Some Love, Some Hate PIA, NAPL Merger Idea —Michelson

DEPENDING ON who you talk to, the recent consolidation discussion proposal extended by the Printing Industries of America (PIA) to the National Association of Printing Leadership (NAPL) 
was either an “olive branch” representing a goodwill gesture to explore the feasibility of merging, or a “red herring” meant to deflect attention away from the challenges that the PIA is facing both on the national level and among several of its localized affiliate chapters.

For those not up to speed on the controversy, shortly after PRINT 09 PIA President and CEO Michael Makin sent a memo to his association members indicating that NAPL rejected an offer to hold potential consolidation talks. Responding to the overture, NAPL President and CEO Joe Truncale said he and his board would consider “collaborative projects,” but indicated NAPL wanted to maintain its independence and autonomy, with an emphasis placed on its consulting practice.

The whole idea of a merger between the two national associations that serve printers has drawn a flood of polarized commentary from both interested parties and industry watchers. Some argue that the competition of two associations slugging it out for printer membership dues and supplier sponsorship dollars is good for the industry, and pushes each organization to develop programs and benefits in step with a changing marketplace. Others counter that there is too much duplication of effort between PIA and NAPL, and that a combined association would be more efficient and cost-effective in what’s rapidly become a consolidating industry, both on the printer and supplier sides.

My view: Although neither association is fully in step with satisfying the needs of its constituency, current market forces will ultimately force some form of coupling. 
Why? Well, first off, industry suppliers can no longer financially sponsor the multitude 
of industry conferences, seminars, economic reports, special publications and other programs. M&A activity and bankruptcies have resulted in fewer companies on the supply side today. And, those that remain are struggling themselves due to very soft demand for capital equipment and unfavorable credit markets. For example, they can no longer afford to sponsor both the annual PIA Presidents Conference and NAPL Top Management Conference, typically held just weeks apart and suffering from shrinking attendance. Nor can they fund the duplicity of each association’s economics departments, publishing operations, and their other targeted conference and seminar programming.

Related Content