Some Dealer-Channel Digital Imaging Vendors Are Finally Coming Around To B2B—Who Is And Who Isn’t?
When Wirth Consulting decided to perform a comprehensive Head2Head Comparison Reporton entry-level monochrome network MFPs, we found that the category was more complicated than we initially thought. We define “entry level” as the lowest-priced monochrome MFP offered by each vendor, with network capability, as we believe networking capability is essential in any shared office environment. And of course, we only selected models available through the retail channel.We did our research and came up with 10 models that qualified from Brother, Canon, Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Konica Minolta, OKI Data, Panasonic, and Xerox. Prices for these systems range from $189 to $399. However, once we began our evaluation, we noted that there were two classes of devices within this group that were not readily noticeable.
We determined that the four devices that cost in excess of $300 had a considerably lower Cost Per Page (CPP) and that some could be upgraded to a larger media capacity. Consequently, we determined that it was not realistic to compare Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) between low-cost/moderate-to-high CPP devices and high-cost/low-to-moderate CPP devices. We also noticed that these four devices were available from vendors that primarily support the office-dealer channel: Konica Minolta, OKI, Ricoh, and Xerox. Consequently, we decided to split this group in two.
Here are the Best in Class Winners for the two groups:
|Entry-Level B/W Network MFPs Under $300||Entry-Level B/W Network MFPs Over $300|
|Panasonic KX-MB2030 – $189||Ricoh Aficio SP 3400SF – $399|
Note that in spite of a $210 price difference and a considerably lower CPP, the TCO of the Ricoh Aficio SP 3400SF was lower than that of the Panasonic KX-MB2030 at monthly printing volumes above 250 page per month, and the feature set of the Aficio SP 3400SF made it more suitable for higher monthly print volumes.
The moral of the story is this:
Wirth Consulting has been studying the B2B and retail channels for printers and MFPs for several years now. The Head2Head Comparison Reports just described mark the first time that we’ve seen devices from vendors devoted primarily to the dealer channel out-perform devices from vendors who supply the B2B channel.
Several key findings about the products from vendors who primarily supply the dealer channel stood out:
Cost Per Page and Total Cost of Ownership is considerably lower for dealer-channel MFPs.
The dealer-channel MFPs’ overall feature set is highly competitive and expansion options are available
While previously, the dealer-channel vendors typically watered-down the business-class feature set of their A4 B2B MFPs (presumably for fear of eroding sales of their more lucrative A3 MFPs), this current class of devices (B/W monochrome MFPs) for the most part provide business-class features such as color scan to network folders, scan to e-mail servers, etc.
While the vendors that primarily serve the dealer channel still have a way to go with B2B products that provide color, duplexing and finishing, the results of our study are encouraging. We understand that said vendors feel they must protect the sales of their dealer products, but some of them recognize the scope of the B2B marketplace, and have the foresight and guts to be proactive about it, while others are still in denial.
Dealer Channel Vendors – B2B Scorecard
Note that the following table uses Hewlett-Packard as the benchmark. Clearly HP is “King of the B2B Channel” and rightly has many cross-hairs focused on them. How does Wirth Consulting rate HP’s B2B lineup?
Officejet product line – Business class feature set and low CPP and TCO,
LaserJet product line – Business/enterprise class feature set and high CPP and TCO.
Clearly, HP can do better with the LaserJet product line, simply by lowering the cost of the supplies. This would really lower the boom on the dealer-channel vendors that compete with HP all day in the trenches, primarily by selling devices with a considerably lower CPP and TCO. This one move would be far easier than revamping the entire LaserJet product line, and it would other vendors off at the pass. Can it really be that simple? Does HP have the fortitude to go for it?