2009 exhibitor show evaluation report - du portfolio

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


4 Features of The NAFEM Show ................................................................................50

4.1 Show Enhancements ................................................................................................. 50


2

5 Positioning of The NAFEM Show ............................................................................54

5.1 Competition from Domestic Shows .......................................................................... 54

5.2 Competition from International Shows .................................................................... 59


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


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


and reputation4.05 0.94 264 4.06 1.24 242


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


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


and reputation4.05 4.79 -0.74 4.06 4.08 -0.02


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


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)


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



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



the respondent‘s satisfaction with gathering information

about his/her competition (p=0.015).

(Q3a – Q2a) ~ Gap of Meeting with Current Customers

# NAFEM

Shows



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



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



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



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



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.


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


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.


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



users and the importance of Dealer/Distributor attendees

(p=0.000).

Q7c~ Importance of Full-Service Restaurant Chain

Sat Imp Gap Sat Imp Gap


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


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


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


between the number of domestic trade shows respondents

attended and the importance of College/University

attendees (p=0.000).

% Sold Directly

to End-users



users and the importance of College/University attendees

(p=0.031).

Q7g ~ Importance of Primary/Secondary School

# Domestic

Shows

Exhibited



attended and the importance of Primary/Secondary School


Q7h ~ Importance of Government/Military

# Domestic

Shows

Exhibited



attended and the importance of Government/Military


Q7j ~ Importance of Employee Feeding

# Domestic

Shows

Exhibited



attended and the importance of Employee Feeding


Q7k ~ Importance of Hospital/Health Care

30

# Domestic

Shows

Exhibited



attended and the importance of Hospital/Health Care


Q7l ~ Importance of Food Manufacturer

# International

Shows

Exhibited


between the number of international trade shows

respondents attended and the importance of Food

Manufacturer attendees (p=0.022).

Q7m ~ Importance of Convenience Store



the importance of Convenience Store attendees (p=0.007).

Q7n ~ Importance of Warehouse Club

# NAFEM

Shows


between the number of NAFEM shows respondents

attended and the importance of Warehouse Club


# Domestic

Shows

Exhibited



attended and the importance of Warehouse Club


Q7o ~ Importance of Supermarket

# International

Shows

Exhibited



respondents attended and the importance of Supermarket


Q7p ~ Importance of International Attendee

# NAFEM

Shows



attended and the importance of International attendees

(p=0.030).

# Domestic

Shows

Exhibited



attended and the importance of International attendees

31

(p=0.000).

# International

Shows

Exhibited



respondents attended and the importance of International




the importance with the International attendees (p=0.024).

% Sold Directly

to End-users



users and the importance of International attendees

(p=0.031).

% Sold Outside

North America


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



attended and their satisfaction with Dealer/Distributor


Q8c ~ Satisfaction with Full-Service Restaurant Chain

# NAFEM

Shows



attended and their satisfaction with Full Service Restaurant

Chain attendees (p=0.039).

% Sold Directly

to End-users



users and their satisfaction with Full Service Restaurant


Q8d ~ Satisfaction with Quick Service Restaurant

Chain

# International

Shows


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



users and their satisfaction with Quick Service Restaurant


Q8e ~ Satisfaction with Independent Restaurant

# NAFEM

Shows



attended and their satisfaction with Independent

Restaurant attendees (p=0.041).

Q8g ~ Satisfaction with Primary/Secondary School

# NAFEM

Shows



attended and their satisfaction with Primary/Secondary

School attendees (p=0.008).

Q8h ~ Satisfaction with Government/Military

# NAFEM

Shows



attended and their satisfaction with Government/Military


Q8j ~ Satisfaction with Employee Feeding

# NAFEM

Shows



attended and their satisfaction with Employee Feeding


Q8k ~ Satisfaction with Hospital/Health Care

# NAFEM

Shows



attended and their satisfaction with Hospital/Health Care


Q8l ~ Satisfaction with Food Manufacturer

# NAFEM

Shows



attended and their satisfaction with Food Manufacturer


33

Q8m ~ Satisfaction with Convenience Store

# NAFEM

Shows



attended and their satisfaction with Convenience Store


Q8n ~ Satisfaction with Warehouse Club

# NAFEM

Shows



attended and their satisfaction with Warehouse Club


Q8o ~ Satisfaction with Supermarket

# NAFEM

Shows



attended and their satisfaction with Supermarket attendees

(p=0.001).

Q8p ~ Satisfaction with International Attendee

# NAFEM

Shows



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


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



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)




• 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)




(Q4a)

r2 = 70.9%

Gap –Consultants/




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)


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).



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)


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)




• 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)


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)




(Q4a)

r2 = 70.9%

Gap –Consultants/




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.‖



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.


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



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.


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



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



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



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



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



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



users and the relative value of The NAFEM Show (p=0.001).

Q10b ~ Relative Value of NRA Show

58

# Domestic

Shows



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



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



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


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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






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






National Restaurant



Restaurant Show (IH/M&RS)

Western Restaurant




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,


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



Restaurant Show (IHMRS)

Western Restaurant




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,


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

E-mail

2009 exhibitor show evaluation report - du portfolio

Documents