1. The Comparative Effectiveness of Web 2.0 Marketing and
Online Technology Tools on Baby-Boomer, Generation X and
Generation Y Trade Show Visitors
By
N. Irem Akin
Supervisor: Robert Davidson
Thesis submitted to the Department of Marketing, Events
and Tourism
School of Business
University of Greenwich
In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
In
Events Management
September 2014

2. Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.......................................................................................... 1
ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................. 2
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................. 3
1.1 Aim of the study..................................................................................................... 3
1.2 Objectives of the study........................................................................................... 3
1.3 Hypothesis of the study.......................................................................................... 3
1.4 Background of the study........................................................................................ 3
1.5 Significance of the study........................................................................................ 4
1.6 Research outline ..................................................................................................... 5
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW...................................................................... 5
2.1 Trade shows and stakeholders................................................................................ 5
2.1.1 Visitor Types and Motivations ................................................................... 8
2.1.2 Marketing at trade shows......................................................................... 10
2.2 The Web 2.0 Concept.......................................................................................... 13
2.2.1 Web 2.0 As A Marketing Tool................................................................. 14
2.2.2 Role of Web 2.0 and Technologies at Tradeshows.................................. 17
2.3 Generation theory and the characteristics............................................................. 18
2.3.1 Generations and marketing....................................................................... 21
2.3.2 Generations and trade shows.................................................................... 22
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY .............................................................................. 23
3.1 Introduction to the chapter................................................................................... 23
3.2 Philosophical approach........................................................................................ 23
3.3 Research approach............................................................................................... 24
3.4 Research triangulation, reliability and validity.................................................... 26
3.5 Research method and design................................................................................ 27
3.6 Sampling............................................................................................................... 30
3.7 Methods of data analysis...................................................................................... 32
3.8 Ethical considerations........................................................................................... 32
3.9 Limitations of the study....................................................................................... 33
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND FINDINGS.............................................................. 33
4.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 33

3. 4.2 Statistical Analysis of Results.............................................................................. 34
i. Age distribution.............................................................................................. 34
ii. Main reason for attending the trade show of different generations............... 34
iii. Webpage and mobile application usage at trade shows of different generations
35
iv. Attitudes towards Web 2.0 tools and trade show social media marketing tools
of different generations...................................................................................... 39
v. Trade show marketing professionals' perspective on social media marketing at
trade shows and generations.............................................................................. 43
4.3 Findings................................................................................................................ 46
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................. 50
5.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 50
5.2 Conclusions about the research............................................................................ 50
5.3 Recommendations ................................................................................................ 52
REFERENCES............................................................................................................ 54
APPENDECIES.......................................................................................................... 62
Appendix-A Sample of Questionnaires............................................................. 62
Appendix A.1 Questionnaire Sample with Visitors............................................ 62
Appendix-A.2 Questionnaire Sample with Marketers ....................................... 64
Appendix-B Graphs .......................................................................................... 67
Appendix B.1 Visitor motivations ...................................................................... 67
Appendix B.2 Official Webpage visits ............................................................... 67
Appendix B.3 Online registration rate ............................................................... 67
Appendix B.4 Mobile application downloads .................................................... 68
Appendix B.5 Tweeting about the event ............................................................ 68
Appendix B.6 YouTube video views.................................................................. 68
Appendix B.7 Importance of Web 2.0 tools....................................................... 68
Appendix B.8 Importance of Web 2.0 tools....................................................... 69
Appendix B.9 Marketing professionals objectives of using Web 2.0................ 69
Appendix B.10 Success measurements............................................................... 69
Appendix B.11 Demographic information captures........................................... 70

4. Table of Figures
Figure 1: Trade show Stakeholders and Relationships............................................ 7
Figure 2: Three conceptions of trade fairs: major interactions for a focal exhibitor
10
Figure 3: A theoretical model of antecedent and performance of trade show processes
11
Figure 4: Flow chart of social media decision making process............................ 15
Figure 5: Age distribution..................................................................................... 34
Figure 6: Preferred device to use internet.............................................................. 35
Figure 7: Web page visit frequency....................................................................... 36
Figure 8: The reason for downloading the mobile application.............................. 38
Figure 9: Checking Seminars/Conferences Online Before Visit .......................... 38
Figure 10: Social Media Tools Preferences.......................................................... 39
Figure 11: Following the official Twitter Account............................................... 40
Figure 12: Reasons for following the Twitter Account ........................................ 41
Figure 13: Official Facebook Page Likes ............................................................. 42
Figure 14: Reason for following the Facebook page............................................ 42
Figure 15: Preferred Tools for Social Media Marketing....................................... 44
Figure 16: Importance of the tools........................................................................ 44
Figure 17: Arranging the contents according to generations’ interests or needs.. 46

5. List of Tables
Table 1: Stakeholders model in governance context .............................................. 7
Table 2: Generations and their birth years............................................................ 19
Table 3: Deductive versus Inductive research...................................................... 25
Page | 1

6. ABSTRACT
As Web 2.0 sites growing fast globally, marketers started to shape their marketing
strategies more on these tools than their traditional marketing strategies. However, the
generational cohorts are became a growing theme for marketers. Trade shows
marketers also using Web 2.0 in terms of reaching more people and combining the
generations and marketing together under Web 2.0. This study assessed the differences
between Baby-Boomer, Generation X and Generation Y trade show visitors' Web 2.0
marketing and online technology tools usage. There is a slight difference found
between the generations' usage of the certain tools. However, there are many
similarities found between Generation X and Generation Y members. 106 sample were
collected from trade show visitors in London, United Kingdom. Furthermore, trade
show marketers' perspective to multi-generational marketing were examined and it has
been found that 64% of the trade show marketing professionals are not arrange their
marketing strategies according to multi-generational marketing. 14 sample were
collected from trade show marketers via online survey.
Keywords: Generations, Web 2.0, Social media marketing, Trade shows
Page | 2

7. CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Aim of the study
The overall aim of this research is to explore the comparative effectiveness of Web 2.0
marketing tools and online technology tools on Baby-Boomer, Generation X and
Generation Y trade show visitors.
1.2 Objectives of the study
The objectives of this research are:
1) To determine how different generations respond to social media marketing
tools
2) To analyse the social media marketing of the trade shows
3) To analyse and determine mobile application, online registration tools and the
internet usage of different generations at tradeshows
4) To analyse trade show marketing professionals' perspective in multi-
generational marketing utilization
5) Pursue recommendations for future practice in the trade show marketing sector
1.3 Hypothesis of the study
It hypothesized that if each generation has different technological tendencies , then
the effectiveness of the Web 2.0 marketing and the Web 2.0 and online technology
tools' usage differs significantly between generations.
1.4 Background of the study
Karl Mannheim‟s generational theory argues that individuals are influenced by the
socio-historical situations pertaining in the era which they born (Mannheim, 1964).
This research will focus on three active consumer population generations which are:
Baby-Boomers, Generation X, and Generation Y. Williams and Page (2011) defined
Baby-Boomers as individuals born between 1946-1964, Generation X individuals as
those born between 1965-1976 and Generation Y individuals as those born between
Page | 3

8. 1977-1994. Each generation has their own tendencies and expectations. Some of these
generations are identified as highly technological, some of them are highly traditional
and anti-technologic. However, there is a huge fact that social media sites in other
name Web 2.0 tools, such as: Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube and blogging
sites have grown enormously quickly in last ten years. IAB platform report (2008 p.1)
states that: ''In 2008, if you are not on a social media networking site, you are not on
the internet''. To be able to utilise that trend, marketers used social media as a global
marketing tool in various markets. Companies are choosing social media techniques to
communicate with their possible clients or existing clients and boost their brand
awareness. Use of Web.2.0 tools and technologies at trade shows is growing very fast.
In the trade show industry there is 80% of usage of internet to provide information
which is 20% more than other MICE (Meetings-Incentive-Conventions-Exhibitions)
events sectors (Davidson et al. 2002). Yet, applying these social media marketing tools
on different generations involves challenges. Marketers have mainly focused on two
generations; Baby-Boomers and Generation Y. (Kehl,
2005). Marketers should understand and adapt these generations‟ needs and
behaviours to built relationships, customer retention and satisfaction. Most importantly
in terms of increasing the ROI (Return On Investment). Multi-generational marketing
can increase of the attendance such industries like event industry. As a part of the
events industry, trade shows have key role and trade show marketers aim to adapt their
marketing plans and strategies to reach targeted visitors more effectively. However,
generational differences can cause issues and marketing strategies may not engage with
the target visitors.
Consideration needs to be given to the important baseline data on the characteristics
of Baby-Boomers, Generation X and Generation Y and how they use social media
tools at trade shows, as well as how they respond to social media marketing strategies.
This research will address the experiences and attitudes of different generations at
trade shows in United Kingdom, London area.
1.5 Significance of the study
Whilst, there are some relevant studies about the different generations' usage of social
media marketing and the generations' expectations from MICE industry components
as conferences, there is no existing in depth research about those
Page | 4

9. generations‟ responses to social media marketing specifically at trade shows. The
findings of this research will indicate how to achieve the maximum effectiveness of
the social media marketing on targeted visitors, based on their experiences at trade
shows. Moreover, this research will help trade show marketers to improve their future
practices in terms of marketing strategies and usage of social media tools and mobile
applications.
1.6 Research outline
The outline of the dissertation is as follows:
The following chapter includes literature review of the documents relevant to the
investigation gathered from sources including other researches, books and journals.
The literature review chapter has three main sections: Section 1 is related to trade
shows including stakeholders visitor motivations and marketing. Section 2 is related
with Web 2.0 including Web 2.0 marketing and Web 2.0 at trade shows. Section 3 is
related with Generations including marketing to generations and trade show and
generations.
The literature chapter is followed by the methodology chapter which includes a review
of existing research methods and the discussion of choices made.
The methodology chapter is followed by data analysis and findings chapter which
includes in depth analysis of the study and discussion of the findings according to the
existing literature.
The final chapter includes conclusions of overall study and future recommendations
for marketers and academic researches.
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Trade shows and stakeholders
Meeting-Incentive-Convention-Exhibition (MICE), also known as business events,
one of the core section of this huge industry is exhibitions. Exhibitions are often
confused with the term 'trade shows'. Rittichainuwat and Mair (2012) explain this
Page | 5

10. confusion by stating that exhibitions are any showcase of merchandise or services. On
the other hand, they stress that the trade shows differ from exhibitions with the
attendees segment. Exhibitions are open only to specially invited customers and
suppliers. Likewise, Godar and O'Connor, (2001) also state that exhibitions are only
open to prequalified personnel and buyers. Exhibitions, in other words expose the
products or services, while the trade shows focus on business to business sales (Solberg
Søilen, 2013). The definition of trade shows by Bathelt et al. (2014 p.1) is ''Tradeshows
are temporary marketplaces where suppliers from a given industry convene to
showcase their products and services''. Even though there is a difference between trade
shows and exhibitions, both of the events aims to create brand awareness, gathering
the information, building and improving the relationships and networking between
buyers and sellers. Solberg Søilen (2013) notes that the earlier trade shows only
focused on sales but today's modern trade shows industry also focus on building
relationships and information exchanging and the author explains that the trade shows
of today arranged for special segment of various industries or can be more general
shows. Current trade shows can be divided as two sub groups such as:
First, horizontal fairs which have a wide range of product exposure and wide visitor
diversity. Second, vertical fairs which include specific displays to increase visitor
purchase and create a tough selling environment for the exhibitors (Solberg Søilen,
2013).
Each trade shows' main objective is creating the business environment and relations
between the exhibitors and visitors. However, there are various relationships within
the trade shows between the main stakeholders. The stakeholders chain can be
explained as: exhibitors are the customers of the organizers, visitors are the customers
of the exhibitors and partly customers of the organizers and the organizers are the
customers of venues (Kay, 2007). The relationships of the main stakeholders of a
tradeshow according to relationship degrees are illustrated in the Figure 1 below.
Page | 6

11. Figure 1: Trade showStakeholders and Relationships (Liu 2006,cited in Kay 2007,p. 14).
The trade show stakeholders model in governance context, examined by Bathelt et
al. (2014 pp. 109) and the table below illustrate the United Kingdom trade show
industry.
Table 1: Stakeholders model in governance context
Indicator Trade show industry in United
Kingdom
Main facility ownership Private investors
Main objectives Profit
Main trade show ownership Private organizers
Main objectives Profit
Dominant type of trade shows National import trade shows
Page | 7

12. Due to main topic of this research paper, the following literature review on this
section will focus mostly on visitors rather than on other stakeholders.
2.1.1 Visitor Types and Motivations
Trade show visitors are divided to three sub categories such as:
1. Current buyers
2. Potential buyers
3. Non-buyers
Current buyers are attending these events to decrease the contradiction levels and
finalise the purchase decision. Siskind (2005) indicates that the Centre for Exhibition
Industry Research report shows that 76% of attendees planned their visit and decided
to visit certain booths. These potential buyers' plans are include various purchase
options for various reasons such as the firms are already invested some money to send
their people to attend (Godar and O'Connor, 2001). Non-buyers are the majority of the
trade show visitors and most of the visitors are not concerned about purchasing
(Borghini et al, 2006). Trade show visitors' motivations are listed by Rittichainuwat
and Mair (2012) as :
 Purchasing 

 Information search in progress 

 Educational performances and activities 

 Networking 
However, Bello and Lohtia (1993) states that visitor motivations are really less likely
to be related with purchase decisions. Rosson and Seringhaus' (1995) research held in
four Industrial Exhibitions within U.S and Germany and research results shows that
purchasing is the least ranked reason (6% and 7%) and for other two exhibitions,
purchasing was not ranked as a reason for attending.
Information gaining is an essential deliberation for attendees on trade shows (Berne
and Garcia-Uceda, 2008). A study of 566 attendees on five exhibitions held at the
Orange County Convention Centre, the secondly most ranked reason (41.1%) for
attending was to ''Learn about new products in their respective professional areas''
Page | 8

13. (Breiter and Milman, 2006 p.1366). Buyers from smaller companies seem to count on
more face-to-face information gaining and needs more in depth information than larger
companies. The main purpose of attendance is gathering information from exhibitors
and investigating products (Rosson and Seringhaus, 1995). This information search at
trade shows also allows the visitors to calculate their own businesses' capabilities in
the market (Blythe, 2002).
Tanner et al. (2001) assert that special events and educational activities at shows are
create attraction and are another major attendance reason for 'self developer' visitor
type. Self developers are most likely to attend seminars to networking for career
opportunities and extend their knowledge. Whitfield and Webber (2011 p.441) state
that ''Attendees can also attend workshops and seminars in pursuit of domain
knowledge through contact with specialists''. Godar and O'connor (2001) also show an
agreement with the previous information and argue that the exhibitors should make
special events to gather the visitors to discuss common interests or concerns.
According to most of the authors' coalesce in the literature, networking is another
fundamental motive, not only to visitors, but for the vendors as well. Buyers and sellers
both use the trade shows as a 'networking site' and while visiting they taking part in
social events to establish and maintain their networks. Within the visitor types
mentioned above, potential buyers want to establish new relationships with the people
whom they can help with broader information if needed to begin a buying decision.
For this reason, exhibition organisers consider social events for those who want to
gather to discuss about their concerns (Godar and O'connor, 2001).
Mattsson (1989) argues that the companies are investing huge amounts of financial
resources and efforts to build ''micro'' and ''macro'' positions in networks. A micro
position has been described as the relationships between two firms and macro position
is a firm's relationships with a number of different firms in terms of creating a network.
Breiter and Milman (2006, p.1366) found that attendees' most popular reason for
visiting was ' networking opportunity ' with 61.1%.
Page | 9

14. Figure 2: Three conceptions oftrade fairs : Major interactions for a focal exhibitor
( Rosson and Seringhaus,1995,p.88)
The figure above illustrate that the trade fairs are suitable places to build both vertical
(suppliers, customers) and horizontal (associations, partners) relationships (Rosson
and Seringhaus, 1995).
2.1.2 Marketing at trade shows
According to Ling-Yee (2007), to achieve trade show performance goals and identify
the factors that affecting the trade show effectiveness, trade show organizers must build
up a certain plan to meet marketing objectives. In existing literature most authors agree
that the trade show marketing process has three phases such as:
1) Pre-show promotions
2) At-show selling
3) Post-show follow-up
The figure below illustrates the relations between the trade show performance,
marketing processes and trade show goals.
Page | 10

15. Figure 3: A theoretical model of antecedent and performance oftrade showprocesses
(Ling-Yee ,2008 pp. 37)
The pre-show phase mostly focuses on visitor behaviours to influence their attendance
decisions. A good understanding of these motivations of the potential costumers'
behaviours is essential to reach trade show goals (Berne and Garcia-Uceda, 2007).
Authors like Hough (1988) and Tanner and Chonko (1995) listed 'not to attend' reasons
as lack of time, travel distances, negative past experiences and costs of the trade shows.
According to Williams et al. (1993), small size firms and large size firms differ from
each other in terms of needs of pre-show promotions and small size firms need more
pre-stage promotions. Ling-Yee (2008, p.36) states that '' Pre-show promotion refers
to exhibitors' decisions of inviting customers to visit their booths at trade shows by
phone, using direct mail, magazines''. Herbig et al. (1998) state that invitations are the
first place of the choice of exhibitors' pre-show activities, with direct mail invitations.
The research results of the study show that complimentary activities such as free tickets
and mass media advertisements are next in popularity.
At-show activities can be two types such as outside of the booth or inside booth
activities. Outside of the booth activities are listed as: hospitality suits, cocktails or
banquets, or private viewings for the products (Herbig et al., 1998). However, booth
related activities are highly stressed by many authors on existing literature. These
promotional activities are mainly under two concepts such as impersonal and personal
activities. Gopalakrishna and Williams (1992) explain the impersonal booth
Page | 11

16. promotions with some factors such as: bigger booth space, locations of the booth and
design of the booth which attracts the attentions of the visitors. According to Smith et
al. (2004), impersonal activities are more effective for sales objectives at the beginning
of the process. The impersonal promotions are linked with pre-show activities and the
pre-show activities gives more opportunities for exhibitors to interact with the planned
visitors and give image-building opportunity as well (Lee and Kim, 2008). However,
those two phases are weakly linked for personal promotions. (Lee and Kim, 2008).
Personal promotions can be conducted by booth personnel, thus they play a key role in
this phase. By this reason, the number of booth personnel and well trained booth
personnel are the main two essentials (Gopalakrishna, and Lilien, 1995). Booth
personnel efficiency is directly related with personal selling at show. Explanations
about the company, demonstrations with using promotional materials by the booth
personnel boost their relations with costumers and help them to transmit the right brand
image to their costumers (Ling-Yee, 2008). A sufficient amount of at-show selling
activities improves number of sales (Gopalakrishna, and Lilien, 1995).
Post-show activities are for extending the impact of the trade show and maintaining
the relationships and communications with the costumers (Stevens, 2005). Lee and
Kim (2008) add another point to post-show activities as this phase gives opportunity
to the exhibitors to calculate their own performance and see if they were met their
objectives or not. Herbig et al. (1998) list the post-show activities based on the research
results with the exhibitors, direct mail follow-ups and direct sales contacts as being the
most common post-show activities. However, Herbig et al. (2008) also mention that
the telemarketing has the lowest rate for post-show activities and they consider that the
telemarketing element should be stressed more and should also be improved. Tanner
(2002) indicates that successful exhibitors tend to follow-up their customers more after
the show. Ling-Yee (2007) argues that post-show follow-up effort and quality directly
link with the actual sales. The post-show activities are finalise the marketing phases by
supporting the pre-show and at-show activities and Herbig et al. (1998) support this
view by considering that well-planned post-show activities are mandatory. As a result,
the message aimed by pre-show and at-show activities can be successfully transmitted
to the customers.
Page | 12

17. 2.2 The Web 2.0 Concept
Before 2004 the term Web 2.0 was already in use. However, the term became more
popular with a conference brainstorming session between O'Reilly and MediaLive
International and it was born from the fact that the internet became such an important
tool with new innovations. This was a breaking point for the web (O'Reilly, 2005).
O'Reilly's concept of Web 2.0 can be defined as a business revolution within the
industry with major changes like the Internet as a platform with harnessing collective
intelligence, making that platform more enjoyable and making it interactively social to
the engaged consumers (Fagerstrom and Ghinea, 2010). The most common Web 2.0
tools are described and explained below.
Kaiser et al. (2007) state that the term 'blog' stands for a combination of two words
which are ''web'' and ''log''. Davidson (2011, p.119) defines the blogs as ''Blogs are
customisable personal web sites that allow authors to contribute regular or irregular
entries that are displayed on their sites in reverse chronological order''. Likewise,
Bronstein (2013) explains the blogs as certain web pages where people write about
themselves and about their experiences online where accessible by others. Blogging is
generally characterized as self-disclosure (Chen, 2012). Baxter and Connolly (2013)
add that personal or work-related blogs' conversational nature beneficial for the
communication process between blog users.
Social networking services allows users to create their own profiles and descriptions
about themselves at a networking platforms where users can link with colleagues or
friends (Fagerstrom and Ghinea, 2010). Dao et al. (2014) note that social networking
services allow users to make their public or semi-public profiles in a bounded system,
communicational environment with whom they choose to connect, view and create
cross networking by using the list created by other users within the system. According
to Bergh et al. (2011), social networking services are mainly focused on individuals.
Likely to what Bergh et al. (2011) mentioned, Fagerstrom and Ghinea (2010) state that
the networking sites such as Facebook and LinkedIn have become important
networking services targeting adult individuals. Dao et al. (2014) consider that social
networking users put more importance on social interaction as connection to create and
maintain their relationships in terms of belongingness.
Page | 13

18. File Sharing communities, used to describe ''peer to peer'' (Davidson, 2011 p.119) or
alternatively called as ''Content Community Sites'' allow people to share specific
content at specific platforms such as: videos (eg.Youtube), photographs (eg.Instagram
or Flickr) or presentations (eg Slideshare.) (Dao et al. 2014). Shao (2009) considers
these platforms are increasing the knowledge of users since these platforms includes
specific materials. These sites are also related to the term folksonomy. Avram (2006
p.4) describes the term as ''Folksonomy is a neologism for the practice of collaborative
categorisation using freely chosen key-words.'' and this allows users to list their
contents under tags and easily access the reliable related content that they interested
in.
As Web 2.0 has developed, some sites are combining the elements of Web 2.0. Twitter
allows users to network and micro-blogging opportunity at the same time, which users
can write posts called 'tweets' with limited word counts (Davidson, 2011).
2.2.1 Web 2.0 As A Marketing Tool
The internet offers new and valuable benefits to the marketing industry and beginning
of the usage of the Internet marketing, marketing professionals mostly aimed lowering
the costs and distribution of the media and the information spreading globally
(Fagerstrom and Ghinea 2010). Ling-Yee (2010, p.273) states ''Internet-enabled
promotion before shows refers to usage of the company website functions for pre-show
promotion purpose''. Ling-Yee's (2010) research also found that greater usage of the
website comes from a higher customer orientation. Kellezi (2014) holds the view that
today's market using different channels to reach their consumers in both traditional and
non-traditional media. With reference to Kellezi (2007), Stern and Wakabayashi
(2007) state that Web 2.0 and social network services and communities are a massive
threat for the traditional practices and media. Tiago and Tiago (2012) discuss that there
is a strong link between traditional marketing and Internet marketing. Fisher (2009)
argues that marketing professionals are stuck between participating into Web 2.0
communications and started to calculate the cost using traditional marketing tools
instead of online tools. Tsimonis and Dimitriadis (2014, p.336) made a flow chart that
illustrates the decision making process of Web 2.0 usage by marketing professionals.
Page | 14

19. Figure 4: Flowchart of social media decision making process
segments which are B2C and C2C segment. The nature of the Web 2.0 allows the
companies to interact with their customers is called the B2C perspective and the
interactions that allows customers to communicate with each other is called C2C
perspective. Mangold and Faulds (2009) state that social media platforms create and
strengthens relations between the organizations and customers and makes relationships
more trustworthy than traditional marketing. Kirtis and Karahan (2011) state that
organizations which use social media, with more networking with more organizations
become more successful on long-run benefits, which makes them increase their
performance in a positive way. Kirtis and Karahan (2011) state on their research that
70% of consumers have used social media sites as much as they use official websites
to gain information, 60% of the consumers using social media sites to deliver
information and almost 60-70% of the people noted that recommendations from other
people online are valuable and honest.
Tsimonis and Dimitriadis (2014) mention on their research, a survey conducted with
the list of Fortune magazine's World's top 100 companies around Europe, Asia-Pacific,
and Latin America. The results of the survey show at least 8% of the companies use at
least one social media tool. Twitter is the most popular answer with
Page | 15

20. 82%, followed by YouTube with 79% and lastly, Facebook with 74% on the last
place.
The organizations' social media usage trends are defined and summarized by Dooley
et al. (2012) as :
 Consumer orientation: Commercial and social marketing on Web 2.0 platforms
are consumer oriented and campaign strategies are created aiming target
consumer needs and perceptions. 

 Behaviour change: Marketers use check-in applications ( Eg.Foursquare) to
measure behaviour changes by following consumers experiences on Web 2.0
sites. 

 Segmentation and targeting: Specific segment targeting is essential to create
campaigns for right sub-groups. (Eg. seniors, sex gender differences,
occupation) 

 Exchange: Demonstrating exchange offerings such as benefits or rewards to
consumers increases the campaign participation. 

 Competition: Campaigns on Web 2.0, (Eg. YouTube video creating
competition), allow marketers to promote and transmit the marketing message
with the target consumers. 

 The marketing mix: Web 2.0 campaigns also includes 3Ps in the Marketing 

Mix ( “Product”, “Price”, and “Place” p.217) both Web 2.0 commercial and
social marketing campaigns, target consumers can share pictures through
networking sites engaging in campaign behaviour at the related place. (eg.
Foursquare check-ins , associated hashtag usage) 
Alternatively, Tsimonis and Dimitriadis' (2014) research findings show that all the
companies that participated in the research have a Facebook page and that the most
common activity is creating competitions with prizes. Next most common activity is
creating and maintaining the daily communication to create awareness and customer
engagement by posting simple sentences such as "Have a good day". The other two
activities are giving tips and information about their products, while exposing on Web
2.0 and the nature of Web 2.0 platforms makes them accessible 24 hours. The last
activity is giving customer service through answering their complaints or questions.
Page | 16

21. 2.2.2 Role of Web 2.0 and Technologies at Tradeshows
Trade shows have usually taken advantage of information technologies and
communications technologies with benefits to all stakeholders (HyunJeong and
Verma, 2014). Networking and interacting with others are the most important benefits
of the trade show participators and a strong motivation attendance for trade shows
(Hultsman, 2011). Web 2.0 tools making the connections at tradeshows easier, cost-
effective and efficient also sustain the organization and structure of the shows
(HyunJeong and Verma, 2014). Borges (2009) explains the Web 2.0 usage process at
tradeshows as follows: blogging about the event three months in advance and creating
awareness on Twitter with the users and creating discussion topics. Furthermore,
Borges (2009) states that due to the nature of the trade shows, buyers and sellers are
mostly trying to communicate at professional private areas and Web 2.0 tools makes
the engagement more effective before, during and after the show. As a result of these,
ROI of the tradeshow will be more effective. Using hashtags (eg.
#TRADESHOW2014) became a common trend in any trade show and the idea behind
it was to give an opportunity to gather everyone under the same topic about the event
to expand the audience and vendors' communication and engagement (Browne, 2012).
Twitter is by far the most common tool used at trade shows over Facebook, Youtube
and Instagram. Creating a real time interaction around the booths and letting the
visitors know about what/where is happening with these tools and WIFI (Wireless
Fidelity) connection at the venue is a key to attract potential customers (Holloman,
2013). A modern trend at tradeshows is creating the 'hybrid events'. These events add
virtual content inside the event for the attendees who cannot be at the show physically
and the strategy behind it is to connect the members of the audiences to one another
(Browne, 2012). A huge company in technology industry, AMD, typically having ten
thousand visitors at their real-life events, held a virtual event between September 2006
to January 2007 with huge firms such as: Microsoft , Dell , Oracle. The show attracted
over one million visitors (LaMotta, 2007). Another common technological trend at
tradeshows this paper will focus on, the use of mobile applications. The tradeshow
applications can be categorized as B2B applications as it allows attendees to interact
with exhibitors and other attendees as well (Procopio et al., 2012). The mobile
applications brings new facilities and benefits to the tradeshow industry such as:
Page | 17

22.  Real time distribution to the show with instant access to the programme and
any other changes 

 Can be used as a map of the hall. This map can even be use to find other
application users who pinned themselves at the exhibition hall. 

 Helps to reduce the costs of printing tradeshow information booklets (such as:
booth information, conference programmes, exhibitor information) and easily
portable. 

 Improves the onsite networking with contact lists, online appointment systems
and more efficient on CRM 

 Helps to improve real time feedbacks and polling. Better response rate with
easy access than paper feedback forms. 

 Gives a more technologically engaged and modern impression on attendees. 

 Increases the business value of events with new capabilities and gives better
experience to all trade show stakeholders. 
(Ball,2011)
Lastly, online registration is growing fast in trade show industry, this tool offers
registration process being more convenient and fast (Davidson et al., 2002). Smith
(1999, p.4) states that ''With online registration, once we captured their e-mail details,
we can keep in touch with them far more closely''. Davidson et al. (2002) also argue
that webpage hyperlinks can lead visitors to other information once they register online
and large events visitors can access the hall maps and other highlighted areas at the
venue with online appointments opportunities through webpage.
2.3 Generationtheory and the characteristics
The first modern scholar investigation describing and explaining generation theory was
made by German sociologist Karl Mannheim. Mannheim (1964) describes social
phenomenon generations as a kind of identity in which related age groups are
embedded within their historical and social environment and he described the
fundamental facts of generations as :
 New participants in the cultural process are emerging 

 Former participants are repeatedly vanishing 
Page | 18

23.  Each generations participants can be limited only in a temporary historical
process 

 Cultural transmission between generations is a continuous process 
Pilcher (1994) describes Mannheim‟s generations theory as a clarification of
''complexity of times''. Demographers agree that generational cohorts share cultural,
political and economic experiences and values (Kotler and Keller, 2006).
Later, William Strauss and Neil Howe developed this theory and it is known as
Strauss-Howe theory in literature. They define and speculate the generations in
different groups living in 1991.
Table 2: Generations and their birth years (Strauss and Howe, 1991)
Missionary Generation 1860-1882
Lost Generation 1883-1900
The GI 1901-1924
The Silent Generation 1925-1942
Boom Generation 1943-1960
Generation X 1961-1981
The Millennial 1982-2003
Generation
Strauss-Howe theory claims that each generation is available for 20 years of period
and each generation experiences four turnings in their cycle that considered as
formative, Strauss and Howe (1998) explained the ''Fourth Turning Cycle '' theory as:
Crisis High
Unraveling Awakening
The first turning named as ''High'', this is the period of significant secular upheaval
while society is working on reorganizing the institutions and behaviours of the public.
The Silent Generation is considered as the members of this era.
Page | 19

24. The second turning is named as ''Awakening'', this is the period of the threatening of
the institutions with the aim of personal and spiritual autonomy. Members of this era
want to reach personal authenticity. Boomer Generation is considered as the members
of this era.
The third turning is named as '' Unraveling'', in contrast of Awakening, institutions are
weak and distrusted and while individualism is still strong. Generation X is considered
as the members of this era.
The fourth is turning named as ''Crisis'', this is the period during which that institutional
life has rebuilt from the beginning and the people begin to feel as a part of a larger
group. Generation Y is considered as the members of this era.
This research will only focus on three generations, Boomers, which will be also
mentioned as Baby-Boomers for the rest of the study, Generation X and the Millennial
Generation which will be also referred to as Generation Y.
These three generations are described as follows:
o Baby-Boomer Generation
They were born during the end of World War II and many of them are considered as
politically conservative (Madison and Bockanic, 2014). They value individualization,
self-expression and optimism (Hawkins and Mothersbaugh, 2010). They were raised
to be independent and they defining themselves by their professions and most of them
are workaholics (Koco, 2006). Similarly, most of the members of this generation built
a good career and reached the goals that they set for themselves (Madison and
Bockanic, 2014). Thus, during the 1990s Boomers became youngest ever presidents
and prime ministers and brought new changes to the world (Codrington, 2011).
Technologically, Boomers are can still be considered as ''old-fashioned'', yet most of
them embraced the new technologies (Madison and Bockanic, 2014).
o Generation X
The term Generation X is born from Douglas Coupland's novel '' Generation X: Tales
for an Accelerated Culture'' (Mitchell et al. 2005). The members became adults during
different economical crises (Regnier, 2009). Their experiences were also
Page | 20

25. shaped by the wars such as The Vietnam War or other events such as the fall of Berlin
Wall (Barber, 2013). They value family and their characteristics defined as pessimistic,
sceptical, disillusioned (Moore and Carpenter, 2008). Generation X members'
characteristics are also defined as rebellious and in relation with to value the family as
mentioned before, members of this generation said ''They feel alienated from their
absentee parents'' (Barber, p. 2013). They grew up with ''stranger fear'', which caused
them to feel they can only rely on their own judgements and their own experiences
(Barber, 2013). They tend to be risk averse and have lower self-esteem than any other
generations (Reisenwitz and Iyer, 2009). They are technology savvy and they are the
first generation had connection with the close relation with television, video games and
the Internet (Mitchell et al. 2005).
o Generation Y
Members of Generation Y were born into a technological society with no boundaries
with the global world, they value customization, integrity and innovation and this
generation‟s members are open-minded, optimistic and highly motivated (Williams
and Page, 2011). Codrington (2011, p.9) stated that ''They are living in an age of
unprecedented diversity and exposure to other cultures''. As a result, Generation Yyers
are more tolerant in relation to racial and cultural issues than other generations (Barber,
2013). Unlike the Generation X, members of this generation show high level of
confidence (Nicholas, 2009). Generation Y members are also technology savvy and
They are the first generation having interaction with e-mails, text massages and mobile
phones since childhood .
2.3.1 Generations and marketing
Some of the authors have argued the links between generational theories and
marketing. Consumer characteristics are the major determining factor in marketing.
Generation theory has been partially acknowledged and adopted by the marketer.
However, Multi-generational marketing is significant to marketers (Walker, 2003).
Marketing to generations involves extremely specific and individualized marketing
strategies that requires an understanding of different generations' cultural and political
influences that shaped their characteristics (Mathews-Wadhwa, 2012). Product and
service marketing professionals must shape their segmentation strategies according to
the dynamic consumer needs of generational cohorts (Reisenwitz and
Page | 21

26. Iyer,2009). However, according to Reisenwitz and Iyer (2009), Generation X and
Generation Y are often considered a homogeneous segment and the clash between
Generation X and Generation Y inevitable. For comparing the generational cohorts
according to their loyalty towards brands, lack of brand loyalty of Generation X and Y
members can change if they trust the brand but it lasts for six to eight months
(Reisenwitz and Iyer, 2009). Nevertheless, Generation X members show less brand
loyalty than the Boomer generation (Mitchell et al. 2005). The Hale‟s (2010) report
indicates how different marketing strategies creates an impact on different generations.
Baby-boomer generation increased their Twitter utilization 469% in 2009 and Twitter
asserts that Twitter is a good source of marketing to this generation. For both
Generations X and Generation Y, the results show that these generations are often
checking their e-mails but for Generation Y, YouTube promotions are more effective.
Ellison et al.(2007) stated that as a result of 'need for popularity' of Generation Y,
promoting on Facebook is also a way to attract this generation. Whereas, Williams and
Page (2011) state that for Baby-Boomer generation, marketers should focus on building
values and promote their brands with relevant promotions appropriate to their life stage,
not their age. Blogs can be particularly effective on Baby-boomer generation (Kumar
and Lim, 2008). For Generation X, Posnoc (2004) argues that this generation is
responding to direct mails. For Generation Y, which considered as Net generation or
digital natives on some sources, the results of the study by Ezumah (2013) mentions
that generation Y has great insight into digital marketing. Similarly McMillan and
Morrison (2006) state that Generation Y segment wants to receive the information
through the Internet.
2.3.2 Generations and trade shows
The existing literature was not found directly about generations and exhibitions. The
rest of this research paper aims to fill this gap within the literature. However, one of
the component of MICE industry is conferences and some authors like Davidson and
McMillin, researched the links between generations and conferences. Davidson (2008)
states that the conference industry should gather the wants and objectives of each
generation of participants. Davidson (2008) also stated that Generation X and
Generation Y is increasingly represented in business and they „‟out-vote‟‟ the Baby-
boomer generation. In contrast, McMillin (2014) states that Baby-boomer generation
has a reputation that they are anti-technological but preventing this stereotype and
Page | 22

27. focusing on reorganization on these areas can boost conference attendance from Baby-
boomer delegates. Young age delegates are expecting usage of technology
appropriately in conferences (Davidson and Rogers, 2006). This information about
conferences helps to form some general conclusions related to trade shows.
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction to the chapter
This chapter outlines the research methodology of this research. This chapter aims to
establish the possible research designs and to explain choices made in order to achieve
the best quality results. Details of the methodologies used will be explained in detail
in this chapter.
3.2 Philosophical approach
The philosophical approach is an essential first step of the research. The adopted
philosophy includes crucial assumptions which shape the research strategy and
methods of the study (Saunders et al., 2012). It is also important to reflect upon the
philosophical approach adopted and defend it with the alternative options could have
adopted (Johnson and Clark, 2006). For this reason, the following part will explain the
possible philosophical approaches and the choice made in detail.
According to Mackenzie and Knipe, (2006), the most common research philosophies
are positivism, interpretivism, transformatism and pragmatism. Explanations of these
philosophical approaches as follows:
The positivist approach emphasizes the concepts of independence of reality and the
aim of this philosophy is to discover the theories (Collis and Hussey, 2009). In other
words, positivism focused on facts, not impressions. (Saunders et al. ,2012). The
knowledge is provided from positive information in this approach. Walliman (2001,
p.15) describes positivist approach as ''Every rationally justifiable assertion can be
scientifically verified or is capable of logical or mathematical proof''.
Interpretivism is not an objective paradigm, it is highly subjective and this paradigm
claims that the reality is affected by the act of investigating it (Collis and Hussey,
Page | 23

28. 2009). The main difference of interpretivism from the other paradigms is the data is
not collected by quantitative methods (Strauss and Corbin, 1990).
The transformatist approach is generally against the interpretivist approach in terms of
addressing the questions in an appropriate way (Mackenzie and Knipe, (2006). The
transformatist approach may use the qualitative and quantitative approach. However,
the mixed methods also can be used in transformative paradigm to structure the
development of the research more completely (Mackenzie and Knipe, 2006).
The pragmatist approach emphasizes the concepts are only relevant where they support
the action (Kelemen and Rumens, 2008). According to Rossman and Wilson (1985),
pragmatist researcher emphasizes the question and uses all relevant approaches rather
than focusing on methods. The pragmatist approach asks „how‟ and „what‟ questions.
Whilst, looking at their answers at the same time and pragmatists put the research
question in the heart of the research, then develop the research using all approaches to
understand the question (Creswell, 2003). The pragmatist approach provides
fundamental philosophy for mixed method researches (Tashakkori and Teddlie , 2003).
This study has adopted the positivist approach since the research is based on an
existing theory and the data collection techniques that will be explained and discussed
in future sections, the most relevant approach to use to test the theory with statistical
relevance was the positivist paradigm.
3.3 Research approach
Quantitative and qualitative research methods are the most often used types in
researches. These methods are explained in detail below.
Mujis (2004) states that quantitative design may be used in situations where
researchers have specific questions in mind which can be answered 'yes' or 'no' type of
closed questions. Saunders et al. (2012) state that quantitative methods refer to both
primary and secondary data.
The qualitative method is described as ''Qualitative researchers are interested in
understanding the meaning people have constructed, that is, how people make sense
Page | 24

29. of their world and the experiences they have in the world'' (Merriam, 2009, p.13). This
method is used for understanding participants‟ knowledge, experience, process and
systems and so forth.
However, besides the two main methods mentioned above, mixing the quantitative and
qualitative methods called mixed methods. Mixed method research is defined as ''The
class of research where the researcher mixes or combines quantitative and qualitative
research techniques, methods approaches, concepts, or language into a single study”
(Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004, p. 17). Mixing both methods will help to understand
and analyse the details of the research topic.
Induction and deduction are two ways to find out what is true and what is false and
these are two stages of creating theories, either with empirical observations or with
logical reasoning (Ghauri and Grønhaug, 2005). Crowther and Lancaster (2009) link
the deductive approach to positivist philosophy and inductive approach to interpretivist
approach.
Table 3: Deductive versus Inductive research (Saunders et al. 2009,p.144)
Deduction Induction
Logic When the ideas are true, the The ideas are used to generate
results must be true as well untested conclusions
Generalisability From general to specific From specific to general
Data Use Data collection is used to Data collection is used to
evaluate hypotheses related to explore a phenomenon and to
existing theory create a conceptual framew ork
Theory Theory falsification or Theory generation and
verification building
In the light of the methodology literature discussed above, this research is conducted
on quantitative approach since the hypothesis was built on an existing theory and the
nature of the research includes a great number of respondents. The most appropriate
method to use was the quantitative method. Since the hypothesis made is based on a
theory, deductive approach was adopted.
Page | 25

30. 3.4 Research triangulation, reliabilityand validity
Triangulation is another technique to strengthen the study conducted. Triangulation is
the use of various sources of data with various methods and searching the same
phenomenon with different sources to increase the validity and reliability of the
research (Collis and Hussey, 2009).
According to Easterby-Smith et al. (1991) triangulation has different types such as:
 Theory triangulation : Explaining the phenomenon with the theory taken from
a discipline into another discipline. 

 Data Triangulation : Collecting the data from different sources or at a different
time. 

 Investigator Triangulation: Data collection by different researchers to
investigate the phenomenon. 

 Methodological Triangulation: Using multiple methods to collect or analysing
the data from the same paradigm. 
Altrichter et al. (2008, p.147) describe triangulation "Gives a more detailed and
balanced picture of the situation''. According to this statement, this study used data
triangulation in order to maximize the understanding of the research question.
Golafshani (2003, p.599) summarizes the reliability and validity of the quantitative
researches as " Firstly, with regards to reliability, whether the result is replicable.
Secondly, with regards to validity, whether the means of measurement are accurate and
whether they are actually measuring what they are intended to measure". This research
conducted questions in order that the results can be replicable for future studies.
Crocker and Algina (1986) discuss the issue of whether a respondent answer only one
set of questions, the researcher only can obtain limited behaviours. This research only
focused on generations‟ social media usage behaviours. For validity of the research is
construct validity was adopted as general approach in quantitative researches. The data
were gathered and constructed in the hypothesis (Wainer and Braun, 1988).
Page | 26

31. 3.5 Research method and design
A research can use different methods according to adopted research philosophy.
Table 4: Research Methods According to Paradigms Adapted from (Mackenzie and
Knipe, 2006)
Paradigm Method Data Collection
Positivism Quantitative Experiments, surveys, scales
Qualitative Interview s, observations, document
Interpretivism reviews and data analysis
Transformative Quantitative with qualitative Mixed range of tools particular need to
methods and mixed methods avoid discrimination. Eg. Sexism,
racism
Pragmatic Qualitative and/or quantitative. Tools from both Positivist and
Methods are matched with the Interpretivist paradigms.
specific questions and purpose of Interview s and surveys can be used
the research together.
Interviews ,observations, focus groups and surveys are the most common methods to
use in a study. A brief description of these methods is explained below.
McNamara (1999) found interviews useful in order to understand interviewees‟
experiences and getting in depth information about the background of the answer
given.
Interviews are divided three groups by King and Horrocks (2010) as :
 Structured interviews 

 Semi-structured interviews 

 Unstructured or in-depth interviews 
Observations are concerned with what sampling population in their natural
environment and according to Collis and Hussey (2009 p.154) ''Observation is a
method for collecting the data in a laboratory or natural setting to observe and record
the participants' actions and behaviours''.
Page | 27

32. Types of observations are :
 Non-participant observations 

 Participant observations 
Focus groups are used to gather information with certain group of people's opinions or
emotions and this method can be used to obtain feedback or developing knowledge
about a phenomenon (Collis and Hussey, 2009)
Surveys are another method to collect data in which respondents are asked to the
answer same set of questions (De Vaus, 2002). Ghauri and Grønhaug (2005) argue that
questionnaires are effective tool to understand the opinions and to get descriptions with
cause and effect relation.
After evaluating the possible methods, this study used questionnaires to match with
the research objectives. Since the research question includes population of visitors
from different generational cohorts visitors, it was not suitable to interview a large
number of people. Observation was not a possible method to understand the visitors'
attitudes about social media tools at a trade show. The only possible option to use a
different method was by exploring the marketing professionals. However, interviewing
the professionals was not possible and the reason for this choice is explained in
limitations part of the study.
Saunders et al. (2012) listed the types of questionnaire as:
 Self-completed questionnaires 

 Web based questionnaires 

 Postal questionnaires 

 Collection questionnaires 

 Interviewer completed questionnaires 

 Telephone questionnaires 
The chosen type of questionnaires was interviewer completed questionnaires with
visitors and web based questionnaires with marketing professionals. Designing the
questions of the questionnaire is an important factor for meeting the aimed data. Thus,
the busy nature of the trade shows was a determining factor for chosen type of
questionnaires. Interviewer completed questionnaires have better response rate than
Page | 28

33. self-completed questionnaires (Saunders et al., 2012). Questionnaires can be either
analytic surveys, which tests a theory with logic, descriptive surveys which are
concerned with identifying the phenomena (Ghauri and Grønhaug, 2005). Descriptive
surveys are mostly used to identify customer attitudes towards a product or a service
and the aim of the questions are to establish the attitudes towards social media
marketing of different generations (Reeves and Harper, 1981). Therefore, a descriptive
questionnaire was designed. To decide whether the questions will be open ended or
close ended questions is crucial for questionnaire design. Open ended questions may
affect the structure of the questionnaire and since the target population was large, close
ended questionnaire was designed in order to make the coding process easier.
Over all, in total 16 closed questions with four filter questions were designed and
completed by the researcher .The sample of questionnaire can be found in the
Appendix A.1. The questionnaire comprises as follows :
1. Age distribution
2. Main Reason for attending
3. Preferred device to use internet
4. Webpage usage
5. Webpage usage frequency
6. Online registration rate
7. Mobile application download rate
8. The reason for downloading the mobile application
9. Online additional informative event checking rates
10. Social Media Tools Preferences
11. Official Twitter account following
12. Reason for following the Twitter account
13. Tweeting rates
14. Official Facebook page likes
15. Reason for liking the Facebook page
16. YouTube video views
Page | 29

34. A web-based questionnaire, with eight closed questions including three interval
questions was designed. The sample of questionnaire can be found in the Appendix
A.2.
The questionnaire comprises as follows :
1. Importance of social media
2. Social media tools preferences
3. Preferred tools use durations
4. Importance of preferred tools
5. Primary objectives for using social media
6. Success measurement of social media
7. Demographic information captures
8. Arranging the content according to different generational cohorts
3.6 Sampling
Once the research problem specified and the appropriate research design and the
instruments developed the sampling is an extremely important phase for quantitative
research. (Ghauri and Grønhaug, 2005). Saunders et al. (2012) divide the main
sampling techniques into two groups:
 Probability sampling 

 Non-probability sampling 
Probability sampling is defined as each unit in the target population having a chance
of being selected and this type of sampling is aimed at reducing the sampling errors
(Ghauri and Grønhaug, 2005). Probability sampling is divided into four groups by
Brotherton (2008) such as: simple random, systematic random, stratified random and
cluster sampling. Brink and Wood (1994) associate the random sampling with
generalisability in terms of greater sampling sizes directly affecting the generalisability
of the study on entire population.
In contrast, in non-probability sampling not all the units in the population has an equal
chance of being selected. However, this sampling type can cause non-response error
which means some people refuse to participate (Ghauri and Grønhaug, 2005).
Page | 30

35. Non-probability sampling is also divided into different groups such as: quota
sampling, purposive sampling, volunteer sampling and haphazard sampling.
This study used non-probability purposive sampling strategy for first set of
questionnaires The target population of this questionnaire includes trade show visitors.
The data was collected at three different trade shows in London area. First set of was
data collected from The Meetings Show at Olympia on 9th of July 2014. This trade
show was for meetings industry professionals. 33 samples were collected from this
show. A pilot study was conducted on 6 participants and the second question was re-
designed after this pilot test. This question was designed as likert scale style. However,
this caused non-response error because of the lack of time for the respondents and the
question was affecting the sampling rate. Thus, 6 of these responses were not analysed.
At the end, only 27 responses were used from this show.
The second set of data was collected from Bubble London at Business Design Centre
on 13th and 14th of July 2014. This trade show was for children clothing and
accessories industry professionals. 32 samples were collected from this show.
The third set of data was collected from London Textile Fair at Business Design Centre
on 16th and 17th of July 2014. This trade show was for textile industry professionals
and 47 samples were collected from this show.
Overall, in total 106 samples were collected all the data was completed by the
researcher.
This study used non-probability volunteer sampling strategy for the second set of
questionnaires. The target population of this questionnaire includes trade show
marketing professionals.
The data was designed in web-based survey tool called ''Kwik Surveys''
(www.kwiksurveys.com) and published at LinkedIn on trade show and trade show
marketing professionals groups. These groups are as follows : Tradeshow Marketing
Pros, Tradeshow Marketing, The Exhibition and Events Platform, The International
Association of Exhibitions and Events, Exhibition News Magazine and Exhibitors.
Page | 31

36. Non-probability sampling was also used for this set of questionnaire. Total of 14
samples were collected by 21st of August.
3.7 Methods of data analysis
Ghosh (2002) discusses the purpose of data analysis as building an intellectual model
which helps to create relationships and to draw meaningful conclusions.
For quantitative data analysis, the results were entered into Microsoft Excel and the
results from KwikSurveys also entered into an Excel table to draw frequency tables,
and graphs to identify valid percentages of the survey questions. Both of the
questionnaires included questions that allowed respondents to select more than one
answer. These questions were analysed in SPSS by coding each response as a separate
variable and then grouped under a multiple response set of variables and used for
frequency counts. Then the results were also added into Excel. The graphs of each
question can be found in the appendices section.
3.8 Ethical considerations
Ethical issues was considered in each step of the study, which involves human beings.
Ethical compliance form was filled out for two sets of surveys which includes project
title, brief outline of the study. The questionnaires were conducted only after the
approval of the ethical form. The permission e-mails for making the surveys at venues,
were sent to the organizers. However, only one acceptance came from the organizers
of London Textile Fair, from Bubble London there was no reply from the organizers,
though there were no rejection e-mail were sent either. For The Meetings Show, the
surveys were collected outside of the venue. The only sensitive question was asked is
the participants age. For dealing with this problem, while the respondents been
informed about the project title before participation, they were also informed that the
first question would be focus on their age. Only over 18 years old were involved to the
surveys. All the survey papers had a introductory paragraph, which included the
information about confidentiality and the collected data be kept and guaranteed under
the Data Protection Act 1998. All the data was collected was kept in researcher‟s
password protected computer and the written documents were kept in a locked drawer.
Page | 32

37. 3.9 Limitations of the study
The chosen trade shows were located United Kingdom, London area, as a result of this,
the findings will be restricted within this area. This limitation might affect the
universalism of the study. Another limitation of the study was the sampling size. The
low response rate experienced in this study due to busy business environment of the
trade shows. Higher response rate would potentially have led to more statistically
significant results. As a result of low response rate, the sampling sizes between the
generations were not equally distributed . Since non-probability sampling was used,
this may affect the generalisability of the research.
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
4.1 Introduction
First chapter explains the results of the questionnaires conducted with trade show
visitors. This chapter includes an analysis of the different variables to establish the
trade show visitor attitudes towards Web 2.0 marketing and other online technology
tools at trade shows and this followed by the analysis of the trade show marketing
professionals' practices on social media marketing and generations. This section is
explained under five different sub-sections of :
i. Age distribution
ii. Main reason for attending the trade show of different generations
iii. Webpage and mobile application usage at trade shows of different generations
iv. Attitudes towards Web 2.0 tools and trade show social media marketing tools Of
different generations
v. Trade show marketing professionals' practices towards social media marketing
usage.
Finally, this chapter ends with a critical discussion of the findings and their connections
with the existing literature in order to see if the results support the literature or
contradict it.
Page | 33

38. 4.2 Statistical analysis of results
i. Age distribution
The first question of the questionnaire was a filter question, which was used to analyse
and separate the generational cohorts. As noted on methodology chapter in details, the
research population at trade shows comprised 106 participants. The age distribution of
the participants is shown in figure 5 below:
12.2%
54-71 Baby-Boom er
25.5% Generation
62.3% 33-53 Generation X
18-32 Generation Y
Figure 5: Age distribution
As can be seen from the figure 5, 12.2% of the participants are between the ages 54-
71, which represents the Baby-Boomer Generation. 25.5% of the participants are
between the ages 33-53, which represents the Generation X. Finally, 62.3% of the
participants are between the ages 18-32, which represents the Generation Y.
ii. Main reason for attending the trade show of different generations
The second question sought to establish reasons for attending the trade show in order
to form a conclusion about the social media tools usage according to their motivations.
The result of the question is shown Appendix B.1.
The results show that the main attendance motivations for Baby-Boomers is making
business contacts (30.8%), followed by general interest with 23.1%, to gather specific
product information 15.4%. To gather industry information for purchasing and
attending seminars and conferences are equal reasons with 7.7% for the Baby-Boomer
Generation. However, seeing new products is not a motivation for Baby-boomers
(0%). For Generation X , the highest motivation for attendance is making business
contacts (33.3%). The next motivation for this generation is to gather
Page | 34

39. industry information for purchasing with 29.6%. This is followed by seeing new
products 25.9% , purchasing 7.4% and gathering specific product information 3.7%.
However, attending seminars/conferences and general interest was not ranked as a
reason by Generation X population. Finally, for Generation Y population, the strongest
motivation for attending is gathering information for purchasing with 36.4%, followed
by seeing new products with 21.2 %, making business contacts 18.2%, general interest
10.6%, purchasing 3.0%, while the lowest motivational factor was gathering specific
product information. In the light of these results, each generational cohort has different
motivations for attending a trade show. However, the Baby-Boomer Generation and
Generation X population attended trade shows primarily for networking reasons.
iii. Webpage and mobile applicationusage at trade shows of
different generations
The following question on the questionnaire sought to establish the types of devices
used by the different generations in order to determine if the preferences for devices
is portable as opposed to not portable, which affects the accessibility to internet at
trade shows. This question can also indicate some information on social media tools
usage at trade shows. Another reason is to establish the mobile application
improvements if needed, according to their smart device usage.
(%)
Baby-boomers Generation X Generation Y
47.0
40.7 38.5 37.9
23.1 25.9 25.9
15.4 15.4
7.4 3.0 4.5 7.4
0.00.0
Desktop computer Laptop Tablets Smart phones PDA
Figure 6: Preferred device to use internet
Page | 35

40. Figure 6 above shows that both Generation Y (47.0%) and Generation X (40.7%)
members mostly use their laptops to access the internet. However, Baby-Boomers
prefer to use tablets more than the other two generations (38.5%). Generation X
members are use tablets and smartphones equally (25.9%). The lowest rate of tablet
usage occurred among the Generation Y population (4.5%) and for the smartphone
usage, the lowest rate was given by the Baby-Boomer members (15.4%). Desktop
computers are mostly preferred by the Baby-Boomer Generation (23.1%) and are the
least preferred device for both Generation Y (3.0%) and Generation X (7.4%).
However, PDA (Personal Digital Assistants) are only used by the Baby-Boomer
Generation (7.4%). Yet, this is the lowest preference for the Baby-Boomer Generation.
These results show that all generational cohorts mostly preferred portable devices and
the results indicate some similarities between Generation Y and Generation X
preferences.
The next question sought to establish the official web page usage and traffic in order
to see if the visitors prefer to gain information via a webpage instead of social media
marketing tools, as well as to establish the efficiency of the webpage as a marketing
tool.The graph related with this question can be found in appendix B.2. The results
show that a large portion of each generational cohorts visited the webpage and the
highest website visits were by the Baby-Boomer Generation (92.3%), followed by
Generation X (85.2%) and then followed by Generation Y( 81.8%).
The following question related to
analyse webpage usage frequency
figure 7 below.
each generations' webpage usage in order to by
each generation. The results are shown in
Baby-boomers Generation X Generation Y
78.3%
66.7% 61.1%
33.3%
27.8%
8.7% 8.3% 8.7% 9.3%
0.0%
4.3%
1.9%
only once 2-5 times 6-10 times More than 10 times
Figure 7: Web page visit frequency
Page | 36

41. It is immediately apparent that within each generation, most participants visited the
webpage 2 to 5 times. The rate of single webpage visits by each generation decreases
considerably, with a further decrease in the percentage of participants from each
generation visiting the website between 6 to 10 times. A small portion of the
Generation X (4.3%) and Generation Y (1.9%) members visited the webpage more
than 10 times while no Baby-Boomers visited the website more than 10 times.
The online registration rates at trade show results are directly related to the website
visits (see Appendix B.3). A possible reason for this relationship is that the online
registration directions are mainly located on the event's official webpage. All
generations who registered online automatically visited the web site. The results are as
follows: the Baby-Boomer Generation registered 92.3% online and 7.7% registered
offline. These results are followed by Generation X registered 85.2% online and 14.8%.
registered offline. The final and lowest online registration (81.8%) and lowest offline
registration results (12.8%) was given by Generation Y.
The next stage of this line of research was to establish whether visitors downloaded
the mobile applications or not and to establish the reason for downloading the
application.
Surprisingly, the greatest number of respondents from each generational cohort were
not interested in trade show mobile applications (see Appendix B.4). Generation X
members were the highest population to indicate they had not downloaded the mobile
application (92.6%), followed by Generation Y (78.8%). Lastly, 69.2% of Baby-
Boomers did not download the mobile application.
The next question was designed to discover the reasons behind downloading the
mobile application. Reponses to this question only include the visitors who
downloaded the mobile application and as the respondents could choose multiple
answers, this question was analysed in SPSS using the dichotomy technique in order
to obtain the percentage of each answer by using the multiple response set.
Page | 37

42. 64.3%
Gaining information about the
44.4%
50% 50% showprogramme
33.3% Online bookings with the
22.2% 21.4% exhibitors
14.3% Networking
0
Baby-boomers Generation X Generation Y
Figure 8: The reason for downloading the mobile application
The results illustrate that the Baby-Boomer Generation mostly downloaded the mobile
application for networking reasons (44.4%). This reason is closely followed by gaining
information about the show programme (33.3%). The weakest reason for this
generation was online booking with the exhibitors (22.2%). Generation X respondents'
results were evenly distributed with regard to the reason of gaining information about
the programme (50%) and networking (50%). Surprisingly, Generation X respondents
did not choose online bookings with exhibitors as a reason for downloading the mobile
application. The largest number of Generation Y participants downloaded the mobile
application to gain information about the programme (64.3%). This choice was
followed by networking reasons (21.4%) and online bookings with exhibitors (14.3%).
Question 7 of the questionnaire sought to establish if trade show visitors were attracted
or not attracted by the distribution of additional event information through the online
tools. The results of this question are displayed in figure 9 below.
Baby-Boomers Generation X Generation Y
37%
23.1% 23.7%
Figure 9: Checking Seminars/Conferences Online Before Visit
Page | 38

43. The results of this question clearly show that finding online event information
distribution is generally less attractive to all three generations, compare to other
reasons. Only 37% of the Generation X population answered that they checked the
additional informative events online followed almost evenly with by Generation Y
23.7% and of the Baby-Boomer generation 23.1%. Interestingly, the highest results
belong to Generation X. However, comparing this information with the attendance
motivation results, attending conferences and seminars were not a motivation for
Generation X. On the other hand, the results of question 7 are generally in line with
the attendance motivations for Generation Y and the Baby-Boomer generation.
iv. Attitudes towards Web 2.0 tools and trade show social media
marketing tools of different generations
The following analysis sought to establish the attitudes towards Web 2.0 tools of
different generations in order to analyse if their general Web 2.0 usages met with the
results of at show usages. The Results for this question are shown below in figure 10.
(%)
Baby-boomersGeneration X Generation Y
96.3
95.5
85.2 84.881.5 84.6
69.2
74.2
57.6 55.6
61.5
53.8 53.0
48.1 53.0
40.7
38.5
30.8 25.9
27.3
14.8
7.7 7.1 7.6
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Youtube Pinterest Google+ Blogging sites Others
Figure 10: Social Media Tools Preferences
In general, Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn are the most preferred social media tools
of all the generations. However, LinkedIn is the only equally preferred tool of all the
generations and most preferred tool of the Baby-Boomer Generation. On almost every
social media tool there is a similarity between Generation X and Generation Y. The
YouTube preferences decrease starting with Generation Y to Baby-boomers. With
Pinterest, the results show that more than half of the Generation X (55.6%) and
Page | 39

44. Generation Y (53%) populations preferred to use it. However, for Pinterest the lowest
result belongs to the Baby-Boomer Generation (38.5%). Google+ was the third most
preferred tool of the Baby-Boomer Generation with 61.5%, followed by Generation Y
(53%) and Generation X with 40.7%. Blogging sites had lower results compared with
the previous tools on all generations. However, the respondents were invited to specify
other Web 2.0 tools that they used; 14.8% of Generation X members added other social
media tools such as Instagram (3 respondents) and Tumblr (1 respondent). 7.6% of the
Generation Y population specified the same social media tools as Generation X -
Instagram (4 respondents) and Tumblr (1 respondent). These additions are parallel with
other social media preferences for both generations. Lastly, 1 respondent from the
Baby-Boomer Generation population at 7.1%, specified another social media tool
called Baidu.
The final five questions were designed to establish the at-show social media tools usage
by the different generations. Accordingly, the next question sought to establish the
official Twitter account usage by the three different generations. This question was
answered only by the respondents who had a Twitter account. The percentages do not
indicate the total number of respondents. The results shown in figure 11 below.
Baby-Boomers Generation X Generation Y
31.8%
28.6%
18.4%
Figure 11: Following the official Twitter Account
Interestingly, the greatest proportions of respondents who have Twitter accounts do
not use this tool. Highly significantly, 81.6% of Generation Y respondents do not
follow the official Twitter account of the trade show. This result is followed by the
Baby-Boomer Generation with 71.4% and 68.2% of Generation X respondents.
Official Twitter account following rates start to decrease from Generation X (31.8%),
followed by the Baby-Boomer Generation (28.6%) and Generation Y (18.4%). More
Page | 40

45. than a quarter of Baby-Boomer and Generation X members were interested in the trade
show Twitter account.
The next question sought to establish the reasons for visitors following Twitter in order
to determine the possible motivations for subsequent use.
Gaining information about the event Finding out about the competitors Networking
50% 50%
40% 40%
33.3%
25% 25%
20%
16.7%
Baby-boomers Generation X Generation Y
Figure 12: Reasons for following the Twitter Account
As the results of the question are displayed in the figure 12 above, it is apparent that
the most popular reason for following the Twitter account for both the Baby-Boomer
Generation and Generation Y was gaining information about the event with 50% for
both generations. A quarter of Baby-Boomer Generation participants gave even
importance to finding out about the competitors and networking with 25%. Likewise,
Generation X participants gave an even importance to gaining information about the
event and finding out about the competitors with 40%. However only 20% of
Generation X participants followed the Twitter account for networking purposes.
Generation Y members followed the Twitter account secondly for finding out about
the competitors (33.3%) and lowest portion of this population used the Twitter account
for networking reason (16.7%). It can be generalized that each generations commonly
followed the Twitter account for gaining information about the event.
The last question related to Twitter sought to establish the tweeting action about the
event.
Despite the fact that 28.6% of Baby-Boomer Generation participants followed the
Twitter account, only 14.3% of them tweeted about the trade show, which is the lowest
result compared with the other two generations. However, for both Generation X
(22.7%) and Generation Y (16.3%) a similar number of each group that followed
Page | 41

46. the trade show Twitter account, also tweeted about the event as well. of the Generation
Y members tweeted about the trade show. Generation X population showed the highest
rate of tweeting about the event.( Appendix B.5)
The following two questions of the questionnaire sought to establish official Facebook
page likes and the reasons behind it in order to determine the possible motivations for
subsequent use.
Baby-Boomers Generation X Generation Y
19.2% 20.6%
11.8%
Figure 13: Official Facebook Page Likes
As with Twitter, Facebook page likes from each generations were generally very low.
However, comparing these two social media tools results, Facebook likes are slightly
lower than Twitter results. Generation Y (20.6%) and Generation X (19.2%) show very
similar percentages. However, the Baby-Boomer Generation population's results are
the lowest (11.8%).
Gaining information about the event
Finding out about the competitors
Networking
66.7%
50% 50%
42.9% 42.9%
14.3%
20%
13.3%
0%
Baby-boomers Generation X Generation Y
Figure 14: Reason for following the Facebook page
It can be seen from the preceding graph that 50% of the Baby-Boomer Generation
liked the official Facebook page for gaining information. This is similar to the
Page | 42

47. Twitter results. However, for Facebook, none of the Boomer population gave
importance to finding out about the competitors and networking purposes was doubled
to 50%. For Generation Y, it is clear that gaining information about the event and
finding out about the competitors were evenly important (42.9%). Yet, networking as
a reason is only 14.3%. Generation Y gave the main reason for liking the Facebook
page as gaining information about the event (66.7%) and a dramatic decrease can be
seen from the table, when compared to the Twitter results related to finding out about
the competitors (20%) and networking purposes (13.3%).
Finally, visitors were asked whether they had watched the official YouTube video of
the trade show.
As with the other three social media tools, YouTube video views rates are low.
However, the most significant finding is that the Baby-Boomer Generation preferred to
watch YouTube video more than other generations (23.1%). Generation X (12.1%) and
Generation Y (7.4%) participants showed a similar attitude towards watching the
official YouTube about the trade show as each other.(Appendix B.6)
Also another significance fact that almost all participants indicated that they were not
aware that these tools existed for these events because they simply had not noticed the
icons on the webpage of the event.
v. Trade show marketing professionals' perspective on social
media marketing at trade shows and generations
The first question asked of the trade show marketing professionals aimed to analyse
marketers' perspective on social media marketing at trade shows. 42.8% of the
respondents found social media marketing very important according to their marketing
plans and 35.7% of the respondents found social media marketing important according
to their marketing plans. However 21.4% of respondents are still neutral to social
media marketing. None of the respondents ranked the social media unimportant or very
unimportant. This shows social media marketing has a role in trade show
marketing.(Appendix B.7)
Page | 43

48. On the following question of the questionnaire, professionals were asked to choose
social media tools which they use on their social media marketing plans, The results
of this question can be found in figure 15.
20.4%
18.6% 18.6%
14.8%
11%
7.4%
5.6%
3.6%
Facebook TwitterLinkedin Youtube Pinterest Google + Blogs Mobile
Apps
Figure 15: Preferred Tools For Social Media Marketing
20.4% of the professionals preferred to use LinkedIn primarily. Next Facebook and
Twitter were evenly distributed at 18.6%. These results were followed by YouTube
(14.8%), Blogs (11%) and mobile applications(5.6%). The least ranked tool was
Pinterest with 3.6%.
The next question sought to establish the importance of each tool to professionals
according to their trade show marketing plans.
Very Unimportant Neutral Important Very
Unimportan t Important
Facebook
(14.2%) (0.0%) (28.5%) (42.8%) (14.2%)
Twitter
(14.2%) (7.1%) (28.5%) (21.4%) (28.5%)
Linkedin
(7.1%) (14.2%) (28.5%) (14.2%) (35.7%)
Youtube
(7.1%) (28.5%) (21.4%) (7.1%) (35.7%)
Pinterest
(21.4%) (42.8%) (28.5%) (7.1%) (0.0%)
Google +
(28.5%) (28.5%) (7.1%) (21.4%) (14.2%)
Blogs
(14.2%) (21.4%) (21.4%) (35.7%) (7.1%)
Mobile
Apps (42.8%) (14.2%) (14.2%) (14.2%) (14.2%)
Figure 16: Importance ofthe tools
Page | 44

49. The results shows that the two most important tools were LinkedIn and YouTube for
professionals, evenly distributed at 35.7%. The third ranked tool was Twitter (28.5%).
However, 28.5% of the professionals considered Twitter neutral to their marketing
plans. Facebook was next ranked as an important tool by marketers with 42.8%,with
Blogs ranked at 35.7%., Pinterest (42.8%) and Google + (28.5%) were considered an
unimportant tools for trade show marketing. However, 28.5% of professionals ranked
Google+ very unimportant. Surprisingly , mobile applications were seen as a very
unimportant for trade show marketing plans. Even so, 14.2% of the professionals
ranked mobile applications as very important.
The next question sought to establish the engagement of marketing professionals with
the given tools. The graph related with this question can be found in appendix B.8. The
results show that professionals had utilised YouTube (55.5%), LinkedIn (55.5%),
Facebook (40%), Blogs (40%) and Twitter (36.3%) for more than 2 years. Pinterest
and Google+ are just beginning to be used by most professionals, with 50% of them
indicating that they had only started using these tools within the last 6 months.
However, mobile applications are considered by the professionals as a very
unimportant tool, as 40% of the professionals had used mobile applications for between
6 months to 1 year.
The next question sought to establish the objectives of the professionals in using social
media tools. The graph related with this question can be found in appendix B.9.Brand
awareness and customer engagement were the highest (and evenly) ranked reasons
with 32.4% of the professionals. Customer support (18.9%) was closely followed by
customer loyalty (16.2%).
The next question sought to analyse the success measurements in social media
marketing of the professionals. The graph related with this question can be found in
appendix B.10. Most of the trade show marketing professionals responded that they
measure the success of their social media marketing performance with
followers/shares/likes (42.3%). 30.8% of the respondents choose to check comments
to measure success and 26.9% of the respondents choose to monitor hashtags to
measure the success of their practices.
The last two questions of the questionnaire were designed to establish the
professionals' perspective to multi-generational marketing.
Page | 45

50. On the following question, professionals were asked if they capture demographic
information on their social media marketing efforts. The graph related with this
question can be found in appendix B.11. More than half of the respondents answered
that they are not currently capturing the demographic information (64.3%). Only
21.4% of the professionals captured the demographic information and other 14.3% of
the participants do not think that this is important.
Lastly, the professionals were asked if they arrange their social media contents
according to different generations' interests or needs.
Arranging Not arranging
36%
64%
Figure 17: Arranging the contents according to generations interests or needs
As can be seen from the figure 17 above, 64.3% of the respondents answered they do
not. However, 35.7% of the professionals arrange their contents according to different
generations' interest or needs.
4.3 Findings
This chapter aims to give a critical discussion of the findings and the analysis, in the
light of existing literature as discussed previously in chapter two. The overall aim of
this study was to examine the effectiveness of social media marketing tools on the
Baby-Boomer Generation, Generation X and Generation Y trade show visitors.
As noted in the literature review, there is not too many academic research which
demonstrates the social media marketing effects on different generational cohorts at
trade shows. Rittichainuwat and Mair (2012) explain the motivational factors under
four main titles. The results show the main attendance motivations distribution
supporting the information that they gave. Applying these motivational factors to each
generation, as Breiter and Milman (2006) found in their research the most
Page | 46

51. popular reason given is networking opportunities with 61.6%. That is strongly
evidenced in the results section. 33.3% of Generation X and 30.8% of the Baby-
Boomer Generation main reason for attendance is networking. As Rosson and
Seringhaus (1995) discuss another major purpose of attendance is gathering
information from exhibitors and investigating products. For 36.4% of the Generation
Y population, gathering industry information for purchasing was the main reason.
The results of the preferred device for connecting to internet are quite surprising. The
Baby-Boomer Generation are considered as technologically old fashioned. However,
for 38.5% of them , the most preferred device was tablets, which supports the Madison
and Bockanic (2014) statement that most of the Boomer Generation members has
embraced the new technologies. As discussed by many authors, Generation X and
Generation Y are highly technology savvy ,with 40.7% of Generation X and 47% of
Generation Y preferring laptops as a primary device. However, as Reisenwitz and Iyer
(2009) mentioned, Generation Y is the only generation having interaction with phones
since their childhood. As a result of this, Generation Y population's second choice of
device was their smartphones.
The results of webpage usage of the trade shows are significant. More than 80% of all
generations visited the website, and a large proportion of all three generations visited
the website between 2-5 times. As Ling-Yee (2010) discusses, greater usage of the
website comes from a higher customer orientation. In the light of the existing literature,
this indicates trade shows are successful with their customer orientation.
The Baby-Boomer Generation is the most online registered generation, while
Generation Y is the least online registered generation. Online registration rates are
directly linked with the webpage visits. Visitors who visit the webpage also registered
online . This conclusion supports Davidson et al. (2002) suggestion that the visitors
having registered online are led to seek other information on the webpage. Thus, the
online registration indirectly increases the webpage visit rate.
Generation X is the generation least interested in mobile applications, while the Baby-
Boomer Generation is the generation most interested in mobile applications. The
reason given for the Baby-Boomer Generation population's usage of mobile
applications is for networking, for Generation X the two reasons given are networking
and gaining information about the show programme, while for
Page | 47

52. Generation Y gaining information about the event programme is the main reason given.
Overall , rates of mobile application downloads were very low compared to webpage
usage. This supports the argument of Davidson et al. (2002) that the webpage may
contain the show programme and online appointment opportunities are mainly
accessed through the webpage instead of mobile applications.
The information distribution of the additional events such as seminars and conferences
online was not effective on the three generations. However, the results show that the
motivational factors are also in line with checking additional information online. For
Generation X, attending seminars and conferences was not a reason for attending. This
generation's strongest motivation was networking though the highest results belongs
to this generation. This clearly supports Tanner et al.
(2001) statement that seminars and conferences are important at tradeshows in terms
of networking. Therefore, these results are not surprising.
The generations' social media tools preferences clearly supports the argument of
Reisenwitz and Iyer, (2009) that in terms of Generation Y and Generation X tendencies
are similar. Thus, these two generations can be considered as a homogenous segment.
When compared to the Baby-Boomer Generation the difference is clear.
According to Holloman (2013) Twitter is by far the most common tool at trade shows
rather than Facebook However, the results of this study show this can only be
generalized for Baby-Boomer and Generation X members. Generation Y differs from
what Holloman (2013) stated. Facebook is the most appropriate channel to reach the
Generation Y population. According to the Hale's (2010) report, Twitter is a good
source of marketing to Baby-Boomer Generation and the results of the research support
this statement. However, according to the same report, YouTube is an effective
marketing channel to use on Generation Y. The results of the research contradict Hale's
(2010) report as with 7.4% Generation Y is the generation least interested in YouTube
video of the trade show. Ezumah (2013) argues that Generation Y has great insight to
digital marketing. However, generally this contradicts with the Ezumah's (2013)
statement as well, since Generation Y population did not show significant positive
differences compared to the other two generations. Moreover, a considerable
proportion of all generations used these tools
Page | 48