Case in point, an article that is, in my opinion, pure trash, appeared in The Riley Report, a regular feature on the www.apmag.com site. The author seems to have followed an ultra-simplistic outline:
- cite and copy findings from a widely respected information source
- go wildly off the tracks, making unfounded speculations, accusations, and allegations
The factual findings discuss how the electronics industry spent US$38 billion dollars during the recent conversion from SnPb to Pb-free soldering. The cited work, performed by Technology Forecasters Incorporated, is very likely to be very well founded. Riley does well when he quotes and paraphrases their report.
But, then Riley alleges that "materials suppliers, such as solder manufacturers" are saying and doing anything "continue to preach lead-free benefits and minimize the faults" of Pb-free soldering in order to perpetuate the switch to Pb-free electronics assembly because it is delivering much of the $38 billion to our coffers.
What does a responsible B2B Marcom practitioner do when the target market is exposed to this? In my case, I drafted a rebuttal and shared it with my colleagues. In places they calmed me down. In other places they encouraged me to take things a bit farther. After the rebuttal was complete, I submitted it to the website on which the initial article appeared. They printed it.
Bottom line, everyone is entitled to an opinion. So, when a professional B2B Marcom practitioner feels that someone has made potentially-damaging, inflammatory, and unsubstantiated claims against their industry, I think it is proper to make a measured and speedy response directly to the target market. Hopefully setting things straight - but at least going on record with the other side of the story.
Please read, The $38 Billion Blunder: A Rebuttle Rebuttal, and tell me (after reading both pieces) if you think I did the right thing. If I didn't, please tell me what you would have done.
And for all you future B2B Marcommers out there ... please don't ever publish unsubstantiated claims and accusations. It hurts everyone and it's the wrong way to make a point.
George Riley:
Rick, the first thing I suggest is that you delete your false and inflammatory statement above that solder manufacturers are saying and doing anything to perpetuate the switch to lead-free solders.
I said they “...continue to preach lead-free benefits and minimize the faults…”
Rick Short:
George, I edited my original post to reflect this.
O. Laney:
Rick:
One thing you did not do right in “The $38 Billion Blunder: A Rebuttle” is spell ‘rebuttal’ correctly.
Dave Kinghorn:
SnAgCu is NEW??? Some historical trivia is in order here. Tin-Silver-Copper, mixed in slightly different proportions than modern Lead-Free Solders, was ALL THE RAGE from the time of the American Civil War thru WWI. You may have heard your grandparents back in the 1960’s mention their heirloom “Pewter” tableware… That’s right… Pewter servingware for fine dining tables was the latest thing in fine, elegant dinnerware. And tables from the USA across Europe & Russia were laden with this miraculous & elegant new metal… which we now use as a Lead-Free solder and think we’re so ingenious & inventive…
Rick Short:
@O.Laney:
Thank you very much. I am quite particular about spelling (and grammar and punctuation ) and appreciate your keen eye. [Dan Santow rocks: http://wordwise.typepad.com/]
I simply blew it (and have corrected it – see above).
Thanks for your interest and comment.
Signed,
A red-faced Rick Short
Michael Kirschner:
As partners of TFI on the survey project for the Consumer Electronics Association, please let me clarify some things. Mr. Riley says, regarding the $38B, “much of it fills the coffers of those who profited from the political decision to “solve” a non-problem by discarding a proven technology for an untried one”. This is false (though I wish it were true). The data clearly shows (though I am not sure that bit of it was part of the public report) that little actually went to “consultants, trainers, and instant experts of all stripes”, thus the “cottage industry” that is environmental consulting on RoHS remains a relatively exclusive club.
Further, much of this “$38B” is simply accounting – internal pre-existing human resources account for much of the cost. Effectively people added responsibilities and some were indeed hired. In fact, I credit RoHS (Both you, Rick, and Riley have got to stop calling it “lead-free compliance”! That is so misguided and minimizing of what this really is it’s shocking to see it still referred to that way; this is about FAR MORE than solder – yes solder was and remains a big issue but it’s not the only issue; the rest of the industry finally, in 2005 or so, started calling it RoHS so get with it! ;o} ) with breathing life back in to the function known as “Component Engineering” at OEMs…it had nearly died before RoHS.
And so where the real tangible cost was occurred in incremental hiring (which was not as high as one might expect) and equipment. The tangible cost of the intangibles is delayed new product introduction.
I disagree with Riley that solder manufacturers are the primary beneficiary. The fact is that one revenue stream is simply replaced with another – and as you point out it’s bifurcated from a single product – 63/37 SnPb – to a seemingly unending array of different solder amalgamations, few of which are adequately characterized and none of which are as well-understood as SnPb.
Bottom line: you were right to respond as you did; in fact, I am surprised its taken so long for the industry punditry to take note of this survey and start interpreting and drawing conclusions from it. There are plenty of interesting and even important ones to dig out of it, folks!
Michael Kirschner
President
Design Chain Associates, LLC
Rick Short:
@Michael:
Thank you for your interest, comments, and insight.
Nancy Pattarini:
Not only were you right in responding to the article, you were fulfilling the marcom professional’s responsibility as an issues manager. Part of our job is to scan for, anticipate and take appropriate action on issues likely to affect our organization/industry, especially if we see gaps in information or assertions that are made without the substantiation of evidence or hard data.
Nancy Pattarini, President
Paige Marketing Communications Group, Inc.
Rick Short:
Full Disclosure:
Paige Marketing Communications Group, Inc. is Indium Corporation’s ad agency and media relations partner (and much more).
Gail Flower:
Rick,
In writing the Riley Report for our AP Semi-monthly electronic newsletter, George Riley’s column provides exactly what readers expect from a column: facts plus some comment on them or opinion. His column “The $38 Billion Blunder” fit that format with step-by-step reporting on the survey that TFI conducted on the cost to the electronics industry to date from lead-free compliance. It ended with his comments on who profited from the RoHS response. And, in journalism, everyone is allowed an opinion, and columnists are expected to have an opinion. The Riley Report is a column, not an essay.
When there are discontinuities in our industry — or significant changes in materials and/or manufacturing processes — the retraining, research and development, and of course the materials themselves create new competitive differentiation. Those who can deliver the required unique features more quickly benefit. Without a doubt, the response to fine pitch required fine solder paste. Similarly, the response to RoHS created many new alloy opportunities. A company that is skilled in responding quickly with what consumers want probably will achieve a competitive differentiation and increased revenue. Wouldn’t you agree? Certainly, many of the new materials (silver and others) are more costly and those costs must be covered by the user. No doubt, even soldering equipment manufacturers who could respond to the need for specialized heat control, solder pots, and information on how to deal with lead-free soldering sold more equipment of a specialized nature.
George also said, “even the trade press who saw a lead-free spike in advertising revenue.” Lead-free initiatives did bring more articles and advertising to most trade journals. Getting the news out has to be covered as well.
Discontinuities, such as significant changes in design, manufacturing, research, or process information, create opportunities and competitive advantages for those able to supply the requested material, equipment, or information. Of course, those who supply what the markets seek are those that profit. This just seems to follow the course of capitalism.
If George Riley’s column made you angry enough to defend your company’s position, then he is doing his job. If you defended your response to making a profit by a quick or exacting response to an industry discontinuity, then you are doing your job. If you are both expressing points of view that the reader or user should think about and write about (especially in trade journals and blogs) then the press is doing its job. Good journalism is fact and interpretation or opinion. My job is to present it evenly.
Gail Flower
Rick Short:
@Gail:
I don’t consider it good journalism to make unsubstantiated guesses in the public forum.
I would still like to see the source(s) of data and information that enabled the columnist to state:
“But these one-shot beneficiaries (of the $38 Billion blunder) are paupers compared to those who now have a lead-free annuity in an on-going stream of increased revenue. Perhaps this explains how materials suppliers, such as solder manufacturers, continue to preach lead-free benefits and minimize the faults, including the increased environmental hazards, of lead-free solders.”
George Riley:
Rick, what part of business basics do you not understand? Please choose from the list:
1. Consumables suppliers will have a continuing income stream from lead-free solder, as contrasted, for example, to equipment suppliers who made one-time replacement or upgrade sales.
Since SAC sales presumably have increased at your company over the last few years, you have the data. Why don’t you disprove me by showing the data you have to us?
2. An annuity is a continuing stream of money. Calling a revenue stream an annuity is a reasonable analogy.
3. Preach lead-free benefits? You gave us a good example in converting poor wetting, generally considered a disadvantage, to an advantage.
4. Minimizing lead-free hazards? The EPA report established that SAC has more lifetime environmental and health hazards than SnPb eutectic.
As I recall, one solder spokesman literally minimized the hazard by responding with an analysis that showed the negative environmental contribution of lead-free solder is a very small fraction of total pollution. So what?
General:
As a professional writer, I don’t mind fact-based criticism. I do mind critical distortions and factual mis-statements, e.g. I never claimed that the solder industry was responsible for the passage of RoHS nor do I suspect that. Guilty conscience?
Your comments on costs and complexities address profits, not revenue. I did not say that solder suppliers are the major profiteers, since I don’t see their P&L by product line.
I didn’t even say they are the major beneficiaries; perhaps the silver suppliers woud be candidates, but I don’t have that data.
Of course, you have P & L data by line; why don’t you show us data instead of self-pitying smoke?
regards—george
Steve Gold:
Words can seem analagous but carry big differences in readers’ minds. On “annuity” vs. “revenue stream,” the two words are certainly not analagous. An annuity is an asset that pays a constant amount each year to the holder until the annuity (or the holder)expires.
Revenue streams are revenues generated from sales. They are not guaranteed, and must be actively pursued and grown.
Mr. Riley’s usage of annuity implies, to me, that lead-free solder is a gift for companies like Indium, A small differentiation, but as writers we know that words carry implied as well as actual meanings.
Personally, I’m not a big fan of how RoHS turned the industry upside down due to a political rather than scientific decision-making process. That said, I think solder makers would rather have grown their tin-lead revenue stream rather than being forced down the lead-free solder path. But now that they are on that path, can we really get angry that they make money doing it? They were making money before lead-free, and I’m sure they will continue to be profitable in the brave new world of RoHS legislation. What’s more, should solderless assembly become a reality, I’d bet that solder makers will adapt to that reality as well.
Let’s stop blaming people for turning legislation beyond their control into revenue streams they can control…