The document evaluates factors that maximize visitor engagement at exhibition stands, focusing on exhibitor behavior, stand design, and location. It highlights the importance of professional and engaging exhibitors, effective space utilization, and how location affects visibility and attendee circulation. The study utilized non-participant observations and subjective data analysis to draw conclusions, noting that certain behaviors by exhibitors negatively impacted participant engagement.

1. Conclusion and recommendations
References
Introduction
Research aim: to evaluate the factors
that maximise participants visitation to a
stand.
Research objectives:
1. Analyse exhibitors behaviour in relation to
the effects on participants
2. Evaluate the design elements that
contribute to make a stand successful in
term of participants attractiveness
3. Examine the stands location and
participant circulation
Methodology
What make a stand attractive to visitors?
Stands observed:
• Category 1 “Learning a language”
• Category 2 “Job seeker”
Results
Objective 1, exhibitors behavior:
• front/back area (Grove and Fisk, 1992)
• importance of engaging with customers (Pine and
Gilmore ,1999)
• exhibitors need to be trained
Objective 2, stand design
• colours
• use of the stand space
• consistency
If well managed these factors can change the
perception of participants in relation to the quality of
the service delivered (Grove and Fisk, 1992)
Objective 3, stand location and participant
circulation
• stand location can affect its visibility. Category 1
busier than 2, perhaps due to the adjacency with
Piazza
• attendees choice behaviour can be predict by the
Institute Camoes
Co-destructive exhibitors behaviour (Ple’ and Caceres,
2010). They were engaged in conversation among
themselves when participants walked into the stand which
resulted to them making no effort with approaching
potential customers.
Also the space in the stand was poorly used, only one
small table located far from the information material.
Travel Ltd
A solid connection between the stand, the exhibitors and
the products displayed was easy to be perceived. The
attention of a lot of attendees that were walking by the
stand, seemed to be caught by the food and the friendly
exhibitors who managed to create a positive atmosphere.
Mulitingalvacancies.com:
The exhibitor was busy on her phone and, like in the
Instituto Cameo, this behaviour can be considered as co-destructive.
This might have deterred participants from
engaging with her. The stand design was really poor
which gave visitors little incentive to come and visit it
Visitors at the stands “general value principle” (Bitgood 2006).
This research is characterised by an
interpretivist approach as the data collected
have been subjectively interpreted (Fox et
al., 2014).
A non-participant observation was
conducted in order to gather both
quantitative (No. of people that approached
the stands and collected a brochure) and
qualitative (participant face expressions and
atmosphere) data.
A convenient sample of four stands was
selected and examined on Friday 17 October
from 4 to 6 o’clock, snap shot.
Due to the sample and time frame adopted
generalisations from this research would not
be appropriated.
Barbara Cerutti
bac0178@my.londonmet.ac.uk
436- Institute Francais 418- Instituto Camoes –
Portuguese Language
CZ11- PGL Travel Ltd
CZ21-
Multilingalvacancies.com Ltd
category
Institute Francaise
This was the most visited stand. The
exhibitors were really professional and
always engaged with participants. Perhaps
at a certain time it became too busy, yet the
overcrowding invited more visitor curiosity
(Bitgood, 2006).
Bitgood, S. (2006), An Analysis of Visitor Circulation: Movement Patterns and the
General Value Principle
Fox, D., Gouthro, M., Morakabati, Y. and Brackstone, J. (2014) Doing Events Research
From theory to practice
Grove, S and Fisk, R. (1992), The Service Experience as Theater. Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol. 19 pp. 455-460
Pine, I and Gilmore, J. (1998) Welcome to the Experience Economy, Harvard Business
Review, 74(4) pp. 97=105
Ple’, L. and Caceres, R. (2010) Not always co-creation: introducing interactional co-destruction
of value in service-dominant logic, Journal of Service Marketing, Vol. 24(6)