Research that extend beyond the show floor. This shift is reflected in the changing revenue structures of leading companies, with service-related income streams rising in recent years while space rental revenues have declined. Still, floor space sales continue to represent the core driver of event turnover.
Moving forward, it will be interesting to see how event formats adapt to evolving demographics and shifting customer expectations – and how these changes will impact event size and participation. Our report addresses these trends, drawing on a significantly expanded repository of events to track event and company KPI developments across regions.
EW: How was the performance of the top exhibition companies in 2024? Timo Wanninger: In our Top 40 chapter, we analyse the leading exhibition companies, examining both financial and operational KPIs to understand the industry’ s overall performance. This group was expanded this year to include new global entrants, reflecting the evolution within the sector. The results show solid momentum. In 2024, the leading companies recorded an average yearon-year revenue growth of around
14 %, with total revenues now standing roughly 20 % above 2019 levels. After a strong recovery from the pandemic downturn, these companies achieved a CAGR of about 4 % between 2019 and 2024 – clearly outpacing global GDP growth of around 2 – 3 %.
EW: Are there notable differences within the group of leading companies? TW: We observe significant performance differences depending on ownership structure and operating model. Privately held and listed companies have been the main growth drivers in recent years, achieving an average CAGR of around 4.9 % between 2019 and 2024 – more than double the rate of government-owned organisations, which grew by about 2.3 %. Performance also varies across business models. Pure organisers have led the way, recording average annual growth of around 4.6 %, while venue operators and mixed-model groups have developed more slowly at roughly 3.4 %.
EW: How do you account for these structural differences in your analysis? TW: Building on these observations, we consider the profiles of each company when interpreting the results. In our revenue rankings, for example, we distinguish between business models by analysing both total company revenue and event organising revenue. We apply a threshold that includes only companies where at least 10 % of total revenue is derived from organising activities.
The ranking on the left of the illustrated graph includes all revenue streams, while the one on the right focuses specifically on event organising activities. In the organising revenue ranking, guest events, sponsorships, digital revenues, as well as direct and indirect service income – for example, commissions or kickbacks from service providers – are excluded to reflect genuine organising performance. Also, we do not adjust sales for the revenue-smoothing practices often used by organisers to offset portfolio cyclicality.
This approach ensures that results are consistent and limited to companies’ own events. Only organisations with publicly available and independently verified data are included. Consequently, some major players are not represented in the Top 20 due to insufficient publicly available data. Companies such as DWTC, ADNEC Group, CFTC, and CCPIT, among others, would likely rank within the Top 20 – with DWTC potentially competing for a Top 5 position – but data limitations prevented verification of their figures.
Our benchmarking analysis strives for transparency and comparability in a complex global market. It is particularly important for us not to base our approach on interviews or surveys but rather on publicly available and verified sources to ensure that organisers, venue operators, investors, and associations can rely on a consistent dataset to benchmark performance and support strategic planning. EW www. exhibitionworld. co. uk Issue 6 2025 33