SGIA Journal Graphic November/December 2016 - 71

course; however, they too are not under
consideration here, only everyday quality
commercial-type four-color graphics,
labels/stickers, advertising, in-store media,
banners and the like.
Screen becomes much more costeffective as production volume increases,
since high upfront cost of pre-press (film
and screen making) continually lessens
when distributed over larger quantities.
On the other hand, actua l cost to
produce digital prints remain constant,
regardless of quantity for all intents
and purposes (excluding discounts
that might be offered for larger volume
business), shown as Digital¹ in the Print
Quantity Matrix Chart.
Quantifying short, medium or large
quantity volumes with actual numbers is
not practical as every company is different,
including specialties, equipment, capabilities,
skill levels, etc., that tend to separate one from
another - partly the foundation of varying
quoted prices. As for quantity, one printer's
low-quantity volume might be considered
medium or large to another company or even
too low for quoting purposes with others. So
far, so good.
Since PUC remains constant with
digital, unlike screen that becomes more
cost-effective with larger volumes, there
is another component of screen that does
not always get factored into the equation.
By and large, a digital printing system
outputs according to the manufacturers'
quoted rates for the type of job at hand,
which intrinsically provides the fixed
cost of PUC during the normal course
of production-irrespective of quantity.
However, the output or hourly production
rate of screen printing is entirely a variable
commodity, one that is based solely on
how well printing excels in performance,
or lack thereof, as determined by screen
making abilities and of course elements of
print workmanship.
With the same job and similar automated
screening equipment, proficient performing
companies can easily out produce those
that are poorly operated, at least to the
factor of two, and in many instance much
more, hence providing a huge differential in
PUC. It is not unknown for many screening
companies to effortlessly triple productivity
by focusing on just a few aspects of the
process. All this has a direct bearing as
to where those lines are drawn on the
quantity scale, possibly making screen more
attractive and cost-effective at the lower
end than previous, shown as the difference
between Screen¹ and Screen² in the Print
Quantity Matrix Chart.
Visit SGIA at SGIA.org

As a separate entity that is not under
reviewed here, CTS technology (computerto-screen) eliminates much of the upfront
expense in screen making. The system
avoids using costly film positives and
saves considerable time that ultimately
affords extremely competitive PUC at
lower volumes than normal. As such, it
would provide an even more favorable
PUC curve than Screen² in the Chart.
Still, determining precisely where the
lower end of the cost-effective volume
quantit y lie is nevertheless largely
ambiguous due to screen printing's
enormously varying output, thereby
causing stark contrasts between competing
companies - one that is profitable
handling lower-quantity work to others
that can only compete with larger volumes.
This scenario leads me to believe an
inefficient screening operation is more
likely to make greater use of digital with
larger quantities than screening operations
that are well-run, in all probability because
it might be easier to bridge the differences
with digital. It appears there is no universal
defined breakeven point between the two
processes quantity-wise, since it largely
depends on numerous other factors, least
of all with specialty, nature of job, in-house
idiosyncrasies related to output capabilities
of screening, etc.
It is no secret providers have espoused
digital print quantities reaching the 500
mark (profitably, presumably), while one
company said it can make sense to print
1,000 digitally. Although details of the
job were not shared, I am in no position
to repudiate that statement except, if
factually true, one could then reasonably
assume their screening operation must
be wholly ineffective as it relates to viable
output or does not have screen capabilities.
Appreciating what has been seen and
heard, my contention is it is easier to
capitalize on digital than trying to fix a
poorly run, ineffective screening operation.
However, while companies invest many
thousands or even hundreds of thousands
to upgrade digital capabilities for faster
outputs, screen tends to be relegated,
pushed aside, perhaps neglected and left to
survive where and whenever it can. Ignoring
subtle but ongoing improvements to an
existing operation makes it even tougher
for screen to compete profitably for normal
business at the lower-quantity scale.
The irony of what has happened in
a number of quarters is large capital
investments have been sought to improve
digital output rates, yet, what if any lowcost/no-cost processing improvements
SGIA Journal

■

November/December 2016 | 69
SGIA Journal Graphic November/December 2016

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of SGIA Journal Graphic November/December 2016
