Anyone have an experience in the real world?

But here’s the problem on the ground, IMHO.
While in general the digital future does look very bright, it’s not at all clear from the ground where commercial printers are going to fit in to that future.

I’m seeing many large institutions, both in the profit and non profit bringing the equipment in house. Good for Xerox, not so good for commercial print.

I know there is a mantra about becoming “marketing solutions providers,” but given the major disruption with people who are marketers full time, is it plausible to believe that commercial printers, whose hard won expertise is in Printing stuff, will be able to compete with IT companies and marketing professionals who continue to cut prices to deal with their own very difficult situation.

Meanwhile, the Managed Print Services market continues to grow nicely. Good for Xerox. Not so terrific for commercial printers.

Any prospective from Xerox you can share to get your viewpoint on how to deal with these problems, could be invaluable.

Thanks.

You will never hear CEO’s tell their investors that they plan to lose money or even plan to go bankrupt but sometimes very shortly after positive things are proclaimed, many bad things happen. You will never hear them tell their potential buyers of a business unit that we want to sell this pathetic dog because we know we will not be able to make money on it and we want to unload it. Do not expect the whole truth from managements.

Company spokesmen can state eloquently what plans they have but companies do not always have much control over what they would like to do and now it is even worse. There is probably little control over what can be done. If you had a great business unit, you wouldn’t want to share it and if it is not so great, no one will come to the table unless the deal is very sweet for the partner.

So the WSJ corrected their report and now states that, “Kodak says it doesn’t plan to sell Kodak Gallery, NexPress or two other operations. “ In other words, Kodak is hoping for the best but has no idea what will really happen. In the end, the WSJ may have got the report wrong of what was planned but got it right for what will happen. Only time will tell.

The idea that outside analysts should not look at the printing industry is absurd. They may not always get things right but inside analysts are not that much better because sometimes they are too close to the insiders. The idea that the printing industry is somehow fundamentally different is absurd but that seems to be the view with respect to business issues and process issues.

In my opinion, journalists everywhere, bless their hearts, get the details wrong.

I never believe everything management says. It is not that they are lying. They are in Sales and are selling a position as best they can.

They´re “advising” Heidelberg to go into Digital Presses to get out of the crisis and tell Kodak to get out of Digital Presses.
These advices shed some light on how the current economical and financial crisis was created by these kind of experts.
But back to our industry:
What Kodaks statements also say, and what should be underlined, that Kodak is no longer willing nor able to push Electrophotography and Toner presses forward. That is – after Heidelberg – the second Big Name in the industry to say so.
To call for alliances seems to be ok, but what if nobody jumps on the band-waggon?
Is there any company in the current economical situation willing or able to assist Kodak?
So I really wonder, what the future of the Nexpress will be and if there´s any.
And by the way, IMHO this sheds also some light onto the fact how light-weighted some of the prognosis on the future of digital printing were and are. Maybe the current crisis will cure these as well.

Kodak also hosted an old-fashioned conference call with the trade media this morning, hastily convened. Kevin Joyce, Worldwide VP of Sales & Marketing for Kodak’s Digital Print Solutions Business, did a good job of presenting the Kodak position. Although he declined to specify job cut, cost reduction and R&D investment allocations by business unit due to the way Kodak reports its financials, he was very clear that the company considers ongoing investments in both toner and inkjet to be critical. He was also quick to point out that this was not necessarily to the detriment of its offset-related businesses, especially with the growing adoption of hybrid manufacturing in our industry that requires a unified workflow.

As Dr. Joe has said many times, when we come out of this downturn, it will be a very different industry. Executives should be paying attention to this “new media stuff” and examples like Kodak as they think about how they are going to get through this difficult year and come out of it stronger, more nimble and more in tune with what customers are really looking for.

Kodak’s presentation at the investor’s conference and the transcript can be found here, if you want to view the source.

If you look at the analyst reports and predictions, it is clear that Electrophotography (toner) and Inkjet are the only two printing technologies slated to grow over the next 10 years. In fact according to the PRIMIR 2007 Worldwide Market for Print Report, when you factor in projected inflation – all other printing technologies Offset (sheetfed, coldset, heatset), Gravure, Flexo, Screen, Letterpress and others all decline. Compare this to 147% growth for toner and 97% growth for inkjet and you can see why Kodak, Xerox and others are investing heavily in these technologies.

Obviously market factors have changes since the report was put out – but if anything – the economic recession will level-off and more likely accelerate the decline of the more traditional technologies. Given this basic knowledge, how could the reported expect that Kodak would simply divest of its electrophotography division? Perhaps the reporter was borrowed from another industry for the day?

Major Kudos to Jeff Hayzlett for quick damage control and clarification. It isn’t often we see a correction so swiftly from the WSJ. Just remember, there is no such thing as bad publicity…

Aside from the bad journalism, don’t let the companies off the hook either. I was at a GraphExpo event where the CEO of a company got up and said their surveys showed print was growing (mirrors something the head of a trade association keeps saying). We need companies to assert the realities of the marketplace, and for too long Kodak didn’t, and for the past couple of years they are far better at it. We need more honesty and no spin from the corporate PR folks overall. No wonder journalists and companies hate the new media. It’s the smart companies and executives who learn how to use it, honestly. Jeff H has been ahead of the curve on this one.

I love it when Print CEO gets it right and the WSj gets it wrong, than has to fix it. Couldn’t have happened without you.

All reports and surveys of the future print market from a variety of organizations show a continuing and substantial growth of digital printing. With its inkjet, electrophotographic and workflow operations Kodak has the widest product portfolio in the industry. It is not just a one-pony operation with its inkjet technologies. In fact in the past year the Nexpress product range has been significantly extended and it is highly competitive against its major competitors. With future enhancements to come, some of which were indicated by Jim Hamilton, the range will become even more competitive in the future. It would be strange if Kodak were to contemplate getting rid of this operation when it has the real potential for major growth. What Kodak stated was that they were looking at ways to transform this business through exploring potentials of partnerships and alliances as well as looking at segmentation and licensing opportunities. As Jim Hamilton indicated this could be through further agreements with companies like Canon or Ricoh to possibly widen the product range or open up new distribution opportunities.

This highlights a problem I am seeing on a worldwide basis, and that is the quality of journalism is getting worse. In this case the journalist reporting the Kodak briefings either did not understand his brief and the markets, or was incompetent, or possibly asleep. We need to be able to trust certain publications, such as the Wall Street Journal, but the media appears these days to want to sensationalize everything. There is a major debate in the UK at present on the subject of how much impact the media has had into pushing the markets into recession. When influential media such as the Wall Street Journal jump to incorrect conclusions rather than reporting facts, then this can only be to the detriment of the all industries. I previously have commented on the lack of knowledge of the financial analyst community and now I see a similar lack of knowledge in the media.

I’m pleased to see that the Wall Street Journal has retracted its comments and put out a correction, but no doubt some damage has already been done. One only has to look at their blog and one sees ridiculous speculation and comments being made on the subject of the Kodak article. Bad journalism sews the seeds that can destroy companies. The media has done little to help in the current financial situation and it needs to raise its standards if it is to retain the respect of its readers.