1. Make the substrate more expensive
Inkjet paper could be 30-40% more expensive than offset litho paper. Most paper manufacturers are formulating new papers for new kinds of printers, but they involve processes that add more cost to manufacturing. Some inkjet printers pre-coat the substrate before printing; this additional consumable must be taken into account.
Pre-coating also provides benefits in terms of colour reproduction, and very importantly, de-inking. Only a few inkjet devices use "plain" paper (originally made for litho). Depending on how you measure it, paper is 30-50% of the cost of a printing job. Make the paper more expensive and you not only make inkjet printing less economical, you make print in general less economical. Inkjet should give us a quality close to offset at lower cost. By lowering the cost of print, we can make print more competitive with electronic media.
2. Limit the substrates available
Some systems are good at printing on uncoated stocks and some are better at coated. But few can print on both kinds well. Pre-coating can help. Some devices are better on uncoated and have one or two coated grades made specially. But, as of now, there are limitations on the number of substrates available for inkjet.
This was also true as toner-based printing evolved and papers had to be specially formulated. Today, many papers are available, but not as many as offset printing. Toner-based printing grew as the number of papers grew. The same will be true for inkjet.
3. Lock me into expensive ink
One of the benefits of inkjet printing is the elimination of plates and blankets. That means inkjet should be less expensive than litho. But inkjet ink pricing, like toner, is not subject to competition in most cases. Look at desktop inkjet printers, where the ink is about the same price as champagne. The printer makers keep changing the cartridge designs to foil the re-fillers, which is why I can’t find ink for a printer only a few years old.
Inkjet printing is almost all heads and ink. In many cases heads are consumable after some period of production. A consumables-based model for suppliers is reasonable. They deserve a cash flow that allows new development. But they must be responsible in pricing. It is simple: the numbers must work. Hype will not help. We can all do maths.
4. Will the click-charge model survive?
I was the first key operator for the first Xerox 914 copier in Brooklyn, NY (I know you are impressed). We had used a ThermFax copier, which took much effort to make even a poor copy. The 914 was pricey for its day and my company said it did not make many copies and could not afford the machine. So Xerox came up with the click charge: every copy cost a certain amount and that included the toner and service.
As time passed the number of copies increased exponentially and click charges were pro-rated based on volume. So began a business model that almost every digital vendor has embraced. A few offer pricing based on separate consumables and service.
Fast forward to the 1990s. To get a very low click charge, print houses opted for the highest-volume tier, which provided the lowest click charge. Then to fill that volume, they lowered prices below the point of profitability. With many firms at the same cost level, there was no differentiation and no one made money. This is the definition of commoditisation. Thus, within a decade, monochrome digital printing created and destroyed its own market.
The offset litho model has held us in good stead over the decades. Ink companies competed for your ink business. Paper firms did the same. So did servicing companies. But because the inkjet machine, the consumable, and the substrate are inter-related, they have been linked in new business models. Today’s leaders in inkjet could become tomorrow’s has-beens. It will be a very competitive market and many promises will be made. Hopefully they will be kept.
Frank Romano is professor emeritus at the Rochester Institute of Technology.
This article initially appeared in ProPrint.
