Samsung prints spectacular win
 While HP may continue to dominate the entry-level and mid-size laser printer and MFD market in terms of marketshare, Samsung edged past HP in channel mindshare. Samsung got a better positive association score compared to HP in three out of five parameters—service and support, marketing and branding, and channel relationships. HP scored high on the parameter of training and certification, and price-performance.
Region-wise, Samsung scored a better positive association than HP in the south and west, while HP is more preferred in the north and east.
Canon ranked third with improved service and support, and channel relationships. Interestingly, Epson and Xerox failed to make the cut since the polled less than 5 percent vote, the cut-off for eligibilty to be in the final rankings.
Price-performance
In terms of performance, HP continues to be ranked much higher by respondents than both Samsung and Canon. HP products are considered feature-rich, and enjoy a better quality and reliability perception; they also score high on manageability. Though HP is premium-priced with its entry-level and mid-segment lasers costing 10-15 percent more than Samsung’s, customers are willing to pay that for a higher perceived performance rating. The channels also believe that HP’s cost per print is lower than that of Samsung or Canon.
Marketing & branding
In terms of brand pull, HP ranks at the top followed by Canon and then Samsung. However, in terms of marketing, Samsung was seen as a lot more aggressive than its peers with more advertising and promotional activities during 2008. Samsung’s lead-generation and MDF program got better rating than that of HP, making it a winner in this criterion.
Respondents said that Canon’s marketing is neither aggressive nor consistent, and that the company also doesn’t have a clear MDF policy.
Service & support
According to respondents, Samsung has tremendously improved its post-sales support in the last one year with faster turnaround and wider support reach going into tier-4 cities. The company provides onsite support for all its models with a turnaround time of one-business-day in tier-1 and tier-2 cities. In smaller cities, it varies from 2-4 days.
Canon too has improved its warranty support with a wider network of ASPs and onsite warranty service for all its models.
HP offers onsite warranty on certain mid-segment and high-end models, but there is carry-in support for entry-level models. Turnaround for carry-in in tier-1 and tier-2 cities ranges between 2-4 days, but in tier-3 and tier-4 respondents said that HP’s service support needs improvement. Respondents from smaller cities also said that with HP there is major confusion about which parts are under warranty. Often the service center returns the product saying that the replacement part doesn’t fall under warranty. HP partners suggest that the company, like its competition, should start providing onsite warranty on all models.
Training & certification
HP’s training initiatives got a better score than Canon’s and Samsung’s because it organizes relatively more regular training sessions than its peers. Also, its certification training is rated better than either Samsung’s or Canon’s. Canon organizes training camps in tier-1 and tier-2 cities once every year, but in tier-3 and tier-4 they don’t have any training programs. While Samsung holds regular training sessions in tier-1 cities, in tier-2 and tier-3 they have recently started holding training seminars.
Channel relationship
On this parameter, Samsung scored higher than HP on all elements of channel relationship management except rebate payouts. Respondents said that over the last one year, Samsung’s engagement and communication with channels has improved manifold. There is more frequent and regular interaction with local managers. For large deals, Samsung was seen as more aggressive than HP in providing pricing support to partners. Samsung was also rated higher on profit margins and back-end rebates. However, the channels are unhappy with the delay in back-end and incentive pay-outs by Samsung.
For HP there were a lot of complaints about its target-driven approach. Many, who polled for the survey, said that the company frequently changed its dealers every quarter. It received a lower positive association score among sub-distributors on channel relationship criteria. The frequency and quality of its channel interface at the local level has also suffered.
While Canon’s relationship management has improved over the last one year, the company lacks aggression in closing large deals.
Winner in the Laser Printer Category in Channel Champions 2007
l Home l Processors l Hard Drives l LCD Monitors l Optical Disk Drives l Motherboards l Antivirus-Consumer l Inkjet Printers l Consumer PCs l Commercial PCs l Servers l Enterprise Storage l Networking l Network Cabling l Enterprise Security l UPS |