Key words:

trade shows
temporary clusters
interactive learning
organized proximity
textile industry

Trade shows and other temporary clusters have

recently emerged as key sites of theoretical relevance
for scholars who are interested in the spatial consequences of interactive learning. Recent research has
viewed these events as relational spaces in which
countless actors interact and learn spontaneously
without a central actor governing the process. In the
case of permanent clusters, however, studies have
started to unpack the practices through which key 453
actors, such as entrepreneurial and professional associations, stimulate learning and interaction. In this
article, we hold that these central subjects also have
an important role in activating the benefits of colocalization with regard to temporary clusters. In an
empirical study of the European Union clothing
fabric trade shows between 1986 and 2006, we identified four types of practices through which trade
show organizers shape learning and interaction at
their events. Contrary to current views, our study
found that exchanges of knowledge at these events do
not always occur at the global level. Instead, the
geographic scale of the processes of exchanging and
acquiring knowledge in temporary clusters is socially
and politically constructed at several levelsfrom
the merely local to the truly global. We also found
that organizers of trade shows facilitate vertical
relationships between exhibitors and typical visitors
(i.e., buyers), whereas other knowledge flows are
neglected or even hindered. We conclude this article
by highlighting the theoretical implications of our
study for the literature on the spatial consequences of
interaction and innovation.

87(4):453476. 2011 Clark University.

Francesca Golfetto
Marketing Department
Centre for Research on
Marketing and Services
Bocconi University
Via Rntgen 1
20136 Milan, Italy
francesca.golfetto@
unibocconi.it

abstract

Diego Rinallo
Marketing Department
Centre for Research on
Marketing and Services
Bocconi University
Via Rntgen 1
20136 Milan, Italy
diego.rinallo@unibocconi.it
(corresponding author)

ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY

Exploring the Knowledge Strategies

of Temporary Cluster Organizers:
A Longitudinal Study of the EU Fabric
Industry Trade Shows (19862006)

453..476

www.economicgeography.org

ecge_1127

ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY

Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully
acknowledge the editor and
three anonymous Economic
Geography reviewers for
their constructive criticism;
Harald Bathelt for his
insightful comments on
previous versions of the
manuscript; and Bocconi
Universitys Center for
Research on Marketing and
Services for its generous
financial and organizational
support.We are also
454 indebted to our informants
for their time and patience in
answering our questions
about clothing textiles, trade
shows, and their
organizations history and to
trade show organizers for
granting us access to their
events.

The knowledge-based theory of spatial clustering (Maskell 2001; Malmberg and Maskell 2002)
considers innovation, learning, and the creation of
knowledge to be the result of collaborative processes
involving numerous actors who are endowed with
different knowledge bases and competencies and
interact to solve common problems (Lundvall 1992).
When innovation depends on valuable and difficultto-reproduce tacit knowledge, firms benefit from
spatial proximity with similar and related firms. In
industrial clusters, firms may have access to buzz
(Storper and Venables 2004; Bathelt, Malmberg, and
Maskell 2004; see also Grabhers 2002 concept of
noise), which is a web of specialized information and
flows of knowledge that occurs as a result of organized
interactions and unplanned encounters between local
actors. However, recent contributions have highlighted the complementary role of external sources
of knowledge in stimulating learning and innovation
in firms that are embedded in local clusters. Consequently, it has been suggested that local buzz,
obtained by being there (Gertler 1995), and global
pipelines, which require specific investments, are
important mechanisms in explaining the vitality
and success of local clusters in globalizing and
hypercompetitive marketplaces (Bathelt et al. 2004).
Subsequent criticism of the local buzz and global
pipeline modelsee Moodysson (2008) for a thorough reviewhas led to more sophisticated theorizations of the relative importance of different sources
of knowledge for industries drawing on different
knowledge bases.
In the ongoing debate on the spatial configuration
of interactive learning, events that temporarily bring
together otherwise distant actors have emerged as
research sites of theoretical interest. Forms of temporary, organized proximity (Torre 2008) can provide
firms with access to knowledge and opportunities for
interaction similar to those provided by permanent
geographic proximity. Trade shows and similar recurrent events (e.g., professional gatherings and scientific
conferences) may thus be considered temporary
clusters (Maskell, Bathelt, and Malmberg 2006;
Bathelt and Schuldt 2008) because they form central
relational spaces for knowledge and market processes
in the globalizing learning economy (Rosson and
Seringhaus 1995; Norcliffe and Rendace 2003;
Borghini, Golfetto, and Rinallo, 2006; Jansson and
Power 2008). By bringing together actors from different geographic origins and endowed with different

Vol. 87 No. 4 2011

EXPLORING KNOWLEDGE STRATEGIES

resources and competencies, these initiatives are instrumental in establishing external

knowledge channels for actors who are embedded in local clusters.
Like previous empirical investigations of these events, we consider trade shows a
research site that may shed light on the role of organized proximity in interactive learning
processes. Research on temporary clusters implies that interaction, learning, and innovation occur spontaneously by merely gathering geographically distant actors. However,
despite theoretical emphasis on proximity as organized in temporary relational places, the
practices through which organizers of temporary clusters stimulate interaction and facilitate learning among distant actors have been largely unexplored. In this article, we show
that the synergies deriving from temporary geographic proximity may be activated and
reinforced through the knowledge-generating practices of a central subject (a metaactor), which shapes and coordinates the interactions between the convening actors.
Empirically, our study was based on a longitudinal investigation of the European Union
(EU) clothing fabric trade shows between 1986 and 2006. Our research highlights the
numerous backstage activities of organizers that are invisible to most exhibitors and
visitors but nevertheless affect their interactions and knowledge-acquisition activities at
trade shows. We identify four broad categories of practices through which organizers 455
shape interaction and learning at their events. By marking the boundaries of temporary
clusters, improving the release and acquisition of knowledge, hindering undesired knowledge spillovers, and investing in the development of new knowledge, organizers bring to
life knowledge-rich spaces that are currently attended for learning purposes, rather than
for economic exchange. While the specific practices of trade show organizers that
stimulate interaction and learning among convening actors are somewhat industry specific, we believe that our findings are useful for organizers of other types of temporary
clusters (e.g., conferences, conventions, and professional gatherings).
This article also contributes to research on the geographic scale of exchanges of
knowledge in temporary clusters. Reliance on the local buzz and global pipeline models
reproduces an a priori view of scale (i.e., the local versus the global), which obscures the
specific scalar configurations of temporary clusters, the processes through which the
clusters emerge, and the effects the clusters have on learning. We empirically identify
trade shows of various geographic scales (from the local to the international), each of
which fosters distinct learning environments. Moreover, the organizers involvement with
nonlocal actors may be focused mainly on exhibitors or visitors, resulting in intermediate
events that are neither merely local nor truly global.
This article is organized as follows: In the following section, we present a brief review
of the literature on interactive learning and temporary geographic proximity. We also
critically discuss the emerging stream of research on trade shows as temporary clusters.
Thereafter we provide a methodological note on the scope of our analysis as well as on the
data gathering and analysis procedures. We then report the research findings regarding
how organizers shape different typologies of temporary clusters and the practices through
which they influence the acquisition of knowledge at trade shows. We conclude by
highlighting the articles contributions to the research on temporary clusters and address
the extent to which the findings can be generalized.

Theoretical Background
Interactive Learning and Temporary Geographic Proximity
Knowledge-based explanations of industrial clusters (Maskell 2001; Malmberg and
Maskell 2002) are based on the idea that tacit knowledge is sticky and difficult to transfer
over long distances (Von Hippel 1994), therefore requiring geographic proximity if it is to

ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY
be generated and disseminated. Recently, however, an increasing number of studies have
challenged this idea (Torre and Gilly 2000; Boschma 2005; Torre and Rallet 2005) and
have suggested that geographic colocalization interacts with other forms of proximity
(i.e., cognitive, organizational, social, and institutional) to produce effects on interactive
learning and innovation (Boschma 2005). Relational proximity may thus be as important
as geographic proximity in enabling the generation and transfer of tacit knowledge
(Gertler 2003; Amin and Cohendet 2004).
Another research stream suggests that the transmission of tacit knowledge does not
require permanent colocalization. Rather, certain phases of the innovation process may be
supported by temporary geographic proximity with otherwise distant actors (Torre 2008).
Despite its critics (see Moodysson 2008), the local buzz and global pipeline model
(Bathelt et al. 2004; Bathelt 2005) has recently stimulated debate by proposing that
establishing relational proximity with external sources of knowledge (i.e., pipelines) may
complement local knowledge and buzz (Storper and Venables 2004) acquired by being
there (Gertler 1995).
These developments have renewed theoretical interest in trade shows and other events,
456 although from a different perspective than in the past. Trade shows1 are traditionally
understood as temporary marketplaces where suppliers from a given industry convene to
showcase their products and services. Their existence was thus mainly a means to reduce
the transaction costs inherent in finding suitable exchange partners (Florio 1994).
However, recent contributions have conceived these events as relational spaces that foster
forms of organized, temporary proximity between actors who are otherwise geographically and technologically distant (Norcliffe and Rendace 2003; Torre and Rallet 2005;
Maskell et al. 2006; Bathelt and Schuldt 2008; Jansson and Power 2008; Torre 2008).
Accordingly, these spaces are viewed as temporary clusters because they are characterized by knowledge-exchanging mechanisms similar to those found in permanent clusters,
albeit in a short-lived and intensified form (Maskell et al. 2006: p. 999).
At most international trade shows, firms are said to have access to global (rather than
local) buzz (Bathelt and Schuldt 2008). Knowledge circulation is based on various
mechanisms, including direct interaction with counterparts and third parties, observation,
and comparison (Bathelt and Schuldt 2008). Consequently, firms can access knowledge
about what is going on in the industry, evaluate their own achievements, and make
decisions about their future strategies and the development of new product. Moreover,
trade shows influence exhibitors and visitors long before and after the exhibition days,
since the international calendar of these events creates a rhythm within the underlying
industries innovation and purchase processes (Jansson and Power 2008).

The Organizers of Organized Proximity

Contributions on industrial clusters, permanent and temporary alike, evoke a picture of
countless actors convening and interacting spontaneously without central actors governing the process. Research has only recently started to analyze how certain key actors
further interaction and learning inside permanent clusters. Benner (2003) and Faulconbridge (2007a, 2007b) explored the specific practices through which professional associations stimulate collective learning in local clusters. Filippi and Torre (2003) showed
that entrepreneurial associations and public authorities may activate the benefits of
geographic colocalization by mobilizing member firms for communal projects. These
1

This study refers expressly to business-to-business trade fairs (i.e., those that target industrial buyers). Our
findings and the resulting implications do not hold in the case of trade fairs dedicated to consumers, given
the visitors limited geographic mobility and their prevailing interest in entertainment experiences.

Vol. 87 No. 4 2011

EXPLORING KNOWLEDGE STRATEGIES

studies share the premise that central subjects put practices in place that may accelerate local actors naturally occurring interactions, resulting in greater learning and
competitiveness.
We have not seen similar developments in the literature on temporary clusters,
even though these events have a clear decision-making center that is responsible for
adapting to environmental changes and coordinating physical proximity between actors.
The occasional references in the literature do not provide a comprehensive theoretical
treatment of the practices through which organizers affect the circulation of knowledge.
For example, Torre (2008) merely observed that trade shows and similar events are spaces
specifically designed and organized to facilitate exchanges between actors (p. 881);
Jansson and Power (2008) noted that organizers affect the microgeographies of trade
shows and are important counterparts with whom exhibitors negotiate a better position in
the exhibition hall. Paradoxically, although trade shows are emphasized as forms of
organized temporary proximity, little is said about the organizers of such proximity.
In our view, organizers are key agents because they both constrain and enable the
convening actors by continuously reproducing the social and material environments of
their interactions and ordering their practices across space and time. When a relational 457
approach is adopted (Dicken and Malmberg 2001; Bathelt and Glckler 2003; Boggs and
Rantisi 2003; Sunley 2008), key agents interactions are a central focus. The typical level
of analysis of relational studies is the firms or even individuals within firms (Boggs and
Rantisi 2003). However, in the analysis of proximity and economic coordination, the key
actors are those who play a mediation/hybridization role between the local level and the
global level (Torre and Gilly 2000, 178).
By focusing on a mesolevel of analysis (i.e., the organizer instead of the firms or
individuals attending trade shows), we can also shed light on the scale of exchanges of
knowledge in temporary clusters. Building on the local buzz and global pipeline model
(Bathelt et al. 2004; Bathelt 2005), research on temporary clusters has assumed that
learning at trade shows always occurs at the global level (Maskell et al. 2006; Bathelt and
Schuldt 2008; see also Skov 2006). While this may be true in some cases, research on
scale making (for extensive reviews, see Howitt 2003; McMaster and Sheppard 2004;
Marston, Jones, and Woodward 2005; Moore 2008) has suggested that the geographic
scale of economic, cultural, and political processes is never fixed but is socially constructed (Marston 2000). Accordingly, whether and to what extent phenomena are organized according to scalar precepts is an open question to be addressed empirically, rather
than treated as a starting point (Moore 2008, 218). We concur with this line of argument
and propose that the scale of interactions and exchanges of knowledge should be treated
as an empirical question also in the case of trade shows and other temporary clusters.
A theoretical focus on organizers calls for relational analyses that focus on how scale
can be deployed to further specific political projects. Geographers have long been
concerned with politics of scale (Smith 1996; Kelly 1997; Swyngedouw 1997; Cox 1998;
Moore 2008) and have investigated the various ways actors use scalar categories to
construct space and social relations for specific political aims. With specific reference to
learning in permanent clusters, Faulconbridge (2007b) showed that the ways in which
professional associations organize and stimulate collective learning in permanent clusters
may be influenced by sociopolitical dynamics that exclude certain actors from the benefits
of interaction and learning. In temporary clusters, similar dynamics may occur. Different
politics of scale may lead to different temporary configurations of clusters. However,
empirical investigations of these events have yet to provide evidence of similar sociopolitical dynamics and the resulting learning and networking implications for participating
actors.

ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY

Temporary Clusters or Temporary Markets:The Role of Traded Interactions

When comparing management scholarship on trade shows and the more recent literature on temporary clusters in economic geography, an important disagreement emerges
regarding the theoretical relevance attributed to visitors who attend trade shows but are
not interested in doing business with exhibitors. Management scholarship regards trade
shows as temporary marketplaces where industrial marketers (exhibitors) invest in exhibits and presentations to interact with customers and prospects (typical visitors; see
Borghini et al. 2006). These studies have acknowledged that attendance also involves
atypical visitors (mostly competitors and firms from upstream and related industries).
However, these companies are of marginal theoretical importance because they are not the
exhibitors communication target. On the contrary, from economic geographys perspective, the presence of atypical visitors is extremely significant since it confirms the
increased relevance of exchanges of knowledge beyond market relationships. Accordingly, empirical studies on temporary clusters have shown that trade shows provide
both vertical opportunities for learning and interaction along the value chain (i.e., with
firms belonging to upstream and downstream industries) and horizontal opportunities
458 (i.e., among competing firms). Initially, there was so much emphasis on learning that
the first contribution in this stream of research (Maskell et al. 2006) was criticized for
marginalizing trade and ignoring the distinct market interactions at these events (Skov
2006).
In this section, we raise a similar point and propose that if trade shows are regarded as
temporary markets, the most important flows of knowledge are those generated by
vertical interactions between exhibitors and typical visitors (current or potential buyers).
In fact, trade shows revenues originate mostly from exhibitors investments to meet
buyers. Organizers thus seek to facilitate these vertical relationships, whereas they may
not cater to other types of interaction or, as we show in the Findings section (in the
subsection Hindering Undesirable Knowledge Spillovers), may even actively constrain
atypical visitors access to learning and knowledge. As a theoretical point of departure, we
elaborate on this observation and specify its implication for research on trade shows as
temporary clusters through a selective review of management scholarship on visitors and
exhibitors behavior at trade shows.
Industrial buyers (the typical visitors) attend trade shows to learn about new solutions,
suppliers, and products (Gopalakrishna, Lilien, Williams, and Sequeira 1995; Rosson and
Seringhaus 1995). By interacting with products and prototypes, the exhibitors staff, and
other customers, the visitors obtain tacit knowledge about market offerings that would
otherwise be difficult to acquire (Borghini et al. 2006; Rinallo, Borghini, and Golfetto
2010). However, visitors learning is often related to broader issues (e.g., the future of the
industry and evolutions in markets and technologies), rather than to specific purchase acts
(Borghini et al. 2006). It is interesting that visitors maintain that exhibitors do not
contribute equally to the knowledge-acquisition processes (Borghini et al. 2006; Rinallo
et al. 2010). Market leaders are considered the industrys innovation sources and the most
important sources of information on current technology and market trends. Consequently,
these players are visited first and are the subject of many conversations, especially
in subsequent contacts between visitors and current suppliers. The presence of market
leaders as part of a trade shows exhibitor base is thus fundamental in creating a
knowledge-rich environment for all visitors.
Exhibitors are well aware of customers behavior at trade shows and base their
communication at these events on the free provision of expertise for promotional reasons.
In other words, exhibitors maintain the large investments (Bonoma 1983) required to

Vol. 87 No. 4 2011

Method
This article reports the findings of an empirical study on the main international trade
shows in the EU clothing fabric industry (see Table 1). Following previous empirical
investigations of organizations that aim to foster collective learning in permanent clusters
(e.g., Benner 2003; Faulconbridge 2007a, 2007b), our study focused on identifying the
specific practices that trade show organizers use to organize temporary proximity and
shape interactions at their events. Furthermore, following scholarship on the sociopolitical construction of scale, we sought to empirically identify the geographic scale of
knowledge exchanges at trade shows, as well as the extent to which organizers adopt
scalar thinking when defining their activities geographic scope.
Our empirical evidence is based on 12 clothing fabric trade showsconcentrated
mainly in Germany, France, and Italywhose characteristics and evolution we tracked
from 1986 to 2006 (see Table 1 for a summary). Over this period, we followed the
emergence of new trade shows and the cessation of existing events. In the Findings
section, we report evidence based mostly on Premire Vision (one of the leading events in
the industry), but our empirical study benefits from a comparative perspective developed
in the context of a broader research on various European trade fairs.
Our investigation was based on three complementary data sets: (1) interviews
with trade fair organizers and leading firms in the fabric industry, (2) trade fair statistics
for the period under study, and (3) news articles covering the textile/clothing industry in

EXPLORING KNOWLEDGE STRATEGIES

bring their innovations, prototypes, and expert personnel to trade shows to signal their
competencies to current and potential customers (Golfetto and Mazursky 2004; Golfetto
and Gibbert 2006; Zerbini, Golfetto, and Gibbert 2007). Exhibitors release of knowledge
is largely proportional to the number and importance of the buyers who are met during a
trade show. The knowledge-rich environment that fosters learning for all visitors is thus
mostly a by-product of exhibitors promotional activities.
However, exhibitors usually consider the presence of atypical visitors who are not
involved in purchase processes (e.g., other exhibitors personnel, competitors, or firms
from other industries) as a source of distraction or even annoyance (Borghini et al. 2006).
Fear of imitation by competitors may eventually induce exhibitors to adopt closed stand
designs based on physical barriers that limit external viewers visual access (Rinallo and
Borghini 2003). Such practices may reduce the knowledge-circulation potential of trade
shows, which is largely dependent on visual stimuli (Maskell et al. 2006).
From the organizers perspective, visitors and exhibitors needs and behaviors are
equally important. Trade show organizers are on the market and, to make a profit (or at
least break even), they must satisfy these needs, thus ensuring that exhibitors and visitors
continue to attend events and provide stable revenue streams. As we previously noted, 459
trade shows are primarily promotional events for exhibitors, and knowledge-related
activities are not their main reason for attending (see also Jansson and Power 2008). Only
the expected interaction with current and potential buyers justifies their exorbitant
investments in trade shows, which also result in knowledge spillovers benefiting other
actors (e.g., competing exhibitors and atypical visitors). Trade shows would not survive if
a sufficient proportion of typical visitors (buyers) were not present. We therefore hypothesize that trade show organizers systematically support vertical interactions between
exhibitors and typical visitors and that they cater less to the knowledge needs of
actors who are interested in free knowledge spillovers that are not embedded in market
exchanges. As we show in our empirical section, this focus has implications for the
specific ways in which organizers arrange temporary proximity at their events.

IFEMAFeria de Madrid.

Messe Frankfurt France s.a.sacquired in December 2001.

Eurovetcontrolled by Fdration de la Maille.

Consortium of Italian shirt producers.

S.I.Tex s.p.a.founded by Italian textile associations.

Associazione Ideabiellafounded by manufacturers from the Biella area.

E.F. Ideacomofounded by a group of silk producers in the Como area.

Pratotradean initiative of the Textile Industry Association of Prato.

Premire Vision le Salon s.a.launched by French textile industry associations.

Messe Frankfurt GmbHowned by local stakeholders.

Philbeach Events, supported by NWTEC. Same dates as Park Lane.

British National Wool Textile Export Corp. (NWTEC). Same dates as Fabrex.

Source: Elaborations on FKM, OJS, Italians Ministry of Productive Activities and Organizer data.
a Data refer to 1989.
b Data refer to 1998.
c Because these trade shows are now colocated, the number of visitors has remained constant.
* Trade show not existing in the reference year (terminated at an earlier date).
** Trade show not existing in the reference year (founded in a later date).

Park Lane Collections

London
(n.a.1993)
Fabrex
London
(19791992)
Interstoff
Frankfurt
(19591999)
Premire Vision,
Paris
(from 1979)
Prato Expo
Florence, now Milano Unica
(from 1979)
Ideacomo
Cernobbio-CO, now Milano Unica
(from 1975)
Ideabiella
Cernobbio-CO, now Milano Unica
(from 1978)
Moda In
Milan, now Milano Unica
(from 1984)
Shirt Avenue
Cernobbio-CO, now Milano Unica
(from 1999)
Tissu Premier
Lille
(from 1985)
Texworld
Paris
(from 1998)
TextilModa
Madrid
(from 2001)

Organizer
Square meters
Exhibitors (foreign)
Visitors (foreign)
Square meters
Exhibitors (foreign)
Visitors (foreign)
Square meters
Exhibitors (foreign)
Visitors (foreign)
Square meters
Exhibitors (foreign)
Visitors (foreign)
Square meters
Exhibitors (foreign)
Visitors (foreign)
Square meters
Exhibitors (foreign)
Visitors (foreign)
Square meters
Exhibitors (foreign)
Visitors (foreign)
Square meters
Exhibitors (foreign)
Visitors (foreign)
Square meters
Exhibitors (foreign)
Visitors (foreign)
Square meters
Exhibitors (foreign)
Visitors (foreign)
Square meters
Exhibitors (foreign)
Visitors (foreign)
Square meters
Exhibitors (foreign)
Visitors (foreign)
**

**

N.A.

9,550
90 (18%)
3,871 (31%)
6,110
50 (0%)
2,150 (60%)
10,680
279 (25%)
13,525 (16%)
**

900a
29a
N.A.
8,000 a
447 (53%) a
10,400 (6%) a
40,512
1,044 (78%)
23,248 (45%)
17,851
471 (55%)
27,609 (57%)
N.A.

1986

**

**

N.A.

4,216
147 (69%)
5,034 (38%)
40,180
821 (71%)
71,410 (74%)
6,650 b
111 (1%) b
6,117 (38%) b
4,700
77 (16%)
2,238 (38%)
5,080
58 (0%)
810 (74%)
16,562
454 (23%)
22,437 (25%)
**

1996

Key Indicators (Spring Editions)

460

Trade Show
Location (Period)

International Fabric Trade Shows in Europe (19862006)

Table 1

35,498
700 (82%)
30,212 (76%)
3,000
81 (2%)
35,765 (35%)c
1,852
55 (11%)
35,765 (35%)c
5,070
75 (25%)
35,765 (35%)c
15,284
441 (26%)
35,765 (35%)c
2,594
39 (28%)
35,765 (35%)c
5,750
346 (57%)
6,651 (43%)
13,100
690 (100%)
19,288 (86%)
3,509
170 (54%)
3,630 (4%)

2006

27 February1 March

2023 February

2526 January

1417 February

1417 February

1417 February

1417 February

1417 February

912 March

2006
Dates

ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY

Vol. 87 No. 4 2011

EXPLORING KNOWLEDGE STRATEGIES

the period under observation. We also gathered data from trade show organizers
(e.g., catalogs, press releases, and Web documentation) on a semistructured basis.
Between 2003 and 2006, we also visited most EU textile events to undertake ethnographic
studies of visitors behavior, which we reported elsewhere (Borghini et al. 2006; Rinallo
et al. 2010). While the fieldwork conducted on those occasions is not specified in this
article, it has given additional depth to the interpretation of the data gathered for our
study.
Between 2003 and 2006, we conducted a total of 34 interviews with trade show
organizers and leading firms in the fabric and clothing industry in France, Germany, and
Italy. The organizers were questioned about their events history and development, the key
exhibitor and visitor groups that were targeted, the influence of stakeholders in the shows
developmental trajectories, the strategies used to shape learning at their events, exhibitors reactions to changes in trade fair formats, and several other relevant aspects (the
organization of the layout, protection of exhibitors intellectual property rights, and so
forth). The managers of clothing fabric producers and buyers were asked about the role of
trade shows as promotional or knowledge-acquisition tools and the key differences in the
industry events.
461
Statistical indicators of the number and origin of exhibitors and visitors between 1986
and 2006 at the shows under investigation were obtained from the Trade Fair Observatory
of Bocconi Universitys Centre for Research on Marketing and Services in Milan, a
specialized academic research center that collects data from organizers and official
control bodies. We used these statistics to evaluate structural differences in the size and
internationalization of events and in their evolution over time, thus anchoring our analysis
in objective indicators.
Our investigation also included analyses of news articles from the international trade
press covering textile industry trade shows between 1986 and 2006: Daily News Record
(United States), Womans Wear Daily (United States), Drapers Records (United
Kingdom), MF Fashion (Italy), and Textil Wirtschaft (Germany). We searched the electronic database of news sources, Factiva, using the names of trade shows as keywords. Out
of the total of 2,332 articles we identified, we manually coded articles for relevance and
used 263 articles for the following two-stage analysis. First, we created a database of trade
shows that included (1) ownership and the supporting stakeholders; (2) a time line of
events, along with changes in formats; (3) the origins of exhibitors and visitors (see
Figure 1) over time; and (4) other key indicators.
Second, we conducted a cross-case analysis and identified four practices through which
organizers affect learning and interaction at their events (see Table 2). On the basis of this
analysis, we identified two periods of heightened competition between events, which our
informants and the media referred to as trade show wars. Organizers knowledge-based
strategies were the cause of a strategic game of moves and countermoves resulting in the
demise of some events, while others became established at the ultimate clothing fabric
events.

Findings
The findings we present in this section are thematically organized around four sets of
practices through which trade show organizers affect learning and interaction at their
events (see Table 2). In the first subsection, the findings are related to the complete fabric
trade show panorama. In those that follow, we focus mainly on Premire Vision, which is
the leading exhibition in the industry and the first adopter of the practices reported in this
study, most of which later diffused to other events.

ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY

462

Figure 1. The size and import-export function of international fabric trade shows in Europe
(Spring Editions, 2006).

Marking the Boundaries of the Temporary Cluster

Trade show organizers set the boundaries of the clusters they periodically convene at
their events by including some firms and excluding others on the basis of the firms
origins and product groups. Attendance at trade shows generally corresponds to the
number of suppliers and buyers in the shows catchment basins, the extension of which is
also based on the locations relative accessibility (Golfetto 2004). However, organizers
have some freedom in deciding which exhibitors and visitors are allowed to participate in
their shows (Jansson and Power 2008) since they set formal or informal guidelines to
target the right market segments and to exclude others.
By focusing on these vertical and traded interactions between exhibitors and typical
visitors from different areas of the world, it is possible to identify different archetypes of
events by import or export functions in the host area (see Figure 1 for a visual representation based on our statistical data on the origins of exhibitors and visitors). Our longitudinal approach enabled us to follow the evolution of certain temporary clusters from a
regional to a national or international scale. We identified frequent tensions emerging
from contested choices (e.g., the admission of nonregional exhibitors and the displacement of trade shows from regional clusters to more accessible cities).

Export-oriented Trade Shows at Various Levels

The presence of suppliers from the hosting area as exhibitors and the predominance of
nonlocal buyers as visitors characterize export-oriented trade shows. These events facilitate local manufacturers exports and typically emerge as collective promotional projects
for these producers. Although all export-oriented trade shows qualify as international
because of the significant presence of foreign buyers as visitors,2 export-oriented trade
shows operate at various geographic scales for exhibitors. In the case of export-oriented
trade shows at the regional level, most of the exhibitors originate from the immediate
2

According to UFI, the global association of the exhibition industry, international trade shows are those that
attract at least 4 percent of their total visitors or 20 percent of their total exhibitors from abroad.

Vol. 87 No. 4 2011

Table 2
Knowledge-based Practices of Trade Show Organizers
Practice
Marking the boundaries of the
temporary cluster
Selection of the actors allowed
to participate in the temporary
cluster.
Different event archetypes:
Supply (export) trade
shows
Demand (import) trade
shows

Empirical Illustrations
Interstoff: exhibitors from all over the globe; no selection; wide range of
clothing fabrics; all quality levels.
Premire Vision: only West European exhibitors; wide range but high-quality
products only.
Moda In: mostly Italian exhibitors; wide range; high-quality products.
Ideacomo, Ideabiella, Prato Expo: local exhibitors specialized in silk fabrics for
womens wear; wool fabrics for formal mens wear; wool fabrics for trendy
womens wear.
Textworld: mostly extra-European exhibitors; no selection; wide range; low to
medium quality.
Textilmoda: foreign exhibitors welcome; distributors admitted; wide range.

Hindering undesired knowledge

Ideabiella, Ideacomo: access restricted to buyers invited by exhibitors; closed
spillovers
stands are admitted; photo ban.
Restrictions regarding
ModaIn: closed stands are admitted; photo ban.
nonbuyers, photo ban,
Premire Vision: higher admittance fee for nonbuyers; special preview day for
intellectual property protection
buyers; seminars and presence of experts on intellectual property
measures
protection during the show; photo ban and increased controls.
Investing in new knowledge
development
Investing in research and
development activities
Mobilizing actors to generate
new relevant knowledge

Premire Vision: Trend concertation process:

1. Forecasting of various trends in consumption and fashion (supported
by experts and leading exhibitors).
2. Selection and political validation of selected trends (guided by leading
firms within the association).
3. Communication of selected trends to exhibitors.
4. Incorporation of trends into new fabric collections by exhibitors.
5. Emphasizing of selected trends at the show by the organizer (exhibitor
layout, trend area, documentation and seminars for visitors, and
communication with media).

proximity of the city hosting the event (e.g., a nearby industrial cluster), and only a few
exhibitors originate from other areas within the same country or from abroad. At the
national level, export-oriented trade shows draw most of their exhibitors from beyond a
single region but within the same country. Trade shows can be considered export-oriented
at the European level if they predominantly attract exhibitors from various European
countries and, simultaneously, attract visitors (buyers) from other continents (e.g., Asia
and the Americas in our empirical context). In Figure 1, national-level export-oriented
trade shows are represented on the right side of the graph, with a small percentage of
foreign exhibitors and a large percentage of international visitors3.
3

To visualize export trade shows at the regional (European) level, one can build similar figures by
differentiating the share of nonregional (non-European) visitors and exhibitors.

463

EXPLORING KNOWLEDGE STRATEGIES

Improving knowledge release and Interstoff: distributors admitted; layout mainly by country of origin.
acquisition
Premire Vision, Moda In: leading producers only; active search for innovation
Active search for and visibility
leaders; layout according to market destination; numerous trend areas
of innovative producers and
related to different raw materials and market destinations.
market leaders
Ideabiella, Ideacomo, Pratoexpo: producers only.
Organizing market-sensitive
exhibition layout solutions
Highlighting key innovations
through trend areas

ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY
At the regional level, we identified three export-oriented trade shows: Ideacomo,
Ideabiella, and Prato Expo, whichfor most of the observation periodwere held in
locations near the eponymous Italian textile industrial districts (see Table 1). Founded by
local textile associations in the 1970s, these events limit the presence of nonlocal
exhibitors from both other Italian textile districts and abroad, because their presence
would bring the enemy into our own camp. These regional export-oriented trade shows
are thus promotional projects with which local fabric manufacturers try to overcome their
dependence on local demand (Cox and Mair 1988) by creating, protecting, and enhancing
relationships with distant customers from other Italian regions and abroad. Exhibiting
companies greatly appreciated the intimacy that these smaller events provide, perceiving them as emanations of the local cluster. In the words of one informant regarding the
Prato Expo: Here [at the show] its like being in our hometown. We [people from rival
local firms] gather together at the association, at soccer matches, and . . . at the show.
At these three smaller, export-oriented trade shows, nearby industrial clusters are well
represented since exhibitors from such clusters have access to better positions regarding
the layout and have larger stands.4 In comparison to the larger shows with their more
464 diversified exhibitor bases, we found that at these events, the direct comparison with
neighboring exhibitors results in local producers engaging in greater efforts to show off
their competencies to both competing fabric manufacturers from the same clusters and
nonlocal buyers. For example, stands are open and present a great variety of innovative
fabric samples that are relatively easy to observe because exhibiting manufacturers feel
protected from nonlocal competitors prying eyes. We found that the possibility of
examining competitors innovations makes these regional shows a pivotal moment in the
lives of the nearby fabric clusters. Horizontal interactions with local rivals, which are
based on observation and comparison (Maskell 2001), occur in a more intensified form
during these events than in everyday exchanges during which new products cannot be
examined.
In addition, the geographic proximity to firms premises enable these fabric producers
to invite buyers from abroad to their factories and showrooms during the trade show, thus
giving these producers ample opportunities to show their expertise and potential for
innovation, allow their technician to interact with buyers, and learn about customers
needs. By interacting intensively with, say, U.S. clothing producers, these manufacturers
can adapt their production to that markets requirements. However, the fear of bringing
the enemy into the trade show reduces the amount of learning and the stimuli for
innovation that can arise from observation of and comparison to competitors with
different technological, organizational, and market cultures.
From the perspective of fabric buyers, visits to regional export-oriented trade shows
allow for the gathering of information about new textile collections and trends developed
by the local innovation system. However, we found that many buyers (mainly clothing
producers from other European countries and North America) previously considered the
large number of Italian regional trade shows confusing and even annoying. Here [at
Ideabiella], we can examine the new fabrics and at the end of the show, we have a clear
idea of what is going on in high-quality menswear fabrics. But thats it: here we learn only
about menswear fabrics. . . . We also produce womens wear, and the two collections have
to be compatible, so we also need to visit other shows before we can decide what to buy,
said one informant from a clothing company during an interview. To obtain a complete
4

For example, in their 1990 spring-summer editions, the average stand size at Ideacomo and Ideabiella was,
respectively, 120 and 85 square meters. In contrast, the average stand size at the larger events was
significantly smaller (e.g., 43 square meters at Moda In and 44 square meters at Premire Vision).

Vol. 87 No. 4 2011

EXPLORING KNOWLEDGE STRATEGIES

view of the variety of Italian textile offerings, fabric buyers had to travel to different cities
at different times. Although these shows protected exhibitors from nearby clusters from
undesired comparisons, the absence of competing fabric manufacturers located elsewhere
reduced these events informative value for fabric buyers. Consequently, despite maintaining separate organizers and brand identity, all Italian regional-level shows relocated to
Milan under the umbrella brand Milano Unica in 2005. While select Western European
producers (mostly from France, Spain, the United Kingdom, and Germany) are allowed
to exhibit at the show (the percentage of exhibitors from abroad was 21.4 percent during
the first edition of the trade show in September 2005), Milano Unica is the de facto
promotional showcase of fabric manufacturers from Lombardy, Piedmont, Tuscany,
Emilia Romagna, Veneto, and other Italian regions. The unification of Italy, as the
international press labeled the initiative, according to the organizers underlined the
importance of the Italian textile industry by bringing it under one roof, and was
strategically used as a tool to show the importance of Italian mills (Collins 2005, 33).
Most buyers agreed that the unification would make commercial sense because it would
mean a more efficient use of time and money.
National-level export-oriented trade shows like Milano Unica (with foreign attendance, 465
mostly from Europe, representing about 40 percent of the total visitors/buyers), provide
fabric producers (exhibitors) and buyers (visitors) with learning opportunities of reduced
depth but of a greater variety than the more homogeneous regional export-oriented events.
Specifically, this type of trade show reduces the knowledge-acquisition costs among
buyers who visit the show and enables manufacturers who exhibit to observe and compare
their fabrics with those of competitors from different parts of the country and with various
product specializations. However, it is only at the international-level export-oriented
trade shows that gather exhibitors from different European countries and have a wider
product range that horizontal and vertical knowledge pipelines can be established at the
global level. In our sample, Premire Vision (Paris)with its 8085 percent non-French
exhibitors (mostly from Italy, Germany, the United Kingdom, Spain, Portugal, and
Switzerland)can be considered an export-oriented trade show at the European level, as
its foreign visitors (7075 percent of the total) include significant presences from North
America, the Middle East, and Asia.
Premire Vision was created as a joint promotional event by a group of fabric producers
from the Lyon area in 1973 and was later opened to producers from other French regions
as well as selected West European manufacturers. Originally conceived as an exportoriented trade show similar to the Italian initiatives discussed earlier, Premire Vision
evolved to become what may be termed a hub event devoted to exchanges unrelated to the
host country. The organizer, a French association of textile producers, sought to create an
event at which select West European fabric producers present collections of superior
materials and innovative styles. Its rigorous selection criteria for exhibitors exclude most
manufacturers from outside Europe. Premire Vision creates a knowledge environment
that is much richer than that of other shows in the industry. Exhibitors can observe and
compare themselves with other manufacturers that adopt similar strategies based on the
quality, creativity, and innovation, of many European industrial clusters thus ensuring rich
horizontal learning. Furthermore, by aggregating so many leading manufacturers, this
show attracts buyers from across the worldbeyond what could be achieved by a
national- or regional-level export-oriented trade show.

Import-oriented Trade Shows

Import-oriented trade shows function as an import promotion because they attract a
large proportion of nonlocal producers as exhibitors, and the visitors are mostly buyers

ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY
from the surrounding area. These events are typically organized by organizations that also
run exhibition venues that are supported by local territorial stakeholders who regard these
facilities as an instrument to generate economic benefits from the expenditures of
exhibitors and visitors in the host area. Consequently, unlike export-oriented trade shows,
import-oriented events welcome exhibitors regardless of their geographic origin. Similar
to the export-oriented trade shows, however, these events all qualify as international
because of the significant number of foreign exhibitors (see footnote 2) but may operate
at various geographic levels with regard to the visitors: regional (with most of the visitors
from the region hosting the event), national (with visitors from different regions within
the same country), and European (with mainly visitors from other European countries).
In our analysis, national-level import trade shows are represented on the left side of
Figure 1, with a large percentage of foreign exhibitors and a reduced percentage of
international visitors.
Although there are regional import-oriented trade shows in other industries, we did not
find any in the European Union fabric industry. One national-level event that falls into this
category is Textilmoda (Madrid), with its more than 50 percent foreign exhibitors and
466 almost exclusively Spanish visitors (concentrated in the Madrid area, with visitors from
Andalusia, Valencia, Catalua, and Galicia; foreign buyers are limited and predominantly
Portuguese, confirming the reduced attractiveness of this trade show for more distant
buyers). Textilmoda was founded in 2001 by IFEMA, the organization that runs the venue
and organizes many other trade shows for various industries, to satisfy the demand for
textiles and related accessories by Spanish apparel manufacturers. IFEMAs shareholders
include the Madrid Regional Government and Madrid City Council; thus generating
wealth and development for the Madrid region is the organizations primary strategic
goal.
From an international exchange perspective, import-oriented events enable foreign
fabric manufacturers to showcase their products to the host market. Trade shows like
Textilmoda enable these fabric producers (exhibitors), who come predominantly from
Italy, France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Portugal, and Turkey, to develop specialized
vertical knowledge pipelines with Spanish clothing producers (visitors) and to compare
and observe different competitors in the same market. From the buyers perspective,
import-oriented events enable them to learn about new textile collections and about a
selection of producers who are interested in interacting with them. The variety in the
collections and suppliers and the resulting exchanges of knowledge are limited in
comparison to international events like Premire Vision, but the reduced visitation and
time costs partially compensate for this. However, at this event, manufacturers tend not to
exhibit directly; instead, they are represented by domestic distributors who release
commercial, rather than product, information (e.g., product range, prices, and delivery
dates). Trade shows like Textilmoda have a good market potential, so we have to be there.
But we export to many countries in Europe, Russia, Asia. . . . We cant afford to exhibit
at all the trade shows in those markets, the investment would be prohibitive. . . . So we
exhibit indirectly through our local agents. . . . The great part of our investments are
absorbed by the very international shows, where it is important to make a good impression
and where we need to keep up with the competition. . . . At these events we present
ourselves by means of the largest stand that we can afford, we bring the entire headquarters staff, and make an effort to present very innovative products, a fabric manufacturer
told us. Owing to exhibitors concentrating their promotional efforts on the more international export-oriented events, the learning opportunities that are available at the importoriented trade shows are reduced since distributors do not have the same knowledge of
products, technologies, and industry trends as producers do.

Vol. 87 No. 4 2011

EXPLORING KNOWLEDGE STRATEGIES

Two other events in our sample can be characterized as import-oriented trade shows at
the international level: Interstoff (Frankfurt) and Texworld (Paris). Like Premire Vision,
these events may be considered hubs because they are devoted to trade exchanges that are
mostly unrelated to their host country (see also Skov 2006 for a similar point). However,
if the origin of the exhibitors and visitors is further divided into European and extraEuropean, Interstoff and Texworld can be considered European import-oriented trade
shows in that they facilitate East European and Asian fabric producers entry into the EU
market. Interstoff, which closed in 1999, was founded 40 years before by Messe Frankfurt
GmbH, the owner of the local exhibition venue. It was the first exhibition in the world
dedicated exclusively to clothing fabric. Owned by the City of Frankfurt and the State of
Hesse, the exhibition centers mission was to organize large events to maximize the local
economic impact. Unhindered by regional or national entrepreneurial associations protectionist goals, such exhibition centers defined their events scale at the global level and
were the first in the industry to welcome exhibitors irrespective of origin, product quality,
and level of innovation. Messe Frankfurts corporate claim is, significantly, We make
markets. Worldwide, thus hinting at its events intended global reach from both the
exhibitors and visitors perspectives.
467
From a knowledge-exchange point of view, fabric producers who exhibited at Interstoff
were able to observe and compare themselves with a broad set of foreign competitors with
dissimilar strategies in terms of markets served, manufacturing processes, raw materials
used, the innovativeness of the collections, the quality of products, and price levels. The
whole world used to exhibit at Interstoff. We had the opportunity to see our best
competitors and to really evaluate our opportunities worldwide. We also learned a lot
about the different needs of international markets, declared a leading fabric manufacturer about its past experience as an exhibitor at the show. On the other hand, fabric buyers
visiting Interstoff could access information about a broad range of solutions, suppliers,
and products and select the best alternatives for purchase. However, at the end of the
1980s, visitors began to find that the event had simply become too big. A buyer who
attended Interstoff regularly said: Interstoff was really a giant. . . . From year to year, it
became more time-consuming and tiring to visit all the exhibitors. You went home
confused because you could not work out the direction that fashion was taking. These
difficulties, along with Premire Visions success, led to the decline and eventual demise
of Interstoff and the subsequent development in Paris of Texworld (100 percent foreign
exhibitors, 85 percent foreign visitors), an event almost completely dominated by Asian
producers as exhibitors, with mostly European buyers as visitors. With just one trip to the
French capital, visitors could now visit both Premire Vision and Texworld, thus gaining
access to knowledge on the entire range of clothing textiles (high and low quality, from
Europe and the rest of the world).
To conclude, in this section we described a practice through which trade show organizers affect interaction and learning at their events. By selecting exhibitors, organizers
mark the boundaries of the temporary clusters they convene. Export-oriented trade shows
are typically organized by regional or national associations of manufacturers that use
these initiatives to overcome local dependence and to stimulate their members exports.
Import-oriented trade shows are usually run by venues that organize events for different
industries with the aim of stimulating business tourism without identifying themselves with nearby manufacturer-based clusters. These two types of trade shows have
distinct implications for learning and interactions. Export-oriented trade shows enable the
establishment of vertical knowledge pipelines between producers in a specific area and
buyers from different parts of the world. Conversely, import-oriented trade shows support
the establishment of external links between buyers from a given area and nonlocal

ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY
manufacturers. Moreover, events that aggregate suppliers from different local clusters
foster broader horizontal knowledge spillovers because they enable exhibiting manufacturers to observe and compare themselves with competing firms from different parts of
the world.

Improving the Release and Acquisition of Knowledge

Trade show organizers facilitate the circulation of knowledge at their events through
practices that are intended to improve exhibitors release of knowledge and simplify
visitors acquisition of knowledge. On the former, we found that some organizers select
manufacturers from market leaders that are considered to be at the forefront of innovation.
These leading companies, which usually present numerous prototypes and fashion ideas,
are invited to participate directly in the show with their research and development
personnel (instead of allowing local branches or distributors to represent them). For
example, Premire Vision started its war against Interstoff with a strategy of attracting
the more important French and Italian fabric manufacturers that enjoy worldwide recognition for their fabrics high quality and creativity. More recently, Premire Vision began
468 to search actively for emerging innovative fabric producers to participate in the show, thus
providing visitors with a more comprehensive view of key market developments. For
example, in 2002 the show opened for the first time to carefully selected non-European
exhibitors from Japan, Turkey, Bulgaria, and Uruguay. In a statement, the organizers
suggested that the policy is another way of expressing our constant desire to present
buyers with the finest clothing on offer. Each of these new exhibitors, richly steeped in the
textile tradition of their country, brings an original know-how to the salon.
To ensure market leaders greater involvement in the show, Premire Vision invites
these companies to serve on the exhibitions steering committee and gives their products
more visibility in the special exhibition spaces called trend areas (for more details, see the
section Investing in New Knowledge Development) and in the media. Interstoffs crisis
and sudden collapse may be largely ascribed to its progressive loss of market leaders from
its exhibitor base. In a sense, it is the presence of these leaders that has enabled the
survival of some of the smaller and more specialized Italian district-level trade shows
(e.g., Ideabiella and Ideacomo), despite their limited accessibility and limited variety of
products.
Organizers also try to simplify visitors acquisition of knowledge through exhibitors
layout solutions. One of the key challenges that visitors face is swiftly locating relevant
information at trade shows. They face time pressures, which are particularly evident in the
case of larger events.5 Contrary to online directories with search functions, trade shows
can physically arrange the exhibitors in the exhibition space only by applying one or two
layout criteria at most (e.g., country of origin, market destination, and/or price or quality
levels). The architectures of interaction and learning derived from privileging one or the
other of these criteria differ greatly.
In the past, all trade shows in the textile industry arranged their exhibitors by nationality; for example, French exhibitors were grouped in one location along with their French
competitors. A buyer who was interested in silk fabrics would therefore have to visit
various locations to identify relevant suppliers. Visitors were often unable to visit all the
pavilions because of the sheer number of exhibitors and limited time. Premire Vision was
5

Consider, for example, Ideabiella, which is among the smaller trade shows in our sample. Since the show
lasts 4 days, a visitor in 2006 could spend a maximum of 38 minutes per exhibitor (i.e., 4 days, 8 hours per
day, 50 exhibitors). At Premire Vision, with its 700 exhibitors, the same visitor can spend fewer than 3
minutes per exhibitor (i.e., 4 days, 8 hours per day, 700 exhibitors).

Vol. 87 No. 4 2011

Hindering Undesirable Knowledge Spillovers

Attendance at trade shows also involves atypical visitors (Borghini et al. 2006). In our
empirical context, some were executives from other industries (e.g., cosmetics or automotive) who sought information about colors and fabrics but had no need for apparel
textiles. Others were fabric buyers who visited the show for inspiration and to gather
knowledge about trends and who would later order cheaper versions of the fabrics they
saw at the show from other companies. In the case of Premire Vision, some visitors were
non-European fabric producers or European producers lacking the creativity or design
capabilities to exhibit at the event. The exhibitors were concerned that these firms would
steal their designs (see Jansson and Power 2008 and Skov 2006 for similar findings).
Some asked the visitors to disclose their identities before being admitted inside the stand:
We have a blacklist of companies that used to visit us, take samples of our fabrics, but
never placed an order. . . . And later we would find that they had fabrics of a similar design

EXPLORING KNOWLEDGE STRATEGIES

the first event to consider changing the layout by product typology (e.g., silk, wool, cotton,
and knits). The introduction of a new layout initially faced resistance from the exhibitors,
since they feared direct comparisons with foreign competitors. To counter such resistance,
Premire Vision conducted a survey that showed visitors overwhelming preference
for layout by product typology, and the new layout was launched from 1990
onward.
Our aim is to make the fair more easily accessible and approachable to visitors, most
of whom . . . [spend an average of] just two days at the fair, Bernard Dupasquier, the
managing director of Premire Vision, told the media (Plan Attractive New Format
1989, 8). In the years that followed, the product typology was further refined with
market segments (e.g., city wear and casual wear). So a buyer from, say, Banana
Republic can come here and know where exactly to look and not lose time in an area that
isnt of interest to him, said Dupasquier (quoted in DAulnay 1993, 2). Subsequent
years showed frequent reorganizations of the exhibitions layout to adapt to technological and market trends, all aimed at simplifying visitors search for information. The
market has become more difficult, with buyers having to work faster. . . . Buyers need to
find specific products that fit into their business. This new segmentation will help buyers 469
find what they need more quickly (Premire Vision to Reveal Revolutionary New
Layout 2005, 4).
In sum, organizers affect the microgeography of trade shows by imposing stringent
criteria for the selection of exhibitors and frequently reorganizing exhibitors layouts to
correspond to changing market demand. Through these strategies, Premire Visions
organizers fundamentally altered the interactions at the show. Exhibitors can observe as
well as compare themselves with rival fabric manufacturers serving the same markets,
irrespective of national origin, and buyers who are interested in their products can find
them more easily. Exhibitors layouts thus have learning implications at both the horizontal and vertical levels. This year there was a rearrangement of the layout, and I found
my stand in front of one of my most direct competitors. To be honest, I didnt like
that. . . . Customers come here immediately after visiting them and ask us if we have . . . I
dont know, blue velvet of comparable quality, and if our price is better. . . . Customers
disclose this kind of information to get a better price, you know? So we learn a lot of what
they are doing. . . . Its tough, its more competitive. . . . But I guess this way were forced
to give the best . . . , commented an exhibitor. Although every layout change was
resented by the exhibitors, the organizers ensured that Premire Vision responded to
evolving marketplace conditions.

ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY
but a lower quality produced by their subcontractors. . . . We now do not permit these
companies to enter our stand, said a French exhibitor. To reduce undesired knowledge
spillovers and overcrowding, Premire Vision implemented systems to identify buyers
and enforced copyright protection measures. In 1994, the show introduced a relatively
high entrance fee and a ranking of visitors to discourage nonprofessionals. Those who
qualified as buyers had to show proof of a certain level of purchases with exhibitors in the
previous year (i.e., 50,000 FF or roughly $10,000); they were offered personal badges, a
modest reduction in fees, and an expedited cue. From 1997, preregistered buyers were
granted an exclusive preview day before the official opening of the show.
Premire Vision pioneered in the crusade against copyright infringements, which
subsequently became adopted as industry norms. Since 1993, visitors with cameras must
obtain formal authorization on photography or face confiscation. A copyright booth was
established in 1994 with specialized lawyers available for advice. The show also organized seminars on the protection of copyrights and intellectual property rights and, in
1997, introduced a Copyright Unit that patrols the show to prevent industrial espionage
and prevent behavior, such as taking unauthorized pictures of textiles, making precise
470 sketches of the fabrics shown in the trend areas, or taking cutoff bits of fabrics. Through
these practices, the organizers systematically favor vertical interactions between exhibitors and buying visitors and discourage free riders access to observation-based knowledge spillovers.

Investing in New Knowledge Development

Besides providing a relational space for the exchange of knowledge between the
participating actors, trade show organizers may actively develop new knowledge by
investing in research activities and mobilizing a variety of actors. Premire Vision
engages in practices that are intended to forecast and codify fashion trends so that the
show can inspire its exhibitors development of new collections and, later, help visitors
make sense of the general direction of the textile and clothing industries innovations.
Since textile producers develop their collections some two years before their products
(incorporated in clothing) are chosen by retailers and subsequently made available to
consumers (Dunford 2006), Premire Visions coordination of seasonal colors and fabric
trends reduces exhibitors risk of developing deviant innovations that do not fit with
emerging trends. The process, known as trend concertation, involves numerous actors
who contribute specialized knowledge and skills (see Table 2 for a stylized phase model
of trend concertation).
Every semester, a few months before the trade show, Premire Vision forecasts
trends in social values, consumer behavior, and fashion design. With the help of
experts, the organization selects a relatively small set of fashion trends and the corresponding fabric design instructions. During concertation meetings, the textile and
related industries associations subsequently negotiate and eventually agree upon which
trends are to be supported. For example, in 1992, Germany insists on colors inspired by
flowers and nature, while Austria invokes us to discover the five continents and their own
color moods. France definitely turns her back on melancholy to invoke energy, harmony
and light in a simple and well-aimed message about yellows (Mazzaraco 1993, 23). The
resulting trends are given poetic namessuch as electric shocks or flamboyant
resonanceand are communicated to exhibitors through workshops and supporting
documentation.
At the show, the trends are divulged to visitors through conferences, documentation,
trend areas, and forums where fabric samples exemplify these trends in a visually

Vol. 87 No. 4 2011

Discussion
Trade shows have recently emerged as key research sites for scholars who are interested
in the spatial consequences of interactive learning (Maskell et al. 2006; Bathelt and
Schuldt 2008; Jansson and Power 2008). Our study highlighted that the practices of trade
show organizers have a significant impact on the dissemination of knowledge; moreover,
we also showed that organizers systematically favor vertical relationships between exhibitors and typical visitors while, simultaneously, hindering atypical visitors learning at
their events.
Following a relational approach, our study adopted a mesolevel of analysis and
documented the practices through which organizers constrain and enable visitors and
exhibitors knowledge-acquisition practices. To recapitulate, our study identified four
types of knowledge-shaping practices undertaken by trade show organizers: (1) marking
the temporary clusters boundaries, (2) improving the release and acquisition of knowledge, (3) hindering undesired knowledge flows, and (4) investing to develop new knowledge. Studies on permanent clusters have started unpacking the practices through which
key actors, such as entrepreneurial and professional associations, stimulate interactions
and learning among local actors (Benner 2003; Faulconbridge 2007a, 2007b; Filippi and
Torre 2003). Our study sought to contribute to this research stream by demonstrating that
key actors can also activate the benefits of temporary geographic proximity. Although the
specific practices we identified are limited to trade shows, organizers of other types of
temporary clusters (e.g., scientific conferences and professional conventions) may also
shape learning and interaction through specific practices, therefore deserving further
investigation.
Our findings have several implications for scholars who are interested in the spatial
implications of interaction and innovation. First, we emphasize that the geographic scale
of the practices of exchanging and acquiring knowledge at temporary clusters is socially
and politically constructed at several levels. Previous studies of temporary clusters were
theoretically founded on the local buzz and global pipeline model (Bathelt et al. 2004).

EXPLORING KNOWLEDGE STRATEGIES

appealing manner. In these areas, large boards of swatches are combined with artwork,
photographs, and multimedia displays. Currently, there are numerous trend areas: a
general forum, which highlights the seasons broader trends, along with specialized ones
that, edition after edition of the show, evolve with the trade fair layout. These areas are
extremely popular with the visitors, many of whom spend extended periods there and
write extensive notes before visiting the exhibitors. The trends areas, the supporting
documentation, and the resulting media coverage in the specialized press combined allow
Premire Visions exhibitors to affirm their innovations as the dominant design in the
fabric industry (Golfetto and Rinallo 2008).
By developing new knowledge about downstream markets, Premire Vision rapidly
became a central learning place in the global fashion business. Most trade shows in the
clothing fabric industry have adopted Premire Visions formula and have reconceived
their business, which now involves the provision of relevant and timely information to
industrial buyers, rather than the mere renting of space to exhibitors. However, this
knowledge-enhancing mechanism comes at a cost. The trend concertation process, which
includes direct cost items, such as the organizations of several concertation meetings and
workshops, fees for trend forecasting experts, the staging of trend areas at the show, and 471
the production of supporting documentation, leads to some of the highest figures in the
Premire Vision budget because it is a core process that absorbs the time of a significant
number of the organizers personnel.

ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY
However, the construction of scale is a socially constructed process (Marston 2000) that
unfolds over long periods. An a priori local-global dichotomization may obscure rather
than illuminate phenomena of interest (see Faulconbridge 2007b for a similar point on
permanent clusters). We found that different trade show organizers frame their events on
different scales, from the merely local (e.g., small trade fairs in industrial districts, such
as the Prato Expo) to the truly global (e.g., the Frankfurt Messes now-defunct Interstoff).
Such framings have tangible consequences for the microgeographies of trade shows and
result in distinct knowledge environments.
Furthermore, a trade shows scale evolves over time as a result of intensely political
processes. Export-oriented trade shows are created by regional or national entrepreneurial
associations to escape dependence on local markets and engage with nonlocal customers
(Cox and Mair 1988; Cox 1998). These events tend to exclude nonlocal exhibitors to
protect member firms from undesired competition; over the years, however, these events
may redefine their geographic scale by aggregating together producers from different
areas in accessible locations to respond better to evolving market needs. Import-oriented
trade shows are thus the municipal or regional governments attempt to attract business
472 tourism. Consequently, their organizers generally do not have difficulty framing the scale
of their activities at the national or international levels.
Our empirically grounded categorization of trade shows may be used to gain a better
understanding of previous studies on trade shows. For example, Bathelt and Schuldt
(2008) analyzed exhibitors and visitors learning at two Frankfurt events that, following
our terminology, are import-oriented trade shows at the European level. One of Jansson
and Powers (2008) research sites was Salone del Mobile in Milan, a national exportoriented trade show with exhibitors from Italy and other selected European countries.
Since differences between trade shows in terms of exhibitor/visitor configurations affect
their learning opportunities, future research on temporary clusters could benefit from the
distinctions introduced in this article with regard to the theoretical sampling of cases.
Second, our study contributes to a refined understanding of the knowledge links
obtained by different actors at trade shows. Following Trippl, Todtling, and Lengauers
(2009) attempt to go beyond the local buzz and global pipeline approach, we propose that
research on temporary clusters should not conflate traded and untraded relations, or the
transfer of existing knowledge and the creation of new knowledge. With respect to the first
point, we found that trade shows create a relational space favoring the establishment of
market relationships between exhibitors and buyers (i.e., traded relations), whereas
atypical visitors learning (i.e., untraded knowledge spillovers) is actively hindered by
both exhibitors and organizers. Regarding the second point, we found that trade shows
may be instrumental in the creation of new knowledge through specific investments and
broad mobilization processes involving a variety of actors from different locales and with
heterogeneous competencies and knowledge assets. In the clothing fabric industry, the
new knowledge generated is about new trends in consumer markets and their implications
for clothing and textile innovation. Other trade shows (and, more generally, other types of
temporary clusters) may facilitate similar forms of mobilization to develop the forms of
knowledge that are more relevant for their underlying industries.
Finally, our study contributes to the current debate on the relative role of local and
nonlocal sources of knowledge for firms embedded in local clusters by specifying the
nature of the knowledge obtained at trade shows. Geographic proximity is needed mainly
for certain stages of the innovation process (Torre 2008). Trade shows provide exhibitors
with a unique opportunity to gather crucial downstream knowledge by matching artifacts
with market needs (Pavitt 2005). Firms that are embedded in local clusters in peripheral
regions or in areas with small local markets find it difficult to acquire knowledge about the

Vol. 87 No. 4 2011

References

Amin, A., and Cohendet, P. 2004. Architectures of knowledge: Firms, capabilities and
communities. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
Asheim, B. T.; Coenen, L.; and Vang, J. 2007. Face-to-face, buzz, and knowledge bases:
Sociospatial implications for learning, innovation and innovation policy. Environment
and Planning C: Government and Policy 25:65570.
Bathelt, H. 2005. Geographies of production: Growth regimes in spatial perspective
(II)Knowledge creation and growth in clusters. Progress in Human Geography
29:20416.
Bathelt, H., and Glckler, J. 2003. Toward a relational economic geography. Journal of
Economic Geography 3:11744.
Bathelt, H.; Malmberg, A.; and Maskell, P. 2004. Clusters and knowledge: Local buzz, global
pipelines and the process of knowledge creation. Progress in Human Geography
28(2):3156.

EXPLORING KNOWLEDGE STRATEGIES

needs of nonlocal, distant markets (usually referred to as marketing intelligence; see

Cornish 1997). By exhibiting at trade shows, firms may tap into specific bases of market
knowledge and develop innovations that are suited to a variety of foreign needs and
preferences. Moreover, exhibitors also refine their marketing skills by observing the
promotional efforts of competitors serving similar markets. Consequently, trade shows
support firms in the development of so-called complementary assets (Teece 1986)the
resources and competencies needed to support the successful commercialization and
marketing of innovations. Research has found that marketing capabilities are fundamental
for effective innovation and competitive advantage (Narver and Slater 1990; Kohli and
Jaworski 1990). Conversely, innovative firms lacking complementary assets tend to be
outperformed by market-savvy imitators (Rothaermel 2001a, 2001b). Such complementary assets are difficult to obtain in local clusters because knowledge is dominated by
technological/productive assets and marketing know-how to nearby customers.
Since our study was based on empirical evidence from a single industry and its trade
shows, we conclude by discussing the generalizability of the points we raised. The
clothing fabric industry is fragmented and consists mainly of small and medium-sized
enterprises that are often geographically concentrated in industrial districts (European 473
Comission 2001; Dunford 2006). As in other cases of low-technology and labor-intensive
industries (Scott 2006), competition is based mostly on product differentiation by means
of aesthetic and symbolic elements. In our field observations, the informants stressed the
sticky nature of knowledge of fabrics since photographic representations alter colors and
industry insiders may access multilayered information by touching fabric swatches (see
also Weller 2007). Our findings on trade shows as key sites of learning and the relevance
of some of the identified mechanisms of knowledge transfer are thus not generalizable to
contexts in which sensorial and aesthetic elements are less important and products are less
dependent on physical inspection for thorough evaluation. Similarly, our study was
empirically situated in a traditional manufacturing sector in which innovation is based on
a synthetic mode of knowledge production (Asheim, Coenen, and Vang 2007; Moodysson, Coenen, and Asheim 2008) fueled by interactive learning between customers and
suppliers. In science- or technology-based industries, other types of temporary clusters or
institutional arrangements for the circulation of knowledge may play a more prominent
role. In such contexts, companies have stronger legal instruments (e.g., patents) to protect
their intellectual property rights, and knowledge spillovers to atypical visitors may be less
of a problem.

ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY
Bathelt, H., and Schuldt, N. 2008. Between luminaries and meat grinders: International trade fairs
as temporary clusters. Regional Studies 42:85368.
Benner, C. 2003. Learning communities in a learning region: The soft infrastructure of cross-firm
learning networks in Silicon Valley. Environment and Planning A 35:180930.
Boggs, J. S., and Rantisi, N. M. 2003. The relational turn in economic geography. Journal of
Economic Geography 3:10916.
Bonoma, T. V. 1983. Get more out of your trade shows. Harvard Business Review, JanuaryFebruary:7581.
Borghini, S.; Golfetto, F.; and Rinallo, D. 2006. Ongoing search among industrial buyers. Journal of
Business Research 59(1011):115159.
Boschma, R. A. 2005. Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies 39(1):61
74.
Collins, J. 2005. The unification of Italy. Drapers Record, September 24:33.
Cornish, S. 1997. Product innovation and the spatial dynamics of market intelligence: Does
proximity to markets matter? Economic Geography 73(2):14365.
Cox,
K. R. 1998. Spaces of dependence, spaces of engagement and the politics of scale, or: Looking
474
for local politics. Political Geography 17(1):123.
Cox, K. R., and Mair, A. 1988. Locality and community in the politics of local economic
development. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 78(2):30725.
DAulnay, S. 1993. U.S. attendance, mood high at Premire Vision. Daily News Record, March 17:2.
Dicken, P., and Malmberg, A. 2001. Firms in territories: A relational perspective. Economic
Geography 77:34563.
Dunford, M. 2006. Industrial districts, magic circles, and the restructuring of the Italian textiles and
clothing chain. Economic Geography 82(1):2759.
European Commission. 2001. The textile and clothing industry in the EU: A survey. Enterprise
papers, no. 2. Brussels: European Comission. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/
textile/doc_miscel.htm
Faulconbridge, J. R. (2007a). Exploring the role of professional associations in collective learning
in London and New Yorks advertising and law professional-service-firm clusters. Environment
and Planning A 39:96584.
Faulconbridge, J. R. (2007b). Londons and New Yorks advertising and law clusters and
their networks of learning: Relational analyses with a politics of scale? Urban Studies 44:1635
56.
Filippi, M., and Torre, A. 2003. Local organizations and institutions. How can geographical
proximity be activated by collective projects? International Journal of Technology Management
26(234):386400.
Florio, M. 1994. Fair trades by trade fairs: Information providing institutions under monopolistic
competition. Small Business Economics 6:26781.
Gertler, M. S. 1995. Being there: Proximity, organization, and culture in the development and
adoption of advanced manufacturing technologies. Economic Geography 71:126.
. 2003. Tacit knowledge and the economic geography of context, or the undefinable tacitness
of being (there). Journal of Economic Geography 3:7599.
Golfetto, F. 2004. Fiere e comunicazione: Strumenti per le imprese e il territorio [Trade fairs and
communication: Instruments for businesses and territories]. Milan: EGEA.
Golfetto, F., and Gibbert, M. 2006. Marketing of competencies and the sources of customer value
in business markets. Industrial Marketing Management 35:90412.
Golfetto, F., and Mazursky, D. 2004. Competence-based marketing. Harvard Business Review 51
(November):26.

Vol. 87 No. 4 2011

EXPLORING KNOWLEDGE STRATEGIES

Golfetto, F., and Rinallo, D. 2008. Reshaping markets through collective marketing strategies:
Lessons from the textile industry. In Strategic market creation: A new perspective on marketing and
innovation management, ed. K. Tollin and A. Car, 97123, Chichester, U.K.: Wiley.
Gopalakrishna, S., Lilien, G. L., Williams, J. D., and Sequeira, I. K. 1995. Do trade shows pay off?
Journal of Marketing, 59(3):7583.
Grabher, G. 2002. Cool projects, boring institutions: Temporary collaboration in social context.
Regional Studies 36:20514.
Howitt, R. 2003. Scale. In A Companion to Political Geography, ed. J. Agnew, K. Mitchell, and G. Toal,
13857. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell.
Jansson, J., and Power, D. 2008. Cyclical clusters in global circuits: Overlapping spaces in furniture
trade fairs. Economic Geography 84:42348.
Kelly, P. F. 1997. Globalization, power and the politics of scale in the Phillippines. Geoforum
28:15171.
Kohli, A. K., and Jaworski, B. J. 1990. Market orientation: The construct, research propositions, and
managerial implications. Journal of Marketing 54(2):118.
Lundvall, B.-. 1992. National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive
475
learning. London: Pinter.
Malmberg, A., and Maskell, P. 2002. The elusive concept of localization economies.: Towards
a knowledge-based theory of spatial clustering. Environment and Planning A 34:429
49.
Marston, S. A. 2000. The social construction of scale. Progress in Human Geography 24:219
42.
Marston, S.; Jones, J. P.; and Woodward, K. 2005. Human geography without scale. Transactions of
the Institute of British Geographers 30:41632.
Maskell, P. 2001. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the geographical cluster. Industrial and
Corporate Change, 10:92143.
Maskell, P.; Bathelt, H.; and Malmberg, A. 2006. Building global knowledge pipelines: The role of
temporary clusters. European Planning Studies 14:9971013.
Mazzaraco, M. 1993. Word is out: Yellow is in for spring-summer 94. Womens Wear Daily,
January 20:23.
McMaster, R., and Sheppard, E. 2004. Introduction. In Scale and Geographic Inquiry, ed. E. Sheppard
and R. McMaster, 122. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.
Moodysson, J. 2008. Principles and practices of knowledge creation: On the organization of
buzz and pipelines in life science communities. Economic Geography 84:44969.
Moodysson, J.; Coenen, L.; and Asheim, B. 2008. Explaining spatial patterns of innovation: Analytical
and synthetic modes of knowledge creation in the Medicon Valley life science cluster.
Environment and Planning A 40:104056.
Moore, A. 2008. Rethinking scale as a geographical category: From analysis to practice. Progress in
Human Geography 32:20325.
Narver, J. C., and Slater, S. F. 1990. The effect of a market orientation on business profitability.
Journal of Marketing 54:2035.
Norcliffe, G., and Rendace, O. 1989. Plan attractive new format for spring 90 Premire Vision. Daily
News Record, July 6:8.
. 2003. New geographies of comic book production in North America: The new artisan,
distancing, and the periodic social economy. Economic Geography 79:24163.
. 2005. Premire Vision to reveal revolutionary new layout. Drapers Record, December 10:4.
Pavitt, K. 2005. Innovation processes. In The Oxford handbook of innovation, ed. J. Fagerberg, D. C.
Mowery, and R. R. Nelson, 86114. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.

ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY
Rinallo, D., and Borghini, S. 2003. A fair(y) tale: The semiotics of b2b communication. Industrial
Marketing and Purchasing Conference, online proceedings. Available online: http://www.impgroup.
org/paper_view.php?viewPaper=4401
Rinallo, D.; Borghini, S.; and Golfetto, F. 2010. Exploring visitor experiences at trade shows. Journal
of Business and Industrial Marketing 25:24958.
Rothaermel, F. T. 2001a. Complementary assets, strategic alliances, and the incumbents advantage:
An empirical study of industry and firm effects in the biopharmaceutical industry. Research
Policy 30:123551.
Rothaermel, F. T. 2001b. Incumbents advantage through exploiting complementary assets via
interfirm cooperation. Strategic Management Journal 22(67):68799.
Rosson, P. J., and Seringhaus, F. H. R. 1995. Visitor and exhibitor interaction at industrial trade
fairs. Journal of Business Research 32(1):8190.
Scott, A. J. 2006. The changing global geography of low-technology, labor-intensive industry:
Clothing, footwear, and furniture. World Development 34:151736.
Skov, L. 2006. The role of trade fairs in the global fashion business. Current Sociology 54:76483.
Smith, N. 1996. Spaces of vulnerability: The space of flows and the politics of scale. Critique of
476
Anthropology 16:6377.
Storper, M., and Venables, A. J. 2004. Buzz: Face-to-face contact and the urban economy. Journal
of Economic Geography 4:35170.
Sunley, P. 2008. Relational economic geography: A partial understanding or a new paradigm?
Economic Geography 84:126.
Swyngedouw, E. 1997. Neither global nor local:Glocalization and the politics of scale. In Spaces
of globalisation, ed. K. Cox, 13766. New York: Guilford Press.
Teece, D. J. 1986. Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy 15:285305.
Torre, A. 2008. On the role played by temporary geographical proximity in knowledge transmission. Regional Studies 42(6):86989.
Torre, A., and Gilly, J.-P. 2000. On the analytical dimension of proximity dynamics. Regional Studies
34:16980.
Torre, A., and Rallet, A. 2005. Proximity and localization. Regional Studies 39:4759.
Trippl, M., Todtling, F., and Lengauer, L. (2009), Knowledge sourcing beyond buzz and pipelines:
Evidence from the Vienna software sector. Economic Geography 85:44362.
Von Hippel, E. 1994. Sticky information and the locus of problem solving: Implications for
innovation. Management Science 40:42939.
Weller, S. 2007. Fashion as viscous knowledge: Fashions role in shaping transnational garment
production. Journal of Economic Geography 7:3966.
Zerbini, F.; Golfetto, F.; and Gibbert, M. 2007. Marketing of competence: Exploring the resourcebased content of value-for-customers through a case study analysis. Industrial Marketing
Management 36:78498.