From the early days of digital printing and “books-on-demand” to transactional printing, and on to current reflections on selective dominance, Europe and industrial policy.
Nicola Muraro analyses how technology, power and public choices affect Italian industry, highlighting missed opportunities, incomplete transitions and the need for a more integrated and pragmatic Europe.

Nicola Muraro – now Partner at Interzen Consulting S.r.l. – worked within Selecta, contributing in Italy to the adoption of digital printing for industrial technical documentation and to the experimentation with on-demand publishing, also known for the successful slogan “books-on-demand”.

Later, still at Selecta, he was involved in the development of digital transactional printing in Italy and in several European contexts, supporting the shift from in-house document production within banks, insurance companies and utilities towards industrial outsourcing models. This transition led to significant cost reductions and a reshaping of market structures in the early 2000s.

In recent years, alongside his industrial background, he has developed an activity in economic and geopolitical analysis, contributing to several newspapers, including Il Giornale di Vicenza.

We interviewed him to retrace his professional journey and to discuss his reflections on the international context and its implications for Italian industry.

MetaPrintArt – We have known Nicola Muraro for over thirty years, since the early days of digital printing applied to publishing, a phase often described as revolutionary. That period also saw the success of the slogan “books-on-demand”.
How did you experience that season, and what did digital printing concretely represent for publishing at the time?

Nicola Muraro – Credit for the slogan “books-on-demand” should be properly acknowledged: it was an insight by Italo De Mas, who was able to grasp and communicate effectively the theoretical potential of digital printing.
With hindsight, I believe that at that stage we fell a little too much in love with the technology. It was still immature and unable to truly deliver on its promises: printing speed and costs were not competitive, finishing solutions were weak, and at the same time offset printing continued to evolve, pushing further ahead the break-even point with digital printing.
There was also the illusion that book-on-demand could radically change the structure of the Italian publishing market.

MetaPrintArt – From illusion to disappointment?

Nicola Muraro – In reality, that expectation did not materialise, at least not in the terms imagined at the time.
The real change came a few years later, when advances in printing and finishing technologies made genuine industrial production of on-demand micro-runs possible. In particular, improvements in quality and the reduction of costs in colour inkjet printing represented a genuine turning point.

MetaPrintArt – What did this evolution teach you?

Nicola Muraro – The lesson I draw is that technology is a powerful enabler of change, but it never acts on its own. Without a careful reading of context and timing, there is a risk of early-adopter enthusiasm running ahead of actual market conditions.

MetaPrintArt – You have been operationally distanced from the sector for some years now. Observing publishing today from the outside, digital printing has greatly broadened access, producing very different effects: from new opportunities to more controversial phenomena, such as the proliferation of self-publishing and loosely structured publishing ventures.
Do you see this as a problematic transformation, or simply a natural market dynamic?

Nicola Muraro – I am not particularly convinced by the category of “errors”, because it risks introducing value judgements into dynamics that, in my view, should be read more neutrally. I prefer to stick to the facts.
Writing a book is always an act that deserves attention and, I would say, a certain degree of sympathy. It is a form of personal expression that, thanks to digital printing, is now accessible to a much wider audience. This often happens through self-publishing or through less structured publishers, but I do not see this as a problem in itself.
Technology has simply lowered barriers to entry. That the market then selects, over time, more solid content and editorial forms is a natural process. I do not believe it is anyone’s role to decide in advance who is entitled to publish and who is not.
If there is a transformation under way, I would not interpret it as a degeneration, but rather as the expression of a widespread drive towards self-affirmation: men and women who, by publishing a text, seek to give form and visibility to their own experience. This says far more about society than it does about technology.

MPA – In un tuo recente intervento sostieni che l’Occidente non eserciti più un dominio globale come nel secondo dopoguerra e che la strategia americana, pur riducendo l’intervento militare diretto, faccia un uso crescente di leve economiche, tecnologiche e finanziarie.
Che cosa intendi con l’espressione “dominio selettivo” e perché la ritieni una forma di potere particolarmente pericolosa?

N. M. – Con “dominio selettivo” intendo una forma di potere che non punta più a controllare stabilmente interi territori o a costruire un ordine condiviso, come accadeva nel secondo dopoguerra, ma a esercitare pressione in modo mirato su snodi strategici: economia, tecnologia, finanza, regole, catene del valore.
La nuova strategia americana prende atto che l’intervento militare permanente è costoso e spesso inefficace, ma non rinuncia all’uso della forza. La redistribuisce su piani meno visibili e più pervasivi, rendendo il conflitto continuo e strutturale. Non cooperazione tra pari, ma rapporti asimmetrici fondati su dipendenze, esclusioni e leve di pressione. [teoria purtroppo smentita al momento di “andare in stampa” – ndr]

MPA – E che porta a maggiore instabilità…

N. M. – È un dominio che non costruisce stabilità, perché non si fonda su regole condivise. Produce alleanze instabili e competizione permanente, in cui anche gli alleati sono sottoposti a vincoli e condizionamenti. In questo senso non è multilateralismo, ma unilateralismo esercitato attraverso strumenti economici e normativi.
Per l’Europa questo è particolarmente pericoloso: indebolire l’Unione significa rendere i singoli Stati più facilmente subordinabili. Senza una massa critica politica e industriale comune, la libertà resta formale, ma diventa sempre più costosa da esercitare.

MetaPrintArt – In a recent contribution you argue that the West no longer exercises global dominance as it did in the post-war period, and that the US strategy, while reducing direct military intervention, increasingly relies on economic, technological and financial levers.
What do you mean by “selective dominance”, and why do you consider it a particularly dangerous form of power?

Nicola Muraro – By “selective dominance” I mean a form of power that no longer aims to exert stable control over entire territories or to build a shared order, as was the case after the Second World War, but rather seeks to apply targeted pressure on strategic nodes: the economy, technology, finance, rules and value chains.
The new American strategy acknowledges that permanent military intervention is costly and often ineffective, but it does not renounce the use of force. Instead, force is redistributed across less visible and more pervasive levels, making conflict continuous and structural. Not cooperation among equals, but asymmetric relationships based on dependencies, exclusions and pressure mechanisms [but at the moment this seems something obsolete…].

MetaPrintArt – Another key issue you highlight is the crisis of sharing: in politics, in the economy and in scientific research. Donald Trump is well known for having repeatedly attacked university autonomy and attempted to subordinate research to power-based logics.
What impact could this vision have on Italian private industry, particularly in terms of innovation, training and competitiveness?

Nicola Muraro – The impact could be significant, because industrial innovation almost always emerges from open ecosystems in which universities, research institutions and companies interact continuously. When research autonomy is constrained and knowledge sharing is reduced, the entire system loses its capacity to generate innovation.
For Italy, the problem is twofold. On the one hand, education and research are weakened precisely when companies need advanced skills the most. On the other hand, it must be acknowledged that the industrial sector itself is not always fully capable of seizing the opportunities that already exist. Universities and research centres produce knowledge, but this also requires informed and mature demand from companies.

MetaPrintArt – A suggestion for our companies?

Nicola Muraro – In a competitive global context, merely pointing out what does not work is not enough. Without active collaboration networks and without a real capacity to absorb innovation, the risk is a gradual loss of competitiveness, regardless of the policies adopted elsewhere.

MetaPrintArt – At the end of 2025, manufacturers of capital goods raised the alarm: uncertainty in the international context is heavily affecting industrial activity, with a marked decline in exports.
How do you see the short-term future for this strategic Made in Italy sector?

Nicola Muraro – In the short term, the only viable response is greater market diversification. Reducing dependence on a limited number of outlets is essential in an unstable environment. In this sense, trade agreements with areas such as South America and India should be viewed positively, as should the openness of countries traditionally closely aligned with the United States, such as Canada, to strengthening relations with Europe.
However, the true source of strength for Made in Italy remains a more integrated and credible Europe. Italian companies export far more effectively when they are perceived as part of a solid European system, capable of negotiating, protecting its supply chains and reducing internal barriers.
Alongside this, there is also a distinctly Italian barrier that weighs heavily on competitiveness: energy costs. The significant gap compared to other European countries represents a structural handicap, especially for energy-intensive sectors. There is a need to accelerate the development of renewable sources and to overcome a pricing model that currently places disproportionate costs on producers compared to their competitors.
In the short term, therefore, the resilience of the sector depends on three concrete factors: more diversified markets, a more integrated Europe, and a reduction in energy costs that restores competitive conditions comparable to those of Italy’s main European partners.

MetaPrintArt – Remaining within the graphic industry, the 5.0 transition is often presented as a decisive step in maintaining competitiveness, especially for SMEs. Many companies were relying on incentives, but current industrial policy seems to have scaled back or significantly complicated this path.
What is your assessment of this choice, and what risks do you see for the sector?

Nicola Muraro – Industry 4.0 worked because it was based on a simple principle: encouraging tangible investments in technology and productivity, while leaving industrial choices to companies themselves. Industry 5.0 has introduced objectives that are also legitimate, such as sustainability and attention to people, but it has done so through complex instruments that are poorly aligned with the reality of SMEs.
In this transition, the current government’s industrial policy has shown a clear limitation: failing to understand that productive transitions are not driven by ideological frameworks or abstract administrative criteria, but by clear, stable rules focused on investment.
The scaling back of incentives and regulatory uncertainty have ended up freezing industrial decisions that were already difficult, especially in capital-intensive sectors such as the graphic industry.
In the short term, the risk is a slowdown in investment and a loss of competitiveness compared to countries that are supporting the transition with greater pragmatism.
What was needed – and is still needed – is an industrial policy capable of accompanying companies step by step: simple incentives, clear time horizons, attention to structural costs such as energy, and trust in companies’ ability to turn technology into industrial value.

We thank Nicola Muraro for his availability and for the clarity of his insights, which we hope will prove useful to the entire graphic and publishing industry supply chain.