NAGASA-Trade Show Assessment-PRINT 97/CONVERFLEX™

	Key: High-5 to Low-1 Score
1. Number of local prospects generated a. Local and Regional-less than 300 miles or adjacent states b. Nationwide c. International	3.4 2.8 2.7
2. Sales objectives met	3.2
3. Ease of set up	2.9
4. Ease of tear down	*
5. Return on show investment	*
6. Amenities (i.e., member lounge, food)	2.4
7. System for recording and retrieving leads	3.2
8. Timing and duration of show	2.6
9. Price of carpeting, furniture and electrical	2.0
10.Cooperation of electricians, riggers & carpenters	2.6
11.Fairness of space assignment and choice	3.1

* Results not collected for trade show and added to later assessments.

Comments
a. Few good leads; low traffic counts-can't sell to non-existent printers.
b. Much less traffic in the booth then we had expected. Only real good days were Saturday and Sunday.
c. Objectives met because we pre-scheduled meetings with those we wanted to see-not by walk by traffic.
d. Show traffic was much lighter than expected, prospects seemed very interested at show, but sales were difficult to close.
e. We were looking to increase awareness and gather leads. We did receive good press attention-lots of visitors and leads.
f. Generally met many prospects not in buying mode unless prepared before the show.
g. Very good traffic leading to possible new accounts.
h. The show is too big for me. As well as too long. Although we did advertise in the show publications and received a few leads.
i. We met with our desired prospects - foreign contacts.
j. In preparation for launch of new product software in spring of 1998.
k. Sales targets were hit-quality prospects led to closed business at the show.
l. We had good exposure, solid amounts of traffic, new leads and interest from allied suppliers and others interested in collaborating on projects with us.
m. Generated revenue below plan.
n. Both sales and promotional objectives were met or exceeded.
o. Expected more leads but was blocked off by another booth design.
p. We felt that the exposure we had from the show brought in new business.
q. Main objective was to publicize merger of companies & unification of product lines primarily to our dealers & OEM partners.
r. In some regions, yes (mid-west); others, no (east/west).
s. Sold many more machines than expected. More leads than expected. More international contacts than expected.
t. Not as many orders as expected. We feel that our location was not the best. The traffic was less than expected.
u. I expected to exceed Print 91 sales and did not. This show seemed like a cross between a great regional show and a great international showÖnot as much national attendance.
v. Closed leads up from previous shows. Return on investment in about 3 months.
w. Strong worldwide demand for printing technology as well strong demand for computer-to-plate technology helped to well-exceed sales objectives.
x. Far fewer attendees than expected, mostly mid-west, few from west or international.
y. Response was overwhelming! The show put us on the map as a viable alternative to other proofing methods.
z. Traditionally not a selling show for us - however, we sold some equipment and met our objectives for qualified leads.
aa. All inbound objectives scheduled were met. Show should generate $25,000 in business this year alone.
bb. No - not enough regional and local visitors. Quality of visitors was very good; but they wanted to purchase capital equipment.

	Number	Percent
Yes	29	83%
No	4	11%
Undecided	2	6%
Total	35	100%

Comments
a. Not sure based on return on investment.
b. Expect stronger results in 2001!
c. This is the industry that we serve. It's the largest graphic arts trade show in U.S.
Company will be there - the show will become standard for industry - we are cutting down exhibiting at other shows.
e. Continued visibility of company & products.
Have no choice.
g. As a global company we must exhibit at the American Drupa. It attracts opportunities.
h. Well run industry focused & too much potential to pass up.
i. Historically, Print has been a successful show for our company. It is the largest exhibition outside of Drupa offering exposure to a large audience.
j. Our main product, ink, is considered a background product.
k. Unsure. Will see how 1998 shows goes first.
l. Yes, but a much smaller space.
Probably not. Print 97 was the show from hell. I hope we don't have to repeat it.
n. Booth blown over twice by wind and damaged, vandalized twice, stolen from storage twice. Security must be improved!
p. If we do it, it will be as a result of international visitors.
q. As a major supplier to the industry, we need to be present.

4. Are you planning to exhibit at Graph Expo 98 and Converting Expo 98, October 25 to 28, in Chicago?

a. Several of my customers commented that they were displeased on the increase in daily shuttle charges for the show.
b. The quality of food available was better than past shows.
c. The rigging crews were the most contentious of the show for my booth. The attitude and service was not worth the high price. The tactics to try for overtime were unnecessary. I have worked with excellent crews in other shows. The exhibitors are at the will of the crews.
d. A limit on the noise should be imposed. Loud music and speaker systems hinder other exhibitors that paid the same amount of money for floor space. Several exhibitors banded together to get show management to control noise from another booth.
e. While I did see enforcement of some of the show rules on the floor, I read and studied the published rules as I do each year and I am still amazed at what actually happens on the show floor. Rules seem to change as set-up progresses.
f. The NPES lounge was great for entertaining customers.
g. In the future, for us to travel for that length of time and expense would be less than beneficial based on the customers traveling distance to attend and see all the new technology. Our liquid samples are more likely to be left in hotel rooms and leak in airline luggage compartments. We did advertise for free samples in various publications and received leads from this.
h. System for recording leads was expensive and did not print many of the visitor badges.
i. The amenities were very expensive but the quality only adequate.
j. Our overall show expenses were very high which makes it difficult for a company selling our type of product to get a reasonable return on investment.

NAGASA-Trade Show Assessment-PRINT 97/CONVERFLEX™ - USA