Is it me, or does the list of Fax suppliers seem to be getting longer? I'm referring to the one and only market report available that lists vendors and market share data - we all know who I'm talking about.
Every time a new report comes out, we seem to have new players, or old ones that resurface from time to time. We also see the fruits of the M&A labors that take place each year. Open Text's acquisition of Message Manager is a fine example as is Topcall and Kofax being acquired by DICOMM. Still, I recently searched online for a fresh look at fax suppliers and frankly, I didn't recognize some of the companies listed.
Every time a new report comes out, we seem to have new players, or old ones that resurface from time to time. We also see the fruits of the M&A labors that take place each year. Open Text's acquisition of Message Manager is a fine example as is Topcall and Kofax being acquired by DICOMM. Still, I recently searched online for a fresh look at fax suppliers and frankly, I didn't recognize some of the companies listed.
I really believe this to be a good thing; the more the merrier.
I've observed over the years that many Fax vendors find themselves working a niche play in the market in order to compete. Some focus on desktop faxing, MFP faxing, email integration, or position fax as a subset of the messaging platform. Others do it all. There are fax servers for small, medium and large enterprises and not every vendor plays well in all of those arenas so naturally we'd expect to see a variety of vendors offering variations of the product.
Yet, I cannot help but wondering about the accuracy and objectiveness of the market data when it comes to the published reports about fax vendors and what we are really reporting on. I've heard arguments that the vendor list is bigger because the definitions have changed and now - once obscure vendors all of sudden have greater exposure. Besides, if you add more and more vendors, you can sell more research reports, right? I am not implying there is malfeasance at play here, but the question must be asked: Are the reports we're getting objective anymore?
Here's an example of what I mean: FoIP is no doubt one of the critical factors that will drive the industry forward, but do we need to make it a separate category as far as the market data is tabulated? I am not a big fan of that approach. Those who are familiar with me know my position on this: FoIP is a new way to deliver a fax. Period. There is no need to call it out as a separate industry. At the back end of an FoIP solution is the Fax Server - get it?
On the flip side, FoIP is "sexy" and has a lot of momentum due to the growing VoIP market, and the need for consolidation, cost reductions, redundancy, etc. Big players like Cisco, Alcatel, Nortel and others are the big fish in this pond and when they make waves, we all go for the ride. If this means we say "FoIP Server" instead of "Fax Server", then so be it. Sure, I'll go along.
Either way, I think it's safe to say that the "more of the same" reports we get about this market are just that: More of the same.
I think it's time for better, objective data.
So, is there a better way to quantify and categorize the Fax Market? Should FoIP be a separately audited segment?
I look forward to the discussion.
-Mark
I've observed over the years that many Fax vendors find themselves working a niche play in the market in order to compete. Some focus on desktop faxing, MFP faxing, email integration, or position fax as a subset of the messaging platform. Others do it all. There are fax servers for small, medium and large enterprises and not every vendor plays well in all of those arenas so naturally we'd expect to see a variety of vendors offering variations of the product.
Yet, I cannot help but wondering about the accuracy and objectiveness of the market data when it comes to the published reports about fax vendors and what we are really reporting on. I've heard arguments that the vendor list is bigger because the definitions have changed and now - once obscure vendors all of sudden have greater exposure. Besides, if you add more and more vendors, you can sell more research reports, right? I am not implying there is malfeasance at play here, but the question must be asked: Are the reports we're getting objective anymore?
Here's an example of what I mean: FoIP is no doubt one of the critical factors that will drive the industry forward, but do we need to make it a separate category as far as the market data is tabulated? I am not a big fan of that approach. Those who are familiar with me know my position on this: FoIP is a new way to deliver a fax. Period. There is no need to call it out as a separate industry. At the back end of an FoIP solution is the Fax Server - get it?
On the flip side, FoIP is "sexy" and has a lot of momentum due to the growing VoIP market, and the need for consolidation, cost reductions, redundancy, etc. Big players like Cisco, Alcatel, Nortel and others are the big fish in this pond and when they make waves, we all go for the ride. If this means we say "FoIP Server" instead of "Fax Server", then so be it. Sure, I'll go along.
Either way, I think it's safe to say that the "more of the same" reports we get about this market are just that: More of the same.
I think it's time for better, objective data.
So, is there a better way to quantify and categorize the Fax Market? Should FoIP be a separately audited segment?
I look forward to the discussion.
-Mark
About the author:
Mark D. Malone is a Product Management & Marketing Consultant with over 22
years experience in technology product management, with 11+ years in the Fax Messaging industry. He can be reached at Mark@MarkDMalone.com. His web site is www.MarkDMalone.com. He lives in Albany, New York, USA.
