Forty years ago, on July 1, 1986, we published our first office technology survey results. Analysts of that period had an exceptionally low opinion of dealers (1972 – 1986).
Our hope was to provide office technology survey results that would demonstrate just how well independent distribution was doing versus the direct sales offices of the manufacturers which also sold to dealers. That is why we asked dealers about their number of salespeople. We could then compare their productivity (per salesperson) versus direct sales, which were selling similar and, in many cases, the same models.
Unfortunately, we could not obtain statistics on the sales personnel from manufacturers. Suffice it to say that in working for manufacturers for nine years and always selling to dealers, we learned that indirect sales were far more profitable than direct.
Inaugural Office Technology Results
In our first survey, we solicited responses only from our office technology subscribers. We had 138 dealers, and we also solicited dealers we knew quite well, which brought us another 39. While the initial number was not great, the quality of that audience was excellent. Our Editorial Advisory Board of 1986-87 was a particularly good representation of the quality of dealers who were our subscribers. There were 10, and we selected four that we believe you would recognize today. Three of them are still independent dealers with successful business operations:
- Bill Fraser, Fraser Advanced Information Systems, West Reading, Pennsylvania (one of Sharp’s most loyal dealers)
- Dan Doyle, Danka Industries, Clearwater, Florida (the Dans are doing it all!)
- Don Frank, Graphic Enterprises, Canton, Ohio (the first acquisition of Visual Edge)
- John Hey, D.C. Hey Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota (a leading Canon, Ricoh dealer)
Dealers, particularly of that era, were not enthusiastic about discussing their businesses. We convinced 112 dealers out of the 177 that it would be good for them by pointing out how well they were doing. A breakdown of those early participants:
- 21 Sharp copier dealers
- 20 Panasonic dealers for electronic typewriters and copiers
- 18 Mita copiers
- 15 Royal (Konica) copier
- 13 Canon copiers, ETs, and facsimile
- 13 Minolta copiers, ETs, and computers
- 12 Ricoh copiers, fax, and word processing
Our first award winners in ’86:
- Canon USA – Manufacturing Excellence*
- Mita Copystar – Manufacturer of the Year
- Panasonic – Typewriter Manufacturer of the Year
- Ricoh – Facsimile Manufacturer of the Year
Bear in mind that in 1986, dealers had the memory of a very bad experience of inferior Japanese plain paper copiers led by products from Royal with the (Konica) RBC -1 and Saxon Industry PPC – 1, in the 1970s. The Saxon model came from the rights to manufacture the Canon NP-70. The only problem was that they redesigned it and killed it. I know this because I sold both for Saxon and for Canon.
Canon, Minolta, Sharp, and Ricoh were able to manufacture products that were infinitely more reliable, with a competitive copies-between-calls rate. Those were gradually introduced in the latter part of that decade.
From that point on, we slowly expanded our number of participants by sending survey forms to as many dealers as possible, rather than just to our subscribers. The focus changed to some degree from reliability to dealers becoming dedicated to a single, A3 copier.
In the 1990s, our surveys showed that manufacturers were advocating that dedication was the best way to succeed in selling copiers. Simple logic dictated that the more you sell of a particular brand, the less the cost will be. Service people would become more proficient simply by servicing similar models made by the same manufacturer. Inventory costs would be lower compared to marketing dual lines.
By 1992, the average lines per dealer was 1.61. Sharp became the leader in dedication and remains so today, along with Toshiba. Fifty-five dealers claimed business was up, and 22 said business was flat; 18 reported business was down (and seven did not respond).
Manufacturer-dealer relationships were not good. This is how they responded to the question, “What best describes your manufacturers’ attitude towards dealers?”
- 37 – a necessary evil
- 31 – a valued customer
- 26 – an important business partner
- 7 – no response
Office Machine Manufacturer of the Year for excellence in copiers, facsimiles, and printers for 1992:
- Canon USA – Copier Manufacturer of the Year
- Ricoh – Facsimile Manufacturer of the Year
- Hewlett Packard – Printer Manufacturer of the Year
The Executive of the Year was Mike Stramaglio, vice president of Minolta Corporation.
Average gross sales increased to $9,153,145 from $6,139,560 in 1986.
Our 21st Annual Dealer Survey in 2006
In the new century, Ed McLaughlin had joined Sharp. He had an excellent resume and was well thought of for his knowledge of the business. He initiated a program that said if the dealer dedicated to Sharp A3, they would enjoy a 5% kickback. (McLaughlin could not confirm that number, but we remember dealers telling us that.) We asked Bill Fraser, as a Sharp dealer, if Ed’s program makes sense to him. “Hell yes! That is my profit for the year,” Fraser replied.
By 2006, we were finally receiving a decent number of dealer responses. In this survey, 346 dealers took the time to complete it. We changed our advisory group to our Editorial Advisory Board; names you may well recognize, such as:
- Jerry Blaine, LDI/Color Toolbox
- Barry Clark, Perry Corporation
- Jim Oricchio, Coordinated Business Systems
The focus was still very much on multiple lines versus dedication. We had 226 dealers who had indicated a second line, or 59.5% of the respondents. In this survey, we noted that the lines per dealer from 1998 to 2006 had gone from 1.60 to 1.80. The leaders with the highest degree of dedication:
- Gestetner 49%
- Toshiba 40%
- Savin 35%
In this era, dealers selling more than $5,000,000 were solid with an average MIF of 2,000 +. We had 24% who had revenues exceeding that number.
In terms of facsimile, it was an especially important part of the business—14 different manufacturers were reported. The following were the leading manufacturers of fax:
Manufacturer Number of Dealers Percent of Dealers
Muratec 45 19.9%
Sharp 40 17.7%
Toshiba 30 13.3%
Canon 28 12.4%
These were responsible for 143 dealers out of the 226. The remaining 83 came from 10 other manufacturers.
Dealers were finally selling color, with 95.1% of the universe on board with this latest development. Connecting machines to the internet had come of age. We asked them what percentage of their total color devices placed in 2005 were connected: 89.5% was the answer. Dealers told us their greatest areas of concern:
- Maintaining sufficient hardware margins (48)
- Obtaining net new copiers under contract (39)
- Training salespeople to sell solutions not “boxes” (33)
We also asked dealers to list what their primary suppliers needed to provide that they were not doing in 2006. This was very similar to what we were hearing from the vast majority of dealers we were visiting in those days:
- Communication – Talk to us, do not dictate
- Distribution – Limit distribution (less competitive distribution)
- Competition Pricing – Fair pricing to compete with their direct operations
Winners of 2006
- Konica Minolta – Color MFP Manufacturer of the Year
- Muratec – MFP Facsimile of the Year
- Lifetime Achievement Award – Joseph Bud Murphy for 35 years in the world of copiers at KM
It is difficult to compress 39 years of surveys. This year, for our 40th, we focused considerably on condensing and updating the questions to reflect contemporary issues. CEO CJ Cannata had a single objective: to make the survey one of our leading, marketable products. Kudos to him and to our new Editor-in-Chief Mark Vruno for doing a great job working with graphics designer Doreen Borghoff to more effectively communicate the data. And, thanks to the 415 dealers who took this year’s survey! The presentation of our 41st Annual Dealer survey will be even better in 2026.
