Letters, feedback, get it off your chest: 17 April 2008

11 April 2008

This week the green debate rages and those poms continue to cause ire amongst readers.

I welcome the ACCC Green Marketing and Trade Practices act. The message I take out of it is that you should not use wide sweeping
generalised statements. Will it stop companies adding words or slogans it to company names I wonder? 'Green', or 'Clean', 'Deepest Green', 'Green & Brown', 'Eco', 'Enviro', 'Earthy'? I take out of the act that it is being introduced to stamp out marketing like this?

Many companies often add 'World's Best Practice' to environmental claims as
well, who says it's worlds best? David Suzuki, Al Gore or the company
itself?

Is it world's best environmental practice to use hundreds or thousands of
litres of water on printing presses everyday, when it's unnecessary (waterless printing)? I think not! Is it world's best environmental practice to only use ISO 14001 and not ISO 14024 (whole of life cycle)? I don't think so. ISO 14001 is just an environmental management tool, with no benchmarks attached to it. How would you distinguish between a company who has just achieved this certification and one that's had it for ten years are they on the same level, they one who's had it longer should theoretically be ahead, but who knows what goes
on out back in the different factories that hold these certificates? Does
no benchmark and no 'whole of life cycle' certification equate window dressing?

Is it world's best practice not to use 100% renewable energy? I don't
think so. This one really sorts out companies who are really serious about the
environment and the pretenders. The common answer: 'it costs too much' or 'we want to market ourselves as 'Green' and cash in on that, but don't want to sacrifice any of the extra profits.'

This is a tough one, as it does cost a lot more and you obviously need a
sustainable bottom line first and foremost. But if we are going to get
really serious about climate change, (which is what all this marketing is
about isn't it?), we have to make some sacrifices, you shouldn't take with
one hand and stick all the cash in your pocket, we should give some back.
The dirty coal power that fires most printers presses is the biggest
detrimental environmental impact out of all of the contributing factors in
our industry.

You can save all the alcohol and recycle all you like, but it's a mere drop
in the ocean. I'm not saying these initiatives are not important and I would
encourage taking them up, but put things in perspective.

Some companies say they use a 'Recognised Greenpower' supplier, they act
says that you should clearly state what percentage you are purchasing, if
you were buying 100%, why not make a point of it? Or perhaps they only buy
10%, make a general claim and try to mislead people?

The Green Marketing and Trade Practices Act should not discourage printers
from taking up environmental initiatives, just help to make companies claims
more accurate and honest. I welcome this and hopefully before too long there
will be some clearly defined lines in the sand regarding an environmental
labelling certification as well.

Many large corporate companies, that we all want to do work for now employ
full time staff with degrees in environmental management and they can see
straight through a lot of misleading claims. If we as an industry as a whole
don't clean up our act regarding the amount of so called ambit environmental
claims, print buyers will become disillusioned and put more communication
through the internet and email. They don't need more encouragement to do so,
given the cost of postage and distribution.

Large corporate companies are marketing on television they are saving the
environment by emailing statements. (of course it has nothing to do with the
cost of print and postage - you're just being too cynical?) I think if print
is really produce in the best possible way, 100% recycled paper is used and
the article is recycled after use, we really can offer a minimal impact
product.

Regarding waterless: Once and for all, for the record, before people jump up
and down: waterless printers use less power! We bought our 2003 KBA as a stock standard press with no intention of doing waterless. It has overall (universal) water cooling for the rollers as is the standard configuration in almost every new press that has come into this country in the last five years. We ran the press as a conventional wet litho press for the first year and only went into waterless after that trialling it and seeing the results, so more by accident than good planning.

We save power by turning off the fountain solution refrigeration
unit and running our I.R. dryer at lower levels, if at all (waterless dries
quicker and easier). We haven't looked back since, for quality and the environment, it's obviously much better.

Peter Booth
Director
Fishprint

*********

Re: Internet printing poms are coming our way

I was reading the other local printing industry journal a few weeks back and was astounded to say the least that right inside the front cover was a glossy leaflet advertising large format digital posters and banners (Bannershop).

I thought, ok, not a bad way to get your message out to the industry at large, but when I flipped it over, the words "Hong Kong Hub" made me jump. Here is a reputedly Australian company that prints from its "Hub" in Hong Kong,to better service our Australian clients! What a joke! Anyone that understands a little about the Chinese print market will know that all the printing companies are on the mainland in China ... not in Hong Kong. It's too expensive there!

Now, on the Print 21 website I see a flashing advertisement for "printing.com" franchise positions available in Australia. We already have several "Hub" & "Spoke" arrangements in the Australian market. Do we really need another player from another country? Especially not the Poms!

We have Snap, Quick Copy, Worldwide Online, We Print It plus a host of other similar and trade models. I believed Print 21 had at least some class, but supporting this shows again the lack of our own local industry to promote itself. We are the conduit for designers, marketers and advertising businesses to get their message to the public, yet we don't know how to promote and market in our own domain.

What's wrong with Australian printers? Why don't we stand up and say "NO MORE"? Are we to see yet more businesses shut down with further slashing of prices as they all try and compete for the scraps? Let alone these so called phantom print shops (mentioned in previous issues) that are nothing more than a designer / broker processing orders through one of these shops and then charging a small margin on top. No wonder the mum-and-pop shops are going to the wall as they can't compete and are forced to suffer the same slow death.

A while back the industry was bitching and moaning about jobs/print going off to China, but all we did as an industry, was send groups of interested parties on study trips there to see how we can embrace the Chinese!

Maybe we can embrace the poms instead?

It's time to bring back the spirit of a once proud tradition and an industry steeped in craft, knowledge, application technology and innovation. "Not everyone wants a business card printed full colour both sides with either gloss or matt finish."

I rest my case.
Name withheld

So the poms are finally coming our way. Is that good for the industry or just another strong competitor with the marketing muscle to match, that will takes its share of an already diminishing market?

What I like about printing.com, is their price guide book. Any company that is happy to be open with there prices must be pretty confident that they have a good product to sell. Don't know of any other company here, that is so open with all there pricing on goods ... just look at the UK website.

My humble opinion for what it's worth, if at the very least it brings some sort of benchmark to the industry of what is a acceptable price for a print job ... as all printing.com stores all charge the same price for the same printed product, then surely that has to be good for the industry.

Arthur
Print2day

*********

Re: drupa news: avoid the schnappe trappe

Hello and many thanks for your tips when attending drupa.

I will be attending drupa for the first time and as a female and solo for the best part of the trip I need as much advise as I can get. I don't plan on late-night drinking escapades but it's good to know what to expect.

Look forward to hearing more!
Melissa Hardcastle

To read last week's letters click here.