Tradeshow Terminology: Tearing Down the Tower of Babel

By Gary Tufel -- Tradeshow Week, 6/13/2005

Quick, what do you call an exhibitor's tradeshow display? If you said booth, you'd be right — at least in North America. But in most other countries, it's a stand. And that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to understanding tradeshow terminologies as you move from one country to the next.

Because exhibition anomalies can cause confusion, several organizations are working to standardize these terms. However, at least two of the efforts are at odds, and in some cases, communication between them is nonexistent. But in all cases standards would be voluntary, and there's a wide range of terms being defined, right down to attendee and exhibitor.

One major player, the Intl. Organization for Standardization, is developing standards for a wide range of industries based on proposals from member organizations in various countries. Its exhibition standards proposal is based on one from Singapore's national standards authority, SPRING Singapore, the Standards, Productivity and Innovation Board.

Singapore's efforts to standardize exhibition terms started in 1998 when, with the local exhibition industry behind it, SPRING Singapore proposed to ISO that it take the lead in developing a new standard on exhibition terminology, said Roger Frost, ISO press and communication manager.

However, UFI, the Global Assn. of the Exhibition Industry, opposes ISO's use of the Singapore standard. UFI Managing Director Vincent Gerard said Singapore's standards are overly broad, designed for the meetings, incentive, convention and events (MICE) market, while UFI's are more focused on congresses (better known in the United States as conventions) and exhibitions.

UFI sees the need for the universal use of some terms in the exhibition industry, Gerard said, but there are important differences between UFI's and Singapore's documents. "We told ISO that we want to be part of the process, but it would be difficult if our members didn't approve," he said. "ISO needs us, and we want them to work from our document."

Frost said ISO is using the Singapore standard as a model because of the city's extensive exhibition industry. ISO's technical management board accepted Singapore's proposal in February. Stephen Tan, chief executive of Singapore Exhibition Services, will lead a working group, comprised of representatives from several countries.

Meanwhile, Gerard said he hadn't heard of the U.S.-based Convention Industry Council's Accepted Practices Exchange (APEX) standardization initiative, in the works for years. CIC Vice President Juli Finnell Jones wasn't aware of UFI's initiative either.

However, Jones is familiar with the ISO plan, which she noted is in line with APEX and includes U.S. exhibition industry terms. Jones added that she has been in contact with the Consumer Electronics Assn., which is working with ISO.

The CEA's Megan Hayes, manager for technology and standards, and Meghan Henning, senior manager of communications, held a conference call in May with some of its U.S. exhibitors from Intl. CESto develop standard terminologies.

CEA contributed information to ISO's U.S. member, the American Natl. Standards Institute. Because CEA has a technology and standards group, the association has offered to administer U.S. participation.

Jones said ISO standardization could take as long as five years.