The sale of expensive 3D printers is a marathon, but the economy forces a sprint

It’s not that companies in the additive manufacturing (AM) industry are doing everything wrong. Most of them are doing everything right — it’s just that the black sheep are the loudest and most visible. That’s where this perception comes from… 3D printing is still a relatively new technology. I mean, when we compare it to a human lifespan, 40 years seems significant… But when we compare it to other manufacturing technologies, 3D printers are still in their infancy and their sale cycles are inevitably long.

You don’t have to look far — personal computers were first created in the mid-1970s, yet they only became widely used in the 2010s. And we’re talking about something far more useful and widespread than 3D printers. Besides, personal (hobbyist and desktop) 3D printers were invented less than 20 years ago and have been available on the market for only a few years. The adoption of new technologies simply takes a long time. The problem is that many companies don’t have that much time… They die while waiting…

Large companies always have plenty of time

As we know, time is relative. In the AM industry, this unfortunately has huge implications. The main characteristics of the additive manufacturing industry are:

• It is relatively young: most companies shaping the market are either about to turn 10 years old or have just crossed that milestone; generally, a 10-year-old company in this industry is considered a seasoned veteran, while a 20-year-old company is like a medieval knight with a history of crusades.
• It is overcrowded: many companies offer nearly identical products or services, often competing for the same customers.
• It is poor: without significant infusions from investment funds or government grants, most companies would not have survived beyond their second year of operation.

All these factors combined mean that everything happens quickly in this industry because any delay could prove fatal. This unfortunately generates the biggest problem and challenge faced by AM companies — the long time needed to convince large organizations to adopt a technology that is completely new to them.

The larger the company, the longer the decision-making process. The sale of 3D printers, or any other innovative device, requires discussion among many individuals at different decision-making levels. Additionally, there are considerations like “budget for this purpose,” “budget for this quarter/half-year/year,” “implementation and deployment costs,” “system changes,” “organizational changes,” “procedural changes,” and so on.

In short, to purchase and implement a 3D printer, not only do several people need to agree, but even if approval is granted, the purchase decision will be processed by the organization’s complex and multi-layered bureaucratic machinery. In large organizations with more than 100 people, those involved in the 3D printer purchasing process may include:

• process engineer
• department manager
• purchasing specialist
• accountant
• health and safety specialist
• department director
• in extreme cases, even the CEO or managing director.

Meanwhile, a salesperson from the AM company responsible for the sale of the 3D printers typically only interacts with one person, whose opinion may not be decisive (usually someone from positions 1–3). It’s manageable if the 3D printer will later be used by just two or three people in the R&D department. It’s worse if it’s intended for production, where a dozen production workers will interact with it. All these people need to be convinced to make the purchase and then trained. This process can take several months…

The worst situation for an AM company is when the engineer, with whom the salesperson is in talks, selects the product, but the final purchase decision is made by the purchasing specialist, who decides to shop around and then “makes the best-priced offer.”

Meanwhile, if we don’t close the sale this month, we’ll have to choose between:

• paying for office/production space rent
• paying suppliers for materials or products
• paying salaries.

If we don’t close the sale this month, we will only be able to choose one of these. This is what leads to all the dysfunctions…

Poverty pushes people to the other side of the barricade

It’s not that the AM industry attracts fraudsters and thieves. Indeed, such individuals do exist, but that’s on the normal level as in any industry. The circumstances drive desperate individuals in the industry to engage in unethical or morally questionable behavior. They might, for example, claim that everything can be 3D printed — even things that can’t; yet they assert that they can. They start hiding inconvenient information about the technology’s properties or the materials used. They exaggerate the advantages, turning minor features into exceptional market advantages*.

*I remember how, between 2015 and 2017, manufacturers of desktop FDM/FFF 3D printers massively advertised their switch to ball screws or HIWIN linear rails as if it were as extraordinary as traveling to space. It’s like Joe Smith caring about the type of cables used in his new car to deliver power to the turn signals.

Prolonged purchasing decisions create desperation

But that doesn’t mean manufacturing companies should start making hasty or reckless decisions just because their supplier might go bankrupt or fall into a debt spiral. Let’s not overdo it in the other direction… It’s about diagnosing the problem and understanding that buying an industrial AM system really takes a long time.

For example, in Poland, the sale cycle for metal PBF 3D printers typically takes 1.5 to 2 years. I know of cases where more than three years elapsed from the initial “yes” to the 3D printer physically arriving at the client’s production facility. Sometimes it’s a matter of “maturing” to the purchasing decision. Sometimes it’s navigating the aforementioned bureaucratic ladder. And sometimes it’s about securing financial resources (why buy it yourself when you can use an EU grant — which always takes a long time).

When the prospect is selling a machine once every 2 years, to have money to live on, we need to have a dozen or so transactions in progress at their own pace. And we have to assume that only a small percentage of them will be realized.

The market doesn’t work for us — we have to create the market

Despite the passing years, awareness of what additive technologies are remains close to zero in many organizations. The work of an AM company is continuous education of potential clients about what 3D printers are and what they are used for. This never ends — you always have to start conversations from the same point.

You have to go through the same steps of raising awareness about the benefits and possibilities that additive methods can bring to a business. You have to explain everything from scratch. This is unfortunately what working in new technology markets looks like — there are no shortcuts.

Historically, the seeds of the AM industry appeared around 1987, but the market really began to form only in the mid-1990s. However, until around 2010, it remained hidden. It was the RepRap project that changed this. That’s when affordable 3D printers appeared, the media became interested, and 3D printing reached the masses. People began to get involved, discovering that additive manufacturing isn’t just about plastic filaments, but also includes resins, polymer powders, metals, and more.

To survive in the market and grow the business, one must make money. Money comes from customers — the more customers there are, the higher the revenues. The necessity of actively seeking clients is a natural consequence of all the aforementioned points in the 3D printing industry. Considering the time factor, this will only be possible for those prepared for long distances.

Unfortunately, AM is not a sprinting sport.