I’m looking at what seems to be a marketing analysis for the FDM market, but there are problems.
Market research is a big thing in the industry. It’s not so much for users of the technology, but instead it is really directed at the companies involved. They can get a handle on what’s going on in the industry as a whole.
Answers to questions such as “how big will the market be in five years?” are quite important: a 3D printer manufacturer will make decisions on how to position their company for the future. Why build an expensive machine if the market isn’t big enough to justify making it?
Anyhow, I somehow receive marketing blurbs for this type of material regularly. Some come from familiar sources and are quite trustworthy: I have even met the folks behind these reports.
Others seem to come out of the blue, and I sometimes wonder where they’re coming from. Many seem to be from organizations that are new, and sometimes it’s pretty clear they really don’t understand the market.
This is one of those times.
In fact, this blurb was so outrageous that I had to talk about it on Fabbaloo.
The promotion was from “Insight Ace Analytic”, apparently a 3D printing market research firm. They promoted their latest report, “Fused Deposition Modeling 3D Printing Market Top Players Report 2024-2031”.
Fused Deposition Modeling, or “FDM”, is the trademark of Stratasys. They invented the technology, which is mostly known by the more generic, non-trademarked term, “FFF”, for Fused Filament Fabrication. If it’s “FDM”, then it’s Stratasys. Otherwise, it’s “FFF” for everything else. It’s all about extruding filament through a nozzle.
The promotion said:
“According to the latest research by InsightAce Analytic, the Global Fused Deposition Modeling 3D printing Market is predicted to grow with a CAGR of 29.6% during the forecast period of 2024-2031.”
That’s interesting, but perhaps quite low. The big FFF players today are growing faster than that already, according to other market analysts.
Then it hit me. I read their list of “prominent players in the Fused Deposition Modeling 3D printing Market”. The list of companies was incredibly incorrect! Here’s their list, and my comments on each company’s relationship to FFF:
- ExOne — Does not produce FFF equipment (sand)
- EOS GmbH — Does not produce FFF equipment (LPBF, SLS)
- Stratasys Ltd — Original inventor of FDM
- XYZprinting, Inc. — Ceased operations in 2023
- Optomec — Does not produce FFF equipment (metal)
- Voxeljet AG — Does not produce FFF equipment (sand, binder jetting)
- Organovo Holdings, Inc. — Does not produce FFF equipment (Bioprinting)
- EnvisionTEC — Does not produce FFF equipment (resin)
- 3D Systems — Does have one line of FFF equipment, but mostly other processes
- Markforged — Does produce FFF equipment
- Bambu Lab — Does produce FFF equipment exclusively
- Shenzhen Creality 3D Technology Co., Ltd. — Does produce FFF equipment, but also resin
- ELEGOO — Does produce FFF equipment, but also resin
- MakerBot — Is not a company since 2022
- UltiMaker — Does produce FFF equipment exclusively
- INTAMSYS TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. — Does produce FFF equipment exclusively
- Prusa Research a.s. — Does produce FFF equipment, but also resin
- Flashforge — Does produce FFF equipment exclusively
Out of 18 companies listed, Insight Ace Analytic named eight that do not produce FFF equipment or are long out of business. Their list is at least 44% wrong. How can they expect to even obtain sales estimates from companies that don’t even exist anymore? Was this list made in 2021?
The incorrect companies even appear on their promotional image, purportedly a page from their report, see image at top.
Market research firms should operate on a trust basis: you pay good money for their data collection and analysis capabilities. However, in this case it seems pretty clear that Insight Ace Analytic is deficient in at least the FFF domain.
I’m wondering how many folks outside the 3D print community, unfamiliar with the brands and companies, might mistakenly purchase this questionable report.
Via OpenPR
