Bosacks' BobLog, the Big Picture
Tell me something. When was the last time a publisher went to his printer and offered to pay more for his contracted printing pricing due to the fact that he was making more money than he expected when the contract was written?
When was the last time a publisher raised his rate card and offered to share some of the increased revenue with his vendors?
When, in living history, has a business searching for increased efficiencies passed those hard-fought and expensive out-of-pocket "savings" back to the customer, leaving the business exactly where it started before the efficiencies were "discovered"?
OK, what is this all about? I've been on the publishing side of the printing equation for more than 30 years. During the past several years, a new and, quite frankly, disturbing trend of thought has developed. My brethren, the publishing community, have decided that publishers are in some way due compensation for hard-won and often-expensive efficiencies brought about in the manufacturing arena.
Did You Share In Their Costs?
What is the line of logic for this? If you contract with your printer for a fair market price, how and why should you share in the rewards of your vendor's innovation and hard work?
Did you share in the development and research costs of CTP? What if it didn't work out as it has? Would you have reimbursed the printer for the failed experiment? Of course not.
Then someone please tell me where the publishing industry gets the attitude to expect to share in the savings and efficiencies gained. Business is not intended to be fair, and the "partnership" mentality can and should go only so far.
When publishers hand out a portion of their revenues from rate card increases to vendors, then I say it would be fair to expect to share the internal efficiencies of CTP.