Brand Return Share Workshop Brand Return Share Workshop October 17, 2006October 17, 2006

National Center for Electronics National Center for Electronics RecyclingRecycling

Workshop OverviewWorkshop Overview

• Brand/Orphan/White Box DefinitionsBrand/Orphan/White Box Definitions– Effects in current systems Effects in current systems

• NCER Brand Data Management SystemNCER Brand Data Management System• Brand Recording Brand Recording

– Misidentified, ExamplesMisidentified, Examples• Return Share ReportsReturn Share Reports

– Assumptions/CalculationsAssumptions/Calculations– Comparison to Market ShareComparison to Market Share– Company ExamplesCompany Examples

• Playing with the DataPlaying with the Data– Participant SuggestionsParticipant Suggestions

National Center for Electronics National Center for Electronics Recycling Recycling

• Mission: dedicated to the development and Mission: dedicated to the development and enhancement of a national infrastructure for the enhancement of a national infrastructure for the recycling of used electronics in the U.S. through 1) recycling of used electronics in the U.S. through 1) the coordination of initiatives targeting the recycling the coordination of initiatives targeting the recycling of used electronics in the United States, 2) of used electronics in the United States, 2) participation in pilot projects to advance and participation in pilot projects to advance and encourage electronics recycling, and 3) the encourage electronics recycling, and 3) the development of programs that reduce the burden of development of programs that reduce the burden of government through private management of government through private management of electronics recycling systems.  electronics recycling systems. 

• Non-profit 501c3Non-profit 501c3• Located in Region IIILocated in Region III

– Parkersburg, WV area (Davisville)Parkersburg, WV area (Davisville)– Polymer Tech Park, owned by PAZ, also Amandi operationPolymer Tech Park, owned by PAZ, also Amandi operation

What is a “Brand?”What is a “Brand?”• ““A name given to a product or service A name given to a product or service ” ”

according to LaborLawTalk.comaccording to LaborLawTalk.com

• Most large producers use same name Most large producers use same name for brandfor brand– I.e. HP-HP, Sony-Sony I.e. HP-HP, Sony-Sony

• But, brand name can differ from But, brand name can differ from producer nameproducer name– Retailers brand differently, i.e. Walmart-iloRetailers brand differently, i.e. Walmart-ilo

What is What is THETHE “Brand?” for “Brand?” for Electronics Recycling PurposesElectronics Recycling Purposes

• Same product may include multiple “brand” Same product may include multiple “brand” markingsmarkings– Are true brands, but not correct brand for Are true brands, but not correct brand for

assignment of responsibilityassignment of responsibility

• Correct brands to record depends on Correct brands to record depends on program, purpose of brand recordingprogram, purpose of brand recording

• In Maine, correct is brand one that is In Maine, correct is brand one that is registered to a claiming “manufacturer”registered to a claiming “manufacturer”

• In Washington, brand ownership determines In Washington, brand ownership determines responsibility assignmentresponsibility assignment

Brand/Producer DifferencesBrand/Producer Differences• Difference between brand “licensor” and brand Difference between brand “licensor” and brand

“licensee”“licensee”– No central registry of either!No central registry of either!

• Different physical manufacturer (e.g., contract Different physical manufacturer (e.g., contract manufacturing)manufacturing)

• The producer of the product may license a legacy brand The producer of the product may license a legacy brand name (e.g., RCA, IBM)name (e.g., RCA, IBM)– ““Back from the Dead” brands – Polaroid, WestinghouseBack from the Dead” brands – Polaroid, Westinghouse

• A single producer often owns multiple brandsA single producer often owns multiple brands– Panasonic has Panasonic, Quasar*, TechnicsPanasonic has Panasonic, Quasar*, Technics

• A single brand may be produced by more than one A single brand may be produced by more than one companycompany– Historically: GE formerly by GE, then Thomson, now TTEHistorically: GE formerly by GE, then Thomson, now TTE– Concurrently: Funai for “Magnavox” TV/VCR/DVD combos, Concurrently: Funai for “Magnavox” TV/VCR/DVD combos,

Philips for all other “Magnavox”Philips for all other “Magnavox”

What are “Orphans?”What are “Orphans?”• Statutory, legislative definitionsStatutory, legislative definitions

– Usually a waste for which a manufacturer can not Usually a waste for which a manufacturer can not be identified or waste for which its manufacturer be identified or waste for which its manufacturer is no longer in businessis no longer in business

• NCER definitionsNCER definitions– ““True” orphans, where the producer has gone out True” orphans, where the producer has gone out

of business and the regulator has determined that of business and the regulator has determined that there is no successorthere is no successor

– ““Non-compliant” orphans where the producer is Non-compliant” orphans where the producer is still in business but elects not to comply with the still in business but elects not to comply with the requirementsrequirements

– ““Disputed brand” orphans where the producer Disputed brand” orphans where the producer disputes responsibility for one of many reasons disputes responsibility for one of many reasons

– ““De minimis” orphans of one-off brands from De minimis” orphans of one-off brands from producers that may still exist but are extremely producers that may still exist but are extremely difficult to finddifficult to find

6.68% monitor share (#4 in BDMS)6.68% monitor share (#4 in BDMS)

7.06% desktop share (#6)7.06% desktop share (#6)

Orphan Brand (Maine)Orphan Brand (Maine)

What are “White Box” ProductsWhat are “White Box” Products

• Usually orphans, but not necessarilyUsually orphans, but not necessarily• May carry a brand, a customer-specific brand, no May carry a brand, a customer-specific brand, no

brandbrand• Definition is evolvingDefinition is evolving

– Usually products with a no-name brand from a non-major Usually products with a no-name brand from a non-major vendor by an assembler, or a custom-built computer with vendor by an assembler, or a custom-built computer with name-brand internal componentsname-brand internal components

– Other terms for white box manufacturer: “Value-added Other terms for white box manufacturer: “Value-added Reseller”, “System Builder”Reseller”, “System Builder”

• Defined statutorily for the first time in new Defined statutorily for the first time in new Washington State legislation:Washington State legislation:– ““a person who manufactured unbranded covered electronic a person who manufactured unbranded covered electronic

products offered for sale in the state within ten years prior to products offered for sale in the state within ten years prior to a program year for televisions or within five years prior to a a program year for televisions or within five years prior to a program year for desktop computers, laptop or portable program year for desktop computers, laptop or portable computers, or computer monitors.”computers, or computer monitors.”

””Unknown” White BoxUnknown” White Box

Also OrphanAlso Orphan

16.18 % return share desktops 16.18 % return share desktops (#1! In BDMS)(#1! In BDMS)4.44% return share laptops (#6)4.44% return share laptops (#6)2.42% return share TVs (#16)2.42% return share TVs (#16)

2.1% return share monitors (#14)2.1% return share monitors (#14)

White BoxWhite Box

This brand not in BDMS before WV brand countThis brand not in BDMS before WV brand count

55 “new” desktop brands of 157 total brands 55 “new” desktop brands of 157 total brands

(all 3 or fewer units of 1195 desktop units)(all 3 or fewer units of 1195 desktop units)

Brand/Orphan Roles in Existing Brand/Orphan Roles in Existing SystemsSystems

• California ARF System:California ARF System:– No brand or orphan provisions, collected No brand or orphan provisions, collected

products recycled regardless of brandproducts recycled regardless of brand

• Maine PR System: Maine PR System: – Strong brand and orphan componentStrong brand and orphan component

•Brand count by consolidators, manufacturers Brand count by consolidators, manufacturers billed for their returnsbilled for their returns

•DEP required to ID orphans, manufacturers DEP required to ID orphans, manufacturers billed for orphan “pro rata share”billed for orphan “pro rata share”

Brand/Orphan in Existing Brand/Orphan in Existing SystemsSystems

• Maryland Manufacturer Reg Fee System:Maryland Manufacturer Reg Fee System:– No orphan provision, no assignment of responsibility No orphan provision, no assignment of responsibility

at time of recyclingat time of recycling– Brands selling into state are required to register, Brands selling into state are required to register,

pay $pay $

• Washington StateWashington State– System financial responsibility allocated by brandSystem financial responsibility allocated by brand– Orphans financed by compliant manufacturers, but Orphans financed by compliant manufacturers, but

only one explicit orphan requirement in the statute: only one explicit orphan requirement in the statute: “April 1, 2010, the department shall provide a report “April 1, 2010, the department shall provide a report to the appropriate committees of the legislature to the appropriate committees of the legislature regarding the amount of orphan products collected regarding the amount of orphan products collected as a percent of the total amount of as a percent of the total amount of covered electronic products collected.” covered electronic products collected.”

White Boxes in Existing White Boxes in Existing SystemsSystems

• California ARF System:California ARF System:– No definition, but brand label required, No definition, but brand label required,

and all sellers must collect fee and all sellers must collect fee •However, desktops not covered, only However, desktops not covered, only

laptops/monitors for WBlaptops/monitors for WB

• Maine PR System: Maine PR System: – Brand label required for covered products Brand label required for covered products

andand desktops, WB laptop/monitor makers desktops, WB laptop/monitor makers must file plan and be responsible for must file plan and be responsible for returns + orphansreturns + orphans

White Boxes in MD and WAWhite Boxes in MD and WA• Maryland Manufacturer Reg Fee System:Maryland Manufacturer Reg Fee System:

– CoversCovers desktop computersdesktop computers, if WB manufacturers makes > , if WB manufacturers makes > 1000/year, registration required, brand label required1000/year, registration required, brand label required

• Washington State defines white box Washington State defines white box manufacturer, limits their ability for manufacturer, limits their ability for individual planindividual plan

• Washington State calculation of “return” Washington State calculation of “return” share % to exclude non-claimed brands share % to exclude non-claimed brands (including orphans, others?)(including orphans, others?)– Translates into poundage requirement for Translates into poundage requirement for

“equivalent” shares of each manufacturer once “equivalent” shares of each manufacturer once annual collection amounts are known annual collection amounts are known

Summary of NCER Orphan-Summary of NCER Orphan-White Box Research White Box Research

• NCER Report on Orphan/White BoxNCER Report on Orphan/White Box– Found regional differences in brand return Found regional differences in brand return

sharesshares•Apple monitors: 4.9%, 11.6% and 18.8% in 3 Apple monitors: 4.9%, 11.6% and 18.8% in 3

studies studies

– Variations in sample sizes exacerbate Variations in sample sizes exacerbate regional differencesregional differences

– Compiling unit totals skews towards largest Compiling unit totals skews towards largest study (Hennepin County)study (Hennepin County)

– Published at IEEE 2006 conferencePublished at IEEE 2006 conference– Published known % of orphan as of early Published known % of orphan as of early

20062006

Research Results: Determining Research Results: Determining OrphansOrphans

• Orphan research led to conclusion:Orphan research led to conclusion:– Not an orphan unless determined (by govt)Not an orphan unless determined (by govt)

• Need official records, some judgment callsNeed official records, some judgment calls

• Many smaller brands – lot of effort for little Many smaller brands – lot of effort for little returnreturn– Especially monitors, desktopsEspecially monitors, desktops

• ““de minimis” shares in Mainede minimis” shares in Maine– If manufacturer has less than 1% return share, If manufacturer has less than 1% return share,

no pro rata share (i.e. orphan) neededno pro rata share (i.e. orphan) needed

Maine DEP Orphan Maine DEP Orphan DeterminationsDeterminations

• If brand identified at a consolidator is If brand identified at a consolidator is not claimed, ME DEP follows this processnot claimed, ME DEP follows this process– Search US Patent Office databaseSearch US Patent Office database

•Can get orphan status there, or further researchCan get orphan status there, or further research

– Search other Business Search other Business Directories/DatabasesDirectories/Databases• i.e. “Brands and Their Companies”i.e. “Brands and Their Companies”•Orion Blue BookOrion Blue Book

– If no info, general web searchIf no info, general web search– Still no info, DEP works with AG office to Still no info, DEP works with AG office to

assign orphan statusassign orphan status•Could be mis-identifiedCould be mis-identified

Brand Data Management Brand Data Management SystemSystem

Brand Data Management Brand Data Management SystemSystem

• Created BDMS to Created BDMS to track return share and track return share and claims in different claims in different statesstates

• Sources:Sources:• Florida Brand Count 04-05Florida Brand Count 04-05• Staples Northeast 2004Staples Northeast 2004• Hennepin County 2004Hennepin County 2004• Good Guys NW 2004 (TVs Good Guys NW 2004 (TVs

only)only)• NEW- WV collection events NEW- WV collection events

20062006• Forthcoming – Maine Jan-Forthcoming – Maine Jan-

Oct 06Oct 06

Shows calculated Brand Return Shows calculated Brand Return shares by Product Type and also shares by Product Type and also the total number of Brands the total number of Brands represented in each Product represented in each Product Category (e.g. 661 Desktop Category (e.g. 661 Desktop brands).brands).

BDMS Outputs BDMS Outputs • Return Share by Product CategoryReturn Share by Product Category

• Return Share Across All ProductsReturn Share Across All Products

• Official Brand Claims/StatusOfficial Brand Claims/Status– Data from Maine (no desktops), Data from Maine (no desktops),

Maryland (no TVs)Maryland (no TVs)– Washington in futureWashington in future

• Combined manufacturer share for Combined manufacturer share for claimed brandsclaimed brands

Percent of Brand Returns in Percent of Brand Returns in BDMS Included on Official BDMS Included on Official State Reg. ListsState Reg. Lists• Maine official designations are:Maine official designations are:

– ClaimedClaimed– OrphanOrphan– MisidentifiedMisidentified– Blank/Still ResearchingBlank/Still Researching

• % of BDMS brand returns officially % of BDMS brand returns officially designated by Maine DEP as of the end of designated by Maine DEP as of the end of August, 2006August, 2006– 95% (Monitors)95% (Monitors)

• Another 2% are in the BDMS as “unknown” (no brand)Another 2% are in the BDMS as “unknown” (no brand)– 94% (TVs)94% (TVs)

• Another 2% are in the BDMS as “unknown” (no brand)Another 2% are in the BDMS as “unknown” (no brand)

Brand Returns in BDMS By Brand Returns in BDMS By Maine Designation TypeMaine Designation Type

• 281 Brands Claimed281 Brands Claimed

• 132 Designated Orphans132 Designated Orphans

• 80 Misidentified “brands”80 Misidentified “brands”

• 9 “Not officially claimed” brands9 “Not officially claimed” brands

• 587 “Still Researching”587 “Still Researching”

Brand Returns in BDMS By Brand Returns in BDMS By Maine Designation TypeMaine Designation Type

• Within the 95% of BDMS monitor returns Within the 95% of BDMS monitor returns with an official Maine designation:with an official Maine designation:– Claimed (79%)Claimed (79%)– Orphan (11%)Orphan (11%)– Misidentified (<1%)Misidentified (<1%)– Blank/Still Researching (4%)Blank/Still Researching (4%)

• Within the 94% of BDMS television returns Within the 94% of BDMS television returns with an official Maine designation:with an official Maine designation:– Claimed (88%)Claimed (88%)– Orphan (4%)Orphan (4%)– Misidentified (<1%)Misidentified (<1%)– Blank/Still Researching (2%)Blank/Still Researching (2%)

Brand RecordingBrand Recording

Best Practices and Common Best Practices and Common ErrorsErrors

Brand RecordingBrand Recording• Not as simple as looking and writing Not as simple as looking and writing

downdown

• NCER developed Best Mgmt PracticesNCER developed Best Mgmt Practices– Reduce errors, guide for brand recordersReduce errors, guide for brand recorders

• Steps detailed for brand recorderSteps detailed for brand recorder– Know units of measure, product categoriesKnow units of measure, product categories– Distinguish product categories – gray areaDistinguish product categories – gray area– Finding true “brand” labelFinding true “brand” label– Identifies common mis-identified markingsIdentifies common mis-identified markings– Tips for calculating sharesTips for calculating shares

Worst MisidentificationsWorst Misidentifications3M3M TVTV

Cow Cow RadiationRadiation

ULUL

EnergyEnergy Low Low RadiationRadiation

VLMFVLMF CRTCRT

VGAVGA

Brand “Aliases”Brand “Aliases”• Spelling errors have consequences!Spelling errors have consequences!

– Proton different than ProtronProton different than Protron– J.C. Penney vs JC Penney vs JCPenneyJ.C. Penney vs JC Penney vs JCPenney– Samyo vs SanyoSamyo vs Sanyo– The extra consonants: Phillips, Cannon, The extra consonants: Phillips, Cannon,

ThompsonThompson

• Secondary brands recorded as brandsSecondary brands recorded as brands– Apple vs Macintosh vs iMac …Apple vs Macintosh vs iMac …– Presario/CompaqPresario/Compaq– Satellite/ToshibaSatellite/Toshiba– But not “Trinitron” for Sony! But not “Trinitron” for Sony!

Brand Recording PitfallsBrand Recording Pitfalls

Candidate for Candidate for misidentificationmisidentification

““Creative”: Creative”: drive, not branddrive, not brand

““Personal Computer”: not Personal Computer”: not brand, but IBM trademarkbrand, but IBM trademark

The BRAND! “CCI”The BRAND! “CCI”

Monitor, no label on frontMonitor, no label on front

Manufacturer Manufacturer here:here:

Sceptre Sceptre TechnologiesTechnologies

Could be recorded as:Could be recorded as:

•Multi-MediaMulti-Media

•Legend 2000Legend 2000

•Intel/Intel InsideIntel/Intel Inside

•Packard Bell *Packard Bell *

RCA on front, but not RCA on front, but not enough info for ME program enough info for ME program on backon back

““View and View” on front, View and View” on front, needed to verify on backneeded to verify on back

Bare tube from Bare tube from residential residential collection; collection; “Zenith” on tube “Zenith” on tube label, but is it the label, but is it the “brand”?“brand”?

Return Share CalculationsReturn Share Calculations

Return Share CalculationsReturn Share Calculations• 2 Methods for Calculation: 12 Methods for Calculation: 1stst Method Method• Total Units / Return Share CalculationTotal Units / Return Share Calculation

– Add up all units for a brand across all regional Add up all units for a brand across all regional programs where brands were counted, then programs where brands were counted, then divide the total number of units collected divide the total number of units collected nationwide by the total number of brand units. nationwide by the total number of brand units.

– All units equal, regardless of sample size or All units equal, regardless of sample size or locationlocation

– For brands that show significant regional For brands that show significant regional variation in return shares, this method may over variation in return shares, this method may over - or underestimate return share due to a larger - or underestimate return share due to a larger brand counting program in one region brand counting program in one region compared with another program. compared with another program.

Return Share CalculationsReturn Share Calculations• 2 Methods for Calculation: 22 Methods for Calculation: 2ndnd Method Method

• Average Reported Return ShareAverage Reported Return Share– This method takes the return share for each This method takes the return share for each

brand calculated by individual collection brand calculated by individual collection programs where brands were counted, then programs where brands were counted, then averages the program-specific return shares to averages the program-specific return shares to estimate the brand’s national return share. estimate the brand’s national return share.

– Removes skewing of any regional difference due Removes skewing of any regional difference due to the size of the program, but can magnify to the size of the program, but can magnify abnormally high or low return shares in smaller abnormally high or low return shares in smaller programs. programs.

Return Share CalculationsReturn Share Calculations

• Examples of Examples of differences in differences in the two the two methodsmethods

Brand Brand Total UnitTotal Unit Program Program AverageAverage

Apple - Apple - MonitorMonitor

10.43%10.43% 12.21%12.21%

Unknown – Unknown – monitormonitor

1.87%1.87% 4.26%4.26%

RCA –TV RCA –TV 12.6%12.6% 13.41%13.41%

Dell – Dell – laptoplaptop

11.8%11.8% 16.45%16.45%

The “Equivalent Share” The “Equivalent Share” ConceptConcept• Usually return share among compliant Usually return share among compliant

manufacturersmanufacturers– Distributes costs of unclaimed brands across Distributes costs of unclaimed brands across

companies claiming brandscompanies claiming brands• Washington State definition of equivalent shareWashington State definition of equivalent share

– ““the weight in pounds of covered electronic products the weight in pounds of covered electronic products identified for an individual manufacturer under this identified for an individual manufacturer under this chapter as determined by the department under chapter as determined by the department under section 20 of this act,” basically:section 20 of this act,” basically:• Numerator is return share among compliant manufacturersNumerator is return share among compliant manufacturers• Denominator is the total pounds collected by all compliant Denominator is the total pounds collected by all compliant

manufacturers during the “previous program year”manufacturers during the “previous program year”

Washington “Equivalent Share” Washington “Equivalent Share” ExaminedExamined

• Washington’s program combines Washington’s program combines weights for all 4 product categories to weights for all 4 product categories to determine return sharedetermine return share– The next slides show a calculation of the top The next slides show a calculation of the top

10 brands from older, 2004-only BDMS data10 brands from older, 2004-only BDMS data•The list does not include the “unknown” brand The list does not include the “unknown” brand

returns that totaled about 4% of the return share returns that totaled about 4% of the return share by weight across all 4 product typesby weight across all 4 product types

•Note that the “Brand Return Share” is not Note that the “Brand Return Share” is not “Equivalent Share” since it includes the “Equivalent Share” since it includes the unclaimedunclaimed

Washington “Equivalent Share” Washington “Equivalent Share” Examined (cont)Examined (cont)

Brand Rank

Total Weight by Brand

(lbs)

Brand Return Share Across

Products

1 RCA 160,734 7.08%

2 ZENITH 157,682 6.95%

3 COMPAQ 92,274 4.06%

4 SONY 89,582 3.95%

5 APPLE 86,031 3.79%

Washington “Equivalent Share” Washington “Equivalent Share” Examined (cont)Examined (cont)

Brand Rank

Total Weight by Brand

(lbs)

Brand Return Share Across

Products

6 DELL 77,579 3.42%

7 PANASONIC 70,401 3.10%

8 GE 70,138 3.09%

9 PACKARD BELL 66,379 2.92%

10 IBM 65,182 2.87%

Washington “Equivalent Share” Washington “Equivalent Share” Examined (cont)Examined (cont)

• ““If my company’s BDMS return share If my company’s BDMS return share is 5%, what will my equivalent share is 5%, what will my equivalent share be in Washington State?”be in Washington State?”– The actual number in pounds will not be The actual number in pounds will not be

known until summer 2010 (sorry!), known until summer 2010 (sorry!), but….but….

– We’ll take a SWAG at it…..We’ll take a SWAG at it…..

Washington “Equivalent Share” Washington “Equivalent Share” Examined (cont)Examined (cont)• ““If my company’s cross-product BDMS return If my company’s cross-product BDMS return

share is 5%, what will my equivalent share share is 5%, what will my equivalent share be in Washington State?”be in Washington State?”– Could be projected by calculating probable Could be projected by calculating probable

“compliant share” across all 4 product categories“compliant share” across all 4 product categories• 90% of television returns will be claimed90% of television returns will be claimed• 80% of monitor returns will be claimed80% of monitor returns will be claimed• 65% of all desktop returns wll be claimed (????)65% of all desktop returns wll be claimed (????)• 80% of all laptop returns will be claimed (less important)80% of all laptop returns will be claimed (less important)• ……..so about 80% of all returns by weight will be claimed ..so about 80% of all returns by weight will be claimed

by a compliant manufacturerby a compliant manufacturer– So that company’s 5% “return share” becomes So that company’s 5% “return share” becomes

6.25% (not 6%) 6.25% (not 6%)

Washington “Equivalent Share” Washington “Equivalent Share” Examined (cont)Examined (cont)• ““If my company’s cross-product BDMS If my company’s cross-product BDMS

return share is 5%, what will my return share is 5%, what will my equivalent share be in Washington State?”equivalent share be in Washington State?”– Assume about 2 lbs/capita collected in first Assume about 2 lbs/capita collected in first

yearyear– Equivalent Share: 750,000 lbs.Equivalent Share: 750,000 lbs.– Assume cost of 45 cents/lb. collectedAssume cost of 45 cents/lb. collected– Total projected year 1 cost: $337,500Total projected year 1 cost: $337,500

Comparisons with Market Comparisons with Market ShareShare

FL TVs Market vs Return Share from FL TVs Market vs Return Share from 20052005

CRT 99+%; Projection <1% % Collected % Sold CRT 71%; Flat 18%; Projection 11%

1 ZENITH 15% 11% Sony 12 RCA 11% 8% Samsung 23 SONY 7% 7% TTE (incl. GE, Proscan, RCA) 34 SHARP 6% 7% Panasonic (Matsushita) 45 PHILLIPS 5% 7% Sharp 56 PANASONIC 5% 6% Philips (includes Maganvox) 67 GE 4% 6% Toshiba 78 TOSHIBA 4% 5% Sanyo 89 SAMSUNG 3% 4% Zenith 9

10 JVC 3% 2% LG Electronics 1011 SEARS 3% 2% Apex Digital 1112 SANYO 3% 2% Hitachi 1213 EMERSON 3% 2% JVC 1314 ALL BRANDS 3% 1% Mitsubishi 1415 MITSUBISHI 3% 1% Syntax Groups 15

OTHER (187) 23% 30% Other

% Sold based on iSuppli (El Segundo, CA) report to FDEP, 10/24/05% Sold based on iSuppli (El Segundo, CA) report to FDEP, 10/24/05

FL Data Monitors : Return Share v FL Data Monitors : Return Share v Market ShareMarket Share

% Sold based on iSuppli (El Segundo, CA) report to FDEP, % Sold based on iSuppli (El Segundo, CA) report to FDEP, 10/24/0510/24/05

99+% CRT; <1%LCD % Collected % Sold 35% CRT; 65% LCD

1 DELL 12% 33% Dell 12 COMPAQ 8% 13% HP/Compaq 23 IBM 6% 6% Gateway 34 PACKARD BELL 6% 5% Viewsonic 45 GATEWAY 5% 4% Samsung 56 APPLE 5% 4% NEC-Mitsubishi 67 HP 4% 3% AOC (EPI) 78 NEC 4% 3% Acer 89 CTX 3% 2% LG Electronics 9

10 SAMSUNG 3% 2% EMC/Mag/Proview 1011 KDS 2% 2% Philips 1112 AOC 2% 2% IBM 12

OTHER (349) 43% 21% Other

Computers – Desktop, Laptop: Consumer, Small Business, Small Office MarketComputers – Desktop, Laptop: Consumer, Small Business, Small Office Market

Brand Return Share

Market Share Rank Return

Rank Market

Dell 9.6% 28.1% 3 1

HP 4.8% * 20.8% 8 2

Gateway 5.8% 8.8% 7 3

Toshiba 0.8% 5.0% 13 4

Apple 8.5% 4.0% 4 5

Sony 0.7% 2.0% 19 6

Lenovo 7.6% (IBM) 1.2% 5 7

Acer 1.5% 1.2% 10 8

Avertec N/A 0.6% N/A 9

Microelectronics N/A 0.4% N/A

Market Share Source: IDC via FL DEPMarket Share Source: IDC via FL DEP

Market Share vs Return Share for Computers (Desktop + Market Share vs Return Share for Computers (Desktop + Laptop)Laptop)

Printers: Sales (US) Printers: Sales (US) Consumer, Small Business, Small Office Consumer, Small Business, Small Office MarketMarketCompared with Collected for Recycling (FL)Compared with Collected for Recycling (FL)

(Percentages based on number of units sold or (Percentages based on number of units sold or collected) Units Sold Source: IDCcollected) Units Sold Source: IDC

Product Sales 2005 (US) Products Collected 2005 (FL)

(n = 12,934,024) (n = 1,705)

Vendor Percent Percent Brand Name

HP 36.3% 43.0% HP

Dell 18.3% 12.1% Epson

Lexmark 17.3% 10.3% Canon

Canon 12.0% 8.8% Lexmark

Epson 9.9% 4.3% Panasonic

Konica Minolta 2.0% 4.2% Okidata

Samsung 1.7% 4.0% Compaq

Brother 1.3% 2.2% Apple

OKI 0.6% 2.2% Brother

Xerox 0.2% 2.2% IBM

Others 0.5% 6.7% Others

Total 100.0% 100.0%  

Thank You!Thank You!

Jason LinnellJason LinnellNCERNCERPhone: (304) 699-1008Phone: (304) 699-1008jlinnell@electronicsrecycling.orgjlinnell@electronicsrecycling.org