Analyzing Industry Reports
Given an industry overview document, extract into this structure immediately:
INDUSTRY: [Name + NAICS/SIC code if given]
DEFINITION: [What's included/excluded, in one paragraph]
KEY PROCESSES/METHODS: [List with 1-line description each]
MARKET SIZE: [Latest figures with year]
HISTORICAL TRAJECTORY: [3-5 bullet timeline of key inflection points]
CURRENT TRENDS: [What's growing/declining and why]
REGULATORY FACTORS: [If mentioned]
Don't summarize narratively first — populate the structure directly from source text, then write connective prose only if needed.
Progress:
- Step 1: Identify industry scope — what's included vs. explicitly excluded (classification boundaries)
- Step 2: List all distinct production/service methods described, with technical definition of each
- Step 3: Extract quantitative data points (revenue, shipments, employment, establishment counts) tagged by year
- Step 4: Build a chronological timeline of technological/structural shifts
- Step 5: Identify stated causes of change (e.g., "digital printing displaced lithography due to X")
- Step 6: Note regulatory/environmental/competitive pressures separately
- Step 7: Flag any unresolved trend (e.g., "moribund but showing signs of X") — these signal industry inflection points worth highlighting
Step 1 detail — scope boundaries: These documents define an industry by contrast (what's classified elsewhere). Always capture both sides: "Industry X includes A but excludes B, which is classified under Industry Y." This exclusion mapping is often the most useful extraction for someone doing competitive/market research.
Step 2 detail — methods: Technical processes (e.g., lithography, gravure, flexography) should each get: origin/etymology if given, mechanical description, ideal use case (volume, substrate, cost profile), and comparative advantage/disadvantage vs. alternatives.
Step 3 detail — data points: Never merge figures from different years into a single "current" number. Keep every stat tied to its year and source (e.g., "$82 billion (2011, whole industry)" vs "$38.8 billion (2011, lithographic segment)").
Example 1: Input: Paragraph describing gravure printing's process, ideal print-run volume, and 2010s decline. Output:
METHOD: Gravure
PROCESS: Image engraved into metal cylinder; ink fills cells, wiped from surface, paper absorbs ink from cells (intaglio)
IDEAL USE: >300,000 copies; magazines, mass catalogs; superior clarity on thin paper (wet ink over dry, unlike other methods)
ADVANTAGE: No image deterioration over millions of impressions
DISADVANTAGE: High cost, long press setup time
TREND: Declining (2010s) as digital/online media took volume; niche revival in printed electronics
Example 2: Input: Multiple paragraphs with revenue figures scattered across decades (1987, 1991, 2005-2011). Output:
TIMELINE (Revenue, commercial printing industry):
1987: $44.7B (all methods); $32.7B lithographic
1991: $55.7B (5th largest US manufacturing industry)
2006: $51.1B (lithographic shipments)
2007: $53B+ (lithographic peak)
2011: $82B (whole industry, +1% YoY); $38.8B (lithographic, ~50% capacity utilization)
INFLECTION POINTS: 2008-09 recession; rise of digital printing and internet publishing eroding lithographic share post-2004
- Preserve exact figures and years verbatim — do not round or interpolate.
- Distinguish "whole industry" totals from segment-specific totals (lithographic vs. digital vs. gravure) — these are commonly conflated in source text.
- When a document states causation ("X declined because of Y"), preserve that causal claim explicitly rather than just noting the trend.
- Capture classification cross-references (e.g., "screen printing → Industry 323113") as they're valuable for scope disambiguation.
- Use consistent labels for recurring categories (process, market size, trend, regulation) across every industry summarized, to enable side-by-side comparison later.
- Don't collapse different industry sub-segments into one aggregate figure — a "$82 billion" industry total and a "$38.8 billion" lithographic subtotal are not comparable without noting the difference.
- Don't drop the exclusion/boundary information — it's often what a reader actually needs (e.g., "is X classified here or elsewhere?").
- Don't paraphrase technical process descriptions into vague terms ("prints images using ink") — retain the specific mechanical distinctions (relief vs. intaglio vs. planographic vs. porous).
- Don't treat "moribund" or "declining" language as a final verdict — check for counter-trends mentioned in the same passage (e.g., niche revival).