And the show goes on: a strategic review of your trade show may keep your organization from making the same mistakes next year.

EXPOSITIONS ARE FRAGILE. Handle with care.

An exposition is only credible when exhibitors and participants recognize its promise of future productivity and profit. The proof of that elusiveness can be found in an exposition hall between events. Stand in the middle of the hall before your show moves in and you'll see and feel it: nothing. The bare floor is a testament that trade shows have short lives and must be created from scratch every time. This also means that you have an opportunity to constantly refresh your exposition. You can improve on your most recent show by adding something you learned and adjusting to new customer needs.

The savvy executive understands that for an association's trade show to remain successful, you must focus on four principles of marketing: product, place, promotion, and price. You're aware that a single mistake could ruin your next show. And, if you're like most of us, you have at least one failed exposition to remind you of how fragile shows can be. Printing lost the Midwest Graphics Show. Consumer electronics once had the Mobile Electronics Show. The American Medical Association once had its own giant annual exposition. And the information technology industry's pride and joy, the National Computer Conference, is now a distant memory.

How can you keep your association's trade show from suffering a similar fate? Can you take specific steps today to keep your exposition viable and profitable for years to come? A strategic review of your organization's show could help you answer these critical questions.

Learn by example

David Ingemie, president, SnowSports Industries America, McLean, Virginia, and Brian Tully, senior vice president, Food Marketing Institute, Washington, D.C., have recently completed in-depth strategic reviews of their expositions, and in this article they share what they've learned from their experiences.

As a starting point, Ingemie and Tully were asked to consider and respond to the items in Michael Hough's sidebar, "Strategic Review of a Show." Because Ingemie and Tully represent very different associations and expositions--as you can see in the chart, "Show Me the Shows"--each responded to different parts of Hough's list. For instance, Ingemie felt that changing the date of his show was the most important result of his strategic review, while Tully used the study to ramp up the number of co-located events added to his show.

And while Ingemie and Tully differed on several points, they both stressed the importance of

* continually evaluating your show's offerings to confirm that it still has meaning and will be supported by exhibitors and participants;

* ensuring that your show's locations and dates still make sense for your industry; and

* hiring objective market research experts and investing the time to get the honest feedback needed to make critical adjustments to your trade show.

In answering questions related to their respective trade shows, Ingemie and Tully provide insights into the value of such an analytic review.

Let the show begin

For Ingemie, conducting a strategic review was the direct result of competition. Here's what he has to say about the process and its outcomes.

Considering show dates. When we moved our show to early March in 1984, no competing shows were in front of us. By 1997, 17 other shows, most of them regional, were scheduled before ours. That year, SnowSports Industries America (SIA) began its strategic review of the SnowSports Show, using some of the elements in Hough's review checklist. The most significant result of the review was deciding in 1999 to move our show dates. It took two full years of research, discussion, and board and membership review to agree to move our show from March to January. And the results of this decision were not visible to the industry until 2001. That's when the Las Vegas Convention Center's South Hall opened, and we had the dates and space we needed to actually make the move.

Conducting relevant market research. We needed systematic, objective, and comprehensive market research to determine whether the majority of our industry wanted to move our show's dates to earlier in the year. SIA hired a research firm and facilitator, who were both experts in the snow sports industry, to conduct quantitative and qualitative research.

The quantitative research revealed the industry's buying and showing practices as well as the cost to the industry in terms of time and money. The qualitative research showed what people in the industry really wanted to accomplish in the buying and selling process. This project cost the organization $125,000, while our annual quantitative review carries a price tag of approximately $5,000. The price of qualitative studies, however, vary according to the type of research, number of focus groups, amount of travel, and so forth.

To make sure our focus groups were a realistic reflection of our industry, we handpicked the participants. Each group included retailers, suppliers, and sales representatives from around the country. To ensure unbiased results, no one was aware of who else was invited until the groups met.

Because SIA needed to include all of its industry players in this process, we invited the leaders of groups with an interest in the show to sit behind the glass to observe. The first two focus groups discussed when the SnowSports Show should be held, without any practical limitations. The last group was asked when the SnowSports Show should be held, considering all of the restrictions of dates and venue availability, holidays, and competitors' show dates.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The groups, of course, had different ideas regarding when the show should be held. Groups one and two suggested that it be the industry's kick-off show; the third group recommended not moving the dates, unless the show would remain in Las Vegas. The common goal among the groups was to reduce the number of industry events and the cost of the buying-selling cycle.

Applying results. The qualitative results from the focus groups and the quantitative results from the surveys were presented to the SIA Tradeshow Committee, which includes representatives from exhibiting member companies. I invested a month of my time to compile all of the facts, with conclusions that were not factually debatable, and present them to the board of directors. Even with all of this research and preparation, the vote was almost 50-50 regarding whether to keep our show in March or move it to January. Nevertheless, when the South Hall opened, we made the move, and the SnowSports Show is stronger because of it.

Defining the executive's role. One of my key responsibilities is to produce the best show for my industry for the least amount of money. One of the ways I do that is to always keep the show fresh. When we moved to the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino in 2003, we took a page from retail and designed our exhibit floor plan with fewer straight aisles. Just like Macy's, we forced our buyers to bump into our exhibitors and their products as they walked around our show.

Reflecting on the strategic review process, here's what I recommend to other association executives:

* Let the market talk, and make a sincere effort to hear it out--both the enthusiasm and the anger.

* Do factual research to make sure your final decisions are practical, not emotional.

* Don't bring up your show's financial issues until the very end; folks tend to get emotional about money.

* Create an environment where all industry stakeholders have direct communication with one another.

* Give yourself twice as much time as you think you'll need; our process took five years.

* Remember that your show's strategic review process will be ongoing.

They're eating it up

For Tully of the Food Marketing Institute (FMI), a rapidly changing industry drove the need to strategically review his association's show. Here's what he discovered.

Analyzing systemic changes. Mergers and acquisitions among our exhibitors and participants have reshaped the FMI Show. In the mid-1990s, food retailers started buying their competitors (for instance, Albertsons bought American Stores), which reduced the pool of qualified buyers attending the FMI Show. Then, in 2000, our show lost 20 exhibiting companies occupying 40,000 net square feet of exhibit space when they were bought out by other exhibitors (including Nabisco, Quaker, and Georgia-Pacific).

Deciding on a strategic review. These changes in the retail food and exposition industries required that we do an objective, strategic review of our show. We hired a market research company steeped in the trade show industry to conduct the review, which it initiated through a series of focus groups and a survey of our attendees and exhibitors. It took us almost two years to complete this study and get unbiased feedback to the following key questions:

* How can the FMI Show make you and your company stronger in the marketplace?

* Does the FMI Show still work best for you and your company in May in Chicago?

* What do you value as a participant, and how can we give you more of this at the FMI Show?

Acting on the results. We used the data from our strategic review to improve our show in the following ways:

* We continue to take an active role in brokering meetings among the senior staffs of buyers and sellers.

* At this year's show, we will unveil a new-product showcase competition, in which judges will evaluate and recognize those new products with the best chance of succeeding (80 percent of new products fail each year). The competition will help FMI participants find the most outstanding new products and improve their stores' bottom lines.

* Beginning in 2005, we will offer dedicated pavilions in prime floor locations for seafood, meat, produce, and private labels. These stand-alone shows within a show will feature demonstration areas, competitions, and educational sessions, each surrounded by approximately 75,000 net square feet of exhibits, attracting new buyers and giving returning participants another reason to attend.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Defining the executive's role. My role with regard to our trade show is to see that the FMI Show has as much valuable content as possible for attendees and exhibitors. As we are in the midst of rapid change in the exposition industry and the retail food trade, this process is ongoing, and the changes have forced FMI staff to constantly look for ways to increase the value of our show. In 1993, we delivered our first co-located (show within a show) event at a FMI Show. This year we will have four co-located shows, offering exhibitors, attendees, and the media greater benefits for participating.

Ingemie and Tully arrived at different conclusions from the strategic reviews of their expositions--and, consequently, instituted different changes. Yet, both reaped enormous benefits from those changes. Ask them to detail the key elements that led to their successful strategic reviews, and their responses are similar: Objectivity, honesty, customer feedback, thoroughness, factual and clear data, investment of time, and flexibility. Most important, both executives agree that these strategic reviews were instrumental to their shows' current and future success.

SHOW ME THE SHOWS

              Brian Tully          Name          David Ingemie

    Senior Vice President         Title          President

Food Marketing Institute,      Association       SnowSports Industries
         Washington, D.C.                        America,
                                                 McLean, Virginia

                 21 years         Tenure         27 years

                      140       Staff size       24

                    2,300       Number of        700
                             Member companies

                 FMI Show       Show name        SnowSports Show

   "Solutions for Growth"        Tagline         "See It, Try It, Buy
                                                 It"

      Chicago, since 1982        Location        Las Vegas, since 1972

                       67   Years in existence   50

 1,000/350,000 net square       Number of        428/310,000 net square
                 feet/$31   exhibitors/size of   feet/$10
                            show/cost per net
                               square foot

                   20,000  Number of attendees   16,000

                      65%  Show as a percentage  54%
                           of annual operating
                                 revenue

  550,000 net square feet  Exhibit space record  500,000 net square feet

                   (2001)    (year achieved)     (1995)

              www.fmi.org        Web site        www.snowsports.org

RELATED ARTICLE: STRATEGIC REVIEW OF A SHOW BY MICHAEL HOUGH 

Follow the steps in this strategic review checklist, and you'll be virtually assured of improving your show's profitability.

1. Determine (or re-establish) the unique rationale for the show. What is the state of the overall market in which the show exists? Considering the show's position in this market, what is its competition, and how is it perceived by exhibitors and attendees? Does the show's stated rationale compel participation among the targeted exhibitors and attendees?

2. Verify that this unique rationale is being applied to exhibit sales and attendee promotion.

3. Confirm that participants consider the show an attraction not to be missed. Does the industry consider the show an event? If not, what can be done to make it more so?

4. Determine the strength of potential promoters. Do the industry's key insiders--trade magazines, associations, gurus--support the show?

5. Consider date and location. Is the show held at the right time of the year and in the right city?

6. Contemplate co-locating the show with a compatible event.

7. Consider whether the show should have one or more new sponsors.

8. Examine the major show functions. Are sales, marketing, and operations being managed properly to support the show--and its unique rationale?

9. Inspect the show's profit margins and other benchmarks. For example, how does promotion cost per participant compare to similar shows?

10. Examine ways to expand the show's market position. What steps need to be taken to enhance the show's unique position in the industry--and, thus, its profitability?

Michael Hough is author of The Profitable Trade Show (2001, MRH Associates).

E-mail: [e-mail].

RELATED ARTICLE: HOW GROWS YOUR SHOW?

Even with the best in trend statistics and high-tech tools, forecasting is a dicey proposition. That's why meteorologists and market analysts hedge their bets and limit their liability. However, it's slightly uncanny when 60 percent of executives surveyed predict the same future. This was the experience when my partner, Michael Hough, and I engaged Baltimore-based market research firm Jacobs, Jenner, and Kent (JJK) to conduct an Internet survey of the Exhibition and Convention Executives Forum (www.eceforum.com), a program for association and for-profit executives who produce events. The results are good news for anyone who stands to profit from growth in the following areas:

* net square feet of exhibit space;

* number of exhibiting companies; or

* number of exhibit-only, conference, and international attendees.

Last October, JJK researchers e-mailed 120 show organizers who had attended the 2002 and 2003 forum events, 72 of whom returned completed surveys. The responses represented a 50-50 split of nonprofit and corporate executives who produce small to large, industry-leading events.

FIGURE 1: OVERALL GROWTH PROJECTIONS FOR 2004

Percentage of             ... will  ... will stay  ... will
respondents who predict   grow      the same       decline
that the factors listed
...

Number of exhibitors      50%       24%            26%
Paid net square feet      52%       16%            32%
Exhibit-only attendance   48%       32%            20%
Conference attendance     47%       40%            13%
International attendance  40%       31%            29%

Source: Jacobs, Jenner, and Kent 2003 Study

* Forty-one percent of the events used less than 100,000 net square feet and attracted fewer than 10,000 participants.

* Forty percent of the events used 101,000-399,000 net square feet with 10,000-39,999 attendees.

* Nineteen percent of the events boasted more than 400,000 net square feet and 40,000 or more participants.

Figure 1 reveals the areas (related to the various trade show sizes and number of participants) in which all respondents expect to grow, remain the same, or shrink. Figure 2 details how the forecasts differ among nonprofit and for-profit executives.

HUMAN RESOURCES 

To accommodate the growth that respondents forecast for their 2004 events, many are planning to increase their staff sizes. As a matter of fact, the industry is showing increased optimism, with an average of just over 60 percent (70 percent association and 51 percent for-profit) maintaining their event marketing and management staffs and a little less than 29 percent (19 percent association and 38 percent for-profit) projecting growth. It is important to remember, industry experts add, that associations are more stable with respect to staff size, while the for-profit sector is more likely to project higher increases.

[GRAPHIC OMITTED]

FIGURE 2: 2004 GROWTH PROJECTIONS BY SECTOR

Percentage of Organizers Forecasting Growth

                          FOR-PROFITS  NONPROFITS

International attendance      38%         42%
Conference attendance         46%         48%
Exhibit-only attendance       68%         28%
Paid net square feet          40%         64%
Number of exhibitors          58%         42%

Source: Jacobs, Jenner, and Kent 2003 Study

Note: Table made from bar graph.

Sam Lippman, president of Integrated Show Management & Marketing (is[m.sup.2]), Arlington, Virginia, is producer of the Exhibition and Convention Executives Forum and the Large Show Roundtable. E-mail: [e-mail].