NAGASA - Graphics of the Americas Cosponsorship Opportunity

---

Trade Show Assessment Graph Expo 99 October 17-20, 1999 - McCormick Place Chicago, Illinois

Background
Trade Show assessments 1) provide objective information on how each trade show meets the needs of NAGASA members exhibiting at selected shows and 2) supports members in trade show decision-making and strategizing. Trade Show assessments also provide independent information and feedback to trade show management. NAGASA’s Trade Show Committee provides this service.

How Assessments Work
NAGASA member companies that exhibited or participated at the trade show were invited to complete and return a brief survey to NAGASA. NAGASA staff compiled all responses. Responses are strictly confidential. Comments are quoted directly from completed surveys. All references to firm names, booth numbers, and location are removed to protect confidentiality. Assessment results are to be used for planning and internal use only. Data, results, and statements cannot be used for promotional or marketing purposes by any organization, including trade show companies and service providers.

Respondants

Total number of NAGASA exhibitors	91
Respondents to assessment	32
Dealers	03
Distributors	07
Manufacturers	20
Other segments	02
Total Responses	32

Assessment Very Poor = 1; Very Good = 5

1. Number of local prospects generated  a. Local (less than 50 miles)  b. Regional (50 to 300 miles/adjacent states)  c. National  d. International 2. Ease of making booth arrangements 3. Ease of set-up 4. Ease of tear-down 5. Cooperation of electricians/riggers/carpenters 6. Price of floor space 7. Price of carpeting, furniture, electrical 8. Price of attendees to get into show 9. Price of lead retrieval system 10. Quality of lead retrieval system 11. Amenities (i.e., lounge for customers, food)    12. Timing and duration of show 13. Show opening and closing hours 14. Fairness of space assignment and choice 15. Hotel/accommodations selection and prices 16. Attendee registration/admissions processes 17. Overall return on show investment

4 4 3 2 3 3 4 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 3

Feedback

Sales Objectives Met?	Count	Percent
Yes	25	78%
No	5	16%
Undecided	2	6%
No Answer	0	0%
Total	32	100%

Comments about meeting sales objectives:
Excellent buying show in spite of our poor location.
(All comments are recorded, even if they duplicate the feedback)

• Interested parties were sincere.
• Both client companies and I met objectives. This is a good business show.
• Would have liked to see more traffic, although the quality of attendees was good.
• Generated some very good leads and was able to make contact with major dealers and prospects
• Exceeded by 30%.
• Unknown at this time.
• We do not measure this until six weeks after the close of the show.
• Show should be reduced to three days.
• Last day of show was total bust. More show people selling to show people than potential customers.
• This was not a national show. It was a regional show only!
• Forty-four leads in a four-day show.
• Primary objectives: 1) Meet with customers; 2) Secure new product lines.

• Did not exhibit; clients did. Their expectations were well met.
• Costs are becoming a huge issue! Very upset with location and the legality of nearby booths!
• National attention from dealers and vendors. Good exposure.
• We really do not have a choice.
• Your senior show management avoided our trade show manager!
• Show lacks adequate food and location at anything near logical prices, i.e., $2.50 for a small bottled water – get real!
• I strongly recommended against exhibiting next year.
• Will attend and work in our manufacturers’ booths.

General comments/recommendations to improve this show overall:
(All comments are recorded, even if they duplicate the feedback)

• Lower costs.
• Too costly for return on investment.
• Work with unions on charges. Electrical charges doubled over last year. Tearing out of electrical in 1998 = $68.00. Tearing out of electrical in 1999 = $102.00.
• Hold the show every two years.
• Lower floor space prices and service prices.
• Use of lanyards to hold badges makes it difficult to identify person since lanyard allows badge to face down much of the time. Clips or pins are better.
• Do not allow companies to pass out neck lanyards.
• Poor on education for attendees in a meaningful way.
• Smaller exhibitors need a way to get more prime locations.
• Reduce costs to exhibitors
• Our booth was walled in by an adjacent booth. They must improve show rules of they will lose exhibition.
• It was an enjoyable show. Do not have any real complaints. More cabs at end of day would be nice.
• Open Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday. We come from across the country, so maybe some out-of-towners would come if there were an extra weekend date!
• More national exposure!
• Easier height restrictions, i.e. hanging signs.
• Union people need to be told who the customer is.
• Reduce costs and improve speed of service of union labor. Reduce space fees.
• Excellent show.
• After selecting my booth location early, using the given floor plan, I ended up surrounded by added booths not shown to begin with!
• Lottery for booth space! This first-come, first-serve is ridiculous for space!
• Create better traffic flow and better visibility for smaller exhibitors by arranging larger exhibitor’s booths near smaller booths (10 x 20 example):