---

Print finishing, like print itself, has had a tough old time of it of late, and it’s difficult to see when things are likely to get any better.

The trend for printers to take on finishing services themselves, thereby obviating the need for trade finishers, is continuing. As an institution, the trade finisher is in danger of suffering the same fate as the trade platemaker, which all but disappeared during the 1990s as technology and automation rendered it irrelevant.

This trend is something that Phoenix Print Finishing managing director Graham Masters has been noting with concern. He has been keeping an eye on the sector and chatting to fellow finishers and says that only around half the number of finishers that were in operation five years ago are still trading.

And Masters has a word of warning for those thinking of following the in-house path.

"In the end, actually calculating whether or not an in-house bindery really will save money could be good for printers and finishers, as I firmly believe that for many printers it is a false economy.

"In many instances, printers are likely to be better off working more closely with a finisher. This can reduce a printer’s costs and enable them to give a better overall service to their customers," he says.

This may be particularly true in these straitened times: printers seeing a drop-off in print volumes will also experience a drop-off in finishing work, and that means twice as much kit that has to paid for, sitting around doing nothing.

And Masters is not alone. Many finishers believe that the premise of bringing work in-house in order to save money simply doesn’t stand up to rigorous assessment, especially if the equipment is underused.

Bindery quandary
Richard Atstock, proprietor of Nottingham Trade Finishers, is another advocate for partnerships between printers and finishers.

"I feel the time has come for printers to scale back their binderies with the aim of producing a maximum of 75% of their finishing workload and look to set up strategic relationships with a select few finishers, say two or three, who will guarantee service level," he says.

Larkbeare managing director Neil Oakley agrees that printers could find themselves burdened by their binderies, if they continue to bring capacity in-house.

He says: "In certain markets printers will only be able to take on a job that they can finish in their own bindery, so their press capacity will always need to be matched to their bindery and vice versa.

"Can you imagine a printer having to turn a job away because they cannot stitch it themselves and there is no support locally?"

However, First 4 Print Finishing managing director David Nestor takes a rather tougher stance on his sector’s business. He believes that finishers need to look out for themselves. "Printers will only put out the work they have to," he says.
He thinks that some companies in the sector are not being realistic enough and are living in the past.

However, he stresses that printers, when they do outsource to a finisher, should ensure that they only support the right kind of finisher.

"So many finishers have closed, but so few stay closed. It’s so easy for a finisher to go through administration and back into business again because we don’t really buy anything," he says.

"As long as you have the support of your staff, that’s it; there are no ink or paper suppliers to go back to after you have knocked them.

"That is where the support could come in from the printers because they continue to back these companies that keep going into administration. Pre-packs leave a sour taste in everybody’s mouth."

What next?
The biggest question for finishers now is where they go from here. Should they give up on the simple fold-stitch-trim work and just set themselves up as specialists handling high-end stuff? The margins are certainly likely to be better.

But is it enough just to offer a niche service to printers? BPIF North West regional director Bob Thomson believes that finishers should try to broaden their customer base, especially when they are offering something different.

"Printers won’t sell services they can’t provide, so finishers need to go to those design houses and show them what can be done," he says.

"At least then the designer can go to a printer and say ‘I want this’ and even specify who they want to do it.

"Some may worry about finishers being a threat, but it shouldn’t be seen like that. The work is still being printed and we are working together to support the printed product, otherwise it will just go elsewhere."

It is a point worth remembering: printers and finishers are all part of the same industry, an industry that is under threat. So if there is a more cost-effective way of doing things, whether that is bringing finishing in-house or using a trade finisher, it should be the way forward. As Oakley says "Printers and finishers are cut of the same cloth and as such need to work closely together for their mutual benefit and, dare I say it, their survival."