The question of which trade fair a company should attend is usually answered out of tradition, out of habit, or on no basis at all. A simple matrix sets two assessments against each other instead: the quality of the fair, which can be evaluated from the outside, and its strategic relevance, which comes from inside your own company. That produces four fields with four different consequences, from must-have to no-go. The convenient part: both axes can be filled in without ever having measured your own trade fair performance. A company that has never exhibited at a fair can still assess it. And anyone who does have their own results builds them on top as a third layer.
The decision that comes before level 1
In the MesseCode, the work starts at level 1 with the question of what a trade fair is meant to achieve. Seven levels later there is a visitor journey. For the fair to achieve what it is meant to, though, it has to be the right one. That can be checked in advance, in both of the situations where the question comes up.
A trade fair portfolio that has grown over time. The organiser gets in touch, the registration deadline is running, the usual floor space is still free. Someone in the company says we have always been there. Someone else says the competition will be there too. The space is booked. Only months later, during the briefing for the stand build, does anyone ask about the objective for the first time. The most expensive decision of the trade fair year is made in twenty minutes, and everything after it follows the same habit: stand, catering, exhibits, team, hotel.
The first participation of all. A young or small company is considering whether a trade fair participation is worth it, and if so, which one. In almost every industry several fairs then sit side by side, each claiming to be the most important: the large established one, the fast-growing new one, and the narrower specialist one where the real decision makers are supposed to be. The websites do not settle it. The organisers' sales material settles it even less.
Both cases need the same thing: an assessment that works regardless of whether you have ever stood there, and regardless of what a brochure promises.
Why the usual justifications do not hold
Four sentences come up again and again. They sound reasonable and are still not a basis for a decision.
„We have always been there." That describes the past. Trade fairs change their visitor structure, sometimes slowly over years, sometimes fast, because a competing format appears or a lead exhibitor drops out. That a fair was the right one eight years ago says little about today.
„The competition will be there too." That is an argument for presence, not an argument for investment. When a whole industry stands in the same place and nobody can say why any more, it has become a ritual. As a signal about the quality of a fair, the competition is useful. As a justification for your own participation it is not enough.
„We need the space, or we will never get it back." Often true. Except that this sentence describes a risk, not a benefit. It belongs in the weighing up, just not at the start of it.
„People will notice if we are missing." Sometimes right, especially at leading fairs in concentrated industries. Usually overestimated. And the question behind it can be checked: who exactly would notice, and what would that person conclude? Visibility through absence can be strategically interesting in its own right.
Before a first participation the problem runs the other way. What is missing there is not the habit, it is the basis. The decision is then made on the organisers' presentation, on recommendations from the network, or on the fair somebody happens to have heard of. The same route, just without a past of your own.
Two axes instead of one index figure
A trade fair can of course be scored in figures, and anyone who does that has a solid foundation. Even so, it is worth looking beyond a single number. A fair with an excellent visitor structure that has nothing to do with your objective, and a mediocre fair where exactly your target customers are standing, may well end up with the same score. The consequence that follows is entirely different.
That is why we work with two separate axes in our portfolio analyses. We developed this to make fairs comparable for exhibitors with many participations and no data of their own. That same property is what makes the matrix usable for a first trade fair decision.
Axis one: the quality of the fair
This axis describes the fair itself, independently of your company. It is the same for every exhibitor at that fair, and it can be evaluated entirely from the outside.
- Visitor structure. Which industries do the trade visitors come from, in which functions, from which company sizes?
- Decision-making authority. What share of visitors decides or co-decides on purchases? A fair with twenty thousand visitors without procurement authority is smaller than the number claims.
- Reach in your target market. Do the visitors come from the regions where you want to sell? International fairs are not automatically attended internationally.
- Competitive density. How many direct competitors exhibit? Many mean a relevant marketplace and a harder fight for attention. Few mean either a gap or a warning sign.
- How solid the figures are. Are the key figures audited, or do they come from the organiser's sales deck?
Axis two: the strategic relevance for you
This axis describes your relationship to the fair, not the fair itself. It comes from inside your own company and needs no trade fair data. The same fair can be completely different in relevance for two exhibitors from the same hall.
- Does it pay into the primary objective? Anyone who has prioritised their objectives properly answers this in a minute. A fair that is excellent for looking after existing customers may be useless for entering a market.
- Does it carry your role? There are fairs where a specialist is credible and a generalist disappears, and the other way round. A question of company and market role.
- Are your target customers there? This means the company types and decision-maker positions you have defined as ICP and IVP, not the target group in general.
- Can your offering be shown there? Some products need floor space, media, connections or a demonstration situation. Where that is not possible, relevance drops, even if everything else fits.
- Is there an occasion? A product launch, a market entry, a partnership. Occasions shift the relevance of a fair for exactly one edition. That is legitimate as long as it is said out loud.
Why this works without trade fair data of your own
A clean performance review assumes that you have exhibited, recorded and analysed. Anyone running lead management and measuring impact can say after two participations what a fair delivered. The best case, and it assumes a good deal.
The matrix does not need it. Axis one comes from publicly available data about the fair. Axis two comes from decisions you have to take anyway, independently of any fair. Both are available before you have booked a stand of your own for the first time.
So a company that has never exhibited can still decide with reasons. And anyone who has exhibited for years without ever evaluating does not have to wait until a trade fair controlling system is in place. The missing performance review is a reason to start one. It is not a reason to postpone the portfolio question.
The four fields
Plot the two axes against each other and four fields appear. Each carries a different consequence, and that matters more than the exact position of a fair within it.
The right people, the weak fair. Go, but in the smallest format that does the job.
This is where the budget belongs, and where the full strategic preparation pays off.
Do not exhibit. Visit at most, if somebody is nearby anyway.
Good fair, wrong purpose. Only with a concrete occasion, otherwise drop it.
Must-Have
High quality, high relevance. The fair for which budget is reserved first, and the only category where a full run through all seven levels always pays off. Nothing is saved here, things are prioritised.
The uncomfortable side effect: most companies have fewer must-have fairs than they have fairs. Often it is exactly one.
Must-Attend
Low quality, high relevance. The fair is small, regional, badly organised or weak in its visitor structure. Your target customers are there anyway, perhaps because the whole industry keeps up this one gathering.
This is where the most common mistake of the trade fair year happens, and it happens in both directions. Some cancel and lose relationships. Others build the same stand as at the leading fair and pay a price that does not match the return.
The answer lies in the format. A must-attend needs presence and conversation time, not staging. A small stand, a table in the shared area, a speaking slot without any floor space of your own, a visit with meetings arranged in advance: all of these do the job, as long as the decision is taken deliberately and not disguised as a cost cut.
Can-Do
High quality, low relevance. A good fair, just not for your current objective, your role or your target customers. This field holds most of the legacy, because relevance changes and participations stay.
Can-do means: only with an occasion. A product launch, a new market, a partnership that is meant to become visible there. Without an occasion it is dropped. And if no occasion turns up for three years, there was none.
No-Go
Low quality, low relevance. The decision is easy, and yet a surprising number of fairs sitting here have been booked for years. Almost always there is a personal story attached: a colleague who comes from the region, an association the company feels tied to, a town where the plant is.
As reasons for a visit those are not bad at all. For a participation with a stand of your own they are too expensive. Anyone who exhibits at a no-go fair regardless should write that down, with the reason beside it. Then it is a decision and not a habit.
The special case: several candidates, one participation
When the question is „which of these" rather than „stay or go", the matrix is read as a ranking. Every candidate goes through the same criteria. As a rule the question then settles itself, because the fairs sit further apart on the relevance axis than on the quality axis. The large formats of an industry resemble each other in quality more than their marketing suggests. What differs is who goes there and why.
And one extra rule for the first time: anyone who cannot decide between two candidates visits both as a trade visitor before booking either. Two day tickets and two train journeys cost a fraction of the smallest stand and answer more questions than any document.
Where the assessment comes from
The most common reaction to a matrix like this is that the data for it is not available. Usually that is not the case.
Audited trade fair figures. For German fairs the FKM certifies the key figures and makes them freely available. That covers visitor, exhibitor and space figures, and with them the visitor structure: industry, function, position, company size, origin and procurement authority, that is the share of decision makers and co-decision makers. That puts the quality axis almost fully in place, in a quarter of an hour. Where a fair is not certified, that too is information.
Last year's exhibitor directory. Publicly accessible and useful for two questions: how many direct competitors were there, and which of your target customers were exhibiting themselves? In industries with mixed roles the second is often the strongest signal available.
The supporting programme. Who speaks on the stages and on which topics shows what questions this fair revolves around. At young formats the programme says more than the exhibitor list.
The hall plans. Who stands in which hall and how large often shows the market logic of a fair more clearly than any description.
Your sales team. Four questions for the room: which customers did you last meet at a trade fair? At which one? Which fair do your customers attend without us being there? And at which fair did you feel you were in the wrong place?
None of this is market research. It is a reasoned assessment, and it beats any meeting where four people argue from the gut.
The next level: adding your own results
With figures of your own the matrix gets considerably sharper, and both axes change.
The quality axis gains a second source. Next to the published visitor structure stands your own: who actually stood at your stand, in which functions, with what decision-making authority? The two diverge regularly, and that divergence is the real insight. A fair can report excellent figures and still bring the wrong people to your stand, because your position on the site or your topic attracts others.
The relevance axis gains a result instead of an assumption. „This fair ought to pay into our primary objective" becomes „this fair produced this many qualified contacts in the target industry last time". That calls for categorised conversations, which means working lead management.
Across two participations this produces a comparison between fairs that no external source delivers. That is how portfolio management begins. The order stays important: first the matrix from public data, then your own results. Anyone who waits for their own figures before looking at the portfolio waits years.
Portfolio instead of single decisions
The matrix only becomes useful once every fair is in it at the same time. Taken one at a time, almost any participation can be justified. Side by side it becomes visible what they cost together and how unevenly the budget is spread.
A typical picture from practice: a company exhibits at seven fairs. One of them is must-have, two are must-attend, three are can-do with no current occasion, one is a no-go. The budget is spread roughly evenly. According to the matrix it would not have to be.
Then there is the time frame. Not every fair has to happen every time. A two-year rhythm in a secondary market is a legitimate decision, especially when the freed-up budget lands at the must-have fair. For most exhibitors that is the fastest improvement available, and it costs nothing extra.
How to end a trade fair participation
The hardest part is not the assessment. It is the goodbye.
Ending a participation creates internal resistance and external questions. The organiser calls. Sales warns about the signal. A long-standing customer asks whether the company is in trouble. All foreseeable, so all preparable.
Three things help. First, a justification that points forward. Saying that the budget is going to another fair, and why, tells a different story from simply cancelling. Second, a replacement for the relationships. The contacts that ran through this fair need another place: a customer day at your own site, an invitation to the leading fair, a visit on site. Third, a deadline. A pause for two editions followed by a fresh assessment is easier to carry than a final no, and it is usually the more honest statement too.
Coming back after a pause is rarely the problem it is taken for. Returning after two years with a clear occasion gets more attention than occupying the same floor space every year.
The typical mistakes
- Waiting for your own figures before looking at the portfolio. Both axes work without them.
- Filling in the matrix once and not touching it for three years. Fairs change, objectives do too.
- Scoring both axes from the gut, although audited figures are freely available.
- Mixing up quality and relevance. An excellent fair where your target customers are not is a bad fair for you. That is no criticism of the fair.
- Doing the assessment alone. Without sales, half the reality is missing.
- Treating must-attends like leading fairs. The most expensive confusion in this matrix.
- Not writing the result down. What is not documented gets discussed from scratch again next spring, usually with the same outcome.
- Cancelling without a replacement. The relationships that hung on a fair do not disappear. They just stop being looked after.
What you can do now
Draw two axes on a sheet of paper.
If you already exhibit: enter every fair you have attended in the last two years, and every one that has been discussed internally. Then three questions. How many of your fairs sit in the must-have field? Which one sits in the can-do field although no occasion has turned up for years? And which participation would you book today for the first time if it were not already in the calendar?
If you are facing your first participation: enter every fair that comes into question, including the ones that look too large or too expensive. Get the visitor structure for each. Two of them will usually be left, and those you go and see as a visitor before you book.
If the last question gets uncomfortable, you have found your starting point.
How robust the decisions behind it are is what the Strategy Test walks through in a few minutes, without registration. The full method for the fair you keep is set out in the MesseCode playbook.
Or you go through your portfolio once with somebody who has been doing this for 25 years. In a strategy call, 30 minutes, no obligation.
The best trade fair strategy is worth little at the wrong fair.
FAQ: choosing the right trade fair
How do you choose the right trade fair?
With two separate assessments instead of one justification. The first concerns the fair: visitor structure, share of decision makers, reach in the target market, competitive density, how solid the figures are. The second concerns your company: does the fair pay into your primary objective, does it carry your role, are your target customers there, can your offering be shown there? The two together produce a four-field matrix with four different consequences.
Does this work without trade fair data of your own?
Yes, and that is the main benefit of splitting the assessment. The quality axis comes from publicly available data about the fair. The relevance axis comes from decisions that have to be taken inside the company anyway. Both are available before a company has exhibited for the first time. Your own evaluations sharpen the assessment later, but they are not a precondition.
What are the axes of the four-field matrix?
One axis is the quality of the fair, that is how well it works as a marketplace, independently of your company. The other is strategic relevance, that is what this fair means for your objectives, your role and your target customers. The quality axis is the same for every exhibitor at a fair. The relevance axis is different for each.
What do must-have, must-attend, can-do and no-go mean?
Must-have means high quality and high relevance: this is where the budget belongs. Must-attend means high relevance at a weak fair: go, but in the smallest format that does the job. Can-do means a good fair with no current relevance: only with a concrete occasion. No-go means both are low: do not exhibit, visit at most.
How do I decide between two or three fairs in the same industry?
Every candidate is assessed against the same criteria and entered in the same matrix. They usually sit closer together on the quality axis than their marketing suggests, and differ clearly on the relevance axis. If two are level, visiting as a trade visitor is the cheapest decision aid there is.
Where do I get solid figures about a trade fair?
For German fairs, from the FKM database. The FKM certifies exhibitor, visitor and space figures and publishes the visitor structure alongside them, by industry, function, position, company size, origin and procurement authority. Access is free. Add last year's exhibitor directory, the supporting programme and the hall plans. If a fair is not certified, where its figures come from belongs in the assessment.
How many trade fairs should a company attend?
There is no number that holds independently of the objective. The distribution is more useful: if the budget runs evenly across all participations although only one of them sits in the must-have field, the weighting is wrong. For a young company one well-prepared participation is almost always better than two half-prepared ones.
Should you cancel a fair where the competition exhibits?
The presence of competitors shows that a market is happening there, and is to that extent a signal about the quality of the fair. As the sole justification for your own participation it does not hold. What matters is whether your target customers are there and whether the fair pays into your primary objective.
How do you end a trade fair participation without damaging relationships?
With three preparations. A justification that points forward, that is where the budget goes instead. A replacement for the relationships, for example a customer day of your own or an invitation to the leading fair. And a deadline rather than a final no: a pause for two editions followed by a fresh assessment.
How often should the assessment be repeated?
Once a year, ideally before budget planning and not once the registration deadlines are running. The quality axis changes slowly, the relevance axis fast, because it hangs on objectives and role. A new primary objective can move a fair out of the must-have field overnight.