« Home » June 2007
June 26, 2007
CMM is back on track
Filed under: General Business Topics --- khevenor @ 08:37 AM
Two years ago on this blog,a very interesting dialog took place. Sparked by a thought-provoking post from PFFC Editor Yolanda Simonsis that questioned the future of CMM International, a number of industry professionals weighed in with varying opinions. Now that CMM International 2007 has concluded, I would love to hear what attendees and exhibitors thought.
As part of the management team, I know that my views are biased on this topic. When we (PennWell) first acquired CMM right after the 2005 event, we knew we faced an uphill battle. The previous management had steered the event badly off course, and it had been on a downhill trend for a number of years. However, in speaking extensively with experts in the industry, the consensus was that the brand remained strong and the potential for turnaround was great. Almost without exception, everyone we spoke with told us they wanted us to "fix it."
The number-one request from those we surveyed was to have more running equipment on the show floor (also referenced in the Converting Blog posts from 2005). By implementing the two new Technology Centers in 2007, we not only added more running equipment, but did so in a way that showed attendees the equipment producing actual jobs in a live production environment, demonstrating real-world workflow and integration issues. In addition, we worked with Rosemont Exhibition Services to make it much more affordable for all exhibitors to bring equipment to the event. The result was a floor filled with running equipment (more than 1.5 million pounds of it!).
Our other objective for CMM was to improve and increase the marketing efforts that draw high-quality attendees to the event. With the confidence that comes from having listened to the industry and focusing on delivering value, we were able to aggressively promote the new features of the show and the advantages of participation rather than spending our time knocking other events. The success of CMM is our only goal, while the failure of any other events is irrelevant.
The feedback we have received from exhibitors has been extremely positive. Almost all complimented us on the quality of the sales leads and the energy level on the show floor. Nearly 7000 converting professionals made their way around the floor during the four-day event, more than in 2005 but fewer than in the heyday of 10 or 15 years ago. What we are seeing is that converters are sending fewer employees today because of tighter travel budgets and leaner workforces--but those who do come are the decision makers and executives, not just the tire-kickers or employees looking to get out of the office.
PennWell is a 100-year-old, family-owned company that publishes 45 magazines and runs more than 60 highly successful conferences and exhibitions around the globe. It invests for the long term and leverages its expertise and resources to be #1 in all markets it serves. CMM is no exception, and over the next two years, you will see a lot more of CMM in the market. Our goal is to make CMM a year-round, 24/7 industry resource, offering web news, e-newsletters, webcasts, product guides, and a variety of other features that help converters do their jobs better, smarter, and more productively.
Let me (and the converting community) know what you think. I don't expect or want to hear that we did everything right--in fact I know we didn't. But we did learn a lot, and I feel like we've put CMM back on track and we're excited to do even more moving forward.
Keith Hevenor
CMM Editorial/Conference Director
June 08, 2007
Registration to Pre-Printed Webs
Filed under: Guiding, Spreading, Wrinkling --- Tim Walker @ 09:01 AM
What's the difference between registering a new patterned feature (print, die cut, laminate) to an upstream integrated pattern vs. registering to a pre-patterned web?
How about putting it another way? If you have a choice of developing a new Excel spreadsheet (or other computer program) or modifying a spreadsheet someone else has written, which is easier?
It is almost always harder to work on something that someone else has started. It was hundreds of years between the beginning of manufacturing processes to the creation of the assembly line. Having to modify someone else's work requires an initial step of figuring out where they left off. When you do a job yourself, you know what's been done (unless you put it on the shelf for too long, then it's like starting over).
Let's get back to registration.
Whenever possible, always integrate multiple printing, die cutting, and laminating steps in a single process. It may seem that creating a complex integrated process will lead to more waste (it often does), but in the case of registration, a great deal of startup and process variation waste is actually reduced by integration.
More...