Gail Flower, editor_in_chief of Advanced Packaging, offers her perspective in a lead-free debate initiated by Rick Short of Indium, in response to a segment of The Riley Report, ““The $38 Billion Blunder”” penned by AP’s columnist, George A. Riley, Ph.D.
In writing the Riley Report for our AP Semi-monthly electronic newsletter, George Riley’s column provides exactly what readers expect from a column: facts plus some comment on them or opinion. His column “The $38 Billion Blunder” fit that format with step-by-step reporting on the survey that TFI conducted on the cost to the electronics industry to date from lead-free compliance. It ended with his comments on who profited from the RoHS response. And, in journalism, everyone is allowed an opinion, and columnists are expected to have an opinion. The Riley Report is a column, not an essay.
When there are discontinuities in our industry — or significant changes in materials and/or manufacturing processes — the retraining, research and development, and of course the materials themselves create new competitive differentiation. Those who can deliver the required unique features more quickly benefit. Without a doubt, the response to fine pitch required fine solder paste. Similarly, the response to RoHS created many new alloy opportunities. A company that is skilled in responding quickly with what consumers want probably will achieve a competitive differentiation and increased revenue. Certainly, many of the new materials (silver and others) are more costly and those costs must be covered by the user. No doubt, even soldering equipment manufacturers who could respond to the need for specialized heat control, solder pots, and information on how to deal with lead-free soldering sold more equipment of a specialized nature.
George also said, “even the trade press who saw a lead-free spike in advertising revenue.” Lead-free initiatives did bring more articles and advertising to most trade journals. Getting the news out has to be covered as well.
Discontinuities such as significant changes in design, manufacturing, research, or process information create opportunities and competitive advantages for those able to supply the requested material, equipment, or information. Of course, those who supply what the markets seek are those that profit. This just seems to follow the course of capitalism.
If George Riley’s column made Rick Short angry enough to defend his company’s position, then he is doing his job. If Short defended his response to making a profit by a quick or exacting response to an industry discontinuity, then he is doing his job. If they both express points of view that our readers should think about and write about (especially in trade journals and blogs) then the press is doing its job. Good journalism is fact and interpretation or opinion. Our job is to present it evenly.
Gail Flower
Editor-in-chief