Discussion

By David L. Zwang on Sep 25, 2009

Over the last few weeks there has been a lot of discussion, some of it rather caustic, on the issue of Industry Associations. There is no doubt that the industry as a whole needs education, support and places for it to come together to discuss the significant changes that are affecting its existence.

ALL of the associations are guilty of building their 'businesses' in the good times and perhaps not re-evaluating and resizing it in light of industry changes. Interestingly, not much different from many of the firms they are intending to support. You would think they would lead by example?

However, over the years I believe the indentites and focus of the various organizations; specifically Printing Industries (PIA/GATF), NAPL, IPA, IdeAlliance, and others have gotten confused and overlapped in order to retain leadership and more importantly, sponsorship. Anyway. this leaves the associations having to focus on the survival of their own business rather than the business of the support of the industry.

I wrote an article almost 10 years ago warning of this problem, yet even with some of the consolidation that did occur it didn't fully reflect the significant changes to their constituency, their ultimate reason for existence.

However, I think with all of that said, it is important to bring this to a civil discourse with the most important factor at the top of the agenda being; what is the best solution to support the ever changing needs of the industry, their constituents?

David L. Zwang

 

By Clint Bolte on Sep 25, 2009

Frank's summation in his "NAPL and PIA - and the state of American trade associations" is succinct, candid, insiteful, and a clarion call to action.

Instead of resting on this WTT blog, the article should be sent far and wide to be reprinted in every printing trade media.

Both Association Boards have a unique opportunity to make a long lasting difference for the Printing Industry.

 

By Noel Ward on Sep 25, 2009

Frank is right on. A single strong organization for print could be a huge advantage for the industry. It needs to add measurable value, be affordable, work for all types of printers and in different ways throughout their businesses. The fact that membership in both NAPL and PIA has declined tells you they aren't delivering. If they were, members would stay connected even in hard times. That happens, by the way, in all kinds of smaller trade associations because they deliver real value.

And Clint Bolte is right, too. Frank's article needs to reach every printer in the country. WTT should work with the other trade pubs and with equipment/software vendors to help make that happen.

 

By Eric Vessels on Sep 25, 2009

@Clint,

Posts on Print CEO aren't read far and wide? ;-)

I get your point...

 

By Brian Regan on Sep 25, 2009

A qucik point. I am not entirely sure the total loss of membership has to do with the associations not providing value. Off the top of my head I can think of the following factors that have also been apart of the decline.

1) 10 years ago 50,000 printers, now 30,000
2) Franchises provide a lot of services and discount programs.
3) Suppliers also provide information and discount programs (Xerox premier partners comes to mind)

To make a blanket statement that they dont deliver value doent fit quite well as the primary cause.

 

By Brian Regan on Sep 25, 2009

One more...

4) Consolidation. Large printers have their own experts, buying power and sometimes lobbyist. Just like Franks example of Kodak now owning 15 prior suppliers and exhibitors, so to can be said many large region firms are wrapped up into firms like RRD, Cenveo, CGX....

 

By Patrick Berger on Sep 25, 2009

I was a member of PIA, Craftsman club, Napl in the late 70"s until the Mid 90's. I always felt that it was a good ole boy's club.
There were always ballgames, luncheons, nites out and so on.
The food was consistently good.
Industry talk usually consisted of hows business and who is a bad pay and politics concerning lobbying and how much we could get from the government in any shape or form. Technology discussions were rare. The paper mill tours were very educational.
So I decided not to rejoin. I yearned for more than they could provide about technology. I miss some of the camaraderie but that's about it.

 

By Michael J on Sep 25, 2009

To get this out there, perhaps we should let the tweeting begin. It would be best if it comes from lots of places, but here's what I'm throwing into the twitter stream.

Frank Romano on NAPL and PIA http://ilnk.me/a9 "Up to now honesty has been in short supply." and "here are my suggestions..." | Go Frank!

 

By Curtis Johnson on Sep 26, 2009

As other businesses have done in the shrinking print industry, these print associations may have to merge. I feel print associations have lost their relevance because large manufactures have entered into the graphics standardization, education, and planning of the print industry with their own agendas. It would be an improvement to see a strong print association to help create a printing roadmap with standards that can be used industrywide to create more dynamic opportunities for everyone.

 

By Patrick Henry on Sep 27, 2009

There has been so much astute commentary both here and in the “Olive Branch” thread at A Printing Office (http://blogs.whattheythink.com/printing-office/2009/09/pia-napl-rejects-our-olive-branch) that it’s hard to think of anything meaningful to add. But one question won’t go away: Is this debate really about “trade associations” at all?

PIA indirectly represents about 10,000 printing businesses through 27 local affiliates. I don’t know what NAPL’s current membership is, but the number of NAPL member companies almost certainly is dwarfed by the PIA enrollment.

According to PIA, the entire printing sector consisted of 36,508 establishments in 2008. Merge PIA and NAPL, eliminate the duplicate memberships, and you have an organization standing for one-third or less of the industry. The share might have been bigger in rosier times, but aren’t the present numbers telling us that the industry simply isn’t interested in forming or supporting a “national” printing trade association?

Probably no trade association in any industry represents 100% of the membership base that it could represent. But, many of the comments in these threads seem to be saying that a hybridized PIA/NAPL (“pineapple”?!) would be a fruit that our industry’s unaffiliated two-thirds would have little desire to taste. As far as I know, a compelling reason for these independents to join a merged association hasn’t been advanced by PIA, and certainly not by NAPL.

Over at A Printing Office, Bob Diehl gets it right when he reminds us that the Graphic Arts Show Company (GASC) is the horse that’s pulling the cart and that its constituent trade associations—-dependent on revenue from the GASC shows and on sponsorships from the vendors-—are just along for the ride. But, that ride may be nearing its final destination.

I believe that Mr. Diehl is on to something important in proposing GASC or a GASC-like entity as the flagship of the future for an industry that has already moved beyond many of its former structures. Maybe, with the right kind of support from printers and vendors, it will take shape as an endowed, not-for-profit foundation—a model that some are proposing as the salvation of newspapers.

Printers will always find ways to stand together at the local level. But, when they look beyond their state and regional clubs for the kinds of services and advocacy that local groups don’t have the scale to provide, what will they expect to see? A monolithic membership organization that aspires to be “national” probably won’t fly the flag to which they’ll rally. Times have changed, and so have printetrs. Have the trade associations?

(Disclosure: I was a staff employee of NAPL from 1990 to 1995. I’m presently a member of Printing Industry Association, Inc., the PIA affiliate for New York, northern New Jersey, and northwestern Pennsylvania. I sat on the board of directors of its predecessor organization, the Association of Graphic Communications.)

 

By Michael J on Sep 27, 2009

Patrick,
I think you are spot on with

"But, many of the comments in these threads seem to be saying that a hybridized PIA/NAPL (“pineapple”?!) would be a fruit that our industry’s unaffiliated two-thirds would have little desire to taste."

Your commentleads to starting from a blank page. The question is : exactly what would a "network" do" that would be seen as useful for the 2/3rds that presently are non consumers?

If together we can define what it would do AND get some evidence that we're on the right track, there is an ample supply of talent and money that would be attracted to do it.

 

By Erik Nikkanen on Sep 27, 2009

I agree that there should be more competition for new ideas but not only between these two associations. There should be competition between associations, graphic arts institutions, vendors, printers for new ideas.

The problem I see is that almost all of these groups don't seem to want work on new ideas. They want to be experts of the past and not pioneers of the future. I don't see leadership.

I do see lot's of talking heads, that say things in generalities, but that does not help that much. The problems with the associations are just a mirror of the systemic problems in the industry and that will be very difficult to change. It's cultural and inbreed. Any group in the industry has had the opportunity to make breakthroughs but they don't tend to do it. They wait for others to be first.

 

By Gerald Argenti on Sep 28, 2009

I share Frank's frustration and agree with his diagnosis. But I'd suggest a different prescription.

The one piece of the association puzzle that's clearly under-performing (and, as Frank makes clear, under poor leadership and several lingering ethical clouds)is PIA, the national element of it. The regional affiliates would, frankly, be better off without it. The remnant of GATF is the only piece of PIA-GATF genuinely worth saving, the only piece creating genuine member value.

Frank is absolutely right that the "olive branch" was disingenuous. As I said before, it was a "red herring." The good that may come of it is attention focused on the issue. That's unlikely to be what Makin hoped to accomplish with the overture, but it is the best possible outcome.

And so, with my appreciation and apologies to Frank, I'd make a bit more radical suggestion:

--Let PIA cease ... the national HQ, not the regional affiliates. Let is vanish from the landscape entirely, leaving the resources it is presently consuming to be reapplied elsewhere to better benefit the entire industry.

-- Let NAPL form whatever alliance / partnership is appropriate with the GATF remnant of PIA-GATF. As Frank noted, technical research and services are the single element of the current PIA-GATF amalgam not replicated by NAPL. That step might undo much of the harm done to GATF in Makin's merger of GATF with PIA, which served to delay the inevitable death of PIA one more time.

-- Let the regional PIA affiliates retain their member contributions, and let them begin a dialog with NAPL about some sort of arm's-length and collaborative relationship.

No effort should be made to resuscitate PIA one more time, particularly through a forced merger with a reluctant NAPL. The last resuscitation was much too costly to the whole industry, particularly given that GATF was starved of resources and talent in the process. PIA would come to the merger table empty-handed. It has nothing unique and valuable to offer except the remnant of GATF. Enough is enough. It is time.

 

By Patrick Berger on Sep 28, 2009

Gerald Argenti you have hit a homerun I couldn't agree with you more.

 

By Joe Polanco on Sep 29, 2009

Gentlemen,

Your conversation deals with issues from a macro level --- and has some excellent points. Yet, I'd like to remind everyone that the bulk of this industry (over 70%) are small family owned businesses who need trade organizations to serve their local needs -- not just what the "giants" of the industry require.

Yes, I direct one of those local organizations and do have some biases, but having one national association serving a narrow constituency is not the solution.

If you would like to see more thoughts on this topic, visit my blog at http://cupajoe.piamidam.org

 

By Bob Lindgren on Sep 29, 2009

Frank...

I'm rather surprised that for a thoughtful guy like yourself, your text has several factual errors. The historical summary is accurate although it underweights the reality that the UTA was really begun by the local Associations we now call Affiliates. I also note (since I didn't think it was a secret) that the historical revenue from the Chicago print shows to the three owners has generally been in the range of three to five times the amounts quoted. Of course, recent reality have pushed these numbers into a sharp decline which will have a real impact on PIA, NAPL and NPES.

The statement of differences was puzzling since it asserts that PIA "has a strong technical orientation." Prior to the GATF merger PIA was almost exclusively management oriented and even afterward, the management component dominated.

Then there is the paragraph which is summed up by the statement that "they need to take back control..." As someone who has worked with Affiliate Boards in Chicago in Chicago and Los Angeles as well as with the national PIA Board, I have yet to see one who failed to see their governance responsibilities. They also understand that Boards or Committees do not manage successful organizations or any other businesses--they hire management for that purpose and expect the management to deliver results.

You then go to to characterize the current President's performance as "poor" observing that the PIA board in unwilling to "make the tough decision." The bill of particulars to support this conclusion seen to include the following: The President's salary in in the "high six figures" without presenting any evidence to support that it is unreasonable given the size and complexity of the organization (my salary is six figures as well, which is disclosed in our Form 990 filing, and is consistent with an annual gross cash flow of $140 million). The "embezzlement" was a minor taking by a junior staff member taking fully covered by insurance (in my four decades of Association experience, I have lived through four embezzlers). The reduction in reserves is due to the drop in market value of investments (since these have gained almost 40% in the current year, does he not he deserve a bonus on the same reasoning?). More importantly, PIA remains financially strong and he has displays a serious focus on cost control (witness your reference to layoffs). PIA has lost membership just as the industry has lost establishments. This has led to a reduction in the number of Affiliates but the one would have to go back to the 1930s to find a period when the number was as high as 50. The unfortunate situation with the New York City Affiliate was beyond PIA's control since all of the Affiliates are independent entities. There has been staff turnover, but I do believe that the present people are doing a great job as you agree as well since you described them as "exceptional and dedicated."

During the time when the "olive branch' was extended, I was a member of the PIA Board, Executive Committee and Operating (Officers) Committee. I have had the pleasure of knowing Ken Kaufman, PIA Chair, who carried the olive branch, for many years. Based on my personal knowledge, I must tell you that I believe that the use of "disingenuous" verges on the insulting.

I do agree with you that the industry would be better served by one, strong association. Achieving this will be difficult so long as NAPL continues to decline to discuss the process the possibility, stating that it would refer to maintain its present course.

Bob Lindgren, President
Printing Industries Association, Inc. of Southern California

 

By Frank Romano on Sep 29, 2009

E-mail sent to me directly is not posted on this blog. I will be addressing Bob's and other comments as well as providing information submitted by present and former employees of industry associations in my next article in about a week.

It is interesting that this Reuters article has not been carried by any print media:

FRANKFURT (Reuters) - German printing machine makers Heidelberger Druck (HDDG.DE) and Manroland are set to decide by mid-October whether to proceed with formal merger talks, sources familiar with the matter said on Monday.

If such a merger occurs, it will have a profound effect on print associations.

Frank

 

By Patrick Berger on Sep 30, 2009

Print industry associations have a long history with consumable and equipment manufacturers. These marriages have stifled and extremely influenced decisions made in local and national associations.

For over 15 years there has been a constant battle with the EPA, SCAQMD and many other groups.

All the money time and effort wasted on battles could have been used for answers and solutions.

 

By Brian Regan on Sep 30, 2009

Let me put on my conspiracy theorists hat for a moment. Mind you this is all speculation on my part.

What They Think has been reminding me more and more of a for profit industry association.

Such as:

1) Economic Research
2) Webinars
3) Mergers and Acquisitions
4) Consulting - http://members.whattheythink.com/services/
5) Green awards showcase

And then you look at their list of Speakers and you see many NAPL people listed and no PIA.

http://members.whattheythink.com/services/speakers-bureau

Perhaps What they think and NAPL are going to merge and Frank is attacking PIA to help set that stage. Perhaps thats the radical change they are looking at.

Just my $.02

Started noticing the pattern a year or so ago. But what do I know....

 

By Frank Romano on Sep 30, 2009

Good try, Brian

I have worked with PIA for over 40 of my 50 years in this industry. I still write for the Digital Printing Report and they published my two books on inkjet. I present at least 15 seminars a year for affiliates at no charge. Some of my best friends work with PIA and its affiliates.

The pattern of criticism started before I worked with WTT. It started when accumulation of money was more important that serving the industry. It started when arrogance and ego trumped new ideas and honesty. It started when syncopants found it better to kill the messenger than address the issues.

I have gone public because there is enough secret stuff.

We need a strong, ethical, open industry association. That is my goal.

I hope that is yours.

Frank

PS: Was the moon landing really a fake?

 

By Brian Regan on Sep 30, 2009

Frank,

No political motivation on my part, dumb as it sounds I actually did think that all up on my own. I am a recruiter after-all, my whole existence at this point is tying ends together and I like to think I am pretty okay at it.

I was born and raised in this industry (Family owned printing firm), I like everyone, want what's best for the industry. I actually love this thing we call printing or digital printing or graphic communications or graphic communication or graphic arts or....

 

By Michael J on Oct 01, 2009

My $.02. It's the same dynamic that is moving through the whole economy. Money spent on moving information is becoming money not well spent.

Comp based on comparables and the top line, don't work in banking, they are not going to work at "higher education" and it's pretty clear to me from this thread that it no longer makes any sense in trade association.

The action and the value is produced by local organizations serving family owned business.

Nothing personal. It's just sustainable business.

 

By Randy Davidson on Oct 01, 2009

Brian,

Your comment is interesting - as most conspiracy theories tend to be, but as you say it is just speculation on your part. I thought I'd clear things up a bit for those who may get the wrong idea reading this.

WhatTheyThink is most certainly a for profit entity and has enjoyed much success thanks to the great support from our subscribers and sponsors. We don't view ourselves as an industry association, but at times have overlapping goals as we strive to be a unique resource to the industry.

Most of the areas where we have similar offerings to the associations are simply a result of subscriber demand. We have been a partner with NAPL for a long time. We also work with PIA and their affiliates and have been a partner with them for a long time.

There are certainly no WhatTheyThink/NAPL merger talks and I'm sure you are convinced by now that Frank is not "setting the stage". Frank, as with many of our contributors, offer commentary and opinion. We do not work with our commentary writers to cook up plans to change the industry. In many cases, we have no idea what our commentators will submit until hours before their deadline.

I appreciate your thoughts, but assure you that WhatTheyThink doesn't have a horse in any perceived race between NAPL and PIA. Our only position is that associations should respond in a way that benefits the overall industry. We'll support and - of course - report such actions.

Randy Davidson
President
WhatTheyThink

 

By Jonathan Ward on Oct 01, 2009

I have to say that I'm still confused by the branding strategy of Print09. "Print09 is now MyPrint" I have no idea to this day what this means - especially to me as a customer!

It's not about printing it's about positioning printing as an IMPORTANT and successful option for marketers to use as part of the marketing mix. The education needs to be around how using a mix of media is much better using just one (email for many). Plus, with printed pieces, you don't run the risk of unsubscribes, spam filters, and other things that hinder the successful delivery of your message. It's the ONLY way to assure your customers see your message - and provides a visual, personal, and physical representation of your brand. Plus, it offers pass-along value not see in email and other media. When was the last time you saw an email sitting on someone's desk!

More specifically to this article, the only reason for two shows (or associations) would be if they each provided us a clear difference in approach and offerings.

Moreover and to the point, uniting as an industry and becoming more present at MARKETING trade shows and meetings would do much more to promote print than the print shows that are just a bunch of printers and print vendors talking to each other about the rough times for print. When are we as an industry going to stand up a fight for this medium proven effective for centuries! Rather than talking about combining shows, how about developing a trade show that is 100% focused on marketers (or printing CUSTOMERS and print buyers)? For instance, Print09 could be the industry show, and GraphExpo could become 100% focused on matching print solution providers (we are no longer just printers!) with end customers. I'd buy a booth at this type of show in a minute!

We need a "Got Milk?" type marketing campaign that runs in MARKETING publications promoting the advantages and ROMI associated with strategically implemented and justified print campaigns to help move customers through the sales cycle. Enough apologizing and agreeing with people who think print is disappearing. Fact is, the best marketers out there use print as an important component of every campaign. Much like email blasts, mass mailings no longer work very well. But targeted, personalized programs in print cannot be matched in their ability to convey a large amount of information and drive response and revenues. We printers get it, and most have adapted to provide a suite of communications services - from email, to PURLs to complete marketing dashboards.

I challenge the association leaders in our industry to get the word out that printers are now trusted cross-media solution providers offering COMPLETE marketing solutions. Who cares how many associations or shows there are as long as they meet unique needs.

 

By Cary Sherburne on Oct 02, 2009

I don't agree with the "got milk" approach (it has been tried and it failed). But I do agree with the fact that WE in the industry need to go where OUR customers are, and there are many marketing venues. This is the only way we will know what their leaders are thinking and where they are heading. It is a great networking opportunity (and perhaps even selling opportunity, tho it should be perceived as more of a learning opportunity). My visit to ad:tech as reported on WhatTheyThink was inspiring. And the only name from our industry that was there was Printable. Sad ... good for them, but sad for us. That's where ad and marketing execs go to learn about technology!

We need to be creative and innovative in how we work with marketers to incorporate print into their campaigns and projects. We need to be flexible enough to accept that many, if not most, will not include print, for good reason. And we need to be strategic enough to build the right set of products and services to meet all of these needs. As Andy Paparozzi said yesterday in a Kodak webinar, "Market share is being redistributed from companies that print to companies that put print to work for their clients – integrate print into a program that helps clients communicate more effectively with their clients. Our opportunity is to get on the right side of the redistribution."

The time to be defensive about the value of print is long gone. Let's look ahead and be creative about how we can help our customers better meet their objectives, with or without print.

This is a key role a "clean sheet" association could take on.

 

By Patrick Berger on Oct 03, 2009

Of all the commentators so far I believe only 2 are print shop owners operators.
I would conclude that this not a very good representation from the printers few.
This is an extremely good view point from those associated with the industry.

 

By Brian Regan on Oct 03, 2009

Patrick.. Yes, I imagine if they have time and use these types of communication tools, they are likely at sites that attract their clients or potential clients.