Hence, a growing number of easy-to-use, web-based solutions are gaining popularity in the industry. The likes of MailBigFile, WeTransfer and YouSendIt offer a quick and easy option of transferring large files over the internet and have been used for personal use for some time. So far it seems to be a useful partnership for printers, but some question how wise adoption of online services actually is, and whether FTP still has merit in some situations.
FTP, along with email, started life as a handy alternative to digital files being transferred on physical media. Dropping off a floppy disc or CD became just too time-consuming as turnaround times fell and service expectations increased, and so the onus on job submission shifted to the printer and away from the client. And, in fact, both are still apparently going strong, with an InfoTrends study (Emerging Trends in Mobile and Web Enablement) recently finding that, in the US at least, email is still the most popular file transfer method and FTP remains widely used.
The question UK printers are asking, however, is how much longer these now established submission methods are going to dominate. Many printers say clients have taken it upon themselves to shift to methods they deem simpler and easier than FTP. "Too many times we have had discussions with clients who say they can’t access the FTP server," reveals Paul Manning, managing director at commercial printer Rapidity, explaining that as a result more clients are now opting to use sites such as MailBigFile and YouSendIt instead.
It’s a similar story in wide-format. James Everett, digital manager at LTD, says the firm no longer uses FTP as clients were using the free browser-based options more and more; commercial and wide-format printer Artisan Print Solutions says it has found the same.
Even in the magazine printing world, where files can be substantial in size and numerous in quantity, FTP seems under threat. Chris Haines, customer service manager at Cambrian Printers, explains that though the company offers an FTP service with extensive support, customers are still migrating to other methods. "We host a YouSendIt account now, as many of our clients prefer this type of transfer," he explains.
Popular options
What these numerous web-based options offer to clients is no obligation to sign in, or submit details or find files – all the client needs to do is select the file, put in the destination email address and press send. Compared to FTP – where a user will need to download software, sign in and seek out target folders – there seems little competition in a time-poor client’s eyes. MailBigFile managing director Steve Barber agrees, revealing that, in his experience at least, the reasons printers have given for a switch to his service is that clients simply find FTP too complex.
And in fact many printers have been happy to go with the customer flow on this due to free online job submission tools also saving them time and money on having to run, maintain and support an FTP service. This, some say, is the real reason for the web-based option’s popularity, rather than client difficulties with FTP.
Manning agrees Rapidity hasn’t opposed a shift to web-based options due to this very handily putting the onus on file transfer away from the printer and back on to the client. "We would prefer our customers to take the responsibility for getting their artwork to us," he explains.
But there are many who would warn against consigning FTP to history altogether. Those tempted to dismiss this file transfer option may well want to listen to dissenting voices warning that the rush to the web-based models has come without due diligence of the services being sought. "There are downsides to the web-based free options: lack of administrative control, auditing and logging can be poor, you don’t know who at the vendor has access to your data (there was a recent Dropbox security breach to this effect), you don’t know much about the physical security of the data centre, what the legislation might be where the data centre is... The list goes on," says James Lewis, managing director of file transfer specialists Pro2col.
Of course, the ‘free’ operators say their systems do not suffer from these issues. They point to the thousands of printers using their systems as proof that the free option – or the paid-for branded options that are also offered alongside most of these free offerings – are suitable business tools. MailBigFile’s Barber says these firms simply cannot afford to let a client down as the market is so competitive. "Competition is fierce, so vendors have to really innovate now to stay ahead, and so reliability and service are paramount," he says.
Printers using the systems don’t seem to have encountered any problems. Cambrian’s Haines explains that, "on the whole, they all work, but we’ve found that some are easier to use than others. All of them, though, have reliability in common". LTD’s Everett, too, says he has had no issues with the free solutions available to him.
Short-sighted?
Nonetheless, moving to a free web-based solution in order to save costs and pass some of the onus for managing these transfer systems to the customer, might still be a short-sighted approach in some cases, and not necessarily the main reason most migrate to this way of doing things.
In fact, the operators of the web-based options say that many printers opt for their paid-for business accounts. While some printers are happy for a non-branded option – both to direct customers to, if asked, or even to link to directly – some prefer a more closely managed and branded service and are happy to pay for the privilege. MailBigFile managing director Steve Barber points out that 70% of his business account users are print companies willing to pay for his service.
Which brings us back to the question of whether or not the paid-for (and slightly more time-consuming to manage) FTP option still has merit. Pro2col’s Lewis certainly feels it has. He says that, while some FTP systems can be "shocking", some are in fact "well thought through and well designed" and can offer a far superior service to the web-based options, although he agrees that web-based options certainly have their place.
Pro2col offers both web-based and FTP options in the same product: Hermstedt StingRay, which overcomes, according to Lewis, the weaknesses of both systems. Pro2col systems are currently installed at the likes of Polestar, St Ives, DS Smith and Prime Group.
RCS managing director Michael Todd would agree that, while free web-based systems are admittedly simpler, this doesn’t automatically mean all FTP systems are too complex in all scenarios and so now of limited value. He says that many clients in fact still find them simple to use given the right direction.
Christopher Little, research analyst at InfoTrends, would add to this that rather than the customer shift from FTP to free web-based options being a sign of their undoubted superiority and so inevitable eventual dominance, it’s rather a case of customers now simply having a wider selection of transfer options to pick from. Printers may want to think twice, then, before assuming that the growing popularity of web-based automatically means FTP’s eventual demise.
Of course, what the customer demands – or simply chooses to use off – can’t be ignored. And whatever the reason for printers choosing to switch –whether it’s client demand, to save time and money or because the client has decided this is best for them – the reasons must be good: alongside MailBigFile’s high proportion of print clients, WeTransfer and YouSendIt say printers make up many of the millions of transfers each company processes each day; Dropbox has even gained integration within EFI’s workflow.
Pro2col’s Lewis’ warning is worth heeding, though. A client is not a client until the job has been submitted and so the importance of the vehicle that gets the file to the printer cannot be underestimated. Printers need to do their research carefully. FTP may well be too complicated for the modern print customer, but it may be that the alternatives have their own drawbacks and printers would do well to put support behind the FTP option instead. Or, alternatively, the web-based options may be an excellent solution and FTP’s time may well be up. Just who will win the file transfer fight, or whether both will be adopted as valid options in their own rights, will probably be up to your clients.
Key vendors for print
Dropbox
The company would not supply specific information, as services vary, but says printers
should get in touch directly for more information. www.dropbox.com
Hermstedt StingRay (from Pro2col Group)
Max file size (browser) 2GB; FTP: approx 5GB
Max number of files that can be sent simultaneously Six, but customisable to more on web browser; unlimited on FTP
Support services Onsite and remote services to fit in with customers needs
MailBigFile
Max file size 4GB
Max number of files that can be sent simultaneously 10 (max total 40GB)
Support services Telephone, email and live chat service
WeTransfer
Max file size free service: 2GB; paid-for service: 5GB
Max number of files that can be sent simultaneously "multiple files"
Support services All support is done via FAQ and email
YouSendIt
Max file size free service: 50MB; Pro account service: 2GB; Business account: 500GB via desktop app
Max number of files that can be sent simultaneously as many as possible within total file size limits (see above)
Support services Pro account: chat, email and phone support; Business account: specialised customer success team that’s available 24/7
