[5111] in APO Printshop
Re: Printshop pricing confusion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Benazeer Noorani)
Fri Sep 14 10:14:56 2007
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 10:12:22 -0400
From: "Benazeer Noorani" <benazeer@gmail.com>
Reply-To: benazeer@alum.mit.edu
To: "Mitchell E Berger" <mitchb@mit.edu>
Cc: tower@alum.mit.edu, jtu@mit.edu, apo-printshop-journeyman@mit.edu,
apo-printshop-operators@mit.edu
In-Reply-To: <200709140947.l8E9lPJL009676@ptolomaea.mit.edu>
------=_Part_1370_22199335.1189779147290
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
As Len said in his email, the first in this thread that was sent to
apo-printshop-operators, if we are going to have this discussion, it should
include all the qualified pressops. It's too late to change the pricing for
this year's run, but it sounds like, at the very least, there needs to be a
clarification of the policy for all who might be involved in next year's LSC
printing run.
I have no idea if the $3/numbering machine charge actually supports the cost
of the numbering machine, or if the printshop is self-sufficient, especially
since there has been inflation since that agreement was made. What I do know
is that keeping the shop and the numbering machine in particular functional
is not a zero-cost operation, and right now, the pricing scheme reflects
that reality.
I looked at your listing from the binder, and it looks to me like they have
been charged $14 (4 setups *$3+2*.1/100*1000) for part two for the last two
years, and they came back to us again this year. They might decide next year
that they can do it cheaper at Copytech, but I think at some point that is
going to become inevitable anyway.
Even if we remove the added numbering run fees, Part 1 + Part 2 costs $14
(2*$3+ $.1/100-*1000 + 2*$3+$.1/100*1000) plus the cost of the cardstock.
Copytech costs $5 (1000 cards/8up * $.04/card). Even if you locked up the
Multipasses and Munchicards in the same block for both Part 1 and Part 2,
we're still at $7 + cost of paper. The only way we could ever beat
Copytech's prices is to have a serious discussion, with the chapter, about
the value of making printshop products accessible to student groups as a
service, and having the chapter subsidize the cost of paper, solvents, inks,
parts, etc. Another option would be to raise prices for
non-ASA-student-group customers: alums who want business cards printed,
people who want wedding invitations, etc. These customers are probably
willing to pay more than the current fees, because they really are low
compared to the competition in that market. I don't know how much business
the printshop gets from this market, however, or how much prices would need
to be raised to subsidize the cost of things like MTG tickets and LSC
Munchicards. That's a question for someone with access to the binder.
YiLFS
-Benazeer
On 9/14/07, Mitchell E Berger <mitchb@mit.edu> wrote:
>
> I didn't really want to have this discussion (note that my original e-mail
> was intentionally only sent to the journeyman list requesting a
> clarification of vague wording on our price sheet in the binder), but
> since it's happening anyway, to pretend that the printshop or the
> Treasurer have any clue how well the shop is supporting itself is a joke.
> We're in no position to determine that, because we have no clue what the
> starting balance of the printshop's "account" was when the current
> bookkeeping system came into being. We don't even know if we're in the
> black or the red, so any arguments about anything that are predicated on
> the shop supporting itself are invalid because we don't know how it's
> doing
> financially.
>
> Next, if you observe the listing in my mail of what they've been charged
> for this identical job before, and consider that the answer I got will
> result in me charging them more than we ever have before because nobody
> ever did the math as prescribed by the replies I got from the journeymen,
> and add in the fact that our rates haven't changed across the years the
> previous instances of this job have been run, and ask if that makes me
> feel like we're "taking them," the answer I'd have to give you is "you
> bet it does."
>
> It also seems awfully fishy that this system is capable of being gamed.
> I certainly feel like it's "taking them" given that it occurred to me
> that it'd be possible for me to lock up "part 1" of both of the Munchicard
> and Multipass jobs in a single chase at the same time, put two cards on
> the platen with each press cycle, and essentially charge them half price
> because that would be *1* setup, and half as many impressions as cards
> printed.
>
> Now let's take your $0.02/impression claim - in the 21st century at MIT,
> that *is* a lot of marginal money on the cost of a copy. CopyTech's
> rates are $0.04 per copy. Their copiers will happily handle cardstock,
> and if 8.5x11 cardstock is used, you can easily print what we do on
> Jersey Cards and similar 6-up (possibly 8-up, depending on design). If
> you have access to a paper cutter, which most people do, I assure you
> that if you do the math, you'll find out that the cost per card at
> CopyTech comes out to less than *one cent*. If you add the price of the
> cardstock, then it becomes less than two cents instead. You were talking
> of adding two cents per copy not being a big deal? It's actually adding
> more than the price of doing it at CopyTech onto our already more
> expensive price.
>
> You don't have to take my word for it, though - actions speak louder than
> words. They stopped using us to print membership cards years ago because
> they realized it was cheaper for them to do it themselves and use their
> paper cutter. Last year, they considered using us to print tickets to
> the xkcd lecture, and again realized it was cheaper for them to do it
> themselves. They did want to have serial numbers on the tickets, though,
> for fear of forgery. I offered to run our numbering machine over the
> tickets after they printed them. Because of what it would cost, they
> chose to have tickets labelled "A1-A9, B1-B9, etc.", and printed "A", "B",
> etc. on the n-up page they ran through their press, and then sharpied in
> a different number for each page. I'm sort of surprised they're even
> thinking about letting us print Munchicards and Multipasses, but maybe
> they haven't noticed yet that the rates I quoted them will make their
> usual order come out to just over $0.06 per card.
>
> It's not a matter of whether $6.00 is a lot of money for a college
> student.
> It's a matter of whether the price we end up with is better than the
> semi-commercial alternatives. We're not competing with a professional
> shop where each card might cost $1.00. If we're competing at all, it's
> with CopyTech, and our prices aren't beating theirs. In this particular
> case, we're also dealing with a group that has their own press, and
> while it's true they can't print on tiny stock like we can, we lost our
> edge when n-up printing and a paper cutter became an obvious solution to
> them.
>
> So, has someone on LSC exec told me that our printshop is too expensive?
> Yes, effectively, when they wouldn't let me number their xkcd tickets and
> chose to use sharpie instead. Have they told us this collectively before?
> Yes, when they started printing membership cards themselves (we have a
> cut for that whole card, you know). We don't get to claim that our price
> is ridiculously low when CopyTech can undercut us and will get perfect
> alignment on every print.
>
> Our rates are in fact fantastic as they scale to jobs where we print huge
> quantities of things, but for "small" 500-1000 copy jobs, technology has
> caught up and passed us, I'm sorry to say.
>
> Mitch
>
> > If a crusty alum can throw in her $0.02, I don't think were "taking
> them"
> > for anything here. Operating a press costs money, and while the pressops
> are
> > somewhat shielded from that, since the APO treasurer keeps the books,
> that
> > doesn't change the fact that ink, solvents, parts, etc are expensive.
> >
> > And just to make sure I understand, we're talking about a difference of
> $6
> > between the correct fee structure and one in which the numbering machine
> > doesn't count as another setup, right? That's less than two
> cents/impression
> > (or three hundred emails from crusty alums!). That is a very small
> amount of
> > money, even for poor starving college students.
> >
> > Has someone on LSC exec told you that our printshop is too expensive?
> > Because honestly, for the quality we produce, the amount we charge is
> > ridiculously low, and I'm having a hard time seeing our setup fees being
> a
> > total dealbreaker. I mean, I've seen things come off our press that are
> just
> > as good as samples from professional shops, where a five hundred card
> run
> > can cost $500.
> >
> > YiLFS
> >
> > Benazeer
> >
> > On 9/14/07, Mitchell E Berger <mitchb@mit.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > My feelings about how reasonable the number of setups we count for
> this
> > > job is aside, we're not going to change the prices between now and
> when
> > > LSC needs cards, and this does answer my questions, so I've explained
> > > the pricing structure to the relevant LSC folks.
> > >
> > > As to Len's question about LSC membership cards, I don't remember the
> > > last time we printed them, and I forgot to look again when I was in
> the
> > > office, but it was years ago, and as I said in my original e-mail
> here,
> > > they've been printing those cards themselves on their own press or on
> > > a laser printer and copier, 6-up, for years, and it's probably cheaper
> > > for them to continue doing it. The one real thing we have going for
> us
> > > if we're going to take them for 6 setup fees for that small number of
> > > cards is that we can print on Jersey cards instead of the thinner
> flimsy
> > > stock they use for membership cards these days.
> > >
> > > Mitch
> > >
> > > > Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:35:42 -0400 (EDT)
> > > > From: Leonard H. Tower Jr. <tower@alum.MIT.EDU>
> > > >
> > > > Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:17:09 -0400 (EDT)
> > > > From: Jennifer Tu <jtu@MIT.EDU>
> > > >
> > > > Len -- out of curiosity, what *is* the correct charge for this
> job?
> > > >
> > > > > Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 01:21:17 -0400
> > > > > From: Mitchell E Berger <mitchb@MIT.EDU>
> > > > >
> > > > > The binder claims:
> > > > >
> > > > > Press use: $3.00 setup* + $0.10 per 100 impressions
> > > > > * Each color ink, each numbering run, and each perforator run
> is
> > > a
> > > > > setup and an impression.
> > > >
> > > > jtu et al:
> > > >
> > > > With these current rates, and assuming 500 Multipasses, 2 colors, 1
> > > > numbering machine used**.
> > > >
> > > > 3 setups @ $3.00 = $ 9.00
> > > > 1500 impressions @ $0.10/100 impression = 1.50
> > > >
> > > > for a total of $ 11.50 plus the cost of the card stock, if AX
> provides
> > > > the card stock, which is what's happened in the past. I don't
> > > > remember what the shop is charging for cards stock right now.
> > > >
> > > > Double that, if there are also 500 Munchicards, 2 colors, 1
> numbering
> > > > machine used.
> > >
> > > > yiLFS -len
> > > >
> > > > **i don't rmember a job where two numbering machines were used, but
> it
> > > > did get discussed, and the consensue at the time, was that it
> would
> > > > be an additional setup/impresssions charge for each machine used.
> > > >
>
------=_Part_1370_22199335.1189779147290
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
As Len said in his email, the first in this thread that was sent to apo-pri=
ntshop-operators, if we are going to have this discussion, it should includ=
e all the qualified pressops. It's too late to change the pricing for t=
his year's run, but it sounds like, at the very least, there needs to b=
e a clarification of the policy for all who might be involved in next year&=
#39;s LSC printing run.=20
<br><br>I have no idea if the $3/numbering machine charge actually supports=
the cost of the numbering machine, or if the printshop is self-sufficient,=
especially since there has been inflation since that agreement was made. W=
hat I do know is that keeping the shop and the numbering machine in particu=
lar functional is not a zero-cost operation, and right now, the pricing sch=
eme reflects that reality.=20
<br><br>I looked at your listing from the binder, and it looks to me like t=
hey have been charged $14 (4 setups *$3+2*.1/100*1000) for part two for the=
last two years, and they came back to us again this year. They might decid=
e next year that they can do it cheaper at Copytech, but I think at some po=
int that is going to become inevitable anyway.=20
<br><br>Even if we remove the added numbering run fees, Part 1 + Part 2 cos=
ts $14 (2*$3+ $.1/100-*1000 + 2*$3+$.1/100*1000) plus the cost =
of the cardstock. Copytech costs $5 (1000 cards/8up * $.04/card).&nbs=
p; Even if you locked up the Multipasses and Munchicards in the same block =
for both Part 1 and Part 2, we're still at $7 + cost of paper. The only=
way we could ever beat Copytech's prices is to have a serious discussi=
on, with the chapter, about the value of making printshop products accessib=
le to student groups as a service, and having the chapter subsidize the cos=
t of paper, solvents, inks, parts, etc. Another option would be to raise pr=
ices for non-ASA-student-group customers: alums who want business cards pri=
nted, people who want wedding invitations, etc. These customers are probabl=
y willing to pay more than the current fees, because they really are low co=
mpared to the competition in that market. I don't know how much busines=
s the printshop gets from this market, however, or how much prices would ne=
ed to be raised to subsidize the cost of things like MTG tickets and LSC Mu=
nchicards. That's a question for someone with access to the binder.=20
<br><br>YiLFS<br><br>-Benazeer<br><br><br><div><span class=3D"gmail_quote">=
On 9/14/07, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername">Mitchell E Berger</b> <<a href=
=3D"mailto:mitchb@mit.edu">mitchb@mit.edu</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote =
class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); m=
argin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I didn't really want to have this discussion (note that my original e-m=
ail<br>was intentionally only sent to the journeyman list requesting a<br>c=
larification of vague wording on our price sheet in the binder), but<br>
since it's happening anyway, to pretend that the printshop or the<br>Tr=
easurer have any clue how well the shop is supporting itself is a joke.<br>=
We're in no position to determine that, because we have no clue what th=
e
<br>starting balance of the printshop's "account" was when th=
e current<br>bookkeeping system came into being. We don't ev=
en know if we're in the<br>black or the red, so any arguments about any=
thing that are predicated on
<br>the shop supporting itself are invalid because we don't know how it=
's doing<br>financially.<br><br>Next, if you observe the listing in my =
mail of what they've been charged<br>for this identical job before, and=
consider that the answer I got will
<br>result in me charging them more than we ever have before because nobody=
<br>ever did the math as prescribed by the replies I got from the journeyme=
n,<br>and add in the fact that our rates haven't changed across the yea=
rs the
<br>previous instances of this job have been run, and ask if that makes me<=
br>feel like we're "taking them," the answer I'd have to =
give you is "you<br>bet it does."<br><br>It also seems awfully fi=
shy that this system is capable of being gamed.
<br>I certainly feel like it's "taking them" given that it oc=
curred to me<br>that it'd be possible for me to lock up "part 1&qu=
ot; of both of the Munchicard<br>and Multipass jobs in a single chase at th=
e same time, put two cards on
<br>the platen with each press cycle, and essentially charge them half pric=
e<br>because that would be *1* setup, and half as many impressions as cards=
<br>printed.<br><br>Now let's take your $0.02/impression claim - in the=
21st century at MIT,
<br>that *is* a lot of marginal money on the cost of a copy. Cop=
yTech's<br>rates are $0.04 per copy. Their copiers will happ=
ily handle cardstock,<br>and if 8.5x11 cardstock is used, you can easily pr=
int what we do on
<br>Jersey Cards and similar 6-up (possibly 8-up, depending on design).&nbs=
p; If<br>you have access to a paper cutter, which most people do, I as=
sure you<br>that if you do the math, you'll find out that the cost per =
card at
<br>CopyTech comes out to less than *one cent*. If you add the p=
rice of the<br>cardstock, then it becomes less than two cents instead. =
; You were talking<br>of adding two cents per copy not being a big dea=
l? It's actually adding
<br>more than the price of doing it at CopyTech onto our already more<br>ex=
pensive price.<br><br>You don't have to take my word for it, though - a=
ctions speak louder than<br>words. They stopped using us to prin=
t membership cards years ago because
<br>they realized it was cheaper for them to do it themselves and use their=
<br>paper cutter. Last year, they considered using us to print t=
ickets to<br>the xkcd lecture, and again realized it was cheaper for them t=
o do it
<br>themselves. They did want to have serial numbers on the tick=
ets, though,<br>for fear of forgery. I offered to run our number=
ing machine over the<br>tickets after they printed them. Because=
of what it would cost, they
<br>chose to have tickets labelled "A1-A9, B1-B9, etc.", and prin=
ted "A", "B",<br>etc. on the n-up page they ran through=
their press, and then sharpied in<br>a different number for each page.&nbs=
p; I'm sort of surprised they're even
<br>thinking about letting us print Munchicards and Multipasses, but maybe<=
br>they haven't noticed yet that the rates I quoted them will make thei=
r<br>usual order come out to just over $0.06 per card.<br><br>It's not =
a matter of whether $6.00 is a lot of money for a college student.
<br>It's a matter of whether the price we end up with is better than th=
e<br>semi-commercial alternatives. We're not competing with =
a professional<br>shop where each card might cost $1.00. If we&#=
39;re competing at all, it's
<br>with CopyTech, and our prices aren't beating theirs. In =
this particular<br>case, we're also dealing with a group that has their=
own press, and<br>while it's true they can't print on tiny stock l=
ike we can, we lost our
<br>edge when n-up printing and a paper cutter became an obvious solution t=
o<br>them.<br><br>So, has someone on LSC exec told me that our printshop is=
too expensive?<br>Yes, effectively, when they wouldn't let me number t=
heir xkcd tickets and
<br>chose to use sharpie instead. Have they told us this collect=
ively before?<br>Yes, when they started printing membership cards themselve=
s (we have a<br>cut for that whole card, you know). We don't=
get to claim that our price
<br>is ridiculously low when CopyTech can undercut us and will get perfect<=
br>alignment on every print.<br><br>Our rates are in fact fantastic as they=
scale to jobs where we print huge<br>quantities of things, but for "s=
mall" 500-1000 copy jobs, technology has
<br>caught up and passed us, I'm sorry to say.<br><br>Mitch<br><br>>=
If a crusty alum can throw in her $0.02, I don't think were "taki=
ng them"<br>> for anything here. Operating a press costs money, and=
while the pressops are
<br>> somewhat shielded from that, since the APO treasurer keeps the boo=
ks, that<br>> doesn't change the fact that ink, solvents, parts, etc=
are expensive.<br>><br>> And just to make sure I understand, we'=
re talking about a difference of $6
<br>> between the correct fee structure and one in which the numbering m=
achine<br>> doesn't count as another setup, right? That's less t=
han two cents/impression<br>> (or three hundred emails from crusty alums=
!). That is a very small amount of
<br>> money, even for poor starving college students.<br>><br>> Ha=
s someone on LSC exec told you that our printshop is too expensive?<br>>=
Because honestly, for the quality we produce, the amount we charge is<br>
> ridiculously low, and I'm having a hard time seeing our setup fees=
being a<br>> total dealbreaker. I mean, I've seen things come off o=
ur press that are just<br>> as good as samples from professional shops, =
where a five hundred card run
<br>> can cost $500.<br>><br>> YiLFS<br>><br>> Benazeer<br>&=
gt;<br>> On 9/14/07, Mitchell E Berger <<a href=3D"mailto:mitchb@mit.=
edu">mitchb@mit.edu</a>> wrote:<br>> ><br>> > My feelings ab=
out how reasonable the number of setups we count for this
<br>> > job is aside, we're not going to change the prices betwee=
n now and when<br>> > LSC needs cards, and this does answer my questi=
ons, so I've explained<br>> > the pricing structure to the releva=
nt LSC folks.
<br>> ><br>> > As to Len's question about LSC membership ca=
rds, I don't remember the<br>> > last time we printed them, and I=
forgot to look again when I was in the<br>> > office, but it was yea=
rs ago, and as I said in my original e-mail here,
<br>> > they've been printing those cards themselves on their own=
press or on<br>> > a laser printer and copier, 6-up, for years, and =
it's probably cheaper<br>> > for them to continue doing it. =
The one real thing we have going for us
<br>> > if we're going to take them for 6 setup fees for that sma=
ll number of<br>> > cards is that we can print on Jersey cards instea=
d of the thinner flimsy<br>> > stock they use for membership cards th=
ese days.
<br>> ><br>> > Mitch<br>> ><br>> > > Date: Thu, =
13 Sep 2007 15:35:42 -0400 (EDT)<br>> > > From: Leonard H. Tower J=
r. <<a href=3D"mailto:tower@alum.MIT.EDU">tower@alum.MIT.EDU</a>><br>
> > ><br>> > > Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2=
007 15:17:09 -0400 (EDT)<br>> > > From: Jen=
nifer Tu <<a href=3D"mailto:jtu@MIT.EDU">jtu@MIT.EDU</a>><br>> >=
; ><br>> > > Len -- out of curiosity, wh=
at *is* the correct charge for this job?
<br>> > ><br>> > > >  =
; Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 01:21:17 -0400<br>> > > =
> From: Mitchell E Berger <<a href=3D"mailto:mitchb=
@MIT.EDU">mitchb@MIT.EDU</a>><br>> > > &=
gt;
<br>> > > > The binder claim=
s:<br>> > > ><br>> > > &nb=
sp; > Press use: $3.00 setup* + $0.10 per 100 imp=
ressions<br>> > > > * Each c=
olor ink, each numbering run, and each perforator run is
<br>> > a<br>> > > > &n=
bsp; setup and an impression.<br>> > ><br>> > > jtu=
et al:<br>> > ><br>> > > With these current rates, and a=
ssuming 500 Multipasses, 2 colors, 1
<br>> > > numbering machine used**.<br>> > ><br>> >=
> 3 setups @ $3.00  =
; &n=
bsp;=3D $ 9.00<br>> > > 1500 impressions @ $0.10/100 impression =
=3D 1.50<br>> > ><br>> > > for a total of $=
=20
11.50 plus the cost of the card stock, if AX provides<br>> > > the=
card stock, which is what's happened in the past. I don'=
;t<br>> > > remember what the shop is charging for cards stock rig=
ht now.
<br>> > ><br>> > > Double that, if there are also 500 Mun=
chicards, 2 colors, 1 numbering<br>> > > machine used.<br>> >=
;<br>> > > yiLFS -len<br>> > ><br>> > > **i don&=
#39;t rmember a job where two numbering machines were used, but it
<br>> > > did get discussed, and the consensue at the =
time, was that it would<br>> > > be an additional setu=
p/impresssions charge for each machine used.<br>> > ><br></blockqu=
ote></div><br>
------=_Part_1370_22199335.1189779147290--
