CCoorrnneellll  HHoossppiittaalliittyy  RReeppoorrtt  
The Future odf Tradeshows  
Evolving Trends, Preferences, and Priorities
by HyunJeong “Spring” Han, Ph.D., and Rohit Verma, Ph.D.
Vol. 14, No. 513
JFuenberu 2a0r1y 42014
All CHR reports are available for free 
download, but may not be reposted, 
reproduced, or distributed without the 
express permission of the publisher
Cornell Hospitality Report
Vol. 14, No. 13 (June 2014)
© 2014 Cornell University. This report may 
not be reproduced or distributed without the 
express permission of the publisher.
Cornell Hospitality Report is produced for the 
benefit of the hospitality industry by The Center 
for Hospitality Research at Cornell University.
Michael C. Sturman, Academic Director
Carol Zhe, Program Manager
Glenn Withiam, Executive Editor
Alfonso Gonzalez, Executive Director of 
Marketing and Communications
Center for Hospitality Research
Cornell University
School of Hotel Administration
537 Statler Hall
Ithaca, NY 14853
607-255-9780
chr. cornell.edu
Advisory Board
Syed Mansoor Ahmad, Vice President, Global Business Head for Energy Gerald Lawless, Executive Chairman, Jumeirah Group
Management Services, Wipro EcoEnergy Christine Lee, Senior Director, U.S. Strategy, McDonald’s Corporation
Marco Benvenuti ’05, Cofounder, Chief Analytics and Product Officer, Mark V. Lomanno
Duetto
Bharet Malhotra, Senior VP, Sales, CVENT
Scott Berman ‘84, Principal, Real Estate Business Advisory Services, Industry 
Leader, Hospitality & Leisure, PricewaterhouseCoopers David Meltzer MMH ‘96, Chief Commercial Officer, Sabre Hospitality 
Solutions
Raymond Bickson, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, Taj Group 
of Hotels, Resorts, and Palaces Mary Murphy-Hoye, Senior Principal Engineer (Intel’s Intelligent Systems 
Group), Solution Architect (Retail Solutions Division), Intel Corporation
Michael Cascone, President and Chief Operating Officer, Forbes Travel Guide
Brian Payea, Head of Industry Relations, TripAdvisor
Bhanu Chopra, Chief Executive Officer, RateGain
Kimberly Rath, Founder and Chairman, Talent Plus, Inc.
Eric Danziger, President & CEO, Wyndham Hotel Group
Umar Riaz, Managing Director – Hospitality, North American Lead, 
Benjamin J. “Patrick” Denihan, Chief Executive Officer,  Accenture
Denihan Hospitality Group
Carolyn D. Richmond ’91, Partner, Hospitality Practice, Fox Rothschild LLP
Chuck Floyd, Chief Operating Officer–North America, Hyatt
David Roberts ’87 (MS ’88), Senior Vice President, Consumer Insight and 
RJ Friedlander, CEO, ReviewPro Revenue Strategy, Marriott International, Inc. 
Gregg Gilman ’85, Partner, Co-Chair, Employment Practices, Davis & Michele Sarkisian, President, P3 Advisors
Gilbert LLP
Janis Nakano Spivack, Senior Vice President, Sonifi Solutions, Inc.
Susan Helstab, EVP Corporate Marketing,  
Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts S. Sukanya, Vice President and Global Head Travel, Transportation and 
Hospitality Unit, Tata Consultancy Services
Steve Hood, Senior Vice President of Research, STR
K. Vijayaraghavan, Chief Executive, Sathguru Management Consultants 
Jeffrey A. Horwitz, Chair, Lodging & Gaming Group and Head, Private (P) Ltd.
Equity Real Estate, Proskauer
Adam Weissenberg ‘85, Vice Chairman, US Travel, Hospitality, and 
Kevin J. Jacobs ‘94, Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer, Hilton Leisure Leader, Deloitte & Touche USA LLP
Worldwide
Rick Werber ‘82, Senior Vice President, Engineering and Sustainability, 
Kirk Kinsell MPS ‘80, President, The Americas, InterContinental Hotels Development, Design, and Construction, Host Hotels & Resorts, Inc.
Group
Michelle Wohl ’94, Vice President of Marketing, Revinate
Mark Koehler, Senior Vice President, Hotels, priceline.com
Jon Wright, President and Chief Executive Officer, Access Point
Radhika Kulkarni ’81, VP of Advanced Analytics R&D,  
SAS Institute
Thank you to our generous Corporate Members
Senior Partners
Accenture
Carlson Rezidor Hotel Group
SAS
STR
Taj Hotels Resorts and Palaces
Partners
Access Point
CVENT
Davis & Gilbert LLP 
Deloitte & Touche USA LLP
Denihan Hospitality Group
Duetto
Forbes Travel Guide
Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts 
Fox Rothschild LLP
Hilton Worldwide
Host Hotels & Resorts, Inc. 
Hyatt Hotels Corporation
Intel Corporation 
InterContinental Hotels Group 
Jumeirah Group
Marriott International, Inc.
McDonald’s USA
priceline.com
PricewaterhouseCoopers
Proskauer
RateGain
ReviewPro
Revinate 
Sabre Hospitality Solutions
Sathguru Management Consultants (P) Ltd. 
Sonifi Solutions, Inc.
Talent Plus
Tata Consultancy Services
TripAdvisor
Wipro EcoEnergy
Wyndham Hotel Group
Friends
Cleverdis • DK Shifflet & Associates • EyeforTravel • Hospitality Technology Magazine • HSyndicate • iPerceptions 
• J.D. Power • Lodging Hospitality • Milestone Internet Marketing • MindFolio • Mindshare Technologies • PKF 
Hospitality Research • Questex Hospitality Group
The Future of Tradeshows: 
Evolving Trends, Preferences, and Priorities
HyunJeong “Spring” Han and Rohit Verma
ExECuTivE SuMMARy
ar from supplanting trade shows, technology has augmented the shows’ interactive, 
Finformational aspect by increasing potential contacts and scheduling efficiency for participants. However, the tradeshow itself remains an essential vehicle for selling products and services, explaining and demonstrating the product, and creating lists of qualified buyers. Whereas the 
tradeshow exhibitors are focused on sales and prospects, this study finds a complementary set of goals 
by attendees, who are more interested in the show’s educational aspects (including learning about 
useful products). Successful execution of a tradeshow requires careful planning and coordination 
between different stakeholders (i.e., attendees, exhibitors, meeting planners, destination executives). In 
addition to integrating social media and mobile technology, tradeshows also are focusing on 
environmental sustainability and providing information for participants’ corporate-social responsibility 
interests. Based on focus groups, interviews, and a survey of over 2,500 tradeshow participants, the top 
reason for exhibitors to attend a show involves their sales goals, while the top purpose for attendees is 
education. Ironically, although a substantial number of tradeshow participants appreciate the available 
technology, another substantial group either doesn’t notice the technology or avoids using it.
4 The Center for Hospitality Research • Cornell University
ABouT THE AuTHoRS
HyunJeong “Spring” Han, Ph.D., is an assistant professor in the Faculty of Management and a research fellow 
in the Centre for Advanced Studies at National Research University’s Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia. 
She also serves as a research associate in the Center for Hospitality Research, Cornell University. Her current research 
interests include text analytics in social media, event management, and corporate culture in the hospitality industry. 
She has published in Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Cornell Hospitality Report, Korean Journal of Hotel Administration, 
and Journal of Korean Convention Research. She received the “Best paper award for the year 2013” from Cornell 
Hospitality Quarterly, and “Educational Innovation Award” from National Research University HSE in 2014. 
Rohit verma, Ph.D., is Singapore Tourism Board Distinguished Professor and a professor of service operations 
management at the Cornell University’s School of Hotel Administration (SHA). He also serves as a visiting professor in the Johnson Graduate 
School of Management, Cornell University. Verma is currently the coordinator of SHA’s MBA – MMH dual degree program; undergraduate 
Latin Honors thesis program; and co-chair of the Cornell Hospitality Research Summit (chrs.hotelschool.cornell.
edu). Prior to joining the Cornell faculty, he was the George Eccles Professor of Management, David Eccles School 
of Business (DESB) at the University of Utah. He has taught MBA and executive development classes at several 
universities around the world, including DePaul University, German Graduate School of Business and Law, Helsinki 
School of Economics, Indian School of Business, Korea University, Norwegian School of Logistics, Nyenrode University, 
and University of Sydney. He is the co-author of Operations and Supply Chain Management for the 21st Century 
textbook and co-editor of Cornell School of Hotel Administration on Hospitality: Cutting Edge Thinking and Practice, 
a professional reference book that includes works of several of his colleagues at Cornell. Verma has received several 
research and teaching awards including CHR’s “Industry Relevance Award” and SHA’s “Master’s Core Class Teaching 
Award” at Cornell; “Skinner Award For Early Career Research Accomplishments” from the Production and Operations Management Society; 
“Spirit of Inquiry Award,” the highest honor for scholarly activities within DePaul University; “Teaching Innovation Award” from DePaul 
University; and “Professional Service Award” from DESB University of Utah. 
Acknowledgment 
The authors would like to thank the ASAE Foundation (www.asaecenter.org) for providing research support for this project as part of their 
Sr. Partnership with Cornell Center for Hospitality Research. The authors would like to acknowledge the active collaboration from the ASAE 
Foundation’s advisory board members and several participating associations for facilitating survey data collection for exhibitors and attendees.
The authors are especially grateful to Susan Robertson, Sharon Moss, and Chelsea Killam for their comments, feedback, and insights 
throughout the project, and to Monica Dignam for initiating this research project, performing data analyses, and providing the organizing 
principle that formed the basis of this research. A summary of selected results from this collaborative research is also available from the ASAE 
Foundation at https://mystuff.asaecenter.org/ebusiness/publications/publicationproduct?id=107816.
Cornell Hospitality Report • June 2014 • www.chr.cornell.edu   5
CoRnEll HoSpiTAliTy REpoRT
The Future of Tradeshows: 
Evolving Trends, Preferences, and Priorities
HyunJeong “Spring” Han and Rohit Verma
Despite the disruption of the internet, tradeshows continue to be a high-yield component of the travel and tourism industry. Tradeshow travelers are seen as having greater spending power than typical business travelers, and they typically spend a longer time at a destination than regular business travelers. Tradeshows 
remain important for manufacturers, suppliers, and service providers because of the opportunity to 
connect directly with a large number of current and potential customers at one location in a relatively 
short time. Since tradeshows are often organized as part of an association or industry conference or 
convention, participants also value the educational opportunities included in a show. 
6 The Center for Hospitality Research • Cornell University
Advances in information technology (notably, social There is, however, a growing body of research in this 
media) have created additional channels for marketing to area, based on initial work carried out by Oppermann and 
and communicating with tradeshow participants. Tradeshow Chon,1 which has examined the delegate attendance deci-
organizers and participants are making use of such technolo- sion process2 and motivations for delegates to attend confer-
gies as RFID (radio frequency identification), touch-screen ences.3 Studies have identified key motivators and consider-
displays, computer simulations, and meeting scheduling ations for attendance, including personal and professional 
apps. Given these innovations, tradeshow organizers must development, networking opportunities, and cost, location, 
prioritize and select the options that best meet participants’ timing, and convenience of the conference.4 
needs. Other headwinds facing tradeshow organizers are Papers published in recent years have considered the 
participants’ continued attention to the cost and environ- role of technology, social media, meeting scheduling, sus-
mental impact of travel, which puts a greater focus on the tainability, and social responsibility related to the manage-
shows’ sustainability efforts. ment of tradeshows. 
Given the changing landscape facing tradeshows, we Tradeshow organizers do far more than book a venue. 
wanted to address two research issues. We sought to estab- They also provide services for exhibitors during the show, 
lish benchmarks for the importance that participants accord as well as before and after the event. Attracting qualified 
to various tradeshow components and gauge the relative attendees whom exhibitors want to meet at the show is also 
importance of tradeshow selection criteria for exhibitors and an essential function for organizers.5 Arranged meetings of 
attendees. We also wanted to document the effects of partici- exhibitors and buyers who have indicated their interest in 
pant demographics on tradeshow selection and preferences. each other through hosted buyer programs have become an 
These variables are age, frequency of tradeshow visitation, important feature of many shows.
career stage, and technology readiness. 
Background 1 M. Oppermann and K.S. Chon “Factors influencing professional confer-
The meeting, incentives, convention, and exhibition business ence participation by association members: A pilot study of convention 
(MICE) generally comprises small to medium sized organi- tourism,” 26th Annual Conference of the Travel and Tourism Research 
Association, Mexico (1995).
zations, and is not as formally integrated as many other in- 2 
dustries. The sector does, however, maintain a high degree of J. Mair and K.Thompson “The UK association conference attendance decision-making process,” Tourism Management, Vol. 30, No. 3 (2009), 
continuity and consistency in what is a complex and diverse pp. 400-409; and H.Q. Zhang, V. Leung, and H. Qu, “A refined model 
area of business activity through ongoing exchanges among of factors affecting convention participation decision-making,” Tourism 
industry organizations and via regular forums. Management, Vol. 28, No. 4 (2007), pp. 1123–1127.
3 
Tradeshow and MICE Research Trends L.K. Jago and M. Deery, “Relationships and factors influencing conven-tion decision-making,” Journal of Convention and Event Tourism, Vol. 7, 
Virtual technology has so far not supplanted the tradeshow’s No. 1 (2005), pp. 533-541; B. Rittichainuwat Ngamson, J.A. Beck, and J. 
chief purposes of offering face-to-face demonstrations of Lalopa, “Understanding motivators, inhibitors and facilitators of associa-
tion members in attending international conferences,” Journal of Conven-
products and services, allowing direct interaction with tion and Exhibition Management, Vol.3, No. 3 (2001), pp. 45–62; and D. 
potential customers, getting feedback regarding the product Severt, Y. Wang, P.-J. Chen, and D. Breiter, “Examining the motivation, 
on site, and providing educational opportunities in conjunc- perceived performance, and behavioral intentions of convention attend-
tion with an association meeting. Exhibitors’ objectives for ees: Evidence from a regional conference,” Tourism Management, Vol. 28, 
No. 2 (2007), pp. 399–408.
participating in a trade show include generating high-quality 4 
leads, promoting corporate image, and maintaining contact Mair and Thompson, op.cit.
5 
with current and prospective customers. Trade Show Bureau 1988; Gramnann 1994; Tanner, Chonko & Ponzu-
rick, 2001; Morrow 2002; Smith, Hama & Smith 2003
Cornell Hospitality Report • June 2014 • www.chr.cornell.edu   7
Several researchers have identified the elements that delegate clusters based on age, gender, and education 
attract convention attendees to certain destinations. The fol- level.10 
lowing seven factors were most frequently identified in this According to Lee’s study, meeting professionals per-
connection: accessibility, affordability, attractions and enter- ceived social media (in this case, Twitter and Facebook) as 
tainment, availability of facility, destination image, quality of valuable tools for transforming a meeting into an interac-
service, and safety and security.6 tive session.11 
Technology in Tradeshows Environmental Sustainability in Tradeshows
Tradeshows and the MICE sector generally have taken The conference and convention industry is well aware of 
increasing advantage of advances in information and com- the push for sustainability in the MICE industry segment.12 
munications technology, with benefits for suppliers, buyers, In response to the demand by participants for information 
and intermediaries. On balance, we see tradeshows benefiting relating to carbon footprints and other sustainability issues 
from social media. Most events have adopted technology for surrounding meetings, the industry has developed such 
event registration and, as a result, many software companies websites as Sustainable Communities Network, BlueGreen 
have created a variety of internet-based registration systems Meeting, and GreenMeetings.com. In addition, many 
for use by meeting and tradeshow organizers. Most of these industry associations are implementing sustainable initia-
software packages allow the organizer to create registration tives for their membership, including the Green Meeting 
spreadsheets, administer financial transactions, monitor ac- Industry Council, Professional Convention Management 
tual registration, and, in some cases, even enable the delegates Association, and Meeting Planners International. 
to print out their name tag in advance. With the constant Research Approach
evaluation of internet-based database and search algorithms, a 
number of conference planning programs now offer powerful With these studies in mind, we sought to describe and 
search engines with extensive venue and supplier listings. quantify the relative importance of tradeshow selection 
criteria and to explore similarities and differences in the 
Role of Social Media in Tradeshows importance of technology and sustainability for tradeshow 
Given the advent of social media, one avenue for success at exhibitors and attendees. We first conducted two focus 
a trade show is finding a way to capture the attention of the groups in Washington, D.C., which included representa-
largest number of attendees. Not only would social technol- tives from various tradeshow organizing associations, con-
ogy make connecting in person at trade shows easier, cheaper, vention bureaus, and tradeshow organizers and attendees. 
and more efficient, but new technologies will continue to We then interviewed two dozen tradeshow participants 
support the organization, structure, and delivery of meetings. and destination, hospitality, and lodging executives. We 
People will continue to attend, of course, but touch screens, also examined the facilities at some of the largest conven-
RFID, wireless internet access, virtual reality, and customized tion centers in United States and Europe. We used the re-
apps will augment the tradeshow experience. sults of these focus groups and interviews to identify issues 
Networking and interaction opportunities are often cited that are of significant importance to tradeshow exhibitors 
as the most important benefits participants receive at trade- and participants. This allowed us to develop and adminis-
shows.7 For exhibitors this means engaging in efforts to ex- ter a survey to find out more about tradeshow exhibitors’ 
tend one’s network of business contacts.8 Networking oppor- and participants’ considerations for selecting a tradeshow. 
tunities strongly motivate attendance at tradeshows, which is At the outset, the survey asked the respondents to 
one reason for the growth of hosted buyer programs.9 Beyond identify whether they were primarily a tradeshow attendee 
networking and contact development, different participants or an exhibitor, so that we could appropriately custom-
have different purposes for attending. Mair maintained, for ize the wording on the rest of the survey. We asked the 
instance, that there are significant differences in conference respondents to report their attendance frequency and 
6 H.E. Chacko and G.G. Fenich, “Determining the importance of U.S. 10 Judith Mair, “Profiling Conference Delegates Using Attendance 
convention destination attributes,” Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 6, No. Motivations,” Journal of Convention & Event Tourism, Vol. 11 (2010), pp. 
3 (2000), pp. 211-220; and M. Oppermann and K.S. Chon, “Convention 176-194.
participation decision-making process,” Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 24, 
No. 1 (1997), pp. 178-191. 11 Seungwon Lee, “To Tweet or Not To Tweet: An Exploratory Study 
7 of Meeting Professionals’ Attitudes Toward Applying Social Media for W. Hultsman, “From the eyes of an exhibitor: Characteristics that make Meeting Sessions,” Journal of Convention & Event Tourism, Vol. 12, No. 
exhibitions a success for all stakeholders,” Journal of Convention & Exhibi- 4 (2011), pp. 271-289.
tion Management, Vol. 3, No. 3 (2001), pp. 27–44. 12 
8 M. Russell, “Convene”; Retrieved April 30, 2009, from Professional Oppermann & Chon (1997), op.cit. Meeting Planners Association; www.pcma.org/Convene/Issue Archives/
9 Severt et al., op.cit. March 2008/Megatrends.htm.
8 The Center for Hospitality Research • Cornell University
Exhibit 1
Sample profile (n = 2,527)
Age distribution
Exhibitors 20 – 24 years Attendees
65 years or Exhibitors 20 – 24 years 1% Attendees
older 1% 65 years or 25 – 34 years7%
older 10%
25 – 34 years 9%
15%
55 – 64 years
23% 35 – 44 years
35 – 44 years 20%
24% 55 – 64 years
32%
45 – 54 years 45 – 54 years
30% 28%
Gender distribution Employment
60 70
60
50 50
40
40 30
20
30 100
20 to
r
ion ion
t
en ed
r
sec cat zat o
y the
te du an
i ern
m l o
mp
10 iva , e rg ov f-epr me t o G el
cad
e S
pro
fi
0 A -on
Female Male n
Exhibitors Attendees
Exhibitors Attendees
Employment level Education
45 70
40 60
35
30 50
25 40
20 30
15 20
10
5 10
0 0
Entry level Mid level Senior level CEo other High school Some College post-
owner grad college grad graduate 
partner degree
Exhibitors Attendees Exhibitors Attendees
costs associated with their tradeshow activity. We also asked We also drew data from a best-worst exercise (also 
them why they attended specific types of tradeshows and known as a max-diff exercise). As we describe later in this 
what types of information they received from the organiz- report, this approach is designed to provide an unbiased 
ers. Finally, we asked them specific questions related to such estimate of the relative preference ranking for a set of 
issues as technology, appointment scheduling, sustainability, alternatives.  
hosted buyer programs, and virtual expos. To determine participants’ general feelings about 
technology, we  presented respondents with the ten-question 
Cornell Hospitality Report • June 2014 • www.chr.cornell.edu   9
percentage of respondents
percentage of respondents
percentage of 
percentage of respondents  respondents
Exhibit 2
Technology Readiness index
Exhibitors Attendees
Technology Readiness Index (TRI), which measures their Sample Demographics
attitudes towards new technology based on four con- The sample represents a diverse group of respondents based 
structs—optimism, innovativeness, discomfort, and insecu- on several demographic characteristics, as shown in Exhibit 
rity. Based on their responses a TRI Index can be calculated 1. The ethnicity of the sample was not particularly diverse, 
for each respondent. This index can be helpful in segmen- though, with 86 percent of the respondents being Caucasian. 
tation and sub-group level analyses to identify causes for This may, however, reflect the larger populations from which 
any observed similarities or differences. Finally the survey the samples were drawn. Interestingly, the racial distribution 
included a battery of demographics-related questions. of respondents within the pilot survey and final survey was 
The survey instrument was first pilot tested by approxi- almost same. 
mately 500 respondents representing five different types of Most respondents are within the ages of 35–64 years old 
professional associations and comprising a diverse group of and fairly highly educated (a majority held at least under-
tradeshow exhibitors and attendees. Based on those results, graduate college degrees). Most respondents are at least at 
we revised the survey and launched it to exhibitors and the mid-career to senior level within their organizations, and 
attendees from 26 different associations representing the approximately 23 percent are a chief executive or an owner 
majority of industrial sectors within the United States. On or partner. A tiny proportion of respondents are from out-
average the survey took 25 to 30 minutes to complete. side the United States, because the survey was send primarily 
Results and Discussion to U.S.-based associations. 
Data collection. Distribution of our quantitative survey was Within the exhibitor sample a majority of respondents 
supported by the ASAE Foundation, which invited several are employed within the private sector, while the majority of 
of its partner associations to participate in the study by attendees are employed within the government, academic, 
distributing the survey to their members who had visited and not-for-profit sectors. Within both samples the gender 
tradeshows. With this assistance, we received 2,527 com- proportions are similar, at about a 55 percent to 45 percent 
pleted and usable responses. Although we had lists of ex- women to men. 
hibitors and attendees, we used the respondents’ declaration As shown in Exhibit 2, the distributions of participants’ 
about their status to finalize the lists. This meant reclassify- technology readiness index (TRI) are similar to a normal 
ing 10 percent of the respondents originally on the attendee distribution. The respondents with a TRI score of zero or less 
mailing lists as exhibitors, and moving about 35 percent of are classified as “low TRI” group, those with scores between 
respondents on the exhibitor mailing list to the attendee zero and 10 are classified as “mid TRI,” and those above 10 
list for final analysis. Participating associations are listed on were classified as “high TRI.” Interestingly, the TRI distribu-
page 19, at the end of this report.  tion is similar for both exhibitor and attendee samples. 
10 The Center for Hospitality Research • Cornell University
number of respondents
Exhibit 3
Frequency of annual tradeshow attendance
Total Number of Tradeshows Standalone Tradeshows
number of tArattdeenshdoewds attended Standalone tradeshows14.0
70.0 12.0
60.0 10.0
50.0 8.0
40.0
6.0
30.0
20.0 4.0
10.0 2.0
0.0 0.0
One Two - Three Four - Five Six or more One Two - Three Four - Five Six or more
TradeshowExhsib iatorss  paAtrtetnd oeesf a larger Exhibitors Attendees
50.0 conference Tradeshows with smaller conferneces Tradeshows with large conference Tradeshaotwtas cwhitehd small conference
40.0
25.0
30.0 20.0
15.0
20.0
10.0
10.0 5.0
0.0 0.0
One Two - Three Four - Five Six or more
One Two - Three Four - Five Six or more
Exhibitors Attendees Exhibitors Attendees
Exhibitors Attendees
Exhibit 4
Descriptive information regarding the tradeshow most recently attended
# of Attendees at the most recent 
ntruamdbeesrh oof wat taetntdeenedsed
10000 or more
18% 500 or less
25%
7500
4%
5000
8%
4000 1000
# of exhibitors at the most recent 5% 13D% uration of the most recent tradeshow 
tranduemsbheorw of a etxtheinbditoerds 3000 Five days or aDtutreantidoned
600 or more 7% 2500 2000 1500 more
5% 8% 7% One day or less10% 5% 14%
500 50 or less
5% 28% Four days
400 13%
6%
300 Two days
11% 30%
200 100 Three days
17% 23% 38%
Cornell Hospitality Report • June 2014 • www.chr.cornell.edu   11
% Responpdeernctesntage of respondents
% Respondents
% Respondentpsercentage of respondents % Respondents
Exhibit 5
Reasons for tradeshow attendance
Exhibitors Attendees
90 80
80 70
70 60
60 50
50
40
40
30
30
20 20
10 10
0 0
nd ds ers ces ce ns on ns ns ns n
s ts rs s
a a i n p
s ce n es ns ns ns te
br  le  pe rv ge
n
ssi
o ssi ssi
o so so io ucs es d  pe ssi
o shi n io c o oge ss cti as as as
o ciaa a o n i e a
ote
 i e
tin
g y e l
str d s tel l s
e  se  se r re l re l se  pr try  se tio el
l s r r
 a r a a t s r a t  a
 t p al al 
re r re
o
ass
om rke
e r 
r a ind
u e e
 ts 
an n a e e
ve
 i
tio
n rat oth ot
h son r tio
n tes dun th re
l  in atea i o e
s ion on th , o
o p  m th uc titi ca d
e l   or pe ca e ith  or do
r e r  b s s o r
T ti
tiv de rk es ra pe n
e
elo
p wi od e u o s , u th r p  ed r m he on  ed ut k w e
s n e o
h  ve p r m hm  pr
of or ar
t
ev ork e p om d  o ec ti d o r ec m
f p
c  c
g o  o nc  d o
r n e,
o etw du er tt
en iont  sp
e a
 lo
c
att
en  ab
o
tw spe ti
n
is er 
c o s
T ti
on  be n f ati ou
o n ntr
o th o a ta d e  r
n ne d x th ta To tio oc sp
T  i  ga T seno tte
n  th To lea To 
e
 en e ga en ca e 
l
ny
 
To T pre  a i
sit To  at
t nc
o  v o ha T
o res  lo T  p the isit
 th pa
 a T To  en  a
m
it  v
ve To ive vis To  ac
co
i  o
To 
g o gT T
o T
Exhibit 6 Tradeshow Attendance Patterns
As shown in Exhibit 3, the respondents (both exhibitors 
information provided by tradeshow organizers and attendees) attended several tradeshows each year. They 
attended standalone tradeshows, tradeshows that are part 
90 of large conferences, and tradeshows with smaller confer-
80 ences attached to them. Approximately 50 percent of the 
70 tradeshows attended by the respondents had 2,000 or fewer 
60 attendees, but approximately 20 percent had at least 7,500 
50 attendees. Similarly, approximately 50 percent of the trade-
40 shows had 100 exhibitors or less, but 20 percent had at least 
30 400 exhibitors. Most of the tradeshows were scheduled to last 
20 two to three days. Exhibit 4 summarizes the data regarding 
10 tradeshow attendance. 
0
s s s s Exhibitors and attendees cited substantially different rea-o e n n
 in
f
du
l e e r r
de de ito to o o i
es ts le
n e n n ib ibi a
ti ati ivi
t
me
n ed
u sons for their attendance, as shown in Exhibit 5. The exhibi-
tio sch tte tte xh xh rm rm ct t ch
tra nt r a
a n s
r a f e r e o o  
i  
inf f l l tors primarily attend tradeshows to promote their brands, to 
gis ve the the t o  fo el al 
in na o ao pap on
 re r e f o r o lis ion ot loc at
i
or ers enhance relationships with existing partners, and to develop ce  o  o fo at d h d cren m s  gs
  p
re
a
ra e on rm  an  a
n
r re tin g
 new market leads. The attendees, on the other hand, attend 
nfe rog na
m ati nfo elv ndi u l o
e in
Co p rm t ra ro ra  m
e
uil
d tradeshows to attend educational sessions, to learn about the 
nfo ta
c T
ckgi n ul
tu ing t b
t o a C u
l oud latest products and services, to network with industry peers, B b
nta
c C e  a
o  sc
h fo and to attend panel discussions and workshops. It is also 
C r in
fo 
fo clear that neither the exhibitors nor the attendees travel to 
in the tradeshow locations primarily for recreational purposes 
Exhibitors Attendees or for personal reasons. 
Exhibit 6 shows the frequency and type of information 
provided by the tradeshow organizers to the attendees and 
exhibitors. While there are slight differences between the two 
12 The Center for Hospitality Research • Cornell University
percentage of respondents
percentage of respondents
percentage of respondents
Exhibit 7
Meeting and appointment scheduling 
Software was provided for scheduling meetings
Contact information was provided and i scheduled my own meetings
Software solution was provided for developing personal schedule
Event program was provided and i developed my own schedule
Conference organizers facilitated interactions
Exhibitors Attendees
Social media were integrated with conference management system
 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
percentage of respondents
Exhibit 8
Technology options at tradeshow attended most recently
Wi-fi internet access at event location
video displays at event
internet café at event location
Mobile apps for smartphones or tablets
Social media integrated with event website
Touch-screen displays at event
QR codes used at event
Event website configured to provide customize information
virtual displays of exhibitors
RFiD on event badge Exhibitors Attendees
Matchmaking software for scheduling meetings and appointments
 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
percentage of respondents
sub-groups, both exhibitors and attendees receive informa- we asked the respondents if they are familiar with a hosted 
tion about event registration, schedule, lists of exhibitors, buyer program, we found that a majority of respondents 
travel and hotel information, and locational details. Rela- were either not familiar with the hosted buyer program or 
tively smaller percentages of respondents indicated that they were not sure.  
received information about scheduling meetings with other The respondents were asked to indicate the technol-
exhibitors or attendees or building a personalized schedule. ogy and environmental sustainability options available at 
The respondents who indicated that they have received the most recent tradeshow they attended (see Exhibits 8 
information about scheduling meetings were asked follow- and 9). It is interesting to note that compared to attendees, 
up questions about the type of resources available for doing a higher proportion of exhibitors indicate the presence of 
so. As shown in Exhibit 7, about 80 percent of the attendees various types of technology and environmental sustain-
and 60 percent of the exhibitors responded that a software ability options. Responses from both segments indicate that 
solution was provided for scheduling meetings and appoint- the availability of wi-fi, an internet café, and video displays 
ments. The other options were not checked by a majority have become common technology options at tradeshows. A 
of respondents, indicating that even now the exhibitors are large proportion of respondents also indicate the availability 
mostly left on their own to schedule meetings and to develop of mobile apps and integration of social media within the 
their conference plans. As another follow-up question, when tradeshow offerings. Newer technologies such as QR codes 
Cornell Hospitality Report • June 2014 • www.chr.cornell.edu   13
Exhibit 9
Sustainability options at tradeshow attended most recently
on-site recycling programs
Reduced amount of paper for handouts and flyers
Reusable and environmentally friendly display items
lEED certified event facility
Energy efficient lighting
Motion sensors for controlling lighting and climate control
other
Electric or hybrid transportation at the event Exhibitors Attendees
programmable temperature control
 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
percentage of respondents
Exhibit 10
Tradeshow participants who did not use available technology
25
20
15
10
5
0
sit
e on etsi l nt
s rs n n e t t nt
eb at tab m
e ibi
to tio tio dg nve ve
n ve
t w orm
a a a e e e
f  or
 
n oin
t h  lo
c loc t b t
 t t 
e in es
x n
p f e en
t
en
t ve sed
 a s a s a
 ev d on  ap s o  ev  ev n 
e  u spl
ay pla
y
ith mi
ze d y
rtp
h
 an pla s a
t s
é a
t
iD 
o e
od o d
i s
w s s f F n 
di
d sto a gs i e a R  c de ee
rat
e u
e c or 
sm n l d cc  c R i r
g d  f ee
ti t Q v c
e i s m irt
ua et 
a
n ern
e
uch
-s
nt v r
ia 
i o
 pr  ap
p  v t
lin
g int
e in To
me
d  to bil
e u
ed i-fi
 
l 
cia ur
ed Mog r s
ch W
So fi fo
 co
n  
te a
re
tw Exhibitors Attendees
eb
si sof
w g 
en
t in
v a
k
E
atc
hm
M
are also being used but the proportion of tradeshows using LEED certification in buildings, and use of energy efficient 
RFID technology and matchmaking software for scheduling lightings. Respondents didn’t notice most of the other forms 
meetings is still low. of environmental sustainability options. 
Within the sustainability options, a significantly high As shown in Exhibit 10, up to 20 percent of the re-
proportion of exhibitors indicated the presence of onsite spondents reported that they personally did not use certain 
recycling programs and an emphasis on reduced amount of technology options, notably, social media and the internet 
paper for flyers and collateral. They also indicated the use café. These results are consistent with the percentage of 
of reusable and environmentally friendly display products, respondents who scored low on the technology readiness 
14 The Center for Hospitality Research • Cornell University
percentage of respondents
Exhibit 11
participants’ assessment of tradeshow technology
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
ites ion let
s nts ors ion ion e
t t t
b at b e it at t d
g en na a v ve ve
n
we rm r ta ntm hi
b loc oc t b t e l t 
e t e
nt i x   ne inf
o s o po f e nt nte e e ve sed
 a s a s ay y
h e
v  n p  o v v  e la la
it ize
d hop nd
 a s e
lay
 
 at  at
 e  on es 
u p
dis dis
p
 w t a s iD d
  
ed ust
om ar p e o n
t sm ing
s s s f F o
c  t l 
di cce  ca R R 
c ide ree
gra e d  fo
r ee irtu
a t a tne Q ve h-
sc
nte vi ps  m v er
n nte
r c
ou
dia
 i pro  ap lin
g
 in
t i T
me d 
to bil
e du -fi
o he Wi
oci
al ure M  sc
fig forS
 co
n
are
 
te tw
bsi sof Exhibitors Attendees
we g 
nt ine ak
Ev
atc
hm
M
Exhibit 12
participants’ impressions of sustainability options
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
ms ms rs nt g ol ole ty
 ite gra  fly  ev
e tin tr tr ili
lay ro nd he t li
gh e c
on  co
n c
 fa
isp
t
d ng
 p s a t t en att tu
re en
ly iycl udo ion
 a cifi clim
v
d c t f  e
ra d e
ien  re anh rta rgy
 e nd mp a e tifi
e
ly 
fr e t r
l n-s
it  o gfor sp En
e tin ble
  ce
nta o e
r D
ap  tr
an
 lig
h ma lEE
nm
e  p rid ng ramf b li g
vir
o nt 
o
r h
y
u ntr
ol
n o p
ro
 o
nd
 e o c
 am r
i r c Exhibitors Attendees
le 
a
ced Ele
ct  fos
sab ed
u sor
eu R  se
n
R
oti
on
M
Cornell Hospitality Report • June 2014 • www.chr.cornell.edu   15
Rating (5-point scale) Rating (5-point scale)
Exhibit 13
Sustainability options and satisfaction with 
tradeshow
70
Exhibitors Attendees
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
 Strongly Fairly neutral Fairly Strongly
 negative negative  positive positive
Exhibit 14
Costs for tradeshow exhibitors
$8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
ion ion
s s n s g s g s s
at
t t
cat c
os cosl  at
io e e fe rki
n pl kinr vit
ie ost
tin
c
s t lo ot
e ing gis
tr ibi
t
 pa  sa
m
wo
i
h d t  ac
t
the
r 
t d
e en d h  di
n  re  ex d an an  ne a
l
n o
ve
n  ev  an nd
t d
e g  a e
n
v  an tic
s, , 
ifts  an
d
pti
o
l to
 e
 at
 th gin od E
s s
d Fo oo
th i g o
e n o B , lo
g s, ntl
v l t ria  cli
e
Tra ati
o
rt rei
gh ate ng
F  m in
i
nsp
o
otho ter
ta
Tra B En
index. The respondents who did use the technology and lodging, dining, and registration were their main costs 
sustainability options indicated a high degree of positive (Exhibit 15). 
feelings about them (most of the ratings were close to four Best-Worst Exercise Results
on a five-point scale, Exhibits 11 and 12). While the impact 
of sustainability options on the decision to attend a trade- Respondents in the best-worst survey are presented with 
show was mostly neutral, sustainability had a slightly higher a series of lists of factors, and in each list they are asked to 
positive impact on satisfaction (Exhibit 13). indicate the best item and worst item on the list—in this case, 
Regarding the overall cost of tradeshow attendance, tradeshow selection criteria. In our survey, the respondents 
booths were the single item that cost exhibitors the most were shown six experimentally generated best-worst screens, 
money (average over $5,000, see Exhibit 14), followed by each with a list of eight criteria for selection of tradeshows. 
freight, logistics, and parking, booth materials, gifts, and On each screen, the respondent was asked to identify the 
samples, and networking and entertaining clients. Other most important criterion and the least important criterion 
costs were also substantial. These included additional booth- in the list that was displayed. The experiment was designed 
related expenses, insurance, costs for entertaining clients or in such a manner that each respondent saw a completely dif-
customers, freight, leisure activities, shopping for tradeshow ferent sequence and mix of criteria in each list. Furthermore, 
attire, and sponsorships. The attendees indicated that travel, we ensured that on average each criterion appeared an equal 
16 The Center for Hospitality Research • Cornell University
percentage of respondents
uS $
Exhibit 15
Costs for tradeshow attendees
$600
500
400
300
200
100
0
tio
n on sts sts on ies sts
ina oca
ti  co i
t  
co t
l tel ng str
at ivi  cor
es nt ho ini g
i act he
d  re al ot
en
t ev
e nd d d nt
 ion
 ev e th g
 a  an ve pt
l to  at dg
in od E o
ve on lo F
o
Tra atirt
nsp
o
Tra
Exhibit 16
Sample best-worst exercise panel
Considering only the following 8 features of a tradeshow, please indicate the one that is least important and the one 
that is Most important to you.
least Most 
important important
 use of technology at the event 
 use of social media 
 The quality of speakers and panels 
 large number of attendees 
 Attractive event location for business purposes 
 Availability of advance information about the event 
 East of transportation at the event location 
 Topics of talks, panel discussions or workshop/education 
number of times for each respondent. A sample best-worst sis, shown in Exhibit 17, again highlights the significant 
exercise screenshot can be seen in Exhibit 16. Our best- differences between preferences of attendees and exhibitors. 
worst analysis asked respondents to evaluate 22 criteria for Although there are points of overlap in the rankings of at-
meeting attendance that we had identified in the literature tendance criteria, the utility scores are widely divergent. The 
review and our qualitative research. We calculated the top criterion for exhibitors is a large number of attendees, 
relative utilities of each criterion using a multinomial logit by a wide margin, followed by affordable event registration 
model, and we standardized estimated utilities between zero costs and topic of talks, panel discussions, or workshops. For 
(low utility) and one (high utility). attendees, the top three attendance criteria for a tradeshow 
The best-worst analysis results largely reinforce the find- are quality of educational programs, topic of talks, panel dis-
ings of the questionnaire section of the survey. This analy- cussions, or workshops, and quality of panelists or speakers. 
Cornell Hospitality Report • June 2014 • www.chr.cornell.edu   17
uS $
Exhibit 17
Best-worst scores on tradeshow attributes for attendees and exhibitors
large number of attendees
Affordable event registration cost
Topics of talks, panel discussions, or workshops
Quality of educational program offerings
Quality of speakers and panelists
location of event
Timing of event
Availability of advance information about event
large number of exhibitors
Affordable transportation and lodging cost
Attractive event location for business purposes
Ease of travel to event destination
new product or service demonstrations at event
Duration of event
Ease of transportation at event location
use of latest technology at event
Hosted buyer program
Attractive event location for recreational purposes Exhibitors Attendees
personalized meeting scheduling software
use of social media
Environmentally sustainable practices at event
Tour or recreational program at event
 0 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
utility scores
 Note: Additional segment-level best-worst results are presented in another article derived from this research project, forthcoming in the August 2014 Cornell Hospitality 
Quarterly: “Why Attend Tradeshows?  A Comparison of Exhibitor and Attendee’s Preferences,“ by HyunJeong “Spring” Han and Rohit Verma (cqx.sagepub.com). 
Note that the utility for the “topic of talks” criterion is much In conclusion, we first notice that there is consider-
lower for exhibitors than for attendees. Exhibitors were able synergy between the past research and our analysis. 
then looking at location and timing of the event, and even Throughout all aspects of our investigation, it became clear 
whether there would be a critical mass of exhibitors (which that the basic objective of a tradeshow remains unchanged—
would attract more attendees). Attendees, on the other hand, that is, to facilitate interaction between exhibitors and 
were more interested in costs and new-product demonstra- attendees so that all participants can have a better business 
tions than the exhibitors. outcome. This overarching purpose was mentioned repeat-
Discussion and Conclusions edly in the papers we reviewed, during the focus groups and 
interviews, and also in the best-worst results. 
This study gives us some indications of the future of trade- Second, we notice clear and sometimes substantial 
shows. They are by no means going to be replaced by tech- differences between exhibitors and attendees with regard to 
nology, but it’s clear that technology will be a larger part of reasons for attendance, cost, usage and preferences for tech-
future shows and will augment the participants’ interaction. nology, scheduling and sustainability options, the relative 
We now have a benchmark for current practices, and we importance of criteria for tradeshow selection, and relative 
have identified the relative importance of different criteria utilities of various tradeshow attributes. Taking their demo-
for tradeshow selection, by quantifying the relative utilities graphic differences into account, these results suggest that 
for different attributes of a tradeshow. exhibitors and attendees are fundamentally different groups 
18 The Center for Hospitality Research • Cornell University
that attend tradeshows with different mind-set and objec-
tives. That said, both groups must attend and be satisfied to 
create a successful tradeshow, which means that organizers Organizations supporting this research 
have a complex task of managing the needs and expectations 
of these two complementary groups. •  ASAE – participants at MM&C Conference 
Third, we notice a clear synergy between a tradeshow’s •  American Academy of Pain Medicine 
educational components and those of the conference or •  American College of Health Care Administrators 
convention connected to the show. Although education •  American Optometric Association 
did not come out as strongly in other parts of the study, the 
best-worst results indicate the importance of speakers, top- •  American Society of Health-System Pharmacists
ics of talks, and education for both attendees and exhibitors. •  American College of Rheumatology 
These result confirm the associations’ approach of connect- •  American Occupational Therapy Association 
ing tradeshows with their annual meetings or conferences 
•  American Society of Civil Engineers
for better attendance. Since educational components are 
positively viewed by both attendees and exhibitors, they •  American Speech-Language Hearing Association 
may provide opportunities for improving overall participant •  Association Execs of North Carolina 
satisfaction. •  Association Forum of Chicagoland 
Finally, we notice a mixed set of results for technology, 
scheduling, and sustainability options. Even though these •  Awards and Recognition Association (ARA) 
features are an important consideration for both attendees •  Canadian Institute of Plumbing & Heating 
and exhibitors in the tradeshow decision, their relative utili- •  Ceilings & Interior Systems Construction Association 
ties are not as high as the core components of a tradeshow 
•  Construction Specifications Institute 
(namely, location, cost, duration, number of attendees, and 
number of exhibitors). We also notice that these features •  Georgia Society of Association Executives 
currently exhibit similar utility levels. These results indi- •  Illinois Health Care Association 
cate that at this time no single technology, scheduling, or •  International Association of Fire Chiefs 
sustainability approach criterion has emerged as an absolute 
favorite or necessity, compared to those core components. •  Maryland Municipal League 
 0 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 There’s little doubt that these utilities will change over time, •  Medical Fitness Association 
and perhaps quickly (in the case of technology).  n •  Missouri Pharmacy Association 
•  National Association of Neonatal Nurses 
•  National Frame Builders Association 
•  Professional Beauty Association 
•  SAE International 
•  School Nutrition Association 
•  Society of Actuaries 
•  Southern Association of Orthodontists 
•  Western Nursery and Landscape Association 
These organizations supported this research by distributing the survey to 
their members.
Cornell Hospitality Report • June 2014 • www.chr.cornell.edu   19
Cornell University
School of Hotel Administration
The Center for Hospitality Research
537 Statler Hall
Ithaca, NY 14853
607.255.9780
shachr@cornell.edu
www.chr.cornell.edu