The effect of the licensing process on the success and growth of the exhibition centers

(1)

The effect of the licensing process on the

success and growth of the exhibition

centers

By Celesta Fleddérus C.Fledderus@student.rug.nl Student number: 2526190 University of Groningen

Faculty of Economics and Business

Research Paper for MSc IB&M

Supervisor/ university P.J. Marques Morgado

Referent/ university J. van Polen

(2)

Research Paper 2

-The Effect of the Licensing Process on the Success and

Growth of Exhibition Centers

Abstract

Exhibition centers provide a huge service for the economic development of a country, as they provide exhibitions which bring an enormous value for the firms and the economic activity. Furthermore, the exhibition center provides a match between the exhibitors and the visitors. Here applies: the greater the number of exhibitors, the greater the number of visitors. The opposite reasoning is also true: the greater the number of visitors, the greater the number of exhibitors. However, the exhibitors and visitors are not the only stakeholders who affect the success of international exhibition centers. Previous academic literature focused on the role of multiple stakeholders, though the role of the licensing process is underdeveloped. This

research paper addresses the question of what the influences of the duration of licensing are on the performance of exhibition centers. The performance of exhibition centers is measured by the number of exhibitors and the number of visitors. This researcher collected quantitative and qualitative data via primary and secondary resources through databases and interviews. More knowledge of the exhibition industry and the licensing process was gained.

Improvements in the licensing process by reducing the number of days to get a license result in higher performance and economic development.

Keywords: Exhibition industry, duration of the licensing process, international, performance

of exhibition centers, economic development.

(3)

Research Paper 3 -Acknowledgements

(4)

Research Paper 4

-Table of Content

1. Introduction ... - 6 - 2. Literature Review ... - 8 - 2.1 Exhibitions ... - 8 - 2.1.1 History of exhibitions ... - 8 -

2.1.2 The definition of exhibitions ... - 8 -

2.1.3 The role of exhibition centers ... - 10 -

2.1.4 Industries of exhibition centers ... - 12 -

2.2 Stakeholders ... - 13 -

2.2.1 National and Local government as stakeholders... - 13 -

2.2.2 Visitors as stakeholders ... - 16 -

2.2.3 Exhibitors as stakeholders ... - 16 -

2.2.4 Stakeholder-based competition ... - 16 -

2.3 Resource-based view ... - 17 -

2.4 Licensing ... - 18 -

2.5 Critics and views ... - 19 -

2.6 Hypotheses ... - 20 -

2.7 Conceptual model ... - 21 -

3. Methodology ... - 22 -

3.1 Sample and Variables ... - 22 -

3.1.1 Research Approach ... - 22 -

3.1.2 Sample ... - 22 -

3.1.3 Dependent Variable... - 23 -

3.1.4 Independent Variable ... - 23 -

3.2 Data analysis ... - 24 -

3.2.1 Data analysis of 2007 and 2008 ... - 24 -

3.2.2 Data analysis of countries ... - 27 -

(5)

Research Paper 5

-3.3 Variables and experimental design ... - 35 -

4. Results ... - 36 -

4.1 Results per year ... - 37 -

4.2 Results per country ... - 39 -

4.3 Results per specialization ... - 40 -

(6)

Research Paper 6

-1. Introduction

Exhibitions drive international economies since they bring firms and customers together. Firms present their portfolios and innovations, meet potential new customers, discuss market trends, network with suppliers/competitors and interested customers, and also perform other valuable marketing activities (Kijewski, Yoon, & Young, 1993a).

Exhibitions are the helping hand in presenting the product to the public (Fleskes, 2014). International exhibitions attract participants from all over the world. Every year, exhibition centers attract millions of visitors who orientate themselves in a particular industry to potentially purchase a product or to gain new ideas. The Trade Show Bureau reported that more than 91,000 firms spent $7 billion to display their wares to more than 31 million

prospective buyers at 8,000 exhibitions (Trade Show Bureau, 1983). However, these numbers are from the twentieth century. In 2011, the main players like Hannover Mesegelände or Frankfurt Main Exhibition Grounds, which have the largest exhibition halls in the world, attract approximately 250,000 visitors per exhibition (Statista, 2015).

The world’s largest exhibition centers, such as Hannover Mesegelände or Frankfurt Main Exhibition Grounds, match the exhibitors and the potential customers through exhibitions. This match creates value for both the firms and the customers, as there is a simple

proposition: the greater the number of visitors, the greater the number of exhibitors who participate. Similarly, the greater the number of exhibitors in an exhibition center, the greater the number of visitors (Gabszewicz & Wauthy, 2004). The exhibitors and visitors attract each other in order to display or visit an exhibition.

(7)

Research Paper 7

-Many scholars argue that intangible resources can be developed as a competitive advantage that is hard for competitors to imitate. A good relationship with stakeholders can be an example of an intangible resource that can develop into a competitive advantage for an exhibition center. In order to manage and control the exhibitions from the stakeholder’s perspective, licensing is required.

The licensing process affects the success of an exhibition. Countries differ significantly in the way in which they regulate the entry of new business ((Djankov, Porta, LopezdeSilanes, & Shleifer, 2000). This research paper owes a great deal to the innovative study of Djankov et al. (2000) of the entry regulation of entrepreneurs in different countries. Unlike the study of Djankov et al. (2000), this paper focuses on the regulations affecting exhibition centers and the duration of the licensing process. However, the importance of exhibitions has been overlooked by most scholars and little research has been conducted to examine the role of exhibitions and the importance of the licensing process. While the descriptive exhibition literature is extensive and may be useful to practitioners, exhibitions in general, and international trade shows in particular, have received surprisingly little attention from academic researchers (Hansen, 1996). This research paper reviews the existing exhibition literature and creates new insights into the licensing process of exhibition centers.

This research investigates the relationship between the licensing process and the number of exhibitions and visitors at particular exhibition centers. It is to be expected that exhibition centers can be more successful when there is a smooth and better licensing process for

exhibitions. There is strong competition among the exhibition centers that provide exhibitions, therefore a positive relationship between the exhibition centers and the stakeholders is

extremely important (Cremers, Nair, & Peyer, 2008). The statements mentioned above by Cremers, Nair and Peyer (2008), Hillman and Keim (2001), and Gabszewicz and Wauthy (2004) lead to the following research question:

Does the licensing process affect the success and growth of exhibitions?

(8)

Research Paper 8

-2. Literature Review

2.1 Exhibitions

2.1.1 History of exhibitions

After the Second World War, nearly one hundred former colonies and dependent nations had achieved political independence (Benedict, 1991). Many forms were discovered in which these new national identities could express themselves, from speeches to the construction of new capital cities. One forum in which these new national identities could be displayed was the international exhibition or world’s fair (Benedict, 1991).

According to Benedict (1991), the international exhibitions were sponsored almost without exception by the colonial dependencies. At these international exhibitions, each national identity exhibited their colonies and internally colonized people to the rest of the world. According to Qureshi (2011), exhibitions of living foreign people have been documented since the fifteenth century. However, the twentieth century witnessed significant changes in the scale and nature of human displays (Qureshi, 2011). These exhibitions in those years were profitable and publicly accessible and constituted a popular form of metropolitan

entertainment. The exhibitions evolved throughout the years, and the colonies discovered that they could not only exhibit themselves but they could also display the products they owned for trading or selling. In trading and selling products, an interesting technique of earning money evolved.

Currently, exhibitions drive international economies since they bring firms and customers together. Exhibitions in the twenty-first century are all about sales. However, sales are not the only aspect that is important to the exhibitors these days. The opportunity to test new ideas, improve customer perception of the product or service, develop channel relationships, as well as gather market information is as equally important as sales (Kijewski et al., 1993a).

2.1.2 The definition of exhibitions

Exhibitions are one of the three most important factors that influence the customer’s purchase decision in business-to-business markets (Parasuraman, 1981). Therefore, it is expected that exhibitions play an important role in the international economy, since the exhibitions bring potential customers and firms together.

(9)

Research Paper 9

-2002). For the purpose of this research, the word “display” will refer to a presentation of objects for public view without significant interpretation added (Dean, 2002). “Exhibit” will usually mean the localized grouping of objects and interpretive materials that form a cohesive unit within a gallery or exhibition (Dean, 2002). Considering the word display and exhibit, the combined word exhibition is created. “Exhibition” will be used to allude to a

comprehensive group of all elements (including exhibits and displays) that form a complete public presentation of collections and information for public use (Dean, 2002).

In 1983 the Trade Show Bureau reported that more than 91,000 firms spent $7 billion to display their wares to more than 31 million prospective buyers at 8,000 exhibitions (Trade Show Bureau, 1983). Between 1978 and 1988 the number of exhibitions held annually more than doubled, increasing from 4,500 to more than 9,000 (Sashi & Perretty, 1992). Concerning the growth potential of exhibitions, more than 145,000 firms were expected to participate in exhibitions in 1991 (Mazze, 1986). Throughout these years, exhibitions were still growing. In 1994 about 1.3 million firms, from the United States and Canada only, exhibited at

exhibitions and 85 million customers attended them (Trade Show Bureau, 1994). The latest figure (Figure 1) shows that the overall exhibition industry is still growing. According to the Center for Exhibition Industry Research (CEIR), there were some difficulties in the exhibition industry between 2007 and 2010 due to the financial crisis (CEIR, 2015).

Figure 1 - Index for the Total Exhibition Industry vs. GDP based on percentages (CEIR, 2015)

(10)

Research Paper 10 -As demonstrated in figure 1, the exhibition industry was growing from the year 2010. Within the exhibition industry, there are several specializations to expose the right product to the right customers. Concerning figure 2, the specializations within the exhibition industry are growing likewise, nevertheless there are also some sectors that declined over the years. The best performing sectors in 2014 were the Financial, Legal and Real Estate (FN) and the

Building, Construction, Home and Repair (HM) sectors (Figure 2) (CEIR, 2015). The weakest exhibition sector was Education (ED) (CEIR, 2015).

Figure 2 - Index by Industry based on percentages (CEIR, 2015)

2.1.3 The role of exhibition centers

(11)

Research Paper 11

-In 2011, it is demonstrated that the main venues are located in Europe, with 48% of the total amount of exhibition space in the world (Figure 3).

Figure 3 - Venues and exhibition space in 2011 (UFI, 2011)

Additionally, the main players like Hannover Mesegelände or Frankfurt Main Exhibition Grounds, which have the largest exhibition halls in the world, attract approximately 250,000 visitors per exhibition (Statista, 2015). Figure 4 demonstrates the top 5 largest exhibition halls in the world (the remaining list is provided in appendix 4)

(12)

Research Paper 12

-These exhibition centers have owners who provide a location to match the exhibitor with the visitor. According to Gabszewicz and Wauthy (2004), the owners of the exhibition centers are the ‘platforms’. By platforms, the authors mean several stakeholders who are fully or partly involved by enabling exhibitions in the exhibition centers. The platforms sell their product in two markets: the visitors’ market and the exhibitors’ market. The access permit paid by the visitors, as well as the rental fee paid to the platforms by the exhibitors, allow visitors and exhibitors to trade if they succeed in making a match (Gabszewicz & Wauthy, 2004).

2.1.4 Industries of exhibition centers

Within the exhibition industry there are multiple specializations to be showcased (Figure 5). The core of a business must fit with a particular industry in order to exhibit at a center. Exhibiting at the right industry exhibition is highly important for a business, as it wants to present its product(s) in the right market segment (Kijewski, Yoon, & Young, 1993b). Furthermore, exhibiting in the right market segment enhances the relationship with current customers and distributors and develops relationships with new customers and distributors (Kijewski et al., 1993b). Customers prefer exhibitions that are within their range of interests. There are multiple specializations for presenting a business’ product and matching the interests of customers. According to the Center for Exhibition Industry Research (CEIR, 2015), the main specializations are: business services, consumer goods/retail trade,

discretionary consumer services, education, food, financial/legal & real estate, government, building/construction and home & repair, machinery & finished business outputs,

communications & IT, medical & health care, raw materials & science, sporting goods/travel & amusement, and transportation (Appendix 5).

(13)

Research Paper 13 -Several stakeholders are involved within these specializations and the licensing process differs among the specializations. It is expected that the licensing process of a sporting good/ travel & amusement exhibition will be shorter and smoother than the licensing process of machinery & finished business outputs exhibitions. With a machinery exhibition, multiple licenses are required for transportation, height, safety, and other issues. Concerning multiple specializations within the exhibition industry , it is expected that the licensing process will differ by country and industry.

2.2 Stakeholders

Exhibitions provide the opportunity to affect multiple phases of the industrial buying process at one location (Sashi & Perretty, 1992). Moreover, as mentioned in the previous section, the exhibition center provides the match between the exhibitor and the visitor through an

exhibition. The particular location and the stakeholders involved play an important role for the exhibitions. According to Hillman and Keim (2001), there are several traditional stakeholders involved in any business. There are shareholders, customers, suppliers,

employees, local communities, and the government (Hillman & Keim, 2001). Building better relationships with primary stakeholders such as employees, customers, suppliers, and local communities (Freeman, 1984) could lead to increased financial returns by helping firms develop intangible but valuable assets which can be sources of a competitive advantage (Hillman & Keim, 2001).

According to Sashi and Perretty (1992), a reliable relationship among the stakeholders is important for an exhibition center. When the relationship between the exhibition center and the stakeholders such as the government and/or the local communities is positive, it is

expected that the licensing process will be smoother, and as a result exhibition centers should be able to deliver larger or more exhibitions. As mentioned above, the relationship with the primary stakeholders can constitute intangible, socially complex resources that may enhance the firm’s ability to outperform competitors in terms of long-term value creation (Hillman & Keim, 2001). The resources created from the relationship between the primary stakeholder and the exhibition center can directly relate to the resource-based view of the exhibition center.

2.2.1 National and Local government as stakeholders

(14)

Research Paper 14

-appear; unitary government and federal government. The unitary government is centralized, with states or provinces having little or no power (Bhakti & Gayatri, 2002). The federal government reverses the roles. This implies that the state has the overall power, and the national government is only given enough power to keep itself running (Bhakti & Gayatri, 2002). It is expected that the national government is formed by the leaders of a state or country. The leaders of the state or country regulate and implement rules and regulations via several layers, such as the state/territory government and the local government (Figure 6).

Figure 6 – Layers of government (Kluvers, 2003)

The local government is said to be the sphere of government closest to the people (Quinlivan, Nowak & Des Klass, 2014). As demonstrated in figure 6, the local government exists under the authority of the state government. Additionally, figure 6 demonstrates the layers of government within the United States of America, it is expected that the layers are implemented worldwide within each country.

(15)

Research Paper 15

-Whereas one local government has full power to provide licenses, the other local government has stricter rules and regulations before the local government is allowed to provide a licence (Kluvers, 2003). In this case, the author assumes that the duration of the licensing process will vary, since the rules and regulations vary among states and countries.

According to Olson (1969) some individuals assume that governments, authorities and other institutions produce only collective or public goods which are defined for this purpose as goods such that it is not feasible to exclude nonpurchasers from their consumption (Olson, 1969). Still, which layer within the governmental structure provides a collective or public good. It is expected that the power within the national, state and local government differ from each other, as mentioned earlier. The role of the national government is the creation of

legitimacy and accountability for the local organization and institutional arrangements (Pomeroy & Berkes, 1997). The role of the state government is connecting the national programs to the local needs (Olson, 1969). Lastly, the local government, as mentioned earlier, is said to be the sphere of government closest to the people (Quinlivan, Nowak & Des Klass, 2014).

Within the governmental levels, the licensing per village, city, region and country are conceived and applied in practice. According to Pomeroy and Berkes (1997) the multiple levels within one country could cause an increase of the duration of the licensing process, since the licenses has to be approved on each level. This can generate some obstacles for the licensing process. An obstacle within the licensing process could be when the license required is approved on the local level, the state level and national level should approve the license as well. Concerning several rules and regulations, it is possible that the national government or the state government does not approves the required license, simply because the rules have changed or became stricter (Pomeroy & Berkes, 1997). In this case, the duration of the process will increase, because the government on national, state and local level should consider the license for a second time.

(16)

Research Paper 16

-These rules and regulations are described in extensive reports which have to be accepted before the actual date of the exhibition. This might be an obstacle for the exhibitor to expose at an exhibition, as it will take time and effort to tackle such an extensive report.

The licensing process is considered as a complex process, since each level within a country should follow rules and regulations (Olson, 1969). Therefore, it is expected that the duration of the licensing process effects the economic development indirectly. In this case, the author focuses on exhibitions, as it is expected that an increase in the duration of the licensing process will lead to an decrease in the number of exhibitors and visitors of an exhibition.

2.2.2 Visitors as stakeholders

Visitors are an important stakeholder for exhibition centers. According to a basic principle of Gabszewics and Wauthy (2004), the greater the number of visitors, the greater the number of exhibitors who want to participate. Similarly, the greater the number of exhibitors in an exhibition center, the greater the number of visitors (Gabszewicz & Wauthy, 2004). The main motives for visitors deciding to attend an exhibition is to orientate themselves in a particular industry for a potential future purchase (Fleskes, 2014). Furthermore, according to a study by Exhibits Survey, there are four main methods for visitors to remember an exhibition, namely: seeing a demonstration, having interest in a product, obtaining literature, and being attracted to the design of the exhibit (Bellizzi & Lipps, 1984). An exhibitor can adapt its exposition regarding these methods to attract more potential customers.

2.2.3 Exhibitors as stakeholders

Rosson and Seringhaus (1991) found that nearly one-half (49%) of a sample of Canadian firms participating at exhibitions did not generate direct sales at the show. Another 10% failed to generate enough sales to cover the costs of participation (Rosson & Seringhaus, 1991). According to Kijewski et al. (1993), there are many other reasons that exhibitors present their products at exhibitions. By showing at exhibitions, exhibitors expect that the creation of an opportunity to test new ideas, improve customer perception of the product or service, develop channel relationships, as well as gather market information are equally important as sales (Kijewski et al., 1993a). By creating these opportunities, exhibitors expect that sales will increase in the long run.

2.2.4 Stakeholder-based competition

(17)

Research Paper 17

-product market is competitive and stakeholders have plenty of alternatives available (Cremers et al., 2008). In the exhibition industry there is a lot of competition among the exhibition centers, which are all willing to present more or larger exhibitions (Sashi & Perretty, 1992).

As mentioned earlier, exhibitions will attract visitors and exhibitors, which is profitable for the local community and for the exhibition centers. Porter’s (1980) five-force model suggests that firms need to assess the relative power and influences of their key stakeholders, including customers, suppliers, competitors, new entrants, and substitute producers (Porter, 1980).

A firm that manages for stakeholders allocates more resources to satisfy the needs and demands of its legitimate stakeholders than would be necessary to simply retain their willful participation in the firm’s productive activities (Harrison, Bosse, & Phillips, 2010).

Considering the competition among the stakeholders, competitive advantages are important to stakeholders.

According to Mayer, Davis and Schoorman (1995), trust can lead to a competitive advantage, as trust can lead a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995). Furthermore, Mayer, Davis and Schoorman (1995) suggest that the relationship between the stakeholders and the firm is based partly on trust. Therefore, the relationship between both is highly important. Concerning the statements of Mayer, et al. (1995), it is expected that the relationship between a stakeholder and a firm could lead to a competitive advantage.

A resource that leads to a competitive advantage should meet four criteria, which will be explained in the next section. Given the above-mentioned motives, there is a strong

competition among the exhibition centers. Concerning the statements of Cremers, Nair and Peyer (2008), Sashi and Peretty (1992), Hillman & Keim (2001), Barney (1991) and Mayer, Davis and Shoorman (1995), the relationship between the stakeholders and the exhibition centers is of high importance, since the competition is enormous.

2.3 Resource-based view

(18)

Research Paper 18

-the integration of -the perspectives of key external stakeholders such as environmental groups, community leaders, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the media, and regulators into product design and development (Hart, 1995).

Many scholars argue that intangible resources can be developed as a competitive advantage that is difficult for competitors to imitate. A strong relationship with stakeholders can be an example of an intangible resource that can develop into a competitive advantage of an exhibition center.

Resources that are most likely to lead to competitive advantages are those that meet four criteria: they should be valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable, and the organization must be organized to deploy these resources effectively (Barney, 1991). These criteria pay attention to a firm’s internal resources, especially those that can support its strategic objectives (Peteraf & Barney, 2003).

According to Litz (1996), a firm is defined by the resources it controls. Concerning these statements, it is expected that the comparative quality and quantity of resources controlled by an enterprise have significance for both the firm’s performance and its sustainability (Litz, 1996). Furthermore, based on the stakeholder’s perspective and the visitor’s perspective, existing literature presumes that the relationship between stakeholders and a firm could develop into a resource which is important for the firm’s performance and sustainability (Amit & Schoemaker, 1993; Barney, 1991; Dierickx & Cool, 1989; Litz, 1996).

2.4 Licensing

As mentioned earlier, the relationship between exhibition centers and stakeholders is important. It is expected that when there is a positive relationship between stakeholders and exhibition centers, the licensing process should develop more smoothly and quicker than when there is a negative relationship between stakeholders and exhibition centers. According the article of Djankov et al. (2000), the licensing process differs among many countries all over the world. For example, in Austria an entrepreneur must complete 12 procedures, requiring at least 154 business days. In contrast, an entrepreneur in Canada can finish the process in roughly two days and must complete only two procedures (Djankov et al., 2000).

(19)

Research Paper 19 -These statements are based on new entries (entrepreneurs) within a particular industry, however according to Sashi and Perretty (1992) the regulations for exhibition centers and exhibitions are based on the same contention. By introducing certain regulations within the exhibition specializations, the exhibitors who exhibit low-quality products are expected to be less interested in involving themselves in the licensing process.

On the other hand, the ‘grabbing hand’ view (Djankov et al., 2000) sees the government as less benign and views regulation as socially inefficient (Djankov et al., 2000). Both of these statements can be considered in two diverse ways. According to the theory of Stigler (1971), regulation is acquired by the industry and is designed and implemented primarily for its benefits (Stigler, 1971). This means that industry incumbents are able to acquire certain regulation to create a more profitable position for themselves than for the dispersed consumers, since the industry incumbents are able to face lower information and organizational costs.

In the grabbing hand theory, the regulations are pursued for the benefit of politicians and bureaucrats (De Soto, 1990). Regarding De Soto (1990), politicians use regulations to favor friendly firms in order to obtain votes and campaign contributions. Concerning both diverse methods of the licensing process, there is a particular mindset that many consumers and industry incumbents agree on, according to Shleifer and Vishny (1993). This particular mindset is based on the view that “an important reason why many permits and regulations exist is probably to give officials the power to deny them and to collect bribes in return for providing permits” (Shleifer & Vishny, 1993).

2.5 Critics and views

The exhibition industry brings great value to the firms and the local economy of a state. As mentioned in the literature, an exhibition provides a playground for exhibitors and visitors to introduce, demonstrate and to view (new) products. The national, state and local government are important stakeholders to facilitate such an exhibition. It is expected that the government is pleased to facilitate the exhibitions within their state or country, as it brings exhibitors and visitors to the city, who bring value to the economy.

(20)

Research Paper 20 -As an example, a long duration of the licensing process influences the licensing process negatively. Which is actually a little odd, since the author just concludes that exhibitions bring great value to firms and the local economy, the question remains why it takes so long to provide a license for an exhibition in some states or countries. There might be a reason why the duration of the licensing process takes longer for one exhibition than for the other. It might be explained by the specialization which is demonstrated within the exhibition.

As an example, an exhibition with chemicals is expected to require more licenses (safety, fire protection, dangerous substances) than an exhibition with clothes. Therefore, a government may consider the number of licenses and the requirements a license need before it is provided to the exhibition centers. In the remaining of this research, the relation between the duration of the licensing process and the performance of an exhibition center will become more clear to satisfy the critics and views of the researcher.

2.6 Hypotheses

Concerning the helping hand view and the grabbing hand view of regulations, it is clear that there are a variety of rules and regulations among countries. Since the exhibitions are

internationally oriented, to attract international visitors and exhibitors as much as possible, the exhibition centers have to deal with different rules and regulations within their countries. The duration of the rules and regulations among countries is expected to vary. Furthermore, by constructing the hypotheses, the researcher considers the exhibitors and the visitors as main stakeholders within the exhibition centers, as the exhibitors provide visitors and the visitors provide exhibitors. Relating to these statements, it is expected that when there are fewer regulations to satisfy for an exhibition center, the number of exhibitions delivered will be higher. Therefore, the hypotheses are established:

H1a: Do Exhibition Centers deliver a greater number of exhibitions when the duration of the licensing process is shorter?

(21)

Research Paper 21 -2.7 Conceptual model

A conceptual model (Figure 7) has been developed to demonstrate the variables within this research paper. The exhibition centers are the main players in the context of exhibitions, since the exhibition centers match the exhibitors with potential customers. The licensing process is the moderator in this research paper, as it is expected that when there is an extensive licensing process it is less interesting to provide exhibitions in an exhibition center at that particular location. Performance is measured by the number of exhibitions held in the exhibition center. When there are multiple exhibitions at a particular location, it is expected that the relationship between the stakeholders and the exhibition center is positive.

Figure 7 - Conceptual model

Exhibition

Centers

Performance

(Number of Exhibitors & Visitors)

(22)

Research Paper 22

-3. Methodology

In this section, the main variables that are expected to influence the duration of the licensing process are considered. The methodology is based on the research onion developed by Saunders et al. (2007), which describes the different stages needed when formulating an effective methodology (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2007).

3.1 Sample and Variables

3.1.1 Research Approach

The data analyzed in this research paper have been collected via a deductive research

approach, as this approach is based upon previous research and existing data (Wiles, Crow, & Pain, 2011). In order to test the hypotheses, data on the duration of the licensing process and the performance of the exhibition centers were collected via the European World Research Bank (EWRB) and via the Centre of Live Communication (CLC-VECTA). Pertaining to the deductive approach, the data were collected via quantitative and qualitative data collection methods. The duration of the licensing process and performance data were collected via the quantitative approach. However, some telephone interviews with experts within the exhibition industry delivered additional insights for the analysis via a qualitative approach. The

qualitative approach to data collection requires the researcher to avoid imposing his or her own perception of meaning of social phenomena upon the respondent (Banister, Bunn, Burman, & Daniels, 2011).

3.1.2 Sample

A sample can be described as a representative segment of a larger population (Bryman, 2012). Relating to the fact that the analysis for this research is developed through quantitative and qualitative research, what is highly important for obtaining reliable results is the size, how the data is selected and the characteristics of the data. In this research, the sample size will be determined by the number of exhibitions in emerging countries. The total number of exhibitions is 846. These are all the exhibitions within emerging countries for the years of 2007 and 2008. With the aim of a reliable sample size, this research focuses on the years 2007 and 2008, as these were the years before the financial crisis started and when emerging

(23)

Research Paper 23

-Focusing on developing countries in these emerging markets, new insights are developed in the exhibition industry. The sample was selected based on the availability of the data in the EWRB and CLC-VECTA databases for the years 2007 until 2009. Eventually, the year 2009 was excluded from the data analysis, as it is the year that the financial crisis started, which had a major influence on the economy in the emerging markets and resulted in non-reliable figures of the performance of exhibitions.

3.1.3 Dependent Variable

The performance of exhibitions can be measured in two ways. As mentioned earlier, the greater the number of exhibitors, the greater the number of visitors. In the same manner, the greater the number of visitors, the greater the number of exhibitors. In the data analysis, the researcher measured the performance as the number of exhibitors at an exhibition and the number of visitors at an exhibition. Therefore, there are two dependent variables included in this research.

3.1.4 Independent Variable

To measure performance, the duration of the licensing process is crucial. The licensing process affects the success of an exhibition. As mentioned earlier, countries differ

(24)

Research Paper 24 -3.2 Data analysis

The analysis will be subdivided within groups. As mentioned earlier, the data will analyze the years 2007 and 2008. Furthermore, the data will analyze the multiple specializations of the exhibition industry (appendix 5) and lastly, the data will analyze several countries of the emerging markets (appendix 6b), to get an overall view of the results.

3.2.1 Data analysis of 2007 and 2008

Correlation

A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) test was used to analyze the data. Before performing this test, the mean and standard deviation were calculated to perceive whether there is a significant difference among the dependent, independent and control variables. Afterwards, a correlation test was used to determine if there is a correlation between the variables.

Table 1 - Means, Standard Deviation and Correlations of 2007 (SPSS, 2015)

Variables Mean S.D.

Exhibitors 237.02 260.09 -

Visitors 17186.98 22374.89 0.435** - Average number of

working days spent

29.10 11.49 0.207** -0.96 0.043

** p < .01

The correlation table (Table 1) shows that an increase in the number of exhibitors is significantly related to an increase in the number of visitors (r = .435, p < .01).

Furthermore, the correlation table shows that an increase in the number of exhibitors is significantly related to the average number of working days spent before receiving the permit (r = .207, p < .01).

Table 2 – Means, Standard Deviation and Correlations of 2008 (SPSS, 2015)

Variables Mean S.D.

Exhibitors 174.58 193.01 -

Visitors 10165.23 19537.29 0.568** - Average number of

working days spent

22.18 9.13 0.216** 0.099* 0.62

(25)

Research Paper 25

-The correlation table on the previous page (Table 2) shows that an increase in the number of exhibitors is significantly related to an increase in the number of visitors (r = .568, p < .01). The correlation table shows that an increase in the number of exhibitors is significantly related to the average number of working days spent before receiving the permit (r = .216, p < .01).

Lastly, in 2008 there is a significant difference between the average number of workings days spent before receiving the permit and the number of visitors, however there is no significant difference between the average number of workings days spent before receiving the permit and the number of visitors in 2007. The correlation table shows that an increase in the number of visitors is significantly related with the average number of working days spent before receiving the permit (r = 0.099, p < .01).

Friedman test

The Friedman test was used to examine the differences among the three measurement points on a single ordinal scale outcome. This research found overall scale significance with the initial portion of the test. In table 3, a significant difference among the number of visitors, number of exhibitors, and the average number of working days spent before receiving the permits is demonstrated for both years.

(26)

Research Paper 26 -Scatterplots

The scatterplots demonstrate whether there is a relationship among the variables. A

correlation test uses number to demonstrate the relationship among the variables, whereas a scatterplot can demonstrate a relationship in a graph form. The scatterplots below demonstrate a relationship between the visitor and the exhibitor in both years. Furthermore, there is a relationship between the average number of working days spent before receiving the permit and the number of visitors, however this relationship is less strong than the relationship between the average number of working days spent before receiving the permit and the number of exhibitors.

Figure 8 – Scatterplots (SPSS, 2015)

The scatterplots in figure 8 demonstrate the relation between ‘the exhibitors and visitors’, ‘the exhibitors and the average of staff days spent’ and ‘the visitors and the average of staff days spent’. In 2007 and 2008, the scatterplot clearly demonstrates a relation between the exhibitors and visitors. The greater the number of exhibitors, the greater the number of visitors. However, the relation between both dependent variables and average of staff days spent is different within both years. In 2007, the scatterplot demonstrates a strong relation between the greater the number of exhibitors/visitors, the smaller the average staff days spent. Nevertheless, there is an average number of staff days spent, which still attracts a certain amount of visitors/exhibitors. In 2008, the scatterplot demonstrates a stronger relation

(27)

Research Paper 27

-3.2.2 Data analysis of countries

Correlation

The multiple countries are analyzed separately, first the mean and standard deviation were calculated to perceive whether there is a significant difference among the dependent, independent and control variables. Afterwards, a correlation test was used to determine if there is a correlation between the variables. The analysis relies on both years, since some countries exhibit once in the two years. It is not common within every countries to expose the products each year to potential customers.

Table 4 – Means, Standard Deviation and Correlations of countries (SPSS, 2015)

Country Variables Mean S.D

Czech Republic Exhibitors 210.94 232.44 -

Visitors 22263.53 31439.56 .572** - Average duration of

staff days spent

25.0 n.a. -

Ukraine Exhibitors 202.85 197.56

Visitors 11208.80 1167.60 .884** Average duration of

staff days spent

30.76 n.a.

Hungary Exhibitors 202.62 217.68 -

staff days spent

22.8 n.a. -

Poland Exhibitors 150.73 184.15 -

staff days spent

16.0 n.a. -

Romania Exhibitors 389.40 311.05 -

Visitors 9273.89 5886.48 .681* - Average duration of

staff days spent

16.78 n.a. -

Russia Exhibitors 312.08 290.91 -

staff days spent

44.0 n.a. -

(28)

Research Paper 28

-The correlation table on the previous page (Table 4) shows that an increase in the number of exhibitors is significantly related to an increase in the number of visitors in all countries (Czech Republic, r = .572, p < .01, Ukraine, r = .884, p < .01, Hungary, r = .740, p < .01, Poland, r = 478, p < .01, Romania, r = .681, p < .05, Russia r = .550, p < .01).

Furthermore, the correlation table shows that there is no relation between the dependent variables and the independent variable in any country.

Friedman test

Concerning the Friedman test an overall scale significance with the initial portion was found. In table 5, a significant difference among the number of visitors, number of exhibitors, and the average number of working days spent before receiving the permits is demonstrated for the selected countries.

(29)

The scatterplots below demonstrate the relationship between the visitor and the exhibitor in the selected countries. Furthermore, there is a relationship between the average number of staff days spent before receiving the permit and the number of visitors, however this relationship is less strong than the relationship between the average number of staff days spent before receiving the permit and the number of exhibitors.

Figure 9 – scatterplots of the countries (SPSS, 2015)

The scatterplots (Figure 9) demonstrate that in some countries there is a stronger relation between the number of visitors and the number of exhibitors (Russia, Ukraine, Poland, Czech Republic). However, in other countries the relation between visitors and exhibitors is weaker (Romania and Hungary). Furthermore, the scatterplots demonstrate a weak relation between the dependent variables and the independent variable.

(30)

Research Paper 30

-3.2.3 Data analysis of specializations

Correlation

The multiple specializations are analyzed separately, first the mean and standard deviation were calculated to perceive whether there is a significant difference among the dependent, independent and control variables. Afterwards, a correlation test was used to determine if there is a correlation between the variables. The analysis relies on both years, since some specializations exhibit once in the two years. It is not common within every specialization to expose their product each year to potential customers.

Table 6 – Means, Standard Deviation and Correlations of specialization (SPSS, 2015)

Industry Variables Mean S.D

Basic Metals Exhibitors 187.00 197.89 -

staff days spent

22.97 12.12 .547 .761* -

Chemicals Exhibitors 93.50 71.41 -

Visitors 1045.00 1477.85 1.000** - Average duration of

staff days spent

30.01 19.78 1.000** 1.000** -

Construction Exhibitors 272.89 225.26 -

Visitors 17709 25639.84 .403** - Average duration of

staff days spent

27.46 11.54 .246* -.080 -

Education Exhibitors 142.38 120.97 -

Visitors 8304.53 10083.99 .229 - Average duration of

staff days spent

20.04 6.50 -.039 -.194 -

Electronics Exhibitors 240.327 332.05 -

staff days spent

25.76 10.44 .167 -.009 - Environmental Protection Exhibitors 232.66 281.02 - Visitors 9175.79 16549.71 .767** - Average duration of

staff days spent

20.69 7.34 -.096 .047 -

(31)

Research Paper 31 -Visitors 8965.31 23062.58 .536** -

Average duration of staff days spent

25.41 10.48 .234 -.010 -

Furniture Exhibitors 360.47 313.67 -

staff days spent

24.74 10.24 .155 .201 -

Garments Exhibitors 140.38 162.10 -

staff days spent

24.92 10.03 .188 .374* -

General Exhibitors 202.30 238.05 -

staff days spent

28.58 12.62 .312** .138 -

Hotel & Restaurant Exhibitors 147.18 71.07 -

staff days spent

26.02 9.64 .108 .031 -

IT Exhibitors 170.50 159.99 -

staff days spent

26.29 12.20 -.055 -.292 -

Leisure Exhibitors 181.07 205.14 -

staff days spent

20.800 5.77 .387** .367** - Machinery & Equipment Exhibitors 214.94 224.03 - Visitors 9569.24 15046.90 .699** - Average duration of

staff days spent

25.63 11.67 .287** .175 - Non Metallic Products Exhibitors 136.61 86.99 - Visitors 4411.67 5163.93 .245 - Average duration of

staff days spent

(32)

Research Paper 32 -Plastics & Rubber Exhibitors 196.88 220.51 -

staff days spent

27.24 11.12 -.134 .095 -

Real Estate Exhibitors 78.36 45.98 -

staff days spent

19.29 5.99 -.382 -.083 -

Retail Exhibitors 75.00 16.97 -

Visitors n.a. n.a. n.a. -

Average duration of staff days spent

22.58 n.a. n.a. n.a. -

Security Exhibitors 143.28 113.20 -

staff days spent

25.69 10.78 .470* .266 - Services of Motor Vehicles Exhibitors 140.72 117.63 - Visitors 24586.72 24293.43 .753** - Average duration of

staff days spent

23.21 9.49 .419 .400 -

Textiles Exhibitors 265.29 294.97 -

staff days spent

27.52 10.67 .449** .563** -

Transport Exhibitors 182.83 198.35 -

staff days spent

23.26 10.05 -.012 .085 -

** p < .01 * p < .05

(33)

Research Paper 33

-p < .01, Plastics &am-p; Rubber, r = .744, -p < .05, Real Estate, r = .877, -p < .01, Security, r = .806, p < .01, Services of Motor Vehicles, r = .753, p < .01, Textiles, r = .829, p < .01). However, there are some specializations which do not have a correlation between the visitors and exhibitors (p > .05)(Education, IT, Nonmetallic products, Retail and Transport). Furthermore, the correlation table shows that an increase in the number of exhibitors is significantly related to an increase of the average duration of staff days spent before receiving the permit (Chemicals, r = 1.000, p < .01, Construction, r = .246, p < .05, General, r = .312, p < .01, Leisure, r = .387, p < .01, Machinery & Equipment, r = .287, p < .01, Security, r = .470, p < .05).

Lastly, the correlation table shows that an increase in the number of visitors is in some specializations significantly related to an increase of the average duration of staff days spent before receiving the permit (Leisure, r = .367, p < .01, Textiles, r = .563, p < .01)

Friedman test

Concerning the Friedman test an overall scale significance with the initial portion was found. In table 7, a significant difference among the number of visitors, number of exhibitors, and the average number of working days spent before receiving the permit is demonstrated for some specializations (Construction, Education, Electronics, Food, Furniture, Garments, General, Leisure, Machinery & Equipment, Nonmetallic mineral products, Real Estate, Security, Services of Motor vehicles, Textiles and Transport).

(34)

The scatterplot below demonstrates the relationship between the dependent variables and independent variable within some specializations of both years. Furthermore, in some specializations a relationship between the average number of working days spent before receiving the permit and the number of visitors is shown, however this relationship is less strong than the relationship between the average number of working days spent before receiving the permit and the number of exhibitors.

Figure 10 – Scatterplot (SPSS, 2015)

The scatterplot (Figure 10) demonstrates an overall view of all the specializations within one graph. The scatterplot provides a relation between the visitor and the exhibitor, as when the number of exhibitors increases, the number of visitors increases likewise. Furthermore, the scatterplot demonstrates an increase in the number of staff days spent, results in a decrease of number of exhibitors and a decrease of number of visitors. There are some specializations which form an exception within the scatterplot (General, Electronics, Machinery &

(35)

Research Paper 35 -3.3 Variables and experimental design

The data analysis demonstrates whether there is a relationship between the dependent and independent variables. The dependent variables are the “number of visitors and exhibitors” and the independent variable is the “average number of working days spent before receiving the permit” (Table 8). After the data analysis, a preliminary multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA) test was performed. Assuming a significant MANOVA test (significance level was determined to be 1%), separate MANOVA tests were applied to each group within the data set (years, countries, specializations). Pillai’s Trace was selected as the MANOVA test criterion, as the p-test of equality of covariance matrices is below.01 (Table 9).

Table 8 – Test and variables

MANOVA

Dependent variable Number of visitors

Number of exhibitors

Independent variable Average duration of staff days spent before receiving the permit

(36)

Research Paper 36

-4. Results

Multiple analysis of variance was performed to determine the effect of the average number of staff days spent before receiving the permit on the dependent variables. In this case, the multiple outcome variables are the number of visitors and the number of exhibitors. When testing the significance of a multivariate outcome, the F statistics for a multivariate test is first tested for significance. If the multivariate test is significant, then the null hypothesis will be rejected. If the multivariate test is non-significant, then the null hypothesis will be retained. The F statistics were demonstrated earlier, which implies a significant difference between the dependent and independent variables. For the MANOVA, the predictor variable of interest (average number of working days spent) is included in the model to predict the multivariate outcome (number of visitors and exhibitors). The following equation demonstrates the statistical model used in the multivariate analysis of this research paper:

Multivariate outcome = x + (average number of working days spent) +

When the adjusted overall multivariate model was tested, a significant difference was noted between the average number of working days spent and the dependent variables (p < .01) according to Pillai’s Trace (Table 10).

Table 10 – MANOVA (SPSS, 2015)

a: Design: Intercept + averageofstaffdaysspent b: Exact statistics

(37)

Research Paper 37 -Table 11 – Test between subjects effects (SPSS, 2015)

Table 11 demonstrates if both the dependent variables relate significant to the independent variable. The test between subjects effect demonstrate a significant relation between both the exhibitors and visitors and the average of staff days spent and the exhibitors (p < .01).

Concerning the MANOVA test, the author can conclude that there is a significant relation between the dependent variables and the independent variables. In the above provided tests, the data was not subdivided in groups (year, country and industry) yet. Therefore the following paragraph will demonstrate MANOVA tests per group.

4.1 Results per year

Concerning the data analysis provided in chapter 3.2.1, there is a significant difference between the dependent variables and the independent variable. The correlation table demonstrates a significant difference between the exhibitors and the visitors for both years. Furthermore, the correlation table demonstrates a significant difference between the exhibitor and the average of staff days spent for both years. Lastly, the correlation table demonstrates a significant difference between the visitor and the average of staff days spent in 2008, however there is no significant difference between the average of staff days spent and the visitor in 2007.

(38)

Research Paper 38 -Table 12 – MANOVA of the years 2007 and 2008 (SPSS, 2015)

a: Design: Intercept + averageofstaffdaysspent b: Exact statistics

c: The statistic is an upperbound on F that yields a lower bound on the significance level

The actual MANOVA test provided in table 12, demonstrates a significant relation in both years between the dependent and the independent variables. However, the test between subjects effects (Table 13) demonstrates if the independent variable is significantly related with the dependent variable exhibitor and/or significantly related with the dependent variable visitor.

(39)

Research Paper 39

-When the adjusted multivariate model was tested, a significant relation was noted between the average number of working days spent and the dependent variables (p < .01) in both years. (Table 12). Though, there are some differences between the year 2007 and 2008 (Table 13). In 2007, there is a significant relation between the average of staff days spent and the visitors (p < .01), however there is no significant relation between the average of staff days spent and the exhibitors (p > .01). In the data analysis, the correlation table demonstrated vice a versa, in 2007 the correlation table demonstrated no significant difference between the average of staff days spent and the visitor. In 2007, the correlation table demonstrated a significant difference between the average of staff days spent and the exhibitors. Furthermore, in 2008, there is a significant relation between the average of staff days spent and the visitors (p < .01) and there is a significant relation between the average of staff days spent and the exhibitors (p < .01).

4.2 Results per country

Concerning the data analysis provided in chapter 3.2.2, there are some significant differences between the dependent variables and the independent variable. The correlation table

demonstrates a significant difference between the exhibitors and the visitors for the selected countries (p < .05). However, the correlation table demonstrates no significant difference between the exhibitors and the average of staff days spent and the correlation table

demonstrates also no significant difference between the visitors and the average of staff days spent.

Moreover, the Friedman test provides a significant difference within the selected countries between the dependent variables and the independent variable. The scatterplots demonstrate a deviation between the different countries, consequently a MANOVA test is performed to prove if there is a significant relation between the dependent variables and the independent variable within the selected countries.

(40)

Research Paper 40 -a: Design: Intercept + averageofstaffdaysspent

b: Exact statistics

When the adjusted multivariate model was tested, there was no significant relation noted within the selected countries separately. Table 14 demonstrates the results of the MANOVA by the test between subjects effects, however there is no significant relation provided (p > .01). Though, the correlation table within the data analysis demonstrated a significant difference between the exhibitors and the visitors for all selected countries (p < .05). This implies that the overall dataset (all countries, both years and all specializations) includes significant relations between the dependent and independent variable, nevertheless the data per country is not adequate enough to prove a significant relation.

4.3 Results per specialization

Concerning the data analysis provided in chapter 3.2.3, there are some significant differences between the dependent variables and the independent variable. The correlation table

(41)

Research Paper 41

-However, the correlation table demonstrates no significant difference between the exhibitors and visitors for some other specializations, as; education, IT, nonmetallic products, retail and transport.

The correlation table demonstrates a significant difference between the exhibitors and the average of staff days spent for some specializations (p < .05), namely; chemicals,

construction, general, leisure, machinery & equipment, security and textiles. Though, the correlation table demonstrates no significant difference between the exhibitors and the average of staff days spent for some other specializations, as; basic metals, electronics, environmental protection, food, furniture, garments, hotel & restaurant, plastics & rubbers, real estate and services of motor vehicles.

Lastly, the correlation table demonstrates a significant difference between the visitors and the average of staff days spent for a few specializations (p < .05), namely; basic metals,

chemicals, garments, leisure and textiles.

The Friedman test provides a significant difference within a few specializations between the dependent variables and the independent variable and the scatterplots demonstrate a deviation between the different specializations, consequently a MANOVA test is performed to prove if there is a significant relation between the dependent variables and the independent variable within the specializations.

(42)

(43)

(44)

-Research Paper 44 -a: Design: Intercept + averageofstaffdaysspent

b: Exact statistics

When the adjusted multivariate model was tested, there is a significant relation noted within some specializations. Table 15 demonstrates the results of the MANOVA by the test between subjects effects. The Pillai’s Trace demonstrates a significant relation for some specializations (p < .01), namely; construction, electronics and general. The correlation table, within the data analysis demonstrated a significant difference for more specializations than the significant relation within the MANOVA demonstrates, namely: basic metals, chemicals, construction, electronics, environmental protection, food, furniture, garments, general, hotel & restaurant, leisure, machinery & equipment, plastics & rubbers, real estate, security, services of motor vehicles and textiles.

The MANOVA demonstrates that there is no significant relation within the other

specializations (basic metals, chemicals, education, environmental protection, food, furniture, garments, hotel & restaurant, IT, machinery & equipment, nonmetallic mineral products, plastics & rubbers, real estate, retail, security, services of motor vehicles, textiles and transport) (p > .01).

Once more, this implies that the overall dataset (all countries, both years and all specializations) includes significant relations between the dependent and independent variable, nevertheless the data for some specializations is not adequate enough to prove a significant relation. As a conclusion, the author might conclude that the overall data

(45)

Research Paper 45

-5. Discussion

As Gabszewicz and Wauthy (2004) argue, the central principle for an exhibition center is the greater the number of visitors, the greater the number of exhibitors who want to participate. In the same manner, the greater the number of exhibitors in an exhibition center, the greater the number of visitors. There are multiple external influences that could have a positive or negative effect on the number of exhibitors or the number of visitors of an exhibition. In this research, the licensing process is investigated as an external influence. In spite of some limitations in this research, which will be discussed in the next section, it was possible to detect a significant relationship between the average number of working days spent before receiving the permit and the performance of the exhibition centers.

The results of the correlation analysis (Tables 1 and 2) show that there is a significant

relationship between the number of visitors and exhibitors in both years studied. Furthermore, the correlation table (Tables 1 and 2) shows a significant relationship between the average number of staff days spent and the number of exhibitors. In 2008, the correlation table (Table 2) shows a starting relationship between the average number of staff days spent and the number of visitors, as well. This relationship can be explained with the theory of Gabszewicz and Wauthy (2004): when the number of exhibitors increases, the number of visitors will increase as well, and vice versa.

The friedman test and the normality test (Table 3) also demonstrate that there is a relationship between the dependent variables (number of exhibitors and number of visitors) and the independent variables (average number of staff days spent before receiving the permit).

The MANOVA test shows that there is an actual significant relationship between the average number of staff days spent before receiving the permit and both dependent variables. As mentioned earlier, these findings are partly in line with the theory of Gabszewicz and Wauthy (2004). However, the relationship between the average number of staff days spent and the numbers of exhibitors and visitors has not yet been developed in existing research.

Consequently, the general expectations of this research are partly confirmed and provide some new insights into the existing literature about the exhibition industry.

(46)

Research Paper 46

-staff days spent and the exhibitors in 2007. This implies that within the MANOVA test, there is not enough evidence to support the relation between the number of exhibitors and average of staff days spent in 2007.

Secondly, the MANOVA test shows that there is no significant relation between the dependent and the independent variables within each country. This implies that within the MANOVA test, there is not enough evidence to support any relation between the dependent and the independent variables. However, the data analysis demonstrates a significant

difference within each country between the dependent variables which supports again the theory of Gabszewicz and Wauthy (2004). This implies that investigating each country separately, the data was not sufficient enough to detect a relation between the dependent and the independent variables.

Lastly, in line with the theory of Kijewski, Yoon and Young (1993b), exhibiting in the right market segment indicates the desire to enhance the relationship with current customers and distributors and to develop new customers and distributors. The MANOVA test shows a significant relation between the dependent variables and the independent variables in only three specializations (Construction, Electronics and General). This could be explained by the fact that these industries have a long licensing process, demonstrated in the scatterplot (Figure 9), and the number of exhibitors and visitors are correspondingly high. As a conclusion, these three industries relate significantly with each other, as the duration of the licensing process increases, the dependent variables also increases. For the other specializations, it is expected that the duration of the average number of staff days spent does not have a direct influence on the industry, which means that the average number of staff days spent only has a direct influence on the number of visitors and exhibitors in general.

Additionally, there were some unidentified numbers within the analysis (Appendix 7) that need some clarification. In Appendix 7, a significant decline is shown in the number of exhibitions in Russia, which results in a great decline in the number of exhibitors and visitors. Concerning the scatterplots (Figure 8 and 9) and the data obtained via the qualitative

approach. The scatterplot in figure 8, demonstrates a decline in the number of visitors

(47)

Research Paper 47

-twice or three times as much for their mortgage or groceries than previously, which resulted in a decline in the exhibition industry as it was simply too expensive for customers and exhibitors to visit or exhibit at an exhibition.

Moreover, there was an increase within the exhibition industry in Poland (Appendix 9), for practically the same reason as in Russia, only in reverse. While the Russian ruble experienced a huge decline in that period, the Polish Zloty experienced an increase. Therefore, the

exhibition industry became more accessible for exhibitors and visitors to exhibit or visit, which resulted in an increase in the number of exhibitions in 2008. In the scatterplot (Figure 9) a relation is demonstrated between the dependent variables. Though, this relation

demonstrates a quicker increase in the number of exhibitors than the increase in the number of visitors. This might explain the reverse in Poland.

(48)

Research Paper 48

-6. Conclusion

This research paper investigates the influence of the licensing process on exhibition centers. Exhibitions drive international economies, since they bring firms and customers together. The customers visit exhibitions to gain new ideas and to orientate themselves for a potential future purchase. The exhibitors display at exhibitions to present their portfolios and innovations, meet potential new customers, discuss market trends, network with suppliers/competitors and interested customers, and also perform other valuable marketing activities (Kijewski et al., 1993a).

The exhibition centers are the venues where the exhibitions are presented, and the owners of the exhibition centers are dependent upon the stakeholders. According to existing literature, there are several stakeholders involved in the business world. The exhibition centers can consider the visitors and the exhibitors as main stakeholders. When the licensing process with the other stakeholders, such as the government or local communities, is smooth and quick, it is expected that the number of exhibitions presented by the exhibition centers can increase and can be larger. This effect can be explained by the fact that when there are more exhibitors attracted to an exhibition, more visitors will visit the exhibition, and vice versa.

By investigating the duration of the licensing process and multiple exhibitions in emerging countries, the results demonstrate a significant relationship between the licensing process and the number of exhibitors and the number of visitors. The results demonstrate that a short licensing process has a positive relationship with the number of exhibitors and visitors. Furthermore, the relationship between the licensing process and the number of exhibitors is in line with the relationship between the number of exhibitors and visitors (Gabszewicz & Wauthy, 2004). In conclusion, the licensing process has an influence on the success and growth of the exhibition centers as related to the number of exhibitors and visitors. Nevertheless, there are some limitations concerning this study. These limitations will be discussed in the next paragraph.

6.1 Limitations

(49)

Research Paper 49

-Lastly, questioning more experts within the industry would provide deeper insights into the exhibition industry, however due to time limitations this analysis was based on existing data provided by the EWRB and CLC-VECTA (2015).

6.2 Future Research

This study aims to provide several suggestions for future research. First, the licensing process could be measured on different governmental levels. As described within the literature