PIA/GATF has announced a rebranding of the associations name and logo. The world's largest graphic communications association will now be simply known as the Printing Industries of America:
The new name and logo reflect over a year's worth of work resulting in a strategic communications plan that will serve the industry today and into the future. The plan's goal is to strengthen and streamline messaging to the graphic communications industry - including suppliers, partners, customers, and lawmakers - to better reflect the activities within the organization as well as to reinforce the value that the national organization and its local affiliates bring to their members.
And will use this logo:
According to the release issued by Printing Industries of America:
"The new logo depicts the technology, artistry, and dynamic growth of the industry, while the new tagline, 'Advancing Graphic Communications,' captures the organization's innovative, forward-thinking approach," notes Michael Makin, President and CEO of Printing Industries of America.
The association has released a video with Michael Makin, President and CEO of Printing Industries of America on the name change:
With the change comes a new direction for the two bi-monthly magazines it publishes. GATFWorld and Management Portfolio will be combined and called Printing Industries of America: The Magazine.
Discussion
By Michael Josefowicz on Dec 04, 2008
Makes alot of sense to me. I only wish that while they were at it, they changed "advancing graphic communications" to advancing Print communications.
Most people don't have a clear idea of "graphics" means anyway.
In the same spirit, I suggest that we get the schools to change the names of their programs from Graphic Communication or Graphic Arts or...
to Print Technology and Commercial Art.
By Rick Littrell on Dec 05, 2008
Well done, Michael. You get it and have made the right moves to take your organization and the industry into the next phase. Which I think is all about automation and communications. The craft of our industry will more focus on designing and implementing workflows that are optimized, automated, and calibrated. It will support integrating print into a wide varity of media channels. Our industry is more prepared to do that than any other option the market has.
Good start and thank you for leading us on this journey.
By Michael Josefowicz on Dec 05, 2008
Thanks Rick,
Just to clarify I'm no longer in the game. I did that for 30 years and now have retired to blogging. Lots more time to think.
We agree, and I wanted to go the next step. The thing we make is Print. The thing we sell is time and project management.
The job of the printer is to control the process well enough to predict load. Once you can predict load, you can slice and dice selling time. Once you can slice and dice, you can maximize the profitability with differential pricing.
As for project management, that's what printers give away, instead of selling. Given that it's impossible to raise prices for the stuff we make, why not figure out ways to sell the project management that we've given away for years.
Meanwhile, both opportunities are only available to manufacturers who have the process enough under control to be able to confidently predict what time can be sold and how much to charge for it. That takes us right back to "The craft of our industry will more focus on designing and implementing workflows that are optimized, automated, and calibrated."
By Erik Nikkanen on Dec 05, 2008
It is always good to have some clarity and I hope the new PIA will help. GATF component has been and still is an organization that the industry has looked to as a guide. It seems most Graphic Arts institutions use the GATF books in their curriculum. The industry has supported PIA/GATF and now the PIA financially to look out after its business and technical interests.
For sure this organization has been a great source of knowledge for craft based technology but in my opinion, it has been very weak in developing the science that the industry so desperately needs for the future.
As many probably know, my particular interest is in the density control problem in offset presses. The ink water balancing problem press operators see every day and the lack of consistency and predictability of the process.
These are core issues but yet, how can it be that a printing technical organization has had no interest to scientifically explain this problem for over 50 years. It has mostly addressed the symptoms of the problem through craft practices and approaches but can not provide a logical explanation. To say that a process is so complicated that it can not be explained is no explanation at all.
I hope that when it becomes known and accepted that the density control problem is simple to understand and simple to correct, resulting in predictable and consistent printing of solid density, Mr. Makin and his organization will be held accountable for their lack of interest in this critical and core problem in the process. They hide behind "peer review" but their peer group has not been capable of explaining how things actually work.
On the other hand, PIA serves an industry that has not expected an explanation. The industry has been happy with getting craft approaches. Maybe when the industry asks PIA a question like "Why does density change?" then PIA will look into it. Ask for a reasonable and logical explanation that not only makes sense but can also be demonstrated. It is not a difficult problem but if you really want to know, you have to ask the right questions from organizations like PIA.
To say that density changes when water settings change is not an explanation. That is an observation. The question should be, Why does changing the water setting change print density? What are the physical steps that results in the density change.
When the industry starts to ask these kind of questions, that is when it will be doing science. Technology is NOT science. Science is knowing WHY.
By Image Layout on Dec 07, 2008
Hopefully an aggressive campaign to set and enforce standards will go along with the new name and Logo. It has been to lang since good standards for printing where set forth. Hopefully PIA will now lead the way.
By Bob Rosen on Dec 09, 2008
I'm SHOCKED! What an innovative name change.
I'm sure the industry has been taken by surprise, and I'm going to stay close to my computer for the next few weeks - to be sure not to miss the announcement of more ground-breaking initiatives.
...just can't wait...
By Harvey Hirsch on Dec 11, 2008
The industry is stressed beyond belief from smaller runs and off-shore competition and it's like re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Bully. Great name change. What about a philosophical change relevent to how print will interact with multi-channel marketing programs or applying digital to more than "I needed it yesterday" programs. Work flow without work is like a gun without bullets. Forgive my rant, I haven't had my coffee yet.
By John Runco on Dec 18, 2008
Here, here Erik.
Although they proselytize it, in over a century, neither GATF or PIA have ever done a study on gray balance either.
By Michael Josefowicz on Dec 19, 2008
From Frank's column posted today at
http://members.whattheythink.com/home/081220romano.cfm
“It was many things. Printers hoped that their competitors would go out of business, or that lowering prices would keep them alive, or that older equipment could still do the job. They reacted to a changing market in the same old ways.”
“Couldn’t anyone help?”
“Their consultants pushed old ideas. Their trade associations needed to merge and band together. No one could see a future so they held on to the past, thinking it would all come back.”
By Erik Nikkanen on Dec 20, 2008
No one could see a future? Not quite true but it is more like most didn't want to look.
The graphic arts institutions could have lead the way by demonstrating new science but they also suffered from blindness and preferred to continue to teach the next generation questionable science without rational and rigorous analysis.
After many years, I have come to view educators in the printing industry as being unteachable.
Part of the problem in the industry is due to the education of the industry leaders. They were not educated in how to think and in particular how to evaluate the physics of their own processes. They don't know how to structure questions to get to the critical core of problems and they can't protect themselves from the pseudo-science in the industry coming from vendors and graphic arts institutions.
Without the analytical skills and basic knowledge of physics in the related areas, the leaders can not see what is possible and therefore can not see the future. Instead they can be easily lead into believing some Standard or method is what will solve there problems and they then waste limited resources moving in that direction only to find marginal improvements.
The educational institutions have failed in this regard but this is understandable because the educators have not been able to understand some fundamental issues themselves so it is hard to think of them teaching new ideas.
Instead they teach craft based practices and technology. This of course is needed by students but it does not prepare them for the future when a deeper understanding is required.
Innovation is not about buying the latest technology. It is about understanding what fundamentally is needed and developing a capability internally in your company.
By John G. on Jan 04, 2009
Makin has always been more about style than substance. He doesn't have the knowlege or background to help printers with the technical side of the business. Changing the name to (big surprise) PIA isn't going to change anything or bring anything more to the industry. Just my impression.
Discussion
Join the discussion Sign In or Become a Member, doing so is simple and free