So, why the fuss? While stage one of James’ plan centred around the evolution of the council’s printed communications to its residents, stage two involved taking the print unit’s new cross-media capability to market: to schools, to hospitals, to other local authorities, and to private companies. And there’s the rub – as one printer put it: "If a local authority believes that it can fulfil its own print requirements more effectively with an in-plant, then this of course is a financial decision that they must make, but this facility should be confined to the local authority or departments operating under its remit."
As James acknowledged when announcing his five-year investment strategy, which has the goal of creating a not just a self-funding, but revenue-generating, print unit, the issue of taking on commercial print work was bound to be a "thorny" one. However, the portrayal of him amongst printweek.com forum users as some sort of personification of public sector waste and ignorance towards the plight of those in the commercial or ‘real world’ is both unfair and inaccurate.
John Lock, former production colour specialist at Xerox, worked with James to evaluate what production equipment was needed to meet his requirements. He rubbished comments on printweek.com that suggested James had been upsold to a piece of kit he didn’t need. "Chris came in with a very clear idea of what he wanted to achieve, right from the word go," said Lock.
"He didn’t know the specific machine that would meet that requirement, but he knew that he wanted to print a large volume of personalised colour print. To say that he went to Xerox and saw a bit of kit a bit further up the line and thought ‘how can I justify that’ is frankly a load of old rubbish."
New development
James’ plan also called for a cloud-based workflow, something Xerox wasn’t even offering, but so insistent was he that that was what was required that RBWM is now trialling the first cloud-based version of Xerox FreeFlow – an interesting development that has so far been lost amid the acrimony of the in-plant vs external print provider argument.
The industry perception of in-plants as subsidised toys run by managers who "couldn’t cut it in the commercial world" is not likely to go away as long as people’s livelihoods are at stake, as Lock acknowledges.
"I have sympathy with the plight of private sector companies. It’s a difficult economic situation that we’re in, but the fact remains that Chris James’ job was to save the council and the local tax-payers money and I believe that’s what he’s done."
The issue of subsidisation lies at the core of the commercial counter-argument. "As a subsidised entity the council is now entering an already saturated marketplace with an unfair financial advantage," argues one printer. "The authority is likely to have routes to finance and purchasing that many smaller printers won’t and can equip themselves to a higher standard. The second issue is then ‘perception’ – rightly or wrongly the authority print plant will carry more credibility than a small or sole trader."
James’ argument in support of his strategy is three-fold. Firstly, reducing the amount the local authority spends on print is beneficial to the council and to taxpayers. Second, reducing wider public sector costs by applying that same strategy to other public sector bodies – hospitals, schools, other councils – will be similarly beneficial to the taxpayer. Thirdly, there’s no law against it. It’s hard to argue with his logic, although Lock does agree that he would be "bloody cross" if he owned a business that was being affected by a "subsidised venture" from the council. However, he adds: "I actually think that this perception that in-plants are ‘subsidised’ by the taxpayer is inaccurate – they still have to compete on a commercial basis.
"I know of one in-plant that has to tender for every job that comes their way – they don’t just get it handed to them carte blanche, they have to win it. That is a ridiculous situation in my opinion because they’ve got a massive printroom and they’ve already spent all of the money and yet they will still go out to a local printer if that printer can do it cheaper. I think they’ve got every right to do it themselves because their job is to run the council in the most efficient way possible and not necessarily to support local businesses."
READER REACTIONS
Gary Ive
Design & print operations manager,
University of Surrey
"I believe there is now more chance to work together as it is key for us to still keep commercial printers busy as we can not ever complete everything in-house. To go and try and take their business would not benefit us long term. We want the suppliers keen and competitive and ready to take work at the drop of a hat – therefore the relationships must be strong. I don’t think it would be right just to attack the commercial printers as you never know when you would need them."
Tim Lance
Sales director,
X1
"In essence, I don’t think it is right for this to happen. Councils have an unfair advantage in purchasing the equipment, suppliers see them as a very good credit rating and will often giving ‘sweeteners’. I have seen it first hand. They purchase the kit to be an in-plant – using tax-payers’ money - and therefore should not compete with their own clients - commercial companies who pay business rates in their area. In addition, they play unfairly by having a ‘captive’ client base within the council - prohibiting internal clients within the council from purchasing externally."
Mark Snee
Managing director
Technoprint
"I think the public sector should focus on managing services, particularly at a time when the government is looking to the private sector to create jobs. Several years ago, Wakefield council had two print buying departments that both outsourced work. But they brought in a competitive tendering process and invited Doncaster Council, which has an in-plant, to bid for the work. The commercial printers couldn’t offer anything close to the prices that the council could offer."
You can read Association of Print and Communication Managers president Anthony Evans' comment here
