Contributor

Yolanda Simonsis is a 33-year veteran of the packaging and converting industries. She has held past editorial positions with two former publications of Delta Communications and Cahners...more

CMM’s Demise

I’ve been receiving some feedback about CMM’s demise–all from email, of course. I think it warrants repeating.

One friendly competitor (who shall go unnamed) said: “Pretty gaudy numbers. Why was CMM allowed to deteriorate so badly?”

My response: As I’ve said before. . . It was a Catch 22. As attendance numbers dwindled, exhibitors felt less pressure (or is it MORE pressure to reduce costs) to bring heavy equipment to their booths. The downward spiral continued.

I am impressed with Mack Brooks and Michael Boyle’s success and can only hope we can revive some excitement with a NEW show that includes European exhibitors once again, who will bring equipment!

My friend Ed Cohen wrote: I think that the end of CMM marks the end of an old direct communications mode for the converting industry. From now on, the Internet will be the main communications mode. I wonder how long it will be before trade journals have a similar fate?

My comment: That’s a scary thought!

Ed Cohen writes again: Alas, poor CMM I knew it; it was a show of excellent quality and fellowship.

The technology acquired solved many of my problems. It lived a long and prosperous life before its demise. It will be missed.

Converters, scientists, technical personnel, lend me your ears: I come not to bury the late CMM but to praise it. The good that it did helped build a great industry.

And Craig Sheppard sent a message to an AIMCAL Linked-In Group of which I am part, saying: I hope that ICE can bring new life to a show that was once an important exhibition for our industry. I have had some conversations with the new owners and am hopeful that they will bring the same success to the US that their ICE shows have had elsewhere. Anyone have any thoughts on what they need to do to succeed?


Subscribe to PFFC's EClips Newsletter