I feel that I could easily spend all week glued to the Future Publishing story, as I'm sure the comments trail is going to make fascinating reading. Usually when a contract changes hands, the management at the losing company either: a) say nothing; b) say something suitably bland through gritted teeth; c) say something that attempts to downplay the importance of that work anyway.

So it's unusual, and rather refreshing, to see Wyndeham and Southernprint being so frank in their responses to the loss of their Future work. Both companies are sore, and who can blame them? It had seemed as if magazine printers could have reasonably expected some semblance of price stability by now, and the irony is that I'm reliably informed that when Future went into this process the publisher actually did not expect to be making any further savings on its print costs. But this is a sector where normal business rules don't apply - no matter how low the prices go, there's always someone who somehow manages to be (at least) 15% cheaper. I have to agree with the comment by Print Spectator, buyers don't drive prices down, printers do. It's a rare publisher indeed who will turn down a price cut in favour of the quality and service they receive from their existing supplier. There's probably only one publisher - two at a push - who fit that description here in the UK.

Polestar is being painted as the villain this time around, yet just a few weeks ago one of the group's directors was bending my ear about being undercut by 30% by a competitor on another mag job. So I await Polestar's comment on its Future win with interest. And what of William Gibbons? In web offset terms this company is an enigma wrapped up in a conundrum, as the firm is unusual not only in that it makes any profit whatsoever, but that in its last results it made a near-18% operating margin. Perhaps some sort of OPEC for web offset print should be created, and Mark Gibbons can chair it.