Monthly Archives: February 2012

drupa, is it still relevant?

Posted on by
Reply

drupa, the very big elephant in the trade show room, is only two months away. As such, I need to ask a question—one that is particularly important in this time of economic depression. With printers struggling and the print industry in great disorder, is drupa still relevant?

I would argue that drupa as it is today has run its course and that a more interactive, technology-based effort needs to be developed.

Trade show events are still viable, but they need to be of a controlled size and in a controlled environment. drupa can continue to co-exist with the industry, but the industry needs to be given options to see, view, test, touch, and feel the equipment on display. Forget the fun of a trade show; I have been to drupa held in Dusseldorf, Germany, four times, and each time has been a blast. However, does that justify the event itself?

Most industries have seen trade show attendance and exhibitors decline by double digits. Some have experienced slight increases, but at the end of the day, again, I have to ask, is drupa relevant?

Only a small segment of the American print industry will attend drupa. Most Americans, instead, choose to attend Graph Expo, in Chicago in the fall, which, by the way, should no longer be an annual event. Once every four years works for me, and I’m sure it would work for the exhibitors too.

The print industry needs to rethink every aspect of its existence—from the equipment it sells, the products it offers, the level and type of services provided, and yes, the way it is perceived in the new world of one-to-one and integrated communications. I have noted in this blog before that print needs new ambassadors along with a futurist who is linked to other industries—industries that use print and turn a profit from prnt commerce. drupa seems like an island in time that, well, is stuck in the past.

Yes, the technology at drupa may be revolutionary, and it may be the future (perhaps), but is the level of display of a drupa really needed? Fourteen days seems a bit excessive to me. OK, it is a world show, and as the brochure from drupa proclaims, One World—one drupa. But this is wrong; we no longer live in one world. We live in many worlds, on one planet. The segmentation of the B2B market has overtaken and overrun any arguments made about one world.

I love print. I support print, and it tears my print-based heart to pieces to see the scope of such an event etched in stone like the long-ago replaced litho stone.

What do you think?

PS: Next week, One drupa—Many locations

The “P” word and the convergence of Print

Posted on by
Reply

In my opinion the printing/graphic arts industry needs two things, 1) A futurist, and 2) a new name. Let’s address the new name first.

In the course of an industries life cycle a new “brand” for that industry sometimes needs to be developed. For example, what once was the Department of War is now called the Department of Defense, within an industry, name changes have a history as well. A most recent switch within The Food Industry is the name change of their front-of-package (FOP) labeling scheme from “Nutrition Keys” to “Facts Up Front.”

The list can go on and on, perhaps the Print industry needs a new brand, a new name, a new face, a name that reflects the commerce based nature of print, and the need to align the segment with the other revitalized and emerging industries. I suggest (and I am certainly not the first one to suggest this concept) that print from this article on be known as Prnt-Commerce. P-commerce has a history and it just sounds too yellow to me.

The term print is aged, a bit old and being challenged from many quarters.

Have you heard of the Gutenberg Parenthesis? No, well you should. Thomas Pettitt explained the way in which he uses the term the Gutenberg Parenthesis: the idea that oral culture was in a way interrupted by Gutenberg’s invention of the printing press and the roughly 500 years of print dominance; a dominance now being challenged in many ways by digital culture and the orality it embraces.
Read on http://web.mit.edu/comm-forum/forums/gutenberg_parenthesis.html.
A recent article in the New York Times also states the need for a New English language, so why can’t Print (prnt) lead the way? To me prnt alone does not define the process; no prnt needs to be directly linked to commerce, for that is a key part of the print model, not only to print money but also to allow money to be made, using prnt as the vehicle of choice in this money making process.
Print just sounds old, limiting and in some cases ancient, and I am a very strong supporter of print. The facts are the facts, or as a business associate once said, it is what it is. Print is dead, long live prnt-commerce.

Topic two, a futurist. Many industries have a futurist, these are people who look beyond today and tomorrow to a path yet defined and start to write or at least define some of the rules that are needed to take full advantage of the future as they see it. The industry currently has a few prnt futurists, there have been some great ones in the past as well and there are still some very talented and active prnt-commerce futurist, but I don’t think this is enough. We need a new type of sage, a new type of futurist, not limited just to our industry. I think prnt-commerce needs a futurist that looks far and wide and very much outside the current print industry and the current applications using print.
Our futurist needs to dream on how prnt-commerce will be used in the future by industries and verticals that exist today and those that are still on the drawing board. Our new futurist needs to be linked to as many industries as possible, not just to marketing, creative and production. No, our futurist needs to be “touching” technology, mobile, science, banking, food processing, defense and many more. Not as a partner, but as an equal or at the least an observer, a sage, an oracle of how prnt-commerce can support these industries and verticals as they evolve and how prnt-commerce can evolve with them. We can no longer be seen as the distribution end of any process, we need to be an enabler, start the engagement, keeping the flow of communications active and valid.

As media convergence gains traction, and it is and will continue to gain traction, the commerce or money making end of any future business will drive the end results. Is Facebook worth 100 billion or is the commerce based on Facebook worth 100 Billion, see what I mean?

Prnt-commerce crosses multi channels as well. Magazine and book publishing are clearly prnt-commerce driven, as is direct marketing. With the growing acceptance on integration of the marketing marketplace to include online and offline components, such as e-commerce, m-commerce prnt-commerce fits right in.

Agree with the branding change from Print to prnt-commerce and you must agree to the need for the futurist. Why? Because the future of print as we know it is not a future which the industry controls, prints future is as are most other “traditional” industries linked to those new technologies that need to use older technologies to deliver the new messages, the new media, print is the same.

BTW, I think I would make the perfect prnt-commerce futurist, not only because I’m raising the flag, but because of my deep belief in the convergence of all print media, verticals and partner industries, and my very open mind and broad point of view.

Send me your thoughts; I can be reached at thad.kubis@tifmc.org.