Online approval needs a leap of faith
Web-based systems for campaign management and approvals could provide the cost control over print campaigns that brands desire, but as PMM’s seminar panel discussed, their future depends on soft proofing gaining the acceptance of all involved. "Michael Barnett reports"
Though its intentions were noble, the principles of Magic and Logic have not as yet proved the silver bullet for ending disputes between marketers, creative agencies and procurement departments. While decoupling continues apace, signs that the three parties are willing to make significant concessions in order to work together are in most instances slow to develop.
Where the report has been unable to provide resolution, the great hope is now the potential of online approval and campaign management systems to cut costs and provide accountability. The question for all three professions is whether this hope will be transformed into a leap of faith. The industry-wide panel at PMM’s ‘Magic behind the logic’ seminar, which combined expertise in each of the three areas as well as print supply, was in agreement that the key to realising the potential of such systems is communicating the benefits that they allow agencies to provide. Crucial to this will be the faith placed in soft proofing.
Donna Brown, head of offline production at agency OgilvyOne London, admitted: “I have been hesitant about using soft proofing in the past, because if we’re going to get something approved, the creatives are going to want something tangible. But I made the wrong conclusion that soft proofing meant I couldn’t have the hard proofs.”
Her epiphany came, she said, as a result of one particular job – “a complex, data driven pack with litho elements, digital elements, fast turnaround, an uncompromising client and uncompromising deadlines. Through a tendering process we finally placed that project with dsicmm.” Brown says she had previously resisted using Kodak InSite, the approval system used by the print house, but in this case the time restrictions involved meant that soft proofing was a necessity in order to meet the deadline.
Brown and her OgilvyOne team uploaded files to dsicmm via InSite, effectively using it as a prepress tool, and as a result experienced substantial improvements in the time taken to transfer PDFs, as well as to correct any faults in the process. Without a calibrated monitor, Brown’s team could not proof files for colour, but was able to make all necessary layout and content changes before a contract colour proof was required.
“After I had approved it, I was going to ask for a hard copy anyway,” said Brown, “even though that’s not necessarily what everyone is thinking they’re going to use InSite for. It hadn’t taken away any of the things I felt I needed to get this job approved. What it did was almost add another layer of proofing that meant I cut out costly errors in artwork files. That all got sorted on screen before I committed to the next stage of proofs.”
Dave Reynolds, dsicmm’s managing director of print services, said that the company has been using InSite for five years, and that around 70% of clients decide to use the system for submissions and approvals. However, he added: “You can’t force any system down a client’s throat – you can demonstrate benefits and coax them into the process, but they’ve got to work in their own way.
“The onus is on the production house to prove that what they’re presenting on screen is achievable from the media that you’re outputting to. Providing that the housekeeping is correct and you’re working to a standard that you understand, and you understand colour, then all of that’s achievable.”
An element of the coaxing that Reynolds alluded to is showing the client where their money is being saved. “Gone are the days when we charged £400 for a set of wet proofs, then the client changed it all and we charged £400 for another set of wet proofs,” he said.
It is because these kinds of savings are rarely accompanied by fanfare from the agency or production house that they may go unappreciated by marketers and procurement people, as procurement consultant Tina Fegent, chair of the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply’s marketing group, explained. She also pointed out that the costs of running a campaign are not always generated by the agency, but are often the result of inefficient structures within a brand’s own marketing department. Through web-based approvals, agencies gain the ability to demonstrate accurately where costs are being incurred and savings made.
