Skip to content | Skip to institutional links

Common menu bar links

Institutional links

PWGSC Services

Office of Audit and Evaluation
OAE Resources
- Contact OAE

Proactive Disclosure
- Proactive Disclosure

2006-604 Summative Evaluation of the Government of Canada Exhibitions Program (GCEP), Final Report

December 8, 2006

Executive Summary
1 Introduction
- 1.1 Overview
- 1.2 Objective and Scope
2 Background
3 Evaluation Methodology
4 Evaluation Issues
5 Key Findings
6 Conclusions
7 Recommendations
Appendix A: Government of Canada Exhibitions Program Logic Model
Appendix B: Evaluation Matrix
Appendix C: Lines of Evidence
Appendix D: Principal Documents Consulted
Appendix E: Individuals Consulted
Appendix F: Summary of Findings by Evaluation Question
Appendix G: Analysis of Financial / Event Data

Please note that under the Access to Information Act a limited amount of text within these documents may not be disclosed, and will be shown as [ * ].

Executive Summary

Authority

This summative evaluation of the Government of Canada Exhibitions Program (GCEP) was conducted in response to the Treasury Board which directed Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) to undertake a further evaluation of the GCEP prior to seeking any future funding.

Objective

The objective of this evaluation was to assess the relevance, success / impact and cost-effectiveness of the GCEP. The focus of this evaluation was to provide neutral, impartial and meaningful information to the Deputy Minister of PWGSC to facilitate decision-making regarding the renewal of funding for the program.

Scope

The scope of this engagement was limited to the aspects of the GCEP that are within the responsibility of PWGSC. To this end, the Rural Exhibits Program (REP), which is funded through the GCEP on a flow-through basis but is administered by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), was not included in the scope of this evaluation.

Background

In 1998-1999, there were concerns over the low level of corporate communications for the Government of Canada (GOC) as a whole. Public opinion research indicated that the public was receptive to information from the GC and wanted information that reflected their needs and concerns. The research also demonstrated that many citizens were unaware of the Government's priorities due to this communications disconnect between Canadians and the federal government. These findings confirmed the need for a citizen-focused, corporate communications strategy to communicate the Government's overall agenda and priorities as well as the programs and services of the GOC to Canadians.

In response to this need, the Government of Canada Exhibitions Program (formerly known as the Fairs and Exhibitions Program) was established in April 2000 amongst several other corporate communications initiatives. The GCEP was established to oversee and coordinate national exhibition activities. It is a communications and information dissemination program, which is part of a toolbox for government communications that includes print, phone, Internet and in-person channels. The central purpose of the GCEP is to provide the general public with information about GOC programs and services. The program targets every province and region of Canada and all segments of the general population including seniors, families and teenagers. The direct clients of the GCEP are government departments and its beneficiaries are Canadians citizens.

The authority for the GCEP is derived from the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada and the associated Procedures for Participating in Fairs and Exhibitions. The GCEP is also identified as a Common Service Organization (CSO) providing mandatory services under the Common Services Policy.

In recent years, the Government of Canada Exhibitions Program has had several homes including Canada's Information Office (CIO), Communications Canada and presently PWGSC as the program was transferred to PWGSC when Communications Canada was dismantled in March 2004. The GCEP currently resides in the Consulting, Information and Shared Services Branch (CISSB) of PWGSC.

In its current form, the GCEP is characterized by three main components that include:

Managing Canada Pavilion (CP) Events
Managing Federal Presence (FP) Events
Coordination and Planning of Exhibitions

The GCEP was initially funded for three years (2000-2001 to 2003-2004) at $5.0 million per annum, which included a $0.5 million transfer to the Rural Exhibits Program of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC). To offset pressures, funding was extended to $5.4 million for 2003-2004 and 2004-2005, which included the $0.5 million transfer to AAFC. The Program has received one-year interim funding from the Treasury Board in both 2005-2006 and 2006-2007.

Methodology

The methodology for this project deals with issues / questions identified as summative aspects in the categories of Program Relevance, Success and Cost-Effectiveness. The evaluation methodology was developed with input from the GCEP and with the feedback and approval of the Centre of Expertise for Evaluation (CEE) of the Treasury Board of Canada, Secretariat (TBS). The evaluation methodology conforms with the TBS Evaluation Policy and standards as well as the best practices and standards of the Office of Audit and Evalution (OAE) of PWGSC.

The evaluation methodology is based upon a revised logic model and evaluation matrix, which were approved by the CEE prior to commencing research activities. The evaluation methodology employs multiple lines of evidence for each evaluation question/line of enquiry to strengthen findings and strongly support conclusions. In particular, the evaluation made use of the following primary and secondary research techniques:

Document Review
Data Analysis
Consultations with Key Informants
Direct Observation of CP and FP events

Key Findings

This summative evaluation addressed issues of program relevance, success and cost-effectiveness through a series of eleven sub-questions. In synthesizing and analyzing the results of the research, the evaluation team determined that there was a certain degree of overlap between the key findings from each evaluation question. As such, this report presents the key findings as a series of issues, whereby the key findings have been drawn from one or more evaluation questions.

The GCEP is Consistent with GOC Priorities Despite the Lack of Coordinated Planning Amongst GOC Communicators at All Levels
The evaluation found that the communications environment of the Government of Canada is fragmented with an uneven level of coordination between communicators at the whole-of-government, department and program levels. In the absence of clear direction on the communications agenda of the GOC, it is difficult for departments to link their own communications plans to GOC priorities and for the GCEP to establish a strong linkage between its own communications tools and GOC communications priorities. Despite the foregoing, there is strong evidence that the GCEP is consistent with GOC priorities and policies
Exhibitions Are a Key Communications Channel Whose Unique Attribute is Face-to-Face Communications
All lines of evidence indicate that the unique attribute of the GCEP is its use of face-to-face communications to increase the accessibility of the Government of Canada to Canadians. Research indicates that the value of face-to-face communications is related to its interactive, interpersonal, experiential, reciprocal and responsive nature. The literature review found overwhelming evidence that exhibitions continue to be a high priority marketing and communications channel for the private and public sector due to the many benefits that are achieved though face-to-face communications.
The GCEP and Service Canada are Complementary Channels that Address the Information Needs of Different Types of Canadians
The evaluation found substantial evidence that exhibitions, websites and customer contact centres are complementary communications channels that are part of a layered approach to the communications mix. These channels may be used by the GOC to communicate in different ways to meet the information requirements of different types of Canadians. Whereas the exhibitions managed by the GCEP provide the GOC with outreach by pushing out information to Canadians, the 1-800-O-CANADA toll-free number and the www.canada.gc.ca website managed by Service Canada provide the GOC with inreach by pulling in Canadians to information. These channels are of varying utility to different types of Canadians depending on their awareness of a need for information as well as their awareness and/or ability to access the channel.
The GCEP Successfully Achieves All Intended Service Delivery Outcomes
All lines of evidence indicate that the GCEP employs an effective format by incorporating widely recognized best practices of the exhibitions industry into the design and delivery of the Canada Pavilion and Federal Presence events. Direct observation of Canada Pavilion and Federal Presence events indicates that Canadians are benefiting from interactions with public servants at the exhibition events managed by the GCEP. The evaluation determined that the GCEP has successfully achieved "casual chain" outcomes such as correct targeting, successful program intervention as well as increased awareness and understanding in the target group. The evaluation found that the GCEP does not contribute to attitudinal change nor to behaviour change in the target group since these are not intended outcomes of the program. Research indicates that exhibitions are not an appropriate channel for the achievement of these results in a cost-effective manner.
The GCEP Does Not Successfully Achieve Stewardship Outcomes Related to the Exhibitions Database
All lines of evidence indicate that the GCEP achieves a coherent and unified presence at the exhibition events that it manages through the collocation of government institutions. The GCEP also promotes increased collaboration between Government of Canada institutions as well as reinforced branding of the GOC as a result of unified presence and a common look and feel. However, the evaluation found significant evidence that departments are not consistently complying with the Communications Policy requirement to submit their exhibitions plans to the GCEP and entering their information into the Exhibitions Database. Due to the low level of uptake amongst departments, the GCEP cannot ensure the data integrity of the Exhibitions Database. In this regard, the database is of limited value for providing meaningful management information on the exhibitions-related activities of the GOC (i.e., number of events, objectives, impacts and costs).
The GCEP Achieves ROI Exceeding Industry Norms and is Well Positioned to Report on Return on Objectives
The literature review found that there is limited public information on measuring Return on Investment (ROI) for exhibitions due to the propriety nature of the information. The literature review and the majority of program personnel indicated that average event reach and average cost per visitor (i.e., cost per reach) are the most commonly accepted measures to determine if an exhibition was worthwhile in relation to the total cost. The financial analysis determined that the average event reach of the Canada Pavilion exceeds industry benchmarks and the average cost per visitor of the CP and FP events is well below industry standard. The literature review also indicated that ROI measures are being used less frequently since there are a large number of qualitative factors that contribute to the success of an exhibition event. Best practices suggest that these factors can be captured by using Return on Objectives (ROO) to measure the success of an event against predefined objectives.
Financial Instability has Adversely Impacted the GCEP's Cost-Effectiveness
There is substantial evidence that financial stability has adversely affected the GCEP's ability to achieve economies of scale through the bulk purchase of exhibitions space, infrastructure and logistics support services. The absence of sustained, multi-year funding has also prevented the GCEP from engaging in medium-to-long term planning and undertaking financial commitments over the same period. Nonetheless, the majority of program personnel and most clients indicated that there are no more cost-efficient ways that departments could have achieved the same outcomes as achieved through the Canada Pavilion or Federal Presence events.

Conclusions

The evaluation reached the following conclusions with respect to the summative evaluation issues referenced in the evaluation matrix:

Relevance
The issue of relevance is phrased as follows in the evaluation matrix: "Is the Government of Canada Exhibitions Program consistent with government policies and priorities and does it address a continuing need?" It is the conclusion of this evaluation that the GCEP provides a unique channel that increases the accessibility of the GOC for Canadians and contributes to improving the coordination of GOC communications in support of the GOC's communication policy and priorities.
Success
The issue of success is phrased as follows in the evaluation matrix: "Is the Government of Canada Exhibitions Program successful in achieving its intended outcomes?" This evaluation concludes that the GCEP is reinforcing the GOC brand as a result of unified presences and a common look and feel, and is achieving all of its service delivery objectives. However, the evaluation also concludes that the GCEP is not contributing effectively to increasing the stewardship of government-wide exhibitions investments/activities through the provision of complete and meaningful management information on behalf of the GOC.
Cost-Effectiveness
The issue of cost-effectiveness is phrased as follows in the evaluation matrix: "Is the Government of Canada Exhibitions Program cost-effective?" It is the conclusion of this evaluation that the event reach and cost per reach of the Government of Canada Exhibitions Program are cost-effective in relation to industry benchmarks, however cost-efficiency could be improved if the Program could secure multi-year funding. The GCEP is also well positioned to measure Return on Objectives in line with industry trends.

Recommendations

Based on the key findings and conclusions contained in this report, OAE recommends that the ADM Consulting, Information and Shared Services Branch ensure that the GCEP:

Strengthen the working relationship with the PCO and other stakeholders responsible for the communications agenda of the GOC to improve linkages between GCEP communications tools and GOC communication priorities.
Proactively engage departmental communicators and provide them with tools and guidance to help them to articulate exhibitions plans that are complete and linked to GOC communications priorities. The GCEP should also work with departmental communicators to ensure the increased usage and improved integrity of the Exhibitions Database to inform meaningful decision-making with regard to exhibitions management and oversight.
Continue efforts by PWGSC to secure multi-year funding for the GCEP. The multi-year financing of GCEP will allow it to engage in medium-to-long-term planning, undertake commitments on a multi-year basis, significantly enhance the ability of program management to act strategically and ensure cost-efficiencies that are not currently being realized.
Improve its ability to demonstrate cost-effectiveness by formalizing a process of reporting against Return on Objectives (ROO). The GCEP should consult with the Rural Exhibits Program and other organizations that employ this approach to identify best practices that could be applied to its existing event selection criteria.
Engage the Rural Exhibits Program and Service Canada in conducting a joint study to determine the existence of and potential for duplication of effort with regard to current and planned exhibitions. The outcome of this study should seek to identify the most effective approach for providing rural exhibits and clearly define the roles and responsibilities of each program with regard to the management of domestic exhibitions on behalf of the GOC.

Top of Page

1 Introduction

1.1 Overview

The evaluation is based on a revised evaluation framework that was developed by the Office of Audit and Evalution (OAE) of PWGSC in conjunction with GCEP senior and program management and with feedback and approval from the Centre of Excellence for Evaluation (CEE) of the Treasury Board of Canada, Secretariat (TBS). The evaluation framework contains a revised logic model that illustrates the objectives and logical chain of activities, outputs and outcomes of the GCEP as well as a matrix of evaluation issues, questions and indicators to guide the summative evaluation. The logic model and evaluation matrix are included as Appendix A: Government of Canada Exhibitions Program Logic Model and Appendix B: Evaluation Matrix, respectively, of this report.

1.2 Objective and Scope

The objective of this evaluation was to assess the relevance, success / impact and cost-effectiveness of the Government of Canada Exhibitions Program. The focus of this evaluation was to provide neutral, impartial and meaningful information to the Deputy Minister of PWGSC to facilitate decision-making regarding the renewal of funding for the program.

Top of Page

2 Background

2.1 Overview

The Government of Canada Exhibitions Program was established to oversee and coordinate national exhibition activities. It is a communications and information dissemination program, which is part of a toolbox for government communications that includes print, phone, Internet and in-person channels. The central purpose of the GCEP is to provide the general public with information about Government of Canada (GOC) programs and services. The program targets every province and region of Canada and all segments of the general population including seniors, families and teenagers. The direct clients of the GCEP are government departments and its beneficiaries are Canadians citizens.

The authority for the GCEP is derived from the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada. The objective of this policy is "to ensure that communications across the Government of Canada are well coordinated, effectively managed and responsive to the diverse information needs of the public." Requirement 22 of the Communications Policy and the associated Procedures for Participating in Fairs and Exhibitions identifies PWGSC as manager of the Government of Canada Exhibitions Program and specifies the obligations of the Department and government institutions with respect to fairs and exhibitions.

The GCEP is also identified as a Common Service Organization (CSO) providing mandatory services under the Common Services Policy. The objective of this policy is "to ensure that departments and agencies can acquire responsive, cost-effective support for their program delivery."

2.2 Evolution

In 1998-1999, there were concerns over the low level of corporate communications for the Government of Canada as a whole. Public opinion research indicated that the public was receptive to information from the GOC and wanted information that reflected their needs and concerns. The research also demonstrated that many citizens were unaware of the Government's priorities due to this communications disconnect between Canadians and the federal government. These findings confirmed the need for a citizen-focused, corporate communications strategy to communicate the Government's overall agenda and priorities as well as the programs and services of the GOC to Canadians.

In recent years, the GCEP has had several homes including Canada's Information Office (CIO), Communications Canada and, presently, PWGSC. The Government of Canada Exhibitions Program was transferred to PWGSC when Communications Canada was dismantled in March 2004. The program currently resides in the Consulting, Information and Shared Services Branch (CISSB) of PWGSC.

The GCEP was initially funded for three years (2000-2001 to 2003-2004) at $5.0 million per annum, which included a $0.5 million transfer to the Rural Exhibits Program of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. To offset pressures, funding was extended to $5.4 million for 2003-2004 and 2004-2005, which included the $0.5 million transfer to AAFC.

[ * ]

2.3 Current

In its current form, the Government of Canada Exhibitions Program is characterized by three main components, which are described as follows:

2.3.1 Managing Canada Pavilion (CP) Events

The Canada Pavilion is a unique travelling showcase that brings together a wide range of government institutions at fairs and exhibitions to ensure a unified and coherent presence for the GOC. The CP is a turnkey exhibition space that occupies a large footprint (between 1,000 and 4,500 square feet) to maximize the impact of GOC presence at fairs and exhibitions. The CP integrates the exhibits of government institutions by using shared infrastructure and signage to achieve a common look and feel as well as reinforced branding of the GOC. Where appropriate, the CP incorporates messages on GOC priorities while allowing participating institutions to disseminate their respective messages.

The CP targets large fairs and exhibitions, which generally occur in urban areas, where the pavilion format is used to maximize the impact of GOC presence. The GCEP's objective is to ensure that the CP reaches the largest number of Canadians with the broadest possible geographical coverage. The GCEP also attempts to maximize the participation of government institutions, especially those that are linked to current GOC priorities, by offering the CP at no cost to the institution other than those related to personnel, travel and accommodations. The CP also achieves cost savings for the Crown through the bulk purchase of exhibition space, shipping, logistics and related services.

During its most recent full year of operation in 2005-2006, the GCEP hosted 10 Canada Pavilion across 9 provinces. These events spanned 80 calendar days and offered a potential reach of 2,402,669 individuals, based on gate attendance figures. The Canada Pavilion successfully reached 561,628 individuals, which accounts for 23.4% of this total. Twenty-six government departments and agencies participated in the Canada Pavilion events in 2005-2006. The GCEP incurred expenditures of $2,295,000 on Canada Pavilion events over this period.

2.3.2 Managing Federal Presence (FP) Events

Federal Presence events are designed by the GCEP to signify the collocation of government institutions at select events outside the scope of the Canada Pavilion. The GCEP employs the Exhibitions Database to identify FP opportunities when two or more government institutions indicate their intent to participate at the same event. FP events do not employ the turnkey infrastructure of the Canada Pavilion, however, they often incorporate common assets such as carpeting and signage. As such, FP events achieve a coherent and unified presence for the GOC as well as a lesser degree of branding and common look and feel, in comparison to CP events.

The targeting of Federal Presence events is dictated by the preference of participating government institutions. In general, FP events occur at smaller exhibitions with more focused themes that may occur in either urban or rural areas. The GCEP's objective is to ensure that the FP reaches the largest number of Canadians within the demographic segment targeted by the exhibition. Although the GCEP typically assumes the cost of shared assets and infrastructure, government institutions are responsible for the majority of costs related to the FP event.

During its most recent full year of operation in 2005-2006, the GCEP hosted 21 Federal Presence events across 9 provinces and 1 territory. These events spanned 82 calendar days and reached 75,000 individuals. No data is available on the potential reach of FP events or the number of government institutions that participated in 2005-2006. The GCEP incurred actual expenditures of $150,000 on Federal Presence events over this period.

2.3.3 Coordination and Planning of Exhibitions

The GCEP is responsible for the coordination and planning of exhibitions on behalf of the GOC as described in Requirement 22 of the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada. The policy obliges the GCEP to produce a calendar for the Canada Pavilion at the end of each fiscal year. The policy also obliges the GCEP to maintain a database of exhibitions events, which also includes the exhibition plans of government institutions. In this regard, the Exhibitions Database is the primary tool used by the GCEP to ensure the collocation of government institutions at exhibition events.

The GCEP is also responsible for helping government institutions to ensure that their exhibitions activities are compliant with the Federal Identify Program (FIP) and the Official Languages Act (OLA). Finally, the coordination and planning responsibilities of the GCEP include the provision of advice and project management services to government institutions on an optional, cost recovery basis.

The GCEP's current budget is unchanged from the interim funding levels of the previous fiscal year at $5.4 million. This includes $0.5 million that is provided to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's Rural Exhibits Program on a flow-through basis. The total funding for the GCEP, as per its most recent Treasury Board submission, is illustrated in the chart of the following section.

PWGSC GOC Exhibitions Program (GCEP)
Vote 1 - Operating Expenditures	2006-2007	% Total
Salaries	1,130,000	20.9%
Operations and Maintenance (O&M)	3,397,000	62.9%
Employee Benefits Plan (EBP)	226,000	4.2%
Total Vote 1 - Operating Expenditures	4,753,000	88.0%
Accommodations	147,000	2.7%
Total Accommodations	147,000	2.7%
Total PWGSC GOC Exhibitions Program (GCEP)	4,900,000	90.7%

AAFC Rural Exhibits Program (REP)
Vote 1 - Operating Expenditures	2006-2007	% Total
Salaries	-	0.0%
Operations and Maintenance (O&M)	500,000	9.3%
Employee Benefits Plan (EBP)	-	0.0%
Total Vote 1 - Operating Expenditures	500,000	9.3%
Accommodations	-	0.0%
Total Accommodations	-	0.0%
Total AAFC Rural Exhibits Program (REP)	500,000	9.3%
Total Funding as per TB Submission	5,400,000	100.0%

Top of Page

3 Evaluation Methodology

The evaluation methodology for this project was developed with input from the Government of Canada Exhibitions Program and with the feedback and approval of the Centre of Expertise for Evaluation (CEE) of the Treasury Board of Canada, Secretariat (TBS). The evaluation methodology conforms with the TBS Evaluation Policy and standards as well as the best practices and standards of the OAE.

The evaluation methodology is based upon a revised logic model, which has been attached to this document in Appendix A: Government of Canada Exhibitions Program Logic Model, as well as a revised evaluation matrix, which has been enclosed in Appendix B: Evaluation Matrix. Both the logic model and evaluation matrix were approved by the CEE prior to commencing research activities.

The evaluation methodology employs multiple lines of evidence for each evaluation question / line of enquiry to strengthen findings and strongly support conclusions. Appendix C: Lines of Evidence presents a table of the data sources employed by the evaluation mapped against the evaluation questions of the evaluation framework. A brief summary of each data source is also provided.

3.1 Document Review and Data Analysis

The evaluation undertook a thorough review of documentation and existing data sources of relevance to the Government of Canada Exhibitions Program. A detailed list of documents consulted has been enclosed in Appendix D: Principal Documents Consulted. The following data sources and methodologies were used in the conduct of this evaluation:

Review of key documentation contained in program files
Review of current policy and legislation pertaining to fairs and exhibitions
Review of 2005 and 2002 evaluations of the Government of Canada Exhibitions Program
Review of communications research conducted by Colterman Marketing Group (CMG)
Review of the Exhibitions Database maintained by the GCEP
Development of financial models based on historical event data and financial reports
Analysis of intercept surveys conducted by the GCEP at recent CP events

3.2 Consultations and Direct Observations

Personal interviews were conducted with key informants at various levels. A detailed list of individuals consulted has been enclosed in Appendix E: Individuals Consulted. The personal interviews targeted the following stakeholder groups:

Management and employees of the Government of Canada Exhibitions Program
Central agencies, PWGSC and Subject Matter Experts in exhibitions management
Departments that are current clients of the GCEP for CP and FP events
Departments that are former clients of the GCEP for CP and FP events

Direct observations of the behaviour of client departments and Canadians were conducted at:

Canada Pavilion events
Federal Presence events

3.3 Limitations of the Methodology

The primary limitation of the methodology pertains to the extremely short timeframe to plan and carry out this evaluation. The evaluation team had less than two months to carry out primary research, synthesize findings, draw conclusions and formulate recommendations.

The succinct timeframe had an impact on the ability of the evaluation team to secure the participation of clients and stakeholders in personal interviews. A significant number of prospective interviewees were could not be reached or were unable to meet with the evaluation team due to a lack of availability and the limited forewarning in the issuance of meeting requests. Nonetheless, the evaluation team was successful in meeting the targeted number of knowledgeable individuals while achieving broad coverage of all stakeholder groups.

A second limitation of the evaluation methodology pertains to the lack of available financial information on the exhibitions activities of government institutions participating in CP and FP events. In the absence of this data, it is not possible to establish the GCEP's cost-effectiveness in light of cost savings to participating departments or, more broadly, to the Crown. Alternatively, the methodology establishes cost-effectiveness through a comparison of GCEP-specific financial information and event data to generally accepted industry benchmarks identified by the literature review and secondary research.

Top of Page

4 Evaluation Issues

This evaluation deals with issues / questions identified as summative aspects in the categories of Program Relevance, Success and Cost-Effectiveness. The evaluation matrix attached to this document in Appendix B: Evaluation Matrix describes the issues/questions that were developed for consideration by the evaluation team. These issues/questions were elaborated in concert with the Government of Canada Exhibitions Program and the resulting matrix was submitted to the Centre of Excellence for Evaluation for feedback and approval. The summative evaluation issues examined and included in this report are outlined as follows.

4.1 Relevance

Evaluation Issue:

Is the Government of Canada Exhibitions Program consistent with government policies and priorities and does it address a continuing need?

Evaluation Questions:

Is the Government of Canada Exhibitions Program consistent with the policies and priorities of the Government of Canada as well as the mandate and priorities of PWGSC?
Does the Government of Canada Exhibitions Program provide unique attributes compared to that of other public awareness initiatives of the Government of Canada?

4.2 Success

Evaluation Issue:

Is the Government of Canada Exhibitions Program successful in achieving its intended outcomes?

Evaluation Questions:

Are Canadians benefiting from face-to-face exchanges with public servants at CP and FP events?
Are OGDs participating at CP and FP events the most appropriate given profile of expected attendees and the targeted reach?
To what extent does the central coordination and planning of fairs and exhibitions provided by the Government of Canada Exhibitions Program contribute to GOC stewardship of communications via exhibits?
Is the selection of events appropriate to maximize the exposure of public to information on GOC priorities, programs, and services, given allotted budgets, e.g., urban vs. rural, geographical, industrial?
Do the CP and FP events contribute to unified presence and common look and feel?

4.3 Cost-Effectiveness

Evaluation Issue:

Is the Government of Canada Exhibitions Program cost-effective?

Evaluation Questions:

Are the formats used by the CP and FP considered effective in providing increased accessibility to the public?
What is the optimal budget required to maximize cost-efficiency and ROI, i.e., cost per reach?
Does the GOC achieve increased cost savings and/or impacts through a centralized coordination function?
Are there alternatives that might achieve the outcomes in a more cost-efficient manner?

Top of Page

5 Key Findings

5.1 Relevance

5.1.1 The GCEP is Consistent with GOC Priorities Despite the Lack of Coordinated Planning Amongst GOC Communicators at All Levels

In carrying out research to address the question of program relevance, the evaluation uncovered significant evidence that contextualizes the Government of Canada Exhibitions Program. The majority of program personnel, some stakeholders and some clients indicated that the communications environment of the Government of Canada is fragmented with an uneven level of coordination between communicators at the whole-of-government, department and program levels.

Although it is reasonable to assume that the level of coordination varies between departments and across programs, the evaluation found sufficient evidence to reasonably affirm that there does not appear to be an overarching communications plan that sets out the communications agenda of the GOC on a government-wide basis.

At the department level, communications plans are generally focused on corporate communications requirements, which are typically driven by linkages to departmental priorities. These departmental communications requirements may or may not be linked to the broader communications agenda of the GOC. Where communications plans do exist, at the department level, they are generally structured around communications priorities (i.e., key messages) as opposed to communications functions (i.e., exhibitions). This makes it impractical, if not impossible, to produce a departmental communications plan by function.

Finally, at the program level, not all programs are required to have a communications plan. For those that do, communications plans are generally focused on program-specific communications requirements, which are typically defined by linkages to departmental priorities. These program-specific communications requirements may or may not be linked to the broader communications agenda of the GOC.

Although the preceding findings are outside the scope of this evaluation, they remain pertinent to the question of relevance. These findings have a bearing on the GCEP's consistency with the communications priorities of the GOC and departments. First, in the absence of clear direction on the communications agenda of the GOC, it is difficult for departments to link their own communications plans to GOC priorities. For the same reason, it is difficult for the GCEP to establish a strong linkage between its own communications tools and GOC communications priorities. Second, the priority-based approach to communications planning precludes departments from articulating an exhibitions plan as a subset of the departmental communications plan. In the absence of departmental exhibitions plans, it is difficult for the GCEP to adapt its own communications tools to meet the needs of departmental communications priorities.

The evaluation uncovered evidence that some departments are aware of these issues and are actively seeking to redress the problem. In particular, Industry Canada and Health Canada indicated that they are centralizing the exhibitions function within the communication branches of their departments. Industry Canada is developing a database of their exhibitions activities and Health Canada is currently staffing a position that will be responsible for exhibitions on a department-wide basis.

Despite the foregoing, there is strong evidence that the GCEP is consistent with GOC priorities. All program personnel, most stakeholders and most clients indicated that the GCEP assists departments to contribute to GOC priorities. However, the majority of program personnel indicated that the GCEP could be doing more to communicate GOC priorities.

There is substantial evidence that the GCEP incorporates messages on GOC priorities into Canada Pavilion events, as deduced from the Speech from the Throne and other strategic communications documents of the GOC. However, the evaluation found little evidence that the GCEP incorporates messages on GOC priorities into Federal Presence events.

Some program personnel and some stakeholders suggested that the GCEP should foster closer ties with the Privy Council Office (PCO) and other stakeholders responsible for the communications agenda of the GOC to improve linkages between GCEP communications tools and GOC communication priorities.

Some program personnel, some stakeholders and some clients suggested that the GCEP should proactively engage departmental communicators to improve the quality of exhibition planning through the identification of the department's objectives, themes, priorities, key messages as they relate to exhibitions.

5.1.2 Exhibitions Are a Key Communications Channel Whose Unique Attribute is Face-to-Face Communications

All lines of evidence indicate that the unique attribute of the GCEP is its use of face-to-face communications to increase the accessibility of the Government of Canada to Canadians. Research indicates that the value of face-to-face communications is related to its interactive, interpersonal, experiential, reciprocal and responsive qualities:

The interactive nature of face-to-face communications provides the GOC with an opportunity to demonstrate something tangible to Canadians.
The experiential nature of face-to-face communications results in higher rates of retention for information provided to Canadians compared to other communications media.
The interpersonal nature of face-to-face communications allows the GC to fulfil the information requirements of Canadians in a highly customized manner.
The reciprocal nature of face-to-face communications provides the GOC with an opportunity to receive direct and unsolicited feedback from Canadians.
The responsive nature of face-to-face communications allows the GOC to make a positive impression on Canadians by presenting a favourable public image.

In this context, the evaluation found overwhelming evidence that exhibitions represent a key channel for reaching specific segments of the general population, which are employed by communicators and marketers in both the public and private sectors. A literature review of the exhibitions industry conducted by Colterman Marketing Group (CMG),^[1] identified extensive documentation on the value of exhibitions as well as industry best practices.

According to Marketing Magazine, US$166 billion were spent on exhibitions in North America in 2004.^[2] Forrester Research has determined that exhibitions accounted for 15% of the marketing spend across all media for US-based companies in 2005.^[3] In a 2001 study, the Center of Exhibition Industry Research (CEIR) determined that 89% of US corporations included event marketing (exhibitions) in their marketing mix and that it averages 22% of their marketing communications budget.^[4] Approximately 84% of exhibitors surveyed by Forrester Research, on behalf of Tradeshow Week, expect very strong or moderate growth in the exhibitions industry over the next ten years.^[5]

According to the Center for Exhibition Industry Research, 76% of attendees and 87% of exhibitors rate face-to-face interaction as very or extremely important. CEIR also found that 91% of exhibition visitors feel that exhibitions are the most useful source of information when making a decision to buy. ^[6] The Forrester Research study also found that 61% of Business-to-Business (B2B) marketers favour in-person events over all other media for branding and image building. A further 63% of B2B marketers favour in-person over all other media for lead generation.

Exhibitions also provide a greater impact in terms of branding and the retention of key messages. According to CEIR, 50% of individuals who pass by an exhibit but do not actually visit still develop an impression of the company and its products.^[7] 76% of individuals who receive a promotional item at an exhibition event will be able to recall the name of the company that gave it to them for one year.^[8] On average, visitors to exhibitions will share their experience with six individuals and will spread their opinion to and additional 5.5 individuals.

5.1.3 The GCEP and Service Canada are Complementary Channels that Address the Information Needs of Different Types of Canadians

The evaluation found substantial evidence that exhibitions, websites and customer contact centres are complementary communications channels that are part of a layered approach to the communications mix. These channels may be used by the GOC to communicate in different ways to meet the information requirements of different types of Canadians.

On the one hand, the exhibition events managed by the GCEP provide the GOC with outreach by pushing out information to Canadians. This communications approach is well suited to Canadians who may not be aware of the information that they require. This approach is also well suited to the needs of Canadians who may not be aware of or able to access other communications channels. These types of Canadians would otherwise not be reached by complementary communications channels.

On the other hand, the 1-800-O-CANADA toll-free number and the www.canada.gc.ca website managed by Service Canada provide the GOC with inreach by pulling in Canadians to information. This communications approach is well suited to Canadians who are aware of the specific information that they require.

The evaluation found that domestic exhibitions are being undertaken or planned by the GCEP, the Rural Exhibits Program (REP) and Service Canada, with the objective of informing Canadians on GOC priorities, programs and services. Due to little communication between the three programs, there is significant potential for duplication of effort in the management of exhibitions events or in the coordination of exhibitions-related activities on behalf of departments.

5.2 Success

5.2.1 The GCEP Successfully Achieves All Intended Service Delivery Outcomes

All lines of evidence indicate that the GCEP employs an effective format by incorporating widely recognized best practices of the exhibitions industry into the design and delivery of the Canada Pavilion and Federal Presence events.

The literature review found that there is a growing trend in the use of the pavilion format within the private and public sectors. Pavilion partners are collocating under a common look and feel to benefit from increased traffic due to the size and impact of the pavilion. Without a pavilion format, many smaller players would be lost on the floor of a large exhibition.

Direct observation of Canada Pavilion and Federal Presence events indicates that Canadians are benefiting from interactions with public servants at the exhibition events managed by the GCEP. The evaluation found these interactions to be extremely positive and yielding no negative feedback from Canadians. Furthermore, the outcomes of these interactions are consistent with the expected results of the GCEP under the causal chain.

The evaluation discovered that the GCEP can be described as an "outreach intervention" whose service delivery is characterized by "soft" outcomes. In this regard, the evaluation has determined that the causal chain^[9] provides a useful framework for assessing the successful achievement of the GCEP's service delivery outcomes.

Target Group: The GCEP targets the correct group for the stated purpose of its interventions and within the constraints of its current budget. The majority of program personnel and most clients indicated that the attendees at Canada Pavilion and Federal Presence events are appropriate to the communications needs of departments. Interviewees indicated that the GCEP could improve the targeting of its events by engaging departmental communicators in enhanced planning as it relates to their exhibitions activities (see section 6.1 Relevance).

In terms of demographics, Canada Pavilion events target large gatherings of Canadians at fairs and entertainment events in an effort to maximize reach with the general public. Federal Presence events target specific types of Canadians at themed events in an effort to maximize reach within segments of the population. Since the GCEP does not determine the Federal Presence events that departments wish to attend, the program is only able to influence the targeting of Canada Pavilion events.

In terms of geographic distribution, the majority of clients and some stakeholders indicated that the GCEP should make a greater effort to reach rural audiences. The majority of program personnel indicated that an increased number of rural events would be beneficial although the current budget does not allow for it. Some program personnel suggested that additional funding would allow the GCEP to deploy a smaller version of the Canada Pavilion to medium and small cities as well as rural communities.

Program Intervention: The GCEP's intended intervention is to improve the accessibility of the Government of Canada to Canadians at the exhibition events that it manages. The evaluation found strong evidence that the GCEP successfully achieves this result.

Awareness: Through the aforementioned program intervention, the GCEP contributes to increased awareness within the target group. The evaluation uncovered significant evidence that the program successfully achieves increased awareness of GOC programs, products and services by Canadians reached at exhibition events.

Understanding: The GCEP also contributes to increased understanding within the target group. The evaluation found strong evidence that the program successfully achieves increased understanding of GOC programs, products and services by Canadians reached at exhibition events.

Attitudinal Change: The GCEP does not contribute to attitudinal change in the target group since this is not an intended outcome of the GCEP. Research indicates that exhibitions are not an appropriate channel for the achievement of this result in a cost-effective manner.

Behaviour Change: The GCEP does not contribute to behaviour change in the target group since this is not an intended outcome of the GCEP. Research indicates that exhibitions are not an appropriate channel for the achievement of this result in a cost-effective manner.

5.2.2 The GCEP Does Not Successfully Achieve Stewardship Outcomes Related to the Exhibitions Database

All lines of evidence indicate that the GCEP promotes increased collaboration between Government of Canada institutions. All clients interviewed indicated that exhibitions represent one of a variety of ways and means used by their department to work collaboratively with other departments on issues of common concern.

All lines of evidence indicate that departments participating at Canada Pavilion and Federal Presence events are compliant with regard to the provisions of the Federal Identity Program and the Official Languages Act cited in Requirement 22 of the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada.

All lines of evidence indicate that the GCEP achieves reinforced branding of the GOC as a result of unified presence and a common look and feel. The GCEP enables the GOC to achieve a coherent and unified presence at the exhibition events that it manages through the collocation of government institutions.

Some program personnel, most stakeholders and the majority of clients indicated the need to enhance the GCEP's role as a centre of expertise to help departments learn and apply best practices in exhibitions management. Stakeholders indicated that the GCEP's knowledge of exhibitions best practices is of significant value to departments and should be shared.

The majority of clients indicated that the GCEP assists departments in meeting their obligations under the Communications Policy. However, there is significant evidence that departments are not consistently complying with Requirement 22 of the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada. Specifically, departments are not consistently complying with the requirement to submit their exhibitions plans to the GCEP and entering their information into the Exhibitions Database.

It should be noted that it is the responsibility of government departments to comply with this component of the Communications Policy and that it is the responsibility of TBS to monitor and enforce compliance. However, as a result of this lack of compliance, the GCEP cannot ensure the data integrity of the database and an unknown number of exhibitions are transpiring without the knowledge of the GCEP whereby departments may or may not be respecting the requirement to collocate to maintain a coherent presence. It should also be noted that the GCEPs ability to encourage compliance with this component of the Communications Policy may be mitigated by the lack of financial stability as well as uncertainty surrounding the program's future.

All program personnel and the majority of clients indicted an awareness of the Communications Policy. However, the evaluation noted that many program personnel, stakeholders and clients interpreted specific provisions of the policy in different ways. For example, it is unclear whether the GCEP's role as "coordinating authority" extends to all domestic exhibitions or is restricted to Canada Pavilion events. Some former clients indicated their belief that the Communications Policy does not apply to them altogether.

Program personnel indicated that the GCEP plans to step up efforts to improve the level of awareness within the communications community and provide clarity to the specific responsibilities of government institutions under the Communications Policy. By conducting additional outreach to departments and agencies, the GCEP has demonstrated a commitment towards improved achievement of its stewardship outcomes.

The evaluation uncovered evidence that that there does not appear to be any consistent monitoring and enforcement of Requirement 22 (the policy requirement on Fairs and Exhibitions) of the Communications Policy. The evaluation did not uncover any evidence of departments being sanctioned for non-compliance with the policy. All program personnel indicated their belief that they do not have the responsibility to monitor and enforce departmental compliance with the policy and that this is a TBS responsibility.

Most program personnel and some clients indicated the need to reinforce the stewardship role of the program, potentially by strengthening its authorities in the Communications Policy. Some stakeholders indicated that the authorities of the GCEP do not need to be strengthened in the Communications Policy since this might result in an undue burden on departments.

Some stakeholders suggested that departmental compliance with the Communications Policy requirement to collocate could alternatively be achieved through the addition of a standard clause to all contracts concluded with exhibition organizers. Such a clause would make it an obligation of the exhibition organizer to ensure that departments are collocated at their events. No suggestions were offered with regard to the monitoring and enforcement of this clause.

Most stakeholders indicated that the GCEP could play a valuable role by providing more meaningful information to inform management decision-making as it relates to exhibitions management. It was suggested that the GCEP could produce an annual report on the exhibitions activities of the GOC that would include the number of events, objectives, impacts and costs.

All lines of evidence indicate that the Exhibitions Database, in its current form, is of limited value. The information provided by the GCEP and the plans submitted by departments consists simply of event names, dates and contact information. The database does not capture any data related to event objectives, themes, GOC priorities, impacts, costs or other elements that that could be used to inform meaningful decision-making with regard to exhibitions management.

The evaluation has further determined that the Exhibitions Database is characterized by a low level of uptake amongst departments. Program personnel estimate that about one third of all federal departments are currently using the Exhibitions Database and that there is no way of knowing whether these departments are consistently recording their plans for all events. The majority of clients interviewed indicated that they are neither using the database to determine which events they should attend nor using it to record the events they actually attended. Most stakeholders and some clients were not aware that the Exhibitions Database exists.

5.3 Cost-Effectiveness

5.3.1 The GCEP Achieves ROI Exceeding Industry Norms and is Well Positioned to Report on Return on Objectives

All program personnel and most clients indicated that the GCEP enables departments to achieve increased impacts compared to events where departments are not collocated. Some program personnel and some clients indicated that the GCEP enables departments to achieve cost savings compared to events where departments are not collocated. Although the majority of clients interviewed indicate that they track the costs of participating in exhibition events, the majority are unable to measure their Return on Investment (ROI).

The literature review found that there is limited public information on measuring exhibit ROI due to the propriety nature of the information. The literature review and the majority of program personnel indicated that event reach and cost per reach (i.e., cost per visitor) are the most commonly accepted measures to determine if an exhibition was worthwhile in relation to the total cost.

The literature review also determined that performance measurement for marketing and communications is still in its infancy across all sectors and that industry cross-analysis of various marketing media is virtually non-existent. For example, only 35% of exhibitors surveyed by Tradeshow Week Magazine in June-July 2006 indicated that they track Return on Investment for their exhibitions activities.^[10] However, the CEIR study also found that the majority of companies surveyed (47%) indicated that event marketing provides the "greatest return on investment" followed by broadcast / print advertising, sales promotions, public relations and web / Internet advertising.

The financial analysis determined the average event reach (number of visitors to the CP divided by total attendees at the exhibition) of the Canada Pavilion is 17% based on historical data between 2000-2001 and 2005-2006. This is 2% greater than the generally accepted industry benchmark of 15% identified in the literature review. There is insufficient data to determine the average event reach of the Federal Presence events in relation to the industry benchmark cited by the Center for Exhibition Industry Research.^[11]

The financial analysis determined that the average cost per visitor of the Canada Pavilion events is $4.32 based on historical data between 2000-2001 and 2005-2006. This is $15.68 less than the generally accepted industry benchmark of $20.00 identified in the literature review. There is insufficient data to determine the average cost per visitor of Federal Presence events in relation to the industry benchmark cited by The Taylor Group.^[12]

The literature review also provided evidence to suggest that exhibitions, in general, are a cost-effective medium for reaching a targeted audience through face-to-face communications. In a survey of 1,322 US companies conducted by the Center for Exhibition Industry Research (CEIR), 47% of respondents felt that event marketing provides the greatest return on investment compared to all other media.

The literature review included interviews with three public sector organizations and five private sector companies that use a pavilion format for both domestic and international exhibits. The pavilion format confers a wide range of benefits to participants that include size, branding, credibility, leveraging relationships, time savings and cost savings. The literature review further determined that the increased effectiveness of the pavilion format can be measured by an average increase in event reach of 10-15%.^[13] These interviews also indicated that:

The pavilion format is characterized by a proportional relationship between the size of the pavilion and amount of visitor traffic.
The pavilion format achieves economies of scale with regard to the cost of physical space, infrastructure, shipping and staffing.
The pavilion format generates an average savings of 25-30% over the total cost of partners attending the exhibition on their own.

Some program personnel indicated that cost per reach should not be the only factor to determine Return on Investment since there are a large number of qualitative factors that also have a bearing. These factors include:

The GCEP's commitment to hold at least one Canada Pavilion per province
Departmental preference for which events to attend
Repeat presence of the departments at certain events
Assurance of a high traffic / high visibility location within the exhibition
Timing of the event (date and length)
Prior experience (positive or negative) at a given event
Feedback obtained through exit intercept surveys of attendees
Feedback obtained through client satisfaction surveys with participating departments

The literature review indicated that ROI measures are being used less frequently since there are a large number of qualitative factors that contribute to the success of an exhibition event. Best practices suggest that these factors can be captured by using Return on Objectives (ROO) to measure the success of an event against predefined objectives.

Evidence suggests that an ROO approach is currently being employed by the GCEP although it has not been strictly formalized. Interviews with program personnel from the Rural Exhibits Program determined that it is also using a ROO approach that is well structured for both event selection and reporting on event success. The Rural Exhibits Program approach to Return on Objectives may serve as a useful model for the GCEP.

5.3.2 Financial Instability has Adversely Impacted the GCEP's Cost-Effectiveness

There is substantial evidence that the recent lack of financial stability has adversely affected the cost-effectiveness of the GCEP. The absence of sustained, multi-year funding has prevented the GCEP from engaging in medium-to-long term planning and undertaking financial commitments over the same period. The impacts of this financial instability include:

The inability to issue a calendar of exhibition events in a timely manner which results in diminished participation by departments at Canada Pavilion events.
The inability to negotiate with fair organizers a year in advance to obtain better square foot rental rates and preferred exhibit locations.
The inability to conclude a long-term contract for the provision of the Canada Pavilion infrastructure which prevents the Procurement Directorate from negotiating a better price.
The inability to produce a calendar of events one year in advance which prevents the GCEP from rotating the Canada Pavilion through different regions of each province.

Other than the above considerations, the majority of program personnel and most clients indicated that there are no more cost-efficient ways that departments could have achieved the same outcomes as achieved through the Canada Pavilion or Federal Presence events.

The majority of program personnel and most clients indicated that departments would participate less or not at all in the events attended by the Canada Pavilion if the GCEP no longer existed. The main reasons why departments would not continue to attend these events is that they would not have the financial means to do so, their impact would be significantly diminished if they were not collocated with other departments and the logistics of mounting an exhibit using a pavilion format are beyond the capacity of individual departments.

Most program personnel and most clients indicated that departments would continue to participate in the events attended by the Federal Presence if the GCEP no longer existed. The main reason why departments would continue to attend these events is that they planned to do so in the first place regardless of whether or not the event was labelled a Federal Presence.

Top of Page

6 Conclusions

6.1 Relevance

Evaluation Issue: Is the Government of Canada Exhibitions Program consistent with government policies and priorities and does it address a continuing need?

All lines of evidence indicate that the GCEP is consistent with the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada and the Common Services Policy. There is strong evidence that the GCEP is consistent with the priorities of the Government of Canada although program personnel indicated that the GCEP could be doing more to communicate GOC priorities. Finally, there is substantial evidence that the Government of Canada Exhibitions Program is consistent with the mandate and priorities of the Department of Public Works and Government Services Canada.

The evaluation found overwhelming evidence that exhibitions continue to be a high priority marketing and communications channel for the private and public sector due to the many benefits that are achieved though face-to-face communications.

Conclusion: In summary, it is the conclusion of this evaluation that the GCEP provides a unique channel that increases the accessibility of the GOC for Canadians and contributes to improving the coordination of GOC communications in support of the GOC's communication policy and priorities.

6.2 Success

Evaluation Issue: Is the Government of Canada Exhibitions Program successful in achieving its intended outcomes?

In terms of the service delivery role of the GCEP, the evaluation recognizes that the program's logic is characterised by a variety of "soft" outcomes whose successful achievement can best be measured using the causal chain framework. There is strong evidence that the program is achieving all of its intended outcomes in the context of this framework.

In addition, all lines of evidence indicate that the GCEP employs an effective format by incorporating widely recognized best practices of the exhibitions industry into the design and delivery of the Canada Pavilion and Federal Presence events. Direct observation of Canada Pavilion and Federal Presence events indicates that Canadians are benefiting from interactions with public servants at the exhibition events managed by the GCEP.

In terms of its stewardship role, all lines of evidence indicate that the GCEP promotes increased collaboration between GOC institutions and achieves reinforced branding of the GOC as a result of unified presence and a common look and feel. The GCEP is assisting departments in meeting their obligations under the Communications Policy and departments participating at Canada Pavilion and Federal Presence events are compliant with FIP and OLA.

However, there is significant evidence that departments are not consistently complying with the requirement to submit their exhibitions plans to the GCEP and entering their information into the Exhibitions Database. All lines of evidence indicate that the database is of limited value as it does not capture any data that can be used to inform meaningful decision-making with regard to exhibitions management.

Conclusion: In summary, this evaluation concludes that the GCEP is reinforcing the GOC brand as a result of unified presences and a common look and feel, and is achieving all of its service delivery objectives. However, the evaluation also concludes that the GCEP is not contributing effectively to increasing the stewardship of government-wide exhibitions investments/activities through the provision of complete and meaningful management information on behalf of the GOC.

6.3 Cost-Effectiveness

Evaluation Issue: Is the Government of Canada Exhibitions Program cost-effective?

The literature review found that there is limited public information on measuring exhibit ROI and interviews with clients indicated that the majority are unable to measure their Return on Investment. The literature review and the majority of program personnel indicated that event reach and cost per reach (i.e., cost per visitor) are the most commonly accepted measures to determine if an exhibition was worthwhile in relation to the total cost.

Conclusion: In summary, it is the conclusion of this evaluation that the event reach and cost per reach of the Government of Canada Exhibitions Program are cost-effective in relation to industry benchmarks, however cost-efficiency could be improved if the Program could secure multi-year funding. The GCEP is also well positioned to measure Return on Objectives in line with industry trends.

Top of Page

7 Recommendations

Based on the key findings and conclusions contained in this report, OAE recommends that the ADM Consulting, Information and Shared Services Branch ensure that the GCEP:

Strengthen the working relationship with the PCO and other stakeholders responsible for the communications agenda of the GOC to improve linkages between GCEP communications tools and GOC communication priorities.
Proactively engage departmental communicators and provide them with tools and guidance to help them to articulate exhibitions plans that are complete and linked to GOC communications priorities. The GCEP should also work with departmental communicators to ensure the increased usage and improved integrity of the Exhibitions Database to inform meaningful decision-making with regard to exhibitions management and oversight.
Continue efforts by PWGSC to secure multi-year funding for the GCEP. The multi-year financing of GCEP will allow it to engage in medium-to-long-term planning, undertake commitments on a multi-year basis, significantly enhance the ability of program management to act strategically and ensure cost-efficiencies that are not currently being realized.
Improve its ability to demonstrate cost-effectiveness by formalizing a process of reporting against Return on Objectives (ROO). The GCEP should consult with the Rural Exhibits Program and other organizations that employ this approach to identify best practices that could be applied to its existing event selection criteria.
Engage the Rural Exhibits Program and Service Canada in conducting a joint study to determine the existence of and potential for duplication of effort with regard to current and planned exhibitions. The outcome of this study should seek to identify the most effective approach for providing rural exhibits and clearly define the roles and responsibilities of each program with regard to the management of domestic exhibitions on behalf of the GOC.

Top of Page

Appendix A: Government of Canada Exhibitions Program Logic Model

Exhibit 1 (View detailed figure by clicking on link)

Top of Page

Appendix B: Evaluation Matrix

A. Evaluation Issue

(Relevance)
Is the Government of Canada Exhibitions Program consistent with government policies and priorities and does it address a continuing need?

A.1 Evaluation Question

1(a) Is the Government of Canada Exhibitions Program consistent with the policies and priorities of the Government of Canada as well as the mandate and priorities of PWGSC?

Indicators

Mandate - authority and policy source/basis, GOC Communication Policy and other sources
Actual/perceived role re clients/beneficiaries, diversity of means, inter-departmental collaboration/stewardship, identity/branding
Stakeholder/informant views on necessity and utility or lack thereof in terms of GOC policies and priorities
Logical placement or lack thereof re PWGSC, Common Services Policy - centralized processes and other shared services

Data Source

Policy/documentation review
File review
Interviews with PCO, TBS and PWGSC subject matter experts
Interviews with Program management and personnel
Interviews with OGDs (current and former clients)
Review of 2005 OGD survey results
Review of 2005 interviews with OGD and policy experts

Evaluation Methodology

Analysis to establish the program's relevance, or lack, as a function of the GOC Communications Policy
Interview central agency stakeholders/informants responsible and implicated
Interview Departmental stakeholders to assess alignment with PWGSC mandate as a common service provider

A.2 Evaluation Question

1(b) Does the Government of Canada Exhibitions Program provide unique attributes compared to that of other public awareness initiatives of the Government of Canada?

Indicators

Comparison of mandates and roles other federal entities/venues which provide public awareness of government, e.g. Service Canada, 1-800
Comparison of targeted populations/beneficiaries and the diversity of formats to communicate

Data Source

Policy/documentation review
File review
Interviews with PCO, TBS and PWGSC subject matter experts
Interviews with Program management and personnel
Interviews with OGDs (current and former clients)
Interviews with informants from entities/venues which provide public awareness of government programs
Direct observation of exhibits
Communications research on existence/relevance of exhibitions programs in other jurisdictions

Evaluation Methodology

Analysis to establish the program's uniqueness or overlap in the panorama of diverse entities/venues which provide public awareness of government programs

B. Evaluation Issue

(Success/Impact)
Is the Government of Canada Exhibitions Program successful in achieving its intended outcomes?

B.1 Evaluation Question

2(a) Are Canadians benefiting from face-to-face exchanges with public servants at CP and FP events?

Indicators

Extent to which the TBS causal chain benefits are being achieved:
Targeting: Is the right group being targeted?
Intervention: Is the intervention appropriate to the group?
Reach: Does the intervention reach the targeted group?
Awareness: What is the level of awareness being produced?
Extent to which OGDs are satisfied with GCEP service delivery

Data Source

Data from previous evaluation
Direct observation of exhibits
Secondary research on measurement of soft outcomes
Expert opinion on measurement of soft outcomes
Exit intercept surveys of attendees conducted by program
Interviews with PCO, TBS and PWGSC subject matter experts
Interviews with Program management and personnel
Interviews with OGDs (current and former clients)
Onsite interviews of OGDs conducted by evaluation team

Evaluation Methodology

File review of qualitative and quantitative data from previous evaluations
Secondary research and interviews with subject matter experts to circumscribe causal chain for exhibitions
Qualitative and quantitative analysis of existing and new survey data to populate causal chain
Statistical analysis of existing and new survey data to circumscribe casual chain
Qualitative analysis of onsite interview data
Qualitative analysis of stakeholder interviews and anecdotal information

B.2 Evaluation Question

2(b) Are OGDs participating at CP and FP events the most appropriate given profile of expected attendees and the targeted reach?

Indicators

Criteria and systematic approach used to match OGDs to events
Attendees agree that information they received was useful
Extent to which attendees perceive that information provided by OGDs is appropriate to their needs
Extent to which OGDs perceive that attendees at the events benefited from their information

Data Source

Data from previous evaluation
Exit intercept surveys of attendees conducted by program
OGD satisfaction surveys conducted by program
Interviews with PCO, TBS and PWGSC subject matter experts
Interviews with Program management and personnel
Interviews with OGDs (current and former clients)
Onsite interviews of OGDs conducted by evaluation team

Evaluation Methodology

File review of data from previous evaluation
Qualitative and quantitative analysis of survey data
Qualitative analysis of onsite interview data
Qualitative analysis of stakeholder interviews and anecdotal information

B.3 Evaluation Question

2(c) To what extent does the central coordination and planning of fairs and exhibitions provided by the Government of Canada Exhibitions Program contribute to GOC stewardship of communications via exhibits?

Indicators

Usefulness of Exhibitions database (for the Program, OGDs, central agencies)
Degree of compliance of OGDs in submitting their complete plans
Extent and nature of feedback provided by the program to OGDs
Appropriateness of participants in CP and FP events
Commitment of OGD stakeholders determined by OGD surveys

Data Source

File review
Documentation review
Review of 2005 OGD survey results
Review of 2005 interviews with OGD and policy experts
Interviews with PCO, TBS and PWGSC subject matter experts
Interviews with Program management and personnel
Interviews with OGDs (current and former clients)

Evaluation Methodology

Establish the program's success as a function of government-wide priorities
Interview central agency stakeholders responsible for GOC priorities
Interview Program and OGDs to assess effectiveness of exhibitions plans and Exhibitions Database

B.4 Evaluation Question

2(d) Is the selection of events appropriate to maximize the exposure of public to information on GOC priorities, programs, and services, given allotted budgets, e.g., urban vs. rural, geographical, industrial?

Indicators

Extent to which the selection of events is appropriate to maximize the exposure of public to information about GOC priorities, programs and services
Extent to which the mix of CP and FP events is appropriate to maximizing the exposure public to information about GOC priorities, programs and services

Data Source

File review
Documentation review
Qualitative and quantitative data from previous evaluation
Canada Pavilion and Federal Presence attendance / event data
Qualitative information on themes of CP / FP events
Interviews with PCO, TBS and PWGSC subject matter experts
Interviews with Program management and personnel
Interviews with OGDs (current and former clients)

Evaluation Methodology

File review of data from previous evaluation
Qualitative and quantitative analysis of event data
Assess extent of linkage between CP / FP event themes and GOC priorities
Qualitative analysis of stakeholder interviews and anecdotal information

B.5 Evaluation Question

2(e) Do the CP and FP events contribute to unified presence and common look and feel?

Indicators

Extent to which a common look and feel is established at CP and FP events
Extent of unified presence
Extent to which a unified presence contributes to an increased impact in terms of greater visibility, reach and awareness

Data Source

File review
Documentation review
Data from previous evaluation
Direct observation of exhibits
Exit intercept surveys
Communications research on use of exhibitions in comparative jurisdictions
Interviews with PCO, TBS and PWGSC subject matter experts
Interviews with Program management and personnel
Interviews with OGDs (current and former clients)

Evaluation Methodology

Review files, analyze communications research and conduct interviews to determine the extent to which the CP and FP contribute to enhanced presence for the GOC

C. Evaluation Issue

(Cost-Effectiveness)
Is the Government of Canada Exhibitions Program cost-effective?

C.1 Evaluation Question

3(a) Are the formats used by the CP and FP considered effective in providing increased accessibility to the public?

Indicators

Extent to which exhibitions in general are an effective channel to provide increased accessibility to the public
Extent to which a face-to-face medium via the formats of the CP and FP is an effective tool to provide increased accessibility to the public

Data Source

Qualitative and quantitative data from previous evaluation
Direct observation of exhibits
Communications research on the effectiveness (penetration and retention) of exhibitions as well as best practices
Expert opinion from communications sector
Stakeholder interviews (PCO, TBS, Program, OGDs, public)

Evaluation Methodology

File review of data from previous evaluation
Literature review to establish relationship to alternate channels and best practices for exhibitions, to determine how other jurisdictions are running an exhibitions program such as GCEP? Determine if Industry associations, literature provide relative rates of ROI
Interviews with communications experts from private sector, public sector and academia to establish relationship to alternate channels and best practices
Comparative analysis of the effectiveness of exhibitions vis-à-vis alternate communications channels (in general)
Gap analysis of CP and FP format against industry best practices
Qualitative analysis of stakeholder interviews and anecdotal information

C.2 Evaluation Question

3(b) What is the optimal budget required to maximize cost-efficiency and ROI, i.e., cost per reach?

Indicators

Extent to which sunk costs and fixed costs can be maximized for the greatest return on investment

Data Source

Detailed financial data from the Government of Canada Exhibitions Program
Communications research to establish ROI of exhibits based on industry best practices
Secondary research to develop sound proxies where required

Evaluation Methodology

Financial modelling and forecasting to determine the critical inflection point at which return on investment is optimized

C.3 Evaluation Question

3(c) Does the GOC achieve increased cost savings and/or impacts through a centralized coordination function?

Indicators

Extent to which economies of scale for a centralized exhibitions function lead to cost savings over decentralization
Extent to which economies of scope for a centralized exhibitions function lead to increased impact over decentralization

Data Source

Detailed financial data from the Government of Canada Exhibitions Program
Communications research to determine efficiencies, savings or cost offsets due to collocation
Improved financial data from OGDs on the cost of their exhibitions activities
Secondary research to develop sound proxies where required

Evaluation Methodology

Financial modelling and forecasting to determine the cost/benefit ratio of centralized versus decentralized options
Literature review focused on 'event marketing' venue (where booths/kiosks co-locate under a general 'umbrella' or event) to determine whether there are efficiencies, savings, or cost offsets

C.4 Evaluation Question

3(d) Are there alternatives that might achieve the outcomes in a more cost-efficient manner?

Indicators

Extent to which the Government of Canada Exhibitions Program could be more cost-efficient without sacrificing any of the desired outcomes

Data Source

Detailed financial data from the Government of Canada Exhibitions Program
Communications research to determine cost benchmarks and best practices of exhibits in comparative jurisdictions and the private sector
Improved financial data from OGDs on the cost of their exhibitions activities
Secondary research to develop sound proxies where required

Evaluation Methodology

Review of financial and non-financial performance information to identify opportunities for additional cost-efficiencies

Top of Page

Appendix C: Lines of Evidence

Primary Research
Evaluation Question	Program Interviews	Stakeholder Interviews	Current Client Interviews	Former Client Interviews	Direct Observation	Survey Data
1(a)	X	X	X	X	X
1(b)	X	X	X	X
2(a)					X	X
2(b)	X		X	X	X	X
2(c)	X	X	X	X
2(d)	X		X	X
2(e)					X	X
3(a)	X		X	X	X	X
3(b)	X	X	X	X
3(c)	X		X	X
3(d)	X	X	X	X

Secondary Research
Evaluation Question	Policy Review	Document Review	Literature Review	Financial Modelling	Evaluation Review	Database Review
1(a)	X	X			X	X
1(b)		X			X	X
2(a)		X			X
2(b)		X	X		X
2(c)		X	X		X	X
2(d)		X			X	X
2(e)		X
3(a)		X	X		X
3(b)		X	X	X	X
3(c)		X	X	X	X
3(d)		X	X	X	X

Program Interviews: Personal interviews with management and employees of the Government of Canada Exhibitions Program to evaluate the Relevance and Success and Cost-Effectiveness of the GCEP.

Stakeholders Interviews: Personal interviews with stakeholders in Central Agencies, the Department and Subject Matter Experts (SME) in exhibitions management to evaluate the Relevance and Success and Cost-Effectiveness of the GCEP. Individuals from the following stakeholder groups will be interviewed: (1) Privy Council Office, (2) Treasury Board Secretariat, (3) Public Works and Government Services Canada, (4) Government Information Services Branch, (5) Government of Canada Exhibitions Program.

Current Client Interviews: Personal interviews with the Directors of Communication and Program Managers at Other Government Departments (OGDs) to evaluate the Relevance and Success and Cost-Effectiveness of the GCEP. The following categories of OGDs will be interviewed: (1) current clients of the CP, (2) current clients of the FP.

Former Client Interviews: Personal interviews with the Directors of Communication and Program Managers at Other Government Departments (OGDs) to evaluate the Relevance and Success and Cost-Effectiveness of the GCEP. The following categories of OGDs will be interviewed: (1) former clients of the CP, (2) former clients of the FP.

Direct Observation: Direct observation of the behaviour of OGDs and Canadian Citizens at CP and FP events to evaluate the Relevance and Success of the GCEP. Members of the evaluation team and selected SMEs will attend the Expo-Québec CP event and the Salon Emploi Formation FP event to make observations and speak with OGD participants at a convenient time that does not interfere with the conduct of the event.

Survey Data: Analyze the results of attendee surveys and OGD surveys conducted by the program to evaluate the Success and Cost-Effectiveness of the GCEP. The following information will be extracted from the survey data: (1) level of reach, awareness and understanding achieved at CP and FP events, (2) Canadians' perception of appropriateness of OGD information at CP and FP events, (3) OGD perception of appropriateness of audience at CP and FP events, (4) Canadians' perception of the format of CP and FP events, (5) OGD perception of the format of CP and FP events.

Policy Review: Review current policy and legislation pertaining to fairs and exhibitions to evaluate the Relevance of the GCEP. The following sources of policy and legislation will be reviewed: (1) Communications Policy, (2) Common Services Policy, (3) Management of Government Information Policy, (4) Common Look and Feel for the Internet Policy, (5) Official Languages Act, (6) Federal Identity Program, (7) Department of Public Works and Government Services Act.

Priorities Review: Review current priorities at the government-wide, departmental and branch levels to evaluate the Relevance of the GCEP. The following sources of priorities will be reviewed: (1) GOC priorities set out in the Speech from the Throne, (2) GOC priorities set out in the Budget Documents, (3) PWGSC priorities set out in the MRRS, (4) PWGSC priorities set out in The Way Forward, (5) GISB priorities set out in the Three-Year Business Plan, (6) GISB priorities set out in the Draft Value Proposition.

Document Review: Review program files to evaluate the Relevance and Success and Cost-Effectiveness of the GCEP. The following information will be extracted from the program files: (1) evidence of improved alignment with public interest / Communications Policy, (2) evidence of improved alignment with PWGSC / GISB priorities, (3) evidence of contribution to GOC priorities of integrity, transparency and accountability, (4) evidence of Canadians benefiting from CP and FP events, (5) evidence of OGDs appropriately targeting CP and FP events, (6) evidence of GOC priorities appropriately targeting CP and FP events, (7) evidence of CP and FP design and delivery conforming to exhibitions best practices, (8) evidence of GCEP data or measures to establish return on investment, (9) evidence of decreased costs or increased benefits due to co-location, (10) evidence of potential cost savings that may be achieved without sacrificing current outcomes.

Literature Review: Review communications research conducted by Colterman Marketing Group using public sector, private sector and academic sources to evaluate the Success and Cost-Effectiveness of the GCEP. The following information will be extracted from the literature review: (1) generally accepted best practices in the design and delivery of fairs and exhibitions, (2) generally accepted best practices in the targeting of fairs and exhibitions to the appropriate audiences, (3) effectiveness of exhibitions (in general) as a format to provide information / access to Canadians, (4) relative cost/benefit of exhibitions (in general) versus other communication channels.

Financial Modelling: Review program documentation and communications research to develop financial models to evaluate the Cost-Effectiveness of the GCEP based on various funding levels and program configurations.

Evaluation Review: Review 2005 and 2002 evaluations of the Government of Canada Exhibitions Program to evaluate the Relevance and Success and Cost-Effectiveness of the GCEP. The following information will be extracted from the most recent evaluation: (1) evidence of improved alignment with public interest / Communications Policy, (2) evidence of improved alignment with PWGSC / GISB priorities, (3) evidence of contribution to GOC priorities of integrity, transparency and accountability, (4) evidence of Canadians benefiting from CP and FP events, (5) evidence of OGDs appropriately targeting CP and FP events, (6) evidence of GOC priorities appropriately targeting CP and FP events, (7) evidence of CP and FP design and delivery conforming to exhibitions best practices, (8) evidence of GCEP data or measures to establish return on investment, (9) evidence of decreased costs or increased benefits due to co-location, (10) evidence of potential cost savings that may be achieved without sacrificing current outcomes.

Database Review: Review Exhibitions Database to evaluate the Relevance and Cost-Effectiveness of the GCEP. The following information will be extracted from the Exhibitions Database: (1) evidence that it meets the requirements of the Communications Policy, (2) evidence that it contributes to GOC priorities of integrity, transparency and accountability, (3) evidence that it provides (or could provide) data or measures to establish return on investment, (4) evidence that it provides (or could provide) data or measures to establish decreased costs or increased benefits due to co-location.

Top of Page

Appendix D: Principal Documents Consulted

Document Review

Questions and Answers Government of Canada Exhibitions Program Secret Dec. 2, 2004.
Government of Canada Exhibitions Program: Expenditure Review Program Summary March 21 2004 .
Government Information Services Branch /Expenditure Review Tests / Government of Canada Exhibitions Program (GOCEP) March 17, 2004.
2004-2005 Canada Pavilion Recruitment Strategy. April 27, 2004.
Procedures for participating in fairs and exhibitions. Effective date These procedures take effect on April 1, 2002 [revised c. 2004 after closure of Communications Canada File].
Consequences of Cancelling Exhibitions Program 31/07/2006.
Observations GOC Rural Exhibits Program 17-02-2004.
Quelques suggestions de paramètres pour le tranfert annuel de 500,000$ du programme des expositions du gouvernement du Canada (PEGC) au Programme des expositions rurales (PER) (le 10 novembre 2004).
Government of Canada Exhibitions Program Summary: Request for Ongoing Funding Business Case December 2005.
Government of Canada Exhibitions Program / Canada Pavilion - Background and Event Selection / Date: March 8, 2006.
Communications Canada / Government of Canada Exhibitions Program / Stéphanie Ippersiel [DECK c2004].
Ten Ways to Leverage Your Trade Show Investment / By Susan Keipper / CEO, Media Management Services, Inc., article from DataPoints January 2001.
GOC Exhibitions Program: Research and Evaluation / Programme des Expositions du GO: Recherche et Évaluation 2003-2004.
Annex C / Government of Canada Exhibitions Program / Expenditure Review Questions [Program Review 2004].
Government of Canada Exhibitions Program / Presentation to Rural Exhibits committee - Federal Presences Coordination April 20th, 2006.
Interview with Manon Dagenais, Director, Exhibitions Program. Interview held Friday, August 5, 2005.
Interview Summary with Robert Berthiaume [GCEP Program Manager].
Government of Canada Exhibitions Program / Program Renewal April 2003 to March 2006 / Draft August 2002.
Qs & As April 19, 2004 Government of Canada Exhibitions Program.
Government of Canada Exhibition Program 2003-2004. March 17, 2003.
Communication Canada Government of Canada Exhibition Program / Marketing strategy to promote Exhibits as a prime communications vehicle with senior Government communicators / March 31, 2003. Prepared by Blueprint Public Relations Inc. for the GOC Exhibitions Program.
Government of Canada Exhibition Program / Canada Pavilion - Background and Event Selection / March 8 2006.
Government of Canada Exhibition Program / Draft Vision Document / Program Renewal - Permanent Funding / Manon Dagenais October 2004.
Program Renewal for the Government of Canada Exhibitions Program / 2006 - 2010 / Final Draft / CMG Canada October 18, 2005.
Présence Fédérale Initiée - janvier à mars 2006 (mise à jour le 13 décembre 2005) / Présence Fédérale Initiée : approche suggérée (final).
Rapport final de pré-retraite du 16 février 2005 / Leadership fonctionnel - Liaisons ministérielles.
Rapport final de la journée de pré-retraite du février 2005 / Leadership fonctionnel : Coordination des Plans Ministériels. Préparé par : Liette Faubert et Martin Chénard / Date : le 25 avril 2005.
The Government of Canada's Fairs and Exhibits Program Regional Reflection on National Needs: A Discussion Paper (ca. 2003-2004).
Harley House Consultants Inc. September 27, 2002: Executive Summary of Final Report of the Evaluation of the Fairs and Exhibits Program.
Présences Fédérales. Préparé par: Liette Faubert; Date: le 3 avril 2003; Dernière révision: le 6 mai 2003.
Government of Canada Exhibitions Program (communications.gc.ca) (File title: Expenditure Review_Program Summary_March 21 2004) Summary.
Exhibitions Program Renewal, Presentation for the Office of the Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, April 2006 (incl. draft Memorandum to Cabinet, draft TB Submission, financial data, event data).
Policy Review
Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, Treasury Board of Canada, Secretariat, 2006-08-11.
Common Services Policy, Treasury Board of Canada, Secretariat, 2006-10-04.
Evaluation Review
Evaluation of the Government of Canada Exhibitions Program, Consulting and Audit Canada, September 2005.
Evaluation of the Fairs and Exhibits Program Final Report, Harley House Consultants, Inc., September 22, 2002.

Top of Page

Appendix E: Individuals Consulted

Program

David Myer, Director General, Government of Canada Exhibitions Program, Public Works and Government Services Canada.
Denise J Collins, A/Director, Government of Canada Exhibitions Program, Public Works and Government Services Canada.
Manon Dagenais, Former Director, Government of Canada Exhibitions Program, Public Works and Government Services Canada.
Liette Faubert, A/Program Manager, Government of Canada Exhibitions Program, Public Works and Government Services Canada.
Diane Lemieux, Project Manager, Government of Canada Exhibitions Program, Public Works and Government Services Canada.
François C Raymond, Project Manager, Government of Canada Exhibitions Program, Public Works and Government Services Canada.
Marie-Josée Drolet, Project Manager, Government of Canada Exhibitions Program, Public Works and Government Services Canada.
Other Stakeholders
Ginette Martel, Senior Analyst, Strategic Communications Planning, Privy Council Office.
Jacqueline Bogden , Director, Office of the Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet (Communications and Consultations), Privy Council Office.
Brian Biggar, Director, Communications Policy and Federal Identity Program, Treasury Board of Canada, Secretariat.
Janet Randall, Director, Cabinet and Treasury Board Submission Services Directorate, Corporate Services, Policy and Communications Branch, Public Works and Government Services Canada.
Richard Robesco, Director, Communication Procurement Directorate, Public Works and Government Services Canada.
Wayne S Hannaford, Supply Team Leader, Exhibits, Audio-Visual and Events Procurement Section, Public Works and Government Services Canada.
Daniel Tremblay, Director, Canada Enquiry Centre, Canada Enquiry Centre, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada.
Yves Normandin, Director, Corporate Communications, SC - Employment Policy and Program Operations Communications, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (Service Canada).
Gabrielle Tassé, Project Officer, SC - Employment Policy and Program Operations Communications, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (Service Canada).
Katia Dalpé-Charron, Project Manager, Exhibits, Rural Exhibits Program, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
Bernie Colterman, President, Colterman Marketing Group.
Current Clients (Canada Pavilion)
Glenda Caldwell, Exhibits Officer, Creative and Promotional Services, Natural Resources Canada.
Elaine St-Amour, Director, Corporate Communications, Internal Communications and Production, Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA).
Claude Hudon, Manager, Creative Services, Marketing And Consultation Directorate, Health Canada.
Philip Hurcomb, Director General, Communications, Communications Group, Transport Canada.
Catherine Betz , A/Director, Services, Transport Canada.
Lena Webster , Events and Exhibits Officer, Creative Services, Veterans Affairs Canada.
Marie-France Fortier, Deputy Director, Corporate Communications, Canadian Space Agency.
Former Clients (Canada Pavilion)
Judi Sutherland, Director, Marketing Division, Canada Revenue Agency.
Thérèse Boisclair, Director, Communications, Communications Division, Passport Canada.
Sue Lacroix, Administration Services, Parks Canada.
James Zastre, Community Relations Officer, Corporate Services, Canadian Grain Commission.
Bonnie Weisz, Senior Communications Advisor, Outreach, Indian and Northern Affairs.
Current Clients (Federal Presence)
Trajan Schulzke, Manager, Corporate Marketing, Operations, Industry Canada.
Josette Coutour, Director, Outreach and E-Communications, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada.
Denise Rioux, Manager, Marketing and Advertising, Library and Archives Canada.
Marie-Christine Boucher, Manager, Creative Services, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
Former Clients (Federal Presence)
Diane Stooke, Communications Advisor, Public and Media Relations, Justice Canada.
Elizabeth Collymore, Coordinator, Client Services Group, Communications Branch, Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
Major Jean Morissette, Public Affairs Officer, Exhibition and Displays, National Defence.
Chantal Schryer, Director, Communications, International Development Research Centre.
Daniel Breton, Director Creative Services, Communications Directorate – NCR, Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
Current Clients (Project Management Services)
François A Miville-Deschênes, Communications Manager, Communications Operations, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (World Forestry Congress).
Marcel Therrien, A/Senior Communications Advisor - TRANSED 2007, Intergovernmental Affairs and Accessibility, Transport Canada (Comotred 2007).

Top of Page

Appendix F: Summary of Findings by Evaluation Question

1(a) Is the Government of Canada Exhibitions Program consistent with the policies and priorities of the Government of Canada as well as the mandate and priorities of PWGSC?

Communications Policy

All program personnel, the majority of current clients and most former clients indicated an awareness of the obligations of departments under Requirement 22 of the Communications Policy. Some former clients indicated that the Communications Policy does not apply to them.
Some program personnel noted that many departments are not complying with the Communications Policy due to a lack of monitoring and enforcement. The majority of program personnel interpreted the policy requirement for departments to collocate as being applicable to all exhibition events and not just Canada Pavilion events.
Program personnel indicated that the GCEP helps departments to comply with the Communications Policy by facilitating two-way, face-to-face communication with Canadians as per the high level policy statement, by providing a database of exhibitions for them to submit their plans, by assisting them to collocate at events that are managed by the program, by providing outreach to make them aware of their obligations under the Communications Policy and by providing advisory and project management services to enhance the quality and achieve a common look and feel at their exhibitions events.
The majority of stakeholders indicated that the GCEP assists OGDs to collocate at CP events. Some stakeholders indicated that the GCEP assists OGDs to achieve economies of scale and/or cost savings.
The majority of current clients and most former clients indicated that the GCEP assists them in meeting their obligations under the Communications Policy.
Direct observation of CP and FP events revealed that the requirements of the Communications Policy are being respected by the GCEP and adhered to by OGDs. The collocation of OGDs to achieve greater impact and coherence appears to be happening on a consistent basis for both CP and FP events.
The document review found substantial evidence that the GCEP is consistent with the requirements of the Communications Policy and the mandate of PWGSC. GCEP understands that increased impact and coherence is achieved by collocating federal departments at a fair or exhibition under one large readily-recognizable GOC presence. By developing GOC branded exhibition materials, the GCEP ensured that exhibiting departments were compliant with the Official Languages Act and the Federal Identity Program.
Both the 2002 and 2005 Evaluations found that the GCEP is consistent with the Communications Policy. The 2002 Evaluation found that the GCEP is consistent with government-wide priorities and the 2005 Evaluation found that the GCEP contributes to PWGSC meeting its mandate under the Communications policy.
The Exhibitions Database provides a vehicle for departments to submit their exhibition plans as per the Communications Policy. The Exhibitions Database provides a link to the Communications Policy Procedures Manual, which describes the detailed procedures for participating in fairs and exhibitions.

GOC Priorities

The majority of program personnel indicated that the GCEP employs the Canada Pavilion to help departments communicate GOC priorities to Canadians. The majority of program personnel indicated that the GCEP could be doing more to communicate GOC priorities. One respondent from the program indicated that the GCEP has no approach to promoting GOC priorities at Federal Presence events.
Program personnel suggested that the GCEP could better assist departments to contribute to GOC priorities by developing closer linkages with PCO to receive direction on GOC communications agenda, better aligning the content of the CP to the needs of the target audience in different locations, ensuring that departments participating in the CP are reflective of GOC priorities, engaging Ministers and MPs to speak and participate at CP events.
Most stakeholders, half the current clients and some former clients feel that the GCEP does assist OGDs to contribute to GOC priorities. One former client indicated that the GCEP never imposed any themes (GOC priorities) on participating departments. Some former clients indicated that it would be inappropriate for the GCEP to try telling departments or agencies what they should be saying in their own exhibitions.
Some stakeholders believe that the GCEP is gleaning GOC priorities from the SFT and one stakeholder indicated that the GCEP needs to be more in the loop with PCO to enable them to better understand and communicate GOC priorities. Stakeholders also indicated that the GCEP responds to the overarching priorities of the GOC to be responsive to Canadians through face-to-face communications, to make Canadians proud of or confident in their government.
Most current clients and over half of former clients indicated the objective of their exhibits is to reach stakeholders with regional and departmental messages – only one current client indicated the objective of their exhibits is to promote one of the GOC's top five priorities
Direct observation of CP events noted that the GCEP is incorporating GOC priorities into the Canada Pavilion on a limited basis. Direct observation of FP events revealed no evidence that GOC priorities were being incorporated into the Federal Presence.
The GCEP's internal documents demonstrate that it clearly understands its role in communicating GOC priorities to Canadians. The document review found evidence that the GCEP supports government priorities by tailoring its programming to "promote and explain government priorities outlined in the Speech from the Throne." The review also found that GCEP management recognizes the need to be more strategic in its efforts to inform Canadians about the priorities of the GOC.

PWGSC Mandate and Priorities

Interviews with stakeholders from PWGSC Corporate Services, Policy and Communications Branch indicated that the common service provider aspects of the GCEP are closely aligned with the mandate and priorities of PWGSC. This includes providing common services to other government departments in a manner that supports efficient service delivery and greatest value for money to the Crown.
Interviews with stakeholders from PWGSC Corporate Services, Policy and Communications Branch indicated that the service delivery components of the GCEP that are citizen-centered are not entirely consistent with the mandate and priorities of PWGSC, which does not serve citizens directly in any of its other capacities.

Working Collaboratively

Stakeholders suggested that other communications instruments that allow federal departments to work collaboratively with each other include public announcements co-ordinated by PCO, federal-provincial events, speaking engagements by Ministers, Regional Councils of senior Public Servants, GOC advertising and the ADM-level planning committee of the Rural Exhibits Program.
All current clients and all former clients indicated that they use a wide variety of communications instruments to work collaboratively with other departments on issues of common concern, providing single-window coverage of an issue where possible.

1(b) Does the Government of Canada Exhibitions Program provide unique attributes compared to that of other public awareness initiatives of the Government of Canada?

Face-to-Face

All program personnel, all stakeholders, the majority of current clients and some former clients indicated that the unique attribute of the GCEP is that it provides an opportunity for departments and Canadians to engage in face-to-face communication.
Program personnel noted that the advantage of face-to-face communication is that it is characterized by the ability to provide information in a personalized and interactive format and higher rates of retention as compared to other communications media.
The majority of program personnel indicated that exhibitions are well targeted to Canadians who do not know what type of information that they might need to know. One program personnel indicated that the GCEP is the only government-wide public awareness initiative that provides coordination of domestic exhibitions activities for the GOC.
The document review found evidence noting that the GCEP has been the "only government-wide initiative that provides face-to-face communication with citizens" and public servants since its creation in 2000.
The literature review found that the use of event marketing remains high priority across the business spectrum because:
- It is a key strategy to build relationships with a target audience
- Customers now choose what they want and need to hear
- Events provide a friendly point of contact
- Consumer-related events now represent 25% of the exhibition industry
- Events allow clients to receive simultaneous messages in a relaxed environment
The literature review found that 76% of attendees and 87% of exhibitors rate face-to-face interaction as very or extremely important.
The literature review indicated that message penetration through exhibits is much higher than other media:
- Average Business-to-Business (B2B) visitors share their experience with a further 6 persons and will spread their opinion to 5.5 more persons
- 64% of attendees tell at least 6 other people about the event
- 50% of people who pass by a booth but do not stop still get an impression of your products and or company
- 76% of people who receive a promotional item can recall the company name for a year
The literature review found that exhibitions are effective for face-to-face interactions and for uncovering unknown needs among other attributes.

Other Attributes

Stakeholders indicated that the unique attributes of the GCEP also include person-to-person opportunities, visibility, direct contact, painting a friendly face on the GOC, demonstrating that the GOC is composed of real human beings, opportunity for Canadians to learn incidentally without having specific questions, creating a situation where government listens to Canadians.
Stakeholders also indicated that the GCEP provides a "non-political" opportunity for public servants to interact with the public, that it gives OGDs a chance to demonstrate something tangible to Canadians and that it serves as a sounding board for citizens.
Current clients also indicated that the GCEP facilitates a regional presence of the GOC, provides public relations functions related to an exhibition that do not exist in other GOC communications vehicles, provides OGDs with direct feedback from Canadians on format and content of GOC communications initiatives.
Former clients also indicated that unique attributes of the GCEP is the unified presence of the GOC at fairs and exhibitions, the provision of a centre of expertise on exhibitions, the CP instilling pride in Canadians and that the CP is seen as good value for money.
The document review also indicated that the GCEP's collocation of OGDs creates a unique opportunity for these departments to act in a unified manner as the Government of Canada. The GCEP has created a recognizable GOC presence that promotes face-to-face communication at some of the largest fairs and exhibitions across Canada through collocation of OGDs and coherent branding at Canada Pavilion events. The same result has been achieved at Federal Presence events where federal departments are grouped together at smaller fairs in a recognizable GOC space where the public can talk to and discuss issues of concern with public servants.
The document review found evidence that the GCEP provided a unique forum for regional OGD offices to work with their HQ communications colleagues to coordinate exhibition activity and to shape their departmental messages.
The Exhibitions Database provides unique attributes by linking OGDs to a variety of "Exhibitor Tips" which provides resources and best practices to help exhibitors plan and execute effective exhibits and promotions.

Vis-à-vis Service Canada

Some program personnel indicated that exhibitions are complementary to Service Canada's 1-800 toll-free number and the Canada site: exhibitions are a "push" medium whereas Service Canada is a "pull" medium, exhibitions are a way to achieve outreach whereas Service Canada focuses on inreach and exhibitions provide a wide range of information whereas Service Canada is more targeted.
One stakeholder indicated that the GCEP provides an opportunity for citizens to contact the GOC who may not be aware of other access channels to contact the GOC.
One current client indicated that the GCEP provides a complementary way of reaching Canadians, which adds to but does not replace 1-800 and the Canada site.
While the 2002 Evaluation did not address the issue of alternative communications approaches, the 2005 Evaluation found that face-to-face interaction through exhibitions was seen as beneficial and as a complement to other media, including Service Canada.

No Attributes

One current client and one former client felt that the GCEP has no unique attributes compared to other government-wide public awareness initiatives.

2(a) Are Canadians benefiting from face-to-face exchanges with public servants at CP and FP events?

Benefiting

Based on direct observation, Canadians appear to be benefiting from face-to-face exchanges with public servants at both CP and FP events.
1. The CP appeared to draw in a large number of Canadians with no specific information requirements who were genuinely intrigued by the GOC presence.
2. The FP appeared to draw in a large number of Canadians with specific information needs that were related to the purpose-drive nature of the event (in this case, a job fair) as well as the presentations of the OGDs.
3. The interactions between Canadians and public servants appeared to be extremely positive and no negative feedback was noted during the period of observation.
4. At both CP and FP events, nearly all OGDs commented on the importance for the GOC to be present to respond to the needs of Canadians.
Both the 2002 and the 2005 Evaluations found that the public is benefiting from face-to-face exchanges with public servants at GCEP events. Some of the benefits include improved access and awareness of the public of GOC information, products and services.
The document review found evidence that the GCEP worked to ensure that the OGDs at the CPs and the format of their exhibits responded to the real needs of Canadians for information on GOC services and programs.
The literature review found the advantages of trade shows include: Easy to target by audience, face-to-face contact with customers, achieve multiple objectives (i.e. branding, research, leads), can employ all senses, allows for regional variation. Disadvantages of trade shows: may only happen once a year, difficult to stand out at large shows.
The literature review found that 91% of attendees said that exhibitions were the most useful source of information when making a decision to buy.
The literature review found that the average pavilion at a fair attracts 10-15% of the fair attendees. (CP actuals are in the 60-70% range)

Other

The document review did not find any evidence that Canadians are benefiting (or not benefiting) from face-to-face exchanges with public servants at CP and FP events. Although the GCEP has a great deal of evidence stemming from exit intercept surveys, there is no other documentation to this effect.

2(b) Are OGDs participating at CP and FP events the most appropriate given the profile of expected attendees and the targeted reach?

Appropriate

Half of current clients and one former client indicated that they are trying to reach the general Canadian population first and then targeted groups
The majority of program personnel, over half of current clients and over half of former clients indicated that the attendees at CP and FP events are appropriate to the communications needs of departments.
Program personnel indicated that the CP events were an effective strategy to target the greatest number of attendees from the general public at fairs / entertainment events in urban areas.
Program personnel indicated that the FP events target specific segments of the population at industry / trade/ special-purpose events in urban or rural areas. Program personnel indicated that the GCEP has no influence over the targeting of attendees at FP events since the events are selected by the participating departments and that the GCEP can only decide whether an event will be labelled an FP.
During direct observations conducted at the CP, OGDs indicated that the attendees were appropriate since they were targeting the general public and trying to achieve the greatest possible impact in terms of the number of citizens reached.
During direct observations conducted at the FP, OGDs indicated that the attendees were appropriate since they were targeting a specific segment of the public with a specific message, both of which were defined by the nature of the event (in this case, a job fair).
The document review found evidence that the GCEP is aware of the importance of trying to match the right OGD with the right CP or FP and has considered departmental interest as one of the main elements in selecting CP venues. Although the GCEP is aware of the key issues that Canadians are especially concerned about, such as health, the economy and the environment, it is often difficult to elicit the interest of departments linked to these priorities in participating in CP or FP events. GCEP acknowledges the need for a strategy to address this problem.
The document review noted that the GCEP accords a high priority to OGD preference in the selection of events. For example, the Canadian Western Agribition has been included in the CP tour since 2002 because of "its high popularity with departments, its importance, and its targeted audience." With regard to FP events, the GCEP acknowledged that they do not have the human or financial resources to respond to 90% of the OGD requests to label certain events as FPs.
While the 2005 Evaluation did not address the issue, the 2002 Evaluation found that the GCEP reached its target audiences with timely, comprehensive and clear messages concerning GC services.

Inappropriate

Half of current clients and the majority of former clients indicated trying to reach their stakeholders first and then the general Canadian population.
Under half of current clients, some former clients and one program personnel are uncertain or do not feel that the CPs and FPs have the appropriate mix of attendees.
One program personnel indicated that the attendees at CP and FP events are not always appropriate to the communications needs of departments. The matching of the targeted attendees to the needs of departments often happened by serendipity and not due to good planning. The GCEP needs to better understand the demographics of each event as well as the reasons why departments are attending these fairs but the program currently does not have the tools or the ability to do this.
One current client indicated that the CP is not conducive to the brand recognition of individual departments since all OGDs are lumped together in one place.
One current client indicated regional offices would prefer to exhibit at events that are more specific to the subject matter of their department.
One current client indicated that CP and FP events allow them to reach Canadians on a widespread basis and that more targeted events should be undertaken by the department on its own.
One stakeholder indicated that it is important for GCEP to be more strategic and determine beforehand if GOC is going to the right events with the right objectives and expectations, and if GOC is getting good value from these events. GOC has to determine what it wants to achieve at these events. After the event, participation should be evaluated to determine if objectives were achieved and GOC obtained value for money. GCEP or someone should develop a Business Case for going to events.
One stakeholder wondered: Should the GOC participate in 'entertainment' or big mass market fairs (e.g., Calgary Stampede)? Is the presence of public servants at these fairs appropriate? These fairs might be useful for launching new GOC programs with appropriate Ministers and other VIPs present.

Central Agency Expectations of Coordination / Stewardship Role

Stakeholders have heard from some OGDs that GCEP may offer strong value added at present
Given its expertise, central agency stakeholders felt that GCEP should be playing a support or advisory role and that OGDs would benefit from this role.
Central agency stakeholders felt that GCEP should:
1. Help OGDs to better coordinate themselves at fairs and exhibits (planning, logistics, managing data, evaluating success of events).
2. Be involved in strategic coordination of federal presence as well, which includes determining which Canadians should be targeted at fairs and exhibitions, which events to participate in so as to reach the target audience, and which OGDs should be there, and ensuring compliance to the policy.
3. Advise on who should participate in fair (OGDs may not be aware of all the fairs in which they could or should participate and GCEP could advise OGDs accordingly), and look after the technical infrastructure.
4. Learn from experience with fairs and exhibitions, and share this information with OGDs.
5. Help ensure compliance to Communications Policy, in particular OLA, FIP
6. Determine ways to increase recall rate of Canadians who visit CP or FP participant OGDs, and then sharing this information with OGDs (this would involve surveying attendees).
One stakeholder suggested that the GCEP could serve as a clearinghouse for fairs on a government-wide basis if the Exhibitions Database is up to date
The 2002 and 2005 Evaluations found that there is room for improvement in the coordination and integration of events and the use of the database.

GCEP Role in Communications Policy

The document review clearly shows that the GCEP has always understood its role as being defined by the Communications Policy. The GCEP viewed "The Exhibitions Program as a cornerstone of the GOC's overall communications infrastructure and remains the government's primary instrument for achieving "face-to-face" contact with millions of Canadians in every region of the country."
The document review found evidence that the GCEP clearly saw itself as an enabler allowing OGDs to deliver a number of "strategic functions simultaneously" ranging from presenting government priorities to directly informing Canadians about departmental programs and services.
Only a few stakeholders responded to the question regarding their interpretation of PWGSC's role as a coordinating authority.
Among those who responded, consensus is that the GCEP definitely has a coordinating role for CP events and maybe for FP events however there is definitely no role for the GCEP at exhibitions that are not designated as CP or FP events.
With regard to strengthening of GCEP role and responsibilities, stakeholders do not necessarily believe that the role should be strengthened within the Communications Policy - it depends on what role the GOC expects them to play.
According to one central agency stakeholder: Given the concern that OGDs are not as rigorous in collocating as they should be, the GOC could ensure coordinated and collocated presence of OGDs through change in contracting clause, i.e., stipulating that event organizers ensure that all OGDs are co-located. If TBS does not change contracting policy, then may have to change Communications Policy to allow GCEP to ensure compliance with Communications Policy. Alternatively, the GCEP may need better tools rather than a change in Policy.
The same stakeholder indicated that it would useful for the GOC to have a centre of information and analysis for reporting – what are the activities? – What is the GOC up to? – GOC could get a big picture view of what it is doing in exhibitions. Would not change policy to stipulate that OGDs must go through GCEP to ensure coordination of events – only do this if there is a problem – not sure that there is a compliance issue – also, the Public Opinion Research (POR) and Advertising Coordination model may not be the best model for ensuring compliance. Compliance / enforcement role for GCEP may be considered but only if there is need for increased compliance as this could create problems with OGDs. Policy should be more flexible. Would like criteria to determine which fairs GOC should participate in and in which OGDs should participate. Policy should recognize GCEP as a Centre of Excellence, with less concern about approving OGD exhibition plans.

Exhibition Plans

All program personnel indicated that some but not all departments are submitting a list of events which they plan to attend to the GCEP but they are unable to assess rate of compliance.
Most current clients and some former clients indicated that they submit or occasionally submit their exhibition plans to GCEP.
Some current clients and half of former clients indicated that they never submit their exhibition plans to GCEP.
Some former clients indicated that they are agencies and do not have to report their exhibitions plans to the GCEP.
One current client indicated that they register the CP events they plan to attend but not the FP events they will be attending.
One former client does not know whether the department submits an exhibition plan to the GCEP.
The majority of program personnel indicated that the GCEP issues a quarterly call letter to remind departments of the policy requirement to submit their exhibitions plans to the program.
Some program personnel indicated that the exhibitions plan is not an excerpt from the departmental communications plan but is in fact a list of events which they plan to attend.
Some program personnel indicated that most departments are characterized by little coordination between the communication branch and 1) program managers and 2) regional offices.
One program personnel indicated that there does not appear to be a communications plan for the GOC from which departments and programs could align their exhibitions activities.
Stakeholders indicated that the GCEP should be more proactive and aggressive in meeting with OGDs at the appropriate level and explaining why the exhibition plans are required, and explaining that fairs should be part of their planning cycle. The GCEP could set up a network of OGD contacts, as does Service Canada to manage the exchange of information.
Stakeholders indicated that the GCEP should try to understand the reasons why OGDs do not comply with the requirement to submit an exhibitions plan and identify how they could work better together; fair planning may be dispersed within some OGDs (i.e., with programs and regions rather than with corporate Communications) and staff may simply not be aware of their obligations.
One stakeholder indicated that the GCEP has to offer "strategic leadership with respect to fairs and exhibitions in order to inspire OGDs to comply with this requirement." If the GCEP does not seem concerned about receiving exhibition plans, then OGDs will not have the inspiration to comply.
One stakeholder indicated that the GCEP being part of PWGSC may also be a factor in the unwillingness of OGDs to comply with this requirement.
Stakeholders indicated that the GCEP may want to consider consulting more with OGDs in the selection of venues.
One stakeholder noted that the GCEP used to have an interdepartmental committee on fairs and exhibitions but it did not work out.
One stakeholder noted that the Rural Exhibits Program has instituted a new interdepartmental committee on fairs and exhibitions and that it is working quite well.

Exhibitions Database - Planning

The database review found that, for planning purposes, the Exhibitions Database provides a list of approximately 3,000 events annually occurring in Canada with their location, approximate date and sometimes a contact person. The Exhibitions Database also provides a description of proposed CP events for that year including the previous year's gate attendance and CP attendance rates, as well as the target audience for each event.
Most stakeholders, some current clients and some former clients were not aware that the Exhibitions Database exists.
Some program personnel indicated that departments are using the Exhibitions Database to determine which events they will attend.
Most current clients and the majority of former clients indicated that they are not using the database to determine which events they should attend.
One current client indicated that the Exhibitions Database is difficult to use and that the events the OGD wished to attend were not listed on the database.
One current client indicated that GCEP should take the lead in educating OGDs on the advantages of using the database.
One program personnel indicated that departments are using the Exhibitions Database to determine which events they will attend for the CP only but not for other events.

Exhibitions Database - Reporting

Most program personnel indicated that departments are not using the Exhibitions Database to determine which events they actually attended while some do not know if departments are using the Exhibitions Database to determine which events they actually attended.
Half of current clients and most former clients indicated that they do not use the database to record the events they attend.
One current client indicated that, given everything else that is required of them, there is simply not enough time to bother entering the information.
One current client indicated that the database is so poorly developed that the department does not waste time adding information to it especially since the department can't see the use of the database and receives no feedback from GCEP.
One program personnel indicated that the Exhibitions Database has been designed to capture the intentions of departments to attend certain events such that they and the GCEP may identify opportunities for collocation.
One program personnel indicated that Exhibitions Database is not structured to record which events were attended by departments – it was not designed with this reporting functionality in mind.

Exhibitions Database – Suggested Improvements

Most program personnel and half of current client indicated that the Exhibitions Database could be made easier to use / user-friendly (i.e. improved search engine).
Some program personnel and one current client indicated that the Exhibitions Database could offer improved functionality for reporting on the events that were attended by departments.
Some program personnel indicated that the Exhibitions Database could provide detailed information on:
1. Event objectives (i.e. theme, demographics, GOC priorities, etc.).
2. The cost of events that were attended by OGDs.
3. The benefits (# visitors, impact, etc.) of events that were attended by OGDs.
One program personnel indicated that the Exhibitions Database could provide detailed information on departmental communication objectives (i.e. theme, demographics, GOC priorities, etc.).
One program personnel indicated that they do not know how the Exhibitions Database could be improved.
One program personnel indicated that it is difficult to recommend changes to the Exhibitions Database without clarity of the GCEP mandate – it would serve different purposes depending on whether the expected role of the GCEP is service-oriented or stewardship-oriented.
One stakeholder is aware of it but has not reviewed it. He hopes that it is more than just a list of events and dates; would like to see contact information, cost of participation, hospitality information, thematic information (i.e., OGD's interest in being there, is it the right forum for communicating the messages, are the OGDs presenting common messages).
One current client indicated that the database is satisfactory for the purpose that it is intended.
One current client indicated that their department is developing an in-house database with expanded capacity to serve as the department's exhibition and event monitoring tool.
One current client indicated that the database in its current form is of no use to OGDs but that with modifications and feedback it could be useful and that the information in the database did not allow for strategic analyses.

Appropriate

The majority of program personnel and some current clients indicated that the CP events have an appropriate mix of urban and rural locations.
Some program personnel indicated the FP events have an appropriate mix of urban and rural locations.
One program personnel and one former client indicated that the urban / rural mix is appropriate given the current budget but that an increased number of rural events would be beneficial if more funding were available.
One program personnel and one former client indicated that that it was the responsibility of the Rural Exhibits Program to be present in rural areas and that the GCEP events are complementary.
One program personnel indicated that the selection of events is governed by the criterion to reach 5% of every province's population and that this constrains the GCEP from going to too many rural events.
One current client stated that their attendance at large CPs depends on the existence of GCEP because the CP means they are not a small booth lost in the crowd, whereas they can easily attend small rural fairs on their own.
The document review found that the GCEP has consistently endeavoured to select large-scale fairs and exhibitions which maximize the exposure of the largest numbers of Canadians to GOC messages and OGD programs and services.
The document review found evidence that the GCEP has made several efforts to review the event selection criteria of the Rural Exhibits Program for the appropriateness of audience and the urban / rural mix but did not receive cooperation from the program.
The document review found that the GCEP attempted to target some of the CPs and FPs to medium-sized events as a way of extending their reach to Canadians. In a 2004 strategy document for GCEP, the director noted that the program could move from the format of 10 large (3,000 square feet) CPs to 40 smaller (400 square feet) CPs, which would allow GCEP to attend a much greater range of smaller fairs and exhibitions in all regions.
While the 2005 Evaluation did not address the issue, the 2002 Evaluation found that the level of financial and human resources restricted the program's ability to maximize the exposure of the public to GOC priorities, programs and services, especially for rural events.
The Exhibitions Database links users to the criteria used by the GCEP in selecting an event. These criteria include events where three or more departments are taking part, that offer significant opportunities for promoting GOC programs and services and the ways of accessing them, events that offer a fair balance between rural and urban events, events in regions not served by the Canada Pavilion, events with a target audience that differs from that of the Canada Pavilion, events related to GOC themes and priorities, events that attract a significant number of Canadians and strategic events for the Government of Canada.

Inappropriate

The majority of current clients, under half of former clients and one program personnel indicated that neither the CP nor the FP events have an appropriate mix of urban and rural locations and that the GCEP should make a greater effort to reach rural audiences.
One current client stated that it would be ideal to have the 10 large CPs with an additional 20 smaller CPs to serve the smaller areas but that this would require program funding of at least $10M.
One current client noted that their department should be doing more rural events but that distances and staffing are constraints.

2(e) Do the CP and FP events contribute to unified presence and common look and feel?

Based on direct observation, there is strong visual evidence that the CP events contribute to a unified presence and common look and feel for the GOC.
Based on direct observation, there is strong evidence that the FP events contribute to a unified presence for the GOC, however, significant enhancements could be made to improve the common look and feel at FP events.
The document review found evidence that the GCEP understands that increased impact and coherence is achieved by collocating federal departments at a fair or exhibition under one large readily-recognizable GOC presence. By developing GOC branded exhibition materials, the GCEP ensured that exhibiting departments were compliant with the Official Languages Act and the Federal Identity Program.

3(a) Are the formats used by the CP and FP considered effective in providing increased accessibility to the public?

Effective

The majority of program personnel, most current clients and the majority of former clients indicated that the CP events employ an effective format in terms of respecting best practices in design and delivery.
Most program personnel, most current clients and the majority of former clients indicated that the FP events employ an effective format in terms of respecting best practices in design and delivery.
Some current clients indicated that they like the CP design since it allows the public to visit a large number of OGDs within a one-stop shop.
One current client stated that the format of the CP and FP events is very effective in allowing for the delivery of messages and offers Canadians a chance to meet with public servants.
One former client indicated that the GCEP provides a great benefit to smaller departments by providing them with the opportunity to attend large fairs or exhibitions that they could not otherwise afford.
One former client indicated that the CP is an excellent vehicle for getting out their message and that the experience of working with GCEP was positive.
Based on direct observation, the formats used by both the CP and the FP were very effective in providing increased accessibility to the public. It was observed that the collocation of OGDs significantly increased the presence and visibility of the GOC presence at both CP and FP events. The enhanced presence of the GOC likely contributed to the high volume of foot traffic and therefore increased reach.
The document review found evidence that the format of the CP and FP allows federal public servants face-to-face contact with the Canadian public to determine the top-of-mind or immediate concerns of citizens vis-à-vis the federal government. This has provided federal departments the opportunity to make information on these issues or questions directly available to the attendees at the fairs and exhibitions.
The document review found substantial evidence that GCEP's exhibition format is clearly operating within the much larger exhibition industry's best practices. In a 2002 review of GCEP, it was noted that GCEP's format was successful in reaching large numbers of Canadians with current and timely messages.
The document review found evidence that the GCEP was aware of industry best practices in the exhibitions field and brought those practices to bear on its exhibition activities.
The literature review uncovered extensive documentation on the value of exhibitions and best practices, although available information is almost exclusively geared to the Business to Business (B2B) sector.
The industry is undergoing a move from transactional to value-based marketing in which quality of engagement vs. quantity of transactions - B2B marketers still view in-person events as the best way to build brands and generate leads.
89% of US corporations include event marketing or trade shows and it averages 22% of their marketing communications budget
The literature review found that there is a growing trend in the use of pavilions by all businesses and they all provide a common look and feel for the pavilion. Pavilion partners collocate because on their own they would often be lost on the large exhibition floor and the size of the pavilion means it will attract more traffic.
The literature review found that 3/3 governments and 4/4 business interviewed use the pavilion format for their national and international exhibits. The results of these interviews indicate that:
1. Consumer shows are popular
2. Exhibits allow government and business to take the products, services and messages to a targeted audience
3. Large pavilion size attracts greater visitor traffic
4. Pavilion organizers control the branding and pavilion infrastructure
5. Pavilions result in economies-of-scale ( negotiation for bulk space, pavilion infrastructure etc)
6. Exhibit partners incur lower costs – approximately 25 – 30% lower than if they attended on their own
7. Added value comes from increased profile on the show floor
The literature offers several examples of pavilion formats being effectively used by governments and industry:
1. Australian Trade organizes 100 pavilions per year between 1800-7200 sq ft. and provides partners with consistent look and feel. Partners save 10-15% and the pavilion attract 20% of the audience
2. UK's Central Office of Communication collocates exhibits at conferences to create visibility and presence of government solutions
3. Canadian Tourism Commission hosts 12 pavilions per year of 150 sq. m., and provide common look and feel and media relations. CTC notes that the pavilion's large size is important for attracting consumer audiences. Key benefit to partners is impact - on their own they would be lost in a sea of booths
4. IBM uses 30% pavilions (small 200-400 sq. ft.), 70% stand-alone booths. The reason partners join is co-branding, and partners save 50% in a pavilion
5. Taylor Group provides clients with coordinated pavilion exhibits, averaging 2000 sq. ft. Partners join because of better location, cost savings (34-40% over a single booth), and more exposure. Taylor notes a growing trend for pavilions across industries
6. HP holds 2 pavilions per year, of 1200 sq. ft.. Consistent branding is very important, and the turnkey operation results in a minimal charge to participants
7. Bell has a huge pavilion at the Calgary Stampede, with a common look and feel. They provide an umbrella and make decisions. 5-6 business partners share the pavilion. IBM believes the large pavilion equals experience impact
8. Expographiq organizes a pavilion of 400-600 sq. ft. for an unnamed pharmaceutical company, 3 to 4 times per year. There are 4 to 6 partners. It is a turnkey operation. The main motivation is branding. They achieve 10-15% savings from co-location
The literature review found that despite the emergence of the Internet, exhibits continue to be one of the most important marketing tactics; the core value of an exhibit is the ability to meet existing or new customers face-to-face; at consumer events, size matters; organizations exhibit to increase brand/product awareness and visibility and to generate new leads through two-way dialogue; they collocate to capitalize on size attraction, branding attraction, lead potential and cost/time/savings; ROO emerging as standard for exhibit measurement.
The 2002 and 2005 Evaluations both found that the formats used by the GCEP were effective in providing increased accessibility to the public. In particular, the 2005 Evaluation found that the professional and positive environment of the exhibits encouraged public participation.

Ineffective

Some current clients and one former client indicated that the CP events do not employ an effective format in terms of respecting best practices in design and delivery.
Some current clients, one former client and one program personnel indicated that the FP events do not employ an effective format in terms of respecting best practices in design and delivery.
One program personnel and one former client indicated that they did not know if the CP or FP events employ an effective format in terms of respecting best practices in design and delivery.
Some current clients indicated that exhibitions are often planned and implemented at the last minute and that there is no strategic approach in the use of the CP.
Some current clients indicated that the collocation is not effective for them when they are trying to deliver a topic-specific message or trying to reach a specific audience – departments need to be more clearly identified in a collocated space so as not to appear lost in the crowd of departments.
One former client indicated that the message of the CP is too broad for a specific target audience.

Suggestions

One program personnel indicated that the format of the CP is appropriate to the current budget but that additional funding would allow them to plan a calendar one year in advance and ensure that the CP rotates through different urban areas in a given province on a multi-year basis.
One program personnel indicated that it is difficult to assess the effectiveness of the CP and FP events without understanding the communications strategy of the GOC – the GCEP needs to be closely attuned to the communications priorities of PCO to determine what their targets are and if the program is achieving them.
One program personnel indicated that the CP and FP may not be the only formats for achieving the GCEP's objectives – a "mini-CP" would be useful for smaller events in mid-sized urban centres – a low-cost 10x10 pop-up would be useful for very small events in rural areas (similar to what is being done by the Rural Exhibits Program).
One program personnel indicated that "thematic FPs" or "initiated FPs" could be developed in conjunction with a small group of departments with similar exhibition objectives – the GCEP could help them to plan and implement a small-scale presence at multiple shows that are determined by thematic objectives and/or linked to GOC priorities (i.e. health, crime, etc.).

3(b) What is the optimal budget required to maximize cost-efficiency and ROI, i.e., cost per reach?

The majority of current clients and the majority of former clients indicate that they track the costs of participating in CP and FP events.
One former client indicated that while the costs associated with CPs are known, the cost of the rest of the department's exhibition spending is unknown.
The majority of program personnel, one stakeholder, one current client and one former client indicated that the cost per visitor / cost per reach can be used to determine if an exhibition was worthwhile in relation to the total cost - one stakeholder suggested that an ROI benchmark be set for the average cost per potential attendee and use this as the basis of measuring the success of an event.
Some program personnel indicated that the total reach as a proportion of provincial population (target 5%) can be used to determine if an exhibition was worthwhile in relation to the total cost.
Some program personnel, one stakeholder, one current client and some former clients indicated that exit intercept surveys and OGD satisfaction surveys can be used to determine if an exhibition was worthwhile in relation to the total cost.
One program personnel indicated that the repeat presence of the same departments at events can be used to determine if an exhibition was worthwhile in relation to the total cost.
One program personnel and one former client indicated that they did not know how the GCEP can determine if an exhibition was worthwhile in relation to the total cost.
Some program personnel and one current client indicated that cost or cost per reach should not be the only factor to determine if an event was successful or not since there are a large number of qualitative factors that allow them to determine if an event was successful such as: commitment to hold at least one CP event per province, preference of departments as to which events to attend, high traffic / visibility location within the exhibition, timing of the event (date and length) and prior experience at a given event (positive or negative).
One stakeholder, one current client and some former clients suggested the use of Return on Objectives (ROO) to measure the success of an event against pre-defined objectives.
Some current clients indicated that they look at ROI and ROO but they are not the determining factors for their attendance at exhibitions.
One stakeholder and one current client indicated that pre/post surveying of visitors could be done to measure the success of an event.
Some current clients indicate that they use the number of brochures handed out and the number of visitors to the booth to determine if it is worthwhile to attend the exhibition.
One current client indicated that they are developing a tool to track the costs of exhibitions and other quantitative indicators but would like some help from the GCEP in developing it.
Some current clients and one former client indicate that their departments do not currently use any measurement standard to determine if their presence at exhibitions is worthwhile.
One stakeholder suggested that measures might include the appropriateness of an event, the theme of an event, increase in traffic to Canada site or to 1-800-O-Canada (if Service Canada does track this kind of information).
The document review found evidence that the GCEP ran over its annual budget of $5M each year during the three years of stable operational funding 2000–2003. In the 2004 Program Renewal document, the director stated that the optimal budget for GCEP to deliver on the department's expected national exhibition program was $6.7M. This determination was based on the 2002-2003 program year when the "best results in terms of cost per reach per thousand visitors reached were achieved…while total expenditures reached $6.6 million." During this year of stable funding, when GCEP was able to maximize the cost benefits of pre-planning, the program was able to reduce its cost per reach per person from $0.83 to $0.42 per person.
The document review also revealed that an insufficient budget and the lack of stable funding in recent years have prevented the program from negotiating better square foot rental rates with fair organizers, which is usually done a year in advance of a fair or exhibition.
Neither the 2002 nor the 2005 Evaluation was able to determine if the program is cost-effective. However, the 2002 Evaluation found that the cost per thousand visitors of the program dropped dramatically from $8,300 to $4,234 between 2000 and 2005. The 2005 Evaluation found that the program was demonstrating cost-effective behaviours and that felt the GCEP has saved them money, although overall Crown savings are uncertain.
The literature review found that there is limited public information on measuring exhibit ROI and other performance management processes due to the propriety nature of the information.
Marketing performance measurement is still in its infancy across all sectors - industry cross-analysis of various marketing mediums is virtually non-existent at a quantitative level - web-based and trade show measurement is more advanced than other media.
The literature review found that the following metrics are employed by companies to measure the effectiveness of their B2B trade shows:
1. Number of leads obtained at event
2. Number of visitors to booth
3. Number of press mentions
4. Number of website hits
5. Number of brochures distributed
Global success criteria for events were listed as:
1. Increase brand preference
2. Enhance customer relationship
3. Increase brand awareness
4. Increase product knowledge
5. Generate qualified leads
6. Gain competitive intelligence
7. Acquire new accounts
The literature review found that the overall trend in marketing performance measurement is to focus on Return on Objectives (ROO) over Return on Investment (ROI).
Since it is impossible to measure ROI in the absence of an expected revenue, ROO allows one to measure whether you met or exceeded your pre-event objectives
Specific and measurable communications objectives include:
1. Convey messages
2. Build awareness
3. Enhance brand or image
4. Introduce new products
5. Generate public relations

3(c) Does the GOC achieve increased cost savings and/or impacts through a centralized coordination function?

Increased Impacts

All program personnel, most current clients and some former clients indicated that both the CP and FP events enable departments to achieve increased impacts compared to events where departments are not collocated.
Program personnel indicated that the increased impacts of the program include increased GOC presence due to a larger exhibit size, increased traffic and visibility due to the collocation of departments, increased coherence of messaging due to a common look and feel, increased ability to cross-promote other departments within the same exhibit and improved back-up capacity for on-site staff of departments.
Program personnel indicated that departments are not measuring the extent to which these impacts are being achieved at events nor is the program able to measure or quantify the increased impacts.
Some current clients and some former clients are uncertain or indicated that the CP and FP events do not enable departments to achieve increased impacts compared to events where departments are not collocated.
Over half of former clients indicated that the question of collocation does not apply to their department.
One current client indicated that they achieve better results when they are not collocated in a CP but are with other OGDs who share a similar theme.
The financial analysis determined the average event reach (number of visitors to the CP divided by total attendees at the exhibition) of the Canada Pavilion is 17.0% based on historical data between 2000-2001 and 2005-2006. This is 2.0% greater than the generally accepted industry benchmark of 15.0% identified in the literature review. There is insufficient data to determine the average event reach of the Federal Presence events in relation to the industry benchmark.

Cost Savings

Some program personnel and some former clients indicated that both the CP and FP events enable departments to achieve cost savings compared to events where departments are not collocated.
Program personnel indicated that the cost savings generated by the program include bulk buying of exhibitions space (square footage) and sharing of costs for shipping, drayage, signage, other logistics.
Some program personnel and half of current clients indicated that the CP events enable departments to achieve cost savings mainly because the GCEP is subsidizing a significant portion of the overall costs.
Some program personnel and some current clients indicated that they do not know if the CP and FP events enable departments to achieve cost savings compared to events where departments are not collocated.
Some current clients and some former clients have no information on whether or not it is cheaper or more expensive to be collocated.
One program personnel indicated that the CP events are more costly compared to events where departments are not collocated due to the increased square footage per OGD, however, the increased square footage is justified by the format of the CP for achieving increased impact.
Program personnel indicated that the GCEP is not collecting the information required to determine if significant cost savings are being achieved for the Crown because departments are not able to provide the GCEP with their costs for exhibition-related activities.
The document review noted that in 2004 GCEP estimated that its centralized approach to exhibitions saved OGDs who partook in the CP program, $2M. One of the OGDs estimated that it saved 2/3 of the costs of attending a major fair by attending under the CP banner.
The document review indicates that the GCEP also achieved cost savings through the use of low-cost standing offers in place for the stand-alone exhibition components that form the CPs and FPs.
The document review noted that the potential cost savings are reflected in the rental price per square foot that GCEP is able to obtain from fair organizers. Fair organizers know that GCEP requires a very large space to set up its CP and that GCEP expects the CP will then be in a prime location to maximize the number of visitors. If the GCEP is able to negotiate for space a year in advance of the actual fair or exhibition, this cost is significantly reduced. This has the further benefit of lowering the overall cost per reach because prime location in a fair or exhibition hall generally results in more visitors.
The document review indicated that the GCEP was able to reduce the overall costs of organizing an FP event from $40,000 per event to $8,100 per event during the period 2001-2005.
The literature review found evidence that pavilions provide economies of scale because the pavilion organizer negotiates bulks space/ show services; partners achieve decreased costs by being in pavilion rather than on their own; and most added value comes from increased profile on the show floor and the added promotion. An analysis of costs for stand-alone exhibits vs. being in a pavilion showed that partners saved 42% on costs by being in the pavilion.
The literature review indicated that the average cost savings achieved through the use of a pavilion format is 25-30% for the pavilion. Assuming GCEP is able to negotiate with fair organizers well in advance, industry finding indicate that GCEP should be able to achieve savings on 75% of the costs related to the exhibition, which is space rental, show services, exhibition design and production and exhibit freight and shipping.
The 2002 Evaluation did not address the issue of cost savings and the 2005 Evaluation was unable to determine if the program resulted in cost-savings. However, other government departments believed that the program was cost effective for them.
The financial analysis determined that the average cost per visitor of the Canada Pavilion events is $4.32 based on historical data between 2000-2001 and 2005-2006. This is $15.68 less than the generally accepted industry benchmark of $20.00 identified in the literature review. There is insufficient data to determine the average cost per visitor of Federal Presence events in relation to the industry benchmark.

3(d) Are there alternatives that might achieve the outcomes in a more cost-efficient manner?

Cost-Efficient Ways to Achieve Same Outcomes

The majority of program personnel, most current clients and most former clients indicated that there are no more cost-efficient ways that departments could have achieved the same outcomes as achieved through CP or FP events.
Some current clients and one former client indicated that the CPs and FPs provide a much greater impact for the money spent by GCEP and OGDs would not be able to achieve this impact on their own.
Some current clients and some former clients indicated that it is more cost-efficient for them to go to fairs and exhibitions on their own.
Some current clients indicated that when they organized their own presence at fairs without GCEP the costs were definitely higher.
One program personnel indicated that there are no more cost-efficient ways that departments could have achieved the same outcomes as achieved through the CP but that the FP outcomes could likely be achieved by departments by themselves.
One program personnel indicated that the service delivery outcomes could not be achieved since exhibitions is simply one component of a layered approach to GOC communications
One program personnel indicated that the stewardship / coordination outcomes could not be achieved in a more affordable manner than provided by the GCEP.
One stakeholder believed that fairs and exhibitions are more expensive per person reached than other media, including television, publications and the Internet.
One stakeholder indicated that it may be cheaper and more effective to put a clause in contracts with fair organizers requiring fair organizers to ensure that OGDs collocate.
One stakeholder indicated that Service Canada is working on a ""virtual agent"" that could be more cost-efficient (videoconferencing kiosk).
One stakeholder indicated that the GCEP does provide an affordable vehicle for OGDs
One former client stated that they were 100% behind GCEP as it shows the GOC working together.

If the GCEP No Longer Existed

The majority of program personnel, half of current clients and most former clients indicated that departments would participate less or not at all in CP events if the GCEP no longer existed.
Most program personnel, most current clients and most former clients indicated that departments would continue to participate in FP events if the GCEP no longer existed.
One stakeholder believes that some smaller OGDs may no longer participate in certain fairs if GCEP was not there to organize CP or lend support to FP.
Program personnel indicated that departments would be more likely to continue participating at FP events since they were the ones deciding to go there, not the GCEP.
Program personnel indicated that departments would be less likely to continue participating at CP events since they would not have the means to do so and since their presence would be insignificant in the absence of collocation with other departments.
One current client indicated that there is no control on exhibitions in the department and if GCEP disappears there will be no control on exhibitions in the GOC and as a result GCEP has a role to play in coordinating the GOC messaging at fairs and exhibitions.

Other Findings (not directly related to evaluation questions)

Lack of Coordinated Communications

The majority of current clients and half of former clients indicated that exhibitions are highly decentralized within their departments
Most current clients and half of former clients do not know the number and the associated cost of the exhibitions that their department takes part in each year
Some current clients and one former client are in the process of centralizing the exhibition function in the HQ communications Branch
Current clients indicated that knowledge of departmental exhibition activity is very limited as the function is not currently centralized in HQ. The result is HQ sectors or branches and regions are often unaware of each others plans to attend the same event and consistent departmental messaging is not currently possible

Reasons why Former Clients Quit

Half of former clients indicated that budget cuts had ended their exhibition activity and participation with the GCEP.
Most former clients indicated that they would use the GCEP's services in the future.
The majority of former clients indicated that there are clear advantages to undertaking exhibitions with GCEP's involvement.

Problems of Financial Instability

Most program personnel, some stakeholders and one current client indicated that the lack of funding / financial sustainability of the GCEP has significantly inhibited the program from engaging in short and medium range planning.
One stakeholder indicated the need for stable funding so that the GCEP can book fairs far enough in advance to guarantee a good spot as well as a competitive price. Without guaranteed timely funding, it is difficult to book in advance and obtain discount.
One stakeholder indicated that guaranteed funding for GCEP for several years would help the Procurement Directorate negotiate a better price for the Canada Pavilion.

Increased Outreach / Interdepartmental Linkages

Most program personnel indicated the need for increased outreach to departments and fair organizers to increase awareness of Communications Policy requirements and the expertise provided by the GCEP.
Some program personnel indicated the need for increased input from departments to inform the selection of the most appropriate events given the messages they are trying to convey.
Some program personnel and some stakeholders indicated the need for increased coordination with PCO and central agencies responsible for promoting the communications objectives of the GOC.
Some stakeholders indicated that the DGs of Communications should be engaged by GCEP on a regular basis. These DGs meet regularly for the Rural Exhibits Program, but GCEP is not part of the committee.
One stakeholder suggested that the GCEP should link up with Service Canada.

Improved Stewardship

Some program personnel, some current clients and some former clients indicated the need to reinforce the coordination / stewardship role of the program, possibly by strengthening its authorities in the Communications Policy.

Improved Centre of Expertise

Some program personnel and over half of current clients and half of former clients indicated the need to enhance the GCEP's role as a centre of expertise to help departments learn and apply best practices in exhibitions management.

Other Exhibitions Industry Data

According to Marketing Magazine (June 2006) $166 billion was spent on exhibitions in North America in 2004
According to Forrester Research, exhibitions accounted for 15% of the marketing spend across all media for US companies in 2005
According to the Center of Exhibition Industry Research (CEIR), 89% of US corporations included event marketing in their marketing mix in 2001
According to a survey of 1,322 US companies conducted by CEIR, 47% of respondents felt that event marketing provides the greatest return on investment compared to all other media
According to Tradeshow Week Magazine, an estimated 15,000 exhibitions are held worldwide on an annual basis
According to the Center of Exhibition Industry Research, 91% of attendees said that exhibitions were the most useful source of information when making a decision to buy.

Top of Page

Appendix G: Analysis of Financial / Event Data

Appendix G Tables (View detailed tables by clicking on link)

Top of Page

Footnotes

^[1] PWGSC – GCEP Exhibition Literature and Industry Review and Analysis, Colterman Marketing Group, October 3, 2006.

^[2] Marketing Magazine, A Sense for Marketing, Karl Moore, June 2006.

^[3] Study of 867 US B2B Marketers, Forrester Consulting Services Research, December 2005.

^[4] Study of 1,322 Contacts with US Companies Having Sales in Excess of $500 Million, Center for Exhibition Industry Research, 2001.

^[5] Executive Outlook Corporate Surveys, Forrester Research on behalf of Tradeshow Week Magazine, 2004-2006.

^[6] Center for Exhibition Industry Research.

^[7] Techniques for Measuring the Pubic Relations Impact on Your Exhibit Program, Jane Lorimer, Center for Exhibition Industry research.

^[8] Marketing Sherpa, February 2006.

^[9] Measuring and reporting on Soft Outcomes, Treasury Board of Canada, Secretariat, November 2003.

^[10] Survey of 230 exhibitors with an Average Budget Greater than $1 Million, Tradeshow Week Magazine, June-July 2006.

^[11] Study by Exhibit Surveys Inc. as published by the Center for Exhibition Industry Research, PWGSC - GCEP Exhibition Literature and Industry Review and Analysis, Colterman Marketing Group, October 3, 2006.

^[12] Best Practice Estimate for Average Cost of Pavilion Format Provided by The Taylor Group, PWGSC - GCEP Exhibition Literature and Industry Review and Analysis, Colterman Marketing Group, October 3, 2006.

^[13] Study by Exhibit Surveys Inc. as published by the Center for Exhibition Industry Research.

^[14] Study by Exhibit Surveys Inc. as published by the Center for Exhibition Industry Research, PWGSC - GCEP Exhibition Literature and Industry Review and Analysis, Colterman Marketing Group, October 3, 2006.

^[15] Best Practice Estimate for Average Cost of Pavilion Format Provided by The Taylor Group, PWGSC - GCEP Exhibition Literature and Industry Review and Analysis, Colterman Marketing Group, October 3, 2006.

Common menu bar links

Institutional links

PWGSC Services

Office of Audit and Evaluation

OAE Resources

Proactive Disclosure

2006-604 Summative Evaluation of the Government of Canada Exhibitions Program (GCEP), Final Report

December 8, 2006

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

Authority

Objective

Scope

Background

Methodology

Key Findings

Conclusions

Recommendations

1 Introduction

1.1 Overview

1.2 Objective and Scope

2 Background

2.1 Overview

2.2 Evolution

2.3 Current

2.3.1 Managing Canada Pavilion (CP) Events

2.3.2 Managing Federal Presence (FP) Events

2.3.3 Coordination and Planning of Exhibitions

3 Evaluation Methodology

3.1 Document Review and Data Analysis

3.2 Consultations and Direct Observations

3.3 Limitations of the Methodology

4 Evaluation Issues

4.1 Relevance

4.2 Success

4.3 Cost-Effectiveness

5 Key Findings

5.1 Relevance

5.1.1 The GCEP is Consistent with GOC Priorities Despite the Lack of Coordinated Planning Amongst GOC Communicators at All Levels

5.1.2 Exhibitions Are a Key Communications Channel Whose Unique Attribute is Face-to-Face Communications

5.1.3 The GCEP and Service Canada are Complementary Channels that Address the Information Needs of Different Types of Canadians

5.2 Success

5.2.1 The GCEP Successfully Achieves All Intended Service Delivery Outcomes

5.2.2 The GCEP Does Not Successfully Achieve Stewardship Outcomes Related to the Exhibitions Database

5.3 Cost-Effectiveness

5.3.1 The GCEP Achieves ROI Exceeding Industry Norms and is Well Positioned to Report on Return on Objectives

5.3.2 Financial Instability has Adversely Impacted the GCEP's Cost-Effectiveness

6 Conclusions

6.1 Relevance

6.2 Success

6.3 Cost-Effectiveness

7 Recommendations

Appendix A: Government of Canada Exhibitions Program Logic Model

Appendix B: Evaluation Matrix

A. Evaluation Issue

A.1 Evaluation Question

A.2 Evaluation Question

B. Evaluation Issue

B.1 Evaluation Question

B.2 Evaluation Question

B.3 Evaluation Question

B.4 Evaluation Question

B.5 Evaluation Question

C. Evaluation Issue

C.1 Evaluation Question

C.2 Evaluation Question

C.3 Evaluation Question

C.4 Evaluation Question

Appendix C: Lines of Evidence

Appendix D: Principal Documents Consulted

Appendix E: Individuals Consulted

Appendix F: Summary of Findings by Evaluation Question

Appendix G: Analysis of Financial / Event Data

Footnotes