Opinion
Why is the
exhibition industry
so obsessed with
visitor numbers?
Jill Hawkins, director of
Aniseed PR, asks if there might
be a more sophisticated way to
measure a show’s success
W
e seem, as an industry to be
obsessed with visitor numbers.
If a B2B exhibition has one more visitor
than last year it’s deemed a success, but
one less and it’s an abject failure. Why
do we measure success this way when
it’s so easy to manipulate the numbers?
I’m sure there are many tricks
employed by unscrupulous organisers.
One exhibition that I worked on bussed
their entire workforce to the show to
get visitor numbers up, and another
canvassed universities and encouraged
lots of students to come (all registered
under standard ‘buyer’ badges).
Business events don’t tend to vet
attendees, or in the rare case that
they do, it’s only a few questions and
nothing is actually verified. This means
that there are no real barriers to the
quantity going up, even though the
quality may be a little questionable.
Another trick I see all the time
is the combination of visitor and
exhibitor figures into ‘total attendance’.
Countless exhibitions proudly state
pre-event that exhibitor numbers
are up (and so it logically follows
that there is an increase in exhibitor
42 — September
personnel) and then crow about the
blindingly obvious increase in total
attendance post event. The phrase ‘no
sh*t Sherlock’ springs to mind. And if a
show isn’t audited it could all be a load
of made up nonsense anyway…
In a way I can’t blame organisers for
doing this, because the industry puts
so much importance on year-on-year
growth. The press is also to blame
(sorry EN…). The obligatory ‘didn’t we
do well’ post-show press release has to
declare a positive message.
Exhibitions are about making
business contacts and lasting
relationships, so why do we measure
their worth directly after the show
when we still don’t know their full
impact?
An exhibitor couldn’t possibly get
to meet all of the visitors, so why are
they so bothered? I’ve seen companies
have amazing shows in quiet exhibition
halls and conversely not do so well
when it’s been crowded; so much of
the experience is dependent on their
own sales and marketing tactics. But if
an exhibitor doesn’t have a great show
and visitor numbers are down, then the
exhibitor will be quick to blame their
shortcomings on the low numbers.
Measuring meetings held at a show is
one way of tracking success, but even
then, those are only the meetings held
via the show’s appointment setting
tools, and not the many, many other
meetings that take place. But what if
those meetings led to nothing?
We often moan that exhibitions
aren’t seen as a serious marketing
method, but surely it’s up to us to
prove it? There are a few tools out
there to help exhibitors measure the
effectiveness of their presence, but how
do organisers measure overall success?
We don’t see any other form of
marketing measured in such a basic
way. Advertising and digital marketing
are both measured using far more
complex metrics that fully calculate
the ROI of the campaign. They don’t
just focus on the numbers reached,
but the engagement, reactions and the
subsequent purchases of customers.
Surely, we should be able to measure
success in a more sophisticated way? I’d
love to hear more from organisers who
have.