Is A3 Market Share Relevant to Konica Minolta’s Future? NO

This article is a counterpoint, an alternative view to an article published in the recent ENX Magazine (pages 32-35). I would challenge many points in this article. The article is an interview with the newly appointed COO of Konica, Sam Errigo (pictured).

I have also highlighted some of my views on the Konica Minolta interview’s contents in an episode of The End Of The Day With Ray!

The Future of Print Equipment

The vast majority of A3 MFPs will soon be A4 MFPs. Of, course some OEMs are not positioned at all to rapidly go where the customers are going. Therefore, these OEMs will continue distracting themselves and their partners by arguing it’s not about A3 or A4.

This argument reminds me of all statements made to keep things as they are based on the arguer’s unreadiness. Or, worse, the insecurities the OEM may have of their place in the future.

Konica expressed a somewhat lack of concern regarding the future of business print in that ENX magazine article by enthusiastically remarking on their 17% market share. The problem is that the market share is based on A3.

I think everyone reading this would admit, Konica’s A4 market share would be one of the lowest in the industry, would it not?

The industry’s actors who understand the transition to Managed IT services would also admit that an OEM print market share is irrelevant to selling IT services or other service-based diversified deliverables.

If there were a collation, All Covered would have a massive percentage of its print customers as IT services customers after ten years of Konica ownership. Would they not? If they do, they should proudly share those statistics.

Dealers Being Distracted by Unprepared OEMs

Does it seem like the industry continues selling itself on an outdated relevance over selling end-users a continuous relevance?

My friends, I don’t like to be vague in my arguments, especially during our industry’s most significant disruption in its history.

I will continue saying, “If the industry cannot discuss the ways of its defeat, the industry will fall victim to those innovators who are focused on defeating them.”

My biggest concern is that dealers are being distracted by unprepared OEMs. If the reality is that nearly 90% of all business A3 MFP devices could easily be A4 MFP devices and the OEMs response is that end-users don’t know the difference between A3 and A4.

I say, wow!!

Surely, I am not alone in understanding the absolute dysfunction in building business models based on keeping end-users in the dark about what could greatly benefit them. Am I?

I have stated repeatedly that the most significant disruptions to the old way are when the new way discovers things the old way is doing against the best interest of the customers they serve.

Once these disruptive innovators discover these dysfunctions, they set out on the path to educating the old way’s customer on the better way. This better way or better experience will cause the old way’s great relationships to leave that relationship and start a new one.

All those who are reading this from the print equipment and services industry know precisely the difference between A3 and A4. They also know the implications to nearly all the business processes of the A3 OEMs, their direct operations, and the dealers who sell, service, and supply A3 equipment.

So, pretending or hoping that end-users stay ignorant to alternative possibilities based on unreadiness is actually what every innovative disruptor bets on.

All the industry’s dealers and its OEMs must stop the delusion that it’s not about A4 or A3. Instead, seek to completely understand what would happen to your business when current A3 customers are presented A4 MFP equipment sub $3,000.00 and when nearly all business print volumes fall below 3,000 pages per month?

That is why it’s about A4 and A3.

Returning to the Office?

Now I want to address the silliness regarding how many people will return to the office to determine returning print volumes. This insanity is completely distracting to the realities that all businesses are on a path to eliminate non-digital business processes.

In today’s business, the most significant interruption to business workflow is to print or scan a document. This disruption will now increase as workers return to the office, causing business leaders to ask, “what did my staff do when they were remote?”

The answer to that question is extremely threatening to the business model of over-selling and over-spec’ing A3.

Let’s examine the outcome of the greatest migration to remote work in history. Nearly every business customer of the print equipment and services industry is now focused like never before: to ensure that more and more workflow processes remain behind glass, eliminating the need to print as much as possible.

Now let’s discuss the greatest distraction of all, The zero output or the paperless world argument. Those who translate the arguments of digitalization as a paperless argument are disingenuous.

Everyone reading this who follows me will conclude that print will continue. My arguments have never been about zero print or the paperless office. People say this because they know it’s completely illogical and they hope no one will respond to correct what they don’t believe or what they deem is impossible. This distracts those from the conversations of the real threats of the coming massive declines in office printing.

The print equipment and services industry will not be immune from the pain as its end-users seek better experiences. I strongly suggest that the legacy players stop distracting themselves and face the pain associated with change. I suggest the legacy players bring their great relationships that better experience before the new innovators do.