Asia s Fashion Jewellery & Accessories Fair September 2017

Transcription

1 0 Asia s Fashion Jewellery & Accessories Fair September 2017

2 1

3 Survey Summary Total number of exhibitors 395 Total number of collected onsite survey 229 Total number of collected online survey 30 Total number of collected survey (onsite + online) 238 (exclude 21 duplicated) Overall response rate 60.25% 2

4 Exhibitor s nature of business(es) (Exhibitors may carry more than one business natures, so the overall percentage exceed 10) 2017 Number of Respondents: 223 Number of skipped: 5 Number of Respondents: 312 Number of skipped: 5 Manufacturer 88% 88% Exporter 42% 39% Wholesaler Fashion Jewellery / Accessories Designer 2 16% 12% 1 Importer Retailer Buying Agent Mail Order-House / E-Tailer Department / Chain Store Related Institute / Association Publication 4% 3% 4% 2% 3% 1% 1% 1% 2017 Same as last year, Manufacturer/Supplier, Exporter and Wholesaler remained the top three business nature among exhibitors in

5 Are you a first-time participant in this exhibition? 2017 Number of Respondents: 233 Number of skipped: Number of Respondents: 279 Number of skipped: 38 14% [32] 11% [32] 86% [196] 89% [247] First-time exhibitor Returning exhibitor First-time exhibitor Returning exhibitor Even the returning exhibitor percentage dropped a bit (3%), as a professional industry event, the satisfaction and loyalty of the customers were high, the September Asia s Fashion Jewellery & Accessories Fair got almost 9 returning exhibitors in & 86% in

6 Overall, how would you rate your satisfaction with your experience at Asia s Fashion Jewellery & Accessories Fair September? (0 = Extremely dissatisfied, 10 = Extremely satisfied) 2017 Number of Respondents: 229 Number of skipped: 9 Number of Respondents: 315 Number of skipped: % 17.03% [39] 18.73% [59] 15.87% [50] 17.9 [41] 16% 14% 12% 1 8% 6% 3.49% [11] 5.68% [13] 16.19% [51] 11.35% [26] 8.73% [20] 9.84% [31] 15.72% [36] 8.73% [20] 6.35% [20] 13.97% [44] % [15] 6.11% [14] CSAT CSAT % 2% 3.06% [7] 3.81% [12] 5.08% [16] 1.9 [6] 2.62% [6] 3.06% [7] The satisfaction level among exhibitors were on average level. The CSAT of both years are very closed, a very slight decrease (0.13) from % of exhibitors gave rating 8-10 in 2017 and 23.81% in, had a 3.26% increase from.

7 (Cont d): Satisfaction rating by exhibitors - Returning exhibitor vs First-time exhibitor (0 = Extremely dissatisfied, 10 = Extremely satisfied) 2017 Number of Respondents: 194 Number of skipped: 2 Number of Respondents: 30 Number of skipped: 2 25% 9% [18] 19% [36] 16% [31] 23% 17% [5] Returning exhibitor s CSAT: % 1 1 [3] 7% [2] 6% [11] 7% [2] 8% [16] 11% [21] 18% [34] 4% [7] 7% [2] First-time exhibitor Returning exhibitor First-time exhibitor s CSAT: % 1 [3] 7% [2] 2% [4] 1 [3] 6% [12] 2% [4] 3% [1] [0] The customer satisfaction among returning exhibitors was slightly higher (0.36 CSAT) than first-time exhibitors. 6

8 (Cont d): Satisfaction rating by exhibitors - By business nature (0 = Extremely dissatisfied, 10 = Extremely satisfied) Business Nature Response Count CSAT 2017 CSAT 2017 vs CSAT CSAT Manufacturer/Supplier Importer Exporter Wholesaler Buying Agent Retailer Department / Chain Store Fashion Jewellery / Accessories Designer Mail Order-House / E-Tailer Related Institute / Association Same as last year, Department / Chain Store gave the highest CSAT. Rating of Importer, Buying Agent, Retailer, Department/Chain Store, Fashion Jewellery / Accessories Designer increased from 0.5 CSAT to 3 CSAT while the rating of Manufacturer/Supplier, Exporter and Wholesaler decreased a bit (0.15 CSAT to 0.19 CSAT). 7

9 (Cont d): Satisfaction rating by exhibitors - By country/region (0 = Extremely dissatisfied, 10 = Extremely satisfied) Country/Region Response Count CSAT 2017 CSAT 2017 vs CSAT CSAT Canada China Finland France Hong Kong India Indonesia Italy Korea Philippines Poland Taiwan Thailand USA In 2017, Thailand gave the highest CSAT. Rating of India, Taiwan and Thailand increased from 0.3 CSAT to 3.5 CSAT while the rating of China, France, Hong Kong, Italy, Korea, Philippines decreased (from 0.09 CSAT to 4 CSAT). 8

10 (Cont d): Satisfaction rating by exhibitors - By pavilion (0 = Extremely dissatisfied, 10 = Extremely satisfied) Pavilion Response Count CSAT 2017 CSAT 2017 vs CSAT CSAT China Pavilion India Pavilion Korea Pavilion Philippines Pavilion Taiwan Pavilion Stainless Steel Jewellery Pavilion CSAT of all country pavilions decreased a bit (from 0.03 CSAT to 0.78 CSAT). Rating of Stainless Steel Jewellery Pavilion got a slight increase (0.17 CSAT). 9

11 How likely would you be to participate Asia s Fashion Jewellery & Accessories Fair September again in the future? 2017 Number of Respondents: 227 Number of skipped: 11 Number of Respondents: 315 Number of skipped: 2 25% 2 15% 1 5% 0.63% 1.76% [4] 2.22% [7] 17.46% [55] 14.54% [33] 19.38% [44] 18.41% [58] 17.46% [55] 13.33% [42] 16.3 [37] 12.06% [38] % [15] 11.01% [25] 9.25% [21] 8.89% [28] 12.78% [29] 5.73% [13] 4.76% [15] 3.49% [11] Loyalty Score Loyalty Score [5] 0.44% [1] 1.27% [4] The loyalty score among exhibitors was higher than (+0.09 CSAT). It indicates that there is a particular amount of exhibitors intended to join again. 10

12 (Cont d): Loyalty to exhibit again - Returning exhibitor vs First-time exhibitor (0 = Not likely at all, 10 = Extremely likely) 2017 Number of Respondents: 192 Number of skipped: 4 Number of Respondents: 30 Number of skipped: 2 25% 17.71% [34] 23.33% [7] 13.33% [4] 21.35% [41] % [4] 13.33% [4] 15% 3.33% [1] 5.73% [11] First-time exhibitor 1 Returning exhibitor 6.67% [2] 10.0 [3] 2.08% [4] 13.02% [25] 3.33% [1] 10.42% [20] 5% 8.33% [16] 13.54% [26] 10.0 [3] 3.33% [1] 0.0 [0] 2.08% [4] 0.0 [0] 5.73% [11] Returning exhibitor s Loyalty Score: 7.11 First-time exhibitor s Loyalty Score: 6.70 Rating from returning exhibitors was higher than first-time exhibitor. Over 33% of exhibitors, including both returning and new, showed their strong interest (rated 9 10) in joining the fair again. 11

13 How likely are you to recommend Asia s Fashion Jewellery & Accessories Fair September to a friend or colleague? (0 = Not likely at all, 10 = Extremely likely) 2017 Number of Respondents: 223 Number of skipped: 15 Number of Respondents: 312 Number of skipped: 5 25% 2 15% 1 5% 22.44% [70] 13.78% [43] 18.39% [41] 18.91% [59] 11.54% [36] 9.87% [22] 10.76% [24] % [26] 8.52% [19] 6.28% [14] 9.29% [29] 3.14% [7] 9.87% [22] 2.88% [9] 16.59% [37] 3.21% [10] 5.45% [17] 4.49% [14] 5.45% [17] 2.56% [8] 2.24% [5] 2.69% [6] NPS Average NPS Average 6.13 NPS Average decreased from 6.13 ( rating) to 6.04 (2017 rating). In & 2017, there were over 33% of exhibitors, including both returning and new, showed their strong intention (rated 8 10) in recommending the fair to others. 12

14 How did you learn about this exhibition? (Exhibitors may take more than one options, so the overall percentage exceed 10) 2017 Number of Respondents: 195 Number of skipped: 43 Number of Respondents: 288 Number of skipped: 29 Advertisement Organizer s printed mail Organizer s Organiser s website 21.03% [14] 19.44% [32] 12.82% [6] 10.42% [10] 30.77% [61] 32.29% [100] 13.85% [5] 14.93% [10] Search engine Social media 5.13% [10] 5.56% [16] 2.56% [27] 3.47% [43] 2017 Word of mouth / Referral from industry friend 31.28% [60] 34.72% [93] At other exhibitions Others 3.08% [25] 3.47% [30] 7.18% [41] 11.11% [56] 5% 1 15% 2 25% 3 35% 4 Word of mouth/referral from industry friend, Organizer's , and Advertisement were the top 3 channel to reach the exhibitors successfully. The negative NPS marks reflects that the fair only got a small number of promoters, which also explains why the rating of Word of mouth/referral from industry friend decreased. 13

15 (Cont d): How did you learn about this exhibition? - Types of Advertisement 2017 Number of Respondents: 24 Number of skipped: 214 Number of Respondents: 41 Number of skipped: 276 Trade publications 60.98% [25] 66.67% [16] 2017 Mass media 41.67% [10] 41.46% [17] With a 5.69% increase from, Trade publications remained the top source of advertisement in

16 (Cont d): How did you learn about this exhibition? - Search Engine 2017 Number of Respondents: 20 Number of skipped: 218 Number of Respondents: 26 Number of skipped: 291 Google 75.0 [15] 69.23% [18] Yahoo 25.0 [5] 19.23% [5] Bing 5.0 [1] 7.69% [2] 2017 Baidu 25.0 [5] 26.92% [7] Sogou 5.0 [1] 7.69% [2] Same as, Google undoubtedly was still the most effective search engine for people to know more about the Fair. 15

17 (Cont d): How did you learn about this exhibition? - Social Media 2017 Number of Respondents: 14 Number of skipped: 224 Number of Respondents: 14 Number of skipped: 303 Facebook 28.57% [4] 35.71% [5] Instagram 7.14% [1] Twitter 7.14% [1] LinkedIn WeChat 14.29% [2] 21.43% [3] 35.71% [5] 2017 Google % [6] 64.29% [9] Weibo 14.29% [2] 7.14% [1] For social media, Google+ remained as the top channel in Both WeChat and Weibo increased in percentage while percentage of Facebook page decrease. The official Instagram account did attract a number of exhibitors. As it becomes one of the most popular social media now, thus, it is expected to have continuous growth in it s rating. 16

18 Which online platform do you usually use to source your products? 2017 Number of Respondents: 164 Number of skipped: 74 Number of Respondents: 234 Number of skipped: 83 AsiaFJA.com 32.32% [53] 31.62% [74] Alibaba.com 53.05% [87] 56.84% [133] HKTDC.com 16.46% [27] 9.83% [23] 2017 GlobalSources.com 16.46% [27] 11.11% [26] Others 8.54% [14] 7.69% [18] With it s popularity, Alibaba.com undoubtedly was the top online sourcing platform among exhibitors in both & Over 3 exhibitors sourced from AsiaFJA.com in &

19 My top 3 markets (countries) currently are: 2017 Number of Respondents: 169 Number of skipped: 69 Top 20 out of 40 35% 3 25% 29.13% [148] 2 15% 1 5% 6.3 [32] 5.71% [29] 6.89% [35] 8.07% [41] 6.89% [35] 2.95% [15] 5.71% [29] 0.59% [3] 4.72% [24] 0.79% [4] 0.59% [3] 1.97% [10] 0.59% [3] 0.59% [3] 0.59% [3] 0.59% [3] 0.59% [3] 0.59% [3] 0.59% [3] USA, UK and Australia are the top three markets of the exhibitors. The countries and regions not shown on the above chart are: Brazil, Ireland, Israel, Korea, Portugal, Switzerland, Thailand, Armenia, Chile, Colombia, Denmark, Dubai, Fiji, Greece, Indonesia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Peru, Philippines, Sri Lanka 18

20 My target markets (countries) are: 2017 Number of Respondents: 100 Number of skipped: Top 20 out of [102] [23] 7.18% [15] 6.22% [13] % [22] 6.22% [13] 5.26% [11] 2.87% [6] 2.39% [5] 1.44% [3] 1.44% [3] 0.96% [2] 0.48% [1] 0.48% [1] 0.48% [1] 1.44% [3] 0.96% [2] 0.96% [2] 0.48% [1] 0.48% Exhibitors top 3 target markets were USA, UK and Australia. The countries and regions not shown on the above chart are: Mexico, Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates 19

21 To what extent have your objectives for exhibiting in this exhibition been achieved? (1 = Did not achieve at all, 5 = Fully achieved) 2017 Number of Respondents: 207 Number of skipped: % Response Count Find new buyers 12.76% 27.55% % 10.71% 196 Find franchisers partners / agents 22.09% 20.86% % 6.13% 20.86% 163 Explore new markets 16.39% 22.95% 32.79% 13.11% 9.84% 4.92% 183 Launch new products 13.37% 16.28% % 11.63% Brand-building 11.31% 16.07% 35.71% % 15.48% 168 Collect market information % 35.96% 20.79% 10.11% 5.62% 178 Consolidate contacts with buyers/ business partners 6.59% 14.37% 36.53% 19.76% 17.96% 4.79% N/A The top three objectives for exhibiting in 9FJ are Consolidate contacts with buyers/business partners (37.72%), Collect market information (30.9%), and followed by Launch new products (29.65%). 20

22 (Cont d): Objectives achievement level - Comparison of combining Ratings 4 & 5 (1 = Did not achieve at all, 5 = Fully achieved) 2017 Number of Respondents: 201 Number of skipped: 37 Number of Respondents: 292 Number of skipped: 25 Find new buyers Find franchisers partners / agents Explore new markets 22.44% [44] 20.78% [59] 13.49% [22] 12.6 [30] 22.95% [42] 18.47% [48] Launch new products Brand-building Collect market information 29.65% [51] 28.8 [72] 21.42% [36] 23.08% [57] 30.9 [55] 27.68% [67] 2017 Consolidate contacts with buyers/ business partners 37.72% [63] 35.02% [83] 5% 1 15% 2 25% 3 35% 4 The ranking of the objectives were basically similar in & Except Brand Building, all of the objectives achievement level were increased from. 21

23 To what extent are you satisfied with the fair in the following aspect? (1 = Not satisfied at all, 5 = Extremely satisfied) 2017 Number of Respondents: 197 Number of skipped: 41 Business opportunities Visitor traffic Visitor quality Pre-show service of organiser Onsite service of organiser Facilities and services of the exhibition centre Official stand contractor(s) Official forwarding agent(s) Move-in and move-out arrangement 9.84% 11.83% 7.45% 10.11% 7.57% 13.66% 8.06% 19.47% 11.89% 9.68% 8.05% 8.05% 7.34% 9.04% 20.73% 12.37% 10.93% 20.53% 25.95% 24.14% 34.57% 30.65% 30.51% 34.95% 28.96% 42.49% 37.89% 29.31% 34.59% 30.65% 31.64% 31.38% 29.51% 28.49% 15.52% 17.62% 12.11% 7.89% 1.08% 11.29% % 14.75% 16.67% 15.25% 8.29% 2.11% 14.89% 14.94% 1.04% % 2.19% % Response Count N/A Exhibitors are very satisfied with the Onsite service of organizer, over 52% exhibitors rated 4 & 5. 22

24 (Cont d): Fair aspects satisfaction level - Comparison of combining Ratings 4 & 5 (1 = Not satisfied at all, 5 = Extremely satisfied) 2017 Number of Respondents: 197 Number of skipped: 41 Number of Respondents: 285 Number of skipped: 32 Business opportunities Visitor traffic Visitor quality Pre-show service of organiser Onsite service of organiser Facilities and services of the exhibition centre Official stand contractor(s) Official forwarding agent(s) Move-in and move-out arrangement 25.91% [50] 22.39% [60] 20.0 [38] 18.15% [49] 39.78% [74] 35.58% [95] 46.27% [87] 40.38% [107] 52.43% [97] 45.8 [120] 44.26% [81] 41.51% [110] 47.32% [88] 40.31% [104] 44.83% [78] 37.55% [92] 46.89% [83] 45.88% [117] Compared to findings, the satisfaction level of Official forwarding agent(s) increased the most, from 37.55% to 44.83%. 23