Possibly, but let’s not overcomplicate it. It is due to economic pressure as a result of a recession that has lasted far longer than expected.

Despite the tough economy, I don't believe cancelling show participation is the right approach.

Whatever way you decide to spin it. Why not downsize, or approach participation in a more creative way? Surely 50,000 potential customers remain relevant.

It is only my opinion, but how cancelling participation can be seen as a positive move is beyond me.
And, it begs the question that perhaps the kind of performance expected by manufacturers at trade shows is no longer realistic.

I also believe that IPEX is suffering from the fact that Drupa did not deliver against budget or expectation for many manufacturers.

Despite the show proclamations from many exhibitors of 'record Drupas' - regardless of a dip in visitors numbers, I just don't think the sales conversion, in reality, met various targets and this is the main reason exhibitors are not able to justify spend in the UK in 2014.

All of the brands that have confirmed they will not exhibit at IPEX, have confirmed they will exhibit at Drupa again. But other shows are seemingly not of interest or relevance to them.

For the global print community, the Drupa effect is a big one.

The show is arguably too big, too long in duration, and it is a massive drain on resources and budget. I believe that Drupa exhibitors obsession with 'grand standing' in Dusseldorf, and the huge investment required to do so, means their return on investment is simply no longer met. I personally do not think that last year's Drupa, delivered the kind of astronomical sales performance expected by manufacturers, when set against the huge investment exhibitors had placed into Drupa.

IPEX has suffered from this as a result. If Drupa had delivered such a strong result, then surely exhibiting at the number 2 event, 2 years later, would be a good idea? It could have represented the perfect sales opportunity to follow up on the success of Drupa.

I believe that Xerox's statement that they have taken the difficult decision not to exhibit at IPEX, because the marketing landscape has changed for them may have some truth in it. But I do not believe or agree that the business environment has transformed beyond recognition, to the point that trade-shows are no longer credible and potent media solutions.

I cannot imagine that 50,000 buyers would not be appealing to a business. You still need to sell products to buyers and a show of IPEX's standing attracts many of them. The print and marketing landscape hasn't altered to the point that a trade show is no longer a valid or effective medium.

Ok, so the print market has matured? Yes. Contracted? Unfortunately.  It has not suddenly migrated online to the point that connecting with new customers at a show is no longer possible, relevant or important.

When a print company makes a buying decision, they do not make their buying decisions purely online, at an 'onsite trade show', or through the effectiveness of a social media campaign. Furthermore,  not everybody in the entire marketplace attends Drupa! When a buyer makes a decision, he/she will do so by engaging in a number of different information sources.

A trade show offers the exhibitor with an opportunity to combine a number of communication channels, whilst providing the visitor with the opportunity to achieve a lot of technological research within a short space of time.

For example, I think social media is really important, but it doesn't represent or define a market. On the other hand, a leading trade show is most certainly a marketplace, with real people, discussions and business. And Drupa is not the only valid trade show for print!

The 'not yet convinced' trade show visitors are the ones who want to be inspired and persuaded to buy your product. And face to face is the most powerful way to sell. So if you are not exhibiting, then you will miss that opportunity. Fact.

Exhibitors just don't like the idea of actually saying it plainly, because it doesn't sound good to disclose that the budget isn’t sizeable enough to exhibit on a large scale, that the huge investment in Drupa might have not met expectations, or that your chief financial officer or shareholders have placed pressure on you to make savings.

The fact is, wiping a large trade show off a marketing plan appears to save a ton of money and it pleases those that measure success by restricting spending. But, what is the downside of making such a decision? What do you lose by making this decision? Sales and plenty of missed opportunities...

As a show organiser, I think all major manufacturers should have a marketing presence at such an important show. I am surprised that cancelling participation completely is deemed a better option than downsizing, or approaching participation in a different or more creative way.

I think either of these options represents a more sensible and logical approach that will still generate tangible and significant business results whilst demonstrating an on-going commitment to the market.

So is this the beginning of the end for blockbuster print shows? It certainly is a signal of change.

And, I think that we have seen with the advent of the Cross Media, InPrint and EcoPrint events that change is afoot with print exhibitions. The trade show model will always be relevant, but perhaps the industry's unrealistic obsession with building castles in Dusseldorf needs to be tempered and a more realistic and sustainable approach to marketing should ensue.

Missing out on other shows, might represent a short term saving, but it will have a detrimental effect not contemplated by manufacturers.