The great environmental scam?
When the cartridge in this machine is exhausted, it will make perfect sense to throw the printer out on to the junk heap and buy another.
Even more astoundingly, there are no less than three A4 pages in the box detailing commitment to the environment, complemented by a 12-page A5 booklet labelled ‘Important’ and featuring the recycling legend ‘Together we can do it right’.
A Lexmark entry-level colour laser printer costs about R2850, but replacement toner totals about R4000. Canon fared better, with its entry-level LaserShot LBP3200 retailing at R1400 and replacement toner at around R700.
Likewise, inkjet printers are notorious culprits. An HP DeskJet D1360 costs about R350. Its replacement ink cartridges, one colour and one mono, will set you back R266. Research across ranges indicates that, in the bottom to mid-market, the cost of consumables for inkjets and lasers frequently exceeds the cost of a complete device.
This is a well-documented problem and common cause for complaint from consumers, who, quite understandably, cannot grasp how a manufacturer can sell a complex device like a printer at the same price as the replacement consumable.
But what about where all these thousands of cheap printers end their lives, simply because the pricing of replacement inks is completely out of alignment with logic and sensibility?
Louisa Craig, marketing manager at Lexmark, says that locally, the company – which, like others, goes to some effort to portray itself as environmentally and socially conscious – operates a programme in terms of which users of its product can return used consumables for recycling. In turn, Lexmark donates to a Baby Days fund for every Lexmark cartridge returned.
“We set our sights high,” says Craig, “But in reality we have about a five percent to 10% return rate on cartridges.”
The inevitable question is whether or not Lexmark makes a profit from these returned items, which are in some cases remanufactured and resold. “We don’t,” says Craig. “This actually incurs a cost for the company.”
Justifiable? You decide
Coming to the burning issue of how it is that a replacement cartridge can cost the same as a printer, Craig admits that this can be perceived as an issue which is difficult for the consumer to get their head around. “What sometimes happens is that the vendor will make a volume deal on printers with resultant pricing which is not reflected in the consumable price. Also, on replacement consumables, the cost may be higher given an improved yield,” she says.
This is not, however, typically apparent to the user, she agrees. “The reseller and the media have a role in educating the consumer as to their options.”
On inkjets, Craig says the technology contained in the cartridge comprises the substantial component of the printing capability. “Particularly at the entry level, the printer itself is really not much more than a casing,” he adds,
However, the price of replacement consumables in comparison to the cost of the complete product is an issue which warrants attention, Craig has to concur, agreeing that the cost of the logistics of shipping a substantial box, which contains not only a printer, but software, manuals, packaging … AND the consumable, cannot possibly arrive in store at a price point which makes the printer itself (and all the rest of the contents) the disposable element of the package.
Some argue that putting disposable-priced printers on the shelves is a ploy by some manufacturers to gain demonstrable market share, presumably with the hope that the margin will be made on the sale of a higher-yield consumable. However, none of those interviewed were prepared to go on the record with this contention.
But not all printer manufacturers seem to be in on the scam. An R899 Epson C87+ approaches logic, with its separate ink tanks retailing at around R90 each, for a total replacement cost of R360. Similarly, Epson’s cheapest laser printer retails at around R1850, with a replacement cartridge at around R410.
As long as there is a collection policy for consumables, Hans Dummer, Epson SA GM, does not see why a R700 machine, which has a replacement cartridge priced at R700, is an environmentally poor practice. “If these policies are in place, and the plastics are CFC-free, then manufacturers are environmentally conscious,” he says.
However, he does say that Epson’s strategy is geared around making a profit on the device rather than on the consumable. “The question around consumables is a difficult one; for example, if you bought a BMW for the price of its parts, it would cost more,” he says, putting in an analogy which completely fails to explain how a printer in a box the size of a microwave oven, can cost the same as a dinky little replacement cartridge. “Certainly we scratch our heads; environmentally sound disposal is a costly affair too.”
While HP’s input and comments would have provided valuable insight into its views on the contention of flooding the market and rubbish dumps with devices destined for premature obsolescence, the product manager was apparently not contactable over a period of two weeks, despite e-mailed questions.
Consumer responsibility?
Sound disposal applies to both cartridges and, presumably, perfectly good machines which are, nevertheless, rendered obsolete owing to the misaligned price of consumables. Unfortunately, the average SA consumer is unlikely to give a hoot, as evidenced by the low return rate on Lexmark’s programme.
The point is that the environment and consumers are taking a beating as a result of vendors producing machines which are, whether by accident or design, destined to hit the junk heap unnecessarily, together with a pile of packaging, well before their end of life should dictate. It is not just printers, either – but the technology industry, which, by putting the ‘consumer’ into consumer electronics, is causing much damage.
Ultimately, one has to consider the ultimate reason why printer companies are in business. It is to make a profit, by hook or by crook, and that they are doing handsomely.
Loading ...