International Trade Fairs and Global Buzz, Part I: Ecology of Global Buzz

Abstract

This paper investigates the importance of temporary face-to-face (F2F) contact and the physical co-presence of global communities in establishing a particular information and communication ecology during international trade fairs, referred to as “global buzz”. International trade fairs bring together agents from all over the world and create temporary spaces for presentation and interaction. Within a specific institutional setting, participants not only acquire knowledge through F2F communication with other agents, but also obtain information by observing and systematically monitoring other participants. The fact that firms do not necessarily have to be in direct contact with a specific source of information to get access to this knowledge makes participation in these events extremely valuable. International trade fairs have become important expressions of new geographies of circulation through which knowledge is created and exchanged at a distance. This paper analyses the constituting components of global buzz and aims to dismantle the complexity of this phenomenon in a multi-dimensional way. When applying this concept to Internet trade fairs, the question arises whether a similar information and communication ecology, or virtual buzz, can be established. We explore similarities and differences between both forms of buzz, using the same classification scheme.

Acknowledgements

Parts of this paper were presented in 2007 at the Annual Meeting of the Association of American Geographers in San Francisco and the Second Global Conference on Economic Geography in Beijing and in 2009 at the Workshop on “Creative Cities” of CRÉ de Montréal and the Department of International Business at HEC Montréal. It draws upon research which was jointly conducted by both authors, who contributed equally to this paper. For critical comments and thoughtful remarks at different stages, we wish to thank the reviewers, Bjorn Asheim, Bill Beyers, Lars Coenen, Patrick Cohendet, Peter Dannenberg, Rachael Gibson, Atle Hauge, Oliver Ibert, Nicole Kogler, Raj Kollmorgen, Kati-Jasmin Kosonen, Roger Lee, Pengfei Li, Michael Plattner, Allen Scott and Clare Wiseman. Many of the ideas developed in this paper have also benefited from close collaboration with Anders Malmberg and Peter Maskell (Maskell et al., 2004, 2006). Parts of this research were funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and Weber Maschinenbau GmbH in Breidenbach, Germany.

Notes

‡In memoriam Waltraud Bathelt.

It is interesting to note in this respect that the sales function of trade fairs has seemingly become less important compared to other goals. Borghini et al. (2006) found in their study of 11 European trade fairs in the areas of textile/apparel and wood/furniture that up to 50% of the visitors could be viewed as atypical (i.e. suppliers, competitors or firms from other sectors). Of the typical visitors (i.e. traders, wholesalers, importers or industrial customers), on average only 22% and 34% actually made purchases at trade-related and industrial fairs, respectively.

Our arguments draw from other empirical studies of international trade fairs (e.g. Borghini et al., 2004; Entwistle & Rocamora, 2006; Rinallo & Golfetto, 2006), as well as from our own empirical work conducted between 2004 and 2006 at seven national/international trade fairs in Frankfurt/Main, Nürnberg and Hannover, Germany (see also Bathelt & Schuldt, 2008a; Part II, forthcoming).

In fact, evidence can be found that virtual occupational communities are connected to trade fairs and shape the purchasing behaviour of agents by spreading knowledge and evaluations about products and firms (Rinallo et al., 2008).

We are aware that the term “buzz” is used in different ways in everyday language, often referred to as chatting, gossip or rumour. In using this term as a metaphor, our aim is to enable potential readers to quickly grasp the concept. However, what we refer to is the specific information and communication ecology in temporary clusters and not general talk about everyday events.

This, of course, does not imply that other places are not also connected to extra-regional knowledge pools. It suggests that we should not interpret “local” and “global”, or “permanent” and “temporary”, as fixed, separate or unrelated concepts, but rather focus on their dynamics and interrelations.

We are aware that different types of knowledge can be differentiated (e.g. Asheim & Gertler, 2005). In our context, which focuses on in situ “practices” of interaction and knowledge circulation, we do not need to draw on such distinctions.

Of course, there are also examples of how critical evaluations in media reports can negatively impact a firm's commercial success. Furthermore, buzz can have negative effects, especially if consciously used to spread false information about products, markets and other agents. It could harm the reputation of third parties and lead a firm to focus on less prospective developments. However, since participants in trade fairs are in contact with a multitude of different agents, it is unlikely that misleading information spread by one party would have a substantial impact. Normally, individuals are constantly confronted with similar types of information during a trade fair and sort through the whole set of information and news (Bathelt & Schuldt, 2008b).

We have to keep in mind that basic technical standards are not homogenized at a global scale. Due to deviating national/international standards, different knowledge practices exist which involve different traditions and skill sets. Trade fairs are an ideal place where aspects of technology transfer and harmonization can be discussed and negotiated between specialized communities. This is also exemplified by a large number of seminars and specialty-group meetings which are organized during these events.

Not all participants, however, might enjoy these work interruptions in the same way. Executives, who participate in many trade fairs every year and attend these events for 1 or 2 days only, might find the performative character of these events quite disruptive.

One has to keep in mind that the process of establishing business relationships is not related to a singular trade fair (e.g. Godar & O'Connor, 2001; Power & Jansson, 2008). Firms often participate in half a dozen or more such events per year. Their annual work routines are often structured according to these trade fairs. Processes of community building could benefit from this as similar groups of actors may come together and communicate repeatedly.

This is confirmed by a study of Chizzoli (2003) on the performance of eMarketplaces at an international level. Using a broader definition of B2B electronic events, Chizzoli (2003) found for the time period from 1998 to 2002 that 25–35% of all electronic markets failed and consequently disappeared.