OPen Innovation needs open Communication

”Thesis — antithesis — discourse. A culture of debate must build on the traditional culture of dialogue and dialectics. This is the only way to acquire or review knowledge.” — Andreas Weber

The print industry has a high potential for suffering and tolerance. Because: In no other branch is so much moved – economic-material, intellectual-cultural, human-intellectual and technological-innovative! And there is hardly any other industry where you can put up with so much without grumbling. 

Since the advent of the World Wide Web, the end of print has been celebrated without a concerted and convincing argument against it with relevant facts. In Germany, the mother country of the art of printing, the ever-growing market and future potential is being downplayed just because print publishers and printing companies are stumbling that do not want to or cannot develop further. 

The fact is: no industry has as much talent to deal with innovations as the print industry. And not only with innovations, but also with crises! Because there is no question: print was, is and will always be systemically important. BUT: Hardly any industry is undergoing such radical structural changes in ever shorter cycles, which has always been mastered excellently up to now. Letterpress printing, chemical printing (lithography) and digital printing have all brought about brilliant changes. The print industry has always emerged stronger from the change. That is the case today. And it will probably stay that way.

An industry without a voice! 

It strikes me that, despite its innovative ability, the industry is unable to make its voice heard beyond industry boundaries. As an "industry" the print businesses are organized extremely small, many cook their own soup. Few people think outside the box. 

A real abomination are so-called 'specialist events' that supposedly show the latest trends; events of all kinds, sometimes high-quality, sometimes unsuccessful, but which always take place behind closed doors and therefore find less resonance than would be possible. BTW: even #drupa is no exception. 

You seem to be all too happy to be among yourself! And it does not manage to address important messages to customers and potential new customers in a concerted manner. 

In the age of digitization and transformation, however, it is almost like attempting suicide to communicate inappropriately, openly and interactively.

Others can. Why hardly anyone in print? 

If you look at what is going on and how what is happening across industries, the difference becomes clear: groundbreaking new developments such as smartphone / mobile, 3D printing, blockchain, augmented reality, etc. have developed and spread so quickly because they are smart. And they are able to use modern communication platforms for themselves and have been publicly and controversially discussed right from the start. True to the motto: Open Innovation meets Open Communication. 

It is fascinating to see the level of expertise and passion with which discourses on new digital innovations are conducted via social media, blogs and expert forums. But: It is unfortunately different in the print industry! Discussions are mostly dominated as monologues by 'insiders' and technology experts / manufacturers who allow little or no criticism of their words and deeds. Probably because they are not used to it. 

All in all, you could call this a form of autocratic-motivated inbreeding! And it rarely feels good. 

“My tip: It is more worthwhile than ever to read the art of debate and discourse from antiquity in these oh so modern times. Above all: Plato, Socrates and Aristoteles ... " 

I therefore wish for a new culture of debate. There are so many bright minds in the print sector, and especially in the print shops that deserve to be heard. The apologists, however, remain silent and do not speak up in the media ... 

Debates follow rules. And that's good! 

If communication is open, you have to do it correctly. I myself was just scolded violently in a private message. I am 'destructive' and my statements are of no quality because I have dared to thoroughly examine the communication of the results of a specialist event, to analyze it and to make it absurd in its meaningfulness. I was also assumed to be very infamous; my critic even stated that he had been approached by various people as to whether I could be bought, that is, to give third parties advantages against money. Who said it came from was not mentioned ... 

HOPPLA! First, that's not true, and second, it's not a good way to have debates. Criticism must always name horse and rider and must not work with rumors or speculation. Otherwise it is shabby and can be described as defamation. By the way: the reality is different and positive. 

My experiences about my own communication activities via ValueBlog and social media prove impressively: There is a huge audience that is interested in exciting topics from the print world if they are presented in an understandable and concise manner. 

As an individual, I reach over 100k experts from over 165 countries around the world, depending on the topic and relevance, hundreds of thousands of interactions arise in a very short time. Networks like LinkedIn bring me up to 1,000 new contacts per month from different areas! This allows me to learn better and better what is outside the box: inspiration and new insights through active communication. 

In short: long live the debate. Even if it sometimes hurts to experience criticism. It is always worthwhile to think about it.