PP&A conducted 21 one-hour structured interviews with TiO2 buyers between March 11 and March 28, 2024, and completed a standard competitor-analysis questionnaire for each. Ten respondents held procurement and purchasing roles, from purchasing manager to vice president of global procurement. Seven worked in sales, marketing, business development, technical or key-account roles, three led their companies or their strategic projects, and one gave no title. Five spoke from former roles. By primary application, ten bought for coatings and paint, six for plastics, two for paper and packaging, and three for specialty pigments and chemicals. Three worked at companies that both use and distribute TiO2. Between them they covered TiO2 purchasing in about 20 countries, most often the United States, China, Germany, the United Kingdom and India.

The questionnaire had five parts. Company profiling captured role, application, annual demand and packaging. Purchasing preferences ranked nine supplier-selection criteria, recorded which of eight named producers and chemical distributors each buyer had used in the past two to five years, ranked preferred suppliers and captured ordering channels. The deliveries section recorded, supplier by supplier and separately for the high-demand and low-demand markets, lead times in days, flexibility to change quantities and the share of orders delivered on time, plus minimum order quantities, custom-grade batch rules and special inventory programs. The last two parts covered forecast sharing and what a supplier should do to win share through its supply chain.

The client received the 21 completed questionnaires, with about 100 supplier-level ratings for each delivery measure in each market condition and each buyer's commentary.

Quality came first. Fourteen of 21 buyers ranked product quality as their top selection criterion, and 15 put price in their top three. Delivery reliability and availability followed. Delivery tracking, value-added services, inventory programs and small minimum orders ranked lowest. The market cycle moved delivery performance sharply. The median lead time was 60 days in the high-demand market against 30 days in the low-demand market, and the median on-time delivery rate rose from 75 to 95 percent. In the high-demand market 11 buyers had at least one supplier that refused quantity changes. In the low-demand market ten said every supplier allowed them. Three quarters of supplier ratings carried a full-truckload or container minimum. Eleven buyers held consignment stock, reserved safety stock or vendor-managed inventory with at least one supplier, and 13 shared binding forecasts.

Asked how a producer could win share through its supply chain, five buyers wanted stock or supply hubs closer to their plants, and one would pay a premium of 1 to 2 percent for it. Others asked for technical service on the ground, more stable or index-linked pricing, and early warning of late deliveries. Most still ordered by email, electronic data interchange or a sales representative. Five criticized the producer web portals they had used, and several said the business still runs on relationships.

• --