INNOVATION AT DRUPA · drupa, the technology is unveiled and demonstrated to the audience. At the...
Transcript of INNOVATION AT DRUPA · drupa, the technology is unveiled and demonstrated to the audience. At the...
INNOVATION AT DRUPA
ANALYSIS OF LAUNCHES AT DRUPA 2008, 2012, & 2016
MAY 2019
ANALYSIS
Innovation at drupa
P1 | © Keypoint Intelligence
Document
Objectives and Methodology ......................................................................................................... 2
Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 2
Deliverables .................................................................................................................................... 2
Analysis ................................................................................................................................................ 3
Technology Demonstrations/Previews ...................................................................................... 4
New Product Introductions .......................................................................................................... 5
Product Line Extensions ................................................................................................................ 6
A Perspective on Technology Cycles ........................................................................................ 8
Buying Trends ...................................................................................................................................... 9
A perspective on buying cycles ................................................................................................. 9
Data from InfoTrends’ CMYK+ research .................................................................................... 11
Data from InfoTrends’ application research ............................................................................ 12
Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................................. 13
Suggested Talk Track .................................................................................................................... 13
Tables
Table 1: Technology Demonstrations/Previews .............................................................................. 4
Table 2: New Product Introductions ................................................................................................. 5
Table 3: Product Line Extensions ........................................................................................................ 6
Figures
Figure 1: A Value-Driven Strategy ................................................................................................... 11
Figure 2: Service Expansion Needs ................................................................................................. 12
co
nte
nts
ANALYSIS
Innovation at drupa
P2 | © Keypoint Intelligence
Objectives
The primary objective of this research is to explore drupa from an innovation perspective.
The secondary objective is to determine the impact of delaying investment in platforms
that support innovation and evolution in the print market. Particularly of interest are the
total number of digital presses introduced in a specific drupa year, and what percentage
of these become available within a year, two years, three years, or longer. In addition, the
paper also factors in those devices which, despite being unveiled, never reached
commercial release. This research examines the impact on a print service provider (PSP)’s
business if they wait for longer term product launches.
Methodology
The research goal is to review product launches from drupa 2008, 2012, and 2016 to
identify how major innovations were announced and presented. The analysis includes
factors such as initiative size and whether the product was announced in partnership with
another organization.
The research tracks forward to see which announcements came to market and which
ones never launched, adding analysis of initial market perception at the time of the
announcements. With this, the paper frames any discrepancy between how a product
was presented at unveiling versus how it was received at commercial launch.
The research ranks the initiatives in terms of meeting expectations, analysing any gap
between expectations and reality. To ensure objectivity, this document includes factors
like market and economic changes that occurred within the outlined product time frame.
That said, vendor judgement and foresight is also considered – especially if market
analysists at the time were predicting challenges that the product developers overlooked.
The research also examines buying trends that impact HP indigo, regarding specialty
applications that cannot be done on inkjet.
Note: With a very few exceptions, this research does not include products that are
exclusively for wide format graphics or packaging applications. The focus is on products
intended for commercial print and document applications.
Deliverables
The deliverables are:
A report of the findings, analysis, and conclusions (this document)
A presentation of illustrations from the report (PowerPoint presentation)
ANALYSIS
Innovation at drupa
P3 | © Keypoint Intelligence
These include suggestions for talk tracks and approaches for leveraging the data
outcomes included in presentation and report. Follow-up Q&A access to Keypoint
Intelligence – InfoTrends’ consultants is expected.
Analysis
Our examination of product announcements and technology demonstrations covers 18
vendors and 84 individual announcements. The PowerPoint presentation of the research
results goes through these on a company basis. This section summarizes that research in
tables that are sorted into three categories:
Technology demonstrations/previews
New product introductions
Product line extensions
Each announcement is given a ranking:
1 (Product launched on time)
2 (Product launched within a year of initial launch date)
3 (Product launched 1-3 years late)
4 (Product launched 3-5 years late)
5 (Product over 5 years late, but still expected to launch)
NL (Never launched)
ANALYSIS
Innovation at drupa
P4 | © Keypoint Intelligence
Technology Demonstrations/Previews
Twenty-three of the announcements are technology demonstrations/previews. From this
review, it is clear that vendors consistently failed to meet the timelines they discussed
during their technology demonstrations. In this category:
Five technology demonstrations never appeared as finished products
Seventeen were delayed by three years or more
Only one technology demonstration met its target launch date
Table 1: Technology Demonstrations/Previews
Vendor Product drupa
Year
Planned
Launch
Actual
Launch Ranking Comments
Canon/
Océ Infinistream 2012 2013 N/A NL
Project
cancelled
Canon Voyager 2016 2018 N/A 5
HP HP Inkjet Web
Press 2008 2009 2009 1 T Series (T300)
Impika Genesis
(Concept) 2012 2013 N/A NL
Replaced by
Rialto 900
Kodak UltraStream 2016 2018 N/A 5 Now planned
for 2019
Kodak
Nexpress Max
Platform
(Nexfinity)
2016 2017 2018 3 Renamed
Nexfinity
Kodak Stream
(Concept) 2008 2010 2012 3
Renamed
Prosper
Konica
Minolta KM-C 2016 2018 N/A 5
Konica
Minolta AccurioJet KM-1 2012 2013 2017 3
Landa Nanographic 2012 2013
2017 -
Beta
S10
4
Landa W10P 2016 2017 N/A 4
Landa S5 2012 2013 N/A 5
Landa S7 2012 2013 N/A 5
Landa S10 2012 2013 2017 4
Beta install
Graphica
Bezalel in
2017
Landa W5 2012 2013 N/A 5
Landa W10 2012 2013 2016 4
Landa W50 2012 2013 N/A 5
MGI Alphajet 2012 2013 TBD 5 Now planned
for 2019
ANALYSIS
Innovation at drupa
P5 | © Keypoint Intelligence
RISO T1 2016 2017 TBD 5 Now planned
for 2019
RISO T2 2016 2017 2017 4
Xeikon Trillium One 2016 2017 N/A NL
Project
cancelled in
2017
Xeikon Trillium 2012 2013 N/A NL
Formerly
named
Quantum,
project later
cancelled
(see Trillium
One)
Xerox ConceptColor
220 2008 2009 N/A NL
Not
commercially
released
Specifying a timeline during technology demonstrations is unwise, as these dates are rarely
met. That being said, many technology demonstrations’ primary goal is to gauge
customer interest. If perspective clients are unresponsive, the system vendor simply steps
back from what would likely be an unsuccessful product launch
New Product Introductions
Thirteen of the surveyed announcements were new product introductions. Once a
company is fully prepared to release a product, there is a general expectation that
product availability will follow shortly—but this is not always the case. While eight products
launched as expected, five others met with challenges:
One product never launched
Four reached the market one to three years late
Table 2: New Product Introductions
Vendor Product drupa
Year
Planned
Launch
Actual
Launch Ranking Comments
Delphax elan 2012 2012 2015 3
Fujifilm Jet Press 720 2008 2009 2011 3
Fujifilm/H
eidelberg Primefire 106 2016 2017 2018 3
Impika Compact 2012 2012 N/A 1 Replaced by
Trivor 2400
Impika eVolution 2012 2013 2015 3
Impika eXtreme 2012 2013 N/A NL
Xerox
acquisition in
2013, product
not released
Impika iPress 600 2008 2008 2008 1
ANALYSIS
Innovation at drupa
P6 | © Keypoint Intelligence
InfoPrint 5000 2008 2007 2007 1
Kodak Versamark
VL2000 2008 2008 2008 1
Xeikon 8000 2008 2008 2008 1
Xerox Brenva HD 2016 2016 2016 1
Xerox Trivor 2400 2016 2016 2016 1
Replaces
Impika
Compact
Xerox CiPress 325 2012 2012 2012 1
Product Line Extensions
Forty-eight of the announcements were product line extensions. As would be expected,
product line extensions generally launched on time. Nevertheless, there were a few
noteworthy aberrations:
36 (75%) of these product line extensions launched on time
Ten were up to three years late
Two never launched
The results show that, even when dealing with a product line extension, one-out-of-four
projects will at least suffer delays. Perspective clients and hopeful customers have reason
to be skeptical of even these tradeshow announcements.
Table 3: Product Line Extensions
Vendor Product drupa
Year
Planned
Launch
Actual
Launch Ranking Comments
Canon ColorStream
6000 2016 2016 2016 1
Canon imagePRESS
C8000VP 2016 2016 2016 1
Canon ColorStream
3200 2012 2013 2014 3
Canon ColorStream
3900 2012 2013 2014 3
Canon JetStream 4300 2012 2013 2013 1
Canon JetStream 4300
mono 2012 2012 2013 1
Canon imagePRESS
mono 2008 2008 2009 1
Fujifilm Jet Press 720S 2016 2016 2016 1
Replaces
plans for 720
F
Fujifilm Jet Press 720 F 2012 2013 N/A NL For folding
carton
ANALYSIS
Innovation at drupa
P7 | © Keypoint Intelligence
market,
project later
cancelled in
favor of 720S
Fujifilm Jet Press 720 W 2012 2013 2013 1
RF variant of
Jet Press 720,
replaced by
the 540W
HP Indigo 50000 2016 2017 2017 2
HP Indigo 12000 2016 2016 2016 2
HP Indigo 10000 2012 2012 2012 1
HP T410 2012 2012 2012 1
HP Indigo 7000 2008 2008 2008 1
HP Indigo W7200 2008 2009 2009 1
HP Indigo WS6000 2008 2009 2009 1
Kodak Prosper 6000XL 2012 2012 2012 1
Kodak NexPress S3600 2008 2009 N/A NL
Not
launched,
replaced by
NexPress SE
platform
Kodak Digimaster EX300 2008 2009 2009 1
Konica
Minolta Pro 958 2016 2016 2016 1
Konica
Minolta Pro 1100 2016 2016 2016 1
Konica
Minolta C71cf 2016 2016 2016 1
Konica
Minolta
bizhub PRESS
C1100 2012 2013 2014 3
Konica
Minolta
bizhub PRESS
1052 2012 2012 2012 1
Konica
Minolta
bizhub PRESS
1250 2012 2012 2012 1
Konica
Minolta bizhub PRO 951 2012 2012 2012 1
Konica
Minolta
bizhub PRESS
2250P 2012 2014 2014 2
Konica
Minolta
bizhub PRO
C5501 2008 2008 2007 1
Konica
Minolta
bizhub PRO
C6501 2008 2008 2008 1
Konica
Minolta
bizhub PRO
C65hc 2008 2009 2009 2
Konica
Minolta bizhub PRO 1200 2008 2009 2009 1
Océ JetStream 750 2008 2008 2008 1
Océ JetStream 1100 2008 2008 2008 1
ANALYSIS
Innovation at drupa
P8 | © Keypoint Intelligence
Océ JetStream 1500 2008 2008 2008 1
Océ JetStream 2200 2008 2008 2008 1
Océ JetStream 3000 2008 2008 2008 1
Océ ColorStream
10000 2008 2008 2008 1
Océ VarioPrint 4120 2008 2008 2008 1
Ricoh PRO C900 2008 2008 2008 1
RISO ComColor GD 2016 2017 2017 1
Production
model of
ComColor
RISO ComColor FW 2016 2017 2017 1 Office model
of ComColor
Screen TruePress
Jet520NX 2016 2017 2018 3
Screen TruePress SX 2008 2009 2012 3
Screen TruePress
Jet520E 2008 2008 2008 1
Screen TruePress Jet520Z 2008 2008 2008 1
Xeikon 9600 2016 2016 2016 1
Xerox iGen 150 2012 2012 2012 2
A Perspective on Technology Cycles
It is our experience that a successful move from a technology demonstration to a
marketable high-end digital printing product is often a “three drupa” process. At the “first”
drupa, the technology is unveiled and demonstrated to the audience. At the “second”
drupa, beta sites and early placements are announced. Finally – most products are
commercially available, or at least at imminent launch, by their “third” drupa. Overall, this
marks an average eight-year development cycle.
To look at the numbers, of the twenty-three technology demonstrations at drupa 2008,
drupa 2012, and drupa 2016 - seventeen were delayed by three years or more. Five were
never commercially released at all.
Therefore, system vendors grossly underestimate the amount of time that it will take to get
a product to market. This optimism is misguided, and whether intentional or not, it may
delay purchasing decisions.
Press and analyst coverage of product announcements shows little skepticism about
planned release dates. Glowing reports in the news and early analyses are typical. Failures
are rarely highlighted. This could change somewhat as several high-profile launches have
been delayed by many years. Analysts and the press can no longer afford to be so naïve,
but they are not likely to be harsh until long after the fact, or until an organization
becomes guilty of several notable repeated delays.
ANALYSIS
Innovation at drupa
P9 | © Keypoint Intelligence
Buying Trends
In looking at the buying trends that impact HP, we explored three relevant areas:
A perspective on buying cycles
Data from InfoTrends’ CMYK+ research
Data from InfoTrends’ application research
A perspective on buying cycles
It is clear from data that acquisitions costing more than $1 million are likely to be multi-year
buying decisions. In addition, vendors with no products are incentivized to delay their
prospects’ buying decisions with attractive technology and marketing efforts. In fact, early
announcements have the effect of “freezing” the market and delaying purchase
decisions. On top of this, buyers may be becoming more cautious about expensive capital
acquisitions due to earlier experiences, where they did not have the volume to fill those
devices.
Nevertheless, many organizations still make purchasing decisions with the technology
demo release date in mind. Given that this time table is frequently drawn out by years of
delays, this can lead to significant issues for the expectant client. While it is virtually
impossible to assign an exact dollar value to the damage caused by a missed deadline,
InfoTrends has identified six scenarios where PSPs could suffer as a result of a product
delay. Below are the outlined situations, as well as their resulting impacts.
Scenario 1: The company’s print volume continues to increase
o The volume increase will have to be handled on existing equipment with extra
shifts or perhaps via outsourcing.
o Existing equipment will be stressed by the extra volume and, as a result, its
service expense will increase.
o There are implications for the PSP’s sales force:
▪ If the new equipment is late, the sales force will need to overcome potential
customer delivery issues.
▪ If the sales organization hesitates, there will be an impact on anticipated new
revenue.
Scenario 2: Current equipment is coming off lease
o Delays may force the PSP to extend a lease at unfavorable terms or lock into a
lease that prevents new purchases.
ANALYSIS
Innovation at drupa
P10 | © Keypoint Intelligence
Scenario 3: Anticipated contractual volume over a period of years
o The delay creates financial issues, such as the need to outsource work to meet
previously set contractual obligations.
Scenario 4: Business expansion into new application areas
o Any product delays will hamper work that needs to be done to capture new
clients and push out business plans that were put into place to pay for the
equipment.
o It also delays the associated revenue and is likely to put a big dent into an
organization’s financial planning.
Scenario 5: Migration of work from offset presses to digital print
o This becomes problematic when the timing is off, especially as PSPs must
convince offset customers that the quality level of digital is comparable to
offset.
o It also creates problems when trying to energize the sales force to sell in new
ways.
Scenario 6: Desire for lower running costs, sustainable business practices
o Newer technology will likely be more productive and may offer lower running
cost.
o Delays equipment ROI and lowers projected revenue savings.
o Can result in maintaining a workflow that is environmentally unsound, opening
up possible PR damage in a world where eco-friendliness is increasingly
prioritized.
ANALYSIS
Innovation at drupa
P11 | © Keypoint Intelligence
Data from InfoTrends’ CMYK+ research
An InfoTrends study published in December 2016 explored the use of special effects
beyond CMYK in digital printing. Key results of that study are summarized in the next few
paragraphs to describe the market opportunity and print buyer interest. The study
underscores the importance of a value-based strategy for PSPs.
Figure 1: A Value-Driven Strategy
This study concluded that there is a massive opportunity for digital print enhancement
within promotional printing applications that has barely been acted upon. Nearly 1.8 trillion
color pages in the US and Western Europe (around 30% of the total color pages) currently
receive some type of special effects or enhancements. About 46% of offset printing that is
enhanced requires two or more enhancements. Many commercial printers already have
sufficient short run (<1,000) enhanced offset print volumes to justify a digital offline
enhancement system. Limiting factors may include acquisition price and the ability to do
multiple enhancements in a single pass.
Only 0.5% of these pages are being enhanced with a digital process, such as in-line with a
digital press like HP Indigo or off-line on a system like MGI or Scodix. InfoTrends projects that
digital print enhancement volume will demonstrate a 27% compound annual growth rate
(CAGR) from 2015 to 2020. This volume is expected to reach 25 billion pages by 2020 (less
than 2% of the 1.8 trillion available enhancement market). This growth rate is more than
twice the rate of the CMYK digital printing market. We expect above overall market
growth rates for digital print enhancements to continue well into the 2020s
Roughly half of the PSPs that InfoTrends surveyed were considering a digital print
enhancement system in the next two years. Of those, 58% will most likely buy a digital
Cost-driven
strategy
Va
lue
-drive
n
stra
teg
y
Productivity• Speed
• Automation• Uptime
Quality• Gamut
• Spot colors• Resolution• Consistency
Running costs• Consumables
• Service• Equipment
Substrates• Grades
• Weights• Sizes
Enhancements• White
• Coatings• Textures• Security• Metallics• Fluorescents
Supply chain• Inventory
• Delivery• Time
• Premium offerings
• Standout capabilities
• Design excellence
• Differentiation
Digital Print Advantages• Short runs, quick turnaround
• Personalization• Print on demand• Just-in-time manufacturing• The digital printer as a virtual document repository
CMYK+ Supports a Value-Driven Strategy
ANALYSIS
Innovation at drupa
P12 | © Keypoint Intelligence
printer with in-line enhancement capability while 42% said they would likely purchase an
offline system. PSPs’ profit margins on digital print enhancement can be very high (50% to
400%), resulting in a quick return on investment (ROI) from the equipment purchase. PSPs
only need low utilization rates (30% or less) with in-line or off-line systems if they have
properly priced and promoted the capability. The key factor to achieving higher margins is
upselling the print enhancement. Many printers are not aggressively promoting or training
their reps to upsell the capability.
Print buyers are very interested in digital print enhancements. Most are unaware of the
capabilities, even if they have purchased print for many years. Most reported very high
acceptance of print/enhancement quality. Print buyers indicated they are willing to pay a
premium of 24% to 89% over CMYK only for digital print enhancements. Print buyers stated
the highest premiums for textured, foils, and metallic (40% to 89%) and lower premiums for
specialty, spot color, and coating (24% to 37%). Print buyers expect that price premiums
and PSPs’ prices for print enhancements are similar in most cases.
Data from InfoTrends’ application research
An InfoTrends study published in the beginning of 2019 called Applications in Digital Print
Survey found that application expansion is top of mind for PSPs. Nearly 40% of survey
respondents that are planning to expand their range of print applications said they
expected to do so with business development. Other top-ranked expansion needs include
a larger print format and expansion of finishing equipment in production.
Figure 2: Service Expansion Needs
9%
2%
2%
11%
13%
16%
16%
18%
24%
24%
24%
38%
38%
49%
53%
0% 20% 40% 60%
Other
Other non-technical reasons
Higher ink density / color strength
Long sheet up to 47'/ 1,200 mm
Long sheet up to 27'/ 700mm
Support for non-paper / specialty media
Other technical requirements
Specialty colors (in addition to CMYK)
Support for heavier media
Better use of current workflow software
Changes in sales team/channel
New workflow software
More Business development
Additional finishing equipment
Larger print format
N = 45 U.S. Respondents who plan on expanding their range of print applications
Source: Applications in Digital Print Survey; Keypoint Intelligence – InfoTrends 2018
What would you need to expand your print application range?
Multiple Responses Permitted
ANALYSIS
Innovation at drupa
P13 | © Keypoint Intelligence
Conclusions and Recommendations
Four questions were asked at the beginning of this research. First, we examined how often
vendors met their targeted launch dates, concluding that these time frames were
infrequently realized – with many products seeing delays of three years or more from their
initial technology demonstrations until release. Our research also showed that target dates
for new product introduction generally fell within a year of the started dates, and that
existing product line extension launches were generally released on time – albeit with
several notable exceptions.
The second question that InfoTrends investigated revolved around how often technology
demonstrations actually made it to a commercial product release. Of the 23 technology
demonstrations we surveyed, only one made its intended launch date. Exactly 17 of our
highlighted products were delayed for at least three years, and five were never released
at all. While this shows the majority of products do see commercial releases, it
demonstrates concrete evidence that the initial release date should almost always be
disregarded as misleading or overly optimistic.
The third topic this paper examined was the product reception. We noted that, in general,
press and analysts are quick to gloss over the fact that most products and technology
demonstrations miss their release window. As a result, many objective news sources do not
do a proper job of tempering client expectations, nor challenging the fact that most
system vendors drastically underestimate the time it takes to bring a product to market.
Lastly, we looked at what impact all this had on the users. While definitive results are hard
to quantify, we developed six potential scenarios that lay out the possibilities of a
meaningful product delay. In general, while certain press outlets and analysts fail to cover
the probability of delays, there is no doubt that buyers should consider them before a
massive purchase. A delay can result in loss of income, outsourced workflows, missed
business objectives, and more. Print buyers cannot afford to be as naïve as the print
industry media when it comes to considering these purchases.
Suggested Talk Track
Technology demonstrations and new product announcements from the last three drupas
paint a picture of:
Overly optimistic availability dates
Significant numbers of technologies that never come to market
Customers passing up products and features that could have had an immediate
benefit
ANALYSIS
Innovation at drupa
P14 | © Keypoint Intelligence
New technology development does not happen overnight. It is common for an eight-year
cycle to be required - from the first showing of a technology through beta testing and the
ultimate product release. Historic examples, like Landa and Xeikon Trillium, help bring this
point home
The fallout of a product delay can be hard to quantify, but likely includes:
An organization’s inability to handle volume increases
Open questions about renewing existing leases or signing new ones
An inability to handle existing contractual volume
An inability to expand into new application areas, even ones that have been planned
for several years
Difficulty migrating work from offset presses to digital printing solutions
Higher running costs and inefficient business practices
Overall, these delays impact the health of the business, including reducing its ability to
implement new market initiatives. This, in turn, can make an organization less competitive
in the market space, and reduce its ability to develop employee skills that could benefit
the business and spur productivity in the future.
Regarding CMYK+ features, delays in implementing these can hamper a company’s ability
to follow a value-driven strategy and address a growing market opportunity.
4AA7-5940EEW, July 2019