The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc & IFRC

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
FRANCHISE EXHIBITIONS IN
THE UNITED KINGDOM

Philip Chapman
Valerie Mills
Professor John Stanworth

INTERNATIONAL FRANCHISE RESEARCH CENTRE

SPECIAL STUDIES SERIES No.11

JULY 1997

PUBLISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF WESTMINSTER PRESS

ISBN 1 85919 004 9

© University of Westminster 1997

THE INTERNATIONAL FRANCHISE International Journal (MCB University
Press). Additionally, Franchise Growth And
RESEARCH CENTRE (IFRC) 1993-2007
Failure In The U.S. And The U.K.: A
University of Westminster, London, UK.
Troubled Dreamworld Revisited received the
Best International Paper Award in 1997,
"The International Franchise Research
again from the Society of Franchising. This
Centre (IFRC) is committed to
paper was later published in Franchising
improving the understanding of
Research: An International Journal.
franchising. This is achieved by the
publication of impartial research and
Close links were fostered with universities in
by the encouragement of informed
Rome and Pisa (Italy), Haute Alsace
debate."
(France) and Boston, Minneapolis and
Texas (USA), with a view to research
Franchising operates in a dynamic environ-
collaboration. Professor Pat Kaufmann of
ment, with new issues and challenges
Atlanta, Georgia, addressed our inaugural
emerging, including: globalisation, coping
annual strategy seminar, in 1994. Overseas
with competition, disclosure, industry
speakers in subsequent years included
regulation, managing relations with
Cheryl Babcock, Director of the Franchising
franchisee associations, franchisee
Institute, University of St. Thomas,
recruitment & market saturation.
Minneapolis (1995), Professor Rajiv Dant,
University of Boston (1996), Professor
Against this backdrop, the IFRC was
Francine Lafontaine, University of Michigan
established in 1993 by Professor John
(1997), Professor Claude Nègre, University
Stanworth (Director of the Future of Work
of Haute Alsace (1997), Colin McCosker,
Research Group at the University of
University of Southern Queensland (1998),
Westminster), supported by Brian Smith (ex-
Professor Frank Hoy, University of Texas at
BFA Chairman, franchisee, franchisor and
El Paso (1998), Professor Jack Nevin,
author), and Chair of its Steering Group.
University of Wisconsin-Madison (1999),
Professor Tom Wotruba, San Diego State
FOUNDER MEMBERS
University (1999), Professor Bruce Walker,
University of Missouri, (2000), and,
Founder members and sponsors included:
Professor Wilke English, University of Mary
Barclays Bank, the British Franchise
Hardin-Baylor (2000).
Association (BFA), Dyno-Rod, Franchise
Development Services Ltd., Lloyds Bank
IFRC members were active supporters of the
(now Lloyds Group), Mail Boxes Etc.,
International Society of Franchising, and
Midland Bank (now HSBC), Prontaprint,
hosted the ISoF 2005 conference in London.
Rosemary Conley Diet & Fitness Clubs,
Royal Bank of Scotland, The Swinton Group,
The IFRC ceased its research activities in
and Wragge & Co.
2007, when John Stanworth took retirement.
PUBLICATIONS
Web versions of IFRC Special Studies
Series Papers 1993-2001 (listed overleaf)
Their support enabled the IFRC to publish a
number of reports, including its Special
Many of the earlier papers have been re-set,
Studies Series Papers, journal articles,
to allow a successful conversion to Acrobat,
book chapters and conference papers.
and are now available online.
Two IFRC papers received three awards
John Stanworth, Emeritus Professor,
over a period of 12 months (1996-97). The
University of Westminster
first being Business Format Franchising:
http://www.westminster.ac.uk/schools/
Innovation & Creativity or Replication &
business
Conformity ?, which received the Best
International Paper Award in 1996, from the
David Purdy, Visiting Fellow,
Society of Franchising. This paper also
Kingston University
received the Outstanding Paper of 1996
http://business.kingston.ac.uk/sbrc
award from Franchising Research: An
December 2010

International Franchise Research Centre Special Studies Series Papers 1-16 Web Versions 2010 p.1
LIABILITY DISCLAIMER
The information and analysis in each report
is offered in good faith. However, neither the
publishers, the project sponsors, nor the
author/s, accept any liability for losses or
damages which could arise for those who
choose to act upon the information or
analysis contained herein.
IFRC Special Studies Papers 1993-2001
10 London: A Capital City For Franchisee
Recruitment, (Mills, Stanworth &
Purdy), 1997
11 The Effectiveness of Franchise
Exhibitions in the United Kingdom,
(Chapman, Mills & Stanworth), 1997
12 Franchising: Breaking Into European
Union Markets, (Stirland, Stanworth,
Purdy & Brodie), 1998

Web versions published online December 13 Succeeding As A Franchisor,

2010, via http://www.scribd.com/:
1 The Blenheim/University of
Westminster Franchise Survey:
Spring 1993, (Stanworth & Purdy),
1993
2 Improving Small Business Survival
Rates via Franchising: The Role of the
Banks in Europe, (Stanworth & Stern),
1993
3 Targeting Potential Franchisees:
Industry Sector Backgrounds and
Declared Areas of Interest, (Purdy &
Stanworth), 1994
(Stanworth & Purdy, published jointly
with Business Link London Central),
1998
14 Direct Selling: Its Location in a
Franchise Typology, (Brodie &
Stanworth), 1999
15 Unravelling the Evidence on
Franchise System Survivability,
(Stanworth, Purdy, English &
Willems), 1999
16 Survey: Professional Services For
Franchising In The U.K., (Stanworth &
Purdy), 2001

4 The Impact of Franchising on the

Development Prospects of Small &
Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) in
Europe, (Stanworth & Purdy), 1994

5 The Blenheim/University of
Westminster Franchise Survey: A
Comparison of UK and US Data,
(Stanworth, Kaufmann & Purdy), 1995

6 Developing a Diagnostic
Questionnaire as an Aid to Franchisee
Selection, (Stanworth), 1995

7 Franchising as a Source of
Technology-transfer to Developing
Economies, (Stanworth, Price, Porter,
Swabe & Gold), 1995

8 Aspects of Franchisee Recruitment,

(Macmillan), 1996

9 Business Format Franchising:

Innovation & Creativity or Replication
& Conformity ?, (Stanworth, Price,
Purdy, Zafiris & Gandolfo), 1996

International Franchise Research Centre Special Studies Series Papers 1-16 Web Versions 2010 p.2
 The Effectiveness of Franchise Exhibitions in the United Kingdom
Authors
Philip Chapman is a researcher supporting the
Future of Work Research Group. He divides his
time between research, lecturing, and operating a
management consultancy.
Valerie Mills is a researcher in the Future of Work
Research Group. Prior experience includes work
in support of a major Economic & Social Research
Council small business research initiative (1989-
92).
John Stanworth is the director of the lnternational
Franchise Research Centre and has been
engaged in research into franchising since the
mid-1970's. He also leads the Future of Work
Research Group, based at the Universdy of
Westminster, which has a record of specialist
research in Teleworking, Small Business
Development and Human Resource Management.
Studies have been undertaken for many clients,
including The Department of Trade & Industry, The
Department for Education and The Economic &
Social Research Council.
Special Note
During the process of this research, Blenheim
Exhibitions & Conferences were taken over by
Miller Freeman PIC. They are referred to
throughout this report as 'Blenheim'.
-
lnternational Franchise Research Centre Special Studies Series Paper No.1I
lnternational Franchise Research Centre
The lnternational Franchise Research Centre is
commifted to improving the understanding of
franchising. This is achieved by the publication of
impartial research and by the encouragement of
infonned debate. Membership is suitable for
anyone with an interest in franchising and further
details are available from the address on the rear
cover.
Acknowledgements
The lnternational Franchise Research Centre is
particularly pleased to acknowledge the generous
support provided by The Royal Bank of Scotland
PIC in sponsoring the research, analysis and
presentation of this report However, it is important
to note that any opinions expressed in this
publication are not necessarily those of The Royal
Bank of Scotland PIC.
Acknowledgement is also due to Graham Rose,
head of franchising at The Royal Bank of Scotland
PIC, Brian Smart of the British Franchise
Association, Blenheim Exhibitions & Conferences
Ltd and CII Exhibition Organisers.
Finally, the authors wish to thank Stewart Brodie,
David Purdy and Michelle Nunn who have all
contributed to the completion of this research.
The Effecfiveness of Franchise Exhibitions in the United Kingdom
r Highlights
W Exhibitors at the 1996 franchise exhibitions
perceived Birmingham to have been the best
venue during the franchise exhibition calendar.
I The exhibition organisers offered a good level
of service at all exhibitions.
The most preferred location and timing of
exhibitors for future franchise exhibitions is
Birmingham to be held in the Autumn, and
London in the Spring.
W Two thirds of exhibitors wish to exhibit at only
one annual franchise exhibition (32%) or,
alternatively two (31%) annually.
W Despite strong empirical evidence that Sunday
is the second most effective exhibition day for
sales, the majority of exhibitors still prefer to
exhibit on only Fridays and Saturdays.
I Exhibitors' main motive for attending franchise
exhibitions is to recruit new franchisees. A
minority attend for PR purposes.
The majority of visitors to franchise exhibitions
are made aware of the exhibitions through
non-franchise-specific mediums.
International Franchise Research Centre Special Studies Series Paper No.11
W Three quarters of visitors to franchise
exhibitions are first time visitors.
The majority of visitors use the exhibitions to
gain a knowledge of franchising and to narrow
down their possible franchise purchase
options.
W There is a direct relationship between the
number of exhibitors at franchise exhibitions
and visitors' perceived value for money from
attending an exhibition. Because visitors are
self-selecting in choosing attendance at
franchise exhibitions, greater numbers of
visitors provide a more representative sample
of the total demand for franchises in the UK.
To match this representative sample of
visitors, larger numbers of exhibitors at the
exhibitions also become more representative
of the full supply of franchises in the industry.
This increases the compatibility of buyers and
sellers of franchises at franchise exhibitions.
I Different franchise exhibitions do not offer
markedly different standards of quality of
either exhibitors or visitors.
W The franchise exhibition is an important tool for
the promotion of information to potential
franchisees. The British Franchise
Association, exhibiting banks and exhibition
seminars are very important in this respect.
-
 The Effectiveness of Franchise Exhibitions in the United Kingdom
Introduction
By Graham Rose
Graham Rose is a member of the Charfered
Institute of Bankers in Scotland. He has spent all
his career with The Royal Bank of Scotland and is
Head of Franchising there.
Franchise exhibitions are the showcase of the
franchise industry. As well as providing an
effective method by which franchisors can recruit
new franchisees to their networks, exhibitions also
help established franchise concepts to maintain a
high profile. Additionally, the inclusion of
professional advisers in the exhibitions - lawyers,
consultants and the banks - enables visitors to the
exhibitions to gather a wide range of information
under one roof.
For many years, the British Franchise Association
has sponsored the major franchise exhibitions in
the UK. In 1996, for the first time, two exhibition
organisers - Blenheim and Cli - came together
under the BFA umbrella to organise a series of
four franchise exhibitions throughout the country.
This new report by the International Franchise
Research Centre at the University of Westminster
looks in detail at the views of exhibitors on this
series of exhibitions, but also at how the
exhibitions are perceived by visitors to the shows.
The report makes interesting reading for all those
-
International Franchise Research Centre Special Studies Series Paper No.1I
involved in franchise exhibitions, not least
franchisors and the BFA. The Royal Bank is
delighted to sponsor this innovative research by
the University of Westminster into the UK's
franchise exhibition programme.
Franchise Exhibitions in the UK
Franchising, as an organisational form, continues
to increase in importance in the provision of
services, jobs and self-employment. It is estimated
that there are now over 500 different franchise
systems in the United Kingdom, operating some
32,000 franchised and 16,600 company-owned
outlets. The industry generates around £6 billion in
sales annually. These franchisors operate in 12
main industry sectors, ranging from 'fast food' to
'delivery & haulage'.
Franchisors face two distinct markets, those
customers who buy the product or service sold by
the franchise business, and those who wish to buy
a franchise per se. It is the latter market which this
report addresses, with exhibitions as the marketing
medium being used to reach them.
Franchise exhibitions are unique as a marketing
medium in franchising. They bring franchisors,
potential franchisees and the support services of
the British Franchise Association (BFA), the
dedicated franchise departments of the major retail
banks (Royal Bank of Scotland, National
Westminster, Lloyds, Midland and Barclays), and
The Effectiveness of Franchise Exhibitions in the United Kingdom
franchise consultants and legal advisors together
under one roof, providing a 'snapshot' of the
industry in microcosm.
However, franchise exhibitions are not for
everybody, as less than half of franchisors choose
to attend. Advocates of franchise exhibitions point
to the fact that the marketing message is generally
well received as most visitors have a specific
interest in franchising. This is especially important
to an industry where it is very difficult to define a
target market. Generally, franchisors have the
opportunity to perform all elements of the personal
selling process at franchise exhibitions: identifying
prospects, introducing franchises, improving public
relations, gathering competitor information, and
selling. From the visitor's perspective the
exhibition plays a major part in franchise
evaluation and recognition, for which they are
sometimes prepared to travel distances up to 250
miles.
The BFA, which exercises the principal form of
industry control, generates a significant proportion
of its income through sponsorship of franchise
exhibitions. The act of sponsorship enables the
BFA to differentiate franchising as an
organisational form from other business systems.
To date however, two main issues remain
unresolved: how many annual franchise
exhibitions there should be and how to police the
'quality' of exhibitors. These are the main
International Franchise Research Centre Special Studies Series Paper No.1I
questions which this report aims to address.
Before looking at the history of franchise
exhibitions, however, we need to look at the
background to these issues.
Franchising's 'raison d'etre' is based on the
principle that the original business (the pilot) has
proved capable of successful replication. To reach
a geographically dispersed market, franchising is
used as the vehicle for expansion, where the costs
and operational difficulties of opening multiple sites
might otherwise have been prohibitive. The first
issue of how many annual franchise exhibitions
should be held annually has its roots based in the
above principle. At one extreme should there be
one large annual franchise exhibition to which
potential franchisees would travel from the
regional areas in which they live?. At the other end
of the spectrum, should there be a number of
regionally targeted annual franchise exhibitions,
taking franchising to the regional areas in to which
the franchisor wishes to expand?.
We now turn to the issue of the quality of
franchises on offer at franchise exhibitions. By
purchasing a franchise, the franchisee is ideally
buying into a proven business concept, which
should offer a considerably less risky investment
than starting a business on their own. The
franchise pilot operation shows that the concept
can meet consumer demand, whilst many of the
businesses operational structures are already in
-
 The Effectiveness of Franchise Exhibitions in the United Kingdom
place. However, the low barriers to entry which are
the foundations upon which franchising is built,
and from which it derives its strength as an
organisational form, can equally prove its
weakness. Research has shown that the franchise
industry is highly concentrated. The 12 largest
franchise companies account for 2 per cent of the
total number of franchisors, but operate 39 per
cent of all franchise outlets. Seventy per cent of
franchisors have less than three company owned
outlets, and 52 per cent begin selling franchises
within one year of company foundation. Little
wonder then that research, both in the UK and the
US, points to the time that a franchisor has been in
business, before franchising, as being directly
related to franchise survival rates.
As a product, a franchise involves high
involvement on behalf of the potential franchisee,
who is likely to invest much of hislher capital, time
and energy into a franchise that is perceived to be
highly differentiated from other franchise offerings.
Franchises are generally bought by individuals or
couples, who are relatively unsophisticated first-
time buyers. They go through a purchase process,
where they require much information, in order to
learn about franchising, before they finally make a
purchase decision.
There is considerable room for misunderstanding
and mis-information between the franchisor and
the franchisee in the purchase process. There is
-
International Franchise Research Centre Special Studies Series Paper No.11
currently much debate about where the balance of
power lies between the two parties, with calls for
increased disclosure of business information by
the franchisor. However, outside the franchise
relationship there are other sources of information:
the BFA, the retail banks (who account for 75 per
cent of franchisees' borrowings for investment in
franchises), and numerous franchise consultants
and legal advisors. This report addresses the
expectations of franchise exhibitions from the
perspective of the potential franchisee as well as
the franchisor.
The History of Franchise Exhibitions
Blenheim, an exhibition organiser, was originally
introduced to the BFA, through Edward Young in
1983, then franchisor of Pronuptia and Young's,
who employed Dresswell (as Blenheim was then
known) to mount fashion exhibitions. The first
Blenheim exhibition, called the National Franchise
Exhibition (NFE), was held at the Kensington
exhibition centre in 1984, and was an apparent
success. Blenheim paid the BFA for its
endorsement of the exhibition, and this fee
remains one of the BFA's principal sources of
Income.
At one important meeting with Blenheim, the BFA
agreed that the exhibitions it sponsored could
include other forms of small businesses in the
exhibition. Blenheirn claimed this was necessary
for the exhibitions to be financially worthwhile. BFA
The Effectiveness of Franchise Exhibitions in the United Kingdom
figures show that at this time half the income from
the sale of stand space came from non-member
franchisors. The other 50 per cent was split evenly
between BFA members and affiliates and non-
franchised business opportunities. It was at this
point that the association lost a substantial degree
of control over the whole proceedings.
Subsequently, calls for 'regional' shows were not
perceived to offer any advantages over the
'national' exhibition arrangement by Blenheim,
according to Tony Dutfield, a former Chairperson
of the BFA. This gave an opportunity for Acumex,
a rival exhibition organiser, to stage regional
franchise exhibitions restricted to franchisors. As a
result of the competition, Blenheim bought Acumex
and (reluctantly) took up the challenge of regional
exhibitions. Within three years Blenheim had
dropped the regional exhibitions from its calendar
and returned to staging two annual exhibitions, in
London and Birmingham respectively.
The issue of franchise-only exhibitions remained
central to the debate. Wimpy, then Britain's largest
franchisor, called for a clean-up in the quality of
exhibitors at Blenheims BFA sponsored NFE.
In an interview with Franchise World (July-August,
1989), Max Woolfenden, then Wimpy's managing
director, said:
International Franchise Research Centre Special Studies Series Paper No.11
"Like all successful developments, franchising
is attracting a lot of hangers on, but one bad
apple can bring it down. We want to see only
reputable companies exhibiting and if we in the
BFA can agree on that we can use our strength
as exhibitors to see improvements are made."
Another, but connected debate, surrounded the
number of exhibitions. One argument was for just
a single exhibition each year, with some form of
regional one-day events held in hotels. However,
proponents of exhibitions stressed that the events
should be seen not just as a means of generating
franchise leads, but as a PR platform for the firm
exhibiting and the industry as a whole. Blenheim
argued that the exhibitions were the only form of
corporate promotion for the industry and that
Blenheim spent over £250,000 a year on
promoting the events and attracting 20,000 plus
visitors a year.
Research by the BFA, based on its membership,
showed that 60 per cent of a total of 62
respondents were in favour of the BFA continuing
its arrangement with Blenheim. Some 40 per cent
of respondents were equally divided in their views
between the BFA running its own exhibitions, or
finding an alternative exhibition organiser. The
majority of respondents (80%) were equally
divided on the question of whether there should
continue to be two exhibitions a year, or one
national exhibition with regional events. The most
-
 The Effectiveness of Franchise Exhibitions in the United Kingdom
popular venue was the National Exhibition Centre,
Birmingham, which was favoured by 80 per cent of
the respondents, followed by London with 20 per
cent support. Supporters of regional shows were
equally divided between seminar-based and
exhibition-based events. The BFA research also
showed that only 15 per cent of BFA members felt
that exhibitor standards at the exhibitions were
reasonably good. Some 43 per cent thought they
were satisfactory, but 42 per cent felt they could be
much better. Respondents were divided on the
issue of excluding business opportunities, but a
clear majority wanted tighter standards for
franchisor participation. There was also a clear
majority, however, against restricting exhibitors to
those in membership of the BFA.
Industry sources suggest that a faction of BFA
members invited an exhibition organiser in early
1992 to revive the Manchester exhibition. Called
the British Franchise Exhibition (BFE), it was
organised by Careers in Industry (CII). A major
difference between the CII event and those of
Blenheim was that the new show would exclude all
business opportunities that were not the properly-
constructed business format franchises, the
organisers claimed. However, this did not mean
that exhibitors had to be members of the BFA. CII
developed the concept in consultation with a
steering committee including the franchisors
Wimpy, Athena and Ryman. The National
Westminster Bank became an official sponsor of
-
International Franchise Research Centre Special Studies Series Paper No.11
the exhibition. The organisers claimed the
exhibition a success, claiming that over 50 per
cent of visitors reported that they had capital to
invest of more than f 50,000.
Blenheim reacted to Cll's entry into its market by
announcing that it was to drop business
opportunities from its franchise exhibitions. Derek
Mottershead, then BFA chairperson, said that it
was:
"Something the BFA had been striving fo
achieve for many years."
An important source of competitive advantage for
exhibition organisers is a database of the target
market. The Confederation of British Industry (CBI)
granted its endorsement and access to its
database of 1.3 million commercial contacts to CII
in July 1993. CII also announced that it would
organise two shows the following year - the
Manchester exhibition, and a new London
exhibition - which would be a direct rival to
Blenheims London exhibition. CII also applied to
the BFA to become a member of its affiliate
category, showing clear strategic intent to the
industry that they were in for the long haul. The
following year, another venue, Birmingham, was
added to Cll's calendar. Again, this venue acted in
direct competition with Blenheim's Birmingham
exhibition.
The Effectiveness of Franchise Exhibitionsin the United Kingdom
The franchise exhibition calendar in the UK was in
1995 effectively split between Blenheim and CII,
who together held five shows at intervals
throughout the year in the major centres. The
scene was set for baffle:
"Next year (1996) will be critical for the two
companies as it is the run-up to the year which
will see the expiration (1997) of the BFA's
current exclusive sponsorship agreement with
Blenheim. Both organisers now have their own
line-up of big name sponsors and supporters.
Blenheim is associated with the BFA and on
the media front with the Daily Express and its
own magazine, Business Franchise. The CII
line-up is headed by the CBI and NatWesf and
includes BDO Stoy Hayward, the franchise
consultancy, and legal firms, Field Fisher
Waterhouse, Wragge & Co and Colemans. On
the media side, it is backed by the Daily Mail,
and Franchise World" (Franchise World, July
August, 1995).
The BFA used its sponsorship contract as a
catalyst to rationalise the 1996 exhibition calendar.
Apart from the individual positions of the two
competing firms, the BFA has used its power to
insist, for the first time, that it reserves the right to
both open a national franchise exhibition and to
hold regional roadshow events. The result of
negotiations was that Blenheim had exclusivity in
the Midlands and CII in London, whilst the timing of
events was also rearranged. CII however,
8 -
International Franchise Research Centre Special Studies Series Paper No.11
introduced an exhibition in Edinburgh, to maintain
its three exhibitions. CII also gained BFA
sponsorship of all three shows on its calendar,
whilst relinquishing sponsorship from the National
Westrninster Bank, for each of its exhibitions,
except for Manchester. CII in 1997 held a
franchise exhibition in Dublin.
As early as 1991, the BFA had announced long-
term plans to establish a permanent National
Franchise Centre in London. Brian Smart, the BFA
Director, told Franchise World (January-February,
1991):
"The centre would enable us to represent
permanently the proven opportunities offered
by more than 100 franchise companies which
have met our (BFA) strict accreditation
criteria."
However, to date, financial constraints on the BFA
have not allowed it to pursue this strategic option,
and its plans for a National Franchise Centre
remain long-term.
Research Method
Four franchise exhibitions were held during 1996
under the sponsorship of the BFA. CII arranged
exhibitions in London, Edinburgh and Manchester,
and Blenheim in Birmingham. In total 201
companies attended, some of whom were present
at more than one exhibition. The total number of
 The Effectivenessof Franchise Exhibitions in the United Kingdom

exhibits at all the exhibitions was 350. The personally at each of the four exhibitions by
exhibitions attracted a total of 30,495 visitors. The members of the IFRC to exhibition visitors. Equal
number of exhibitors and visitors are shown by distributions were spread throughout the duration
exhibition in FIGURE1. of the first day (Friday) of each exhibition, as
visitors left the exhibition. In total 218 exhibitors
FIGURE1: Exhibition Attendance responded representing 62.3 per cent of the
Exhibitors Visitors population. In total 387 visitor responses were
London 76 8,431 received representing 9.7 per cent of the potential
Edinburgh 37 4,123
Manchester 60 5,841 sample. The number of exhibitor and visitor
Birmingham 177 12,100 responses are shown in FIGURE2.

To gain an industry perspective, a survey by self-

administered questionnaire of both exhibitors and
visitors was chosen as the method of research. A
copy of both the exhibitor and visitor questionnaire
can be seen in APPENDIX1 and 2. The respective
questionnaires were drawn up by the IFRC in
consultation the BFA and the exhibition organisers,
under the stewardship of Graham Rose of the
Royal Bank of Scotland.
FIGURE2: Details of Respective Samples
I Exhibitors I Visitors
London
Manchester
100
Questionnaires with pre-paid envelopes and a
cover letter were distributed to all exhibitors at
each of the four exhibitions by post. Non-
respondents were subsequently contacted by
telephone. A thousand questionnaires with pre-
paid envelopes and a cover letter were distributed
Presentation and Analysis of Results
The following presentation and analysis of the
results of the research initially looks at exhibitors
desired annual frequency, location and timing of
franchise exhibitions. It then addresses these
same questions in terms of visitors to the
exhibitions. Issues over the quality of both
exhibitors and visitors to the different exhibitions
are then looked at. Finally, the importance of the
BFA, the support services and exhibition seminars
for providing information are covered.
1
Note on the presentation of data: in some
instances, the responses for the options shown will
116
not total exactly 100%. This is usually due to one
or more of: a) rounding errors; b) missing
responses (where a total is less than 100%); c)
multiple choices, where more than one option has
been selected by respondents (where a total is
more than 100%).

-
International Franchise Research Centre Special Studies Series Paper No.11
The Effectiveness of Franchise Exhibitions in the United Kingdom

FIGURE3: Exhibitor Perception of the Venue stands out as the venue that is seen as offering
exhibitors value over the other three venues. The
differences in exhibitor perception between the
venues have little to do with the respective
exhibition organisers, as is demonstrated in
FIGURE4. Indeed, the logistical problems of
organising larger events appear to have a
negative effect on exhibitors' perceptions of the
support given by the exhibition organiser. Overall,
exhibitors' appear to associate few of the
organisational problems they might experience at
an exhibition with the exhibition organiser. The
other conclusion to be drawn is that both exhibition
organisers offer a good level of service to
/ Good Reasonable 0poor1
exhibitors at the exhibitions.

Exhibitors' perceptions of the four venues, FIGURE4: Exhibitor Perception of the Support
identified in FIGURE3, show that Birmingham, the from the Exhibition Organiser
largest exhibition, was considered the best venue
by exhibitors. Nearly all exhibitors identified the
venue as good. Manchester and London were
perceived as good-to-reasonable venues.
Edinburgh, the smallest and most 'regionally
targeted' of the exhibitions displayed a wider
variance in exhibitors' perceptions. A quarter of
exhibitors considered the venue poor. Many of
these exhibitors felt that Glasgow would have
provided a better 'Scottish' venue, and the
exhibition organiser, CII, has made that change of
venue for the 1997 exhibition. It can be presumed
that this exhibition's profile would then match that
of Manchester and London. However, Birmingham
1 Good Reasonable El Poor /

-
international Franchise Research Centre Special Studies Series Paper No.11
 The Effectiveness of Franchise Exhibitions in the United Kingdom

FIGURE5: Exhibitors Preferred Location and Season

FIGURE5, identifies exhibitors' preferred locations
and seasons for exhibiting at franchise exhibitions.
Birmingham is by far the most strongly preferred
location. Over 75 per cent of the sample identified
Birmingham as a preferred location. Its timing in
the Autumn, receives almost as positive a vote.
London is perceived as the second most preferred
venue, and Spring as the best time to stage the
exhibition. Beyond this preferences become
relatively minor and more dispersed.
Birmingham's Autumn exhibition has developed a
reputation as the largest annual franchise
exhibition. This can be attributed to Blenheim
gaining an advantage as the first exhibition
organiser to arrange franchise exhibitions under
BFA sponsorship. Consistently attracting the
largest number of both exhibitors and visitors, the
exhibition has developed a historical reputation as
the number one national franchise exhibition.
The size of a franchise exhibition confers a long
run competitive advantage to that exhibition. This
is accounted for because franchisors have highly
differentiated franchise offerings in terms of price
and the sector in which they trade. Franchisors,
unable to define and target potential franchisees,
increase the potential audience for their franchise

-
International Franchise Research Centre Special Studies Series Paper No.1I 11
The Effectiveness of Franchise Exhibitions in the United Kingdom
offer by fishing in a larger pool at larger
exhibitions. The best guide to potential audiences,
is historical audience sizes. Therefore, large
exhibitions continue to attract the largest number
of exhibitors in successive years due to exhibitors
relying on historical audience sizes. Birmingham's
historical size advantage is difficult to overcome by
other exhibitions.
Other strengths of the Birmingham exhibition,
recognised by franchisors, are its central location
within the UK, and the benefits conferred upon the
exhibition by the National Exhibition Centre, which
has a highly developed infrastructure for the
staging of exhibitions.
FIGURE 6: Exhibitors Annual Demand for
Franchise Exhibitions
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Proportion of SamplelSub-sample
International Franchise Research Centre Special Studies Series Paper No.11
Considering exhibitors' preferences for the
location and timing of annual franchise exhibitions,
FIGURE6 identifies the annual demand for
franchise exhibitions. Exhibition attendance is
subject to diminishing returns for each successive
franchise exhibition attended, as perceived by
exhibitors. Nearly two thirds of exhibitors desire
either only one (32%), or two (31%) franchise
exhibitions during the annual franchise exhibition
calendar. There is relatively little support for more
than two annual exhibitions.
Following on from when and where franchise
exhibitions should be held, exhibitors were asked
to express their preference for which days of the
week the exhibitions sh~uldbe run. FIGURE 7
shows that Friday and Saturday is preferred by the
majority of exhibitors, whilst continuing on the
Sunday has a strong body of advocates. Recent
research, by the IFRC, has shown that Sunday is,
in fact, the second most effective exhibition day
after the Friday. The attendance of 'converts' -
those who bought franchises after the exhibition -
was at a ratio of 3:1:2 respectively for Friday,
Saturday and Sunday. However, it is noted that the
Sunday continues to be perceived as a relatively
unimportant day for franchise sales, in accordance
with poorly informed conventional industry
wisdom. It should be noted that CII exhibitions are
held on only the Friday and Saturday, whilst
Blenheim's continue on the Sunday.
-
 The Effectiveness of Franchise Exhibitions in the United Kingdom

FIGURE7: Exhibitors Preferences for Exhibition Days

Saturday
,day & Sunday

Exhibitors' reasons for exhibiting at

FIGURE8: Reasons for Exhibiting
franchise exhibitions are shown in
FIGURE 8. Over three quarters of
exhibitors' main motives were to recruit
new franchisees, and a fifth to enhance
their public relations profile. The latter
was attached proportionately greater
importance at the traditional and
largest venues of London and
Birmingham, suggesting that exhibitors
who attend successive franchise
exhibitions are increasingly sales
driven.

-
International Franchise Research Centre Special Studies Series Paper No.1 I
The Effectiveness of Franchise Exhibitions in the United Kingdom

FIGURE9: HOWWere Visitors Made Aware of the Exhibitions

We now turn to an area that has only very recently FIGURE 10: Previous Franchise Exhibitions
been given very much attention - the visitor to Attended by Visitors
franchise exhibitions. Two-thirds of visitors are
made aware of the franchise exhibitions from non-
industry-specific sources (for example the National
Press), as shown in FIGURE9. This is consistent
with the idea that potential franchisees are self-
selecting and non-targeted. It is perhaps
disappointing to note how few people were invited
by exhibitors, suggesting that exhibitors rely on the
exhibition organiser to generate the vast majority
of attendance. This is consistent with the view that
individual companies do not want to introduce their 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
potential customers to the competition. Proportion of SamplelSub-sample

-
international Franchise Research Centre Special Studies Series Paper No.11
 The Effectiveness of Franchise Exhibitions in the United Kingdom

FIGURE11: Visitors Likelihood of a Franchise Purchase

Around three quarters of franchise exhibition
visitors are first time franchise exhibition visitors,
as is shown in FIGURE10. Previous research, by
the IFRC, has shown that visitors who have
attended more than one exhibition are generally
more likely to buy a franchise. We can see here
the first indications that franchise exhibitions cater
to the needs of potential franchisees in the early
stages of their purchase process, and also in the
decisive final stages of that process. Many
franchise companies are put off franchise
exhibitions, as a marketing medium, because of
the large numbers of visitors who are in the early
stages of their purchase process Exhibitions do
not provide direct evidence, in the form of an
immediate franchise purchase, for the first time
exhibitor to quantify the exhibition a sales success.
Exhibiting on a regular basis could change this
perception. Evidence that exhibitions are used by
the majority of visitors in the early stages of their
purchase process is again shown in FIGURE11.
This shows that only a quarter of visitors claim to
be either definitely or very likely to buy a franchise
at the time of attending the franchise exhibition.
Three quarters are likely, unlikely or undecided in
their intentions. The exhibitions are therefore used
by the majority of visitors to gain knowledge of the
franchise industry and the different franchise
offers. The implication is that individual franchise
companies may not wish to subsidise visitors'
franchise search costs. However, the promotion of
the franchise industry can, in the longer run, only
benefit the individual companies within the
industry.

-
International Franchise Research Centre Special Studies Series Paper No.1I
The Effectiveness of Franchise Exhibitions in the United Kingdom

the exhibition and one quarter of

FIGURE12: Visitor Contact with Exhibitors
visitors are more likely to buy a
franchise.

Previous research by the IFRC has

shown that the majority of post
exhibition franchise purchases are
contact
mtact made within 6 months. FIGURE12
shows that after the exhibition, 55 per
cent of visitors have reduced the
number of exhibitors they will enter
into further contact with to one or two
In FIGURE12, we see how many exhibitors, visitors exhibitors. Therefore the success of a franchise
spoke to seriously (Exhibition Contact). They exhibition has a long lead time, and should not be
apparently refined their franchise purchase options measured within weeks of the exhibition, but within
during the franchise exhibition, by indicating that months. This has an impact on the cycling of
they would contact fewer exhibitors after the annual franchise exhibitions. It also demonstrates
exhibition (Post-Exhibition Contact). The pattern of the importance of following up leads generated at
use of the franchise exhibition by the majority of the exhibition by exhibitors', and the benefits of
visitors, would not suggest that exhibitors are able exhibiting at successive exhibitions.
to generate immediate sales
FIGURE13: Purchase Influence of the Exhibitions
from the majority of exhibition
visitors. However, the
exhibition is important to
exhibitors to generate
awareness of their franchise
offer to these visitors.

After the exhibitions, FIGURE

13 shows that two-thirds of
visitors' purchase intentions
are about the same as before

-
International Franchise Research Centre Special Studies Series Paper No.11
 The Effectiveness of Franchise Exhibitions in the United Kingdom

FIGURE14: Visitors Intended Expenditure Vs
Exhibitors Investment Requirements
Visitors were asked to rate the exhibitions for
value for money based on the full cost of entry
. ,
I f l O I . The results are shown in FIGURE15. A
pattern emerges, whereby the visitor perceives
increasingly greater value for money from an
exhibition as the size of the exhibition increases. In
this instance, size is determined by the number of
exhibitors.

Franchising is a generic term that describes a

method of business. Underneaththis all embracing
term, franchise offerings are highly differentiated.
+Visitors Maximum Outlay For analytical purposes, we can look at twelve
+Exhibitors Required Investment
different industry sectors within franchising, whilst
Visitors were asked to indicate what the maximum the potential franchisee might differentiate
likely outlay they would spend on a franchise, franchise offerings to a much greater extent.
whilst exhibitors indicated the overall investment Previous research by the IFRC has shown that
required to establish a
FIGURE15: Visitor Perception of the Value for Money of the Exhibitions
typical franchised outlet.
The amalgamated results
for all the exhibitions are
shown in FIGURE14. This
would indicate that there are
excess buyers for
franchises under £50K, but
too few above. However, it
would appear that, on
purely financial terms,
buyers and sellers were
relatively well matched at
the exhibitions.

-
International Franchise Research Centre Special Studies Series Paper No.11
The Effectiveness of Franchise Exhibitions in the United Kingdom
most franchisees choose a franchise outside their
field of direct experience, though more would like
to find a franchise in a specific sector of the
industry that reflects their previous skills and
experience. To look more deeply at how well
buyers and sellers of franchises at the exhibitions
are matched, we need to take a more qualitative
view, rather than a purely quantitative view.
FIGURE16: Strengths of the Exhibitions
1 El Number 8 Diversity fi!iI Other I
Visitors were asked to identify the strongest and
weakest elements of the exhibitions. This would
identify the reasons that underlie the direct
relationship between the visitor perceiving greater
value for money from successively larger
exhibitions. The majority of responses concerning
the strength of any particular exhibition referred to
operational points - entrance procedures, the
exhibition brochure, aisle widths, refreshments,
18
International Franchise Research Centre Special Studies Series Paper No.11
etc. A minority of responses for all the exhibitions
referred to the size and the diversity of exhibitors
at the exhibitions. As with the value for money and
size relationship identified, FIGURE 16 shows a
similar pattern. This shows that as the exhibitions
become larger, so size and diversity are
increasingly seen as a strength. The relatively
small proportions identifying size and diversity as a
strength, would suggest that expectations here
were not strongly met.
FIGURE17: Weaknesses of the Exhibitions
/ El Number 8 Diversity Other )
Visitor perceptions of the weakest elements of
each of the exhibitions are a reversal of visitors
perceived strengths, as shown in FIGURE17. The
majority of responses refer to the size and
diversity of exhibitors at the exhibitions, whilst the
minority refer to operational points. An inverse
relationship between the number of exhibitors at
-
 The Effectiveness of Franchise Exhibitions in the United Kingdom
an exhibition and visitors identifying the number
and diversity of exhibitors as a weakness is
identified. However, it is the strength of numbers of
visitors who identify the size and diversity of
exhibitors as being a weakness that is so
prominent.
Two related issues can be drawn together on the
key success factor of a franchise exhibition as
perceived by visitors. The first is a matter of
exhibitor numbers and visitor perceptions. Visitors
to franchise exhibitions are not necessarily
industry buyers familiar with industrial exhibitions.
They are more likely the general public, who judge
their expectations of franchise exhibitions against
exhibitions such as The Ideal Home Show or The
International Boat Show. These they have either
visited or seen in the media. These are amongst
the largest exhibitions held in the United Kingdom,
and visitor expectations are therefore likely to be
high.
This is compounded by the fact that CII call their
different exhibitions 'The British Franchise
Exhibition' and Blenheim theirs 'The National
Franchise Exhibition'. Visitors might reasonably
expect to see an exhibition that is highly
representative of the UK franchise industry under
these headings. Even Birmingham, as the largest
exhibition, represents less than half of the total
franchise industry. As the number of exhibitors
falls at successive exhibitions, so visitor
-
International Franchise Research Centre Special Studies Series Paper No.11
expectations are increasingly disappointed. The
exhibition organisers claim that demand for
franchise exhibitions by exhibitors is unlikely to
grow, except in line with the industry itself. The
perception problem will not therefore be resolved
in the short term, unless organisers are better able
to manage visitors' expectations.
The second, and related issue, reflects the
diversity of exhibitors at exhibitions. Because
visitors to franchise exhibitions are self-selecting
and not targeted, except at the generic level of
having a direct interest in franchising, the
mathematical law of large numbers is applicable.
Simply stated the law of large numbers tells us that
as the numbers in a sample increase - exhibitors
and visitors at an exhibition - they will become
increasingly representative of the total population -
all franchise offers in the industry and total
demand for the different franchise offers. As
visitors are unable to be strongly targeted, then the
greater their number, the greater the chance that
the sum of their demand for different franchise
offers will be representative of the total market.
Equally as exhibitor numbers increase, the
franchise exhibition will become increasingly
representative of the total supply of different
franchise offers within the industry. To take this
argument to its natural conclusion the ideal
franchise exhibition would be attended by all
The Effectiveness of Franchise Exhibitionsin the UnitedKingdom

franchisors in the industry, and all people with an FIGURE18: Exhibitor Perception of Pre-Event
interest in becoming a franchisee. Visitor Promotion

However, the majority of visitors to franchise

exhibitions do not attend with a knowledge of the
particular franchise system they are interested in
buying. Half, it can be assumed, do however
attend with a knowledge of the particular industry
sector in which they intend to buy a franchise. All
visitors will have a particular budget within which
their choice is limited. Therefore, as the number of
exhibitors at an exhibition falls, so does the
diversity and representation of franchise industry
sectors, and the diversity and representation of
franchise offers within those industry sectors.
1 Good Reasonable Poor 1
Therefore as exhibition sizes diminish the match
between buyers and sellers at franchise FIGURE19: Exhibitor Perception of the Number
exhibitions becomes increasingly dysfunctional. of Visitors

We now turn towards the exhibitors' perception of

the visitors to franchise exhibitions. As is shown in
FIGURE18, the majority of exhibitors believe the
promotion of the exhibitions to be 'good-to-
reasonable', with no major differences between
exhibitions. This results in a similar profile
concerning the numbers of visitors to each of the
exhibitions, as shown in FIGURE19. In spite of the
difference in size between the exhibitions,
exhibitor expectations have been met. Their
expectations were built on the reality of previous
franchise exhibitions, unlike those of the exhibition / El Good E l Reasonable Poor 1
visitor.

-
International Franchise Research Centre Special Studies Series Paper No.1I
 The Effectiveness of Franchise Exhibitions in the United Kingdom
However, FIGURE 20 shows that exhibitors
experienced greater dissatisfaction with exhibitor
numbers at successively smaller exhibitions.
Therefore the majority of exhibitors prefer large
exhibitions.
FIGURE20: Exhibitor Perception of the Number
of Exhibitors
/ Good Reasonable Poor I
The exhibitor perceptions of the number of quality
prospects are shown in FIGURE21. These reflect
the view that the match between buyers and
sellers becomes increasingly dysfunctional, with
higher 'good-to-reasonable' scores for larger
exhibitions. The only anomaly shown is the
relatively low good rating for London compared
with Birmingham. Previous empirical research by
the IFRC indicates that visitors to the London
exhibition are in fact substantially better prospects.
-
International Franchise Research Centre Special Studies Series Paper No.11
This was evidenced in a comparison between the
two venues. Visitors to the London exhibition
attended with a clearer knowledge of their
likelihood of buying a franchise. They had held a
longer interest in franchising and targeted fewer
exhibitors at the exhibitions. They were also twice
as likely to have subsequently invested more than
£50,000 in a franchise. Again, the conventional
industry wisdom appears based on 'hunch' rather
than empirical fact.
FIGURE21: Exhibitor Perception of the Number
of Quality Prospects
I Good Bl Reasonable Poor I
The report now turns to issues of the 'quality' of
the exhibitions. This has been used, as previously
mentioned, by franchise exhibition organisers to
attempt to overcome the competitive advantages
that the Birmingham exhibition has with its
The Effectiveness of Franchise Exhibitionsin the United Kingdom
historical size. Indeed, it was the main reason
given why CII 'were invited' to arrange franchise
exhibitions in competition to Blenheim. The
exhibitors' perception of the quality of visitors
shown in FIGURE 22 and quality of exhibitors
shown in FIGURE23 remain relatively constant
across all four exhibitions. No single exhibition, or
organiser's exhibition displays any quantifiable
advantage, although there is a suggestion that the
smaller exhibitions suffer sligh.tly. However, overall
only half of exhibitors believe the quality of visitors
is good. The same perception is held for the
quality of exhibitors to the exhibitions.
FIGURE22: Exhibitor Perception of the Quality
of Visitors
/ Ed Good Reasonable 0 Poor I
Whilst there is not a perception of a large number
of poor visitors and exhibitors at the exhibitions,
22
International Franchise Research Centre Special Studies Series Paper No.11
clearly exhibitors believe that standards can be
improved. Unlike the industry, an exhibition does
offer the organiserlsponsor the opportunity of
exclusion. The BFA set the standards by which the
industry is regulated. The fact that the BFA
membership only accounts for a quarter of
franchisors would mean that BFA member only
exhibitions would have a large impact on the
number and diversity of exhibitors at the
exhibitions. Plainly, reduced numbers would also
have an impact on the profitability of the
exhibitions for the organisers. Exclusion of non-
members is likely to lead to the further
fragmentation of the number of franchise
exhibitions. It would appear that issues of quality
need to be addressed at the industry level.
FIGURE23: Exhibitor Perception of the Quality
of Exhibitors
1 Eil Good H Reasonable Poor /
-
 The Effectiveness of Franchise Exhibitionsin the United Kingdom

FIGURE 24: Exhibiting Franchisors Time in Franchising Including Pilot Operations

Yea1
ars

One problem that the authors have faced is the
widely differing views within the industry on what
constitutes a 'quality' franchise offer. We use here
the measure of time that a business has been
operational, including its pilot operations, as being
inversely related to the risk involved in investing in
a franchise. Much research, in both the UK and the
US, shows this to be the best measure.
The results shown in FIGURE 24 would suggest
that each of the exhibitions do offer approximately
the same range of quality exhibitors, except for
Edinburgh which had a higher proportion of mature
franchisors. All the exhibitions had around a third
of exhibitors with less than 2 years' experience,
except for the Edinburgh exhibition. Edinburgh's
regionally targeted location might naturally be
expected to attract a higher proportion of
franchisors with mature franchise networks. The
conclusion to be drawn here is that none of the
exhibitions attracts a higher level of quality of
franchise offers than any of the other exhibitions.
This reflecting the perception of exhibitors shown
in FIGURE 23. The reasons underlying the
exhibitors' perception, that quality standards might
be improved, appear to reflect the number of
young franchisors exhibiting at the respective
exhibitions.

International Franchise Research Centre - Special Studies Series Paper No.1 I

The Effectiveness of Franchise Exhibitions in the United Kingdom

FIGURE25: British Franchise Association Influence at the Exhibitions

Exhibitors: BFA Sponsorship

Influenced Decision to Exhibit
rs: BFA Improved the Quality
of the Exhibition

The BFA influence at the exhibitions is shown in during the exhibition as a source of useful
FIGURE 25. Nearly half of the exhibitors were information about franchising with half of visitors
influenced in their decision to exhibit by BFA attending the BFA stand as shown in FIGURE26.
sponsorship of the exhibitions. A
FIGURE26: The British FranchiseAssociation Stand
strong influence from the BFA on the
aualitv of the exhibitions was also
I

identified by over a third of exhibition

visitors. In view of BFA sponsorship
of franchise exhibitions, clearly they
have a degree of influence over the
Visited BFA Stand
exhibitions. Withdrawal of that Not That Useful
sponsorship from a franchise Reasonably Useful
Very Useful
exhibition would have
consequences for its continued
success. This influence continues

-
International Franchise Research Centre Special Studies Series Paper No.11
 The Effectiveness of Franchise Exhibitions in the United Kingdom

FIGURE27: Visitor Attendance of Support Service Stands

Other important stands at the exhibitions are the best seminars from the visitor's perception.
support services. As FIGURE27 shows, over half of Seminars are important as a source of information.
visitors attend a bank stand, of whom
FIGURE28: Visitor Perception of Exhibition Franchise Seminars
over three quarters visit more than one
bank. A third of visitors found
information provided by the banks as
very useful, and over half reasonably
useful.

Franchising seminars were held at all

the exhibitions and attracted a third of f dinburgh
visitors at each of them. As FIGURE28
shows, the majority of visitors who
attended the seminars found them to
be very good to reasonable.
Manchester and Edinburgh staged the

-
International Franchise Research Centre Special Studies Series Paper No.11
 Appendix One: Exhibitor Questionnaire
UNIVERSITY OF WESTMINSTER
I
FRANCHISE EXHIDIrIOM
a..
..I
..-?* ExHlerrOR SURVEY
To be completed, if at all possible, by the person responsible for determining exhibition contracts
Most responses require only a single J CONFIDENTIAL

-
Previous exhibitions At how many UK franchise Reason for exhibiting -Was your MAIN reason for
exhibiting at this show (Just ONE J):
shows has your company exhibited In the past 2
years (1994 and 1995) ? To enhance your PR profile ....................... CIA
None......................................................... CI A To recruit new franchisees ........................
..
1 Exhibibon............................................... B
B

.. To match the competition .......................... c

2 Exhiblons ............................................ 0 c
.. Other (pleasestate) OD
3 Exhibibons ............................................. 0 D
..
4 Exhibibons ............................................. 0 E
5 Exhibitions or more ................................ 0 F

Please give the year and venuelcity:

Preferred UK franchise exhibition locationls -
Please note your preferences below, consistent
with your company's budget limitations, the
Year Venue
locationltimingas shown (ONE J = 1show):

Winter Summer
Venue Spring Autumn
3
1 Birmingham............... 0 [ZI 0 A
4
5 2 Bristol ....................... CI a a B

6 3 Edinburgh.................. CI CI 0 0c
7 4 Glasgow.................... Q a D
"
6 London...................... a 0 F

7 Manchester............... a a G

-
Exhibition assessment Please rate the current
exhibition in each of the following areas:

Reason
Good -able Poor

- Venue ................................. CI CI 5~ Best days for exhibiiing -Which ONE of the

-Support tom CII/Blenheim.. QB following representsyour preference for the best
combination of exhibition days:
- Preeventvisitor promotion. CI c Friday & Saturday .....................................
a A

- No. of exhibitors.................. a Q CI D Saturday 8 Sunday ................................... 0 B

- Qualii of exhibitors ............ E Friday, Saturday & Sunday........................ c

- NO. of visitors ..................... 0 CI O F Other (please state) OD

- Q u a l i of visitors................ 0 a 0 0
- No. of qualii prospects ...... Q IJ CI H
1 2 3

BFA support -Was your decision to exhibit

influenced by whether or not the exhibition
was sponsored by the BFA ?
Yes...........................................................0 A
No ......................................................... CI B
Please continue overleaf ...
 Appendix One: Exhibitor Questionnaire
Exhibitor profile
Pleasetick ONE option which best describes your
type of business:
Franchisor ................................................ CIA
Bank......................................................... B
Franchise Consuttancy.............................. c l c
Legal Advisor/Lawyer.......................... O D
Other (please state) LIE
Your company's current annual budget, exc. VAT,
for expendiiure on franchise exhibiions and
supporting activities (ignoring your staff costs):
Upto £lO,ooo ........................................... CIA
£10,001 to £20,000 ................................... ae
£20,001 to £50,000 ................................... O c
£50,001 to £100,000 ................................. 5 0
£100,001 or more...................................... LIE
If you a n NOT a franchisor, then please go to
Question8
This information is confidential and only for analysis
by the International Franchise Research Centre
c) Please give the name of your franchise company:
d) The current number of U.K. franchise OUTLETS:
0-2 franchised outlets................................ C I A
3-5 ............................................................ B
6-10 ..........................................................Oc
11-20........................................................ OD
21-50 ........................................................ O E
51-100 ...................................................... 0F
101 or more .............................................. O G
e) How long has the company been in franchising
in the UK (includingthe running of any pilot
operations):
12 months or less...................................... A
3-5 years................................................... c
6-9 years...................................................0 D
10 years or longer ..................................... LIE
-
f) The OVERALL Investment excluding VAT and
working capital -initially needed by a franchisee
to establish a 'typical' franchised outlet
Uptof10,000 ........................................... OA
£10,001 to £20,000 ...................................0 0
£20,001 to £50,000 ................................... Oc
£50,001 to £100,000..................................Q D
£100,001to £250,000 ................................ LIE
£250,001 or more ...................................... O F
-
Other comments Please note any other
comments you have regarding franchise
exhibitionsand their effectiveness:
Thankyou for your co-operation - the findings will be used to
help linprove iuture franchise exhibitions. Please return the
completed questionnaireusing the accompanyingprepaid
envelope, or via post, to:
Professor John Stanworth
International Franchise Research Centre
BMSS, University of Westminster
35, Marylebone Road, London. NW15LS
O University of Wesbninster, 1996
Exhibitor Survey, MHIB96B.DOC, 9/2/96
 Appendix Two: Visitor Questionnaire
UNIVERSITY OF WESTMINSTER
Please complete AFTER visiting the exhibition. Most responses require only a single J CONFIDENTIAL
How many franchise exhibitions have you visited
previously ?
None -this is my first franchise exhibition.. 0 A
IExhibitionvisited previously ................... 0 B
2 Exhibitions.............................................ac
..
3 Exhibaons.............................................I 2 0
4 Exhibitions or more ................................ QE
Please give the year and venuelcity:
Year Venue
How did you come to hear of this exhibition ?
@leaseJ against A U which apply)
Abank ...................................................... Q A
British FranchiseAssociation (BFA) .......... l l B
Lomlhegional press.................................. Oc
a
Nationalpress........................................... D
Trade magazine (not franchising spedfic).. Q E
Radio/lV .................................................. O F
Word of mouth .......................................... O G
Franchise magazine (please state) OH
Other (please state) 0 Up to £10,000 ........................................... OA
What would you say is the STRONGEST feature
of this exhibiiion:
What would you say is the WEAKEST feature
of this exhibiiion:
FRANCHISE EXHIBI TfON
-
Value for money Overall, would you say that the
cost of entry represented: dust ONE J)
Very good value for money........................ CIA
Good value for money............................... cb
Reasonablevalue for money ..................... c a
Poor value for money................................ O D
Very poor value for money ........................ O E
Likelihoodof franchise purchase How likely do -
you feel you a n to buy a franchise ?
Definitely................................................... C I A
Very likely ................................................. Q B
Likely........................................................a c
Unlikely..................................................... O D
Undecided.................................................LIE
-
Franchise cost What is the maximum likely
outlay you would be interested in (including
franchise fees, quipment and all other costs) ?
Up to £10,000 ........................................... O A
£10,001 to £20,000 ...................................L I B
£20,001 to £50,000 ................................... Oc
£50,001 to £100,000 ................................. 0 0
£100,001 to £250,000................................ LIE
£250,001 or more.................................... IJ F
t ....................................................c l o
~ osure
-
Personal resources Please estimate the extent of
your 'unencumbered' capital (the money available
for such an investment, if needed):
£10,001 to £20,000 ................................... O B
£20,001 to £50,000 ................................... Oc
£50,001 to £100,000 ................................. O D
£100,001 to £250,000................................ CIE
£250,001 or more......................................O F
Please indicate the form of such capital:
Property.................................................... D G
Redundancy package................................0 H
Savings..................................................... I
Shares...................................................... O J
Other (please state) OK
Please continue overleaf ...
 Appendix Two: Visitor Questionnaire
-
Seminars Did you attend any of the seminars at
thc exhibition ?
Yes.. .........................................................CIA
No ............................................................0 s
If 'Yes', how informative did you find them
overall:
-Very good ........................................ O c
-Good ......................................................OD
- Reasonably informative........................... a
- Poor .......................................................O F
- Very poor................................................ O G
-
Contact with exhibitors How many did you
seriously talk to ?
None.........................................................O A
1 Mibitor ................................................ B a
2 Exhibitors............................................... c
3 Exhibitors............................................... D
4 Exhibitors............................................... E
5 Exhibitors or more.................................. OF
Further contact with exhibitors -After talking
to the above exhibitors, how many do you think
you will contact again ?
None.........................................................O A
1 Exhibir ................................................Cl B
2 Exhibirs............................................... 0 c
3 Exhibitors...............................................Q D
4 Exhibitors............................................... E
5 Exhibirs or more.................................. F
Quality of exhibition -To what extent do
you think the formal support of the British
Franchise Association (BFA) has influenced
the quality of the exhibition ?
Probably improvedthe qual'i ................... 0 A
Probably made no difference..................... 0 0
Don't know................................................ c
British Franchise Association (BFA) stand Did - 1
you visit the BFA exhibition stand ?
Yes........................................................... O A
No ............................................................Cl B
If 'Yes', how useful did you find the visit ?
-Very useful ............................................. 0c
-Reasonably useful..................................
- Not that useful ........................................ 0 E
Exhibition influence -After your visit to the
exhibition, how likely do you think you are to
invest in a franchised outlet ?
More likely now ........................................ A
About the same as before ......................... 0 B
Less likely now.......................................... 0 c
Exhibition qonsorls -Apart from the exhibition
organisers themselves (CII or Blenheim), and
without referring to the catalogue, are you aware
E of a named sponsorls ?
Yes ...........................................................
QA
No.............................................................O B
If 'Yes', please name the sponsorls if you can:
Support servicesfor franchising -Which of the
following stands did you visit ?
a
Banks ....................................................... A
Franchising Consultants............................ 0 B
Legal Advisorsllawyers............................. a c
If any banks were visited, please identify which:
Barclays Bank........................................... AI
a
Uoyds Bank .............................................. AZ
Midland Bank ........................................ 0~3
NationalWestminster Bank ....................... 0M
Royal Bank of Scotland............................. 0A -
-
Clearing banks For the stands visited, please
indicate how useful you felt the contact was:
Very Reasonably Not
Useful Usehi really
Barclays Bank.............. O n 0A
UoydsBank ................. a QB
Midland Bank ............... a D ac
NationalWestminster... C)I a OD
Royal Bankof Scotland O a 0E
2 3
Thankyou for your co-operation - the findings will be used to
help improve llulure franchise exhibitions. Please retum the
completed questionnaire using the accompanyingpre-paid
envelope, or via post, to:
ProfessorJohn Stanworth
InternationalFranchise Research Centre
D BMSS, University of Westminster
35, Marylebone Road, London. NWI 5LS
O University of Wesbninster, 1996
Visitor SUN^^, MHIB96ADOC,9/2/96
 IFRC PUBLICATIONS: Special Studies
Series
Papers in the Special Studies Series are supplied
free of charge to IFRC members, who receive four
IFRC publications a year, including any new
papers in the series. The papers reporf upon a
range of issues which are felt to be of interest to
the franchising community. Subject matter
includes the surveys of franchisors, franchisees,
and potential franchisees, and also special interest
matters.
No. 1 The Blenheim/Universifyof Westminster
Franchise Survey: Spring 1993 (Stanworth
& Purdy, 1993)
No. 2 Improving Small Business Survival Rates
via Franchising: The Role of the Banks in
Europe (Stanworth & Stern, 1993)
No. 3 Targetting Potential Franchisees: Industry
Sector Backgrounds and Declared Areas
of Interest (Purdy & Stanworth, 1994)
No. 4 The Impact of Franchising on the
Development Prospects of Small &
Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) in
Europe (Stanworth & Purdy, 1994)
No. 5 The Blenheim/University of Wesfminster
Franchise Survey: A Comparison of UK
and US Data (Stanworth,Kaufmann &
Purdy, 1995)
No. 6 Developing a Diagnostic Questionnaire as
an Aid to Franchisee Selection
(Stanworth,1995)
No. 7 Franchising as a Source of Technology-
transfer to Developing Economies
(Stanworth, Price, Porter, Swabe & Gold,
1995)
No. 8 Aspects of Franchisee Recruitment
(Macmillan, 1996)
No. 9 Business Format Franchising: Innovation
& Creativity or Replication & Conformify ?
(Stanworth, Price, Purdy, Zafiris &
Gandolfo, 1996)
No. 10 London: A Capital City For Franchisee
Recruifmenf (Mills, Stanworth, & Purdy,
1997)