Book readers perceive HP inkjet print quality to be comparable to litho

Cornell University Press recently completed a research study around book readers’ perceptions and preferences, revealing compelling print quality attributes of inkjet-printed print-on-demand books. In this study, book readers were shown two side-by-side copies of the same book title, with one copy printed on an offset press and the other printed digitally on an HP PageWide Web Press. When asked about print quality comparisons, 40% expressed preference for the HP-printed copy, while just 33% preferred the litho print quality. The remaining 27% expressed no preference between the two.

No alt text provided for this image

Cornell University Press conducted the study, entitled “The Printing Challenge,” in partnership with HP Inc. at association conferences and book fairs in various U.S. cities between September 2018 and January 2019. Respondents to this survey were 109 event attendees who were qualified as book readers.

When asked about accessibility to book titles, 76% of respondents said it was somewhat or extremely important that a book they would want to read would be available globally and sourced from local printers. When asked about getting updated content in their books, 63% of respondents stated it was somewhat or extremely important that their desired book is easy to update and change after its original publishing.

In addition to the traditional model of buying high-volume offset-printed books for pre-sale inventory, Cornell University Press also publishes a variety of titles through its print-on-demand (POD) process. With this model, no inventory is held, but rather books are digitally printed on HP PageWide Web Presses by Cornell’s POD book supplier.

No alt text provided for this image

For this study’s comparison, both books were printed in monochrome (black) and both were printed with the same paper. The inside pages had a combination of text-only pages and pages with halftones images and line drawings.

No alt text provided for this image

 

When asked about where they buy their books, 45% of respondents say they prefer to buy books from Amazon, 15% from retail book chains, and 35% from independent book stores. As to why they prefer to buy books where they do, the largest group (31%) cited the ability to buy books whenever they wanted. Book reviews (35%) and word-of-mouth recommendations (24%) were the most popular means of learning about new book titles. The speed-to-market benefit of digital print was also evident in the responses: 69% of readers expect to get their book within five days of ordering it.

Established in 1869 in Ithaca, New York shortly after the founding of Cornell University, Cornell University Press is known as America’s first university publishing enterprise. The press publishes a broad range of nonfiction titles, with particular strengths in sciences, classics, geography, higher education, history, and urban studies.

HP is the world’s leading manufacturer of inkjet presses for the book publishing market and volume continues to grow. Estimates are that PageWide Web Presses account for 3% of all the world’s printed books.

 


 

This post was published by Global Marketing & Business Development Leader David J. Murphy. You can find the original LinkedIn article here.

Advertisements
Book readers perceive HP inkjet print quality to be comparable to litho

East Asia’s unicorn builders: different strategies in Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan

Unicorns are increasingly running the streets of East Asia. In fact, policymakers in Singapore and Hong Kong wave the flag of their first unicorns with pride and Taiwan is on track to have its own unicorn. I am not talking the mythical animals adorning children’s storybooks. In the world of start-ups and venture capital, since 2013 a “unicorn” is understood to be a privately-owned (technology) start-up that achieves valuations in excess of $1 billion. A unicorn is also a validation that a start-up ecosystem is succeeding, and a key performance indicator used by governments.

From myth to reality: unicorns in Singapore, Hong Kong and (soon) Taiwan

Singapore has unicorns inhabiting its island, with Garena, Lazada, and Razer all comfortably achieving $1 billion valuations. But the ever-active and promoting Singaporean state isn’t stopping there. On Monday, October 2nd, the Singaporean parliament approved the “variable capital companies” (VCC) bill in an effort to further project the Lion City’s position as leading destination for asset management firms, particularly venture capital funds, to domicile and operate. In explaining the power of the new VCC structure, the Bill will provide a mechanism for overseas funds to be constituted as Singaporean. The Business Times asserts that one of the benefits to Singapore is that it “enhances Singapore’s position as a full-service international fund management centre”. This is a time-tested strategy in the Lion City.

GoGoVan, a logistics company, excited Hong Kong start-up enthusiasts in September 2017 as it achieved unicorn status. Finally, Hong Kong – and its government – had something to show for the rising support of start-ups and innovation (and within two years of the promotion of the Innovation & Technology Commission to Bureau level status).

For Taiwan, in May 2018 an electric scooter company called “Gogoro” was being picked as the likely candidate. This unicorn excitement came as the Taiwanese government announced in early 2018 that it promised to incubate its first unicorn by 2020 (Japan made a similar promise, through its J-Start-up program which launched in June 2018, that it would help build 20 unicorns by 2023).

These unabashed efforts to build unicorns is not a new phenomenon. In The Venture Capital State: The Silicon Valley Model in East Asia, I detail how each country purposefully, but differently than one another, helped catapult its local VC market to world-class size and operations. They don’t copy the real or imagined Silicon Valley model either. Even the “core elements” of the American legal and tax environment within which Silicon Valley VC emerged were not deployed in each case. Here’s a visual of the unique “yellow brick roads to Oz” – or, policies implemented with the aim of building a local VC market akin to Silicon Valley:

SILICON VALLEY

Why variation amidst convergence?

Though each country had the same aim – of building a local VC market that could support the growth of its local unicorn population – they all took different paths. The phenomenon reminds me of the Seinfeld-inspired play “I love you, you’re perfect, now change”. Each country’s policymakers fell in love with the idea of building Silicon Valley-like venture capital markets. This, they concluded, was part of the recipe for creating innovative firms, as well as ensuring vibrant financial markets. But after falling in love with the model, they changed it.

The Venture Capital State systematically explores why and how this change occurred as it has in these East Asian nations. And crucially, it explains that this adaption has been essential to success in East Asia, as elsewhere. It’s not about copying Silicon Valley in order to build local unicorns. It’s about local competitive advantage and approaches that reflect distinct environments.


 

About the author of this blog post: Robyn Klingler-Vidra is a lecturer in Political Economy at King’s College London, and the author of The Venture Capital State: The Silicon Valley Model in East Asia

East Asia’s unicorn builders: different strategies in Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan