I did a presentation for the MFSA at their annual meeting entitled, "Steps to Take Before Purchasing a Digital Press." The presentation focused on the total cost of investment and how to calculate a return on investment. It also talked about how to identify your STEP gaps (staff, training, equipment, procedures). The presentation went well and I thought the MFSA put a great program together. They are a lean, mean fighting machine.
During the presentation I talked about utilization rate, which is one of the most important considerations in achieving a return on investment. I mentioned a philosophy I use called, “Cannibalize ASAP and AMAP” (As Soon As Possible—As Much As Possible).” If you’re like most companies that have added digital capabilities, you have probably cannibalized some of your offset work and transferred it to your digital press. It’s not unusual for me to visit a company a few months after it has installed a digital press and witness two or three hours of work that was previously done on offset presses now being moved to the digital equipment. That’s about 25%-37% utilization of an 8-hour shift. While that’s not bad … that’s usually not break even!
If you’re like most companies, you may not have focused enough attention to this strategy, because you’re afraid to take work off your offset presses and have them sit idle. With all due respect to this traditional theory, it’s dangerous and it may be wrong!
Why? The reason is surprisingly simple. Most printers have spent years selling and servicing commercial printing work and have developed a skilled sales force with the ability to sell more offset or fill the sales gaps and get much more commercial work than digital printing work.
That means, for most companies with a traditional sales force, if you take work off your offset presses and shift it to your digital presses, you may be more likely to sell more offset work. Some may argue that this is only a temporary fix, as opposed to increasing selling skills for digital printing and I agree. I have found that it takes at least 1 year of sales training to see increased digital sales.
But why not do both? Why not cannibalize more offset work while you train sales staff to better understand and sell the advantages of digital printing.
One more point in defense of the “Cannibalize ASAP and AMAP” philosophy comes from a web blog by Mike Docherty, CEO of Venture2 Inc., and it talks about the importance of cannibalizing your own work or losing it. Notes Docherty: “If there's value that's being held back, someone (customers or competitors) will free it. So, worry less about how your potential innovations might cannibalize your existing products, and focus on eating your own young before your competitors do.”
But the whole idea of cannibalizing work is controversial. In presentations I get both praise and criticism. Some may say “Are you crazy, cannibalize my core business?” While others say, “If you’re not seeing growth in your core services, maybe you should look for new products and services.” What do you think?
Howard Fenton is a Senior Consultant at NAPL. Howie advises commercial printers, in-plants, and manufacturers on workflow management, operations, digital services, and customer research.
Discussion
By David Dodd on Jul 14, 2010
Howie,
I'm not sure that I agree with your "Cannibalize ASAP and AMAP" philosophy, but it may be that I'm missing something that's implicit in your post. When I work with a printing company that has acquired a digital press, one of the first things I do is perform a "digital-offset crossover" analysis. The objective is to identify the run length quantity (usually expressed in press sheets on the digital press) at which it becomes more cost effective to produce a job on the best offset press alternative rather than on the digital press.
The basic idea is to run jobs on the most cost-effective press - digital or offset. Because of improved digital press speeds and changes in consumables (click) costs, managers are often surprised by how many jobs should be moved from offset to digital. If this is what you mean by "cannibalize," then I agree with your approach completely.
By the way, if a company can move a substantial number of jobs from offset to digital under these circumstances, then its salespeople are already selling "digital printing work."
By bill zervis on Jul 15, 2010
Deliver a no excuse product
By Howie Fenton on Jul 15, 2010
David,
I agree with your “digital-offset crossover” analysis, but I don’t think that goes far enough. Sometimes offset press run lengths are ordered at longer runs then the customer really needs because the price is more attractive. If the customer wanted a shorter run length then I would encourage them to order just what they needed, print it digitally and order more frequently. I know this does not sit will some printing companies, but for the customer this may be a better solution because it reduces the risk of obsolescence. And if you don’t offer a better solution to your customers that better meets their needs then someone else will.
That’s what I mean by “Cannibalize ASAP and AMAP”. Thanks for your comment!
Howie
By Brian Regan on Jul 15, 2010
In regards to staff gaps and training. Semper has seen an increase in demand for a range of positions with in an offset and digital facility. Things like project managers, CSR's, sales and even management. The issue most sited by our clients is that CSR's etc from the traditional offset world are not able to handle the digital side and be as effective as needed. So they are looking to find people that can handle both sides, how understand design and prepress well and can educate clients on things like VDP and other proper file preparation.
By Heath on Jul 15, 2010
I agree completely with what is being said about the cross over analysis. However, I believe that many print providers get stuck in a single model when doing that analysis.
Many, if not most digital printers charge a market rate of sorts for work. I'll use .25 per letter sized color page as an example. When doing an analysis they compare the job at .25 per sheet on the digital device vs a cost plus model on an offset press. And in the end, it is not favorable to moving things to digital.
I believe many providers should use two price models. One model that targets the .20 - 35ish range of the digital print commodity/retail color market and another that is focused on a cost plus model. There is a almost always a smaller pool of work available in this retail-like market than the print provider can get their hands on.
The cost plus model is great for leveraging the digital equipment during off shifts and pushing the cannibalization discussed above. Many printers struggle to get their minds around these two models and why both should be considered for use at the same time.
How many digital printers know all of their cost in granular detail? They should.
By David Dodd on Jul 16, 2010
Heath,
When performing a digital-offset crossover analysis, you have to be sure that you're comparing apples to apples. Therefore, IMHO, it's critical to compare cost with cost. In other words, you compare the cost of producing the job on your digital press with the cost of producing the job on your best offset press alternative. This comparison has nothing to do with selling prices.
And I will go even one step further. If your estimating system contains both "direct manufacturing" hourly cost rates and "all-inclusive" hourly cost rates, make the comparison using the direct manufacturing costs. Fully loaded BHR's just distort reality.
By Heath on Jul 19, 2010
David, we are certainly on the same page. The issue I have seen is that print providers don't know their true digital costs and they end up using the retail per page price to find an offset intersect.
And, many don't even have a method/system in place to cost+ a digital device from an business tool perspective.
Heath
By Howie Fenton on Jul 19, 2010
Heath,
I agree 100%. It is all too often that we find companies do not know there true manufacturing costs for both digital and offset. This is a huge problem. Strangely enough it is one of the assignments that keeps me busy. More importantly when we identify the common denominators that leading companies master that the rest of the industry lacks - we find that the leaders know the costs of manufacturing each product - to the penny.
Howie
Discussion
Only verified members can comment.