My printer is unhappy with me. I haven’t replaced the ink cartridges for over a year; I haven’t printed more than a few pages during that year, but the old cartridges have been empty (not just low) for at least that long. So I finally decided to get some new ink; I was considering buying remanufactured/compatible cartridges, but the website I would buy from has a page yield estimate of less than half the normal for my i960’s BCI-6 ink. So I asked what the volume of ink in their cartridges is — turns out it’s normal, so I’ve no idea why the page yield would be so low. (I bought genuine from Amazon after all.)
But I decided to ask about a curious claim on their “About Us” page while I was at it…
…I also just noticed this on your website: “printer manufacturers charge more for an ounce of printer ink than an ounce of Chanel No 5.” (From the “About Us” page.) What are your numbers for that claim?
…As far as the source of the “printer manufacturers charge more for an ounce of ink than an ounce of Chanel No5”, see the below graphic from Chronicle Research:
If you have any additional questions, please let me know.
Thanks for getting back to me with those volumes.
For interest’s sake, the Chanel website lists their No. 5 ‘parfum’ at $260.00 for one ounce. (The price in the graphic is in the ballpark for the less concentrated ‘eau de parfum,’ though the picture is of the ‘parfum.’)
Color cartridges of the pictured BCI-3e ink are sold on Canon’s website for $12.99 each, each having about .44 oz. That’s about $29.52 per ounce. The black ink (as well as multi-packs) costs less. (The BCI-6 that I’m interested in comes to about $31.80/oz, at $13.99 per cartridge.)
That’s expensive, but not as expensive as the graphic indicates – and not as expensive as Chanel No. 5. It makes perfect sense that ink should be more expensive, ounce for ounce, than a product intended to be consumed several ounces at a time, even when you pick one that’s pricier than others of its type (as is Dom Perignon). Does make a dramatic comparison though.
Is this mean?
* * *
In other news, the freelance gig is still on hold; there was indeed a third delay, and this time the local company said they’ll just call us when the client company gets their flippin’ act together. Not in quite those words, mind you, but that was the gist of it. Supposedly it will be early this week. Clearly it isn’t happening today, so that leaves tomorrow before we’re ‘mid-week’ … and then ‘late-week’ … and then …