<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.1" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>TCPglobal</title>
	<link>http://tcpblogal.com</link>
	<description>Total Cost of Printing - news, views, issues and discussions</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 03 Mar 2010 13:19:43 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1</generator>
	<language>en</language>
			<item>
		<title>Hewlett-Packard loses direct access to a UK government sector after appeal</title>
		<link>http://tcpblogal.com/total-cost-of-printing/hewlett-packard-loses-access-to-a-uk-government-sector-after-appeal/</link>
		<comments>http://tcpblogal.com/total-cost-of-printing/hewlett-packard-loses-access-to-a-uk-government-sector-after-appeal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Mar 2010 13:12:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Maude</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Managed Print Services]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Reliability]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Printer Market]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Total Print Management]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Total Cost of Printing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tcpblogal.com/total-cost-of-printing/hewlett-packard-loses-access-to-a-uk-government-sector-after-appeal/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Issue #1005/2 – Following the unrest and strike action by Hewlett-Packard Staff (EDS employees) in the UK and parts of Europe over recent months (see "Hewlett-Packard’s need to return profit is showing cracks"), it is now reported that Hewlett-Packard&#8217;s rejection from the public sector bidding list in the UK has been confirmed – despite appealing [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://tcpblogal.com/total-cost-of-printing/hewlett-packard-loses-access-to-a-uk-government-sector-after-appeal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Brother leads the field for inkjet in-store popularity and presence</title>
		<link>http://tcpblogal.com/total-cost-of-printing/brother-leads-the-field-for-inkjet-in-store-popularity-and-presence/</link>
		<comments>http://tcpblogal.com/total-cost-of-printing/brother-leads-the-field-for-inkjet-in-store-popularity-and-presence/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2010 16:52:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Maude</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Printer Market]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Strategy]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hardware]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Comparisons]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Total Cost of Printing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tcpblogal.com/total-cost-of-printing/brother-leads-the-field-for-inkjet-in-store-popularity-and-presence/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Issue #1005/1 – Hewlett-Packard may lead the field with the highest inkjet AiO market share in terms of gross sales but it has been tipped off the top of the pyramid when it comes to in-store visibility and popularity – by Brother – in the UK at least!  Check out the details here.

While browsing the internet recently to keep an eye on the printer market, I was astounded at the ‘presence’ that Brother seems to enjoy at one of the UK’s foremost and longstanding business stationery stores.

So, I decided to check around, add up some numbers and see just how much ‘presence’ Brother has developed.

<div class="imgfloatleft"><img src='http://tcpblogal.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/_1005-brother-mfc-pro-700c.jpg' alt='Brother MFC PRO-700C' />Brother MFC PRO-700C</div>

All but unknown for inkjet printers just a few short years ago, Brother has risen to through the ranks in its chosen inkjet field – three and four-function inkjet multifunction.  Seeing the future with remarkable clarity, without even bothering to design and build a single-function inkjet printer (except for one single-function mobile printer), Brother entered the inkjet market in 1997 with a specifically business-oriented, sheet-feed, fax-based multifunction device, MFC PRO-700C (third-party supplies still available).

<div class="imgfloatright"><img src='http://tcpblogal.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/_1005-brother-mfc-760.jpg' alt='Brother MFC-760' />Brother MFC-760</div>

Further sheet-feed models followed, together with a range of flatbed inkjet MFPs, actually looking remarkably like many of the flatbed laser MFPs available today!  But, it wasn’t until 2003 that the first of the appealing slim-line designs began to hit the shelves.  The other designs continued for a while, including at least one network-ready inkjet MFP, the MFC-3820CN, in around 2003/4.

<div class="imgfloatleft"><img style="margin-top:10px" src='http://tcpblogal.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/_1005-brother-mfc-4820c.jpg' alt='Brother MFC-4820C' />First of the<br/>slim-line models<br/>Brother MFC-4820C</div>

Since then, Brother’s devices have always been slim-line, compact and attractive, improving with each new generation and with a definitive ‘business-like’ feel to them.  True, if the early machines are set against the newest models, they are noisy but their style still holds good even today and they were, and still are, very effective and efficient machines.

Their print quality is great, print speed adequate, photo prints (especially from 2006 generation engines onwards) are natural and life-like and, with their individual ink tanks, Cost of Printing can often be lower than the competition. 

It is perhaps because we’ve come to expect Hewlett-Packard to be the market leader; have seen and heard of Epson and Canon for decades; and have witnessed Lexmark’s fortunes and struggles in the inkjet market over the years that we have perhaps tended to sideline Brother’s position in the market.  After all, Brother was known only as a player in the laser-based corporate and public sector markets (or sewing machines) until recent years.

So why has Brother succeeded where others have either failed or struggled? 

In the few years around the turn of the century we saw Xerox make an attempt on the inkjet market with a single-function inkjet printer.  Sadly that venture failed more as a result of the financial fortunes of the corporation as a whole rather than on the failure of what was actually not a bad piece of hardware – it was innovative if unexciting.

We have also seen Dell tackle the market with re-badged Lexmark hardware, finding some small degree of success on the back of its direct PC sales model.

Taking a user’s view of the hardware, Brother’s inkjet AiOs are appealing for a variety of reasons, some mentioned earlier:
<ul>
	<li>Models are slim-line and attractive.  They fit equal appropriately into a professional, small business or home environment</li>
	<li>Individual ink tanks ensure that inks can be replaced only when required (note the dramatic rise in individual ink models from Hewlett-Packard and Lexmark in the past three years or so!)</li>
	<li>Buying these ink tanks does not break the bank</li>
	<li>Print speeds may not be the best in the industry but are adequate</li>
	<li>Print quality is not in question at all </li>
	<li>Brother is still the only manufacturer to have A3 multifunction models on the market</li>
	<li>Brother has a model in the range to suit every small business or personal need</li>
	<li>Hardware purchase prices are very competitive and appealing</li>
	<li>Hardware sets itself up, whether USB or network, without undesirable user intervention, including scan-to location</li>
</ul>

So, let’s take a look at the results of our mini survey and see just how visible Brother’s inkjet multifunction devices are in the market.

We’ve looked at six of the UK’s major online resellers, all with a significant business market interests.  The sample could have been bigger but not all stores are capable of listing products in order of popularity.  In one instance, the ranking was in order of ‘user rating’ and in two other instances in an order that implied popularity without specifying the fact (a phone call confirmed the overall rankings).  Either way, the first products a users sees when visiting the site enjoy the highest visibility.

Two levels of visibility have been recorded, the top 30 inkjet multifunction products from each store and the top 10 products.  We’ll start with the more general position, covering the Top 30 in each store.

<strong>Brand Visibility and Popularity - Top 30</strong>
<table class="data" width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0">
<tr>
	<th>
		Number of
		products
	</th>
	<th>
		Brother
	</th>
	<th>
		Canon
	</th>
	<th>
		Epson
	</th>
	<th>
		Hewlett-
		Packard
	</th>
	<th>
		Kodak
	</th>
	<th>
		Lexmark
	</th>
	<th>
		Ricoh
	</th>
	<th>
		Total
	</th>
</tr>
<tr class="row1">
	<td class="Store">
		Store 1
	</td>
	<td class="Brother">
		7
	</td>
	<td class="Canon">
		5
	</td>
	<td class="Epson">
		5
	</td>
	<td class="Hewlett-Packard">
		3
	</td>
	<td class="Kodak">
		2
	</td>
	<td class="Lexmark">
		8
	</td>
	<td class="Ricoh">
		0
	</td>
	<td class="Total">
		30
	</td>
</tr>
<tr class="row2">
	<td class="Store">
		Store 2
	</td>
	<td class="Brother">
		5
	</td>
	<td class="Canon">
		3
	</td>
	<td class="Epson">
		7
	</td>
	<td class="Hewlett-Packard">
		10
	</td>
	<td class="Kodak">
		0
	</td>
	<td class="Lexmark">
		5
	</td>
	<td class="Ricoh">
		0
	</td>
	<td class="Total">
		30
	</td>
</tr>
<tr class="row3">
	<td class="Store">
		Store 3
	</td>
	<td class="Brother">
		5
	</td>
	<td class="Canon">
		6
	</td>
	<td class="Epson">
		7
	</td>
	<td class="Hewlett-Packard">
		7
	</td>
	<td class="Kodak">
		0
	</td>
	<td class="Lexmark">
		5
	</td>
	<td class="Ricoh">
		0
	</td>
	<td class="Total">
		30
	</td>
</tr>
<tr class="row4">
	<td class="Store">
		Store 4
	</td>
	<td class="Brother">
		13
	</td>
	<td class="Canon">
		6
	</td>
	<td class="Epson">
		2
	</td>
	<td class="Hewlett-Packard">
		4
	</td>
	<td class="Kodak">
		2
	</td>
	<td class="Lexmark">
		0
	</td>
	<td class="Ricoh">
		3
	</td>
	<td class="Total">
		30
	</td>
</tr>
<tr class="row5">
	<td class="Store">
		Store 5
	</td>
	<td class="Brother">
		10
	</td>
	<td class="Canon">
		1
	</td>
	<td class="Epson">
		7
	</td>
	<td class="Hewlett-Packard">
		6
	</td>
	<td class="Kodak">
		2
	</td>
	<td class="Lexmark">
		4
	</td>
	<td class="Ricoh">
		0
	</td>
	<td class="Total">
		30
	</td>
</tr>
<tr class="row6">
	<td class="Store">
		Store 6
	</td>
	<td class="Brother">
		12
	</td>
	<td class="Canon">
		0
	</td>
	<td class="Epson">
		6
	</td>
	<td class="Hewlett-Packard">
		11
	</td>
	<td class="Kodak">
		0
	</td>
	<td class="Lexmark">
		1
	</td>
	<td class="Ricoh">
		0
	</td>
	<td class="Total">
		30
	</td>
</tr>
<tr class="row7">
	<td class="Store">
		<strong>Total</strong>
	</td>
	<td class="Brother">
		<strong>52</strong>
	</td>
	<td class="Canon">
		<strong>21</strong>
	</td>
	<td class="Epson">
		<strong>34</strong>
	</td>
	<td class="Hewlett-Packard">
		<strong>41</strong>
	</td>
	<td class="Kodak">
		<strong>6</strong>
	</td>
	<td class="Lexmark">
		<strong>23</strong>
	</td>
	<td class="Ricoh">
		<strong>3</strong>
	</td>
	<td class="Total">
		<strong>180</strong>
	</td>
</tr>
</table>




<strong>Brand Visibility and Popularity - Top 30</strong>
<table class="data" width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0">
<tr>
	<th>
		Percentage
		share
	</th>
	<th>
		Brother
	</th>
	<th>
		Canon
	</th>
	<th>
		Epson
	</th>
	<th>
		Hewlett-
		Packard
	</th>
	<th>
		Kodak
	</th>
	<th>
		Lexmark
	</th>
	<th>
		Ricoh
	</th>
	<th>
		Total
	</th>
</tr>
<tr class="row1">
	<td class="Store">
		Store 1
	</td>
	<td class="Brother">
		23%
	</td>
	<td class="Canon">
		17%
	</td>
	<td class="Epson">
		17%
	</td>
	<td class="Hewlett-Packard">
		10%
	</td>
	<td class="Kodak">
		7%
	</td>
	<td class="Lexmark">
		27%
	</td>
	<td class="Ricoh">
		0%
	</td>
	<td class="Total">
		100%
	</td>
</tr>
<tr class="row2">
	<td class="Store">
		Store 2
	</td>
	<td class="Brother">
		17%
	</td>
	<td class="Canon">
		10%
	</td>
	<td class="Epson">
		23%
	</td>
	<td class="Hewlett-Packard">
		33%
	</td>
	<td class="Kodak">
		0%
	</td>
	<td class="Lexmark">
		17%
	</td>
	<td class="Ricoh">
		0%
	</td>
	<td class="Total">
		100%
	</td>
</tr>
<tr class="row3">
	<td class="Store">
		Store 3
	</td>
	<td class="Brother">
		17%
	</td>
	<td class="Canon">
		20%
	</td>
	<td class="Epson">
		23%
	</td>
	<td class="Hewlett-Packard">
		23%
	</td>
	<td class="Kodak">
		0%
	</td>
	<td class="Lexmark">
		17%
	</td>
	<td class="Ricoh">
		0%
	</td>
	<td class="Total">
		100%
	</td>
</tr>
<tr class="row4">
	<td class="Store">
		Store 4
	</td>
	<td class="Brother">
		43%
	</td>
	<td class="Canon">
		20%
	</td>
	<td class="Epson">
		7%
	</td>
	<td class="Hewlett-Packard">
		13%
	</td>
	<td class="Kodak">
		7%
	</td>
	<td class="Lexmark">
		0%
	</td>
	<td class="Ricoh">
		10%
	</td>
	<td class="Total">
		100%
	</td>
</tr>
<tr class="row5">
	<td class="Store">
		Store 5
	</td>
	<td class="Brother">
		33%
	</td>
	<td class="Canon">
		3%
	</td>
	<td class="Epson">
		23%
	</td>
	<td class="Hewlett-Packard">
		20%
	</td>
	<td class="Kodak">
		7%
	</td>
	<td class="Lexmark">
		13%
	</td>
	<td class="Ricoh">
		0%
	</td>
	<td class="Total">
		100%
	</td>
</tr>
<tr class="row6">
	<td class="Store">
		Store 6
	</td>
	<td class="Brother">
		40%
	</td>
	<td class="Canon">
		0%
	</td>
	<td class="Epson">
		20%
	</td>
	<td class="Hewlett-Packard">
		37%
	</td>
	<td class="Kodak">
		0%
	</td>
	<td class="Lexmark">
		3%
	</td>
	<td class="Ricoh">
		0%
	</td>
	<td class="Total">
		100%
	</td>
</tr>
<tr class="row7">
	<td class="Store">
		<strong>Total</strong>
	</td>
	<td class="Brother">
		<strong>29%</strong>
	</td>
	<td class="Canon">
		<strong>12%</strong>
	</td>
	<td class="Epson">
		<strong>19%</strong>
	</td>
	<td class="Hewlett-Packard">
		<strong>23%</strong>
	</td>
	<td class="Kodak">
		<strong>3%</strong>
	</td>
	<td class="Lexmark">
		<strong>13%</strong>
	</td>
	<td class="Ricoh">
		<strong>2%</strong>
	</td>
	<td class="Total">
		<strong>100%</strong>
	</td>
</tr>
</table>

Although Brother has the largest number of products in the Top 30 in only half of the stores, its still strong showing in the other three stores ensures that its overall visibility is considerably higher than any of its competitors, accounting for 29% of the total of 180 products.

Even market leader Hewlett-Packard accounts for only 23% of products seen in the Top 30, while Ricoh just makes it into the line-up.  It only takes a brief glance at the charts below to appreciate the general strength that Brother has established in its market presence.

<H3><div style="padding-top:15px; text-align:center">Brand Visibility and Popularity - Top 30</div></H3><div style="text-align:center">Inkjet Multifunction Printers - by Store</div>

<br />
<b>Fatal error</b>:  Call to undefined function  insertchart() in <b>/home/tcpbloga/public_html/charts/php/issue_1005-1_chart1.php</b> on line <b>6</b><br />
