What’s it better to be: a trailblazer or a stargazer? As many who have led the way will testify, daring doesn’t necessarily mean win-ning; or at least, not to the ex-tent of completely scooping the pool. Once the seed of a work-able idea takes root it’s predict-able that anyone with sufficient nous and credit at the bank will be piling in to take full advan-tage. Coming up with the next best thing can kick-start differ-entiation, but it doesn’t take long for it to become a main-stream feature.

Take, for example, uncoupling the twin-headed coater from an offset sheetfed press to build a profitable revenue stream from affordable effects finishing as an on-demand offline service (PrintBuyer, July 2008). It took a couple of trade finishers to see the potential – and print buyers should be eternally grateful to them for that – but I’d wager its true worth will be realised ultimately in-house rather than down the road.

Often, printers tend to view finishing as a bit of a pain. While most presses now sport an inline coater, the prevailing wisdom – and the one that underpins their commercial printer relationship with trade finishers – is maximum volume at maximum speed is the basis for good business. In reality, any business is good business as long as it a) adds value; b) gives the customer what it wants; and c) can be made to pay. And if harmonising the coating module with the rest
of the configuration doesn’t match an existing volume-divided-by-speed-equals-time equation, Best Cover UV and latterly Celloglas have pointed the way to an adapted business model that could.

Most other trade finishers are unlikely to find the better part of £1m for a Heidelberg Speedmaster CD 102 coating unit or rival Manroland R700 Ultima. Equally so, rank-and-file printers may be reticent about adding an offline coater to an under-utilised one that’s already tacked on to an existing press. However, within the context of an over-supplied integrated sheetfed press market looking to differentiate itself to an increasingly edgy customer base, it’s a fair bet that equipment manufacturers will soon be developing persua-sive counter-arguments.

Heidelberg’s Steve Cavey has a solution to serve both sides of the finishing line. “Affordable value finishing should become more readily available. Most printers have got a coater on the end of the press anyway, so it’s only the UV added value that would attract them. While I can’t see a lot of printers taking that on board, there’s no reason why a co-operation between printer and finishing supplier couldn’t lead to a joint purchase.”

Cavey claims to have at least two strong enquiries for Heidel-berg’s twin-headed coater as an offline unit. Likewise, Man-roland is reporting growing interest. “We’re talking to several high-end commercial printers, and those who are opting to run finishing in-house rather than put it out to the trade,” says sales director Gary Doman. “It gives them better quality control, and, of course, adds value. As more and more printers catch on, the end user will undoubtedly be the beneficiary.”

As, indeed, will anyone prepared to equip themselves in order to provide what Celloglas sales and marketing director Steve Middleton is calling “value added as standard”. That sounds like a business model that could accommodate several if not all comers.