Digital BW, The Print

Steve Kale wrote:

> My view is that paper marketers (seems there are few paper 
> manufacturers who
> market their own product to retail) simply need to be open as to their
> products.  I don't mind if Brand A says "we outsource the mill 
> component to
> X according to our specs and coating to Y designed by us or Z."  The point
> is there is a quality product (with longevity testing) and there is 
> openness
> as to how it's produced.  Anyone who markets another's products as 
> their own
> "proprietary" solutions is going to see less interest from me.  I found
> Diana's disclosure a month or so ago refreshing and I would encourage 
> more.
> My bet is that Innova designed a coating (not a substrate) and that 
> the same
> combination is now being marketed by several different businesses as their
> own.

You seem to be highly interested in this idea of "openness" from your 
manufacturers. I'm curious as to why. I don't see how this data 
(assuming you could ever obtain it) will be converted to information. 
I'm assuming that you want this so that you can use it to change your 
own behavior based on how the various players in the market change their 
behavior. If that's not the reason, what is?

It's well known that the paper manufacturing market is highly fluid. Do 
you expect that every time paper is moved from one mill to another that 
the mills will notify you? It isn't going to happen - they don't know 
who you are; you are not their customer. But if it did happen, what 
would you do with the data? Would you stop using HPR if they moved from 
one coating house to another? Would you start using HM Osprey because 
they brought the cutting and packaging in house?

I'm lost - I don't see the value in the openness that you seek. What am 
I missing here?
--
Bruce Watson