Brand campaigns and in-store events: an evidence review for marketers

Updated November 2026

Surveys of event attendees associate live brand experiences with higher declared purchase intent: the Spiro report links a rise in brand trust to a 264% higher share of attendees with high intent, and the 2015 EventTrack survey found 65% buying on site. These are associations in self-reported data, produced largely by agencies, and they do not establish a return on a campaign.

Why marketers keep citing event research, and why to read it twice

Budget discussions about activations, pop-ups and in-store days tend to open with a statistic. The statistic usually comes from a vendor. This review sets out what four recent sources measured, how they sampled and where a careful brand manager should stop. We opened each page ourselves and quote only what it says.

Trust, networking and follow-up in the Spiro study

The Experiential Marketing Impact Report from the agency Spiro, 2025 surveyed 2,000 consumers, 1,000 in technology and 1,000 in consumer packaged goods, who had attended live brand experiences such as trade shows, festivals and conferences in the previous six months. The findings, relayed by BizBash, 2025, are expressed as differences between groups.

• Attendees who felt more trust in the brand after the event had a 264% higher share reporting high purchase intent.
• Those who met and talked to new people showed a 110% higher share.
• Receiving communication after the event was associated with up to a 45% higher rate.
• Sharing the experience on social media went with up to 61% higher intent.

The report also states that up to 96% of attendees felt extremely or somewhat more likely to buy, and that up to 93% said they had bought from the brand within 12 months. Purchase intent was measured over those 12 months. An agency designed and published the work with an independent firm, and the full report sits behind a sign-up form, so we read the preview and the trade coverage.

Belief, trust and generated content in the Freeman release

A second agency-led source is the Belief Gap release from The Freeman Company, October 2026. The Harris Poll surveyed 2,004 U.S. consumers in July 2026, with a stated margin of error of 2.2 points. Consumers who had recently attended a brand event trusted that brand at 56%, against 11% among those who had not. Of attendees, 77% said the event positively shifted their belief in the brand, and 67% of consumers said AI-generated content makes it harder to trust a brand's claims.

The gap between 56% and 11% is a comparison between two groups, not a before-and-after, and people who choose to attend may already trust the brand. The release is a paid press release and says its data are unweighted.

What the trade benchmark adds, and how little we can read of it

The EventTrack 2026 page from Event Marketer reports more than 1,000 marketers and attendees, 61% of consumers more inclined to buy after an event and 85% of business-to-business attendees feeling more educated. The full report requires registration, and we have not read the methodology. The older 2015 EventTrack consumer survey is fully readable. It found that 71% of respondents were more inclined to shop if specialists were in the store, and 74% had a more positive view of the brand after an event.

A sponsorship experiment on brand equity

Academic evidence is scarcer. A Frontiers in Psychology study from 2021 surveyed 238 runners at a small sponsored race. Brand equity was the strongest influence on intention to buy the sponsor's products, then experiential activation, and satisfaction with the event showed no significant effect. Brand equity also mediated the link between activation and intention. For a brand team, that points to the existing standing of the brand as the lever, with the event adding to it. The study covers one event and a first-time sponsor.

Limits and method

Association is not causation. Attendees differ from non-attendees before the event, and purchase intent differs from purchase. Several of the percentages above compare groups rather than measure change, and the largest figures come from the publishers with something to sell. Widely repeated numbers such as 85% and 98% of consumers more likely to buy after an event could not be traced to an original study, so we do not quote them.

Sampling matters too: the Spiro respondents had all attended an event in the previous six months, so they say nothing about people who stayed away. None of the sources tests a costumed character at a point of sale, so everything about mascots below is reasoning, not evidence.

What this changes for a brand considering a mascot

The common thread in the studies is that live contact with a brand goes with higher trust, and that follow-up and sharing appear alongside purchase intent. A character can give a campaign a figure around which contact, photographs and follow-up are organised. Whether that pays back is for your own measurement to show.

• Define the measure first: sign-ups, return visits, a dedicated code. Do not rely on declared intent.
• Set colours, logo and text on the product page, then approve the drawing before manufacture so that it matches your point-of-sale materials.
• Plan the post-event message in advance, since follow-up is one of the factors that went with higher intent.
• Keep a comparison: stores or dates without the character.

Sources

• Spiro, Experiential Marketing Impact Report, 2025
• BizBash on the Spiro report, 2025
• The Freeman Company, Belief Gap report release, 2026
• EventTrack 2026 summary page (Event Marketer), 2026
• EventTrack consumer survey (Event Marketing Institute and Mosaic), 2015
• Frontiers in Psychology, small-scale sports sponsorship study, 2021

Frequently asked questions

Request a free quote