The Trend of Omnichannel Trade Fairs. Are B2B Exhibitors Open to This Challenge? A Study on Portuguese Exhibitors

ABSTRACT

Purpose

Omnichannel is a trend also reaching events and their participants. So naturally, the trade fairs will be confronted with this reality of digital transformation. Given that exhibitors generally have the primacy of deciding to participate or not in a trade fair, this study aims to take this further, developing a representative model of exhibitors’ perception of an omnichannel trade fair.

Design/methodology/approach

This study used a quantitative approach through a survey. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used on the data collected from 306 Portuguese B2B exhibitors. Within the SEM method, the multi-group causal analysis was also used to analyze the moderating role of the type of exhibitors (between industries and B2B service).

Findings

A new model is described, incorporating the causal relationships between exhibitors’ perceived compatibility with omnichannel trade fairs and consequent engagement and loyalty. The model reveals the exhibitors’ understanding of omnichannel compatibility with the trade fair’s context, positively influencing their engagement and loyalty. The results also reveal no significant differences between the types of exhibitors (industries and B2B service).

Research implications

Trade fairs continue to be excellent business-to-business (B2B) marketing tools, and the intensity of the use of digital technologies at events will lead to new challenges and opportunities. But few studies have investigated this topic. Thus, this research investigated the exhibitors’ perception of omnichannel trade fairs and their consequences on engagement and loyalty. Therefore, this research is a relevant contribution to the literature on B2B trade fairs and raises new research lights

Practical implications

The great differential of omnichannel is precisely in integrating online and offline channels. This positive opening of exhibitors to omnichannel trade fairs extends multiple opportunities and challenges for exhibitors, organizers, and visitors. “Omnicanalization” of trade fairs will imply a convergence strategy that integrates all connectivity channels between the three parties.

Originality/value

This study’s findings address the gap in trade fair literature concerning the lack of an omnichannel approach, which is a fresh and pertinent perspective.

KEYWORDS:

• Trade fairs
• physical trade fairs
• digital trade fairs
• hybrid trade fairs
• omnichannel
• exhibitors
• engagement
• loyalty

Introduction

Trade fairs play a prominent role in business as they help companies promote products and innovations and serve as a backbone for international networking (Silva, Moutinho, and Vale 2022b). However, the health crisis of the coronavirus pandemic (Covid19) caused the cancellation of many events (Seraphin 2021), including trade fairs (Can and Canlı 2022; Li et al. 2022; Süygün 2021). For instance, the Global Exhibition Barometer shows that overall global industry revenues for 2020 are down 68% compared to 2019 (UFI 2022). As a result, some events were postponed, but others were reformulated for a virtual version (Elisenda 2021; Li et al. 2022; Süygün 2021). A virtual trade fair is an online version of a physical trade fair in which exhibitors and visitors connect virtually to interact through digital systems (Gottlieb and Bianchi 2017; Sarmento and Simões 2019).

This virtualization of trade fairs is an issue that has gained importance with the COVID-19 scenario (Li et al. 2022; Süygün 2021) and events in general (Elisenda 2021). Moreover, the evolution to 5 G will allow it to offer hybrid events, live and streaming, in-person/virtual courses and lectures, among other experiences (Dujuan 2021).

However, this trend is not consensual. For example, the diffusion of unauthorized and illegal in-person events and meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic has been verified because in-person events meet fundamental human needs (Seraphin 2021). In other words, physical trade fairs foster human personal interaction, which helps to establish formal and informal networks. In contrast, virtual trade fairs are catalysts to foster interactivity and connectivity before and after the physical trade fair (Sarmento and Simões 2019). Moreover, increasing tangibility at trade fairs (for example, displaying products or prototypes) can be a differentiating factor (Sharma et al. 2022). Therefore, this online/offline relationship suggests a strategic complementarity, such as the omnichannel concept, a hot topic in retail (Hickman, Kharouf, and Sekhon 2020; Neslin 2022). An omnichannel strategy also implies a balance between online and offline (Shao 2021). Apropos, the omnichannel strategy naturally collides with the discussion about the hybridization of events – in-person and remote attendees (Simons 2019; Sox et al. 2017). The omnichannel strategy is based on the simultaneous and interconnected use of different communication and interaction channels (Hickman, Kharouf, and Sekhon 2020) as a core of channel management (Akter, Hossain, and Strong 2021).

Thus, now that the public has developed an affinity for virtual experiences, trade fairs and events need to consider incorporating omnichannel marketing experiences into their strategies because adaptability to virtual platforms is vital for future events (Steriopoulos and Wrathall 2021). For instance, virtual activities, artificial intelligence, big data technology, and augmented reality (Celuch 2021). However, studies on the virtual dimension of trade fairs are very scarce (Gani et al. 2021). Furthermore, despite recognizing the value of technology in events to elevate the offer of different experience levels, the events industry appears to be digitally immature (Ryan et al. 2020). Hybrid meetings are much more complex than face-to-face or virtual meetings because integrated coordination of face-to-face and remote participants requires resources and know-how (Frisch and Greene 2021).

So, this uncertainty about how events will be reshaped in the post-Covid19 phase is challenging. Thus, the present study aims to determine how exhibitors interpret an omnichannel trade fair in the future. Especially in the Business-to-Business (B2B) context, where for instance, the tangibility of the exhibited products (Silva, Moutinho, and Vale 2022b), on-site connectivity (Nayak 2019), and stand features (Bloch et al. 2017) are relevant factors in the success of the exhibitors. In fact, with the trade fairs onmicalization, these factors face new challenges because of the digital dimension.

Therefore, this study investigates B2B exhibitors’ perception of omnichannel trade fairs trying to answer the following questions: Are omnichannel trade fairs compatible with exhibitors’ needs or intentions? Would this drive (or not) exhibitors to engagement and loyalty to a trade fair?

In addition, this study provides a theoretical framework that can enrich the development of omnichannel trade fairs. This research will be pioneer by addressing the omnichannel concept in the context of trade fairs, responding to the call for empirical studies based on theory on the new challenges of incorporating the physical or digital dimension into events (Gani et al. 2021; Sihvonen and Turunen 2022; Simons 2019; Sox et al. 2017; Steriopoulos and Wrathall 2021). The conceptual model addressed in this study represents a concrete view of exhibitors on the trade fairs omnitrend, which is relevant for trade fairs literature and for industry professionals (organizers, exhibitors and visitors). This is particularly crucial as the latest research indicates that hybrid trade fairs would bring to light new multisensory experiences (Sihvonen and Turunen 2022).

The following section presents the theoretical foundation and presents conceptual development. Next, the method and the empirical scenario are described. Then the test results of the model are presented. Finally, the study discusses the theoretical and managerial implications and avenues for future research.

Theoretical foundation

Omnichannel

The literature on omnichannel addresses a variety of topics, for instance, factors that influence an omnichannel experience in the retail context (Hickman, Kharouf, and Sekhon 2020; Neslin 2022), implementation of omnichannel in the supply chain (Yadav et al. 2017), omnichannel strategies in manufacturers (Kim and Chun 2018), and adoption of an omnichannel setup in the healthcare sector (Sangal, Nigam, and Bhutani 2022). However, previous studies have not yet examined the omnichannel concept in this sector at the event industry level. Nonetheless, another stream of research regarding adopting virtual and hybrid experiences has been identified (Gani et al. 2021; Sarmento and Simões 2019; Sihvonen and Turunen 2022; Simons 2019; Sox et al. 2017; Steriopoulos and Wrathall 2021).

Omnichannel is a strategy that uses all communication channels (online and offline), integrated and synchronous, offering the customer a unique and consistent experience across all channels (Verhoef, Kannan, and Inman 2015). It is an integrated management hub for online and offline channels (Akter, Hossain, and Strong 2021). On a practical level, an omnichannel strategy can help a company increase its sales through, for instance, the integration of information technology, organizational changes, optimization of customer feedback (Barbosa and Casais 2022), or simply by increasing touchpoints (Benjamin, Sopadjieva, and Dholakia 2017). Omnichannel can also enable dynamic segmentation by understanding customer behavior throughout its lifecycle (Gerea, Gonzalez-Lopez, and Herskovic 2021). Thus, omnichannel models provide more personalized relationships (Steinhoff et al. 2019).

However, implementing a successful omnichannel strategy implies managing some factors, such as strategic planning, brand engagement, personalization, perceived value, technological availability (Hickman, Kharouf, and Sekhon 2020), omnichannel-oriented organizational mind-set (Briel 2018), service-oriented perspective, specifically reducing lead times and offering convenient delivery (Gawor and Hoberg 2019). Therefore, online and offline integration implies using specific resources (Frisch and Greene 2021).

Customers generally do not understand omnichannel, but they do understand shopping experiences, so offers must be combined and integrated and not defraud customers regardless of the channel they use, whether online or offline (Cotarelo et al. 2021). Furthermore, the dynamics of this integration make it possible to understand the customer regardless of the channel used, enabling different forms of interaction with the company, brand or product. The customer can, thus, use the most convenient touchpoint and live a consistent experience.

Omnichannel B2B trade fairs

The B2B trade fairs are periodic events to demonstrate and promote companies, brands, products and services aimed at potential customers and/or industry leaders (Silva, Moutinho, and Vale 2022b). These events enable sales and social interactions among stakeholders, such as exhibitors, non-exhibiting company attendees, organizers, industry associations, distributors, intermediaries, and government agencies (Cortez, Johnston, and Gopalakrishna 2022). However, the core players of trade fairs are a triad composed of organizers, exhibitors, and visitors, in which the organizers are responsible for facilitating exhibitor – visitor relations (Bauer and Hantel 2021). The exhibitors display their products and/or services to visitors (Silva, Moutinho, and Vale 2022a). The traditional physical fairs are privileged events to apply experiential marketing to generate interaction between the visitor and the exhibitor, including the B2B context (Rinallo, Borghini, and Golfetto 2010). Still, the virtual dimension of fairs also brings new experiences. While the physical fair materializes human interaction, virtual fairs increase interactivity and connectivity between participants (Sarmento and Simões 2019). Therefore, this opportunity for multiple experiences leads some researchers to apply retail settings to the trade fair, including the B2B context (Cortez, Johnston, and Gopalakrishna 2022).

The literature on the trade fair is scarce regarding the omnichannel theme, but discussions about fair trade hybridization are beginning to arise (Li et al. 2022; Simons 2019; Sox et al. 2017). For instance, Trade Fair BTL 2021 - Lisbon took place in a hybrid format, with in-person and virtual actions (Matos 2020). Recently, Li et al. (2022) mentioned the importance of building new business environment mechanisms that promote the active participation of exhibitors and visitors in an “Online + Offline” format. Consequently, the authors point out that the innovative development of a “Cloud Exhibition” can be explored. However, the offline mode is still relevant because of humanistic factors (Li et al. 2022). However, in general, in the events area, this omnichannel adoption is still immature and preliminary (Gani et al. 2021; Sihvonen and Turunen 2022; Simons 2019; Sox et al. 2017; Steriopoulos and Wrathall 2021). However, is recognized the potential of a trade fair with an omnichannel approach (Sihvonen and Turunen 2022). While in the retail sector, omnichannel is a popular strategy (Cai and Lo 2020).

However, omnichannel is no longer a retail feature, so other sectors should adopt it as a strategy (Gerea, Gonzalez-Lopez, and Herskovic 2021). For instance, B2B trade fair customers are more likely to do business after seeing a product/service displayed at the event (Silva, Moutinho, and Vale 2022b). In contrast, a virtual trade fair can help create interactivity and connectivity before and after the physical trade fair (Sarmento and Simões 2019). This multidimensionality – anticipation (pre-fair), realization (at-fair) and reflection (post-fair) - is fundamental for engagement with trade fairs (Gopalakrishna, Malthouse, and Lawrence 2019). The omnichannel strategy applied to trade fairs can effectively create new experiences. The main objective of an omnichannel trade fair will be to reach potential attendees wherever they are, regardless of the device they are using, like what happens in retail (Gao and Huang 2021; Hickman, Kharouf, and Sekhon 2020).

Similar to what happens in retail, the participants experiencing an omnichannel trade fair can visit the event in person or virtually, acquire and collect information, products/services transparently (Cotarelo et al. 2021). Employing technology in physical space allows for a more functional experience (Alexander and Cano 2020), so the same can happen at the trade fair and the exhibitors’ stand. The challenge is to standardize service levels in the omnichannel environment (Cotarelo et al. 2021) and develop an environmental connection dimension of events (Steriopoulos and Wrathall 2021). The important thing is that the participants can change the connectivity channel with the trade fair without changing their experience or simultaneously connect multiple channels (physical and virtual), allowing a multidimensional experience. As in retail, omnichannel is about customer convenience (Briel 2018). Therefore, the touchpoints omnichannel will be any place where a trade fair’s participant is willing to interact with the event. Based on these discussions, the present study assumes the strategy of an omnichannel trade fair as the simultaneous and interconnected use of different communication channels (offline + online). It is oriented toward an integrated, complete, quality experience for its participants (exhibitors and visitors).

Since within the organization process of trade fairs, the exhibitors have the primacy of the decision to participate in a trade fair, two questions immediately arise, as mentioned in the introduction: Are omnichannel trade fairs compatible with exhibitors’ needs or intentions (Q1)? Would this drive (or not) drive exhibitors to engagement and loyalty to a trade fair (Q2)?

Conceptual development and hypothesis formulation

Whether exhibitors trust an omnichannel trade fair model is a pertinent one. Exhibitors are the main value proposition to captivate visitors to the trade fair (Bauer and Hantel 2021). So, exhibitors open to investing in omnichannel experiences can elevate trade fairs to an event of another level (Ryan et al. 2020).

Therefore, it is relevant to analyze the perceived compatibility of exhibitors concerning omnichannel trade fairs at this stage. Perceived compatibility refers to the degree to which an experience is perceived as consistent with potential adopters’ current and past values and practices (Shi et al. 2020). Curiously, in an omnichannel context, the past usage experience can affect future customer behaviors (Shen et al. 2018). For instance, during the Covid19, participation in virtual events (seminars, conferences, trade fairs, etc.) certainly fostered new experiences for companies. Moreover, customers are constantly switching from offline to online experiences and vice versa, and this integration of both channels has positive effects on the perceived usefulness and the customer’s attitude toward the intention to use (Yang et al. 2020).

So, perceived compatibility is a significant determinant of customers’ behavioral intention to adopt new technologies (Shi et al. 2020). This can be understood as sociotechnical systems. Sociotechnical systems represent the interaction between people, technology and the consequent impact on society (Gebler and Juraschek 2022). This implies the need to simultaneously integrate human and technical factors, as happens in some virtual spaces (Shin and Rice 2022). For instance, algorithms are essential for the functionality and effectiveness of virtual platforms and their users (Shin et al. 2022). The main task of algorithms is to foster intriguing content that matches users’ preferences (Shin et al. 2022). Thus, the high levels of channel integration (offline and online) will facilitate customers’ engagement in all aspects of the business (Gao and Huang 2021). Customer engagement is the psychological, cognitive, emotional, and behavioral commitment to customer interactions with a specific brand/product/service (Ng, Sweeney, and Plewa 2020). In other words, it consists of being involved, occupied, interested and attentive to something (Cian, Krishna, and Elder 2014) with an omnichannel trade fair.

Another sociotechnical example that can be highlighted for omnichannel fairs is the role of extended reality, which consists of the combination and interaction of all real and virtual environments, people and technology (Wagner and Cozmiuc 2022). The extended reality can help convert the technical materiality of the event into a quality omniexperience for users (Shin 2022; Wagner and Cozmiuc 2022). Thus, in this specific case, a trade fair’s physical and virtual platforms can generate learning experiences and customer engagement (Sarmento and Simões 2019). In other words, this multidimensionality of the trade fair at any event stage is important to promote participant engagement (Gopalakrishna, Malthouse, and Lawrence 2019).

Therefore, the perceived compatibility of omnichannel trade fairs can lead to a higher involvement of the exhibitor with the event, providing its visitors with the possibility to freely choose the most convenient channel. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H1.

The exhibitors’ perceived compatibility with omnichannel trade fairs positively and significantly affects their engagement with the omnichannel trade fair.

Omnichannel experiences positively impact customer loyalty, primarily through the evaluative judgment of content endorsed across all channels, the adequacy of the product/service assortment, prices across all channels and above all, the customer’s evaluative judgment of the support services offered at any stage of the customer journey across all channels (Rahman et al. 2022). In B2B omnichannel management, customer knowledge at every touchpoint is essential, and excellent omnichannel performance influences industrial buyer loyalty (Alonso-Garcia, Pablo-Martí, and Nunez-Barriopedro 2021).

However, omnichannel trade fairs are still a propaedeutic reality. In other contexts, to increase omnichannel purchase intent, companies should look to increase omnichannel perceived compatibility (Shi et al. 2020). Thus, from a trade fair perspective, the same perception is subtended. When the organizer strives to increase the perceived compatibility of omnichannel trade fairs, exhibitors will tend to increase their participation and recommendation intent. Because when consumers perceive channels (online and offline) as complementary, this increases their level of loyalty (Lazaris et al. 2021). In this case, exhibitor loyalty consists of the declared probability of participating in future editions of an organizing entity’s specific trade fair and recommending this event and/or organizer to business partners (Lai 2015).

Therefore, it is reasonable to consider that an exhibitor’s impression and awareness of an omnichannel trade fair will likely increase their loyalty to the trade fair, specifically their willingness to participate and recommend this event. Based on these points, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H2.

The exhibitors’ perceived compatibility with omnichannel trade fairs positively and significantly affects their loyalty to the omnichannel trade fair.

The literature presents several theoretical models that suggest customer engagement is an essential predictor of loyalty (Kaur et al. 2020; Mazzarol et al. 2022; Rasool, Shah, and Tanveer 2021). However, the empirical confirmation of this association remains little studied in the trade fair context, specifically from the exhibitor’s perspective.

First, it is essential to mention that managing exhibitor performance expectations is critical for their involvement with the trade fair (Cortez, Johnston, and Gopalakrishna 2022). Given the flexibility, convenience and multidimensionality of channels that characterize omnichannel (Akter, Hossain, and Strong 2021; Verhoef, Kannan, and Inman 2015), it is expectable that an omnichannel trade fair will take a holistic approach, which allows for to explore of online/offline channels and focusing on the exhibitor and visitor experience (Hickman, Kharouf, and Sekhon 2020). For instance, the use of technologies in the trade fair context, such as eye-tracking technology, virtual reality, and augmented reality, can help to create a multisensory and distracting environment (Bauer and Hantel 2021), allowing trade fairs participants to meet and connect more and more quickly, practically, and effectively. Networking is one of the main success factors for exhibitors (Silva, Moutinho, and Vale 2022a, 2022b) and exhibitors’ loyalty (Lai 2015). When exhibitors are engaged with an exhibition, they feel satisfied with the trade fair and believe that the event organizer is trustworthy (Lai and Wong 2021). Moreover, the intention to participate in the following trade fair is one of the engagement results (Gopalakrishna, Malthouse, and Lawrence 2019).

Therefore, based on the above ideas, the study argues that if exhibitors engage with an omnichannel trade fair, they are more likely to have trade fair loyalty. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H3.

The exhibitor’s engagement with an omnichannel trade fair positively and significantly impacts their loyalty to the trade fair.

As shown previously, the theory that supports hypothesized relationships suggests the conceptualization of a research model (Figure 1). The proposed research model is the basis of this investigation, from which subsequent statistical analysis is built to understand the phenomenon of the perception of omnichannel trade fairs from the perspective of exhibitors.

Figure 1. Proposed research model.

Research methodology

Measuring instrument

This study used the survey method to investigate the research objectives. A survey allows extracting specific data from a given sample on a list of questions or variables. Consequently, it is crucial to clarify how the research instrument (in this case – the questionnaire) was designed and distributed and how the data were analyzed (Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill 2019).

At the beginning of the questionnaire, a synopsis/summary addressed to the respondent was presented; this contained the purpose and importance of the research and a detailed explanation of what an omnichannel trade fair was. Then, followed the rest of the questionnaire was structured into two parts. The first part concerns the characterization of the responding companies, the company’s type and size and the percentage of exports. The second part contained items to measure the constructs developed based on extensive literature reviews. For example, the “exhibitors” perceived compatibility” was measured by three (3) items adapted from Shi et al. (2020) and the construct exhibitor engagement” was measured by four (4) items adapted from Cian, Krishna, and Elder (2014).

Regarding the exhibitor loyalty construct, three items adapted from Lai (2015) were used for its measurement. A 5-point Likert scale was applied to these constructs to ask about the respondent’s level of agreement (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). Therefore, all items used had been validated in previous studies. Table A1 (Appendix) shows the constructs and corresponding items based on the literature.

However, a prior discussion was carried out with three academics and five industrialists to evaluate the questionnaire. These personalities’ opinions were essential to refine the questionnaire, considering the study goals. Then, a pilot test was carried out with 25 exhibitors of trade fairs B2B (business to business) in February 2022 to ensure content validity. All exhibitors responding to the pilot test understood the questionnaire content, and no further adjustments were necessary. However, the 25 pilot test observations were not included in the main study.

Sample, data collection and statistical process

A random database of Portuguese companies, comprising 2255 companies, was used. This database contained companies that usually participate at least in one international B2B trade fair per year and had at least one experience in virtual networking events (virtual trade fairs and conferences). It should be noted that this random database was collected from a prestigious Portuguese business association, which scrutinizes data about Portuguese companies participating in international trade fairs.

The questionnaire was electronically distributed to respondents from March 2022 to April 2022, specifically addressed to the marketing and/or sales director. Therefore, all respondents were informed about the survey purpose and consequently asked to complete the questionnaire. Moreover, respondents were also assured of anonymity and confidentiality.

Finally, 306 valid and complete responses were collected. 66.7% are manufacturers/producers, and 33.3% are B2B services. 45.8% are micro-companies, 34.6% are small, 15.7% are medium, and 3.9% are big companies. This small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) classification corresponds to the definition adopted by the European Commission (2022). In addition, these percentages of responding companies mirror the profile of the Portuguese business fabric since 99.9% are SMEs (Pordata 2022). Regarding the export level, 53.9% export<25% of their turnover, 17% between 25%-50% and 29.1% export more than 50% of their turnover.

The study applied a t-test to compare the first 165 responses (March 2022) and the last 141 responses (April 2022). However, there were no statistically significant differences between these two groups, suggesting no problem of response bias (Armstrong and Overton 1977).

Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) was the statistical procedure used to analyze the data, using SPSS 26.0 and AMOS 22.0 software. SEM is a set of statistical techniques that allows simultaneous multivariate relationship analysis (Collier 2020). In other words, this statistical technique allows, based on the formulation of a theoretical model, to analyze causal relationships between the constructs (Collier 2020), in this case, between Exhibitor Engagement, Exhibitor Perceived Compatibility and Exhibitor Loyalty. SEM is widely used to analyze trends in social science, marketing and business research (Dash and Paul 2021; Richter et al. 2016).

Initially, descriptive statistics to obtain a sample overview was employed. Subsequently, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to confirm the measurement theory through the reliability and validity tests of the constructs. Then, the structural model was analyzed, and finally, it was ended by validating the hypotheses based on path analysis (Collier 2020).

The sample size (306) of the present study proves adequate. The most common suggestion for the sample size for the SEM method is ten observations for each item in the model, with the size of 200 observations also being the minimum number indicated to provide estimates of stable parameters and sufficient power to test a model (Collier 2020).

Results of the statistical process

Before analyzing the SEM model, the first step is scrutinizing the data (Collier 2020). As shown in Table A1, KMO values for each construct (ranging from 0.748 to 0.802) were all>0.5 and with a significance level for Bartlett’s test<0.001, suggesting that there is a substantial correlation between the items; therefore, factorial analysis is feasible (Hinton, McMurray, and Brownlow 2014). Furthermore, the total explained variance reveals that all constructs have high percentages (ranging from 87.85% to 93.22%), indicating a high strength of item association (Hinton, McMurray, and Brownlow 2014). Table A1 also shows the mean and standard deviation for each measurable item, which allows for obtaining a sample overview (Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill 2019).

Then, based on Principal Component Analysis with a Varimax rotation, it was possible to identify factor loadings (ranging from 0.738 to 0.875) on the three constructs (Hinton, McMurray, and Brownlow 2014). The results were all>0.70, indicating correspondence with the constructs supported by the literature (see Table A1).

Reliability and validity for the measurement model

After the factor analysis, the next step is to evaluate the reliability of the indicators to ensure the construct quality (Collier 2020). As shown in Table 1, Cronbach alpha values of all the constructs (ranging from 0.930 to 0.963) and composite reliability (CR) (ranging from 0.820 to 0.898) indicate good internal consistency among all the items, so confirming the reliability of all the constructs, given that minimum acceptable values is 0.70 (Collier 2020). Furthermore, the average variance extracted (AVE) values for all constructs (ranging from 0.626 to 0.745) were>0.50, revealing that convergent validity also is supported (Collier 2020).

Table 1. Reliability, validity and discriminant validity of the constructs.

Constructs	Cronbach alpha	CR	AVE	MSV	ASV	1	2	3
1 - Exhibitor Engagement	0.950	0.820	0.931	0.767	0.666	0.905
2 - Exhibitor Perceived Compatibility	0.930	0.822	0.932	0.630	0.597	0.751	0.907
3 - Exhibitor Loyalty	0.963	0.898	0.964	0.767	0.699	0.876	0.794	0.948

Diagonal elements (bold and italic) represent the square root of average variance extracted (AVE).

Moreover, as shown in Table 1, Maximum Shared Variance (MSV) and Average Shared Variance (ASV) are lower than the corresponding AVE values, and the square root of AVE for each construct was more significant than its correlations with other constructs, thus signifying that discriminant validity also was supported (Fornell and Larcker 1981).

Results of the structural model

After confirming the measurement model, the model fit test was applied to understand how the entire structure of the model fits the data (Collier 2020). The indicators habitually used for the model fit test are X²/DF (X² – chi-square; DF – degrees of freedom), whose value must be between 1–3 for an acceptable fit. Other indicators are CFI – Comparative Fit Index, NFI – Normed-Fit Index, TLI – Tucker Lewis Index, IFI – Incremental Fit Index, GFI – Goodness of Fit Index, RFI – Relative fit index (all these indicators must be > 0.90) and RMSEA – Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (Very good<0.05; good<0.08; acceptable, but a poor fit<0.10) (Collier 2020). The results obtained are the following: X²/DF (1.723), CFI (0.995), NFI (0.988), TLI (0.992), IFI (0.995), GFI (0.972), RFI (0.988) and RMSEA (0.049). Therefore, the results respect the authors’ suggestions, thus denoting a good model fit. Furthermore, the R² values, which expose the weight of one construct over another, recorded (R² = 0.56; R² = 0.81) a strong influence on antecedents (Collier 2020). Figure 2 represents the structural model, which refers to the relationships among constructs.

Figure 2. Structural model.

The structural model focuses on the analysis of the relationships between the constructs, and the path analysis examines the structural relationships between constructs that represent the theoretically formulated hypotheses (Collier 2020). As evident from Table 2, the study reveals that all the relationships hypothesized in the research model were significant and supported. So, Exhibitor Perceived Compatibility with omnichannel trade fair positively and significantly affects Exhibitor Engagement (β = 0.751, p < 0.001, supporting H1. Furthermore, exhibitors Perceived Compatibility with omnichannel trade fair positively and significantly affects Exhibitor Loyalty (β = 0.312, p < 0.001), which H2 was supported by the results. Finally, Exhibitor Engagement regarding the omnichannel trade fair positively and significantly affects Exhibitor Loyalty (β = 0.641, p < 0.001), consequently admitting H3.

Table 2. Hypothesis test.

Hypotheses	Path coefficient (β)	p-values	Test results
H1. Exhibitor Perceived Compatibility → Exhibitor Engagement	0.751	0.000	Supported
H2. Exhibitor Perceived Compatibility → Exhibitor Loyalty	0.312	0.000	Supported
H3. Exhibitor Engagement → Exhibitor Loyalty	0.641	0.000	Supported

Moderation analysis

An “omnicanalisation” of trade fairs brings new challenges, implying transversal management to take advantage of synergies between the trade fair’s channels (offline and online). Given at B2B context, there are certain important physical features, for example, the tangibility of the exhibited products (Silva, Moutinho, and Vale 2022b), on-site connectivity (Nayak 2019) and stand features (Bloch et al. 2017), it is relevant to frame this context in the study.

To deepen this discussion, this topic aims to analyze the moderating role of the type of company (manufacturer/producer vs B2B services). Therefore, it is to be expected that industrial exhibitors may have some reluctance about the omnichannel trade fairs, mainly due to their virtual dimension. However, the increased tangibility at trade fairs (for example, displaying products or prototypes) can be a differentiating factor (Sharma et al. 2022). Tangibility is an intrinsic property of a product, representing what can be touched and felt, which currently is not yet possible to experience virtually.

The multi-group causal analysis in SEM was used to analyze the moderating role of the type of company (Marôco 2014). The group difference test checks whether there are significant differences between the two groups (manufacturer/producer vs B2B services). First, an analysis was applied to confirm or not the invariance of the factorial model. Therefore, consulting the “model comparison” and assuming the model unconstrained to be correct, results based on measurement weights are ${{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{X}}_{\text{mathchar}}}^{\prime }26-10mu{\lambda }^2\left(6\right)=4.309;p=0.635$), and structural weights results are ${\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{X}}_{\beta }^2\left(9\right)=5.227;p=0.814$. Assuming model Measurement weights to be correct to isolate the effects of structural coefficients, the results are ${\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{X}}_{\beta }^2\left(3\right)=0.918;p=0.821$. So, it is verified that the groups are not significantly different; in other words, the causal model is invariant in the two groups (manufacturer/producer vs B2B services) considered (Marôco 2014).

Second, a comparative analysis of structural paths between groups was employed, confirming, once again, that the factorial model is invariant. Table 3 summarizes the comparative data between groups.

Table 3. Hypothesis test across multi-groups.

Hypotheses	Full		Manufacturer and/or Producer		B2B services		Test results
	Path coefficient (β)	p-values	Path coefficient (β)	p-values	Path coefficient (β)	p-values
H1. EPC → EE	0.751	0.000	0.747	0.000	0.748	0.000	Supported
H2. EPC → EL	0.312	0.000	0.335	0.000	0.269	0.001	Supported
H3. EE → EL	0.641	0.000	0.623	0.000	0.681	0.000	Supported
Model Fit	X^2/DF (1.723)		X^2/DF (1.468)		X^2/DF (1.933)
	CFI (0.995)		CFI (0.995)		CFI (0.981)
	NFI (0.988)		NFI (0.984)		NFI (0.962)
	TLI (0.992)		TLI (0.992)		TLI (0.971)
	IFI (0.995)		IFI (0.995)		IFI (0.981)
	GFI (0.972)		GFI (0.964)		GFI (0.914)
	RFI (0.988)		RFI (0.976)		RFI (0.943)
	RMSEA (0.049)		RMSEA (0.048)		RMSEA (0.096)

Exhibitor Perceived Compatibility (EPC); Exhibitor Engagement (EE); Exhibitor Loyalty (EL).

Discussion

The present study suggests that omnichannel trade fairs are compatible with exhibitors’ needs or intentions, thus answering the research question (Q1). The results reveal that exhibitors trust an omnichannel model and may be open to investing in hybrid experiences integrating online and offline channels (Akter, Hossain, and Strong 2021; Verhoef, Kannan, and Inman 2015). The exhibitors consider that the technologies used in omnichannel environments are compatible with trade fairs, thus opening new opportunities. The combination of virtual and physical environments can generate new approaches and dimensions, such as adding a “cloud exhibition” to traditional physical trade fairs (Li et al. 2022). On the one hand, physical trade fairs provide unique moments of socialization among participants and direct contact with products and services that are fundamental to human needs (Seraphin 2021; Silva, Moutinho, and Vale 2022b). The physicality of trade fairs also helps establish formal and informal networks of contacts (Sarmento and Simões 2019), leading to the development of networking essential for closing business (Silva, Moutinho, and Vale 2022a).

On the other hand, virtual environments can provide personalized content (Steinhoff et al. 2019) and reach different audiences (Gao and Huang 2021; Hickman, Kharouf, and Sekhon 2020) mainly through the possibility of remote access. In this case, omnichannel fairs can also provide the exhibitor with scalability, allowing the trade fair to grow, add value and meet the demands of participants without significantly increasing resources. For instance, the virtual dimension of trade fairs can help create interactivity and connectivity before and after the physical trade fair (Sarmento and Simões 2019).

Consequently, this multidimensional omnichannel trade fair can integrate pre-fair, at-fair and post-fair experiences fundamental for exhibitor engagement (Gopalakrishna, Malthouse, and Lawrence 2019). As the results of this study reveal, the perception of exhibitors about an omnichannel trade fair positively influences their engagement and loyalty to the trade fair, thus answering the research question (Q2). Likewise, the study’s findings highlight that the engaged exhibitor also affects their loyalty to the omnichannel trade fair. In fact, behind the figure of the exhibitor and visitors are people who want to be ultra-connected in offline and online environments and focused on experience, typical of any omnichannel environment (Hickman, Kharouf, and Sekhon 2020). Therefore, an engaged exhibitor tends to feel satisfied with the trade fair, trusted with the organization (Lai and Wong 2021), and intends to participate in and recommend the omnichannel trade fairs (Gopalakrishna, Malthouse, and Lawrence 2019).

The results also reveal no significant differences between manufacturers/producers and B2B services. Initially, some distrust of industrialists about omnichannel trade fairs was expected due to the perception of trade fairs’ possible loss of tangibility with the virtual dimension (Sharma et al. 2022; Silva, Moutinho, and Vale 2022b). However, this hesitation did not materialize. On the contrary, industrialists reveal total openness to an omnichannel fair. Perhaps these exhibitors are well informed about omnicality because it is not synonymous with loss of tangibility but rather an integrated combination of offline and online experiences (Akter, Hossain, and Strong 2021; Verhoef, Kannan, and Inman 2015). In practice, the tangibility of the products exhibited at physical trade fairs does not lose, but at the same time, gains new visibility and reach with the integration of the virtual dimension, increasing touchpoints (Benjamin, Sopadjieva, and Dholakia 2017).

In short, the conceptual model reveals the exhibitors’ dynamic and positive emotions about the possibility of omnichannel fairs. Emotions surface more remarkable and more disruptive changes. Hence, this study suggests a paradigm transformation.

Theoretical implications

The present study detailed how exhibitors are open to a trade fair with omnichannel experiences to track these paradigm changes regarding traditional trade fairs efficiently. This study is the first that explores the omnichannel concept in the trade fair context, examining the relationship between exhibitors’ perceived compatibility with omnichannel trade fairs and consequent engagement and loyalty. In particular, this study revealed that exhibitors’ perceived compatibility with the omnichannel trade fairs (regardless of whether they are industry or B2B services) positively affects their engagement and loyalty to the specific trade fair. When exhibitors prepare and are ready to participate in an omnichannel show, they show a greater chance of feeling engaged and loyal to the trade fair and/or event organizer.

Therefore, the present research expands the theoretical discussion of previous studies on the hybridization of events (Gani et al. 2021; Sihvonen and Turunen 2022; Simons 2019; Sox et al. 2017; Steriopoulos and Wrathall 2021), more specifically about the trade fairs (Li et al. 2022; Simons 2019; Sox et al. 2017). In addition, by examining the moderating role of the type of company, the results indicate that, in general, the companies consider omnichannel trade fairs compatible with the concerns of the tangibility of the product and on-site connectivity, which is a characteristic interest of the industries (Nayak 2019; Silva, Moutinho, and Vale 2022b).

This study, therefore, addresses this research gap by empirically studying exhibitors’ perceptions of omnichannel trade fairs, contributing to the existing body of knowledge about trade fairs and omnicality in different contexts (Gerea, Gonzalez-Lopez, and Herskovic 2021).

Practical implications

In addition to its theoretical significance, this study offers some critical suggestions for management. With the challenges of the digital transformation driven by the COVID-19 pandemic (Dujuan 2021; Elisenda 2021; Li et al. 2022; Süygün 2021), it has become crucial for professionals in the trade fair industry to consider their events as omnichannel environments. In search of this, the present study suggests that the trade fair stakeholders understand the importance of stimulating the “omnicanalisation” of these events, based on the simultaneous and interconnected use of different communication channels (offline + online) and oriented toward an integrated, complete and quality experience for its participants (exhibitors and visitors).

Thus, the study has different implications for the trade fair organizers. Exhibitor readiness for omnichannel trade fairs presents challenges for organizers soon. Therefore, it will be up to the trade fair organizer to provide a unique and integrated experience at any touchpoint that boosts the relationship between exhibitors and visitors (Bauer and Hantel 2021). For example, organizers will still need their live fair with tangible and physical experience. However, they will also need to integrate in-person events with virtual events and micro-environments powered by 5 G evolution, lives and streaming (Dujuan 2021), artificial intelligence, big data technology, and virtual and augmented reality, among other technologies (Celuch 2021). Moreover, organizers moving toward an omnichannel trade fair also change the scale of the interactivity and connectivity of pre-trade fair, at-trade, and post-trade fairs (Gopalakrishna, Malthouse, and Lawrence 2019; Sarmento and Simões 2019). Thus, participants can continue interacting with the event at different times and meet different expectations and needs.

Second, this study has implications for B2B exhibitors. This declared openness of companies to possible participation in omnichannel trade fairs increases their competitiveness challenges. Because this study reveals that exhibitors are changing their mind-set and intend to modernize trade fairs to an omnichannel dimension, this change contributes to improving participant experiences and increasing the event’s reach based on “offline + online” environments (Li et al. 2022). Thus, in practical terms, exhibitors intend to interact with the various trade fair stakeholders in a dynamic way before, during and after the event. For example, instant messaging, videoconferencing, and live streaming, among other systems. Without neglecting the human touch, face-to-face experiences remain very relevant (Li et al. 2022; Sarmento and Simões 2019; Seraphin 2021). The challenge will be for the exhibitor to incorporate digital features into the physical experience of the trade fair, more specifically in its stand. The reverse will also occur (Alexander and Cano 2020). This format of bringing the physical and digital experience together opens a series of possible innovations for exhibitors, specifically needing to put the visitor in the spotlight through the hybrid experience. In this scenario, being prepared for the challenges of an omnichannel trade fair is essential.

Third, this study has implications for visitors. Although the study focuses only on the exhibitor’s perspective, it still has implications for those interested in the content that the exhibitor presents at the trade fair. Therefore, visitors may soon see some of their satisfied expectations with the present change in mind-set and exhibitors’ engagement with omnichannel fairs. Especially with the increase in interactivity and connectivity before, during and after the trade fair. In addition, the expositor’s effort toward an omnichannel environment can provide visitors with new moments for formal and informal contacts in any service channel, physical or digital or simultaneously in both environments. All this will make the visitor experience more fluid, agile and qualified.

Conclusion, limitations and suggestions for future research

B2B exhibitors trust an omnichannel model and may be open to investing in omnichannel trade fairs. This is the central insight of the research. This study contributes to transforming events, specifically trade fairs, offering a holistic view based on integrated connectivity and multiple experiences. The omnicality in the trade fairs context is an essential and inevitable step, and exhibitors will play an active and constructive role in this transformation of trade fairs. Omnichannel fairs will be a trend to consider in the coming years. Most challenging is the uncertainty around how omnichannel trade fairs will be designed. Therefore, more studies on the subject will be necessary.

Like any research, this study is also subject to limitations that can be addressed in future research. First, choosing only B2B exhibitors and a single nationality (Portugal) may limit the generalizability of the results. Therefore, studies on including other types of fairs, namely B2C, and companies from other geographical areas can add new approaches to the topic. Second, the present study will only analyze the perspective of the exhibitors; as such, it would be interesting to incorporate new studies, including the perspective of the organizer and the visitors. Thirdly, the phenomenon of omnicality is recent and will be a topic to be explored soon. In this way, a case study on international fairs beginning to offer omnichannel experiences is relevant to research. Finally, omnicality in the context of the events is an ongoing process that will undoubtedly have many challenges and moments of learning and reformulation. It will be fertile ground for investigation.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank CEOS - Centre for Social and Organizational Studies and NECE - Research Center in Business Sciences.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Additional information

Funding

The work was supported by the FCT – Foundation for Science and Technology [UIDB/04630/2020].

Appendix

Table A1. Items and constructs.

Items	Mean	Standard deviation	KMO	TEV	Factor loadings
Exhibitor Engagement - adapted from Cian, Krishna, and Elder (2014)
An omnichannel trade fair increases our involvement.	3.12	1.314	0.802	86.98%	0.731
An omnichannel trade fair increases our engagement.	2.99	1.273			0.796
An omnichannel trade fair will be fun.	2.86	1.215			0.835
An omnichannel trade fair will be stimulating.	3.07	1.247			0.808
Exhibitor Perceived Compatibility – adapted from Shi et al. (2020)
Omnichannel trade fairs are compatible with all aspects of our exhibition’s habits.	3.25	1.137	0.748	87.85%	0.817
Omnichannel trade fairs fits into our exhibition’s style.	3.20	1.230			0.850
Omnichannel trade fairs fits well with the way as we like to participate in trade fairs.	3.03	1.267			0.831
Exhibitor Loyalty - adapted from Lai (2015)
In the future, we will speak favorably about the omnichannel trade fairs to others.	3.15	1.162	0.779	93.22%	0.751
In the future, we will recommend the omnichannel trade fairs to our business partners.	3.13	1.228			0.749
In the future, we will participate in the omnichannel trade fairs.	3.25	1.222			0.761

Extraction Method: Principal Component analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy: 0.927.

Bartlett’s sphericity test: sig.<0.001.

Cronbach’s alpha: 0.926.

Total explained variance (TEV): 89.30%.