Printer Wars: Epson vs. Epson, or the difference of mentalities
Probably everyone is somehow aware of the strange situation with printers and cartridges for them - when it is more profitable to sell an old printer and buy a new one, than to buy another set of cartridges. In my opinion, such a pricing strategy is flawed and hurts the end customer.
I will try to talk about the causes of this phenomenon, the assumptions and conclusions. Here, for example, one of the major players in the market of printers - Epson.
The company uses different methods of making a profit, depending on the country. If for the US market the strategy can be briefly described as “extremely cheap printers, expensive cartridges”, for the markets of the CIS and Asia it is slightly different - “expensive printers, expensive cartridges”.
In my opinion, the reasons for such a different policy are in the mentality of people in different countries.
In the USA and Western Europe, the market for alternative consumables for printers is almost undeveloped. Users tend to buy original consumables, despite their high price. In the face of fierce competition from older brands (such as Canon, HP), Epson sets prices for printers equal to the cost, i.e. It works at a loss - do not forget about taxes and mark-up stores. The company receives its profit through the sale of cartridges, the price of which can easily be higher than the cost by several orders of magnitude, i.e. The markup is from 1000% to 10,000%. Strange numbers?
Combined with two other factors - the low prevalence of alternative consumables and the reluctance to change a new printer, even if the cost of operating it for several months exceeds the price of the printer itself, the company reliably binds the consumer to itself, dooming it to spend several ... disproportionate amounts on printing.
It turns out a somewhat absurd situation, when a new printer in the store costs as much as a new set of cartridges!
If I were a socialist, I would certainly travel on the market without restrictions, but I will not do that. But still, it’s even funny to compare the printer, with its rather complicated device, engines, nozzles, control board - and 6 plastic paint boxes. If we calculate the cost of the ink that we buy in cartridges for printers, it turns out that this is the most expensive liquid used in everyday life:
In Asia and Eastern Europe (including Russia), the situation is somewhat different - due to the presence on the market of a large number of cheap consumables (refillable cartridges and CISS), 3 printers are sold for 1 set of original cartridges! :)
There is hardly a person who used an inkjet printer, but did not know about refillable ink cartridges (PZK) or continuous ink supply systems (CISS).
Naturally, the company - a manufacturer of printers in such conditions can not reduce prices for printers - it should earn immediately when selling a printer, not expecting in the near future profits from buying cartridges by users. This leads to a fundamental difference between the Russian market and the US market. While in the US, prices for printers are getting lower and lower, in the Russian Federation, prices for printers, on the contrary, are rising.
For information on current prices and pricing, I thank INKSYSTEM .
I remind you that printers are full analogues, with the exception of firmware, power supply, and a more durable case (in the US version).
')
Fun, right? Buying a printer in Europe and the CIS will cost you at least 2.5 times more expensive than in the USA. Or, if you prefer this interpretation, a similar printer in the US will cost 60% cheaper!
Of course, such a difference in prices could not fail to pass by companies that were engaged in the supply of Epson printers from the US to Russia. The activity of smaller companies is no different from buying on ebay - you get a printer cheap, but with English firmware, and designed for 110 volts. Large companies, on the contrary, have established a whole chain - printers purchased in the USA are localized - Russian firmware is installed for models with a screen, and the complete drivers are replaced with the Russian version, the power supply unit is changed or reconfigured for 220V, and the CISS is installed. Of course, such a Russified American will cost a bit more expensive than the native one, but the margin of the companies cannot be compared with 60% price difference in different countries - you can buy an “American” anyway much cheaper than the same printer produced for CIS market. Let's add a slightly better quality printer to this - ironically, a cheap printer for the American market simply has to be of better quality - the company's profit directly depends on the operating time of the printer without a breakdown.
Finally, the most significant advantage - CISS instead of cartridges.
Yes, the schedule is a bit incomplete - it reflects only the cost of consumables, not paying attention to the cost of the printer. Let's see how the price per print will change, when you consider depreciation of equipment (that is, the printer itself) when using the first set of consumables:
Version for visuals:
Does it still seem like a good idea to buy an official printer?
In particular, I would not bother to study the market - I have an old, but quite working laser printer, which is enough for LUT, and for printing documents. It was just that there were so many photos that people and relatives really wanted to have in their archives, which seemed to me not very rational to go to the photo lab every week.
It was necessary to choose, and necessarily with CISS, because you can not even think about saving when using cartridges - it is negative :) Before my eyes, a living example is a brother-student who bought an inkjet printer, and continuing to buy cartridges for it. Scholarship - 3400, a set of cartridges - 3150. The remaining 250 - two buckets of potatoes until the next scholarship. The joy of owning a printer is priceless. :)
We do not live in the USSR, and are fully capable of voting with a ruble for the proposals that we are satisfied with. I would suit, for example, a moderately expensive (but high-quality) printer, and cheap cartridges. But since companies, in particular Epson, do not make such compromises with customers - I will buy where it is more profitable.
And you can subscribe in order not to miss new reviews on the company’s page and in my profile (“subscribe” button)
I will try to talk about the causes of this phenomenon, the assumptions and conclusions. Here, for example, one of the major players in the market of printers - Epson.
The company uses different methods of making a profit, depending on the country. If for the US market the strategy can be briefly described as “extremely cheap printers, expensive cartridges”, for the markets of the CIS and Asia it is slightly different - “expensive printers, expensive cartridges”.
In my opinion, the reasons for such a different policy are in the mentality of people in different countries.
In the USA and Western Europe, the market for alternative consumables for printers is almost undeveloped. Users tend to buy original consumables, despite their high price. In the face of fierce competition from older brands (such as Canon, HP), Epson sets prices for printers equal to the cost, i.e. It works at a loss - do not forget about taxes and mark-up stores. The company receives its profit through the sale of cartridges, the price of which can easily be higher than the cost by several orders of magnitude, i.e. The markup is from 1000% to 10,000%. Strange numbers?
Combined with two other factors - the low prevalence of alternative consumables and the reluctance to change a new printer, even if the cost of operating it for several months exceeds the price of the printer itself, the company reliably binds the consumer to itself, dooming it to spend several ... disproportionate amounts on printing.
It turns out a somewhat absurd situation, when a new printer in the store costs as much as a new set of cartridges!
If I were a socialist, I would certainly travel on the market without restrictions, but I will not do that. But still, it’s even funny to compare the printer, with its rather complicated device, engines, nozzles, control board - and 6 plastic paint boxes. If we calculate the cost of the ink that we buy in cartridges for printers, it turns out that this is the most expensive liquid used in everyday life:
In Asia and Eastern Europe (including Russia), the situation is somewhat different - due to the presence on the market of a large number of cheap consumables (refillable cartridges and CISS), 3 printers are sold for 1 set of original cartridges! :)
There is hardly a person who used an inkjet printer, but did not know about refillable ink cartridges (PZK) or continuous ink supply systems (CISS).
Naturally, the company - a manufacturer of printers in such conditions can not reduce prices for printers - it should earn immediately when selling a printer, not expecting in the near future profits from buying cartridges by users. This leads to a fundamental difference between the Russian market and the US market. While in the US, prices for printers are getting lower and lower, in the Russian Federation, prices for printers, on the contrary, are rising.
For information on current prices and pricing, I thank INKSYSTEM .
I remind you that printers are full analogues, with the exception of firmware, power supply, and a more durable case (in the US version).
')
Fun, right? Buying a printer in Europe and the CIS will cost you at least 2.5 times more expensive than in the USA. Or, if you prefer this interpretation, a similar printer in the US will cost 60% cheaper!
Of course, such a difference in prices could not fail to pass by companies that were engaged in the supply of Epson printers from the US to Russia. The activity of smaller companies is no different from buying on ebay - you get a printer cheap, but with English firmware, and designed for 110 volts. Large companies, on the contrary, have established a whole chain - printers purchased in the USA are localized - Russian firmware is installed for models with a screen, and the complete drivers are replaced with the Russian version, the power supply unit is changed or reconfigured for 220V, and the CISS is installed. Of course, such a Russified American will cost a bit more expensive than the native one, but the margin of the companies cannot be compared with 60% price difference in different countries - you can buy an “American” anyway much cheaper than the same printer produced for CIS market. Let's add a slightly better quality printer to this - ironically, a cheap printer for the American market simply has to be of better quality - the company's profit directly depends on the operating time of the printer without a breakdown.
Finally, the most significant advantage - CISS instead of cartridges.
Yes, the schedule is a bit incomplete - it reflects only the cost of consumables, not paying attention to the cost of the printer. Let's see how the price per print will change, when you consider depreciation of equipment (that is, the printer itself) when using the first set of consumables:
Version for visuals:
Does it still seem like a good idea to buy an official printer?
About personal experience
In particular, I would not bother to study the market - I have an old, but quite working laser printer, which is enough for LUT, and for printing documents. It was just that there were so many photos that people and relatives really wanted to have in their archives, which seemed to me not very rational to go to the photo lab every week.
It was necessary to choose, and necessarily with CISS, because you can not even think about saving when using cartridges - it is negative :) Before my eyes, a living example is a brother-student who bought an inkjet printer, and continuing to buy cartridges for it. Scholarship - 3400, a set of cartridges - 3150. The remaining 250 - two buckets of potatoes until the next scholarship. The joy of owning a printer is priceless. :)
findings
To sum up all of the above, the situation that has arisen is absolutely logical, and is an adequate response to the pricing policy of manufacturing companies. I do not think that the parallel market of printing systems that has arisen in this way will somehow harm manufacturers. Of course, on the one hand, Epson lacks profits from purchases of printers, not cartridges. But on the other hand, it should be understood that the dumping policy, the more so carried out selectively, always has two sides of the coin. Either the company itself decides to use part of the profits to reduce prices in other countries, or others will do it for it - by buying where it is cheaper and selling where it is more expensive.We do not live in the USSR, and are fully capable of voting with a ruble for the proposals that we are satisfied with. I would suit, for example, a moderately expensive (but high-quality) printer, and cheap cartridges. But since companies, in particular Epson, do not make such compromises with customers - I will buy where it is more profitable.
And you can subscribe in order not to miss new reviews on the company’s page and in my profile (“subscribe” button)
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/163431/
All Articles