Description
Study on Drop and Collect Survey as the Response to Business-To-Business Marketing Research Problems in Poland:- A field of applied statistics, survey methodology studies the sampling of individual units from a population and the associated survey data collection techniques, such as questionnaire construction and methods for improving the number and accuracy of responses to surveys.
Study on Drop and Collect Survey as the Response to Business-To-Business Marketing Research Problems in Poland
ABSTRACT Our presentation on the last Vienna conference provoked the discussion on trade shows as a research filed. In this paper we are going to show that in Polish conditions marketing research conducted during trade shows may help to overcome some obstacles faced in business research. That research bases mainly on generally accessible questionnaires or direct interview. Any of these methods may cause high costs or low response rate. The paper will present the application of drop and collect research method during trade shows which has some features of surveys and interviews. Its costs, time and data quality will be discussed. OBSTRUCTING FACTORS IN MARKETING RESEARCH AMONG COMPANIES The difference between business-to-business marketing and marketing directed at consumers is a result of differing market structure which requires closer, more stable and longterm, and at the same time more complex relationships, and more direct marketing channels than those on consumer (Lagrosen and Svensson, 2006). The behaviour of organizations functioning on businessto-business market results with specific conditions for marketing research, of which defining and understanding is essential before taking up research. One could consider it in subject, object and methodological aspects. In subject aspect of research, relatively small number of buyers, large value of purchase, their direct character and complexity of buying situation create on the business-to-business market closer, individualized and multidimensional relationships between buyer and supplier. The role of a company, development and the way it functions on the goods and industrial services markets should be explained and understood through the prism of ability of a company to maintain and develop business relationships. The relationships between business partners are a crucial research area in business-to-business marketing, especially on individual level (Sheth and Sharma, 2006). However, conducting the research on these relations faces the limitations stemming from the difficulty in observation of the process of creation and development of the very relation. Because it is difficult to learn not about the opinions of the seller and buyer on their relationship, but the very relation which is based on interpersonal communication. It presents a need to conduct research which must follow this communication. There have already been attempts to make such observations during negotiations, phone calls or the analysis of e-mail and fax correspondence, however, each of the methods met with considerable limitations (Olkkonen at al., 2000). In subject aspect, institutional character of buyers is reason why the process of buying is complex, which creates a need to take into account, during research, group decision making in the buying centre and obtaining opinions of its members. While doing research, one has to pay attention to the fact that traditional division into producers, buyers and competitors is gradually disappearing. Integration of market participants within the framework of value creation results with forming of bundle transaction between companies. Very often companies which with superficial assessment seem to be competitors, cooperate with each other. Outsourcing makes data be scattered between the company and its contractors. Such situations make it difficult for the researcher to define the subject of the research and require to include in the research the subjects which enter into relationships with the subjects which have core information and create need for collection of extensive data in order to understand the situation in a given sector. In methodological aspect, features of business-to-business market influence the possibility and effectiveness of data collection methods. From the marketing research point of view unanonymous character of the market makes it possible to create register of subjects and reaching directly the people who are the source of desired information. Possibility of doing research on business-to-business market is influence by the character of marketing channels - they are short, with limited role of intermediary. The distinguishing feature of communication on
1
business-to-business market is a significant role of personal contacts which often have direct character. It is important in marketing research aspect, since potential respondents may prefer interviews as a form of conveying information. The value of transactions on business-to-business market is considerably bigger than on consumption market but involves much fewer transactions. Gaining a customer is a long-term process and often involves resources of the company. Therefore, companies from some sectors (e.g. construction, IT) are not willing during the marketing research to reveal any information which could uncover their plans and show their activities. As a result, research requires using the methods which would gain the trust of potential respondents. For the research is also important occurring in some sectors geographic concentration of producers and buyers. It takes place in case of sectors of industry based on raw materials or when the buyers are located near the leading producer. Situation like that enables research based on direct contact (interview, observations). On the other hand, due to globalisation, research view on the relationship of a company with subjects singled out on the basis of six markets model (Payne, 1995) results with international character of research. Conditions described above influence taking up research projects by managers of business- tobusiness branch companies. The most crucial is the set of actions, described as economic intelligence including marketing intelligence, what means current observation of situation of company's surrounding and registering changes. The modern approach to the concept of economic intelligence outlines its systematic, permanent and active character (Kotler, 1994) However, researches conducted by authors in 2004 on the sample group of 413 Polish marketing managers of business-to-business market showed that only 45% of the thinks that data in their companies are being gathered according to a planned scheme. Analyses carried by Polish Society of Market and Opinion Researchers point out that companies of business-to-business market in significant smaller ratio use marketing researches compared with consumer goods companies. Companies of business-to-business market are not significant commissioners for research agencies and their turnover participation in the market of research institutes in Poland is not higher than few percents (Wódkowski, 2003). However, it does not mean that companies that provide services for business clients do not declare conducting researches most frequently they base on observations, questionnaires and interviews are not so common. New, reason based marketing researches, based on primary sources are not a common practice. (Gaw?cka, 1999). Authors' observations show that marketing researches, in which primary sources are used, are perceived as difficult and troublesome due to business-to-business market characteristics. Such a situation is mostly caused by a lower level of knowledge in the field of marketing in Polish to business-to-business companies, focus on achieving sell goals, not on the marketing and also by the lack of experience in conduction or ordering research services. However, we might observe the increasing interest in collection of market situation data, which were not being collected so far by applying marketing researches. It is very often caused by obtaining by companies positive experiences, related with the necessity of conducting researches of client's satisfaction data due to implementation of ISO standards. The listed factors help in doing research by subjects from a given sector on the basis of already existing relations and at the same time make research attempts difficult for subjects not from the sector. Companies functioning in business-to-business relations for collection of primary data use mainly observations and interviews made by sales staff. However, it can seriously limit the subject extent of the research. Moreover commercial priority may influence negatively on including methodological requirements as to the research. This situation looks differently from the point of view of companies entering new markets and research institutions (except for those which are specialised in such activity) which cannot base their research on the network of relations created in a given sector. They face restraints connected with difficulty to reach the respondents in research based on interview and survey (Kaniewska-S?ba at al., 2006), which can result in high costs, long period of data collection and what is more deterioration of reliability and accuracy of data (Kaniewska-S?ba and Leszczy?ski, 2006). Inability to participate in sector relations hinders research by method of observation and experiment. As a consequence, knowledge about business-to-business market which is based on the results of research seems to be smaller than the one about consumption goods market (Sheth and Sharma, 2006). In order to find solution for dilemmas of presented above conditions, it might be an interesting alternative to implement conducting researches in trade environment, due to the fact
2
that trade shows and expositions gather companies from a branch and at the same time this situation creates possibility to gather information about the market. In further part of the text we will present the review of literature in which is discussed above mentioned problem and show the possibility of using drop and collect survey during trade shows. TRADE SHOW AS A PLACE OF COLLECTING INFORMATION In Poland, for the activities of companies, there is a significant role played by trade show which can be treated as an event during which there take place meetings in one place of representatives of all groups functioning in a given branch (Black, 1986). In literature, numerous authors emphasize information role of trade show. However, above statement van be usually ascribed mainly to a group of exhibitors. Conducting research during trade show is included by T. V. Bonoma in so called extrasales goals of exhibitors (Bonomoa, 1983), while K. Hansen classifies it as based on behaviour (Hansen, 1996). Nearly 80% of exhibitors in Poland go to trade show to exchange and gain information, and seven out of eight indicato the willingness to find out about the needs of customersi. It was suggests by B. Siskind to representatives of companies that before visiting trade show they should recognize their information needs and then use their participation not only to issue but also to gather information (Siskind, 2005). Among the information which the exhibitor is able to collect during the trade show he mentions, except for offer requests, data about potential customer and competitors' price and range offers, also attitude of customers to products, tastes, likes and preferences of customers and behaviour of competitors towards customers. In the polish articles there is stressed lack of preparation of Polish exhibitors for research (Mruk and Kuca, 2005). Visiting trade show representatives of companies feel that it is an excellent opportunity to collect information, however, frequently they either do not have proper knowledge how to do it, or they do not have time for it. Hence most often trade show marketing research have a form of informal, unstructured interviews. The information which is obtained in this way is not registered and quickly they disappear. Trade show is an event during which not only exhibitors do research. The results of the research conducted among the group of exhibitors both in West Europe (AUMA) and in CentralEastern Europe (CENTREX) prove that exhibitor is not the only recipient of information during trade show - for visitors collecting information about novelties and current market developments is a more important goal of trade show participation than communication with business partners or developing relationship with them, which is also stressed by K. Hansen (Hansen, 1996). Research potential of trade show might be analyzed in terms of aspects presented in the first part of the article: subject, object and methodology. In terms of the subject aspect approach - trade show as a place of gathering data, we have the possibility to conduct researches of interactions and observe the processing of relations on different stages - from the first contact with the potential client to permanent cooperation. It is possible to include in the research, communicational and situational aspects between participants of trade shows, concerning three phases, namely; before, during and after. Trade show, as a research environment, because of its international character also enable us to observe cultural differences. The advantage of object aspect of conducting researches during trade shows is the possibility to conduct research of many companies of a certain branch at one place and at one time and also obtain surveys from executives from a given branch who deal with purchases and sells (accurate selection of trade show). It applies especially to countries and branches where trade shows are of significant importance and position. The good example might be industrial branches in Poland, where trade shows are considered as second most important (after direct meetings) promotion tool, therefore the biggest construction or machine trade shows gather (exhibitors and visitors) most of the companies in the branch. Trade shows make it possible also to conduct surveys of people from different countries during one event or cover with survey the same people during trade shows in different countries. If it comes to methodological aspects, trade shows enable conducting researches of different people in comparable conditions, at the same time and place. The experience of authors in the research which has been done for eight years shows that in trade show environment one can lead research using wide range of methods: interview (direct, focus group, individual depth), survey (drop and collect, widely available, audit), observation (controlled and uncontrolled, overt and covert, standardized and not standardized) and experiment. Collecting information during trade show is, however, connected with certain problems. Among the disadvantages of the research in trade show environment one should include
3
respondent's lack of time - persons present at the stand can be busy and the result can be stopping the research or choosing for it an inappropriate person. It requires involvement of a large number of people who will contact the respondents. Another obstacle is a negative influence of environment, especially noise which is often present in the building or at the stand and which may create problems in canvasser-respondent communication. From observation and experiment point of view the restraint could be unnatural character of conditions in trade show hall. Using specific methods it is necessary to cooperate with organizer of trade show, who may turn out to be not the right partner in this area. It seems that informative potential of trade show is not sufficiently exploited by trade show exhibitors in Poland, who make numerous interview and observations but they do not have the form of formalized research. To a small extent trade shows are used for formal research by companies which are not exhibitors. Scientific research also rarely takes advantage of trade show potential. DROP AND COLLECT SURVEY DURING TRADE SHOWS AS AN ALTERNATIVE FOR DIRECT INTERVIEW It seems that most popular methods used in formalized researches during trade shows in Poland, which aim at recognizing the opinion, are direct and thorough interviews, generally accessible questionnaires are not so common. Disadvantage of an interview are its relatively high costs of remuneration for pollsters, necessity of high number of pollsters, in order to cover with the interview the sufficient number of people during trade show and burden the results with an error related with questionnaire effect. On the other hand, generally accessible questionnaire does not enable the control over access to surveyed population, however, using it does not generate high costs. Interesting alternative for the interview and generally accessible questionnaire (considering trade shows) might be drop and collect survey, which joins characteristics of posted questionnaire with the interview. The person conducting research by applying this method, delivers questionnaires to responding parties in person, asks them to fill it out themselves and post it back or return the questionnaire in other way (for example bring it back to a certain place, put it in a questionnaire box, or give it back to the pollster). Relatively high engagement of the pollster in handing out and collection of questionnaire forms helps to control the structure of the interviewed sample group and ensures representativeness of results of the conducted survey. However, the basic condition must be met: the responder must answer individually in untrammelled way - distribution method is of personal character, but the responder uses selfadministrated questionnaire (Brock at al, 2004). High percentage of returns of filled out questionnaires and lower costs - compared with direct interviews (Brock and Ibeh, 2003) is the advantage of this technique, that is why it is recommended to be applied for conducting surveys in trade show environment (Kaniewska-S?ba at al, 2006) This method is relatively poorly described in literature and not very often used in Poland, that is why the further part of this paper will present analysis of data collection with the usage of drop and collect survey. According to the statement above, the following thesis was assumed: If we conduct at the same time, survey using drop and collect technique, we can obtain the same quality data, like information obtained during direct interviews but at a lower cost. Based on the thesis presented above, a survey was prepared, which aimed at estimating the level of reversibility of indicators of the questionnaire handed out in order to collect companies' opinions (on efficiency of communication) during trade shows. Another goal of the research was to compare the drop and collect survey with the direct interview. Quality of research might be evaluated by its reliability, understood as the degree to which measures are free from random error and, therefore, provide consistent data and its validity, which refers to the extent to which the instrument and procedure are free from errors. Validity understood as a degree, to which data meet reality. Validity might be evaluated by comparing data with actual situation or with results of other surveys - which are considered as precise (McDaniel, Gates, 2002). In the discussed example, comparison of research was made in regard with validity, assuming that usage of the same research tool will eliminate differences in reliability. It was also assumed, that the benchmark will be the direct interview method, to which drop and collect survey will be compared, due to the fact that interview is the closest form of face-to-face communication - which is most commonly used during trade shows.
4
Basing on results that show that overall non-response rates are higher in selfadministrated questionnaires than in case of interviews (de Leeuws, 2005), we have taken into consideration the non-response error of the sample - due to high non-response rate. Assumed response rate means a ratio of correctly filled in questionnaires to the number of visited exposition stands (Lynn at al, 2001). According to recent researches carried in trade shows environment (direct interview) reversibility was on the level of circa 80%, what might be considered as a satisfactory result amongst companies (McNeil, 2005; Jobber, O'Reilly, 1998). However, handing out questionnaire forms by pollster in drop and collect surveys should positively influence the response rate, that is why - H1 hypothesis was assumed: Direct interview is characterized by the same response rate as drop and collect survey. Another level of comparison was the amount of information retrieved from open questions. According to survey results presented by E. de Leeuw, it was assumed that significant differences will not occur - in case of answering simple open questions (de Leeuw, 2005). As a comparison criteria, the certain amount of various indicators (presented in question answers) were assumed. Thereupon, hypothesis H2 was assumed: Ratio of number of answers for the option of "other, what?" to the number of stated options "other, what?" in the survey conducted in the direct interview method is not different from the average result of surveys conducted in a drop and collect technique. In case of sensitive questions face-to-face interviews result in data with less item nonresponse (de Leeuw, 2005) Contact of the responder with the person who hands out questionnaires, might however, have the similar influence in drop and collect survey, like in the case of interview and decrease the willingness to answer "sensitive" subjects. Assuming that the question concerning the budget for participation in trade show might be of "sensitive" nature in business-to-business relationships, H3 hypothesis was assumed. Percentage of responders, who have answered the "sensitive" (budget) question in the survey carried by applying direct interview method is not different from the result obtained in drop and collect survey. Assuming that the direct interview gives true results, tested drop and collect survey should give the same results - if we used the same questionnaire form. This assumption is based on the lack of unequivocal results that would confirm the influence of the method (interview/survey) on the diversification of results (De Leeuw, 2005). Thereupon, hypothesis H4 was assumed: There are no differences in the distribution of answers given by responders of two surveys. According to the thesis, which is the starting point for conducting survey, it was assumed that in case of providing data of comparable quality - drop and collect survey is more effective in terms of its costs. Basing on the experience of authors, which indicate that generation of high costs - trade show surveys (interview method), are result of the necessity of hiring many pollsters in order to carry out the survey on the large group of responders in a short time, it seems that drop and collect survey will allow significant reduction of costs of work of pollsters, and will not generate other costs, like costs of interviews. Therefore, H5 hypothesis was assumed: The cost of obtaining 1 answer from the responder in drop and collect survey is lower than in case of direct interviews. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The subject of the survey were representatives of Polish companies (employees responsible for participation in trade shows, employees of marketing departments, exhibition stand managers). The survey was conducted during Instalacje 2006 Trade Show - one of the biggest institutional trade shows in Poland. Due to problems in obtaining the complete data base of trade show exhibitors, that would enable us to prepare the sampling frame, estimate size of the sample and sample selection, parties conducting the survey have decided to include in it only one branch of business (Air Conditioning and Ventilation Techniques - 100 exhibitors). In order to obtain comparability of gathered data from two research methods, experimental surveys were carried. Population was divided at random into two equal groups of 50. Firms from the first group were given questionnaires and were asked to fill them in. Representatives of the other group were interviewed directly. Following recommendations from literature (Brock at al., 2004), authors have sent in one week's advance before the trade show, an email to selected companies with invitation to take part in the survey. The e-mail highlighted non commercial nature of the survey, anonymity of responders, usage of results in an aggregated form and proposition of delivery of the survey after completion of the analysis. In the second stage pollsters were selected and trained, with the focus
5
on the basic condition of handed out questionnaire method - responders must answer questions individually in untrammelled way. On the second day of trade shows, pollsters (following the address list of companies) were giving questionnaires to managers of exposition stands and telling that they will come on the next day to collect it. At this stage of handing out questionnaires, most of the companies declared willingness to fill in questionnaires and only few did not guarantee return of the form, due to lack of time. In order to increase number of returned questionnaires, additional visit at responder's stand is required. Therefore, collection of questionnaires was commenced on the third day. Companies, whose representatives did not take part in the survey were visited again on the same day or on the last day of trade show. Persons, who did not fill in the questionnaire after another visit of a pollster, most frequently were saying that they: had no time, were not willing to cooperate, were out of staff, lost the questionnaire form or have given it to somebody else. At the same time direct interviews were carried - on second and third day of trade show. In order to avoid diversification of results in both methods, due to influence of pollster on given answers or on declaration of willingness to participate in the survey, interviews were carried by the same people who were handing out questionnaire forms. Responders in both surveys were given the same questionnaire form, 60 questions (52 closed questions, 8 half-open questions) and 6 metric questions. DROP AND COLLECT VS DIRECT INTERVIEW - RESULTS OF THE SURVEY Method of direct interview turned out to be more returnable (82% of collected questionnaires) than drop and collect technique (76% of collected questionnaires). Statistical tests (?2=1, df=1, p<0,001) did not show that those differences were of significant importance. Therefore there are no basis to reject H1 hypothesis. Ratio of number of answers for the option of "other, what?" to the number of stated options "other, what?" in the survey conducted in the direct interview method was 1,29 and was not different from the analogous result of survey conducted in a drop and collect technique (1,26). Therefore H2 hypothesis was positively verified. Significant differences were observed in case of number of answers given for the "sensitive" (budget related) question. In case of the direct interview nearly 75% of responders answered this question. In the survey conducted with the use of handed out questionnaire, only every second responder answered this question (47,5%). Therefore, there are no grounds to accept H3 hypothesis. Hypothesis H4 was verified by conducting analysis of distribution of answers for 26 closed questions, where Likert scale and itemized rating scales were applied. Results of both surveys did not show significant differences (U-Mann Whitney test), therefore H4 hypothesis was accepted. Method of handed out questionnaire survey turned out to be the method that generates lower costs of obtaining answer from 1 responder than it is in the case of direct interview method. The reason for disproportion was higher remuneration for conducting an interview than for handing out and collection of questionnaire forms. With similar level of returns of filled forms it is 3,62 times cheaper to obtain answer from 1 responder (drop and collect techniuqe) than it is in the case of direct interview method. Hypothesis H5 was verified positively. CONCLUSIONS Trade show environment, so far, because of certain restrictions described in the article, was not perceived as a study environment. However, the importance of trade shows in selected industry branches means the possibility of conducting researches covering representatives of management in most of firms in a given branch. It might be stated that the assumed thesis is correct, meaning that in the trade show environment, handed out questionnaire - if it comes to effectiveness of marketing researches - is an attractive alternative for direct interview. Positive verification of research hypotheses enables us to draw conclusion that analyzed example of drop and collect survey enables gathering data of similar quality, with similar returns at lower costs - compared to direct interview. However, it is worth noticing that in case of budget question the assumption of comparability of effectiveness of questionnaire and interview was not confirmed. The obtained result might be interpreted as a result of work of pollsters, who could have convinced responders to answer the question concerning budget of company for participation in the trade show. It is also
6
possible, that this question in spite of the assumption was not "sensitive" for responders and was treated as a simple open question. Two surveys showed that for the sake of efficient conduction of a survey, cooperation with the organizer of the trade show is of crucial importance. Organizing party possesses up-to- date data bases of exhibitors, issues consent for conduction of surveys at the site of trade show and is regarded by exhibitors as a reliable and confidential party, therefore all the collected data will be kept confidential. At the same time, obtaining organizer's consent for conducting surveys should not be difficult, due to their noticeable increasing interest in good understanding of study approach to trade shows. It might be assumed that, both in case of scientific and commercial approach, trade show might be perceived as a study environment and direct interview might be replaced by handed out questionnaires. However, there are some problems appearing during drop and collect surveys, which are of lower significance if it comes to interviews. Questionnaire form should be handed in to the responder - not left at the stand. In case of interviews, the pollster should wait for the interview to happen, but in case of questionnaire form, service staff of the stand might convince the pollster to leave the form. Drop and collect technique, still requires the contact of distributing person with responder. At the stage of collection of questionnaire forms, it is worth to plan at least two visits at each stand, and the last one should not be on the last day of trade show (it is the day when very often only auxiliary staff is left at the stand). People who collect filled in questionnaires should have additional copies on them, in case responder lost the one he/she was given before. The other thing is the fact that "collectors" should not be only destined to retrieve the filled in copy, due to frequent questions concerning the survey asked by responders. Therefore, training is required (similar to the training for pollsters who conduct direct interviews). Except for the mentioned advantages of drop and collect technique, it is worth to discuss its limitations. If it comes to conducting surveys during trade show, the weak point of this technique are very limited possibilities to survey visitors, who move all over the site of trade show at various time, and there is no designated area for them where they could fill in the questionnaire form. It would be interesting to conduct comparison research of interview and drop and collect survey by handing out questionnaire forms at the entrance and collecting it from people who are leaving. Usage of results presented in this article, which positively outline drop and collect technique requires caution, it is difficult to estimate the universality of results presented in the article - due to the fact that they were not repeated neither at construction branch trades, nor anywhere outside Poland. SUMMARIES Conducting marketing research on business-to-business market leads to many various problems. Gathering information during trade fairs is proposed as alternatives approach. Observation and personal interview are most frequently used methods in research during trade shows. Thus, these methods have also some disadvantages. In the article authors present trade fairs as research field and drop and collect method as effective technique of gathering information during trade show. EDNOTES i Scientific research granted by KBN (2006-2007), project "Trade fairs communication on B2B market" (No. N115 012 31/0429) ii research was conducted among 300 companies, http://www.polfair.com.pl/badania.php?id=1 REFERENCES 1. Black R., The Trade Shows Industry: Management and Marketing Career Opportunities, Trade Show Bureau, East Orleans, 1986 2. Bonoma T. V., Get more out of you trade shows, Harvard Business Review, January-February 1983 3. Exhibition/Fairs Visitor Survey Report, Centrex 2003-2004 4. Gaw?cka R., Dylematy badawcze na rynku dóbr przemys?owych , w: „Marketing Przemys?owy" materia?y konferencyjne pod red. H.Mruka, Akademia Ekonomiczna w Poznaniu, Pozna? 1999 5. Go??biowski T., (red.), Marketing na rynku instytucjonalnym, PWE, Warszawa 2003 6. Hansen K., The dual motives of participants At international trade shows, International Marketing Review, Vol 13, nr 2, 1996
7
7. 8.
9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.
17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.
Hansen K., Trade show performance: a conceptual framework and its implications for future research, Academy of Marketing Science Rewiev, Vol. 1999 No. 8 Ibeh K., Brock J., Conducting survey among organizational populations in developing countries: can the drop and collect technique make a difference?, University of Strathclyde, March 2003, Working Paper 2003/5 Ibeh K., Brock J., Zhou Y. J., Drop and Collect Survey among Industrial Populations: Theory and Empirical Evidence, Industrial Marketing Management, 2004, nr 33(2) Informationsverhalten von Fachbesuchern auf Messen, Ausstellungs- und Messe-Ausschuss der Deutschen Wirtschaft e.V., Berlin, 2003 Jobber D., O'Reilly D., Industrial Mail Surveys: A Methodological Update, „Industrial Marketing Management", 27/1998 Kaniewska-S?ba A., Leszczy?ski G., Jako?? danych pozyskiwanych z wywiadów i bada? ankietowych, Handel Wewn?trzny, pa?dziernik 2006 Kaniewska-S?ba A., Leszczy?ski G., Pilarczyk B,, Badania marketingowe na rynku business to-business, Oficyna Ekonmiczna, Kraków 2006 Lagrosen S., Svensson G., A seminal framework of marketing schools: revisited and updated, Journal of Management History, Vol. 12 No. 4, 2006 De Leeuw E.D., To Mix or Not to Mix Data Collection Modes in Surveys, Journal of Official Statistics, Vol. 21, No. 2, 2005 Lynn P., Beerten R., Laiho J., Martin J., Recommended Standard Final Outcome Categories and Standard Definitions of Response Rate for Social Surveys, Institute for Social and Economic Research, ISER Working Papers, 23/2001, www.iser.essex.ac.uk/pubs/workpaps/ McNeil R., Business to Business Market Research, Kogan Page, London 2005 Mruk H., Kuca A. (ed.), Trade Fair Mareketing. Exhibitor's Manual, Polish Trade Fair Corporation, Poznan, 2005 Olkkonen R., Tikkanen H., Alajoutsijarvi K., The role of communication in business relationships and networks, Management Decision 38/6, 2000 Payne A., Advances in Relationship Marketing, Kogan Page, London 1995, p. 31 Siskind B., Powerful exhibit marketing, The complete guide to successful trade shows, conferences and consumer shows, Wiley 2005 Sheth J.N., Sharma A., The surpluses and shortages in business-to-business marketing theory and research, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 21/7 2006
8
doc_880393412.docx
Study on Drop and Collect Survey as the Response to Business-To-Business Marketing Research Problems in Poland:- A field of applied statistics, survey methodology studies the sampling of individual units from a population and the associated survey data collection techniques, such as questionnaire construction and methods for improving the number and accuracy of responses to surveys.
Study on Drop and Collect Survey as the Response to Business-To-Business Marketing Research Problems in Poland
ABSTRACT Our presentation on the last Vienna conference provoked the discussion on trade shows as a research filed. In this paper we are going to show that in Polish conditions marketing research conducted during trade shows may help to overcome some obstacles faced in business research. That research bases mainly on generally accessible questionnaires or direct interview. Any of these methods may cause high costs or low response rate. The paper will present the application of drop and collect research method during trade shows which has some features of surveys and interviews. Its costs, time and data quality will be discussed. OBSTRUCTING FACTORS IN MARKETING RESEARCH AMONG COMPANIES The difference between business-to-business marketing and marketing directed at consumers is a result of differing market structure which requires closer, more stable and longterm, and at the same time more complex relationships, and more direct marketing channels than those on consumer (Lagrosen and Svensson, 2006). The behaviour of organizations functioning on businessto-business market results with specific conditions for marketing research, of which defining and understanding is essential before taking up research. One could consider it in subject, object and methodological aspects. In subject aspect of research, relatively small number of buyers, large value of purchase, their direct character and complexity of buying situation create on the business-to-business market closer, individualized and multidimensional relationships between buyer and supplier. The role of a company, development and the way it functions on the goods and industrial services markets should be explained and understood through the prism of ability of a company to maintain and develop business relationships. The relationships between business partners are a crucial research area in business-to-business marketing, especially on individual level (Sheth and Sharma, 2006). However, conducting the research on these relations faces the limitations stemming from the difficulty in observation of the process of creation and development of the very relation. Because it is difficult to learn not about the opinions of the seller and buyer on their relationship, but the very relation which is based on interpersonal communication. It presents a need to conduct research which must follow this communication. There have already been attempts to make such observations during negotiations, phone calls or the analysis of e-mail and fax correspondence, however, each of the methods met with considerable limitations (Olkkonen at al., 2000). In subject aspect, institutional character of buyers is reason why the process of buying is complex, which creates a need to take into account, during research, group decision making in the buying centre and obtaining opinions of its members. While doing research, one has to pay attention to the fact that traditional division into producers, buyers and competitors is gradually disappearing. Integration of market participants within the framework of value creation results with forming of bundle transaction between companies. Very often companies which with superficial assessment seem to be competitors, cooperate with each other. Outsourcing makes data be scattered between the company and its contractors. Such situations make it difficult for the researcher to define the subject of the research and require to include in the research the subjects which enter into relationships with the subjects which have core information and create need for collection of extensive data in order to understand the situation in a given sector. In methodological aspect, features of business-to-business market influence the possibility and effectiveness of data collection methods. From the marketing research point of view unanonymous character of the market makes it possible to create register of subjects and reaching directly the people who are the source of desired information. Possibility of doing research on business-to-business market is influence by the character of marketing channels - they are short, with limited role of intermediary. The distinguishing feature of communication on
1
business-to-business market is a significant role of personal contacts which often have direct character. It is important in marketing research aspect, since potential respondents may prefer interviews as a form of conveying information. The value of transactions on business-to-business market is considerably bigger than on consumption market but involves much fewer transactions. Gaining a customer is a long-term process and often involves resources of the company. Therefore, companies from some sectors (e.g. construction, IT) are not willing during the marketing research to reveal any information which could uncover their plans and show their activities. As a result, research requires using the methods which would gain the trust of potential respondents. For the research is also important occurring in some sectors geographic concentration of producers and buyers. It takes place in case of sectors of industry based on raw materials or when the buyers are located near the leading producer. Situation like that enables research based on direct contact (interview, observations). On the other hand, due to globalisation, research view on the relationship of a company with subjects singled out on the basis of six markets model (Payne, 1995) results with international character of research. Conditions described above influence taking up research projects by managers of business- tobusiness branch companies. The most crucial is the set of actions, described as economic intelligence including marketing intelligence, what means current observation of situation of company's surrounding and registering changes. The modern approach to the concept of economic intelligence outlines its systematic, permanent and active character (Kotler, 1994) However, researches conducted by authors in 2004 on the sample group of 413 Polish marketing managers of business-to-business market showed that only 45% of the thinks that data in their companies are being gathered according to a planned scheme. Analyses carried by Polish Society of Market and Opinion Researchers point out that companies of business-to-business market in significant smaller ratio use marketing researches compared with consumer goods companies. Companies of business-to-business market are not significant commissioners for research agencies and their turnover participation in the market of research institutes in Poland is not higher than few percents (Wódkowski, 2003). However, it does not mean that companies that provide services for business clients do not declare conducting researches most frequently they base on observations, questionnaires and interviews are not so common. New, reason based marketing researches, based on primary sources are not a common practice. (Gaw?cka, 1999). Authors' observations show that marketing researches, in which primary sources are used, are perceived as difficult and troublesome due to business-to-business market characteristics. Such a situation is mostly caused by a lower level of knowledge in the field of marketing in Polish to business-to-business companies, focus on achieving sell goals, not on the marketing and also by the lack of experience in conduction or ordering research services. However, we might observe the increasing interest in collection of market situation data, which were not being collected so far by applying marketing researches. It is very often caused by obtaining by companies positive experiences, related with the necessity of conducting researches of client's satisfaction data due to implementation of ISO standards. The listed factors help in doing research by subjects from a given sector on the basis of already existing relations and at the same time make research attempts difficult for subjects not from the sector. Companies functioning in business-to-business relations for collection of primary data use mainly observations and interviews made by sales staff. However, it can seriously limit the subject extent of the research. Moreover commercial priority may influence negatively on including methodological requirements as to the research. This situation looks differently from the point of view of companies entering new markets and research institutions (except for those which are specialised in such activity) which cannot base their research on the network of relations created in a given sector. They face restraints connected with difficulty to reach the respondents in research based on interview and survey (Kaniewska-S?ba at al., 2006), which can result in high costs, long period of data collection and what is more deterioration of reliability and accuracy of data (Kaniewska-S?ba and Leszczy?ski, 2006). Inability to participate in sector relations hinders research by method of observation and experiment. As a consequence, knowledge about business-to-business market which is based on the results of research seems to be smaller than the one about consumption goods market (Sheth and Sharma, 2006). In order to find solution for dilemmas of presented above conditions, it might be an interesting alternative to implement conducting researches in trade environment, due to the fact
2
that trade shows and expositions gather companies from a branch and at the same time this situation creates possibility to gather information about the market. In further part of the text we will present the review of literature in which is discussed above mentioned problem and show the possibility of using drop and collect survey during trade shows. TRADE SHOW AS A PLACE OF COLLECTING INFORMATION In Poland, for the activities of companies, there is a significant role played by trade show which can be treated as an event during which there take place meetings in one place of representatives of all groups functioning in a given branch (Black, 1986). In literature, numerous authors emphasize information role of trade show. However, above statement van be usually ascribed mainly to a group of exhibitors. Conducting research during trade show is included by T. V. Bonoma in so called extrasales goals of exhibitors (Bonomoa, 1983), while K. Hansen classifies it as based on behaviour (Hansen, 1996). Nearly 80% of exhibitors in Poland go to trade show to exchange and gain information, and seven out of eight indicato the willingness to find out about the needs of customersi. It was suggests by B. Siskind to representatives of companies that before visiting trade show they should recognize their information needs and then use their participation not only to issue but also to gather information (Siskind, 2005). Among the information which the exhibitor is able to collect during the trade show he mentions, except for offer requests, data about potential customer and competitors' price and range offers, also attitude of customers to products, tastes, likes and preferences of customers and behaviour of competitors towards customers. In the polish articles there is stressed lack of preparation of Polish exhibitors for research (Mruk and Kuca, 2005). Visiting trade show representatives of companies feel that it is an excellent opportunity to collect information, however, frequently they either do not have proper knowledge how to do it, or they do not have time for it. Hence most often trade show marketing research have a form of informal, unstructured interviews. The information which is obtained in this way is not registered and quickly they disappear. Trade show is an event during which not only exhibitors do research. The results of the research conducted among the group of exhibitors both in West Europe (AUMA) and in CentralEastern Europe (CENTREX) prove that exhibitor is not the only recipient of information during trade show - for visitors collecting information about novelties and current market developments is a more important goal of trade show participation than communication with business partners or developing relationship with them, which is also stressed by K. Hansen (Hansen, 1996). Research potential of trade show might be analyzed in terms of aspects presented in the first part of the article: subject, object and methodology. In terms of the subject aspect approach - trade show as a place of gathering data, we have the possibility to conduct researches of interactions and observe the processing of relations on different stages - from the first contact with the potential client to permanent cooperation. It is possible to include in the research, communicational and situational aspects between participants of trade shows, concerning three phases, namely; before, during and after. Trade show, as a research environment, because of its international character also enable us to observe cultural differences. The advantage of object aspect of conducting researches during trade shows is the possibility to conduct research of many companies of a certain branch at one place and at one time and also obtain surveys from executives from a given branch who deal with purchases and sells (accurate selection of trade show). It applies especially to countries and branches where trade shows are of significant importance and position. The good example might be industrial branches in Poland, where trade shows are considered as second most important (after direct meetings) promotion tool, therefore the biggest construction or machine trade shows gather (exhibitors and visitors) most of the companies in the branch. Trade shows make it possible also to conduct surveys of people from different countries during one event or cover with survey the same people during trade shows in different countries. If it comes to methodological aspects, trade shows enable conducting researches of different people in comparable conditions, at the same time and place. The experience of authors in the research which has been done for eight years shows that in trade show environment one can lead research using wide range of methods: interview (direct, focus group, individual depth), survey (drop and collect, widely available, audit), observation (controlled and uncontrolled, overt and covert, standardized and not standardized) and experiment. Collecting information during trade show is, however, connected with certain problems. Among the disadvantages of the research in trade show environment one should include
3
respondent's lack of time - persons present at the stand can be busy and the result can be stopping the research or choosing for it an inappropriate person. It requires involvement of a large number of people who will contact the respondents. Another obstacle is a negative influence of environment, especially noise which is often present in the building or at the stand and which may create problems in canvasser-respondent communication. From observation and experiment point of view the restraint could be unnatural character of conditions in trade show hall. Using specific methods it is necessary to cooperate with organizer of trade show, who may turn out to be not the right partner in this area. It seems that informative potential of trade show is not sufficiently exploited by trade show exhibitors in Poland, who make numerous interview and observations but they do not have the form of formalized research. To a small extent trade shows are used for formal research by companies which are not exhibitors. Scientific research also rarely takes advantage of trade show potential. DROP AND COLLECT SURVEY DURING TRADE SHOWS AS AN ALTERNATIVE FOR DIRECT INTERVIEW It seems that most popular methods used in formalized researches during trade shows in Poland, which aim at recognizing the opinion, are direct and thorough interviews, generally accessible questionnaires are not so common. Disadvantage of an interview are its relatively high costs of remuneration for pollsters, necessity of high number of pollsters, in order to cover with the interview the sufficient number of people during trade show and burden the results with an error related with questionnaire effect. On the other hand, generally accessible questionnaire does not enable the control over access to surveyed population, however, using it does not generate high costs. Interesting alternative for the interview and generally accessible questionnaire (considering trade shows) might be drop and collect survey, which joins characteristics of posted questionnaire with the interview. The person conducting research by applying this method, delivers questionnaires to responding parties in person, asks them to fill it out themselves and post it back or return the questionnaire in other way (for example bring it back to a certain place, put it in a questionnaire box, or give it back to the pollster). Relatively high engagement of the pollster in handing out and collection of questionnaire forms helps to control the structure of the interviewed sample group and ensures representativeness of results of the conducted survey. However, the basic condition must be met: the responder must answer individually in untrammelled way - distribution method is of personal character, but the responder uses selfadministrated questionnaire (Brock at al, 2004). High percentage of returns of filled out questionnaires and lower costs - compared with direct interviews (Brock and Ibeh, 2003) is the advantage of this technique, that is why it is recommended to be applied for conducting surveys in trade show environment (Kaniewska-S?ba at al, 2006) This method is relatively poorly described in literature and not very often used in Poland, that is why the further part of this paper will present analysis of data collection with the usage of drop and collect survey. According to the statement above, the following thesis was assumed: If we conduct at the same time, survey using drop and collect technique, we can obtain the same quality data, like information obtained during direct interviews but at a lower cost. Based on the thesis presented above, a survey was prepared, which aimed at estimating the level of reversibility of indicators of the questionnaire handed out in order to collect companies' opinions (on efficiency of communication) during trade shows. Another goal of the research was to compare the drop and collect survey with the direct interview. Quality of research might be evaluated by its reliability, understood as the degree to which measures are free from random error and, therefore, provide consistent data and its validity, which refers to the extent to which the instrument and procedure are free from errors. Validity understood as a degree, to which data meet reality. Validity might be evaluated by comparing data with actual situation or with results of other surveys - which are considered as precise (McDaniel, Gates, 2002). In the discussed example, comparison of research was made in regard with validity, assuming that usage of the same research tool will eliminate differences in reliability. It was also assumed, that the benchmark will be the direct interview method, to which drop and collect survey will be compared, due to the fact that interview is the closest form of face-to-face communication - which is most commonly used during trade shows.
4
Basing on results that show that overall non-response rates are higher in selfadministrated questionnaires than in case of interviews (de Leeuws, 2005), we have taken into consideration the non-response error of the sample - due to high non-response rate. Assumed response rate means a ratio of correctly filled in questionnaires to the number of visited exposition stands (Lynn at al, 2001). According to recent researches carried in trade shows environment (direct interview) reversibility was on the level of circa 80%, what might be considered as a satisfactory result amongst companies (McNeil, 2005; Jobber, O'Reilly, 1998). However, handing out questionnaire forms by pollster in drop and collect surveys should positively influence the response rate, that is why - H1 hypothesis was assumed: Direct interview is characterized by the same response rate as drop and collect survey. Another level of comparison was the amount of information retrieved from open questions. According to survey results presented by E. de Leeuw, it was assumed that significant differences will not occur - in case of answering simple open questions (de Leeuw, 2005). As a comparison criteria, the certain amount of various indicators (presented in question answers) were assumed. Thereupon, hypothesis H2 was assumed: Ratio of number of answers for the option of "other, what?" to the number of stated options "other, what?" in the survey conducted in the direct interview method is not different from the average result of surveys conducted in a drop and collect technique. In case of sensitive questions face-to-face interviews result in data with less item nonresponse (de Leeuw, 2005) Contact of the responder with the person who hands out questionnaires, might however, have the similar influence in drop and collect survey, like in the case of interview and decrease the willingness to answer "sensitive" subjects. Assuming that the question concerning the budget for participation in trade show might be of "sensitive" nature in business-to-business relationships, H3 hypothesis was assumed. Percentage of responders, who have answered the "sensitive" (budget) question in the survey carried by applying direct interview method is not different from the result obtained in drop and collect survey. Assuming that the direct interview gives true results, tested drop and collect survey should give the same results - if we used the same questionnaire form. This assumption is based on the lack of unequivocal results that would confirm the influence of the method (interview/survey) on the diversification of results (De Leeuw, 2005). Thereupon, hypothesis H4 was assumed: There are no differences in the distribution of answers given by responders of two surveys. According to the thesis, which is the starting point for conducting survey, it was assumed that in case of providing data of comparable quality - drop and collect survey is more effective in terms of its costs. Basing on the experience of authors, which indicate that generation of high costs - trade show surveys (interview method), are result of the necessity of hiring many pollsters in order to carry out the survey on the large group of responders in a short time, it seems that drop and collect survey will allow significant reduction of costs of work of pollsters, and will not generate other costs, like costs of interviews. Therefore, H5 hypothesis was assumed: The cost of obtaining 1 answer from the responder in drop and collect survey is lower than in case of direct interviews. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The subject of the survey were representatives of Polish companies (employees responsible for participation in trade shows, employees of marketing departments, exhibition stand managers). The survey was conducted during Instalacje 2006 Trade Show - one of the biggest institutional trade shows in Poland. Due to problems in obtaining the complete data base of trade show exhibitors, that would enable us to prepare the sampling frame, estimate size of the sample and sample selection, parties conducting the survey have decided to include in it only one branch of business (Air Conditioning and Ventilation Techniques - 100 exhibitors). In order to obtain comparability of gathered data from two research methods, experimental surveys were carried. Population was divided at random into two equal groups of 50. Firms from the first group were given questionnaires and were asked to fill them in. Representatives of the other group were interviewed directly. Following recommendations from literature (Brock at al., 2004), authors have sent in one week's advance before the trade show, an email to selected companies with invitation to take part in the survey. The e-mail highlighted non commercial nature of the survey, anonymity of responders, usage of results in an aggregated form and proposition of delivery of the survey after completion of the analysis. In the second stage pollsters were selected and trained, with the focus
5
on the basic condition of handed out questionnaire method - responders must answer questions individually in untrammelled way. On the second day of trade shows, pollsters (following the address list of companies) were giving questionnaires to managers of exposition stands and telling that they will come on the next day to collect it. At this stage of handing out questionnaires, most of the companies declared willingness to fill in questionnaires and only few did not guarantee return of the form, due to lack of time. In order to increase number of returned questionnaires, additional visit at responder's stand is required. Therefore, collection of questionnaires was commenced on the third day. Companies, whose representatives did not take part in the survey were visited again on the same day or on the last day of trade show. Persons, who did not fill in the questionnaire after another visit of a pollster, most frequently were saying that they: had no time, were not willing to cooperate, were out of staff, lost the questionnaire form or have given it to somebody else. At the same time direct interviews were carried - on second and third day of trade show. In order to avoid diversification of results in both methods, due to influence of pollster on given answers or on declaration of willingness to participate in the survey, interviews were carried by the same people who were handing out questionnaire forms. Responders in both surveys were given the same questionnaire form, 60 questions (52 closed questions, 8 half-open questions) and 6 metric questions. DROP AND COLLECT VS DIRECT INTERVIEW - RESULTS OF THE SURVEY Method of direct interview turned out to be more returnable (82% of collected questionnaires) than drop and collect technique (76% of collected questionnaires). Statistical tests (?2=1, df=1, p<0,001) did not show that those differences were of significant importance. Therefore there are no basis to reject H1 hypothesis. Ratio of number of answers for the option of "other, what?" to the number of stated options "other, what?" in the survey conducted in the direct interview method was 1,29 and was not different from the analogous result of survey conducted in a drop and collect technique (1,26). Therefore H2 hypothesis was positively verified. Significant differences were observed in case of number of answers given for the "sensitive" (budget related) question. In case of the direct interview nearly 75% of responders answered this question. In the survey conducted with the use of handed out questionnaire, only every second responder answered this question (47,5%). Therefore, there are no grounds to accept H3 hypothesis. Hypothesis H4 was verified by conducting analysis of distribution of answers for 26 closed questions, where Likert scale and itemized rating scales were applied. Results of both surveys did not show significant differences (U-Mann Whitney test), therefore H4 hypothesis was accepted. Method of handed out questionnaire survey turned out to be the method that generates lower costs of obtaining answer from 1 responder than it is in the case of direct interview method. The reason for disproportion was higher remuneration for conducting an interview than for handing out and collection of questionnaire forms. With similar level of returns of filled forms it is 3,62 times cheaper to obtain answer from 1 responder (drop and collect techniuqe) than it is in the case of direct interview method. Hypothesis H5 was verified positively. CONCLUSIONS Trade show environment, so far, because of certain restrictions described in the article, was not perceived as a study environment. However, the importance of trade shows in selected industry branches means the possibility of conducting researches covering representatives of management in most of firms in a given branch. It might be stated that the assumed thesis is correct, meaning that in the trade show environment, handed out questionnaire - if it comes to effectiveness of marketing researches - is an attractive alternative for direct interview. Positive verification of research hypotheses enables us to draw conclusion that analyzed example of drop and collect survey enables gathering data of similar quality, with similar returns at lower costs - compared to direct interview. However, it is worth noticing that in case of budget question the assumption of comparability of effectiveness of questionnaire and interview was not confirmed. The obtained result might be interpreted as a result of work of pollsters, who could have convinced responders to answer the question concerning budget of company for participation in the trade show. It is also
6
possible, that this question in spite of the assumption was not "sensitive" for responders and was treated as a simple open question. Two surveys showed that for the sake of efficient conduction of a survey, cooperation with the organizer of the trade show is of crucial importance. Organizing party possesses up-to- date data bases of exhibitors, issues consent for conduction of surveys at the site of trade show and is regarded by exhibitors as a reliable and confidential party, therefore all the collected data will be kept confidential. At the same time, obtaining organizer's consent for conducting surveys should not be difficult, due to their noticeable increasing interest in good understanding of study approach to trade shows. It might be assumed that, both in case of scientific and commercial approach, trade show might be perceived as a study environment and direct interview might be replaced by handed out questionnaires. However, there are some problems appearing during drop and collect surveys, which are of lower significance if it comes to interviews. Questionnaire form should be handed in to the responder - not left at the stand. In case of interviews, the pollster should wait for the interview to happen, but in case of questionnaire form, service staff of the stand might convince the pollster to leave the form. Drop and collect technique, still requires the contact of distributing person with responder. At the stage of collection of questionnaire forms, it is worth to plan at least two visits at each stand, and the last one should not be on the last day of trade show (it is the day when very often only auxiliary staff is left at the stand). People who collect filled in questionnaires should have additional copies on them, in case responder lost the one he/she was given before. The other thing is the fact that "collectors" should not be only destined to retrieve the filled in copy, due to frequent questions concerning the survey asked by responders. Therefore, training is required (similar to the training for pollsters who conduct direct interviews). Except for the mentioned advantages of drop and collect technique, it is worth to discuss its limitations. If it comes to conducting surveys during trade show, the weak point of this technique are very limited possibilities to survey visitors, who move all over the site of trade show at various time, and there is no designated area for them where they could fill in the questionnaire form. It would be interesting to conduct comparison research of interview and drop and collect survey by handing out questionnaire forms at the entrance and collecting it from people who are leaving. Usage of results presented in this article, which positively outline drop and collect technique requires caution, it is difficult to estimate the universality of results presented in the article - due to the fact that they were not repeated neither at construction branch trades, nor anywhere outside Poland. SUMMARIES Conducting marketing research on business-to-business market leads to many various problems. Gathering information during trade fairs is proposed as alternatives approach. Observation and personal interview are most frequently used methods in research during trade shows. Thus, these methods have also some disadvantages. In the article authors present trade fairs as research field and drop and collect method as effective technique of gathering information during trade show. EDNOTES i Scientific research granted by KBN (2006-2007), project "Trade fairs communication on B2B market" (No. N115 012 31/0429) ii research was conducted among 300 companies, http://www.polfair.com.pl/badania.php?id=1 REFERENCES 1. Black R., The Trade Shows Industry: Management and Marketing Career Opportunities, Trade Show Bureau, East Orleans, 1986 2. Bonoma T. V., Get more out of you trade shows, Harvard Business Review, January-February 1983 3. Exhibition/Fairs Visitor Survey Report, Centrex 2003-2004 4. Gaw?cka R., Dylematy badawcze na rynku dóbr przemys?owych , w: „Marketing Przemys?owy" materia?y konferencyjne pod red. H.Mruka, Akademia Ekonomiczna w Poznaniu, Pozna? 1999 5. Go??biowski T., (red.), Marketing na rynku instytucjonalnym, PWE, Warszawa 2003 6. Hansen K., The dual motives of participants At international trade shows, International Marketing Review, Vol 13, nr 2, 1996
7
7. 8.
9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.
17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.
Hansen K., Trade show performance: a conceptual framework and its implications for future research, Academy of Marketing Science Rewiev, Vol. 1999 No. 8 Ibeh K., Brock J., Conducting survey among organizational populations in developing countries: can the drop and collect technique make a difference?, University of Strathclyde, March 2003, Working Paper 2003/5 Ibeh K., Brock J., Zhou Y. J., Drop and Collect Survey among Industrial Populations: Theory and Empirical Evidence, Industrial Marketing Management, 2004, nr 33(2) Informationsverhalten von Fachbesuchern auf Messen, Ausstellungs- und Messe-Ausschuss der Deutschen Wirtschaft e.V., Berlin, 2003 Jobber D., O'Reilly D., Industrial Mail Surveys: A Methodological Update, „Industrial Marketing Management", 27/1998 Kaniewska-S?ba A., Leszczy?ski G., Jako?? danych pozyskiwanych z wywiadów i bada? ankietowych, Handel Wewn?trzny, pa?dziernik 2006 Kaniewska-S?ba A., Leszczy?ski G., Pilarczyk B,, Badania marketingowe na rynku business to-business, Oficyna Ekonmiczna, Kraków 2006 Lagrosen S., Svensson G., A seminal framework of marketing schools: revisited and updated, Journal of Management History, Vol. 12 No. 4, 2006 De Leeuw E.D., To Mix or Not to Mix Data Collection Modes in Surveys, Journal of Official Statistics, Vol. 21, No. 2, 2005 Lynn P., Beerten R., Laiho J., Martin J., Recommended Standard Final Outcome Categories and Standard Definitions of Response Rate for Social Surveys, Institute for Social and Economic Research, ISER Working Papers, 23/2001, www.iser.essex.ac.uk/pubs/workpaps/ McNeil R., Business to Business Market Research, Kogan Page, London 2005 Mruk H., Kuca A. (ed.), Trade Fair Mareketing. Exhibitor's Manual, Polish Trade Fair Corporation, Poznan, 2005 Olkkonen R., Tikkanen H., Alajoutsijarvi K., The role of communication in business relationships and networks, Management Decision 38/6, 2000 Payne A., Advances in Relationship Marketing, Kogan Page, London 1995, p. 31 Siskind B., Powerful exhibit marketing, The complete guide to successful trade shows, conferences and consumer shows, Wiley 2005 Sheth J.N., Sharma A., The surpluses and shortages in business-to-business marketing theory and research, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 21/7 2006
8
doc_880393412.docx