Trade show exhibitor spending is increasingly tied to specific outcomes: lead generation, customer meetings, brand awareness, commerce, and networking. Freeman’s Spring 2024 survey found that 39% of exhibitors expected their exhibiting budget to increase over the following 12 months, while 21% expected it to decrease. The benchmarks below separate current survey results from older CEIR studies and the 2019 global estimate from UFI/Oxford Economics.
Contents
- How exhibitor budgets are changing
- Event volume and booth-space spending plans
- How exhibitors allocate value across objectives
- Spending outcomes and satisfaction gaps
- Networking, commerce, and experience priorities
- Add-on meeting, promotion, and thought-leadership spend
- Historical and global trade show spending benchmarks
How exhibitor budgets are changing
Freeman’s Spring 2024 survey points to a generally resilient budget environment for the following 12 months. Thirty-nine percent of exhibitors expected their exhibiting budget to increase, while 21% expected a decrease. Freeman reported that 75% did not plan to cut their exhibiting budgets. The share planning an increase was 8 percentage points higher in 2024 than in the 2023 comparison survey.
The comparison sample provides useful context. In Spring 2023, 31% of exhibitors planned to increase their exhibiting budgets for the next 12 months, and 48% planned to keep them unchanged. These figures describe respondent expectations at each measurement point; they are not a forecast of actual spending.
| Budget measure | Freeman result | Measurement period |
|---|---|---|
| Expected budget increase | 39% | Spring 2024; next 12 months |
| Expected budget decrease | 21% | Spring 2024; next 12 months |
| Did not plan to cut budget | 75% | Spring 2024; next 12 months |
| Planned increase in comparison sample | 31% | Spring 2023; next 12 months |
| Planned unchanged budget in comparison sample | 48% | Spring 2023; next 12 months |
Freeman also reported that larger exhibitors were more likely to plan independent events. Thirty-two percent of large exhibitors and 26% of medium exhibitors were planning or executing independent events over the next one to two years. Among all Freeman respondents, 19% were already planning or executing an independent event with a show floor or education sessions, up from 17% in the comparison survey.
Source: Freeman 2024 Exhibitor Trends Report, Spring 2024 and 2023 comparison periods.
Event volume and booth-space spending plans
Exhibitors’ planned event volume was more stable than rapidly expanding in Freeman’s Spring 2024 survey. Twenty-nine percent planned to attend more in-person events during the next year. Half planned to attend the same number, 13% planned to attend fewer, and 6% were unsure about their plans.
Booth-space intentions showed a similar preference for continuity. Sixteen percent intended to buy more booth square footage over the next 12 months, while 64% intended to use about the same amount as in the prior year. Seven percent intended to reduce their booth square footage, and 12% were not sure how it would change.
| Planned change | In-person events | Booth square footage |
|---|---|---|
| Increase | 29% attend more | 16% buy more space |
| Stay about the same | 50% attend the same number | 64% use about the same space |
| Decrease | 13% attend fewer | 7% reduce space |
| Unsure | 6% | 12% |
These results matter for event planners because booth-space demand and event-count demand are related but different decisions. An exhibitor can preserve its event schedule while changing the footprint at individual shows. The Freeman results show that the largest group in both measures expected stability, while the minority planning expansion was larger for event attendance than for booth square footage.
Source: Freeman 2024 Exhibitor Trends Report, Spring 2024; next 12 months.
How exhibitors allocate value across objectives
Freeman asked respondents to allocate 100 points among reasons for exhibiting at their most important event. Lead generation received 35 points, the largest allocation. Brand impact or awareness received 25 points, sales received 24 points, and lead nurture received 17 points. These are relative allocations of perceived purpose, not percentages of dollars spent.
| Exhibiting objective | Points out of 100 |
|---|---|
| Lead generation | 35 |
| Brand impact or awareness | 25 |
| Sales | 24 |
| Lead nurture | 17 |
The point allocation suggests that exhibitors are balancing immediate commercial activity with the longer path from awareness to nurture. Lead generation ranked above sales as a stated reason for the most important event, while lead nurture remained a distinct objective rather than being folded into either category.
In a separate Winter 2024 question about components of the overall exhibiting experience, commerce received 33 of 100 points and networking received 32. The general event experience received 21 points, and learning received 14. This second allocation measures the experience itself, so it should not be read as a direct budget split.
Source: Freeman 2024 Exhibitor Trends Report, Spring 2024 survey and Winter 2024 survey.
Spending outcomes and satisfaction gaps
Freeman’s Spring 2024 results show a consistent gap between what exhibitors considered important and how satisfied they were with event performance. Meeting or networking with customers and prospects was extremely or very important to 95% of exhibitors, but 59% were extremely or very satisfied that the event met that objective.
Lead acquisition was important to 88%, while 49% were extremely or very satisfied with performance on that objective. Brand or product awareness was important to 87%, compared with 59% who were extremely or very satisfied. For industry-partner meetings and networking, the figures were closer: 66% considered it important and 64% were satisfied. Introducing a new product was important to 62%, while 60% were satisfied.
| Objective | Extremely/very important | Extremely/very satisfied |
|---|---|---|
| Customer and prospect meetings or networking | 95% | 59% |
| Lead acquisition | 88% | 49% |
| Brand or product awareness | 87% | 59% |
| Industry-partner meetings or networking | 66% | 64% |
| Introducing a new product | 62% | 60% |
The same survey found that 69% of exhibitors believed receiving an attendee list before or after an event would add value to their exhibiting investment. Event-organizer assistance was extremely or very important to 63%, yet only 39% rated organizer support as extremely or very effective at helping them achieve their objectives. For planners, the difference between importance and perceived effectiveness is a useful signal when evaluating exhibitor services and post-event measurement.
Source: Freeman 2024 Exhibitor Trends Report, Spring 2024 survey.
Networking, commerce, and experience priorities
Face-to-face interaction remains central to how Freeman respondents evaluated the exhibiting experience. Seventy-eight percent ranked face-to-face interactions and hands-on experiences for attendees among the top influencing factors. Sixty-nine percent ranked connecting with attendees and setting up meetings in advance among those factors. Technology that makes it easier to connect with attendees was a top experience factor for 64%.
The preferred networking formats were specific rather than generic. Topic-specific meetup opportunities were the most valued networking option at 43%. After-hours events were rated among important networking opportunities by 38%, and digital tools that enhance connections with attendees were important to 34%.
Commercial priorities also emphasized interaction. Forty-one percent rated providing product samples or service demonstrations among the top commercial factors at in-person events. The same 41% rated preset meetings with qualified attendees among the top commercial factors.
Together, these figures describe spending priorities that support access and engagement: planned meetings, demonstrations, meetups, and tools that help exhibitors identify or reach the right attendees. They do not establish that one format produces a higher return than another, but they do show which experience features respondents valued most in the Spring 2024 survey.
Source: Freeman 2024 Exhibitor Trends Report, Spring 2024 survey.
Add-on meeting, promotion, and thought-leadership spend
Thirteen percent of Freeman’s exhibitors planned to secure additional meeting-room space for networking with attendees over the next 12 months. Among those planning additional space, 50% planned to use a hotel meeting room, 48% planned to rent space in the convention center, and 26% planned to build a meeting-room structure on or adjacent to the exhibit floor. These percentages describe venue choices among the subgroup that planned additional meeting space.
Speaking opportunities and thought leadership were also connected to the exhibit decision. Sixty-eight percent said these opportunities were at least somewhat important. Speaking opportunities were extremely or very important to 35% overall, compared with 59% among respondents who both exhibited and sponsored.
Older CEIR research provides a historical promotion benchmark rather than a current price. In a first-quarter 2009 survey, average pre- and post-exhibition promotion spending at respondents’ largest annual show was $32,200. Industrial exhibitors averaged $47,400 at their largest annual show. Those dollar amounts are reported for 2009 and should not be treated as current costs.
Source: Freeman 2024 Exhibitor Trends Report, Spring 2024 survey; CEIR, MC 42 – Effective Methods for Visitor Promotion, Part II: Exhibitors, first quarter 2009 survey.
Historical and global trade show spending benchmarks
CEIR’s spend-decision study found that business-to-business exhibitions received an average 35.8% of surveyed companies’ marketing budgets in 2008 and 33.9% in 2009. In the same study, general online marketing rose from 6.5% of surveyed marketing budgets in 2008 to 9.0% in 2009.
For the 79% of surveyed companies allocating less than half of their marketing budget to B2B exhibitions, the average exhibition allocation fell from 26.9% in 2008 to 21.9% in 2009. Separately, 21% of companies surveyed spent 60% of their marketing dollars on exhibitions in 2008 and planned to continue at that level in 2009.
CEIR also reported 2009 spending of $29,000 to just under $38,000 per B2B exhibition among surveyed executives, with a median of $18,500 per event. The study’s range and median describe surveyed executives’ 2009 spending and are not a modern booth-cost estimate.
| Historical measure | Result | Period |
|---|---|---|
| B2B exhibition share of marketing budgets | 35.8% | 2008 |
| B2B exhibition share of marketing budgets | 33.9% | 2009 |
| General online marketing share | 6.5% to 9.0% | 2008–2009 |
| Median B2B exhibition spending | $18,500 per event | 2009 |
| Reported B2B exhibition spending range | $29,000 to just under $38,000 | 2009 |
At the global level, UFI/Oxford Economics estimated 4.8 million exhibiting companies in the exhibition market covered by its 2019 impact report. The report estimated 126 billion euros in direct exhibition-related spending, including planning and production, travel, and direct visitor and exhibitor spending. These are global 2019 estimates, not a forecast for current trade show spending.
Source: CEIR, The Spend Decision: Analyzing How Exhibits Fit into the Overall Marketing Budget, 2008–2009; UFI/Oxford Economics, Global Economic Impact of Exhibitions: World, 2019.