The trend in men's fashion in logistics is towards black suits, as can be seen in the group photo - always according to the motto "Better to wear black than to see black" (from left): Martin Schrüfer, materialfluss, Stefan Schmidt, Fraunhofer IML, Manfred Kutzinski, Deutsche Messe AG, Boris Ringwald, Fronius, and Bernhard Müller, Sick AG. © German Trade Fair

materialfluss : A few months after the premiere of the CeMAT/Hannover Messe duo, the emotions have now subsided. How would you sum up the trade fair today?

Manfred Kutzinski: Our review is mixed. We had exhibitors at CeMAT who were successful, but also exhibitors who were not so satisfied. Unfortunately, the latter were in the majority. We can't be happy with that. We have to change something here. Accordingly, we will use the coming weeks and months to very quickly enter into a concept discussion with the market, i.e. with exhibitors and visitors, in order to make CeMAT more successful in conjunction with the Hannover Messe. We have already made a start. Production and logistics are growing together, that is visible everywhere - so what could be more obvious than to bring the two trade fairs even closer together and talk about integration.

Stefan Schmidt: Our analysis has shown: It was not a good trade fair, to put it in a nutshell. We are among those who are reluctant to vote for CeMAT in its current form. I allowed myself the luxury of talking to around 25 exhibitors at the trade fair and the average of their evaluations corresponds to our impression. There was a virtual separation between the CeMAT logistics world and the industrial and production world of Hannover Messe. This was intentional in order to maintain the CeMAT brand, but I felt that the integrative aspect fell far too short. Compared to other trade fairs, we generated around 70 percent more leads in fewer days. Although we are a research institute, we need the encouragement of the companies that visit us and commission us for their R&D needs. This response was not satisfactory. The trade fair has to do something, it can't go on like this. The co-location is good, but it cannot be the last step.

Boris Ringwald: Unfortunately, the price/performance ratio at CeMAT no longer matched. The merger with the Hannover Messe led to an increase in overheads such as the price of hotel accommodation, which is why the result should have been better. We are now reporting more costs and fewer benefits. We were particularly shocked by the relatively small number of visitors from Germany. Previously, we had around 60 percent visitors from Germany and 40 percent from abroad, but this time it was the other way around. This means that visitors from a very important market for us are obviously going elsewhere.

Bernhard Müller: Sick played both trade fairs, so to speak. For us, they were two separate trade fairs that happened to take place at the same location. The feedback on the Hannover Messe was very positive, while the feedback on CeMAT was more like "there was no one there". In terms of visitor numbers, CeMAT was very underexposed. Visitors to the Hannover Messe went to CeMAT with expectations that it was unable to fulfill. I think that the co-location is not wrong, but that in times of Industry 4.0, nobody can understand the separation anymore.

mfl: So how can the integration of CeMAT 2020 be made more successful? Is it enough to move the intralogistics experts from the "top left corner" of the exhibition grounds to the "bottom right"?

Müller: It's not a question of space, but of content. I suspect that CeMAT is disappearing from exhibitors' memories because it is held every two years. Yet technologies change so quickly - take software, for example, two years is a long time. Secondly, I think that integration needs to be approached much more intensively.

Schmidt: The themes that were played are crucial. There were topics that appeared in both areas, this duplication was difficult. If we are already organizing a trade fair, then the artificial separation between production and logistics has to go. If we already have a common theme, such as Industry 4.0, then the theme needs to be centralized. Of course, you can't completely restructure the exhibition grounds, but everything else has to be linked to a core theme. This way, visitors can find their way through the existing segments. Nothing is worse than a spatial separation.

Ringwald: The idea was there, but we were only 50 percent of the way there.

Kutzinski: We also realized that we were dealing with the same topics twice. So why not combine them? That won't work everywhere, but it's a way we're thinking about. There are many scenarios, which are currently being discussed by working groups. One scenario is complete integration, similar to energy technology, for example, which plays a major role at the Hannover Messe and is also important for intralogistics.

Müller: The Hannover Messe has one benefit: it can show the entire production. That has to be played: Not the faster machine, but the holistic process.

mfl: Is that so easy, Mr. Kutzinski - or doesn't everyone want to be in the middle?

Kutzinski: Once we have agreed on a target, we will have to hold many talks. Perhaps there will also be intermediate stages. We are working closely with the exhibitors and, as Deutsche Messe AG, will not dictate the direction.

Müller: Showing the entire chain is the only way to achieve a benefit. If an exhibitor doesn't see himself in such a concept, you can live with the fact that he won't be exhibiting at the trade fair. I need a topic that I can then get companies excited about.

Kutzinski: The topics in automation and the digital factory are very similar to those in intralogistics, which would speak in favor of such a path. We will therefore hold talks and then hopefully decide together with our partners this year how to proceed.

Schmidt: The perception of CeMAT that you mentioned, Mr. Müller, brings us into a discussion about the rotation of the trade fair. However, for historical reasons, this is a loaded topic for CeMAT. There are other areas of the Hannover Messe that are only held every two years. I would advise caution in coming to the conclusion too quickly that CeMAT should be held every year in view of the competition that exists.

Müller: My topic was the entire chain - let's take the software as part of this chain. What was written as software three years ago is, as things stand today, no longer on anyone's PC. It may be that the forklift is still the same after three years, but it may do something different or be integrated differently into its environment. So I can't just drop the software in a year's time.

Ringwald: The consequence of an annual cycle is that we will see smaller trade fair appearances, for example from industrial truck manufacturers.

Müller: But it can also be the case that your company's value is in its entirety and that the role of the company in the entire chain can be well represented here.

Kutzinski: If the framework conditions change, production and logistics continue to grow together and perhaps one day the same people will even decide on investments in these two areas, it will be difficult to make predictions about stand sizes.

Müller: If the offer is attractive for the visitors, the companies will also come every year. The way CeMAT was this year, nobody is likely to come again (smiles).

mfl: The annual mode seems to be popular here in this round. What do you think, Mr. Ringwald?

Ringwald: With a concept like this, it wouldn't be feasible to remove three links in a year. That makes no sense.

Schmidt: I can understand the arguments, but the reality might be different. We all know that a trade fair presence costs a lot of money, it's one of the most expensive marketing tools we can afford. In Germany, there is a competitive trade fair just for logistics, which is already widely diversified. I can imagine that there are reservations. But if we succeed in making smaller stands appealing to companies, it could be a way forward.

Müller: I have to set different themes than LogiMAT and then the companies will play different themes in Hanover and Stuttgart. Logistics is more than just the device, but above all the solution to a problem.

Kutzinski: The majority of visitors come to the Hannover Messe to find out about new trends. The famous "thinking outside the box". This would be a distinguishing feature when addressing visitors.

Müller: Two trade fairs don't automatically have to be competitors. Users and decision-makers are two different visitor groups!

mfl: Is the name CeMAT a) burnt b) still necessary or c) long gone?

Schmidt: As an exhibitor, you feel part of a CeMAT community. So this will continue to exist, but will it be advertised to the outside world and will the area be labeled? No, I would give that up. There are also classic intralogistics companies that were suddenly to be found in the IT section of the Hannover Messe. And they were satisfied. CeMAT must be dissolved in favor of a thematic focus. Whether the name will still exist is a psychological or political question.

Müller: The Hannover Messe brand is stronger than the CeMAT brand. The title or the subline must be aimed at the entirety.

Ringwald: In order to take the second part of the path we have chosen, the term CeMAT will probably have to die.

Kutzinski: We are having a very open discussion, which also includes the question of the brand. The CeMAT trade fairs abroad, for example, are very strong and form a brand family, which must be taken into account.

mfl: In your opinion, does the trade fair communicate openly enough who makes which decisions in which committees? How do you intend to win back the companies that have left?

Kutzinski: We will intensify our contacts with the companies. I don't think we will create new committees. The members of the committees are transparent and can be reached by everyone.

mfl: A trade fair is also what the companies bring in and make of it. Can the exhibitors do more? Many agreed that CeMAT doesn't work, but constructive comments were rarely heard.
Schmidt: The criticism was often enough about the general conditions, for example the tight situation with hotel capacities. It's absurd that trade fair visitors have to stay overnight in Berlin and commute to the trade fair, so to speak. The trade fair can't do anything to change this, but it can balance out what it can do. We exhibitors live from the visitors and need to be more active in our invitation management. We have also made mistakes here.

mfl: Gentlemen, you have the closing words ...

Ringwald: The most important thing now is to give CeMAT a face and an independent profile. That always means that you might lose someone along the way. But continuing to be a faceless number two doesn't work in any industry.

mfl: You look skeptical, Mr. Schmidt?

Schmidt: No, I was just thinking about what Mr. Ringwald said. CeMAT may not have a pretty face at the moment, but after the integration it won't have one at all, it won't even exist anymore. That must be clear to us.

Ringwald: This would mean a completely new face for the Hannover Messe ...

Schmidt:... which shows production and logistics.

Kutzinski: It could be like that. Picking up the CeMAT community is still possible and we will manage that.

Müller: With the change in content, the trade fair will remain attractive. More trends, ideas, structures, the future and people - and fewer details such as data sheets. I can also download them from the Internet. The question is also what trade fairs will have to look like in the future. Not just at the Hannover Messe.

mfl: Thank you very much for the interview! Martin Schrüfer

For the round table discussion, materialfluss was a guest of Deutsche Messe AG. We would like to thank them for their organizational support. You can find this discussion and more than 25 other round tables (new: with videos) at www.materialfluss.de/thema/special-materialfluss-round-table.htm and on the YouTube channel of the intralogistics trade journal. What do you think about the topic?
Send us an e-mail to [email protected].