Freeman research reveals why the interactions exhibitors celebrate may not be the ones healthcare buyers value most.
From activity to impact: evidence that buyers moved forward
A busy booth, a full meeting slate, and a strong lead count can indicate event momentum. They demonstrate visibility and pipeline activity. Yet Freeman’s latest research shows these metrics capture only one dimension of the experience.
Exhibitors often define success by activity, reach, and volume. Healthcare decision-makers, however, assess value by whether the interaction clarified a clinical or operational need, advanced solution evaluation, brought the right stakeholders to the table, or offered a credible reason to continue the conversation.
Both perspectives matter, but they are not interchangeable.
For HIMSS27 exhibitors, this gap has practical implications that extend beyond reporting. It influences where investments are made, how teams qualify engagement, and whether high-performing activations actually help buyers progress toward a better‑informed next step.
Aligning Engagement Metrics with Buyer Priorities
Freeman’s research indicates that exhibitors most often link hands-on experiences to increases in product or service awareness (70%), higher booth traffic (56%), and more net-new leads (53%). These are logical indicators of event performance: they reflect visible activity, align with familiar reporting, and help quantify on-floor opportunity.
Attendees described the impact differently. Among participants, 79% said hands-on access improved their awareness of or ability to evaluate an offering; 70% said it accelerated a potential purchase decision; and 68% said it helped stakeholders build consensus.
The research does not suggest exhibitors are tracking the wrong outcomes. Rather, it shows that exhibitors and buyers use the same experience to answer different questions. Exhibitor metrics indicate whether engagement occurred; buyer outcomes reveal whether that engagement advanced understanding, evaluation, or alignment.
That distinction can materially influence how performance is interpreted. A high-volume activation may generate strong traffic and lead totals without helping every visitor assess fit. A quieter, consultative discussion may uncover a specific use case, surface an implementation constraint, or identify additional stakeholders who should join the evaluation. The first result is easier to count; the second is often more consequential to the opportunity.
Traditional measures—awareness, traffic, and leads—should remain on the scorecard. The opportunity is to pair them with evidence that buyers left with greater clarity, stronger internal alignment, or a credible reason to continue the evaluation.
Exhibitor Scorecard
Buyer Scorecard
- How many people engaged?
- How many leads were captured?
- How many demonstrations were delivered?
- How many meetings were held?
- Did the solution become more relevant?
- Did the buyer’s questions become more specific?
- Did the experience clarify practical fit or expose a barrier?
- Did another stakeholder or credible next step emerge?
HIMSS26 Attendees Were Looking for Practical Value
The HIMSS26 post-event survey provides healthcare-specific context. Respondents’ top objectives included identifying industry trends and new products (38%), discovering innovative solutions (37%), staying current on healthcare technology (36%), and meeting key vendors to evaluate products (26%). These priorities indicate that attendees arrive prepared to compare options and advance evaluations, not simply collect information.
Qualitative feedback reinforces this point. Attendees repeatedly asked for hands-on, case-based education; more actionable detail; and concrete examples of how healthcare organizations are implementing technology in practice. One participant highlighted the value of seeing how a health system scaled AI agents, while others called for less generalized discussion and more practical substance.
Healthcare buyers seldom assess technology in isolation. They weigh implementation pathways, clinical and operational workflows, governance, interoperability, and adoption. Practical examples help them determine whether a solution merits deeper evaluation, not merely whether it captures attention.
The implication is not that buyers resist commercial engagement; they expect it to help them make sense of a complex market. A booth interaction becomes more valuable when it equips the buyer with a usable next step—clearer use cases, sharper implementation questions, or a reason to involve additional stakeholders.
The Gap Should Change Planning, Not Just Reporting
It would be easy to treat this as a measurement issue and add a few new fields to the post-event dashboard. That would miss the larger opportunity.
The two-scorecard gap should influence exhibit planning before HIMSS27 by forcing teams to define what each major interaction is meant to make possible for the buyer. A demonstration may be designed to clarify a use case. An executive meeting may help align strategic priorities. A customer discussion may provide the proof needed to involve additional stakeholders.
Use buyer value to shape the experience
- Greater clarity: Do they better understand the problem your solution addresses?
- More useful questions: Are they ready to discuss workflow, implementation, risk or fit?
- Broader involvement: Did the interaction reveal another stakeholder who should participate?
- A credible next step: Is there a clear reason to continue the evaluation?
This approach also gives marketing and sales a more useful shared language. Marketing can still report reach, engagement and lead volume, while sales can identify whether those interactions produced stronger qualification, clearer needs or movement within an existing account.
The stronger performance story is not activity versus pipeline. It is how event activity contributed to a better-quality commercial opportunity.
Expand the Scorecard, Don’t Replace It
Traditional event metrics should remain exactly where they are. Booth traffic, meetings, lead volume and pipeline influence all help explain whether an event generated commercial opportunity. Freeman’s research does not suggest abandoning those measures. It suggests they do not fully explain why some interactions create stronger opportunities than others.
Adding a small number of buyer outcomes creates a more complete picture. Rather than focusing only on what the exhibitor accomplished, these indicators ask what became possible for the buyer because the interaction occurred.
Did the attendee leave with a clearer understanding of where your solution fits within their priorities?
Did the exchange move beyond a product overview into workflow, implementation, governance, evidence or fit?
Did another stakeholder, technical leader, executive or end user become part of the evaluation?
Did the interaction result in a follow-up meeting, targeted information request or another defined action?
Many of these signals already appear in sales notes, meeting outcomes, CRM fields, or post-event follow-up. Looking at them together helps distinguish activity that generated attention from engagement that improved the quality of an opportunity.
Measure What the Buyer Could Do Next
Healthcare buyers attend HIMSS27 to understand a changing market, compare approaches, and determine which companies deserve further consideration. Traditional event metrics show whether an exhibitor earned attention. They do not always show whether that attention helped the buyer move toward a more informed next step.
That is the distinction this article is asking exhibitors to consider. Booth traffic, meetings, leads, and pipeline influence remain essential measures of performance. They become more meaningful when paired with evidence that the buyer gained clarity, asked better questions, involved additional stakeholders, or identified a credible reason to continue the evaluation.
As you build the HIMSS27 measurement plan, keep the familiar scorecard. Then add the questions those metrics cannot answer.
- Did the buyer gain clarity? Could they connect the solution to a current priority or challenge?
- Did the discussion deepen? Did the exchange move beyond awareness into fit, workflow, implementation, evidence or risk?
- Did the right stakeholders emerge? Did the interaction identify someone else who should join the evaluation?
- Did a credible next step take shape? Was there a specific reason to continue the discussion after the event?
The most important gap is not between marketing and sales reporting. It is between the interaction an exhibitor counts as successful, and the one a buyer believes was worth continuing.
Build a HIMSS27 strategy designed to create meaningful buyer outcomes. Explore exhibit and sponsorship opportunities.