Discussion

By Lisa Bickford on Dec 09, 2009

We have attended "Print"/"GraphExpo" 11 of the last 13 years. We plan to go every year. Twice we have closed down the shop and took the whole staff. We look forward to the Print Show to see new equipment and technology (sometimes initializing or finalizing purchases), to connect with peers and vendors th we we only get to see once a year, to meet with technicians to discuss problems, and to dream and get excited about the possibilities. We would miss the Print Show very much if it was no more.

By Bill Fleck on Dec 09, 2009

Andy, You make a good suggestion however, you also make the assumption that North American printers will attend the other International shows. We can hardly get NA printers to attend the Chicago shows. I think the annual USA show is still vital. Until the printed word in what ever form (offset or digital) goes away!

By Ryan McAbee on Dec 09, 2009

I agree with Lisa that the show does provide value for attendees through connecting with peers, suppliers, and experts. Although I think the GASC put forth a valiant effort in organizing the show and providing useful online tools for attending, which was happily promoted at m-bossed.com, I too think there are tough times ahead. There are simply too many pressures to ignore: less attendees, fewer suppliers, shrinking supplier budgets, more supplier focus on in-house events and facilities, greater reach through social media and the internet, and new meetings like barcamp.org. I personally hope that the show can remain viable and that the conference idea is explored.

By richard trapilo on Dec 09, 2009

I firmly believe the show must be every year! It is our National show for the US . Our industry is a very key part of our countries economy . As to make it more productive/profitable for exhibitors and visitors , I would hope that all our related industries associations would convene their events as to be part of this Show. From my perspective after Print 09 it is the only show in which "Print " be it digital or offset has the opportunity to attract a significant quantity of visitors as to cost justify the investment for the exhibitors . Best regards rick trapilo

By Skip Henk on Dec 09, 2009

I read with great interest your recent article by Andrew Tribute questioning the need for an annual Graph Expo as well as the subsequent response by Ralph Nappi, President of NPES and GASC. Mr. Tribute is right when he says “vendors do not want so many trade shows” and “shows fail because the organizers failed to adapt to changing markets”. My question is why? 1.If vendors were attending 3, 4 or 5 (or more) shows a year, closing business, walked away with a bucket of good leads and met with customers and prospects the number and frequency of shows would be a band width issue, not a financial one. 2.If buyers continue to attend, is it safe to assume shows are adapting to the market? Print09: reported 18,999 verified buyers representing 10,512 companies, even in this economy and with fewer people than 2005, Chicago was relevant and a good place to be. I walked the floor for three days of Print09 and spoke to dozens of vendors large and small. (Mon-Wed) Did vendors close business, get a bucket of good leads and meet with customers/prospects? Many did, some did not. (I will address this later) The major complaint I heard that the weekend was slow but by the end of the week most vendors were happy and pleasantly surprised. I am sure GASC will look at this, as they have in the past. I also spoke to many Xplor members who were attending the show. They spent a lot of time on the floor and were happy and encouraged by the number vendors, people and technology on the floor. Adapting to change: Over the last 24 months I have many conversations with GASC, soliciting input and keeping me abreast of changes they are making to keep the event relevant. A few items include: · Two years ago they developed the Digital Print Advisory Council, made up of senior level executives with major organizations to better understand the opportunity for the vendors in various market segments. · They have expanded their three traditional marketing segments (commercial, Quick Print and InPlant) to 11, including package, book, wide format, mailing & fulfillment, transaction, newspaper, creative professionals and print buyers. · Added new pavilions sections on the floor to support these new markets: Future Print, Pack Print, News Print and GreenSpace · Reached out to associations, including Xplor, user groups and media to further build attendance. Based on conversations, more is to come. Every year?: Mr. Nappi brought up, “the U.S. is the largest print market in the world” and based on the survey, 79% said they would return in 2010. Two other elements that provide legitimacy for annual events in our market: the rapid change in technology, new applications of the technology and the continued convergence of traditional and digital print. People need to see and touch new technology, learn about it and vendors need a forum to present new technologies and solutions. Doing so every other year could make new products “old” and open buyers up to being behind the technology curve. (I will leave this for another day to expand on) Why do some vendors have a good show?: There are those who buy a booth and expect their booth to be flooded with people and those who optimize their investment. Most of the vendors that had a good show at Print09, or any show for that matter over the last 24 months: marketed the event, invited people to visit them, scheduled appointments with customers and prospects and set expectations. They did more than rent a slap of concrete, decorate it and expect people to show up. No matter what the size of the company, these events are big investments. To be successful, you have to market it. Let’s not forget the attendees: People attend large exhibitions to be educated, see and touch new technology and to use the knowledge to develop strategies for their companies. Some buy on the show floor, most gather information and start a dialogue and some attend to meet with their array of vendors in one place. There may be fewer people attending from each company, but with changes in technology and how we communicate, the need to see and touch new technology is even more prevalent. Unlike open houses, traveling road shows, etc. the advantage of a larger event is attendees can see a wide variety of solutions in one location. Looking at new technology every two or three years, with the changes in technology and the emergence of new applications, could seriously jeopardize ones competitive advantage. Should there be an annual Graph Expo? As long as it remains relevant and both attendees and vendors see the ROI, there will be an annual Graph Expo.

By Michael J on Dec 09, 2009

I'm with Mr Tribute on this one. No doubt the show is way fun. But given the e learning possiblities I have to believe that "learning" can be better accomplished a different way. If some of the time and money invested by all in going to the show were instead spent in regional gatherings, it seems to me it would be much more productively invested. The other potential advantage is that it would align the American print industry which is having a bit of a problem of late, with the global print industry. Not just in Europe and Australia. But with the booming markets in China and India. I think we Americans have much to learn and a lot less to teach than in previous years.

By Tom B on Dec 09, 2009

Gutsy call by Andy. I agree make it every 2 years and I would alternate between venues. Maybe between Chicago and Vegas. We did the show for several years and it is a tremendous expense to exhibit from a distribuors point of view. If the show is not well attended than it just took a big amount from your bottom line. I agree with Michael J that the money spent could be used for smarter uses.

By Noel Ward on Dec 09, 2009

While Andy and I agree on many things, I think he is wrong on this and that perhaps his European bias for megalithic quadrennial events is showing. He offers up PRINT on a four year schedule with conferences on the off years as being perfectly adequate for the needs of the U.S. market. Maybe, but not quite yet. Andy is right about vendors' claims that there are too many shows and that at least some firms would happily pull out or dial back their presence. But eliminating GraphExpo/PRINT is not the answer. The industry—vendors and print providers alike—would be better served with fewer, larger shows than a greater number of smaller events. Provided, of course, that the event offers some real value. For example, consider GraphExpo/PRINT and the DMA show. These normally happen within weeks or even days of each other, usually a couple thousand miles apart. Yet they are tightly related and target people in the same industries. Can they not be co-located? Since all third-class opportunities are printed and mailed, the potential synergy from these two shows makes a lot of sense. This is hardly a new idea, but instead of both shows being less successful, an alliance would make them both better—and more appealing to vendors and attendees alike. Next, having a show on alternate years and keeping it in synch with IPEX, drupa and others leaves a huge gap in the market. It leaves a lot of potential customers out in the cold because they aren’t hot enough prospects to get invited to the key demo centers in Atlanta, Boca Raton, Boulder, Chicago, Rochester, or other venues. So how else are they to make side-by-side comparisons of equipment and software? I think of a dinner I had at GraphExpo a couple years back with a business owner who went to the show looking for a press that would do some very specific things. He found four that did what he wanted, one of which he was unaware of, and was able to make a decision. Finally, I think the size of the North American market is sufficient to support an annual, really comprehensive print trade show, one that's relevant in every way. There'll still probably be smaller ones like OnDemand and Graphics of the Americas, and vendor-driven events like EFI's Connect and HP's Dscoop. But I don't see any reason for a single annual large show to go away. Should it be different? You bet, but changing to a two- or four-year cycle? Not likely until the industry is much smaller and innovation in printing goes away.

By Michael J on Dec 10, 2009

The real value of the show is not the expensive equipment. It's the people on has a chance to talk to and the hundreds of serendipitous conversations. Kodak and I believe KBA or Komori voted this year by not bringing equipment to the show. I remember years ago attending an Xplor meeting in Arizona that had almost no equipment. it may turn out that the choice of a big equipment driven show is going to be decided by the vendors who pay the bill. Given what seemed like a huge buzz success by Kodak, I have to believe there are some serious conversations going on among C level people looking at costs vs benefits in the mature US market. To be clear, this doesn't mean there is little value for different people to get together to have those conversations from which innovation flows. Just that the money and time expenses have to be radically reduced and probably new business models have to be invented.

By Pat Berger on Dec 11, 2009

I have been to every graph expo in Chicago since 1978. It is the most cost effective in time and money to gather info on just about anything associated with our industry. Over the years I have attended many many of the regional shows and always felt it was a waste of time if it were not for the camaraderie. Pool your resources and concentrate on a Graph expo every year. Always have at least 1 weekend day so the small shops may attend withour having to shut down.

By Lisa Bickford on Dec 12, 2009

No equipment = less chance we will go. Just my 2 cents worth.

By Michael J on Dec 14, 2009

What if it were done like the one the PIA is doing in San Deigo? http://ilnk.me/ed1