Drupa itself was an unmitigated success – despite being marginally smaller, slightly less well attended and scarred by the absence of Manroland. The market had changed so significantly that exceeding 2008 was never really a credible ambition.

Nonetheless, it heralded the coming of age of B2 inkjet and more importantly, showcased a genuinely brand new printing platform: Landa's nanography.

But then it was over, and the industry checked in with reality again. So when the coast was clear for Ipex to start building momentum for 2014, exhibitors were in an entirely different frame of mind.

No longer was it true that the global shows were the ones you couldn't afford not to exhibit at – manufacturers had now identified specific growth markets, so accessing markets in China and Brazil were more important than ploughing everything into one great global spectacle aimed at everyone in general every other year.

First Agfa and HP, then Heidelberg pulled out of Ipex. Drupa organiser Messe Dusseldorf scrapped its 2013 digi:media show altogether and then threw everyone's schedule into disarray after suggesting the next Drupa might not only be shorter in duration, but a year earlier.

But a three-year Drupa seemed an entirely self-serving decision – and opposition from all sides quickly restored the four year cycle.

It may have been a cynical PR move to throw into question the viability of all the rival shows with which a more frequent Drupa would have clashed, but it might also prove to have backfired.

Up until now, whether or not to exhibit at Drupa was a rubber stamped yes, but introducing even the idea of change starts minds thinking new thoughts: how does it coincide with our R&D cycle? How are we measuring the ROI? What happens if we don't exhibit?

2012 has thrown the value of exhibitions into sharp relief, and that's certainly a change that's healthy to embrace. It's up to the organisers now to convince us that these shows stand up to that level of scrutiny.