My good friend and editor-colleague Peter Luit from Printmedianieuws in the Netherlands asked me recently about my views on drupa 2024. The discussion about the 2024 edition started because I interviewed Sabine Geldermann at the IST UV-Days - and I believe Peter Luit asked me because I have been critical to not only drupa but all exhibitions since the pandemic started - so let's dig in.

By Editor Morten B. Reitoft

I love exhibitions. As hard as it can be covering an exhibition with numerous interviews, countless steps walked every day, sometimes working under time pressure, and even sometimes with jetlag, I still love exhibitions. Meeting people, seeing equipment, seeing applications, and telling stories that can support growth in our industry motivates me daily to do my job as an editor.

But that doesn't stop me from reflecting on the value of an exhibition! Exhibitions are marketing; with all marketing activities, you are asked how many views, clicks, and whatever you serve to justify an investment. It's a matter of customer acquisition cost. The value of doing something is measured in how many new leads you get - and to put it in perspective, how much does that cost?

When Heidelberger Druckmaschinen decided to cancel on drupa, they told the public that the 50 million euros they spent could be used better. Even if ALL 200,000 attendees at drupa had been new fresh leads that nobody at Heidelberger Druckmaschinen had ever heard of, that would give a customer acquisition cost of a staggering €250 per lead. Still, not all 200,000 attendees gave their business cards to Heidelberger Druckmaschinen, and even fewer visited their booth despite the size. Even fewer would consider buying a new printing machine based on a visit. I guess somebody at Heidelberger Druckmaschinen would know people walking up to Heidelberger Druckmaschinen to talk, so what is the number of new leads?

Even if 10,000 attendees could qualify as a new lead - which I doubt - the customer acquisition cost would be €5,000 - and that is what I am talking about. Is the value of exhibiting aligned with that cost, or do brands exhibit for other reasons?

Of course, they exhibit for other reasons. Exhibitions are mainly about branding, and of course, exhibitors justify the cost by showing how many orders they have signed during any exhibition - however, the real question is, how many deals would they have signed anyway?

During the pandemic, parts of our industry were deemed essential and could operate during the pandemic. Many are even better than before, and what vendors realized was that business wasn't influenced as much as you would expect. We have interviewed several PSPs and Converters that experienced unprecedented growth during the pandemic, others were able to shift production, and some even saw an opportunity to update their technology.
In the past, not exhibiting was sometimes seen as a weakness. I remember a LabelExpo where one dominant player wasn't exhibiting, and almost immediately, rumors started, but I can assure you that the company is still around and kicking. This has changed. I don't think NOT attending a tradeshow is seen as a particular weakness, but more a business decision. I have even been talking to one of the major OEMs where the person said we have stopped looking at drupa as an investment, but more a judgment of how much it cost us NOT to attend.
We even hear and see how important certain exhibitors are to an organizer. HP, for example, was the largest exhibitor at drupa 2016 and has decided to use the entire Hall 17 again. I am not saying they have got a huge discount doing that. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if the largest and most important exhibitors are given considerable discounts, as their participation can drive other exhibitors to participate. The smallest and the least important (from a branding perspective) exhibitors even accept paying full price, as they know it's HP's, Heidelberg's, and Landa's that drives the traffic to drupa.

So how will drupa 2024 be? If the books from Messecenter Düsseldorf were open, I am confident the revenue would be considerably lower. First, fewer exhibitors now exist than in 2016, so that will influence revenue. I am also certain that drupa will give exhibitors more space for the same money, so the experience for the attendees will be similar to the past as far as I remember the min. size of booths today is 20 m2 - I remember this to be smaller in the 2016 edition, but not sure about it. I am also confident that the visiting numbers will be lower. In 2016 the number of visitors was a bit more than 260,000. 68% was from Europe. Americans won't need to go to drupa, as PRINTING United is gaining ground. Though still a considerably smaller event, and fewer days, the cost, the time, and the reason to go to Europe to see the same vendors are maybe not as appealing as they used to be.
Time is money, so 12 hours times two in a plane + sky-rocketing expenses, jetlag, etc., maybe not nice to even consider unless it's VERY important!

Some exhibitors will show new equipment, but we have heard from some vendors that product launches are not tailored to any event anymore - large demo centers and tons of channels to promote new equipment is cheaper, faster, and often better.

So! If organizers want exhibitors and attendees, they must develop their formats, making them valuable. Using the same formulas as in the past may work, but I doubt it, to be honest. And that brings me back to my view on drupa. I have been to drupa 4-5 times and loved it every time. We plan to cover drupa better than any other tradeshow in the past, and I look forward to meeting the industry, friends, customers, and even competitors like always. We are loyal to the concept, but I am sure it's a dying dinosaur. Compared to using almost any other marketing channel, the cost is so high that it can't be justified.