evaluating event marketing

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Wood, Emma H.]On: 30 May 2009Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 911839443]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Promotion ManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t792306911

Evaluating Event Marketing: Experience or Outcome?Emma H. Wood a

a Leeds Metropolitan University, Leeds, England

Online Publication Date: 01 January 2009

To cite this Article Wood, Emma H.(2009)'Evaluating Event Marketing: Experience or Outcome?',Journal of PromotionManagement,15:1,247 — 268

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/10496490902892580

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10496490902892580

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t792306911

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10496490902892580

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

Journal of Promotion Management, 15:247–268, 2009Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1049-6491 print / 1540-7594 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10496490902892580

Evaluating Event Marketing:Experience or Outcome?

EMMA H. WOODLeeds Metropolitan University, Leeds, England

The research presents a critical evaluation of the current methodsused to measure the effectiveness of experiential marketing tech-niques. The article begins by reviewing the literature relating toevent and experiential marketing and existing appropriate eval-uation techniques. Secondary research is then used to highlightspecific tools and methods currently being used in the experientialmarketing industry. This secondary research is explored furtherthrough interviews with four experienced providers of marketingevents. The findings indicate that current methods do not appearto be comprehensive or reliable due largely to the intangibility ofthe event experience. Based on these findings a framework is de-veloped to guide future research, both academic and practitioner,into measuring the effectiveness of experiential marketing events.

KEYWORDS evaluation, event marketing, experiential market-ing, integrated marketing communications (IMC), measurement,Return on Investment (ROI)

INTRODUCTION

Although there is very little existing research in the specific area of “eventmarketing” (Gupta, 2003; Sneath, Finney, & Close, 2005; Krantz, 2006), workundertaken in other fields can be used to develop the unique concepts andmodels needed within this growing area of marketing communications. Theareas of academic research within marketing which have the most affinity

An earlier version of this study was presented in collaboration with Guy Masterman ofNorthumbria University as a paper at the 7th International Marketing Trends Congress, January17-19, 2008, in Venice, Italy.

Address correspondence to Emma H. Wood, Ph.D., UK Centre for Events Manage-ment, Leeds Metropolitan University, Calverley Street, Leeds LS1 3HE, England. E-mail:[email protected]

247

Downloaded By: [Wood, Emma H.] At: 07:53 30 May 2009

248 E. H. Wood

with event marketing are lifestyle marketing, experiential marketing, rela-tionship marketing, public relations, and marketing communications. Indeed,Schreiber and Lenson, in their 1994 practitioner-focused text on lifestyle andevent marketing, took up the development of event marketing. Unfortu-nately, this did not appear to spark others to undertake research and author-ship in the area. McCole (2004) recognizes this dearth of academic researchin the areas of experiential and event marketing as an indication of the dividebetween academia and business and calls for marketing theory in these areasto be more closely aligned with practice. Similarly, Gupta identifies a “lackof a systematised body of knowledge and conceptual framework on whichto base scientific inquiry” (p. 94) as a major event marketing challenge.

Even in the sectors which naturally lend themselves to event marketingpractice there has been little evidence of research in the academic literature.For example Williams (2006) makes a case for more event marketing researchto lead practice within tourism and hospitality marketing, and Petkus (2004)argues for a greater understanding of the relationship between events andexperience in marketing the arts. Event marketing has been more widelyutilized and researched within Germany over the last ten years, particu-larly within the areas of sports marketing and sponsorship, but not withinacademia in the United Kingdom and United States despite event marketing’sgrowing importance as a communication tool (Wohlfeil, 2005).

Experiential marketing events can be defined in a number of ways.Although Kotler’s (2003) definition, “occurrences designed to communicateparticular messages to target audiences” (p. 576), is, perhaps, overly broad,it does encapsulate the communications potential of events. Other possibledefinitions are:

• Any event that helps market a product/service, idea, place or person.• Any event that communicates with a target audience.• Any event which has the potential to communicate.

As these demonstrate, in defining a marketing event, it becomes clearthat, in fact, all events can be seen as (or more importantly used as) “market-ing” events. An event is a live “occurrence” with an audience. If an audienceexists, then a message or experience is being shared, transmitted, generatedand, therefore, all events can potentially communicate something. However,to be able to usefully develop event marketing theory, it is necessary to limitthe type of events to those that are created primarily for marketing purposes.This therefore, excludes events that exist for some other purpose but are usedlater for marketing (i.e., sponsorship of pre-developed events) or events thatmay have some marketing application but are primarily developed for otherreasons (e.g., community festivals). The well-known experiential marketingagency, Jack Morton Worldwide (2006), provide a useful working definitionof marketing events. “Live events where audiences interact with a product


FWhyte

Highlight

FWhyte

Highlight

FWhyte

Highlight

FWhyte

Highlight

Evaluating Event Marketing 249

TABLE 1 Examples of Marketing Events

Incentive/reward eventsEvents offered as a bonus for

achievements for internalstaff, sales force,distributors, etc.

Product launchesCreating an “occasion”

around the development orimprovement of a product.Aimed at the media,distribution chain orconsumer

Open daysInviting employees,

customers, partner, localcommunity to activitieshosted within theorganization (e.g., Familyfun days, factory tours).

ConferencesConferences, meetings and

seminars can all be used asmarketing communicationvehicles.

Product samplingCreating the opportunity to

try or experience a productor service. Often combinedwith product launch.

Publicity eventsDesigned to gain maximum

media exposure oftenthrough unusual orcontroversial activitieslinked to the product orbrand.

“Created” eventsDeveloping an event often as

a product in its own right tocarry the brand values(e.g., Guinness’ WitnnessFestival in Ireland andCoca-Cola’s “Street CredGames” in Scotland).

Road showsMobile events which spread

the brand message todifferent locations.

Press conferencesInviting the press to hear

about some important ornewsworthy developmentrelated to the company,product, brand, industryetc.

Corporate entertainmentUsing events to entertain,

reward clients andpartners. Ranging from golfdays to theatre, safaris topaintballing.

ExhibitionsRanging from trade shows

hosting a number oforganizations to artexhibitions related to aspecific brand (e.g., Nike’sOne Love photographyexhibition linked to footballsponsorship).

Product visitor attractions“Permanent” events

developing involvementwith the brand and oftenmarketed as a product intheir own right (e.g.,Dewar’s World of Whisky;Cadbury World; theGuinness Experience).

Charity fundraisersLinking event marketing and

corporate socialresponsibility.

Competitions/contestsAn event created around

some form of contest andlinked to the brand (e.g.,Red Bull’s flying machines).

or brand face to face.” Examples of typical experiential marketing eventscovered by this definition are given in Table 1.

Experiential events can generate short-term impact but also buildlonger term changes in attitude and belief (Sneath et al., 2005); therefore,as with any aspect of strategy, it is necessary to measure and evaluate theeffectiveness of this communications method (Chattopadhyay & Laborie,2005). It would seem logical that the evaluation cycle begins with clearlystated objectives developed from an understanding of what can be achieved,followed by unbiased and reliable methods for measuring against theseobjectives. The resulting measures are then evaluated and compared withpast performance and the performance of other marketing tools, and thisevaluation is used to determine future action and improvement in the


250 E. H. Wood

development of marketing events. This process gives the opportunity toadjust plans, learn from experience, develop and improve the event format,and to justify budgets. However, the measurement of the outcomes ofexperiential events is rarely that simple. Their effectiveness is related toindividual emotional response, to the influence of other communications,both marketing driven and in a wider social context, and to the previousexperience and expectations of each individual participant or spectator.

This article reviews a range of literature and research relating to expe-riential marketing and its measurement and attempts to identify if, and how,this research can be applied to experiential event marketing. Literature inthe areas of consumer behavior and experience, marketing communicationsmeasurement, and other related fields is discussed and evaluated alongsidea practitioner perspective gained from interviewing those with experience inthe field. The objective of the paper is to use this understanding drawn froma number of related fields and exploratory primary research to develop aninitial framework to guide empirical research in this area.

EXPERIENTIAL MARKETING AND EVENT MARKETING

Experience, as defined within the realms of management, involves a per-sonal occurrence with emotional significance created by an interaction withproduct or brand related stimuli (Holbrook & Hirschman, 1981). For this tobecome experiential marketing the result must be “something extremely sig-nificant and unforgettable for the consumer immersed into the experience”(Caru & Cova, 2003, p. 273). It follows that any old experience will notachieve marketing objectives and that the greatest effect is gained throughpeak experiences. These occur when a “flow state” is reached in that theconsumer is completely immersed in the experience. In order to achievethis, the event needs to provide a high level of challenge and ensure thatthis is met with an appropriate level of skill or experience in the consumer(Csikszentmihalyi, 1997; Arnould, Price, & Zinkhan, 2004). The event mar-keter has to create an event which provides the right level of challenge orstimulation to the skill set of the target audience. Different consumers will,therefore, experience the event differently. Some may be bored, others wor-ried, others aroused, for example. Consider a test drive of a newly launchedsaloon car around a race track. Depending on the abilities, knowledge, andpast experiences of the target audience, this could be seen as overly chal-lenging and therefore uncomfortable or frightening or, for someone else,exciting, stimulating, and novel.

As every experience has to be extraordinary to have an effect in eventmarketing, the event must strive to create a “flowstate experience” forthe majority attending. This may involve surprise, novelty or challenge.The author’s previous research (Wood & Masterman, 2007) into successful


FWhyte

Highlight


marketing events identifies seven event attributes (the 7 “I”s) which enhancethe event experience:

• Involvement—an emotional involvement with the brand, the event, theexperience

• Interaction—with brand ambassadors, with other attendees, with exhibits,with the brand

• Immersion—of all senses, isolated from other messages• Intensity—memorable, high impact• Individuality—unique, one-to-one opportunities, customization. Each ex-

perience is different• Innovation—creative in content, location, timing, audience, for example• Integrity—seen as genuine and authentic and providing real benefits and

value to the consumer

Caru and Cova (2003) suggest that marketers need to recognize the dif-ference between “consumer experience” and “consumption experiences”, aswell as, between those that are ordinary and commonplace and those thatare extraordinary and result in changes in learning, attitude, or behavior. Ex-periential events can be both consumer and consumption experiences andare far more likely to be effective in reaching communication goals if theyinvolve some “extraordinary” aspect for the majority of the audience. Theseexperience characteristics (Caru & Cova’s conceptualisation of experience,Csikszentmihalyi’s [1997] experience typology, and Wood & Masterman’s[2007] 7 “I”s—see Table 2) may serve as a useful guide for evaluating theeffectiveness of an event through developing measurements relating to levelof challenge, newness, surprise, match with the audience’s prior experi-ence, skill level, for example. However, the usefulness of measuring theseattributes of the event depends upon the assumption that an event that isstrong in those attributes will effectively create a memorable and potentiallybehavior changing experience.

TABLE 2 Experiential Marketing to Experiential Events

Experience → → Consumer experience Experiential events

Csikszentmihalyi Caru and Cova Wood and MastermanA typology of experience

sensations related to levelof skill and level ofchallenge

Recognizes the breadth ofexperience from everydayto unusual in bothcommercial andnon-commercial contexts.

Experience characteristicsthat make an event into aneffective marketing tool

Apathy; boredom; anxiety;worry; arousal; relaxation;control; flow

Consumption vs. consumerexperience

Ordinary vs. extraordinaryexperience

Involvement; interaction;immersion; intensity;individuality; innovation;integrity


FWhyte

Highlight

252 E. H. Wood

The Growth of Experiential Event Marketing

Schmitt (1999) ascertains that experiential marketing has arisen as a responseto today’s “prosumers” who seek marketing that is relevant to them as anindividual and which respects and recognizes their need for novelty andexcitement. However, the consumer’s desire for stimulating experiences isnot new, only the recognition by marketers that this desire can be success-fully exploited through more sophisticated experiential marketing techniques(Holbrook, 2000).

Experiential events group people according to their values, enjoyment,personality type, and (loose) social group. This can create groups with quitediverse traditional segmentation characteristics. Once the brand resonateswith this value-set the link between individual and brand becomes emo-tional rather than merely functional, and the customer is, therefore, far morelikely to be loyal (McCole, 2004). Indeed the event becomes an end in it-self through hedonic participation of the target audience in the marketingcommunications of the organization/brand. Experiential consumption canbe primarily hedonic (pleasure seeking, consumption as an end in itself)or instrumental (rational, problem solving, need driven) or a combinationof the two (Lofman, 1991). Although this theory relates to consumption ofthe product it also applies to consumption of the marketing communication.Pleasure is gained from viewing the ad, surfing the website, or attending theevent. In this way the marketing event becomes a product in its own rightrather than merely a promotional tool. For example, consider the consump-tion experience of attending a Land Rover country pursuits day; visiting theIdeal Home Show or taking the children to one of Persil’s “dirt is good”fun days. Many successful large scale music festivals, originally created aspromotional vehicles, are also testament to this (Guinness’ Witnness Festivaland Tennent’s “T” in the Park).

The growth of experiential marketing events appears to be due to anumber of factors. Firstly, the overuse of traditional media and therefore theneed to do something different from competitors; secondly, the consumer’sdesire for novelty, individualism and added value; and thirdly, the need tobuild an emotional attachment to brands that are largely functionally un-differentiated. This growth is further fuelled by the proliferation of eventmarketing specialist agencies growing out of a number of related areas suchas field marketing, event planning, brand management, public relations, andadvertising. The agencies’ belief in the effectiveness of event marketing andtheir ability to produce ever more creative, unique, and highly tailored eventshas led many large organizations to switch marketing expenditure to thismethod. Published survey results, such as the Jack Morton (2006) marketingagency’s online survey of 1,625 respondents in the United States, UnitedKingdom, Australia, and China, stimulate further growth. The headlines fromthis survey were that live marketing events are one of the most effective


FWhyte

Highlight

FWhyte

Highlight


methods for influencing behavior (Latham, 2006). However, very little objec-tive and reliable research has been undertaken to ascertain the effectivenessof marketing events.

Events, Marketing Communication, and Measurement

Vital to understanding the effectiveness of experiential marketing events isa recognition of the variety of communication effects that can be achieved.In understanding these effects it is possible to develop better evaluationmeasures which can be linked directly to the experiential marketing activity.Experiential events have a variety of components and are further enhancedby their integration with other communication tools. All of these aspectsneed to be taken into account if their “success” is to be credibly evaluated.It is unlikely, therefore, that measures of footfall, attendance, media cover-age, and attendee satisfaction questionnaires will suffice. What need to bemeasured are the communication effects and the measures developed basedupon the communication objectives of the event.

Marketing events have the potential to create an extraordinary expe-rience for the consumer, use this experience to develop relationships withcustomers, link the brand to good causes, and build, change, reinforce brandimage through association with the qualities of the event. The objectives ofmarketing events can, therefore, incorporate a wide variety of communica-tion effects. These range from building awareness and liking to purchase,loyalty, and partnership. Specific objectives can range from facilitating arelaxed and informal twenty minute chat with the CEO of a major clientorganization, to building brand awareness among 20,000 consumers, to re-ceiving exposure in the international media, and all these potentially fromone event. The multi-purpose nature of marketing events and the possiblevariety within them (size, location, timing, and content) leads to a numberof questions yet to be answered. Can the communication effects of suchevents be measured in any meaningful way? Can measures be standardizedacross all types of event? Can the effects be isolated from the other influ-ences both within the planned campaign and outside of it? Should they beisolated? These illustrate the complexity of the task in hand but are not jus-tifications for avoiding meaningful measurement of experiential marketingevent effects.

Integrated marketing communication theory suggests that measurementof any one component is meaningless as the effect of integrating a variety ofmarketing communication tools is synergistic and it is therefore impossible,or at least very difficult, to separate this into individual effects (Pickton& Broderick, 2001). However, as organizations are increasingly switchinga large proportion of their marketing budget from advertising and othertraditional methods to experiential events (EventView, 2006), the need forsome measure to show a return on that investment is needed. It is, therefore,


FWhyte

Highlight

FWhyte

Highlight

FWhyte

Highlight

FWhyte

Highlight

FWhyte

Highlight

254 E. H. Wood

necessary to attempt to develop credible, objective, and reliable methodsfor delivering this—but at the same time recognizing and accepting theirinevitable limitations and shortcomings.

Potential Measurement Tools

ECONOMETRIC ANALYSIS

Econometric analysis may offer insights into the causes of change in out-comes through quantitative modelling. Used in the advertising research in-dustry for over twenty years, econometric analysis relates movements insales, awareness, and image perception, for example, to changes in the levelof causal factors. What results is a model which explains changes in “sales”to the factors that have been identified as likely to change levels of sales.However, this is not simply a matter of looking at changes in ad spend andsponsorship investment, for example. It also requires an understanding andincorporation of the duration of media effects, the type/form of message,seasonal factors, competitor activity, and synergy within multi-media cam-paigns. To do this accurately and consistently, collected data is required overa historic period (several years and for sales plus all causal variables). Thefit of the model is often a trade-off between the number of causal factorsincluded and predictive power.

Using econometrics to measure the payback of experiential events re-quires planning the overall integrated marketing campaign in such a way soas to allow econometric modelling to assess the differences depending onthe combination of media used. However, the results can be more reliableif used to measure the total IMC effect and the effects of primary mediaonly (Cook, 2004). It may therefore be useful for evaluating experientialevents only when this equates to a relatively large proportion of the over-all campaign emphasis or for comparing the outcomes (sales) of campaignswith or without experiential events, if this is a relatively new communicationmedium.

A further issue is the measure to be used for dependent and indepen-dent variables. What, for example would be the measure for the “experientialevent” variable? It could be cost, duration, attendance, media coverage, andnumber of events, for example. Whatever is deemed to be the most ap-propriate, it is vital that data is gathered on the variable, consistently andaccurately, over a number of campaigns in order to provide usable historicaldata on which to base the analysis.

In order to successfully use econometric analysis, Cook (2004) suggeststhat it is necessary to:

– Archive all historic data (external, internal and anecdotal);– Seek to improve the accuracy and coverage of data sources;


FWhyte

Highlight

FWhyte

Highlight

FWhyte

Highlight

Frances

Highlight

Frances

Highlight


– Modify the media schedule where possible to facilitate componentevaluation;

– Specify clearly what the expected outcomes are;– Use wider research data and tracking studies, for example; and– Categorize factors into those that “must” be measured and those that it

would be “nice” to measure.

Whether econometric analysis or some other technique is being used,the previously described advice holds true. An understanding of the effectsof experiential events is reliant on the interpretation and analysis of past datacovering outcomes related to objectives and recognizing the wide rangingcausal factors which also influence outcome.

Although econometric analysis can provide useful statistical models tohelp predict how changes in marketing media will affect results (sales,etc.) the technique is of less use in describing and explaining consumerbehaviour prior to and after the sale. The “woollier” aspects of aware-ness, attitude, perception, and motivation are often key elements in theobjectives for experiential events. Evaluating these will still require longi-tudinal data tracking changes over time, or at least before and after eachevent, but the data is less likely to be gathered through internal trans-action systems or in a consistent numerical format. Use of interviews, fo-cus groups, consumer panels, surveys, and control groups can obtain datawhich can be used to enhance and better understand simple numericalresults.

A further factor to consider is whether to focus the research on the eventattendee or on the wider “audience” who may or may not be aware of theevent through related media coverage. In this area, much can be learnedfrom sponsorship evaluation which has progressed in the last ten years froma fairly simple comparison of media coverage (equivalent media cost) toa focus on direct sales effect, pre and post event surveys, and comparisonswith results in areas and times of no sponsorship with those after sponsorshipcampaigns (Lainson, 1997).

TOOLS USED IN SPONSORSHIP MEASUREMENT

In advertising, and more recently in sponsorship, awareness has been usedas a surrogate measure for effectiveness, although these two constructs donot always have a close relationship (Tripodi, Hirons, Bednall, & Sutherland,2003). Awareness measurement is a less useful tool for experiential events asattendees will undoubtedly be aware of the brand. Awareness measurementcan be applied to the wider non-attending audience to measure awarenessof the event and/or awareness of the brand message communicated throughthe event.


FWhyte

Highlight

FWhyte

Highlight

FWhyte

Highlight

FWhyte

Highlight

FWhyte

Highlight

FWhyte

Highlight

FWhyte

Highlight

256 E. H. Wood

A complex relationship often exists between audience, brand, and event.Close, Finney, Lacey, and Sneath’s (2006) research shows that the eventattendee’s knowledge of the sponsor’s products and their perceived level ofcommunity involvement is linked to positive brand opinion and to purchaseintention, and that this link was moderated by the attendee’s enthusiasm andactiveness in the event itself (sport, arts, fun days, etc.). The connection ismade with the brand and with the brand’s support for the community andsport arts, for example.

Sneath et al. (2005) researched attendees at a major sponsored eventand found positive links between sponsorship and favorable brand percep-tion and indications that purchase intention was also favorably influencedby the attendees brand experience. However, the survey took place duringthe event and, therefore, does not indicate the longer term effects, time-lags,or memory decay factors. As with other studies, Sneath et al. recognized theneed to allow for the effects of other communication tools on the outcomesand the difficulty in isolating the event effects from the rest of an IMCprogram.

STOCHASTIC SYSTEMS

A technique which combines the logic of econometrics with the realitiesof complex interaction and human behavior can be developed through theuse of stochastic systems. The basis of a stochastic system is to describe arelationship between variables alongside a recognition that nothing existsin isolation, there are no one-to-one relationships between variables, thereare few linear relationships, and most importantly that the nature of relation-ships can only be determined through versatile analysis and good judgement(Archer & Hubbard, 1996). In the short term this should involve an analysisof each marketing event using questions such as:

– How well are target audiences being reached and involved?– What messages are consumers receiving about the brand?– What are consumers doing?– What would they prefer to do?– Why would they prefer to do that?– What is hindering or helping them?

The longer term strategic measures can then be used for the overallIMC campaign and include analysis of share of voice, attitude, behavior, andimage, for example. For each experiential marketing event the measures arestimuli focused (researching and involving target audience) and, in the longterm, more holistically outcome focused (Archer & Hubbard, 1996).


Frances

Highlight


MEASURING EVENT RELATED OUTCOMES AND BEHAVIOR

Young and Aitken (2007) put forward a pragmatic case for measuring out-comes rather than outputs suggesting that many marketing communicationmetrics are inappropriate and create an illusion of ROI rather than actualbottom-line effects. They suggested the following measures as they can eas-ily be tied to purchase, revenue, and profitability: intention to buy; brandpenetration (trial); repeat volume; loyalty; retention rate; price premium;and customer profitability. Of course, these need to be decided upon priorto developing the campaign, rather than made to fit afterwards, to avoid thepitfalls of much agency based evaluation which often tells a “good story,”whatever the result.

A more controversial view is articulated by Schultz (2005) who statesthat marketers should stop measuring based on marketing activities and as-sess brand value through the people (customers) and their market placenetworks. He argued that what brands are and what they mean is not con-trolled or even greatly influenced by marketers but by the consumers andtheir observations, conversations, and recommendations. Brand success canonly, therefore be measured using barometers of opinion change and notnecessarily equated to marketing activity. Consumer marketplace networksare the key factor to measure and evaluation needs to focus on what cus-tomers know, understand, accept, and believe about the brand. This givesan overall view of brand value, as well as, changes in this over time, butit is not necessarily useful in determining what has caused or created anychange in value.

Lofman (1991) is similarly focused on the consumer rather than themarketing result and considered experiential consumption research from apsychological and consumer behavior perspective. He suggested that thereare many factors to consider including the environmental context (event set-ting); the consumer’s thought processes; feelings; activities and evaluations;and the consumer’s level and responses to sensory stimulation. Within thisis the need to recognize that the appeal of some experiential events is he-donic (art, sport, music), others have instrumental appeal (sampling, tradeshows) and others combine both (test-drives, consumer shows). Evaluation,therefore, needs to consider both the hedonic and instrumental experienceof the consumer.

In order to evaluate the outcomes of particular marketing activities (i.e.,event marketing), it may be more practical to measure the “value” to thecustomer. This requires both benefits and costs of the experience to be con-sidered. Costs can be monetary, cognitive, psychic, and psychological, ascan the benefits. These costs and benefits tend to be situational, personal,and idiosyncratic and, therefore, perhaps difficult to research in a generaliz-able way. Ponsonby and Boyle (2004) suggested a three factor conceptualmodel (based largely on Lofman’s work [1991]) to guide future research


FWhyte

Highlight

FWhyte

Highlight

FWhyte

Highlight

FWhyte

Highlight

FWhyte

Highlight

258 E. H. Wood

which takes into account 1) contextual factors (environment and ambience)affecting the consumer and the event; 2) the factors related to the consumerwhich are long term in terms of personality, psychological make up, socialcircumstances, and culture, as well as, immediate in terms of mood; and 3)the event itself, which has its characteristics and value as a good or badexperience. It is through the interplay of these three factors that experientialvalue and cost is created (Ponsonby & Boyle).

SCHMITT’S EVENT EXPERIENCE SCALE

In an attempt to quantify the consumer’s experience, Schmitt’s (1999) as-sessment scale measures whether a particular experience (ExPro) appealsto a specific “strategic experiential module” (SEM), the consumers ability toSense, Feel, Think, Act and Relate with the brand.

The scale uses a number of items rated by the consumer from “not atall” to “very much.” For example, to measure “sense” the items are suggestedas:

• The event tries to engage my senses. (+)• The event is perceptually interesting. (+)• The event lacks sensory appeal for me. (−)

And to measure “feel” the items are:

• The event tries to put me in a certain mood. (+)• The event makes me respond in an emotional manner. (+)• The event does not try to appeal to my feelings. (−)

This tool offers simplicity and comparability and has been empiricallytested for validity (Schmitt, 1999). However, its ability to measure emotionalattachment and longer term attitude and behavioral change is questionable.

MEASURING EVENT CREATED WORD-OF-MOUTH

Creating buzz, word-of-mouth, or consumer conversations about the brandcan be one of the main goals of an experiential marketing event and is,therefore, one of the potential outcomes which needs to be evaluated. JackMorton’s 2006 Experiential Marketing Study found that live experiences arethe number one medium most likely to generate word of mouth. Accordingto the survey, 85% of respondents said that participating in experiential mar-keting would cause them to talk about a product or brand (Bigham, 2006).

Krueger and Casey (2009) suggested that one possible tool for measur-ing WOM following an event is to interview the friends of those that attended


FWhyte

Highlight

FWhyte

Highlight

FWhyte

Highlight


the activity in order to establish what has/or has not been said about theactivity. These qualitative measures may take the form of in-depth interviews(or “friend depths”) or focus groups (“friend-groups”) and are limited by theaccessibility of “friends” to researchers. An alternative way to measure wordof mouth is to ask event attendees how likely it is that they would recom-mend the brand to a friend or colleague. Reichheld (2006) recommends thatrespondents should answer this question using a rating scale with “0” rep-resenting the extreme negative and “10” representing the extreme positive.Those scoring themselves 9 or 10 are seen as “loyal enthusiasts” who keepbuying from a company and urge their friends to do the same; whereas,those who answer less than 6 are viewed as “detractors” and are “unhappycustomers trapped in a bad relationship.” Although this is a useful measure,as it is simple to obtain and again allows for some comparison, it has anumber of drawbacks. Firstly, self-assessment can be unreliable as scoringcan vary according to perception of the scale, mood, and timing. Secondly,the method only measures the potential for word of mouth and not actualrecommendations.

MEASURING EVENT CREATED BELIEFS AND FEELINGS

A major problem in evaluating the outcomes of an experiential marketingevent is the need to measure and attribute the cause of subconscious feelingstoward a brand. A complex but thorough technique developed by Zaltman(2003) helps marketers to understand the underlying motivations that influ-ence a person’s decision to buy a product or form an opinion.

Using techniques adapted from psychotherapy, cognitive neuroscience,psychology, and sociology, interviewers take participants through a series ofexercises designed to reveal the fundamental feelings and beliefs that drivetheir actions (Zaltman, 2003; Peter & Olson, 2008). Although, this techniquewould prove overly expensive and time-consuming for practitioners to ap-ply, it could provide the basis for academic research into how and whyexperiential events affect consumer opinion and behavior. In turn this couldlead to a better understanding of the attributes of experiential marketingevents which are most effective.

Other research on event evaluation (Pol & Pak, 1995), experiential value(Mathwick, Malhotra, & Rigdon, 2001; Chattopadhyay & Laborie, 2005) andmeasuring consumption emotion (Richins, 1997) could also prove useful inexperiential event marketing. The story that seems to emerge is that a varietyof tools and measures exist which could be adapted and combined to provideevaluation methods which would give significant insights into the consumerexperience at marketing events, the effectiveness of event marketing, and itsrole in integrated marketing communications (IMC) outcomes.


FWhyte

Highlight

FWhyte

Highlight

260 E. H. Wood

Exploratory Research

In order to further understand how the success of event marketing activ-ity could be evaluated secondary research was conducted which identifiedpublished material in the form of reports, surveys, and practitioner articleswhich give an overall picture of current evaluation practice in the field.Findings from this research and key concepts developed in the literaturereview were then used to frame questions asked of key informants in theevent marketing industry. The interviewees were selected based on theirlevel of experience in the sector and on their broader knowledge of activitygained from being long term members of event marketing related networksand associations. Potential interviewees were initially identified through theexperiential marketing forum (IXMA, 2007) and through a UK industry listof “top” experiential marketing agencies. These were then narrowed downthrough a preliminary discussion of their experience and expertise and theirwillingness to be interviewed.

Four respondents were finally selected. The first runs a small but highlysuccessful event marketing and team building agency which has undertakena wide variety of event design and management contracts for a range ofclients over the last fifteen years. The second respondent is the chief execu-tive officer of a multinational event management company involved in largerscale events for blue-chip companies. A third respondent is a strategic plan-ner for a high profile experiential marketing agency with many internationalclients. Finally the marketing director of an award winning Scottish basedevent marketing agency was selected.

The in-depth interviews focused on their understanding of how eventsare used within the wider marketing context, what they can and cannotachieve and, most importantly, how marketing event success can be mea-sured.

Current Practice and Thinking

Based upon the findings of several published practitioner led surveys, there isa mixed picture regarding current evaluation practice. For example, although1 in 4 marketing executives believe that event marketing provides the bestreturn on investment (EventView, 2006), 79% of event marketing agenciesdo not have specific tracking or measurement systems for evaluating theirprograms (Business Development Institute, 2006). The mismatch between abelief in the effectiveness of event marketing and proof of that effectivenessis perhaps a reflection of the relative infancy of event marketing communi-cations. However, as expenditure increases, so will the desire for measuresof a return on that expenditure. Event managers currently explain the lowlevels of evaluation as being due to a number of factors including a lack ofunderstanding of how to approach measurement, a lack of agreed measures


FWhyte

Highlight

FWhyte

Highlight


TABLE 3 Measuring Return on Investment (ROI) and the Consumer Experience at MarketingEvents

2005 2006

Return on InvestmentEvent headcount 49.5% 45.7%Register sales data per event days 37.9% 45.7%Future likelihood to purchase 37.4% 45.7%Internet hits post-event 34.7% 43.6%Samples, coupons distributed 30.0% 37.2%Length of time engaged 18.4% 25.0%Other 4.7% 5.9%

Consumer ExperienceSales Volume 54.2% 66.0%Expressed purchase intent 41.1% 39.9%Brand preference altered 27.9% 29.3%Other (Brand awareness, loyalty, email hits, etc.) 7.9% 7.4%

Source: Johannes (2007).

between agency and client, and a lack of funds to undertake meaningfulevaluation (Roythorne, 2006).

A study undertaken in 2007 gives a different view of current evaluationpractice showing the percentage of firms (agencies and clients) professingto use each type of measurement (Johannes, 2007) (Table 3). Although a fairproportion use some form of measure, these tend to be limited to the easyto measure aspects at or soon after the event itself. The more intangible, butmore valuable, measures of brand awareness, preference, and loyalty areevaluated rarely.

Despite the need to show a return on investment very few companiesare managing to do this for their marketing expenditure (Patterson, 2004).This is partly due to a lack of meaningful metrics against which performancecan be measured. Patterson suggests a range of metrics that can be applied toall marketing expenditure and, therefore, adapted for evaluating marketingevents. These are:Customer acquisition:

– Customer growth rate– Share of preference– Share of voice– Share of distribution

Customer relationship management:

– Frequency and recency of purchase– Share of wallet– Purchase value growth rate– Customer tenure– Customer loyalty and advocacy


262 E. H. Wood

Value enhancement:

– Price premium– Customer franchise value– Rate of new product acceptance– Net advocate score

A first stage, therefore, in evaluating the effectiveness of experientialmarketing events is to determine the most appropriate metrics (and ways ofmeasuring these). It is then necessary to evaluate these against benchmarks.

Although mainly literature review and secondary research, this paperhas also sought to gather the views of experienced practitioners operatingin the event/experiential marketing field. The views reported here are fromCEOs, marketing directors, and strategic planners, all with a wide varietyof experience of creating, hosting, and evaluating experiential events for arange of clients.

Experiential marketing is defined by the interviewees as:

“what your customer thinks, feels and associates you with,” “it’s some-thing that creates a sublimely emotional/mental connection with thebusiness/product” and “any activity that uses multi-sensory engagementof consumers to create an emotional response to the message/brand/promotion.

Clearly the practitioner view emphasizes the emotional, hedonic natureof experiential marketing. The experience created at the event needs to besomething more than an instrumental, practical exposure to the product orbrand.

The reasons for using experiential marketing rather than more traditionalmethods were typically explained as:

It brings the brand to life, turns it from a name/logo into an interactivelife form, it gives it DNA. An opportunity to interface with customers.

It provides essential emotional connections with their message/brand/promotion. The consumer experiences the message/brand/promotion ina way that is physical, audible and visual. The consequence is a greateraffinity with the message/brand/promotion and longer retention of themessage/brand/promotion.

And:

Only by achieving emotional connections can today’s brands hope to getonto people’s portfolios, and more importantly, facilitate word of mouth(net promoter).



The main benefits appear to be again related to the emotional setting inwhich the brand message is delivered. The event becomes the brand, rep-resenting the brand values in a physical and interactive form. This suggeststhen that one of the most important aspects to measure is the strength andcharacteristics of the emotional connections made as a result of the event.

All the interviewees agreed that clear objectives are imperative for suc-cessful marketing events and that these are usually initially set by the clientand moderated by the agency in terms of what can realistically be achieved.Objectives are set at two levels in terms of meeting the needs of the organi-zation using the event and in terms of the audience, guests, and attendeesof the event.

For example the objectives for one event were:

to achieve early contact with the brand in a controlled environment for 8to 11 year olds. To make sure this early contact is fun while educationallyrobust, thus engaging pupils as well as their teachers.

The achievement of objectives appears to be the responsibility of boththe agency and the client and sometimes an external research agency wheregreater objectivity is needed. Discussion of the measures to be used andmethods of measurement form part of the contract and “must be agreedbefore the event in order to protect both parties.”

Most agencies include evaluation for each event organized. This variesin depth and breadth according to clients’ needs and willingness to pay.Evaluation is also conducted as part of the agencies’ internal systems inorder to build their own “knowledge and capability.” Furthermore, all theinterviewees believe that all aspects, tangible and intangible, can be mea-sured but that measurement is constrained by time, money, and the need forassumption.

The range of methods used to evaluate experiential marketing eventsincluded qualitative and quantitative approaches ranging from a fairly formal-ized adaptation of the balanced score card methodology to simple measuresof volume of attendees (using door counters; gift distribution; diarized visita-tion). Also used are face-to-face or self completion questionnaires to assessvisitor attitudes to the event content, staff questionnaires to establish staffexperiences and areas for evolution, and media cutting services to measuremedia exposure achieved.

Although many of these measures focus on the event itself rather thanits effects, practitioners recognize the importance of longer-term in-depthevaluation.

We very rarely get the budget to complete post research to measurethe impact of the event after it has passed. This could and should bedone by measuring attendee attitude some weeks/months after the event


FWhyte

Highlight

Frances

Highlight

264 E. H. Wood

has passed; changing consumer habits; sales volume comparisons withnon-promotional periods etc.

The interviewees also recognized the need for a greater amount ofevaluation to be undertaken within the industry. However, problems werealso envisaged in terms of the scope of the industry and, therefore, thedifficulty in standardizing methods and measures, the problem with isolatingthe effect of an event from overall IMC activity, and a lack of resources asany budget being spent tends to go on event delivery and content ratherthan research.

In developing evaluation, the respondents would like to see “a spectrumof techniques that people can adopt, develop and grow with” and a changeto longer-term thinking and commitment, that would, in turn, “increase thevalue placed on post-event research as clients seek to improve their eventseach time; year on year.” “Short-termism” is seen as one of main obstacles toimproving event evaluation as the brand manager is often “on the brand fora short period” and “thus they are not brand building but winning marketshare for a short time.”

CONCLUSIONS

In reviewing both the literature on experiential marketing evaluation andthrough discussions with practitioners, this paper has perhaps created morequestions than answers. Before practical methods of experiential marketingevent evaluation are developed, there is much more research to be donein understanding the effects of such methods on consumers, in isolatingthose effects from other influences, and then on determining methods forcontrolling or maximizing the effects.

Although much of the practical research being done is currently led bythe agencies providing the events, the onus should lie with the user (client)not the provider (agency) and with marketing academics. Otherwise, we arein danger of relying on research that is driven by the need to prove the valueof a particular event or of the industry as a whole and being undertaken bythose without an insight into the holistic nature of the marketing campaign.

Due the variety of types and sizes of experiential marketing events, aconsistent approach can only be developed through focusing on consumerexperience, objectives, and outcomes rather than content and form. For ex-ample, a method developed to measure attitude change related to one event,should be applicable whenever attitude change is an objective. If direct salesare the objective, or customer retention or product trial, then different evalu-ation techniques need to be employed. The overall effectiveness of the eventmay therefore require the summation of a number of evaluations on eachobjective.


FWhyte

Highlight


TABLE 4 The Three Levels of Marketing Event Evaluation

Stage Measured Pros Cons

1. The Event Attendance, mediacoverage,satisfaction

Focuses on the event Does not measureeffectiveness

2. ConsumerExperience(experience ofevent)

Value =Benefits-costs

Focuses on consumerFocuses on

experience

Assumes positiveevent experienceequates tomarketingeffectiveness

3. ConsumerResponse(response to theexperience)

Feelings, attitudes,intentions, behavior

Focuses on results,outcomes

Difficult to isolateeffects, longer term

a) Attitude change asa result ofexperience

Perceived brandvalues, preference,liking

b) Behavioral changeas a result ofexperience

Purchase behavior,WOM,recommendations,advocacy, trial

A further problem to overcome is that experiential events are often asmall part of a much greater integrated marketing communications campaign(Pitta, Weisgal, & Lynagh, 2006). The “value” of the event may not easily beassessed separately from the overall effect of the campaign. It may be nec-essary, therefore, to assume an outcome based upon measures of consumerexperience and emotional resonance with the brand before and after theevent.

Pine and Gilmore (1999) suggest that those companies who stage ex-periences alone, without considering the effect these experiences will haveon participants and without designing the experiences in such a way as tocreate a desired change, will eventually see their experiences become com-moditised. If marketing events remain, as they should, as unusual events,not continuous and not commoditized, it will be more feasible to isolatetheir effects within IMC measurement as there will be comparisons availablebetween periods with and without experiential events.

However, a generalizable methodology is unlikely due to the diversityof “marketing events” and the individualistic nature of the consumer experi-ence. Research now needs to move away from a reliance on data collectedabout the event and move towards research that focuses on developing aclearer understanding of the consumer experience at the event and, moreimportantly, the consumer’s longer-term response to that experience (seeTable 4).

Mixed methods are needed to gain this understanding using a combi-nation of the trends and models used within econometrics and stochastic


FWhyte

Highlight

266 E. H. Wood

modelling and the in-depth individualized techniques of consumer psychol-ogy. It is unlikely that a methodology can be developed that is perfectlyapplicable to every event or that any methodology will be error free, how-ever, recognizing these limitations and striving to develop better methodswill always be far better than not attempting to evaluate at all.

The worth of experiential events is not in question. What is now neededis an understanding of how and why they work. Only after this is understoodwill we know what to measure and how.

REFERENCES

Archer, J., & Hubbard, T. (1996). Integrated tracking for integrated communications.Admap, 31(2), pp. 22–26.

Arnould, E., Price, L., & Zinkhan, G. (2004). Consumers, 2nd ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Bigham, L. (2006). Experiential marketing: A survey of consumer response. New York:Jack Morton Worldwide.

Business Development Institute. (2006). Event marketing agencies fail to track results.New York: Author. Website: www.bdionline.com

Caru, A., & Cova, B. (2003) Revisiting consumption experience: A more humble butcomplete view of the concept. Marketing Theory, 3(2), 267–286.

Chattopadhyay, A., & Laborie, J.-L. (2005). Managing brand experience: The marketcontact audit. Journal of Advertising Research, 45(1), 9–16.

Close, A. G., Finney, R. Z., Lacey, R. Z., & Sneath, J. Z. (2006). Engaging the consumerthrough event marketing: Linking attendees with the sponsor, community andbrand. Journal of Advertising Research, 46(4), 420–433.

Cook, L. (2004, June). Econometrics and integrated campaigns. Admap, Issue 451,pp. 37–40.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with every-day life. New York: BasicBooks.

EventView 2006 . (2006). Dallas: MPI Foundation; and Auburn Hills, MI: The GeorgeP. Johnson Company. Retrieved January 12, 2007, from http://www.mpiweb.org/CMS/uploadedFiles/Research and Whitepapers/EventView2006-FINAL-060705.pdf

Gupta, S. (2003). Event marketing: Issues and challenges. IIMB Management Review,15(2), 87–96.

Holbrook, M. B. (2000). The millennial consumer in the texts of our times: Experiencethe entertainment. Journal of Macromarketing, 20(2), 178–192.

Holbrook, M. B., & Hirschman, E. C. (1981). The experiential aspects of consump-tion: Consumer fantasy, feelings and fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2),132–140.

IXMA. (2007). San Francisco: International Experiential Marketing Association. Web-site: www.ixma.org.

Jack Morton Worldwide. (2006, June 21). Global experiential marketing study: 2006survey reveals insights, benefits. 360◦ Newsletter. New York: Author. RetrievedJuly 17, 2007, from http://360.jackmorton.com/articles/article062106 2.php



Johannes, A. (2007, January). Time out. PROMO Magazine, pp. 29–37.Kotler, P. (2003). Marketing management, 11th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice

Hall.Krantz, M. (2006). Has event marketing peaked? Meeting News, 30(13), 10.Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied

research, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Lainson, S. (1997). Measuring sponsorship. Sports News, Issue 13. Retrieved July 14,

2008, from http://www.onlinesports.com/sportstrust/sports13.htmlLatham, J. (2006, December 7). Study proves live events have major impact.

Events Review. Retrieved January 14, 2009, from http://eventsreview.co.uk/news/view/111/

Lofman, B. (1991). Elements of experiential consumption: An exploratory study. InR. Holman & M. R. Solomon (Eds.), Advances in consumer research, Vol. 18.Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 729–735.

Mathwick, C., Malhotra, N., & Rigdon, E. (2001). Experiential value: Conceptualisa-tion, measurement and application in the catalog and internet shopping envi-ronment. Journal of Retailing, 77(1), 39–56.

McCole, P. (2004). Refocusing marketing to reflect practice. The changing role ofmarketing for business. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 22(5), 531–539.

Patterson, L. (2004, November 23). If you don’t measure, you can’t manage. Thebest metrics for managing marketing performance. MarketingProfs. RetrievedJanuary 11, 2009, from http://www.marketingprofs.com/4/patterson1.asp

Peter, J. P., & Olson, J. C. (2008). Consumer behavior and marketing strategy, 8thed. Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Petkus, E., Jr. (2004). Enhancing the application of experiential marketing in the arts.International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 9(1), 49–56.

Pickton, D., & Broderick, A. (2001). Integrated marketing communications. UpperSaddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Financial Times.

Pine, B. J. II, & Gilmore J. H. (1999). The experience economy: Work is theatre &every business a stage. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Pitta, D. A., Weisgal, M., & Lynagh, P. (2006). Integrating exhibit marketing intointegrated marketing communications. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23(3),156–166.

Pol, L. G., & Pak, S. (1995). The use of a two-stage survey design in collecting datafrom those who have attended periodic or special events. Journal of the MarketResearch Society, 36(4), 15–23.

Ponsonby, S., & Boyle, E. (2004). The value of marketing and the marketing ofvalue in contemporary times—A literature review and research agenda. Journalof Marketing Management, 20(3–4), 343–361.

Reichheld, F. F. (2006). The ultimate question: Driving good profits and true growth.Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Richins, M. (1997). Measuring emotions in the consumption experience. Journal ofConsumer Research, 24(2), 127–146.

Roythorne, P. (2006, February 10). Survey reveals motivational power ofevents. Events Review. Retrieved January 14, 2009, from http://eventsreview.com/news/view/173

Schmitt, B. H. (1999). Experiential marketing. New York: Free Press.


268 E. H. Wood

Schreiber, A. L., & Lenson, B. (1994). Lifestyle and event marketing: Building thenew customer partnership. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Schultz, D. E. (2005, May/June). Measuring unmeasurables. Marketing Management,14(3), 12–13.

Sneath, J. Z., Finney, R. Z., & Close, A. G. (2005). An IMC approach to eventmarketing: The effects of sponsorship and experience on consumer attitudes.Journal of Advertising Research, 45(4), 373–381.

Tripodi, J. A., Hirons, M., Bednall, D., & Sutherland, M. (2003). Cognitive evalua-tion: Prompts used to measure sponsorship awareness. International Journal ofMarket Research, 45(4), 12–25.

Williams, A. (2006). Tourism and hospitality marketing: Fantasy, feeling and fun. In-ternational Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 18(6), 482–495.

Wohlfeil, M. (2005). Event marketing as innovative marketing communications: Re-viewing the German experience. Journal of Customer Behavior, 4(2), 181–207.

Wood, E. H., & Masterman, G. (2007). Event marketing: Experience and exploitation.Paper presented at the Extraordinary Experiences Conference: Managing theConsumer Experience in Hospitality, Leisure, Sport, Tourism, Retail and Events,Bournemouth University, September 3–4, 2007.

Young, A., & Aitken, A. (2007). Measuring marketing communications: Concentrateon outcomes, not outputs. Market Leader, Issue 37, 51–55.

Zaltman, G. (2003). How consumers think: Essential insights into the mind of themarket. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.


evaluating event marketing

Documents