By Editor Morten B. Reitoft 

I take that you are in business to sell! You may have a website, salespeople, and maybe even marketing materials like leaflets, brochures, and maybe even a magazine, right?

Selling is what we do, and the means we use to pursue sales are to convince customers of our product, service, and companies.

Suppose I tell you that 43% of all marketing people are convinced print is better than Social Media and that 70% remember printed marketing better than electronic. In that case, you could use this information to convince your customers about the value of print. You may even be able to convince choosing your service over somebody else since you refer to data substantiating your claim.

The problem, this is not true. Or, to be more precise, if it's true, it's 100% a coincidence, as I just made up these stats. Have you ever considered what data you rely on when investing in new technology?

Statistics are great to learn from, but statistics can also be made to serve specific purposes.

Last year, when Printing Impressions listed their annual list of top 300 printers, the sequence was by revenue. Why wasn't it made by profit? or by the number of employees? Or, as I did, productivity?

First of all, there is a legacy to how we see size. When Jeff Bezos topped the list of the world's wealthiest men, he suddenly got a female number two - out of the blue. His ex-wife. Even after splitting the fortune, Mr. and Ms. Bezos were among the two wealthiest people on earth. Does that mean anything? Well, for most people, it has no relevance to your business, personal life, or anything else. Bezos can be seen as a beacon for everybody, but isn't it more his doings rather than his wealth? Wealth is, after all, 'just' a result of being very, very good at what you do!

However, if Printing Impressions made their list by productivity, some very large companies would perform considerably worse than average. You could use this to measure your own company by the same measure. Revenue doesn't say much, to be honest.

We LOVE data, and we, unfortunately, eat data RAW.

Statistics can be pretty exact, but it depends on your data. If you perform surveys, it's not about how many questionnaires you have but how these represent the group you research.

An example:
Suppose you have 100 printing companies, and 25 of them answer your survey. In that case, you can easily understand that it matters whether the 25 answers are from the 25 biggest, smallest, or representative groups of the 100 printing companies.

When professional survey companies conduct surveys on behalf of clients, they will most likely have a pretty good idea about what demographic they are asking. They will also have a randomizer built into the group, and they will maybe even have control questions they can use to verify the value of the response.

When the data isn't representative, or the data segment isn't big enough, your data will not give you substantial information to be conclusive.

In statistics, it's good to establish the source of your data and the statistical uncertainty. This allows you to weigh the result of the survey.

So why this article?

First, I am sure you base your investments on numerous sources, demos, presentations, knowledge, skills, etc. Still, you may also, from time to time, consider White Papers, Awards, and so-called Trend Reports (like the one from drupa and others), but be aware of the following:

White Papers used to be scientific and independent research done by scientists. I am not saying that White Papers are bad. Still, I am saying that if a company releases sponsored White Papers, I am pretty confident that the significant outcome of the White Paper will be optimistic about the product, the company, and the positioning in the market. Often the White Papers are signed and sometimes even written by recognized people in the industry, and of course, they can't afford to lose credibility by over appreciating a product, but White Papers are, for the most on level with brochures or testimonials, with a bit duller layout :-)

Awards, however, are a whole other story. My friend Ray Stasieczko has not put his fingers in between when talking about how Awards can be used (for money) to discuss products that don't perform well. The BLI Awards, which Keypoint Intelligence awards, he bashes in particular. The idea of having awards is great but think about it. How would you justify or substantiate a winning product if you were to give an award?

Let's take an example:
Let's award the BEST WORKFLOW/AUTOMATION solution.

I wouldn't know where to start or end - and from visiting hundreds of printing companies, I see so many ways a workflow/automation solution can be implemented that I wouldn't be able to say which is better or worse? Can you?

One thing I do know is that editors - including myself - wouldn't be able to substantiate which solution is better based on being an editor. It would require intense research, talking to several users, and maybe... No, sorry. I wouldn't be able to judge any of the market workflow/automation solutions and let me tell you why. I can't give a score since I would never know what the score would be if the company hadn't already invested in the particular software, so awarding software is merely marketing with no substance.

I haven't seen anything in the market that can convince me otherwise, and in the meanwhile, the award companies make a lot of money on awarding products they have never tested or even seen themselves!

And now to Trend Reports. As everybody knows, drupa will most likely take place in 2024, and though it's many years since the last drupa, the 'marketing engine' of drupa seems to run uninterrupted. The same metrics are used, buzz words are used, and of course, the drupa global trends summary.

The graphs, stats, and text are compelling if you look at the most recent (a new one is being published shortly). The issue is, however, under the surface. If you read and try understanding the report, we at INKISH were speculating what the data says?

First, the summary was published in April 2020. The authors correctly disclaimed this: "In conclusion we must remind you that the survey was conducted before the coronavirus outbreak. Add to that the global economy is past its peak in recovering from the previous recession and the global print industry, so closely aligned with advertising, is feeling the downturn. The developing regions have the additional challenges of corruption and political instability – indeed some might argue that the developed regions also suffer from these. However, looking at the longer term, and beyond the impact of the coronavirus, the industry has adapted well to the challenge of digital communications."

I will let this speak for itself, and looking forward to the next executive summary expected in September 2022.

You can download the executive summary here.

My conclusion is, therefore. Suppose you are a PSP reading the reports, the White Papers, using the awards for anything, and even reading the information disguised as science. In that case, I don't think you need to unless it's for fun and, of course, information that can be used in the MIX of the information you gather from more reliable sources!

We also need more and better independent information about products and services.