The printing industry must avoid blindly following trends; seeing through the facts is key.

　　In recent years, the printing industry has faced headwinds due to the economic crisis, with potential “crises” looming across equipment manufacturers, printing plants, and related businesses. According to the latest advertising data released by the Newspaper Association of America, in the first half of 2012, print advertising posted a loss of $798 million—only partially offset by $32 million in digital‑advertising revenue—resulting in a loss-to-revenue ratio of 25 to 1. Meanwhile, a report from Japan indicates that sales of digital printing presses in both Japan and globally declined slightly in 2012 compared with 2011.

　　Additionally, according to a financial report released by the U.S.-based R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company, the company’s losses widened in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2012, primarily due to increased impairment charges and a sharp decline in revenue; however, adjusted earnings exceeded market expectations. Meanwhile, documents filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) show that Kodak reported a net loss of $402 million in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2012, more than doubling from the $117 million net loss recorded in the same period of 2011. Recently, Beiren Printing issued a profit warning, forecasting a full-year loss of RMB 160–180 million for 2012.

　　All of the aforementioned printing industry giants have, in their annual reports or other filings, lamented the hardships of 2012. These companies attribute most of these challenges to: a generally sluggish traditional printing machinery sector; steadily rising production costs; operational difficulties; and a year-on-year decline in core business revenue. During the period, the companies also undertook major asset restructuring, with restructuring-related expenses weighing on earnings, as well as recording higher provisions for employee termination benefits compared with the prior year.

　　In fact, in the author’s view, among printing companies worldwide, those consistently posting losses are predominantly large or even mega‑sized enterprises. These firms typically operate on a grand scale and invest far more in technology than their smaller counterparts. Under comparable profitability conditions, such large players often end up reporting losses. Coupled with rising raw‑material prices, increasing labor costs, and other factors, this creates a “false impression of loss” despite underlying earnings.

　　News reports have characterized the relationship between traditional printing and digital printing as follows: “Digital printing has long since surpassed traditional printing technologies—there is no longer any doubt. It is an undeniable fact that traditional printing will eventually be replaced by digital printing.” Some experts even assert, “Sooner or later, digital printing will supplant conventional offset printing to become the dominant force in the printing industry.” But is this really the case? In my view, it is not.

　　U.S. printing experts believe that digital printing will serve as a complement to offset, screen, and flexographic printing, while also competing with them to become one of the key drivers of growth in the printing industry. According to forecasts by relevant organizations, by 2014, the global market share of digital printing is expected to double, accounting for 27.4% of the total market. Although traditional offset printing is already on the decline, digital printing will never fully replace it—primarily because their respective functional characteristics dictate this outcome. Digital printing excels in simplicity, speed, efficiency, and flexibility, whereas traditional offset printing prioritizes stability and reliability. The ultimate result of their co‑evolution should be mutual complementarity rather than one “swallowing” the other. This misconception has led some in the industry to assume that digital printing must supplant traditional offset printing and become the dominant trend. Much like the H7N9 avian influenza outbreak, the public’s sense of alarm stems not so much from its incidence rate as from the sustained media coverage, which creates an atmosphere of heightened tension.

　　The printing industry is heavily influenced by the global economy. Within the sector, both the market itself and the costs of raw materials, labor, and even factory rents have been steadily rising. In recent years, rapid advances in new technologies have outpaced the industry’s ability to keep pace, further impacting the entire sector. In China, printing companies are undergoing profound transformation, as the industry faces significant uncertainty, compelling many firms—particularly small and medium-sized enterprises—to pivot. Even minor setbacks can leave these businesses vulnerable to bankruptcy or forced restructuring. As a result, “the transformation of printing enterprises” became one of the most hotly debated topics in the printing world in 2012.

　　On April 18, 2012, Fuji Xerox Co., Ltd. (China) unveiled a new strategy, announcing its shift from a production- and sales‑focused model to one centered on product development. By strengthening product design, development, manufacturing, and marketing rooted in the Chinese market, Fuji Xerox aims to fully realize its goal of “Designed in China, Open to the World, Made in China, and Sold Globally.” This marks another significant milestone in Fuji Xerox’s investment in China.

　　KOMORI appears to be following in the footsteps of its fellow Japanese company, Fujifilm, quietly forging ahead on its own path. At drupa 2012, KOMORI unveiled its brand-new Impremia series of inkjet presses, marking the company’s entry into the digital printing arena.

　　The transformation of any enterprise inevitably entails a decline in its profitability and a contraction of its market. However, for some printing companies in China, this shift is not driven by such fundamental factors. Instead, they have simply been swept up in the “transformation craze,” engaging in overly hasty and blind restructuring that has weighed heavily on the industry’s development, giving rise to troubling trends—so much so that it now feels as though failure to transform will spell obsolescence. In reality, whether in the printing sector or elsewhere, enterprises are most vulnerable during periods of transition, often suffering a severe setback from which they struggle to recover.