The Quick Printing segment of our marketplace has been around for some time, but I often wonder if the term is now obsolete. We joke amongst ourselves in the consulting community, wondering what a Quick Printer is compared to, a slow printer? (no disrespect intended) These days, most "Quick Printing" firms might better be categorized as small commercial printers. Most have both digital and offset presses and offer a wide range of high quality services that align with the rest of the commercial printing market. In surveys and research I have conducted, smaller printers have often told me that they do not like the term, and prefer to be considered small commercial printers.
This also raises the larger issue of the entire classification of our industry, which has not been updated by the Census Bureau in any meaningful way for decades. The next time classifications can be changed is for 2016 data. We missed the 2012 window.
What do YOU think? Is Quick Printing still a viable category? Should one or more industry associations step up to the plate and help the Census Bureau more accurately define our industry? We do a great deal with that data, but if the assumptions are wrong, what does that say about the data? I'm just sayin' ...
Discussion
By Dr Joe Webb on Jun 28, 2010
Sure, "quick printing" is a viable category. There are NAICS categories that have fewer establishments in other industries, so it does meet the various statistical tests to determine whether or not a viable category exists on that basis.
Seriously, if this category declines, then that is essential statistical information that is used by the Census and people who use Census data (like yours truly).
We should not confuse the statistical collection of data about a number of business establishments with an application called "quick printing work." The latter is done by office superstores and inplant operations and has never been part of the Census data collection process because it is not part of the rationale behind their host businesses.
"Quick printing work" we know is declining and has been for a long time. Not keeping the category open until it no longer meets important statistical tests would be a significant loss in the forecasting and historical aspects of understanding our industry.
A similar situation occurred in the 1970s, 80s, and 90s, with the business classes under the old SIC system for 2791 (trade typesetting), 2793 (engraving) and 2795 (trade platemaking and color separation). Eventually 2796 was opened and became a category for separators. When the shift was made to NAICS with the 1997 Economic Census, all of these had declined enough to be rolled into one "32312 Prepress Services" http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND323122.HTM
By the 1992 Census of Manufactures, the category for 2751 Commercial Letterpress had disappeared. But for many years before, anyone who used Census data, even the Census Department itself, had always rolled up the data to a more aggregate level for convenience.
It is commonly assumed that these classifications are imposed on respondents by the Census or other department. During the Economic Census, respondents are given a questionnaire that has all of the NAICS printing categories to input their sales in each category. So the final classification of an establishment is based on their actual sales levels in for that class of trade. For this reason, businesses classification does change over time.
During non-Census years (they are done in years ending in 2 and 5), reporting is more subject to distortion because they are based on smaller surveys in the Annual Survey of Manufactures. Indeed, many of the data collections, such as in tax records, the company classifies itself from picking the NAICS code it wants from a list. The Economic Census in effect clears those things out.
The real question is what NAICS breakdowns are needed to be opened to track "the industry." That is, many may be open already. When trade typographers disappeared, there was a surge in graphic design businesses. That was no accident. There was no such thing as a "new" trade typographer. Their activity was being tracked somewhere else because they started as a graphic design studio, which was quite logical.
That same kind of thing is happening now. "Our business" or "our industry" is not a term that reflects what is happening to creative and imaging businesses like we are. Most of the 2016 businesses have not even been started yet, which is a problem with all business tracking efforts.
Just think of how out of date the 2007 Economic Census is. There was no category for smartphone programmers, like iPhone app developers. Why? Because back then, the iPhone was just a phone. And it was too small for anyone to collect historical data about. Business activities need to be large enough for the Census efforts to detect them and to statistically estimate them with great certainty. "iPhone app development" will probably disappear well before the 2012 Census and will have morphed into something else by then.
By the 2017 Census, which will be published sometime in 2019, the Quick Printing category will have probably disappeared all by itself, and be rolled into "other."
What this means is that as an industry, we need to collect relevant data ourselves and in a more meaningful manner. Unfortunately, participation in all research survey efforts, whether consumer or B2B, are down considerably. Years ago, a 20% response rate in mail survey research was common in B2B situations; today, getting to 3% often requires heroic efforts. E-surveys often are considered to be great successes with less than that; a couple of years ago, I was involved with a consumer research project that considered 1% to be an excellent response rate.
Nonetheless, here @ WTT's ERC we are pressing on with our surveys and demographic efforts, and should have something quite considerable this Fall... we hope. The definitions of our industry, are ultimately, up to us.
By John Henry on Jun 28, 2010
Yes, it is and when framed in 2010 more so. Today almost all commercial work 1-4 color is "quick printing". Only the complexity of finishing or run length takes it out of the quick printers target or mindset.
That said with NAQP merged into NAPL and a move to drop the NAQP name and identity rumored to be planned, I wonder if the whole article is bit of nudge to see what the mood is? Makes it easy to justify the drop the identity of the census does...
By Howie Fenton on Jun 28, 2010
Personally I like the term “quick printer” as well as “inplant printer”and I think of them together because most inplants are the size of a quick printer, have similar equipment and offer similar products and services. The discussion of if they should be called Quick or small commercial is not new. In fact Cary you may have been working at Trendwatch around 2001-2003 time frame when the conversation this conversation first occurred.
The reason I like the term Quick Printer is NOT because commercial printers are slow, but Quick Printer’s can be “quicker” to respond to changing market conditions or evolving opportunities as opposed to their larger cousins who like a big ship take longer to turn.
By Cary Sherburne on Jun 28, 2010
Howie, exactly my point. The larger commercial printers, by dint of their very size, can find it difficult to be as agile as this marketplace demands. Smaller commercial printers have an easier time with change, as do many smaller firms in almost any industry. I don't see the distinction between a quick printer and a small commercial printer in today's marketplace. But what do we know? As a printer once told me, "You're not the one sitting behind the desk signing the checks!" I hope some printers chime in with their feelings on the subject.
By Dr Joe Webb on Jun 28, 2010
Agile? A good, well-managed quick printer can be far more agile that larger counterparts because they don't have so much of their future tied up in heavy iron financing. If they're adept at print broker-like services, they can really build a nice business in multiple media formats. This is also a place where franchise HQ's can really make a big difference if they are very proactive in developing new products and constantly training their franchisees, something that independents have difficulty doing themselves.
By Stephen Eugene Adams on Jun 28, 2010
The term "Quick Printer" might once have been a proper name but it has been out of fashion for at least a decade. I don't think any owners of any sizeable small printer want to be described as a quick printer. I sure as heck don't use it in my 30 minute elevator speech and I don't tell the members of my Rotary Club that I am a Quick Printer, its too cute of a term. Yes, Joe, we need consistency so we can track results, but don't make us continue to use the term because of consistency. We are just printers and if the transition is successful, we will be marketing and communications consultants. Call me a digital printer, call me a small commercial printer, but lets stop calling us Quick Printers.
By Carl Gerhardt on Jun 29, 2010
Generally most shop owners don't like the term quick printer because in carries too much baggage from the past when quick printers could not do "commercial" work like four color. Small commercial seems more acceptable. Customers don't care about industry classifications but do care about what capabilities their supplier can deliver. This is why American Speedy changed to Allegra Print & Imaging in the late 90s and is now morphing to Allegra Marketing Print Mail.
The lines have blurred since many former quick printers can now do "commercial" and many commercial printers can now do "quick" work and the big box stores and even pack/ship stores now occupy what we formerly referred to as the "retail" market. The sign (shop) market is going through a similar evolution. Certainly Joe is right that we must maintain historical data for comparison purposes. As time moves forward size classifications may make more sense than trying to define the capabilities in the classification.
By Tom Crouser on Jun 29, 2010
To my knowledge, NEVER in the history of Quick Printing magazine has the majority of readers described themselves as Quick Printers. It's always been small commercial or commercial printers - it's a boy thing I think.
Nevertheless, I've always said we had it wrong. Essentially, quick printers and small commercial printers were small format press printers vs. large format press printers of the bigger commercial guys. And while we've added significant digital capabilities - it's on small formats - 12x19 or smaller - so I suggest we really are Small Format Printers.
Small Format Printers compete in the same markets and print the same stuff; provide similar services; and could be logically tracked vs. the old Quick Printing/Commercial Printing argument which would see one printer with 5 emps and $500k in business with a 26" press calling themselves a commercial printer while a 20 emp $2+ million company also with a 26" press but relying mainly on small formats but classified as a quick printer.
Always been screwy and here's another chance to clean it up. But, my guess is, it won't really happen. Just my thoughts.
By Ian Mackenzie on Jun 29, 2010
VistaPrint can give you $500 million reasons why the term "quick printer" is alive and well. Instead of slogging it out in the same muddy field with the rest of the pack, they took their ball, built a new field and now everyone wants a crack at the "new game".
Just like WalMart, CVS, Target and Home Depot gave (some say predatory) competition to the local "Five and Dime", drugstore and hardware stores, Vistaprint, 4Over, PSPrint, Printingforless.com and others are changing the face of "quick printing".
Consolidations, roll-ups and corporate expansion are an inevitable part of the American business landscape. As usual, the print business is just a wee bit late to the party.
By Cary Sherburne on Jun 29, 2010
Well, according to the NAICS classifications, Quick Printing IS dead. That category will no longer exist as of the 2012 census and we are likely to see the change first in the 2012 County Business Patterns Data, according to Dr. Joe.
Commercial Printing, NAICS classification 323, was formerly broken out into Commercial Lithographic Printing, Commercial Flexographic Printing, Quick Printing, Digital Printing, Manifold Business Forms Printing, Blankbook Looseleaf binders and Devices manufacturing and 323119, Other Commercial Printing.
Now there are only three categories, Commercial Screen Printing, Book Printing, and Other Commercial Printing (except Screen and Books).
They apparently did this with NO input from our industry that I have been able to ferret out.
Interesting, the majority of our industry is classified as "Other"!
By Dr Joe Webb on Jun 30, 2010
To give more detail to Cary's post, in 2012 these will be the NAICS categories:
323113 Commercial Screen
323117 Book Printing
323119 Other Commercial Printing
323120 Support Activities for Printing
An image of the document section that details the changes is at http://twitpic.com/217rig
This means that when the 2012 data are published in 2014, we will get details of production for these companies like we do now in the Economic Census (such as how much is advertising printing, how much is periodicals, etc.) but we will not be able to track them in detail in non-Census years.
This also means that 2011 will be the last County Business Patterns report that will used the current NAICS reporting. That 2011 data will be published in 2013; 2008 County Business Patterns will be out in a couple of weeks.
This does not mean that the Census will not be collected detailed data and reporting them. From the looks I have had at the 2007 Census data, you do have so many instances where they are reporting lithographic printing in the commercial gravure NAICS and vice versa, with numerous other examples, that sticking things in "other" is a recognition of the multiple processes in various plants. This is not unlike the prior mention of the shift of the old SIC for letterpress into the "other commercial" SIC back in 1987. (Gosh I feel so old now).
The real downside of all of this is that the Census would be assigning more detailed NAICS if we still had the position in the economy we once had. Now that we are on the verge of becoming 0.5% of GDP, and not 1.25% as we were back in 1993, the desire and statistical need to track us in detail has been ebbing.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics uses the NAICS to track our employment; it will be interesting to see when they adopt the 2012 scheme in their reporting.
In the meantime, we still have these data, and, again, this means that the data we collect about ourselves becomes all the more important.
By Cary Sherburne on Jul 02, 2010
I wanted to incorporate the thoughts of the Editors of Quick Printing Magazine into this thread. Bob Hall was kind enough to contribute his thoughts:
I wrote a blog on the classification change back in mid-June (see below). I also sent around the info to several others in the quick/small commercial segment. Not much response. My real concern about the NAICS classification change is that it's lazy and makes the combined classification pretty useless. "Other" is not a definitive category. But then we're dealing a government bureaucracy here which admits the move is "less than optimal from a production function standpoint"
Second, some 80% of the folks who have to specifically request a subscription to "Quick Printing" magazine, call themselves small commercial printers. That's been true for probably 25 years.
Also, the debate over whether the term quick printing has run its course has been going on since I took over the magazine. Unlike the poorly thought out decision by NAQP to change its name to PrintImage International because some members thought quick printing had become a negative term, we decided at the magazine that it would be foolish to toss out an established and solid franchise.
The term quick printing means different things to different people. With the minority of our subscribers and with NAQP members, it is a self-applied term. I know printers with multi-tower presses and a couple of iGens who call themselves quick printers. I also know printers with much less sophisticated operations who would slit their throats before using the term.
In reality, quick printing is not a process. It is a self-applied label used by some small commercial printers -- and the quick/small commercial segment is made up of entrepreneurial small business people regardless of their production methods. The successful ones have figured out how to make money on shorter-runs and smaller invoices, and they have better margins. And those who have managed their businesses well have had the resources to adapt to changing technology and markets. They aren't tied down by millions of dollars in iron and dependent on commodity printing.
The fact is, if I'm dropping 23% to the bottom line, I don't care what you call me unless you call me late to dinner.
Bob Hall
Executive Director, Cygnus Graphics Media
Executive Editor, Quick Printing Magazine
By Cary Sherburne on Jul 02, 2010
This is Bob Hall's blog, posted about a year ago, with more detail about the reasoning behind the change in NAICS 323, reprinted here with permission:
Last week I got a heads-up email from an old college buddy who is involved with the graphics industry on the sign side. It read: “See attached from a recent issue of the Federal Register. Go to Page 7 to review proposed changes to NAICS classifications. Quick Printing is to be lumped into an ‘Other Commercial Printing’ category. So too is Digital Printing, Also litho. Also flexo.”
I took a look and found out that this was indeed the case. I also found the rationale for the move:
“Recommendation: While less than optimal from a production function standpoint, the ECPC recommends combining the national industries for lithographic, gravure, flexographic, quick, digital, manifold business forms, blankbook and other commercial printing into a new national industry. In recent years, the printing industry as a whole has undergone significant consolidation and a move towards establishments that cross current NAICS industry definitions. The expansion of digital printing by establishments that also print using other methods is significantly re-shaping this industry. The increasing overlap of printing processes within a single establishment is expected to continue throughout the next decade.”
No doubt there is an increasing overlap, but lumping litho, gravure, flexo, business forms, blankbook, and quick into one big blob makes little sense. Quick/small commercial printing is a definite category unto itself and should be recognized as such. The final date for comment or objection is July 12, which is fast approaching. I don’t know if this is really a big deal or not, but it just doesn’t seem logical, and the move itself is admittedly described as “less than optimal from a production function standpoint.”
Discussion
Join the discussion Sign In or Become a Member, doing so is simple and free