Margie Dana and Frank Romano have both written recently on WhatTheyThink.com on the issues faced by print buyers: lack of formal training, low awareness by management about what they do, having limited resources for education and professional development, and more. And they are right in each case. But in my mind it also raises another issue: why do we need people who's job title is "print buyer" at all? The title, in my mind, is on the verge of being relegated to history like those of "color separator" or "stripper," and other phrases, like rubylith.
I'm not being contentious or merely cynical. I used run a massive customer satisfaction program and part of my responsibility was buying all the print--several hundred thousand dollars a year, both digital and offset. I worked with a number of printers who were happy to educate me and help me along. I got comparative bids on everything, asked about better ways to do what we were doing, and made the decisions based primarily on price, service, added value, and relationship--all weighed about equally. On other projects at that firm and in a later job as a marketing director, quality was also an issue along with how well the printer could provide die-cutting, bindery and other services.
While more knowledge on my part would have been useful at times, the last thing I needed was a "print buyer." I could rely on in-house and external graphic designers to handle things I couldn't or I'd work with printers I trusted. In many cases, I negotiated better deals than the designers would. Our jobs always came in on time, on budget (we always got multiple bids) and the quality was fine. This is not rocket science. It still isn't today, although more knowledge is required as digital print, particularly with variable data, enter the mix.
Still, with so many different people buying print these days, the title of print buyer is becoming meaningless. There's nothing wrong with this provided --and this is critical-- whoever is doing the buying is being educated and informed about how to do that part of their job better. This is especially true for people who may be in a purchasing department and are signing off on truck load of office furniture the same day they are buying $200,000 worth of printing. It also holds true for graphic designers, marketing people and others who, like I once did, have to buy print as part of their job.
Most print has become a commodity, but an educated buyer (whatever their job title) of that print can add value for their employers by finding print providers who can add value to every job. With digital print-- especially variable data-- buying printing is not just putting toner on a page. This requires both marketing folks and "print buyers" to understand the entire value proposition. That requires ongoing education and resources, no matter what the job title may be.
This type of education is the core of what Margie Dana is doing at the upcoming Print Buyers Conference in Westford, MA. This event is definitely one to attend, not just for the education but for networking opportunities.
I can only get there for part of it, but I'm looking forward to seeing and hearing how being smart about buying print can make a difference to companies today.
Discussion
By David Locke on Oct 26, 2007
Print Buyers need to consider buying things beyond print when the ancillary services are driving printer profitability. There are ways to make print competitive to the internet, but to make that happen decisions have to be made at content time, rather than print buying time, and they have to buy more than print.
I remember overhearing a conversation where two business people were talking about the cost of a printed collateral job. They were talking about costs. They came to a policy decision based solely on price. What was missing was the expected value of the piece, so they never got to the ROI of the piece. They didn't have anyway of knowing if spending more actually generated more profit to their company or not.
By Phillip Crum on Oct 26, 2007
I agree with David Locke's statement completely. Decisions based soley on price lack the vision of a "profit". They're an indicator of a lower-level employee with no authority to make policy or a management-level staffer that has no business holding that position.
Understand that lowering costs is always a legitimate objective but it's only one variable in the equation and should never be the primary objective.
I've never cared for the term, "print buyer", especially now. If someone thinks they're buying printing, I would argue that their cognitive buying process is centered around cost (see above). Why has saving $1 for the company taken precedence over the total return on the project? The profitability of the project? It just doesn't make sense. The desired outcome of the purchase should be centered around return as the primary evaluator, which by definition must include the cost!
Besides, printing is only really a commodity if all printers are equal and there are no differences in quality output or service components. In the real world that can never be, so buying based on price alone is a foolish approach. Quality, delivery, service, relationship, etc. all matter. In fact, in todays' markets all are expected by the buyer as a given part of the package. Good luck.
Or, "how's that working for ya?", Mr. Print Buyer?
The title should be, "communications buyer",or "results buyer" or "profit acquisition manager"; something that is indicative of the true objective of the purchase. The rights to display such a moniker should only be bestowed if the person holding that title truly understands what it is she's buying; nothing less than the company's financial health and future, not a gross of #2 pencils (a commodity purchase).
By Pieter Ardinois on Oct 29, 2007
As long as we don't sell solutions, buyers will always be focused on the buying prints. It's a good thing that print buyers get educated, but what it's worth if a print provider doesn't know how to sell this solutions.
By Noel Ward on Oct 29, 2007
Pieter makes an excellent point. Back in the day when I was buying print, the printers I worked with helped educate me. They sold what they could do for me. Any printer today who is not educating their customers and prospects and selling what they can do beyond putting ink or toner on a page deserves whatever happens to them. Not "knowing how to sell the solutions" is not an excuse. The major equipment vendors all provide tools for printers to educate their customers. The smart ones use those tools or create their own. Syms, a clothing chain in New England has used the same tagline for years: "An educated consumer is our best customer." Works for printing, too.
By Print Goddess 1 on Oct 31, 2007
Oh, my! You guys are just too wrapped up in the words "Print" and Buyer." As a Graphic arts professional of many years, I have worked as a designer, illustrator, production manager in the buyer side and Account Manager/Production Planner on the Print Shop side. I've also taught printing basics-in-house at printing companies- to my younger colleagues.
The problem is that most "trained" employees in printing companies and in corporate settings, have had training in computer operation. That is, they learn to use design software, estimating software or customer management software. They know very little about the process of print creation that gets files from the design computer to that finished product on the delivery track. Hence the extra work that's needed to reestimate the job to actual size or stock, removal of extraneous colors from the files, beefing up teeny-tiny type ko'd from 4 cp backgrounds and unbolding bolded bold type which will not print as to match the lasers. In fact, if I had a dollar for everytime somepne requested that I match their lasers for color, the lasers which came off of a never calibrated laser printer in their office, I'd be a millionairess.
My current title is Purchasing Manager. My biggest spend is on electronic equipment, my second biggest spend is on printing. I work with our Marketing Department designers for the most efficiently produced printed pieces which also have to fit branding, mailing and usage requirements. I constantly consult with my vendor-partners asking how can we do this better, faster, less expensively. We meet formally and informally with these vendor- partners to discuss our work pre- and post-printing.
So, how did I learn all of this stuff? I'm a teacher by degree, I did not attend a printing or technology school. I wanted to learn it, I have a passion for printing. I ask everyone I meet how I can learn more..What's important to learn about...I keep learning...My company can only benefit from my self-education. Its even easier to learn about printing now...There are fabulous industry websites, paper websites, marketing websites, white papers for free, printers and paper merchants just waiting to tell "the secret" to anyone who wants to know about printing. Not to mention those of us, who get together at events like the Print Buyers Conference for the networking, attempting to pass along our passion for print to those younger colleagues who join us and ask seemingly basic questions. IF we can hook them in with the answers to those questions, perhaps we can instill the interest to go find out more.
The ROI discussions should be about the value of the person to the firm charging that person with the buying of printing. The person buying the printing may not have any impact on the decision of the department commanding the purchase, since often the cost of the print buy comes out of that department's budget. In fact, the print buyer may not even know if the piece they purchased gets used up (or used at all!). Generally, print buyers are not even thanked for their part in the process of getting something printed.
So, let us all join in praise of that unlauded person-whatever you want to call them-who buys printing. This may seem so far outside of the business aspects that some of you were discussing, but really, who does this "just for the money?"
Discussion
Join the discussion Sign In or Become a Member, doing so is simple and free