The printer category on Amazon is the most heavily concentrated one we've analyzed so far. The top 3 brands (Brother, HP and Canon) own 81% total share of voice. That's really astounding. The category that comes closest to that is the Computer and Tablet category with only 61% share among the top three brands. The interesting dynamic is how the printer brands are pegged to the corners of the quadrant. That's just fine if you're Brother, Epson or Xerox, but not so good for HP, Canon and Lexmark!
This BrandIQ Quadrant benchmarks brand performance by the critical disciplines of supply chain operations and marketing. Who is best able to both drive and fulfill demand on Amazon in this category? The metric that underpins marketing is Share of Voice (how often your brand appears in organic or paid search results), and for operations it's revenue leakage (how well are you able to avoid losing sales because shoppers are unable to buy your product because it's unavailable, lost buy box to 3Ps, etc.). Given Amazon's ever-increasing complexity and speed, mastering both is not simple.
High IQ Brands
Way to go Brother! With 26% total share of voice and only 7% revenue leakage, Brother is in control. Its high awareness is driven by both organic and paid search. Brother's 34% of paid share of voice is top in the category, while its 23% organic is 3rd after Canon and HP. By losing only 4% of revenue to availability issues and 3% to 3Ps, Brother appears to have it figured out. to see all the breakdowns for Brother and the other brands in this category.
Epson is in a pretty good spot. By losing only 1.4% of revenue to availability issues and 3Ps taking the buy box, they've demonstrated supply chain excellence. However, with only 5.8% share of voice they're still a ways from the High IQ quadrant. They have made a modest play into paid search, so perhaps that actually is their intention. Xerox is about as niche as you can get with only 1.3% share of voice. But at the same time they're only losing 2.5% of revenue to leakage. So, what they're getting they're holding on to pretty well!
HP is in a league of its own when it comes to share of voice. 35% total share of voice is significantly higher than any other brands we've analyzed recently including big dogs Kellogg's (cereal), Newell (pens) and HP itself (computers). to see the analysis of this or other Amazon categories. Canon is not far behind with 21% share of voice. The interesting thing is Canon's share of voice is driven almost entirely by organic, whereas HP is a mix of organic and paid.
However, looking at revenue leakage the picture changes. HP showed very few products fulfilled as a 1P. Perhaps it's too harsh to judge HP then. It's possible they are doing just fine meeting demand via the 3P side of their business.
Canon is losing 38% of revenue to leakage, mostly due to availability issues. There really isn't a good way to deliver that news. This is akin to "putting your money in a pile and lighting it on fire", as our CEO says.
The Lexmark story is simple. They are losing way too much business to 3Ps. By losing 22% of revenue to 3Ps Lexmark is going to struggle to get out from the corner of the Laggards quadrant. However, the 1P product their shoppers do see is fulfilled quite effectively, as they only experience 3% leakage due to availability issues.
Explore Other BrandIQ Quadrants
Our data was drawn from an automated, daily analysis of top keywords in the Amazon printers and accessories category over a one-year period. Our method focused on 1P brands and their associated SKUs. Marketing performance was determined by analyzing Share of Voice which essentially divides how many times a brand appears in search results, by the total available slots in the search results. Our system looked at both organic and paid ads for the top keywords discovered for the printers and accessories category on Amazon. Our system focused on page 1 search results and the product page for each SKU. Each appearance of the brand in organic search and paid ad slots was given equal weighting. Revenue Leakage was determined by an algorithm that analyzes inventory availability of the SKUs on the product page and translates that into estimated revenue missed for each brand due to things like a SKU being Currently Unavailable, Inventory Encumbrance, Item Under Review, a 3P seller taking the buy box, etc.