This editorial won't be that usual "we are improved" tub-thumping. But our September issue toppled a few idols, and I think it's important that we point them out--and explain them--to you.
First, the September issue marked Dave Newcorn's shift from senior editor/special projects editor to director of new media for Packaging World. On behalf of all the PW editors, Dave takes both our best wishes and our cooperation, although we'll miss his editorial work ethic and his ideas.
In his new job, Dave can now devote full time to implementing his ideas about how our Web site can best serve the packaging community. In the past, Dave's special projects editor title addendum recognized his past contributions to the Web site and to the creation and continuing impact of our Controls & Integration special sections four times each year. Especially for those readers who are involved in systems integration, Dave will serve as moderator Oct. 18 and 19 for the Line Integration sessions at Solutions 99, the conference program to be held at Pack Expo Las Vegas.
Last month, Dave took his "tilting at windmills" act to a new level. In the Controls & Integration section, Dave developed a report on the controversy between personal computers (PCs) and programmable logic controllers (PLCs) for dominance as the vehicle to control machine function. While this is an interesting topic among the real techies of our business, Dave took it back one step--and that's been a big step for PW. Dave's report, as well as the inside cover of the special section, featured engineers--but not those at packaging companies. Rather, the engineers whom Dave interviewed and reported on were engineers at the companies that make packaging equipment!
For some magazines, even some covering packaging, that wouldn't be uncommon. For PW, it's a big departure, and one we don't make lightly. All of the senior editors at PW learned under the tutelage of Bob Heitzman and the late Sarah Lee Gerrish when we wrote for Packaging Digest. In the case-history article format pursued there, rarely were suppliers ever quoted. And for case-history features, PW has maintained that policy--unless there was a technology that the end-user couldn't adequately explain.
However, as PW explored ways to cover some of the important topics of concern to end-users, we've discovered that some can be best explained by representatives of suppliers, not end-users. Dave's article on the PC vs PLC report last month is one, as is the Y2K special section both last month and in this issue.
As he explored the Y2K issue, Dave also found several representatives of machinery builders who could discuss it in depth. In concert with that, we also included our Y2K survey, where we questioned in detail not only our readers, but also controls suppliers and machinery manufacturers. Another result is that companies like R.A. Jones and Krones appeared in the Company Index for the first time because their engineers are extensively quoted in these reports.
Is this a sweeping departure from our normal tradition? We don't think so. One of the bedrock rules we live by is that we don't provide an editorial forum for people or companies to sell their products or services to our readers. And we're confident these examples avoid that. These particular reports help to explain how certain packaging machinery suppliers interpret the needs and demands of the market into controls systems that this marketplace will embrace. And our concern is not so much what they selected, but rather why they chose what they did.
No matter. PW may take some flak because we not only quoted but illustrated engineers that are employed by suppliers. In the past, it would have been very unusual for these people to ever appear in PW, unless it was in our Mainstream department when they received an award from an end-user company.
I think that flak will be offset by those people who say, "Hey, great, I'm glad those people got some recognition because they've helped us, too." These supplier professionals are important to all of us because they often help decide the kinds of systems that end-users are offered as customers. To look at this issue in another way, I've been criticized because we didn't report on a conference on oxygen scavengers, one that our magazine helped to sponsor. When we made the decision to co-sponsor the seminar, we anticipated the participation of several end-users--whose experiences we planned to report. Those experiences were not presented, hence, no report.
Packaging is a small world--no matter what we think. And we need as much help as we can get--no matter what the source. And that's why the techies of some suppliers not only will be quoted in PW, but also even pictured. It's unlikely to happen often, but when a magazine explores issues and subjects that they influence, we believe their opinions count. As do yours.
