This article was downloaded by: [University of Nebraska, Lincoln]

On: 09 April 2015, At: 15:31

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Hospitality Marketing &

Management
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/whmm20

The Effects of Exhibition Service Quality

Click for updates
on Exhibitor Satisfaction and Behavioral
Intentions
a b c
Myong Jae Lee , Sanggun Lee & Young Min Joo
a
The Collins College of Hospitality Management, California State
Polytechnic University, Pomona, Pomona, California, USA
b
Department of Tourism Event Management, Daejeon, South Korea
c
Regional Development Department, Samsung Economic Research
Institute, Seoul, South Korea, Korea
Accepted author version posted online: 28 Jul 2014.Published
online: 28 Jul 2014.

To cite this article: Myong Jae Lee, Sanggun Lee & Young Min Joo (2014): The Effects of Exhibition
Service Quality on Exhibitor Satisfaction and Behavioral Intentions, Journal of Hospitality Marketing &
Management, DOI: 10.1080/19368623.2014.934982

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2014.934982

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
 Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 15:31 09 April 2015
 Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 00:1–25, 2015
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1936-8623 print/1936-8631 online
DOI: 10.1080/19368623.2014.934982

The Effects of Exhibition Service Quality on

Exhibitor Satisfaction and Behavioral
Intentions

MYONG JAE LEE

The Collins College of Hospitality Management, California State Polytechnic University,
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 15:31 09 April 2015

Pomona, Pomona, California, USA

SANGGUN LEE
Department of Tourism Event Management, Daejeon, South Korea

YOUNG MIN JOO

Regional Development Department, Samsung Economic Research Institute, Seoul,
South Korea, Korea

This empirical study explored the determinants of exhibition service

quality that affect exhibitor satisfaction and behavioral inten-
tions. Four dimensions of exhibition service quality were delineated
from the literature. Those exhibition service factors were then
included in a structural equation framework to explicate causal
relationships between exhibition service quality and exhibitor sat-
isfaction and behavioral intentions. A total of 350 usable responses
were collected from exhibitors attending various exhibitions in
Hong Kong. The collected data were analyzed using confirma-
tory factor analysis and structural equation modeling. The findings
indicate that three of the four exhibition service quality factors sig-
nificantly affect exhibitor satisfaction, and exhibitor satisfaction
then leads to exhibitors’ behavioral intentions. Detailed findings
and implications are discussed.

KEYWORDS exhibition service quality, exhibitor satisfaction,

re-exhibit intentions, word-of-mouth intentions

Address correspondence to Myong Jae Lee, PhD, The Collins College of Hospitality
Management, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, 3801 W. Temple Ave., Pomona,
CA 91768, USA. E-mail: mjlee@csupomona.edu

1
 2 M. J. Lee et al.

INTRODUCTION

Trade shows, trade fairs, expositions, public shows, and exhibitions are major
industry marketing events. Although these marketing events have slightly
different definitions, their names have been used interchangeably (hereafter
“exhibitions”) and have become an important element of the promotion mix
for industrial products or services (M. Lee, Seo, & Yeung, 2012). The growth
of the exhibition industry and the popularity of this medium among com-
panies is often explained by its unique characteristic, namely that it brings
the customers to the company rather than vice versa. This unique charac-
teristic of exhibitions results in a high concentration of potentially interested
customers (Gofman, Moskowitz, & Mets, 2011; Gopalakrishna & Lilien, 1995;
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 15:31 09 April 2015

Smith, Hama, & Smith, 2003; Whitfield, Dioko, Webber & Zhang, 2012).
Exhibitions provide a variety of promotional opportunities to reach
target customers with a distinct interest in the products being exhibited.
In particular, exhibitions allow exhibiting firms (hereafter “exhibitors”) to use
all available marketing communication tools simultaneously to promote their
products. With proper planning and execution of activities at exhibitions,
exhibitors can effectively deliver their messages to representatives of existing
and potential customers and greatly enhance their corporate image in a rela-
tively short time (Rainbolt, Benfield, & Loomis, 2012; Sashi & Perretty, 1992).
An exhibition is not only an effective communication tool, but also a cost
effective means of marketing and promotion. Researchers have demonstrated
the positive economic benefits related to exhibitions, reporting substantial
returns on exhibition investments of 25% to 30% across diverse industry seg-
ments (Gopalakrishna & Lilien, 1995; Kerin & Cron, 1987; Kim & Chon, 2009;
Shipley, Egan, & Wong, 1993; Smith et al., 2003; Whitfield et al., 2012).
This dynamic and fast-growing set of marketing events has been a
popular research target in general business and marketing. In particular,
companies’ motives for attending exhibitions and the benefits of exhibitions
for exhibitors have been well documented in general marketing literature
(Hultsman, 2001; Jung, 2005; Kerin & Cron, 1987; Kim & Chon, 2009; Rosson
& Seringhaus, 1995; Shipley et al., 1993; Whitfield et al., 2012). Although
interest in exhibitions is extensive and growing rapidly, the exhibition sector
within general hospitality and tourism research is still an underresearched
area. Particularly, little research has focused on exhibition service quality
and its impact on satisfaction of exhibitors and their behavioral intentions.
Exhibitors are main target customers for exhibition organizers, venue
operators, and destination marketers. The success of events depends on the
number of exhibitors at the show (M. Lee et al., 2012; Whitfield & Webber,
2011). Thus, finding new ways to entice exhibitors to return to the future
exhibitions has been challenge for exhibition operators (Gofman et al., 2011).
The fate of future events relies on both exhibitor satisfaction with exhibition
service attributes and exhibitor intentions to return to future events (George,
 Exhibition Service Quality 3

2012; Jung, 2005). Increasing exhibitor retention rate is one goal of exhibi-
tion operators; defecting exhibitors represent lost revenue and replacing an
existing exhibitor with a new exhibitor has substantial costs (Kim, 2008; M.
Lee et al., 2012). Therefore, understanding exhibitor perceptions of exhi-
bition service attributes and their influence on exhibitor satisfaction and
behavioral intentions can help both exhibition organizers and destination
marketers organize events focusing on the needs of exhibitors (M. Lee et al.,
2012).
With only sporadic efforts to identify important exhibition service
attributes, little theoretical and systematic research has attempted clustering
those exhibition service attributes important to exhibitors. Thus, the main
purpose of this study is to identify the underlying dimensions of exhibi-
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 15:31 09 April 2015

tion service quality that affect exhibitor satisfaction and examine the causal
relationships between exhibition service quality, exhibitor satisfaction, and
behavioral intentions. To that end, this empirical study first identified the
underlying dimensions of exhibition service quality from the perspective
of exhibitors through an extensive literature review. Then, the identified
exhibition service factors were incorporated into a structural equation frame-
work that examines causal relationships between exhibition service quality,
exhibitor satisfaction, and behavioral intentions. The results of structural
equation model test not only prove the overall relationship of those latent
variables in question, but also identify how exhibition service quality fac-
tors contribute to exhibitor satisfaction. Even though the structural equation
framework used in this research has been empirically tested and supported
in many other areas, using this framework in the context of exhibition is new
exhibition research and thus provides a solid foundation for future research
in exhibition marketing.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Research in service marketing reveals that service quality, satisfaction, and

behavioral intentions are closely related constructs. Many empirical stud-
ies have concluded that perceived service quality directly affects satisfaction
(E. W. Anderson & Sullivan, 1993; Churchill & Suprenant, 1982; Oliver &
DeSarbo, 1988; Ok, Back, & Shanklin, 2006). The role of satisfaction in
forming behavioral intentions has also been well documented (Gotlieb,
Grewal, & Brown, 1994; Lazarus, 1991; S. Lee, Su, & Dubinsky, 2005; Ok,
Back, & Shanklin, 2007; Taylor & Baker, 1994). Although the literature has
explored the causal relationships among those constructs, empirical support
for these relationships in the exhibition industry, particularly from the per-
spective of exhibitors, is extremely limited. Thus, we must review existing
exhibition research on exhibitors and apply findings to the proven service
quality–satisfaction–behavioral intentions framework.
 4 M. J. Lee et al.

Exhibition Service Quality

Service quality is the consumer’s evaluation of a product’s overall excel-
lence or superiority (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1985). In spite of
debate about how to operationalize service quality, most researchers agree
that perceived quality is the cognitive response to a service experience and
that the approach to develop the measurements of service quality (i.e., the
perception-minus-expectation approach and the perceptions-only approach)
depends on the study’s purpose (Petrick, 2004). For instance, if the study’s
purpose is to explain variance in dependent constructs, the perceptions-only
approach is appropriate (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1994). Customer
satisfaction and postpurchase behaviors are influenced by the quality of cus-
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 15:31 09 April 2015

tomer service, so provided quality service has become a major concern in all
hospitality businesses.
Since Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1988) introduced a 22-item
scale in five categories (reliability, tangibles, responsiveness, assurance,
and empathy), called SERVQUAL, for measuring service quality; the frame-
work has been widely adopted across industries (Oh, 1999). Although
this theory-based approach to measure service quality has improved mar-
keters’ understanding of consumers’ purchase behaviors, the applicability
of SERVQUAL dimensions to the hospitality industry has only limited sup-
port (Oh, 1999). Notable empirical efforts have attempted to refine the
traditional SERVQUAL measurements to better reflect the unique compo-
nents of hospitality consumption experiences. In the foodservice sector, the
DINESERV (Stevens, Knutson, & Patton, 1995) was developed as a derivative
of SERVQUAL to determine how customers view restaurant service quality.
Similarly, in the lodging sector, Getty and Thompson (1994) introduced the
LODGQUAL for assessing hotel service quality, using similar dimensions of
SERVQUAL. However, comparatively little research has focused on develop-
ing service quality management in the exhibition industry, which is surprising
given the size of the industry and its economic impact on local and national
economies and given that in the exhibition industry, show organizers and
venue managers provide various services that affect exhibitor satisfaction
and eventually their future behaviors (M. Lee, 2007).
Booth Design and Layout. Exhibitors can benefit from effective booth
design with appropriate signage and comfortable booth layout (Whitfield &
Webber, 2011). Most exhibition visitors are motivated by the desire to see
particular products and companies; this means that a premium should be
placed on the design and layout of exhibit booths (Blythe, 1999; Rosson &
Seringhaus, 1995).
Exhibition booth design and its floor layout are substantially related to
attendee–exhibitor interactions. Exhibitors want to effectively communicate
with exhibition visitors to promote their products and services in a short
time (Whitfield et al., 2012). Whitfield and Webber (2011) discussed two
 Exhibition Service Quality 5

major dimensions of booth design. First, an exhibition booth needs enough

space to accommodate visitors so that they can conveniently move around
the booth. Visitors want to ask questions of exhibitors in sufficient interact-
ing spaces (Wan & Siu, 2012). Another important dimension of booth design
relates to exhibitors’ emphasis on booth content: displaying products, sales
literature, skill-sets of booth personnel, and signage (Whitfield & Webber,
2011). Exhibitors want to capture the attention of visitors by effectively dis-
playing and arranging their products and services. The booth design must
facilitate effective display of the products and service and thus help visitors
easily recognize exhibitors and their exhibiting booths (Lin & Lin, 2013).
Often, booth location is randomly distributed to exhibitors. While some
exhibitors choose designated locations to set up booths, others may not be
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 15:31 09 April 2015

satisfied with the booth arrangements (Rainbolt et al., 2012). Booth location
affects walking patterns, which in turn affects the number of visitors and
interactions (Jung, 2005). When an exhibition booth is too far from the main
entrance, visitors may overlook the exhibitor. Considering exhibitors’ major
motive is to network with current and future customers, booth location is
critical to achieving that goal (Blythe, 1999). Identifying exhibitors’ preferred
booth locations can help exhibition organizers set the layout of the exhibit
hall effectively and thus avoid complaints from exhibitors (Bello & Lohtia,
1993).
Exhibition booth design and layout can directly affect the reputation and
image of the exhibiting company (Baumman, 2006; Lin & Lin, 2013). A well-
designed booth with a brand logo and other decorations shows brand value
to its target markets. Empirical research confirmed that exhibition visitors rec-
ognize exhibitors by their brand logos and decorations (Walsh, Winterich, &
Mittal, 2010). P. Wan and Siu (2012) confirmed that exhibition visitors assess
exhibitors’ brands or product images using the overall booth design and lay-
out. Walsh et al. (2010) revealed that visitors are also inclined to turn their
attention to more graphical images of exhibition booth and spread positive
word-of-mouth (WOM) to others. A graphical booth design helps visitors
remember exhibitors and their brands, which will trigger large number of
consumer visits to the booth (Lin & Lin, 2013).
In an empirical effort to analyze the crucial components of effective
booth management, Jung (2005) identified that booth design and layout
influences the overall quality of the products being displayed and the image
of exhibitors. Lin and Lin (2013) found that booth design and layout are
profoundly related to exhibitor satisfaction. According to the Dickinson and
Faria’s (1985) empirical study, exhibitors are most concerned about display
location (booth position on the floor, aisle traffic density, etc.), but in an
empirical study of exhibitors, Lee and Yeung (2009) also confirmed that
booth design and layout is another important exhibition service attribute,
as perceived by exhibitors. Their study revealed that the size, layout, and
location of booth are critical to exhibitor satisfaction. Other empirical studies
 6 M. J. Lee et al.

have also proved that booth design and layout is the most important compo-
nent contributing to exhibitor satisfaction (Bello & Lohtia, 1993; Hultsman,
2001).
Exhibition Logistics. Exhibitors consider logistical aspects of exhibi-
tion, such as accessibility, shipment, and booth set-up, as an important
service attribute affecting exhibitor satisfaction (Dickinson & Faria, 1985;
Herbig, O’Hara, & Palumbo, 1994; Hultsman, 2001; Zhang, Qu, & Ma, 2010).
Accessibility relates to exhibition location, which affects exhibitor travel
expenses and travel time. Exhibitors are reluctant to spend extra time and
dollars just to find transportation to attend exhibitions (J. Lee & Min, 2013).
Lee and Back (2007) also confirmed that location accessibility is an important
attribute to potential exhibitors deciding on participating in an exhibition.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 15:31 09 April 2015

In an attempt to find other important exhibition attributes in Hong Kong,

Lin and Lin (2013) concluded that exhibition location and travel distance of
potential exhibitors often determines the success or failure of an event.
The overall exhibition environment is another important attribute affect-
ing exhibitor perceptions of overall service quality (J. Lee & Min, 2013).
Keeping exhibition floors clean significantly affects exhibitor satisfaction.
Exhibitors expect comfortable and reliable environment because that envi-
ronment affects the visual representations of products or services being
displayed (J. Lee & Min, 2013). There are two types of exhibition environ-
mental settings: external and internal (Locke, 2010). Externally, both possible
threats and opportunities around the exhibition hall must be identified. For
the internal environment, exhibition organizers must recognize the strengths
or weaknesses of the show environment. Exhibition organizers must have
full control over the setting of exhibition and thus help exhibitors present
their products and services comfortably (Jeong & Lambert, 2002).
M. Kang, Suh, and Jo (2005) identified other important service areas that
help deliver overall quality service to exhibitors. Effective communication
with exhibitors can determine the success or failure of the event. Exhibition
organizers must precisely communicate with exhibitors about the directory,
exhibition schedule, and the most recent information about the event (M.
Kang et al., 2005). Hultsman (2001) stated that being listed in a directory is an
important exhibition service attribute for potential exhibitors. Since exhibitors
come from different areas, exhibition organizers should give sufficient time to
exhibitors for exhibition set-up (Jeong & Lambert, 2002). Many international
exhibitors, in particular, may be new to the environment and may need
sufficient time to prepare for the exhibition (Jeong & Lamber, 2002). Also,
Lee and Yeung (2009) found that making it easy to get exhibitor materials to
the venue is an important exhibition service attribute.
Venue Services. Various venue services emerged as important to
exhibitor satisfaction in many empirical studies (Hung, Yang, & Lee, 2011;
Y. K. Wan, 2011; P. Wan & Siu, 2012; Yoo & Chon, 2010). Exhibition orga-
nizers identify and provide diverse venue services to exhibitors to increase
 Exhibition Service Quality 7

the value of the event (Hung et al., 2011). Venue services for exhibitors
can include business services, such as microphones; audio-visual equipment;
Internet access; and arrangements for accommodations, food and beverages,
entertainment, and transportation (Chonko, Tanner, & McKee, 1994; Hung
et al., 2001; T. Lu & Cai, 2010; Y. K. Wan, 2011). The quality and quantity
of diverse venue services provided by exhibition organizers affect exhibitors’
perceptions of service quality and their overall image of the event (Gofman
et al., 2011; Y. K. Wan, 2011).
Breiter and Milman (2007) explored convention center features that
exhibitors deem important to the exhibition venue. Through several focus
groups with exhibitors, they identified 17 service attributes important to
exhibition and examined the importance of each service attribute through
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 15:31 09 April 2015

a survey of exhibitors at two exhibitions. Their empirical study discovered

that the four exhibition facility services exhibitors perceive as most important
were a well-maintained facility, overall cleanliness of the convention center,
affordability of center services, and assistance of exhibitor services represen-
tatives. In an additional attempt to examine the relationship between service
factor and exhibitor satisfaction, they discovered that the performance of
exhibition services representatives is a key predictor of overall exhibitor
satisfaction with the convention center. Lee and Yeung (2009) revealed
that the availability of venue services like audio-visual equipment, sig-
nage, announcements, storage space, and business center, is important for
exhibitors. Also, exhibition amenities like a lounge for exhibitors and eating
facilities contribute heavily to exhibition service quality (Herbig et al., 1994).
Y. Lu and Cai (2009) proved that professionally designed venue services
could greatly influence exhibitor satisfaction and their intentions to return
for other exhibitions.
Show Management. Finally, show management, which includes space
assignment, fees for space rental, and professionally trained exhibition staffs,
was another important service area (Hultsman, 2001). Probably the most
important element of the decision to exhibit involves the exhibition fees
themselves (Shipley et al., 1993; J. Kang & Schrier, 2011; Hultsman, 2001).
Providing sufficient space and time for exhibitors to interact can be important
in show management (Gofman et al., 2011). Exhibition space specifica-
tions and assignment is critical to quality interaction with visitors, which
is why exhibitors come to such events in the first place (George, 2012).
Therefore, the way exhibition spaces are assigned to registered exhibitors
can affect their overall satisfaction (Lee & Yeung, 2009). At today’s exhibi-
tions, exhibitors want to network with visitors, other exhibitors, and others
in the exhibition industry to exchange information (George, 2012; J. Kang &
Schrier, 2011). Exhibitors prefer to be free of distractions while interacting
with them. Thus, when setting events, exhibition organizers must carefully
locate sufficient open space to allow exhibitors to interact with visitors and
others in the exhibition industry (Hultsman, 2001).
 8 M. J. Lee et al.

Exhibitor Satisfaction
Satisfaction is a customer’s overall affective reaction to a product or service
(Oliver, 1980). Customer satisfaction is of great interest in service marketing
because it links consumption/purchase to future behavioral intentions, such
as repeat purchase and positive WOM (Oliver, 1993). According to Bagozzi
(1992), individuals engage in purchase activity because they want certain
outcomes. If the individual’s appraisal of that activity indicates that they have
achieved the planned outcome, a positive response follows.
In the hospitality industry measuring customer satisfaction is integral to
marketing, helping improve the quality of products and services (Garvin,
1991). In addition, understanding the concept of customer satisfaction in
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 15:31 09 April 2015

the hospitality industry is essential in identifying the critical elements affect-

ing a customer’s purchase experience (Legoherel, 1998; Choi & Chu, 2001).
Many studies have attempted to determine the relationship between service
quality and customer satisfaction, showing service quality is an antecedent
of customer satisfaction (Ruyter & Wetzels, 2000; Brady & Robertson, 2001;
Sureshchandar, Rajendran, & Anantharaman, 2002; Wang & Shieh, 2006).
Despite the growing competition in the exhibition industry, however, hardly
any empirical research on the causal relationship between exhibition service
quality and exhibitor satisfaction can be found (M. Lee, Yeung, & Dewald,
2010; Rainbolt et al., 2012; P. Wan & Siu 2012). Notably, Hultman (2001) iden-
tified 27 characteristics of exhibition experience and measured exhibitor
satisfaction for each of these characteristics. However, this study was con-
ducted in the form of importance–performance analysis, failing to provide
a clear understanding of the causal relationships between exhibition service
quality and exhibitor satisfaction. In an empirical study with exhibition atten-
dees and visitors, however, Jung (2005) found a positive causal relationship
between exhibition service quality and overall satisfaction.
Exhibitions exist because they serve exhibitors’ needs. As soon as exhi-
bitions stop satisfying the needs of exhibitors, the demand for these shows
will disappear (Tanner, Chonko, & Ponzurick, 2001). Exhibition organizers
must focus on meeting exhibitor needs by improving exhibition service qual-
ity (M. Lee et al., 2010; P. Wan & Siu, 2012). George (2012) stated that
exhibition service quality is crucially related to exhibitor experiences, which
means it is also important to the quality of interaction with visitors at the
event. As with customers in other industries, exhibitor perceptions of service
quality at exhibitions can substantially affect the level of satisfaction (George,
2012; Kempf & Smith, 1998; Smith et al., 2003). Moreover, exhibitors assess
various service encounters during their exhibition experiences, and exhibi-
tion service quality as they perceive it is a core determinant of exhibitor
satisfaction (George, 2012; M. Lee et al., 2010; Sanford, 2010). Thus, the
following hypothesis was explored:
 Exhibition Service Quality 9

H1: Exhibition service quality (booth design and layout, exhibition

logistics, venue services, and show management) has a positive
effect on exhibitor satisfaction.

Behavioral Intentions
Satisfaction is followed by a copying response such as an intention to pur-
chase again in the future (Lazarus, 1991; Yuan & Jang, 2008) and spread
positive WOM (Mangold, Miller, & Brockway, 1999; Swanson & Kelly, 2001;
Yi, 1990). Behavioral intention is defined as a signal as to whether a customer
will remain with the company (Zeithaml et al., 1996). Customer behav-
ioral intentions as consequences of satisfaction significantly influence future
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 15:31 09 April 2015

behavior and thus have been a central construct in consumer behavior stud-
ies (Lee & Back, 2008; Ok et al., 2007). Extant research views behavioral
intentions as the intention to revisit/repurchase (Boulding, Kalra, Staelin, &
Zeithaml, 1993; Oliver, 1993; Spreng, Harrell, & Mackoy, 1995; Ok et al.,
2007) and their willingness to provide positive/negative WOM. However,
little empirical research on the causal relationship between exhibitor sat-
isfaction and their future behavior can be found in existing exhibition
management research.
Re-exhibit Intentions. Having current customers return to patronize a
firm is critical to success because the cost of obtaining new customers sub-
stantially exceeds the cost of retaining existing customers (Spreng et al.,
1995). Empirical studies have found that customer satisfaction is critical
to revisit/repurchase intention (E. W. Anderson & Sullivan, 1993; Han &
Ryu, 2009; Ok et al., 2008; Ryu & Han, 2010). Smith and Bolton (1998)
noted that customers’ repatronage intentions are based on their overall sat-
isfaction. In the exhibition context, the fate of future events is decided by
exhibitors and their overall satisfaction (Tanner et al., 2001). Exhibitors make
a re-exhibit decision based not only on the tangible outcomes of show partic-
ipation, but also on their overall satisfaction with various service encounters
even before and after the show (M. Lee et al., 2010). When exhibition
organizers fail to manage and control exhibitor satisfaction, they cannot
attract them to future events (Gofman et al., 2011). Therefore, the following
hypothesis was explored:

H2: Exhibitor satisfaction has a positive effect on their re-exhibit

intentions.

Word-of-Mouth Intentions. WOM communication is one postpurchase

behavior that can be either positive or negative (Ok et al., 2008).
Interpersonal communication has a significant impact on consumer purchas-
ing behavior because potential customers perceive WOM communication
as credible (Mangold et al., 1999; Ok et al., 2007; Yi, 1990). Ok et al.
 10 M. J. Lee et al.

(2007) noted that WOM communication as a source of information is

significant in the hospitality industry because hospitality products/services
are intangible. Researchers have examined WOM communication as a
consequence of customer satisfaction/dissatisfaction following a purchase
behavior (Blodgett, Wakefield, & Barnes, 1995; Mangold et al., 1999; Ok
et al., 2008; Ryu & Han, 2010; Swanson & Kelly, 2001). Those empirical
studies support the concept that customer satisfaction/dissatisfaction affects
positive/negative WOM communication. In exhibition consumer behavior,
referral also affects exhibitor participation behavior (M. Lee et al., 2010), indi-
cating that exhibitors who are satisfied/dissatisfied with an event will provide
positive/negative WOM communication. Yoo and Chon (2008) found that
many exhibitors were referred by colleagues and friends. Zhang et al. (2010)
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 15:31 09 April 2015

also confirmed that behavioral intention and satisfaction is closely correlated,

and hence exhibitor satisfaction can lead to positive WOM communication.
Thus, the following hypothesis was explored:

H3: Exhibitor satisfaction has a positive effect on their WOM intentions.

The uniqueness of the research framework of this study includes the domain-
specific service quality factors identified through a thorough literature review
and dividing the end construct (behavioral intentions) into two constructs
(re-exhibit intentions and WOM intentions) to provide detailed implications
for show organizers and destination marketers (see Figure 1).

BD1
.80
BD2
.83 Booth Design
BD3 .69
& Layout
BD4
.71
.28 (3.11)* R2 = .78
.82 RI1
LG1 Re-exhibit .98 RI2
.76
Exhibition R2 = .49
LG2 .72 .24 (2.74)* .88 (21.99)* Intentions .96
Logistics RI3
LG3 .80
Exhibitor R2 = .64
VS1
.19 (2.25) * Satisfaction
.71 WI1
Venue .95
.70 .80 (18.88)* WOM
VS2 .99 WI2
Services
.77 .95 .88 .89 Intentions .96
VS3 .14 (1.70) WI3
.67
VS4
ES1 EF2 EF3
Show
SM1 .66 Standardized solution (t-value)
Management
.76
SM2 Significant
.71
SM3 Insignificant

Model fit:
χ2 = 1286.3 (df = 400, p<.001), RMSEA = 0.071, NFI = .91, CFI = .93, AGFI = .91, NNFI = .98

FIGURE 1 Results of structural equation model.

∗
Significant at p < .05.
 Exhibition Service Quality 11

METHODOLOGY
Measurement Development
A total of 20 exhibition service attributes were identified through a thor-
ough review of extant exhibition research (Hultsman, 2001; Jung, 2005;
Kijewski, Yoon, & Young, 1993; Lee & Yeung, 2009; M. Lee et al., 2012).
Those identified attributes were then reviewed and confirmed by a commit-
tee of exhibition professionals, which included three exhibition organizers
and two college instructors teaching exhibition-related subjects. Then, a pilot
study was conducted with 50 exhibitors attending various exhibitions at the
Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Center to refine the questionnaire
and check the reliability of the measurement items. Based on the results of
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 15:31 09 April 2015

the pilot study, some ambiguous and unclear service attributes were elim-
inated, resulting in a total of 14 exhibition service attributes in four major
exhibition service areas (see Appendix).
The proposed research framework examined the causal links between
the identified exhibition service factors and three endogenous constructs:
exhibitor satisfaction, re-exhibit intentions, and WOM intentions. The mea-
surement items for endogenous constructs were drawn from previous service
marketing literature. For satisfaction, three measurement items were adopted
from the general service marketing literature (Lazarus, 1991; M. Lee & Back,
2008; S. Lee et al., 2005; Ok et al., 2007; Taylor & Baker, 1994) and then
slightly modified to reflect the exhibition context: (a) “Overall, I am satisfied
with this show”; (b) “Overall, I am pleased with my experience at this show”;
and (c) “As a whole, I am happy with this show.” Likewise, three measure-
ment items for re-exhibit and three for WOM intentions were adopted from
general service marketing literature (Lazarus, 1991; M. Lee & Back, 2008; S.
Lee et al., 2005; Ok et al., 2007) and slightly modified to reflect the exhibition
setting. For the construct of re-exhibit intentions, the following items were
used: (a) “I intend to exhibit at this show again in the future,” (b) “I plan
to exhibit at this show again in the future,” and (c) “I will make an effort
to exhibit at this show in the future.” For the construct of WOM intentions,
the following items were used: (a) “I will spread positive WOM about this
show,” (b) “I will encourage others to exhibit at this show,” and (c) “I will
recommend this show to others.” All 23 measurement items in the seven
constructs were measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to
7 = strongly agree).

Sample and Data Collection

The population of this study was exhibitors participating in current exhibi-
tions in Hong Kong. Convenience sampling was the method used for the
data collection. In this sampling approach, target subjects (exhibitors) were
selected because of their accessibility and proximity to our research team
 12 M. J. Lee et al.

(authors and three hired research assistants). Multiple exhibitions, includ-

ing public, trade, and mixed shows, were chosen for the on-site survey at
the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Center. With the approval of the
Hong Kong Trade Development Council, the research team was allowed to
contact exhibitors at the chosen exhibitions for the main survey. To min-
imize the disturbance for exhibitors, prior to the show, self-administered
questionnaires were distributed to exhibitors who indicated their willingness
to participate in this research. Then, the research team collected responses at
the end of event. A total of 550 questionnaires were distributed to exhibitors,
and 350 useable responses were collected for data analysis, resulting in a
64% response rate. For the reliability of collected data, Cronbach’s alpha
value was calculated. All scales had reliability of .75 or more, indicating that
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 15:31 09 April 2015

scales used in this study can successfully measure constructs of interest.

Data Analysis
The proposed exhibition service quality framework was tested through con-
firmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural equation modeling (SEM), using
AMOS 17.0. Prior to the SEM test, descriptive statistics were conducted to pro-
file respondents using various demographic variables. In the SEM process,
the proposed structural framework was tested using covariance matrices with
maximum likelihood estimation. Following the two-step approach recom-
mended by J. C. Anderson and Gerbing (1988), a CFA was first performed to
determine whether the measured variables reliably reflect the hypothesized
latent constructs. In the second step, the structural model was estimated
to examine the causal relationships among the latent constructs. Overall
model fit measures were used to evaluate the structural model fit. The stan-
dardized path coefficients were then used to report the causal relationships
among the constructs and the relative importance of the exogenous variables
(service quality variables) toward the endogenous constructs (exhibitor sat-
isfaction and behavioral intentions). The domain specific exhibition service
quality constructs were treated as independent exogenous or predictable
variables in the proposed framework to provide deeper insights into the
relative importance of service quality factors for exhibitor satisfaction and
behavioral intentions.

RESULTS
Demographic Profile of Respondents
The demographic profile of the respondents is summarized in Table 1.
To eliminate sample bias, the sample of this study included exhibitors
from three major exhibition market segments: trade shows (40.6%), public
shows (30.9%), and mixed shows (28.6%). Most of respondents came from
 Exhibition Service Quality 13

TABLE 1 Demographic profile of the sample

Variable Categories Frequency (N = 350) %

Nature of the show Public/Consumer show 108 30.9

Trade show 142 40.6
Combined/Mixed show 100 28.6
Origin of exhibitors Hong Kong 252 72.0
Mainland China 47 13.4
Other Asian countries 32 9.1
Europe 10 2.9
America 4 1.1
Africa 3 0.9
Australia/New Zealand 2 0.6
Firm size 1–100 employees 211 60.3
101–200 employees 30 8.6
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 15:31 09 April 2015

201–300 employees 28 8.0

301–400 employees 16 4.6
401–500 employees 3 0.9
501–1,000 employees 16 4.6
1,001–2,000 employees 18 5.1
Over 2,000 employees 14 4.0
Did not answer 14 4.0
Number of years None 22 6.3
exhibiting at the show
1 53 15.1
2 41 11.7
3 46 13.1
4 28 8.0
5 46 13.1
6 16 4.6
7 13 3.7
8 16 4.6
9 3 0.9
10 48 13.7
More than 10 years 18 5.1
Number of delegates 1 4 1.1
2 44 12.6
3 65 18.6
4 56 16.0
5 51 14.6
6 26 7.4
7 4 1.1
8 17 4.9
9 1 0.3
10 31 8.9
11–20 24 6.9
More than 20 5 1.4
Did not answer 22 6.3
Name of department or Marketing & advertising 112 32.0
division
Sales & promotion 105 30.0
Administrative management 31 8.9
Accounting & finance 7 2.0
Human resources 10 2.9
Operations 48 13.7
Others 37 10.6
 14 M. J. Lee et al.

Hong Kong (72%), followed by Mainland China (13.4%), other Asian coun-
tries (9.1%), and Europe (2.9%). For the size of the exhibiting firms, 60.3%
of the respondents were from companies with fewer than 100 employees,
and 14% were from large companies with more than 500 employees. Most
respondents (93.7%) had previously participated in the present exhibition.
This finding indicates that most exhibitors are familiar with the event in
which they participate. The size of the delegation of each exhibiting firm
was between two and five people for 61.8% of respondents. Lastly, 62% of
respondents noted that they worked in the sales or marketing departments of
their firms. Overall, a typical exhibitor worked in the sales and/or marketing
department of a company in Hong Kong with fewer than 100 employees.
In addition, a typical exhibiting firm sent two to five delegates to the show
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 15:31 09 April 2015

and had exhibited at the same show before.

Measurement Model Test

As recommended by J. C. Anderson and Gerbing (1988), a measurement
model including all of the constructs was estimated through a CFA. Table 2
shows the results of the measurement model test. Four common model
fit indexes were used to assess the adequacy of the measurement model:
chi-square/degrees of freedom, root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA), comparative fit index (CFI), and normed fit index (NFI). As shown
at the bottom of Table 2, all indexes exceeded common acceptance levels,
showing a good fit to the data.
The measurement model was further examined for construct reliability
and validity. As shown in Table 2, composite reliability for all constructs
in the measurement model exceeded .7, a generally accepted threshold
(Nunnally, 1978) or was very close to .7, indicating that internal consistency
exists and thus the measures consistently represent the same latent construct.
Although .7 suggests good reliability, reliability close to .7 was also accepted
because the other indicators of the model’s construct validity were good
(Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006). Then, construct validity was
evaluated by examining the factor loadings within the constructs, the aver-
age variance extracted (AVE), and the correlations between constructs (J. C.
Anderson & Gerbing, 1988).
As shown in Table 2, all measurement items were loaded at least .6 on
their assigned factors, and all factor loadings were statistically significant
(p < .01) indicating satisfactory item convergence on the intended con-
structs. The AVE was also manually calculated to assess the convergent
validity of constructs, and all AVE values were higher than the suggested
value of .5 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), thus supporting convergent valid-
ity. The discriminant validity of constructs was examined by comparing
the AVE with the squared correlation coefficients between the constructs.
The squared correlation coefficients were lower than the corresponding AVE
values, indicating the discriminant validity of measures.
 Exhibition Service Quality 15

TABLE 2 Results of measurement model test

Standardized factor Composite Average variance

Construct loadings∗ reliabilities extracted

Booth design and layout .72 .58

BD1 .799
BD2 .834
BD3 .685
BD4 .705
Exhibition logistics .71 .57
LG1 .762
LG2 .717
LG3 .795
Venue services .69 .53
VS1 .712
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 15:31 09 April 2015

VS2 .699
VS3 .774
VS4 .671
Show management .67 .51
SM1 .660
SM2 .767
SM3 .717
Exhibitor satisfaction .88 .82
ES1 .950
ES2 .884
ES3 .887
Re-exhibit intentions .90 .84
RI1 .815
RI2 .975
RI3 .955
Word-of-mouth intentions .92 .94
WOM1 .952
WOM2 .989
WOM3 .960
Note. Goodness-of-fit indices: χ 2 = 860.8, df = 369 (p < .001); RMSEA = .062; CFI = .94; NFI = .92.
BD1 = the layout of your booth; BD2 = the layout of the exhibit hall; BD3 = the size of your booth
space; BD4 = the relation of your exhibit area to the door; LG1 = ease of getting your materials to the
exhibition; LG2 = having a listing in the exhibition directory; LG3 = the amount of time given for set up;
VS1 = availability of business services; VS2 = having storage space; VS3 = availability of a microphone
to make announcements; VS4 = availability of audio-visual equipment; SM1 = the method of assigning
space to exhibitors; SM2 = the fee for exhibiting/space rental; SM3 = having opportunities to meet with
other exhibitors.
∗
All factor loadings are significant at p = .05.

Structural Model Test

Following satisfactory results of the measurement model test, the proposed
exhibition service quality model was assessed through SEM with maximum
likelihood estimation. Figure 1 presents the results of the SEM with parameter
estimates of the causal paths between the constructs, t-values, squared multi-
ple correlations (R2 ), and goodness-of-fit indices for the overall model fit. The
overall model fit of the proposed model was acceptable, exceeding common
 16 M. J. Lee et al.

acceptance levels (χ 2 =1286.3 (df = 400, p < .001), RMSEA = .071, NFI =
.91, CFI = .93). As shown in Figure 1, the t-values between three exhibition
service quality constructs (booth design and layout, exhibition logistics, and
venue services) and exhibitor satisfaction were positively significant at p <
.05, demonstrating that those three causal paths conceptualized in the exhi-
bition service quality model were statistically supported. Together, the three
exhibition service quality constructs explained about 49% of the variance in
exhibitor satisfaction, and exhibitor satisfaction explained about 78% of the
variance in re-exhibit intentions and 64% of WOM intentions.
Another objective of this study was to examine the extent to which each
exhibition service quality construct explains exhibitor satisfaction. To this
end, the standard path coefficients were used to compare the size of the
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 15:31 09 April 2015

causal relationships between the predictor constructs (exhibition service fac-

tors) and the endogenous constructs (exhibitor satisfaction). The absolute
magnitude of the estimated standard path coefficients shown in Figure 1
revealed that among three exhibition service quality constructs, booth design
and layout had the strongest effect on exhibitor satisfaction (β = .28, t-
value = 3.11, p < .05), followed by exhibition logistics (β = .24, t-value =
2.74, p < .05) and venue services (β = .19, t-value = 2.25, p < .05). The
path between show management and exhibitor satisfaction was insignificant.
In the relationship between exhibitor satisfaction and behavioral intentions,
the effect of exhibitor satisfaction on re-exhibit intentions (β = .88, t-value
= 21.99, p < .05) was slightly stronger than WOM intentions (β = .80, t-
value = 18.88, p < .05). No causal relationship was found between the two
behavioral intentions constructs (re-exhibit intentions and WOM intentions).

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

This empirical research identified four dimensions of exhibition service qual-

ity important to exhibitors and used structural equation modeling to examine
the causal relationships between exhibition service quality and exhibitor sat-
isfaction and behavioral intentions. The results indicated that three exhibition
service quality dimensions (booth design and layout, exhibition logistics, and
venue services) significantly affect exhibitor satisfaction; exhibitor satisfac-
tion then results in voluntary partnership behaviors (re-exhibit and positive
WOM). The empirical findings of this study suggest several implications for
researchers and exhibition industry professionals.
The findings of this empirical research extend exhibition research by
incorporating exhibition service quality, exhibitor satisfaction, and behav-
ioral intentions within a systematic framework. To authors’ knowledge, no
theoretical framework has assessed how exhibitor satisfaction forms and
the subsequent behavioral intentions. Thus, the findings of this empirical
research enable a more comprehensive understanding of the underlying
 Exhibition Service Quality 17

structures of exhibition service quality and its impact on exhibitor satisfaction

and behavioral intentions (WOM and re-exhibit intentions).
The results of this empirical research suggest a number of managerial
implications. The empirical findings revealed that three out of four exhibition
service quality factors significantly influenced exhibitor satisfaction: booth
design and layout, exhibition logistics, and venue services. Understanding
what is important to exhibitors and what service attributes affect exhibitor
satisfaction should help exhibition organizers and destination marketers
make choices.
First, booth design and layout was the most important exhibition service
quality dimension influencing exhibitor satisfaction. For both exhibitors and
visitors, the booth is the most important place; it is where exhibitors display
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 15:31 09 April 2015

their products and promotional materials and meet existing and potential
customers. Exhibitors can benefit from well-designed booths with appropri-
ate signage, video resources/facilities, product display, and sales literature.
Bitner (1992) indicated that the spatial layout of a booth is particularly impor-
tant because service encounter environments are purposeful environments.
Jung (2005) asserted that booth-related service quality is very important in
exhibitions because quality booth-related services can facilitate discussion
between exhibitors and visitors and thus help both parties achieve their
objectives. The findings of this study not only add support to previous stud-
ies, but also suggest that exhibition organizers should provide exhibitors with
reliable service contractors who design and build booths. Exhibitors want a
comfortable booth with suitable conference areas because this is where they
introduce new products/services, meet prospective customers, and build
brand or corporation image. Thus, booth design, particularly layout, is the
most important service attribute affecting exhibitor satisfaction.
The second most important exhibition service quality dimension was
logistics. Exhibition organizers must understand how long it will take to
help get exhibitors get ready for a show. Timelines should reflect realistic
time allotments for unloading, set-up, and loading. Logistics in exhibitions
is essential in persuading prospective exhibitors to attend. Maintenance
throughout the event is also part of logistics, so having exhibition orga-
nizers that handle exhibition materials professionally can contribute to both
exhibitor satisfaction and intentions to re-exhibit in the future, especially if
logistic services are also coordinated with other exhibitions that an exhibitor
may need to attend.
Another important determinant of exhibition service quality was the
availability of exhibition venue services, providing exhibition hall ser-
vices needed by exhibitors (e.g., business services, storage, a microphone,
and audio/video equipment). The success of an exhibition depends on
how well exhibitors and visitors can interact and meet their obliga-
tions. To facilitate these interactions, exhibition organizers must provide
exhibitors with whatever services are necessary. Exhibition floor managers
 18 M. J. Lee et al.

must communicate frequently and clearly with exhibitors, understand what

exhibitors need to do, and make every effort to serve their needs. As sug-
gested by Hultman (2001), exhibition managers should put themselves
in an exhibitor’s shoes and reflect on how it feels to exhibit at their
own show.
The other exhibition service quality dimension, show management, did
not contribute significantly to exhibitor satisfaction. Show management can
add value to exhibitors because their objective is to facilitate the other
three service quality dimensions, but show management itself is not directly
related to the major motive for exhibition participation. The frequently cited
rationale for exhibition participation is to communicate about products and
services to current and future customers. Exhibitors expect show organiz-
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 15:31 09 April 2015

ers to help them achieve this primary goal by providing a series of related
services to them, starting from shipping and handling exhibition materials
throughout the event (exhibition logistics), creating and designing effective
exhibition booths where products and messages are displayed (booth design
and layout) to providing various services during the event to maximize
communication with visitors (venue services).
Overall, the findings of this empirical research carry implications partic-
ularly for exhibition organizers, venue operators, and destination marketers.
The success of both current and future exhibitions ultimately depends on the
quantity of exhibitors, so our findings can be useful to exhibition industry
professionals as a guide to organizing successful and well-attended shows.
Specifically, exhibition organizers would rank the important exhibition ser-
vice attributes affecting exhibitor satisfaction and use the ranking to establish
marketing and sales strategies.

CONCLUSION

The goal of exhibition organizers is to sell all available rental spaces to

exhibitors. That means that organizers must identify what potential exhibitors
need and meet their expectations by fulfilling those needs. To that end,
understanding exhibitors’ perceptions of exhibition service quality can pro-
vide meaningful managerial implications for exhibition organizers and venue
operators. Thus, the current empirical research was designed to call for
an improved understanding of exhibition service quality and its impact
on exhibitor satisfaction and postshow behaviors. Although exhibitions
are an integral part of a firm’s overall marketing program, little research
has examined the underlying dimensions of exhibition service quality and
their individual implications for exhibitor satisfaction and behavioral inten-
tions, particularly from the perspective of exhibitors. This empirical research
fills this research gap and provides exhibition organizers with insight into
successful show organization.
 Exhibition Service Quality 19

Applying the generally accepted service quality and satisfaction model to

exhibition research is exploratory in nature. Thus, the discussion and impli-
cations from this research may sound more or less subjective and practical.
However, the potential contribution of this article is to draw more serious
attention to theoretical and conceptual exhibition research from hospitality
and tourism researchers.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

This empirical study is subject to a few limitations that offer opportunities for
future research. The first limitation can be found in data collection. The data
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 15:31 09 April 2015

of this study collected through convenience sampling at one location and

thus cannot represent the entire population. Consequently, caution is needed
when generalizing the findings to other exhibition markets. Replicating this
research in different locations with different samples will enhance the gen-
eralizability of the findings of this study, particularly the validity of the
measurement scales for exhibition service quality.
Also, future exhibition research using a research framework similar to
what we introduced in this paper should incorporate moderating factors
into the framework, such as the nature of event (public, trade, and mixed
shows) and the role of exhibitors (sales, marketing, public relations, human
resources, etc.). For example, exhibitors’ exhibition participation motives and
objectives may differ based on the nature of the show. Accordingly, their
perceptions of service quality, satisfaction, and future behavior may vary.
Incorporating meaningful moderating factors into the framework could yield
richer insights into exhibition marketing and strategies.

REFERENCES

Anderson, E. W., & Sullivan, M. W. (1993). The antecedents and consequences of

customer satisfaction for firms. Marketing Science, 12(2), 125–143.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A
review and recommended two-step approach. Psychology and Bulletin, 103(3),
411–423.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1992). The self-regulation of attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 55(2), 178–204.
Baumann, J. K. (2006). Trade show booth assignment process re-engineering.
Academy of Marketing Studies Proceedings, 11(1), 23–27.
Bello, D. C., & Lohtia, R. (1993). Improving trade show effectiveness by analyzing
attendees. Industrial Marketing Management, 22(4), 311–318.
Bitner, M. J. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on
customers and employees. Journal of Marketing, 56(1), 57–71.
 20 M. J. Lee et al.

Blodgett, J. G., Wakefield, K. L., & Barnes, J. H. (1995). The effects of customer
service on consumer complaining behavior. Journal of Services Marketing, 9(4),
31–42.
Blythe, J. (1999). Visitor and exhibitor expectations and outcomes at trade exhibi-
tions. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 17(2), 100–108.
Boulding, W., Kalra, A., Staelin, R., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1993). A dynamic process
model of service quality: From expectations to behavioral intentions. Journal of
Marketing Research, 30(1), 7–27.
Brady, M., & Robertson, C. (2001). Searching for a consensus on the antecedent role
of service quality and satisfaction: An exploratory cross-national study. Journal
of Business Research, 51(1), 53–60.
Breiter, D., & Milman, A. (2007). Predicting exhibitor levels of satisfaction in a large
convention center. Event Management, 10(1), 133–143.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 15:31 09 April 2015

Choi, T. Y., & Chu, R. (2001). Determinants of hotel guests’ satisfaction and repeat
patronage in the Hong Kong hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 20(1), 277–297.
Chonko, L. B., Tanner, J. F., & McKee, J. (1994). Behind booths. Marketing
Management, 3(1), 40–43.
Churchill, G. A., & Surprenant, C. (1982). An investigation into the determinants of
customer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), 491–505.
Dickinson, J. R., & Faria, A. J. (1985). Firms with large market shares, product lines
rate shows highly. Marketing News, 10(1), 10–14.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research,
18(1), 39–50.
Garvin, D. (1991, November/December). How the Baldrige Award really works.
Harvard Business Review, 80–93.
George, K. (2012). A model for assessing consumer perceptions of quality.
International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 4(1), 175–188.
Getty, J. M., & Thompson, K. N. (1994). The relationship between quality, satisfac-
tion, and recommending behavior in lodging decision. Journal of Hospitality
and Leisure Marketing, 2(3), 3–22.
Gofman, A., Moskowitz, H., & Mets, T. (2011). Marketing museums and exhibitions:
What drives the interest of young people. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and
Management, 20(5/6), 601–618.
Gopalakrishna, S., & Lilien, G. (1995). A three-stage model of industrial trade show
performance. Marketing Science, 14(1), 22–42.
Gotlieb, J. B., Grewal, D., & Brown, S. W. (1994). Consumer satisfaction and
perceived quality: Complimentary of divergent constructs? Journal of Applied
Psychology, 779(6), 875–885.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006).
Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Han, H., & Ryu, K. (2009). The roles of the physical environment, price percep-
tion, and customer satisfaction in determining customer loyalty in the restaurant
industry. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 33(1), 487–510.
Herbig, P., O’Hara, B., & Palumbo, F. (1994). Measuring trade show effectiveness:
An effective exercise? Industrial Marketing Management, 23(1), 165–170.
 Exhibition Service Quality 21

Hultsman, W. (2001). From the eyes of an exhibitor: Characteristics that make exhi-
bitions a success for all stakeholders. Journal of Convention and Exhibition
Management, 3(3), 27–44.
Hung, J., Yang, W., & Lee, S. (2011). Integrated resort industry development:
Experience of Macao and Singapore. Business and Management Review, 9(2),
1–22.
Jeong, M., & Lambert, C. U. (2002). Adaptation of an informational quality frame-
work to measure customers’ behavioral intentions to use lodging Web sites.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 20(2), 129–146.
Jung, M. (2005). Determinants of exhibition service quality as perceived by attendees.
Journal of Convention and Event Tourism, 7(3/4), 85–98.
Kang, J., & Schrier, T. (2011). The decision-making process of tradeshow exhibitors:
The effects of social value, company size, and prior experience on satisfaction
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 15:31 09 April 2015

and behavioral intentions. Journal of Convention & Event Tourism, 12(2), 65–85.
Kang, M. H., Suh, S. J., & Jo, D. (2005). The competitiveness of international meet-
ing destinations in Asia: Meeting planners’ versus buying centers’ perception.
Journal of Convention & Event Tourism, 7(1), 57–85.
Kempf, D. S., & Smith, E. E. (1998). Consumer processing of product trial and
the influence of prior advertising: A structural modeling approach. Journal of
Marketing Research, 35(3), 325–328.
Kerin, R., & Cron, W. (1987). Assessing trade show functions and performance: An
exploratory study. Journal of Marketing, 51(1), 87–94.
Kim, S., & Chon, K. (2009). An economic impact analysis of the Korean exhibition
industry. International Journal of Tourism Research, 11(3), 311–318.
Kijewski, V., Yoon, E., & Young, G. (1993). How exhibitors select trade shows.
Industrial Marketing Management, 22(1), 287–298.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaption. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Lee, J., & Min, C. (2013). Prioritizing convention quality attributes from the per-
spective of three-factor theory: The case of academic association convention.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 35(4), 282–293.
Lee, M. (2007). Analytical reflections on the economic impact assessment of con-
ventions and special events. Journal of Convention and Event Tourism, 8(3),
71–85.
Lee, M., & Back, K. (2007). Effects of destination image on meeting participation
intentions. Service Industries Journal, 27(1), 59–73.
Lee, M., & Back, K. (2008). Association meeting participation: A test of competing
models. Journal of Travel Research, 46(1), 300–310.
Lee, M., Seo, J., & Yeung, S. (2012). Comparing the motives for exhibition participa-
tion: Visitors’ versus exhibitors’ perspectives. International Journal of Tourism
Science, 12(3), 1–19.
Lee, M., & Yeung, S. (2009). Exhibition service quality, satisfaction and behav-
ioral intentions as perceived by attendees. Proceedings of the 2009 APac-CHRIE
Annual Conference, Singapore, May 2009.
Lee, M., Yeung, S., & Dewald, B. (2010). An exploratory study examining the deter-
minants of attendance motivations as perceived by attendees at Hong Kong
exhibitions. Journal of Convention and Event Tourism, 11(3), 195–208.
 22 M. J. Lee et al.

Lee, S., Su, H., & Dubinsky, A. J. (2005). Relationship selling in the meeting
planner/hotel salesperson dyad. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research,
29(4), 427–447.
Legoherel, P. (1998). Toward a market segmentation of the tourism trade:
Expenditure levels and consumer behavior instability. Journal of Travel and
Tourism Marketing, 7(3), 19–39.
Lin, C., & Lin, C. (2013). Exhibitor perspectives of exhibition service quality. Journal
of Convention and Event Tourism, 14(4), 293–308.
Locke, M. (2010). A framework for conducting a situational analysis of the meetings,
incentives, conventions, and exhibitions sector. Journal of Convention & Event
Tourism, 11(3), 209–233.
Lu, T., & Cai, L. (2010, January). Conceptualizing a behavioral model for convention
and exhibition tourism. Proceeding from the 15th Annual Graduate Student
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 15:31 09 April 2015

Research Conference in Hospitality and Tourism, Washington, DC.

Lu, Y., & Cai, L. (2009, July/August). Analysis of image and loyalty for exhibitions and
host destinations. Proceedings from the 2009 International CHRIE Conference,
San Francisco, CA.
Mangold, W. G., Miller, F., & Brockway, G. R. (1999). Word-of-mouth communication
in the service marketplace. The Journal of Services Marketing, 13(1), 73–89.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Oh, H. (1999). Service quality, customer satisfaction, and customer value: A holistic
perspective. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 18(1), 67–82.
Ok, C., Back, K., & Shanklin, C. W. (2006). Service recovery paradox: Implications
from an experimental study in a restaurant setting. Journal of Hospitality and
Leisure Marketing, 14(3), 17–33.
Ok, C., Back, K., & Shanklin, C. W. (2007). Mixed findings on the service recovery
paradox. The Service Industries Journal, 27(6), 1–16.
Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of
satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460–469.
Oliver, R. L. (1993). Cognitive, affective, attribute bases of the satisfaction response.
Journal of Consumer Research, 20(3), 418–430.
Oliver R. L., & DeSarbo, W. S. (1988). Response determinants in satisfaction
judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(4), 495–507.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of
service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing,
49(4), 41–50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-
item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of
Retailing, 64(1), 12–40.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1994). Reassessment of expectations
as a comparison standard in measuring service quality: Implications for further
research. Journal of Marketing, 58(2), 111–124.
Petrick, J. F. (2004). The roles of quality, value, and satisfaction in predicting cruise
passengers’ behavioral intentions. Journal of Travel Research, 42(2), 397–407.
Rainbolt, G., Benfield, J., & Loomis, R. (2012). Visitor self-report behavior mapping
as a tool for recording exhibition circulation. Visitor Studies, 15(2), 203.
 Exhibition Service Quality 23

Rosson, P., & Seringhaus, F. (1995). Visitor and exhibitor interaction at industrial
trade fairs. Journal of Business Research, 32(1), 81–90.
Ruyter, K., & Wetzels, M. (2000). Customer equity considerations in service recov-
ery: A cross-industry perspective. International Journal of Service Industry
Management, 11(1), 91–108.
Ryu, K., & Han, H. (2010). Influence of the quality of food, service, and physical
environment on customer satisfaction and behavioral intention in quick-casual
restaurants: Moderating role of perceived price. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Research, 34(3), 310–329.
Sanford, C. (2010). Evaluating family interactions to inform exhibit design:
Comparing three different learning behaviors in a museum setting. Visitor
Studies, 13(1), 67–89.
Sashi, C., & Perretty, J. (1992). Do trade shows provide value? Industrial Marketing
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 15:31 09 April 2015

Management, 21(1), 249–255.

Shipley, D., Egan, C., & Wong, K. (1993). Dimensions of trade show exhibiting
management. Journal of Marketing Management, 9(1), 55–63.
Smith, A., & Bolton, R. (1998). An experimental investigation of customer reactions
to service failure and recovery encounters: Paradox or peril? Journal of Service
Research, 1(1), 65–81.
Smith, T., Hama, K., & Smith, P. (2003). The effect of successful trade show atten-
dance on future show interest: Exploring Japanese attendee perspectives of
domestic and offshore international events. Journal of Business and Industrial
Marketing, 18(4/5), 403–418.
Spreng, R. A., Harrell, G. D., & Mackoy, R. D. (1995). Service recovery: Impact on
satisfaction and intentions. Journal of Services Marketing, 9(1), 15–23.
Stevens, P., Knutson, B., & Patton M. (1995). DINESERV: A tool for measuring service
quality in restaurants. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly,
36(1), 56–60.
Sureshchandar, G., Rajendran, C., & Anantharaman, R. (2002). The relationship
between service quality and customer satisfaction, a factor specific approach.
Journal of Service Marketing, 16(4), 363–379.
Swanson, S. R., & Kelley, S. W. (2001). Service recovery attributions and word-of-
mouth intentions. European Journal of Marketing, 35(1/2), 194–211.
Tanner, J. F., Chonko, L. B., & Ponzurick, T. V. (2001). A learning model of trade
show attendance. Journal of Convention and Exhibition Management, 3(3),
3–26.
Taylor, S. A., & Baker, T. L. (1994). An assessment relationship between service
quality and customer satisfaction in the foundation of consumers’ purchase
intentions. Journal of Retailing, 70(2), 163–178.
Walsh, M. F., Winterich, K. P., & Mittal, V. (2010). Do logo redesigns help or hurt
your brand? The role of brand commitment. Journal of Product and Brand
Management, 19(1), 76–84.
Wan, P., & Siu, N. (2012). The impact of the servicescape on the desire to stay in
convention and exhibition centers: The case of Macao. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 31(1), 236–246.
 24 M. J. Lee et al.

Wan, Y. K. (2011). Assessing the strengths and weaknesses of Macao as an attractive

meeting and convention destination: perspectives of key informants. Journal of
Convention & Event Tourism, 12(2), 129–151.
Wang, I., & Shieh, C. (2006). The relationship between service quality and cus-
tomer satisfaction: The example of CJCU library. Journal of Information and
Optimization Sciences, 27(1), 193–209.
Whitfield, J., Dioko, L., Webber, D., & Zhang, L. (2012). Attracting convention and
exhibition attendance to complex MICE venues: Emerging data from Macao.
International Journal of Tourism Research, 16(2), 169–179.
Whitfield, J., & Webber, D. (2011). Which exhibition attributes create repeat
visitation? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(2), 439–447.
Yi, Y. (1990). A critical review of consumer satisfaction. In V. Zeithaml (Ed.), Review
of marketing (pp. 68–123). Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 15:31 09 April 2015

Yoo, J., & Chon, K. (2008). Factors affecting convention participation decision-
making: Developing a measurement scale. Journal of Travel Research, 47(3),
113–122.
Yuan, J., & Jang, S. (2008). The effects of quality and satisfaction on awareness and
behavioral intentions: Exploring the role of a wine festival. Journal of Travel
Research, 46(3), 279–288.
Zhang, L., Qu, H., & Ma, J. (2010). Examining the relationship of exhibition atten-
dees’ satisfaction and expenditure: The case of two major exhibitions in china.
Journal of Convention & Event Tourism, 11(2), 100–118.
 Exhibition Service Quality 25

APPENDIX
Measurement Items in Original Exhibition Service Attributes
Booth design and layout 1. The layout of your booth
2. The layout of the exhibit hall
3. The size of your booth space
4. The relation of your exhibit area to the door
Exhibition logistics 5. Ease of getting your materials to the exhibition
6. Having a listing in the exhibition directory
7. The amount of time given for set up
Venue services 8. Availability of venue services
9. Having storage space
10. Availability of microphone to make announcements
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 15:31 09 April 2015

11. Availability of audio-visual equipment

Show management 12. The method of assigning space to exhibitors
13. The fee for exhibiting/space rental
14. Having opportunity to meet with other exhibitors
Exhibitor satisfaction 15. Overall, I am satisfied with this show.
16. Overall, I am pleased with my experience at this show.
17. As a whole, I am happy with this show.
Re-exhibit intentions 18. I intend to exhibit at this show again in the future.
19. I plan to exhibit at this show again in the future.
20. I will make an effort to exhibit at this show in the future.
Word-of-mouth intentions 21. I will spread positive word-of-mouth about this show.
22. I will encourage others to exhibit at this show.
23. I will recommend this show to others.