations.
Manage Relative Value
The relative value that exhibitors received from having exhibited at the 2009
NAFEM show explains 45.6% of the variability in respondents‘ return intentions
for the 2011 NAFEM show. In 2007 only 7.7% of the variability in return
intentions could be explained, and it was explained only by absolute value
and no other variables. At that time, it was hypothesized that regardless of
whether exhibitors received high value or low value from exhibiting, they
planned on returning in 2009 and they were not comparing the value
received from The NAFEM Show to other domestic trade shows. Thus, there
was little variability among exhibitors to explain, and all of the variables we
had entered into the regression equation (with the exception of absolute
value) in hopes of explaining why they would or wouldn‘t return did not work.
This year, the variability (45.6%) of return intentions can be explained by
relative value as opposed to absolute value. Perhaps due to the economy,
72
exhibitors are making their decisions about exhibiting at the 2011 show in
comparison to the value received at other shows. It appears that they do not
or cannot afford to simply exhibit at any or all shows, but instead seem to be
a bit more conservative in where they will spend their time and money.
Though the relative value received from exhibiting at The NAFEM Show is
rated higher than the other domestic trade shows, this number is slipping. All
other trade shows experienced their highest relative value ratings before the
economic downturn, but The NAFEM Show did not. It has been on a decline
since 2003 in terms of relative value. In the past, this slight decrease was not
of critical concern, but now that exhibitors appear to be a bit more
discriminating in terms of their exhibiting, relative value takes on added
importance. And given that The NAFEM Show‘s relative value has been
inching downward, it runs the risk of losing return exhibitors. The NAFEM Show
is vulnerable.
As noted earlier, exhibitors appear to have broken away from the ―we‘re
coming back no matter what‖ mentality. It is likely that the economy has
made them more discriminating consumers, and as a result, the value derived
from exhibiting at The NAFEM Show compared to exhibiting at other shows is
now explaining their decision to return.
So what is explaining the variability in exhibitors‘ relative value ratings? The
variable with the most explanatory power is the quality of leads received from
exhibiting at the show. Where do good leads come from? They come from
having qualified decision makers at the show. For without qualified decision
makers present, no leads can be generated (see Figure 11).
Figure 11 ~ Driving Return Intentions Model
Respondents, in their response to the question about positioning, indicated
that the show must work to attract more attendees, and particularly end-
users. This was the same suggestion from exhibitors as in 2007. But once
NAFEM gets these decision makers to the show, how can exhibitors convert
them into leads? One answer is through relationships.
Attendees want relationships with the exhibitors as evidenced in the
attendees‘ desire for ―face time‖ with manufacturers. This reason for
attending The NAFEM Show and their level of satisfaction with the show‘s
ability to deliver on satisfying this need was the most important driver of the
relative satisfaction with, absolute and relative value derived from, and
DecisionMakers
Absolute Satisfaction
AbsoluteValue
LeadsRelativeValue
ReturnIntention
73
intentions to return to The NAFEM Show. ―Face time‖ with manufacturers was
the only factor that drove all four outcome variables. Its importance cannot
be denied.
Thus, NAFEM needs to work on creating connections between attendees and
exhibitors. The sheer number of attendees becomes less relevant when leads
are created. The NRA Show is noted for attracting many attendees, although
the ―quality‖ of these potential decision makers can be questionable. The
NAFEM Show should continue to get the ―right‖ decision makers there, not the
ones looking for free samples.
The next question that needs to be answered is ―What type of attendees
should these decision makers be?‖ Should they come more from the end-
user, dealer/distributors, consultant/specifier/architect/designer, etc.
population? To answer this question NAFEM needs to consider the positioning
of The NAFEM Show.
Positioning
The NAFEM Show appears to be a crossroads of sort: attract more end-users
and compete head-to-head with the NRA Show, or attract perhaps not as
many end-users as the NRA Show and remain focused on equipment and
supplies only. The show should still attempt to attract the ―right‖ end-users so
as to educate them. Providing these end-users with the ability to ask their
dealers and distributors the right questions is an important aspect of The
NAFEM Show. ―An educated consumer is our best customer‖ (the tag line
from the SYMS stores) should be the mantra of the dealers and reps. Dealers
and manufacturers‘ reps need to be reminded that one of the purposes of
The NAFEM Show is to educate the end-users, not to put the dealers and reps
out of business by having exhibitors sell directly to the end-users on the show
floor. End-users need to be educated as to what The NAFEM Show is all about
and be able to position it compared to the NRA Show. If the NRA Show is
equivalent to Wal-Mart, then The NAFEM Show has to position itself as Target.
In addition to educating the end-users about what The NAFEM Show is all
about, NAFEM could also help set the exhibitors expectations providing them
with the tools to address end-users immediate needs. Providing the end-user
with specific contact information for the dealer/distributor responsible for
his/her area or literally introducing them to each other (if the
dealer/distributor is also attending the show) is one way to enhance the end-
user‘s experience at The NAFEM Show. This is also another way to create
relationships among all types of attendees/exhibitors.
Exhibitors want The NAFEM Show to position itself distinctly from the NRA Show.
The respondents strongly believe that to maintain its leading position, The
NAFEM Show must remained focused and not dilute its message. Whether
the message has been diluted is not clear, but what is clear is that end-users
74
perhaps have not been made aware of what they should expect to take
away from attending the show and how that would differ from the take away
of the NRA Show. The NAFEM Show wants its attendees to come away
―smelling of success, not grease,‖ and success comes from being educated
about what innovative products and manufacturers are available to them.
75
7 Appendix
We include a copy of the 2009 Exhibitor Show Evaluation Survey here (see Table
34).
Table 34 ~ Survey Questions
Q# Question Sub-Category Scale
1 Indicate your job title/role
within your organization:
Response 1 = President/CEO/Principal
2 = Senior Marketing Executive
3 = Senior Sales Executive
4 = Marketing
Manager/Coordinator
5 = Trade Show
Manager/Coordinator
6 = Manufacturer's Rep
7 = Other
2 Rate how important the
following goals are to your
company:
Meet with current customers 0 = N/A
1 = Very unimportant
2 = Somewhat unimportant
3 = Neither important nor
unimportant
4 = Somewhat important
5 = Very important
Initiate new customer
relationships
Build your company‘s brand
image and reputation
Gather information about
your competitors
Learn about industry trends
Gather new product
information
Get an edge on non-
exhibitors
3 Rate how satisfied you were
with your ability to achieve
these goals by exhibiting at
The NAFEM Show:
Meet with current customers 0 = N/A
1 = Very unsatisfied
2 = Somewhat unsatisfied
3 = Neither satisfied nor unsatisfied
4 = Somewhat satisfied
5 = Very satisfied
Initiate new customer
relationships
Build your company‘s brand
image and reputation
Gather information about
your competitors
Learn about industry trends
Gather new product
information
76
Get an edge on non-
exhibitors
4 In analyzing exhibit expenses
vs. your return on investment,
rate the following:
Your overall experience at
The NAFEM Show
0 = Don't know
1 = Much worse than expected
2 = A little worse than expect
3 = About as expected
4 = A little better than expected
5 = Much better than expected
The number of qualified
decision makers who visited
your booth at The NAFEM
Show
The quality of leads you
received at The NAFEM Show
The number of orders you
received at The NAFEM Show
5 In analyzing your exhibit
expenses vs. your return on
investment, rate the quality of
leads you received as a direct
result of exhibiting at each of
the following trade shows:
The NAFEM Show 0 = Didn't exhibit
1 = Much worse than expected
2 = A little worse than expect
3 = About as expected
4 = A little better than expected
5 = Much better than expected
National Restaurant
Association Show (NRA)
International Hotel, Motel, &
Restaurant Show (IH/M&RS)
Western Restaurant
Association Show (WRA)
Florida Restaurant Show
Food Marketing Institute
6 In analyzing your exhibit
expenses vs. your return on
investment, rate the quality of
orders you received as a
direct result of exhibiting at
each of the following trade
shows:
The NAFEM Show 0 = Didn't exhibit
1 = Much worse than expected
2 = A little worse than expect
3 = About as expected
4 = A little better than expected
5 = Much better than expected
National Restaurant
Association Show (NRA)
International Hotel, Motel, &
Restaurant Show (IH/M&RS)
Western Restaurant
Association Show (WRA)
Florida Restaurant Show
Food Marketing Institute
7 Considering your company's
needs, rate the importance of
each of these attendee
classifications:
Consultant, specifier,
architect, designer
0 = N/A
1 = Very unimportant
2 = Somewhat unimportant
3 = Neither important nor
unimportant
4 = Somewhat important
5 = Very important
Dealer/distributor
Full-service chain restaurant
Quick-service chain
restaurant
Independent restaurant
College/university
77
Primary/secondary school
Government/military
Correctional institution
Employee feeding
Hospital/health care
Food manufacturer
Convenience store
Warehouse club
Supermarket
International attendee
Service agencies
Other
8 Considering your company's
needs, rate your satisfaction
with the number and quality
of these attendee
classifications at The NAFEM
Show:
Consultant, specifier,
architect, designer
0 = N/A
1 = Very unsatisfied
2 = Somewhat unsatisfied
3 = Neither satisfied nor unsatisfied
4 = Somewhat satisfied
5 = Very satisfied
Dealer/distributor
Full-service chain restaurant
Quick-service chain
restaurant
Independent restaurant
Other commercial end-user
College/university
Primary school
Government/military
Correctional institution
Employee feeding
Hospital/health care
Other non-commercial end-
user
Food manufacturer
Convenience store
Warehouse club
Supermarket
International attendee
Service agencies
Other
9 On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10
being the highest, how much
Response 1 = Low value
2
78
value do you believe your
participation in The NAFEM
Show will bring to your
business given the investment
(e.g., booth, shipping, travel,
entertainment, opportunity
costs, etc.)?
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 = High value
10 Indicate the domestic trade
shows at which your company
has exhibited in the past three
years and rate the value
received given the investment
(e.g., booth, shipping, travel,
entertainment, opportunity
costs, etc.).
The NAFEM Show 0 = Did not exhibit
1 = No value
2 = Little value
3 = Moderate value
4 = High value
5 = Very high value
National Restaurant
Association Show (NRA)
International Hotel, Motel, &
Restaurant Show (IHMRS)
Western Restaurant
Association Show (WRA)
Florida Restaurant Show
Food Marketing Institute
11 Indicate the international
trade shows at which your
company has exhibited in the
past three years and rate the
VALUE received given the
investment (e.g., booth,
shipping, travel,
entertainment, opportunity
costs, etc.).
HOST (Milan) 0 = Did not exhibit
1 = No value
2 = Little value
3 = Moderate value
4 = High value
5 = Very high value
HOSTEX (Toronto)
Hotelympia (London)
HOFEX (Hong Kong)
Food Hotel Asia (Singapore)
HOTELEX (Shanghai)
12 What is the likelihood that your
company will exhibit at The
NAFEM Show in Orlando,
Florida in 2011 (February 10 -
12)?
Response 1 = 0%
2 = 25%
3 = 50%
4 = 75%
5 = 100%
13 Why wouldn't your company
exhibit at The NAFEM Show in
Orlando, Florida in 2011
(February 10 - 12)?
Open-Ended
14 NAFEM is always seeking ways
to add value to the show
Adding specialty pavilions to
the show floor
1 = Low value
2
79
experience. Please rate the
value of these potential
NAFEM show enhancements
to you and/or your company.
Organizing exhibitors into two
major sections on the show
floor: (1) Front-of-house (e.g.,
Smallwares) and (2) Back-of-
house (e.g., Heavy
equipment/Middleware)
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 = High value Adding food distributors to
the show floor
Adding fixture manufacturers
as exhibitors to the show floor
15 If NAFEM expanded future
shows to include fixture
manufacturers, which types of
fixture manufacturers would
you like to see at a future
NAFEM show (check all that
apply)?
Responses 1 = Millwork
2 = Doors/Windows
3 = HVAC (Heating/Venting/Air
Conditioning)
4 = Plumbing
5 = Lighting
6 = Wall/Ceiling Coverings
(Wallpaper/Tile)
7 = Flooring (Carpet/Tile)
8 = Does Not Apply to Me
9 = Other
16 If NAFEM were to add
specialty pavilions to future
NAFEM shows, please select
the top two focus areas you
would like to see (choose only
two):
Reponse 1 = Fixtures
2 = Country-specific exhibitors
3 = Industry segment (e.g.,
healthcare, supermarket, schools)
4 = Sustainability/"Going Green"
5 = Global cuisine trends (tastes,
emerging ethnic preferences)
6 = Other
17 How interested is your
company in marketing to
convenience stores,
warehosue clubs, or
supermarkets?
Response 0 = I don't know
1 = Not interested at all
2 = A little interested
3 = Somewhat interested
4 = Very interested
5 = Extremely interested
80
18 What does The NAFEM Show
have to do to maintain its
position as the leading trade
show for equipment and
supplies?
Open-Ended
19 What is your PRIMARY source
of sales in the foodservice
industry?
Response 1 = Food Preparation Equipment
2 = Primary Cooking Equipment
3 = Refrigeration & Ice Machines
4 = Serving Equipment
5 = Smallwares, Cookware &
Kitchen Tools
6 = Storage & Handling Equipment
7 = Tabletop & Servingware
8 = Warewashing, Janitorial &
Safety Equipment
9 = Furnishings, Decor & Custom
Fabrication
10 = Technology
11 = Allied Member
12 = Component Part
Manufacturer
13 = Other
20 Approximately what were the
annual sales of your company
or division to the foodservice
industry in 2006?
Response Less than $1 million
$1 - $2.9 million
$3 - $4.9 million
$5 - $6.9 million
$7 - $9.9 million
$10 - $14.9 million
$15 - $24.9 million
$25 - $34.9 million
$35 - $44.9 million
$45 - $54.9 million
$55+ million
21 What percentages of your
annual sales are sold directly
to end users in the foodservice
industry?
Response 0%
1%
2 - 3%
4 - 7%
8 - 10%
11 -20%
81
21 - 30%
31 - 40%
41 - 50%
51 - 75%
76 - 100%
22 What percentages of your
annual sales to the
foodservice industry are
through dealers/distributors
outside North America?
Response 0%
1%
2 - 3%
4 - 7%
8 - 10%
11 -20%
21 - 30%
31 - 40%
41 - 50%
51 - 75%
76 - 100%
23 Including the 2009 NAFEM
show, how many NAFEM
shows have you personally
attended?
Response 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10+
24 In order to avoid receiving
additional E-mails requesting
the completion of this survey,
please include the following
information:
Name Open-ended
Company
82
Recommended