Perhaps you’ve wondered on occasion – as we have - how an otherwise competent, mature human being capable of coping with the complexities of modern life can be lead to believe that replacing a small amount of non-toxic liquid in a little plastic box is completely beyond reasonable consideration. This wide-spread public perception may well be cited in future business case studies as a classic example of how applied mega-corporate negative imaging tactics can channel consumer purchasing behaviors.

The effectiveness of negative imaging is irrefutable - according to Recharger Magazine, “… more than 70% of people currently throw away their used cartridges and buy new ones.” That’s quite a testimonial to the inkjet printer manufacturers’ – the O.E.M.s - ability to impose powerful negative imaging on any alternative to their replacement cartridges – imaging that’s been used to shield and protect an extremely lucrative market.

Creating such a glittering market was based on a business strategy along these lines: identify a mass-market need, saturate that market with an attractively-priced product and, finally, reap outrageous profits from the (captive) consumers with repeated sales of exorbitantly-priced consumable products. It’s a high return-on-investment strategy that has served the printer manufacturers well - at the expense of the cartridge-consuming public.

Not surprisingly, these extravagantly over-priced O.E.M. replacement cartridges were recognized as clearly exploitive, little-value-for-the-price products. Consumers were presented with attractive alternatives from a second-tier industry providing both tank-type cartridge “compatibles” and refilled print-head-included cartridges at competitive prices – as well as, of course, the smartest, most cost-effective consumer option by far - simply learning to refill an empty cartridge. Mega-corporately speaking, no one appreciates competition invading a private game reserve - no matter how well stocked - especially when the hunt is on, and the printer manufacturers’ choice of response quickly became negative imaging. O.E.M.s discredited any alternatives to their products – and incorporated high-tech manufacturing tactics to discourage refilling as well – claiming all the while to have the best interests of consumers in mind.

Here are some of the more effective negative imaging tactics that have conned consumers into “can’t do – not me” mindsets. Refilling voids printer warranties – our response: not according to law - research the Moss-Magnuson Act with your favorite search engine. Refilling is awesomely complicated – our response: not unless you attempt refilling in a dark room with your hands duct-taped together. Refilling is just way too messy – our response: no more than cooking a meal or any of a variety of activities encountered in everyday life. Refilling is too time-consuming – our response: not really - fifteen to twenty minutes maximum once a month or so.

And, as a gentle reminder, while we're emptying our wallets into the coffers of mega-corporations, we are also contributing to the depletion of natural resources - the plastics required to produce a typical inkjet cartridge takes about 90 ml of petroleum resources - and the degradation of our environment, since those plastics will require an estimated ten centuries to decompose in our landfills.

We understand there will always be consumers willing to pay $20.00 for two teaspoons of ink and to those we say: your choice - if exorbitant O.E.M. prices work for you - it's your money to spend. But if you - like many of us - are offended by corporate exploitation and would rather not continually gift the O.E.M.s with your money, then throw off the mantle of mega-corporate manipulation now. Remember this - you may have no experience refilling inkjet cartridges, but you don’t have to start with zero knowledge - so, together, let's go do it!

Next – third in the Inkjet Cartridge Issues series: The Bottom Line Issue – Show Me The Money!