It’s day four after your creative team handed off the artwork file. No proof has arrived. No status update. You follow up with your vendor and learn the file hasn’t been looked at yet – it’s in the queue. Preflight hasn’t started. Which means proofing hasn’t started. Which means the production clock you’ve been counting on hasn’t started either. 

You were given four weeks for production. You’ve just lost five days before a single sheet ran through a press. 

The clock your team thinks is running isn’t 

When a procurement lead, ops manager, or supply chain team receives a production timeline, that timeline almost always starts from one place: proof approval. Four weeks to delivery means four weeks from the moment you sign off on the proof. What it rarely accounts for is how long it takes to get to a proof in the first place. 

That gap between file submission and validated proof is where preflight timing risk lives. It is one of the most consistent sources of avoidable delay in print production, and one of the least visible until it has already cost you something. For most brands working with traditional print vendors, that gap is invisible until it becomes a problem. 

The creative who handed off the file assumes things are moving. The procurement person is watching a calendar, counting four weeks from a date that hasn’t actually started. Nobody connected those two realities. Nobody disclosed the gap. 

Why vendor inconsistency makes this worse 

Not every vendor handles this the same way. Some validate files within hours. Others batch their reviews where files go into a queue and get checked when a technician gets to them, which might be the next morning or might be the end of the week. There is no industry standard. There is no disclosed timeline. 

This creates a specific problem: the last fast vendor sets the benchmark for every vendor that follows. If your previous printer turned preflight around in a day, that’s your mental model. Five days feels like something is wrong – but you don’t know if something is wrong, or if this is just how this vendor works, or whether following up will change anything. 

A packaging run for a seasonal product launch is an unforgiving example. If the file submission to preflight validation gap runs four or five days, and the file comes back with a dieline mismatch that requires a creative revision (and a second round of validation), a four-week production timeline can realistically become six – after which the launch window may have closed entirely. 

The uncertainty compounds the delay. By the time you confirm the file hasn’t been touched, you’ve lost days to the delay itself and more time navigating the ambiguity around it. 

Most brands don’t choose their print management model so much as inherit it. A founder finds a printer early, the relationship works, and print gets handled the same way until something breaks — a missed deadline, a cost that doesn’t make sense, a spec question nobody can answer. At that point the brand is usually bigger, the program is more complex, and the model that worked at the start is showing its limits.

Understanding how the three main models differ — not in theory but in how decisions get made and how information gets retained — makes it easier to recognize when a model is working and when it isn’t.

Printer-led: direct, focused, limited in scope

In a printer-led model, a brand works directly with one or more manufacturing partners. The relationship is typically job-based — a spec goes in, finished materials come out. The printer’s role is to run work efficiently on the equipment they own and deliver it on time.

This model works well when needs are consistent and conditions are stable. A capable printer executes reliably, responds quickly within their operation, and solves problems they can control. Most emerging brands start here, and for straightforward programs it’s entirely adequate.

The limits appear when conditions change. Volumes shift. A new fulfillment center opens in a different region. A job that made sense on one press needs to move to a different process or a different vendor. At that point the brand is managing the transition itself — carrying the spec history, the material approvals, the production context — because that information lived in the relationship, not in a system.

Printers invest capital in equipment, not in client-facing coordination tools. A printer who serves dozens of accounts across multiple categories has limited incentive to build the infrastructure that would help a single brand manage its program history. That’s not a criticism — it’s a structural reality of how the manufacturing side of print works.

Broker-led: more coordination, same information problem

In a broker-led model, a brand works with an intermediary who coordinates production through a network of manufacturing partners. The broker doesn’t own equipment. Their value comes from relationships, category knowledge, and familiarity with how different printers operate.

For brands that are managing print alongside a dozen other operational priorities, this model is appealing. The broker handles the back-and-forth, compares options, keeps work moving. A broker who knows a program well can provide real continuity from job to job.

The structural limitation is the same as the printer-led model, just one step removed. Context around specifications, revisions, material approvals, and past decisions lives with the broker — in their knowledge, their email, their memory of the account. When a broker contact changes, or when a brand moves to a different intermediary, that context has to be rebuilt. It isn’t organized in a form that transfers.

Growing brands often move from printer-led to broker-led as their programs get more complex and internal bandwidth gets thinner. The coordination improves. The information problem doesn’t.

Managed print services: centralized control, delegated visibility

In a managed print services model, a brand places some or all of its print SKUs under a contractual arrangement with a single service provider. The provider assumes authority for how work is specified, sourced, and produced across the program. Decisions about vendors, production routing, and repeat ordering are made by the provider, not by individual brand teams.

These arrangements are typically tied to explicit savings commitments. Print is treated as a managed spend category and the provider is accountable for hitting cost targets. How those targets are achieved — including changes in suppliers, locations, or production approaches — is generally left to the provider’s discretion.

Most managed print services offer reporting tools oriented toward oversight of the service relationship: spend summaries, service level performance, contract compliance. What they typically don’t offer is operational visibility into individual projects and production decisions at the level a brand team would need to answer a specific question about a specific item.

In this model, print is centralized and the coordination burden is largely lifted from internal teams. The tradeoff is that visibility into how and why things change over time depends on what the provider chooses to share, rather than on a system the brand can access directly.

This model is more common at larger, more mature organizations with the procurement infrastructure to manage a complex service relationship. It’s worth understanding as a category because the expectations it creates — consolidated reporting, program-level visibility, accountability across suppliers — are reasonable expectations regardless of what model a brand uses.



Why model choice is becoming more consequential

Print has always required coordination. What’s changing is the expectation that decisions can be revisited, explained, and reported on over time.

Sustainability and materials reporting requirements exist in some jurisdictions today and are expanding. Extended Producer Responsibility legislation requires brands to account for what they place into market — by material type, weight, quantity, and jurisdiction. Meeting those requirements means going back to printers, packaging suppliers, and logistics partners for specific product data: substrates, coatings, adhesives, component weights, production volumes, shipment destinations.

Knowing what was produced is only part of the picture. Understanding where those materials went — and being able to trace and compare decisions across programs and over time — is equally necessary.

That information is currently distributed across systems and partners in most print programs, regardless of which model a brand uses. Bringing it together requires more than summary totals. It requires that specifications, materials decisions, and production history were retained in a form that can actually be retrieved.

Other segments of print have faced this kind of shift before. Regulatory changes in financial printing required firms to move from paper-based disclosure to structured digital reporting. Well-capitalized financial printers built the systems to support it. The print and packaging industry is far more fragmented, and that adaptation is happening unevenly.

As reporting expectations increase, the brands best positioned to meet them will be those whose print programs have been managed in a way that retains context — not just what was produced, but why decisions were made, what materials were used, and where everything ultimately went.

That’s a reasonable standard to hold any print management model to, whether the brand is managing print directly, through an intermediary, or under a managed services arrangement.

Protecting a product doesn’t stop at the box. By the time it lands at your doorstep, it’s been lifted, moved, and kept in motion by countless invisible hands. In an ever-connected world relying heavily on muscular supply chains, it’s no secret that humans and robots are working side by side, as trucks rumble and air routes fill with more than 60 million packages crossing the U.S. every single day.

One energetic company is stepping back to consider this interconnected system spanning people, automation, and goods from a bird’s-eye view. By focusing on everyday paper-based materials, such as bubble wrap, crinkled shred, and air pillows, Sustnbl wants to make it easier for more businesses to make the switch while meeting the needs of those who lift heavy objects on warehouse floors. Excessive lifting can quickly cause back injuries, and wearable technologies like exosuits improve worker safety by reducing the stress of repeated motion on the body. Sustnbl founder Lev Girshfeld shares his candid views on sustainability and greenwashing, viral marketing ideas, and the overlooked details that keep packaging operations running smoothly.

In a few sentences, how would you describe what you do at Sustnbl?
At its core, we place ourselves as a sustainability solutions provider. Packaging is our primary focus, everything inside the box, outside the box, and even beyond the pallet. We specialize in paper-based, bio-based, and PCR materials. So when a brand comes to us looking to lower CO₂ emissions or eliminate plastic, we help them find a more sustainable alternative that still protects the product. 

I am curious about your offer. You describe Sustnbl as a holistic system. Beyond greener packaging, you also pay attention to workforce efficiency. How do these areas align?
I’m glad you picked up on that. Protecting a product isn’t just about the box—it’s also about how people interact with it. Take a warehouse with 100 packers, all using the same packaging material. Even if we introduce a sustainable option—say, paper air pillows or paper bubble wrap—the way those workers handle the material directly affects how the product arrives to the customer. Packing is physically demanding work. Someone lifting boxes for eight hours a day is going to feel it. That’s where workforce solutions come in. We offer exosuits, wearable technology that reduces physical strain by about 50%. If workers feel better at the end of the day, they make fewer mistakes, there’s less injury, and the overall operation runs more smoothly. Sustainability isn’t just materials. It’s people, process, and product working together.



Right now we’re seeing a huge spike in humanoid robots. Do you think robots will replace humans in packaging any time soon?
There are definitely applications where robots make sense. But I don’t believe they’ll fully replace humans, at least not yet. Not every company has the space, infrastructure, or capital for automation, and robots still lack the dexterity humans have. I saw this firsthand at a facility with six packing stations run by people, right next to six robotic stations. The humans packed faster, by a lot. A task that took them 45 seconds took the robot three minutes. Why? The packers had done it thousands of times. They knew exactly how to move around the pallet. Machines operate within parameters someone programs. Humans adapt instinctively. They see more than we give them credit for.

You’re open to working with everyone from small shops to large-scale operations. What changes when you’re supporting a brand shipping 50 orders versus 50,000?
Our approach doesn’t really change in terms of care or problem-solving. We always focus on finding the best solution for the application, regardless of size. What does change is the backend. Larger operations need more ongoing maintenance and support. When you’re shipping 2,000 orders a day, every day, equipment uptime matters. But the core conversation is the same: “This is what we’re using now. We want to make a change. Will this work with our product?”

Sustainable options are often perceived as more expensive.

How do you address that hesitation?
We position sustainability as a decision change, and change is expensive. If you switch materials, you might need new equipment. You might need to retrain packers. But what you gain is often overlooked. Packaging becomes a marketing touchpoint. When someone opens the box and sees thoughtful, sustainable materials, there’s an emotional response: “I love this brand. They care.” That translates into loyalty, word of mouth, and often a higher company valuation. Yes, paper can cost more upfront. But what are you getting in return? Less spend on marketing. More brand equity. A bigger market share.



How competitive is the paper-based packaging distribution space?
There are a few distributors in the US with similar sustainability goals, but many focus heavily on custom materials. Our focus is different. We concentrate on day-to-day consumables, bubble wrap, void fill, the materials used at scale, every single day. The void fill and bubble wrap market alone is a billion-dollar industry. Our thinking is: if we can change the everyday materials, we can make the biggest impact. Custom solutions can come later.

Your branding feels like a clear break from traditional companies in the packaging business. Was that intentional?
Absolutely. The new generation of purchasers lives on their phones. You have about eight seconds to make an impression. When people see our products, there’s often an aha moment, “I’ve never seen this before.” That reaction matters. People feel good about the decision they’re making. They feel good about the material, the brand, and the impact.



Can you recall a moment when this sentiment really came to life in concrete situations?
Yes, at Pack Expo in Chicago. It’s a very corporate environment. Suits, handshakes, the whole thing. We got a tiny booth and on the back of it we put a big sign that said: “Fuck plastic.” We were trying to be bold and have fun. And the reactions told us everything. Big companies stopped by and remembered us. That’s when we knew: we’re onto something.



Looking ahead, what innovations in materials or logistics excite you most?
I’ve always been fascinated by mushroom-based packaging—mycelium. I think it has huge potential, especially for luxury brands that need molded, high-end presentation. Many of these companies are Europe-based right now, mainly because production infrastructure is still developing. Another company we work with is Releaf. They make paper from fallen leaves. It’s an incredible concept. They’re based in France, originally Ukrainian, and I think they’d do incredibly well in the US. We have leaves everywhere—entire systems built just to blow them away.

Finally, what’s the biggest misconception brands have about sustainable packaging?
People often compare plastic and paper directly, expecting similar cost and performance. But it’s really apples to oranges. They have different material properties, different use cases, and different impacts. Paper may sometimes be more expensive, but it’s often more impactful. There’s also a lack of understanding around how paper and plant-based materials are made and where they come from. Plastic feels abundant. Paper feels abundant too, but that doesn’t mean it’s everywhere. 

Across most organizations, print and packaging sit at an odd intersection. They touch supply chain, marketing, operations, and compliance, but they don’t clearly belong to any one system or team. Work gets done, orders ship, and problems are handled as they come up — often without much expectation that decisions will need to be revisited later.

At the same time, many organizations are trying to bring more structure and visibility to how work moves across their supply chains. Inventory, transportation, and fulfillment are increasingly managed through shared systems that make it easier to see what’s happening, spot issues early, and coordinate across teams.

Print and packaging have largely been managed differently.

Why Print Sits Outside Most Control-Tower Views

Print is not a single function or workflow. It spans commercial print, packaging, labels, inserts, kits, and branded merchandise — and, in many cases, packaging as well — much of which is sourced and manufactured overseas and involves its own materials, components, and distribution paths. These programs are often managed by different internal teams, sourced through different suppliers, and produced on different timelines.

Historically, print has been treated as work with a clear start and end. A request is made, a job is produced, and once it ships, the work is considered complete. Success is measured by cost, quality, and timing for that specific order, not by whether decisions or data will need to be referenced later.

That framing made sense when print was evaluated primarily as an execution task rather than an information domain.

As a result, the details that shape print programs — specifications, material choices, component decisions, revisions, substitutions, and shipping instructions — are typically distributed across emails, files, vendor portals, and individual experience. Continuity exists, but it lives with people rather than inside shared infrastructure.

As a result, print has rarely been set up to carry its own history forward in a consistent, system-level way.

How Control-Tower Frameworks Define Visibility

Gartner describes control-tower approaches as a way to achieve end-to-end visibility across multiple supply-chain domains, allowing organizations to detect issues early and coordinate responses across teams.

A core assumption in this model is domain-specific visibility. Control-tower approaches do not replace the systems that manage individual functions. They depend on those systems to provide clean, consistent information that can be pulled together and reviewed at a higher level.

Those functions are typically managed through systems such as ERP platforms, transportation management systems, warehouse management systems, and planning tools — all of which generate structured data as part of day-to-day operations.

For this approach to work, each domain needs to be able to answer a basic set of questions reliably:

• What was produced?
• To what specification?
• In what quantity?
• Where did it go?
• Under what requirements or conditions?

These are the same questions organizations expect to answer in any operational domain. Print is not unusual in the questions it raises — it is unusual in how hard those answers are to retrieve.

Accountability Is Expanding Beyond Production

Emerging sustainability and reporting requirements are changing what organizations need from print and packaging.

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) regulations and other materials-based reporting obligations require brands to account for what they place into the market — not just finished items, but the materials and components that make them up, the quantities produced at each level, and the jurisdictions into which those materials are shipped.

This information already exists across the print and packaging ecosystem, but it is rarely captured in a consistent way that can be carried forward. Retrieving it often depends on institutional memory, manual follow-ups, and vendor-by-vendor clarification, especially as internal roles change.

In practice, this reconstruction work falls to the brand. Information has to be pulled from suppliers, reconciled across formats, and organized into a coherent reporting response — often under time pressure and without a shared system to rely on.

A Parallel from Financial Reporting

A similar shift played out over time in U.S. public-company reporting. Financial disclosure moved from paper filings to electronic submission, and later to structured formats designed to make data cleaner, more comparable, and easier to analyze. Each step increased transparency, but also increased the amount of information companies were expected to manage and stand behind.

When structured reporting formats such as XBRL were introduced under the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, reporting changed from a largely automated output of an approved document into a separate, time-consuming process that required additional work and careful verification.

The introduction of modern reporting platforms — most notably Workiva — addressed that shift by treating reporting as an information problem rather than an added production task. The opportunity existed because the incumbent, production-led model was not designed to meet the new requirement, and extending it through manual steps proved unsustainable as expectations increased.

The Visibility Question for Print

As organizations mature their control-tower approaches, print and packaging present a practical challenge.

These frameworks rely on domains being able to describe their activity in consistent, retrievable terms. They cannot infer what they are not given. If specifications, material data, component details, and shipping context are not retained in a usable form, print remains opaque — even as expectations for accountability increase.

This is not a failure of printers, brokers, or managed print services. These operating models were built to get work produced and delivered, not to function as long-term systems of record.

But as reporting, sustainability, and cross-functional coordination become standard operating requirements, that distinction matters.

What It Means Going Forward

Print and packaging will always involve physical production, lead times, and real-world limits that software cannot eliminate. They are unlikely to behave like real-time digital domains.

What is changing is the expectation that print be legible — meaning specifications, materials, components, quantities, and distribution decisions can be retrieved, understood, and reconciled over time, rather than reconstructed after the fact.

What is becoming clear is that, as organizations scale, print cannot indefinitely sit outside the systems they rely on to understand how they operate.

Flyleaf

A few years ago, Casper Sleep was managing print materials across multiple fulfillment centers with several partners ordering independently. The default was Print-on-Demand — one-off, small-quantity orders placed as needed. It offered flexibility but came with high unit costs and long lead times. When demand spiked or shifted across facilities, the model couldn’t keep up.

The transition to a Fulfillment-on-Demand approach changed the equation. Production consolidated into larger, more efficient runs. Materials were warehoused near key fulfillment centers. A structured call-off system replaced the reactive one-off orders. Unit costs came down, turnaround improved, and the team had real visibility into what was where.

That shift — from reactive to coordinated — is the central challenge of managing print across multiple fulfillment centers. It doesn’t happen automatically as brands scale. It has to be built deliberately.

The sourcing decision nobody tells you about

Most brands choose their first printer based on proximity — near headquarters or the first fulfillment center. That works early. It stops working when a second or third location comes online.

A brand with its original FC in New Jersey and production coordinated on the East Coast faces a real decision when it expands to Los Angeles. Keep production in one place and absorb cross-country freight. Relocate to a central hub. Or move to a distributed model with regional production. Each choice has a different cost profile — and freight is only part of it.

For brands that are particular about color accuracy or branded finishes, distributed production adds significant complexity. Matching brand colors precisely across multiple print sites is difficult even with careful color management. One approach is to consolidate production in the region where the majority of volume ships, accepting higher freight costs on a smaller portion of demand in exchange for consistency. There’s no universal formula. The right answer depends on where demand originates, how much volume flexibility vendors can offer, and how much brand consistency matters relative to cost.

Print-on-Demand vs. Fulfillment-on-Demand

The Casper situation illustrates a pattern that plays out at many scaling brands. PoD works in early stages — low commitment, high flexibility, no warehousing required. The unit economics are poor but the operational overhead is low, and when volumes are small that tradeoff is acceptable.

As volume grows and fulfillment centers multiply, the tradeoffs shift. Demand spikes in one region can outpace production capacity. Lead times that were manageable at low volume become critical path issues at scale. The per-unit cost gap between PoD and larger consolidated runs becomes harder to justify.

FoD requires more upfront coordination — larger production commitments, warehousing near key facilities, a call-off process for releasing inventory as needed. But it delivers better unit economics, faster response when demand shifts, and meaningful visibility into where materials are and when they’ll be needed. For most brands past early stage, it’s the more sustainable model.

Knowing what’s needed, where, and when 

Managing print across multiple FCs isn’t only a sourcing and production problem. It’s an information problem.

The core products flowing through a supply chain are typically well tracked. The supporting print materials — inserts, outer cartons, labels, branded components — are often managed separately, inconsistently, or not at all until something runs out. That creates risk at exactly the moment it’s least manageable: when a facility needs materials and the lead time to replenish is longer than the time available.

What helps is clarity on which materials tie to which SKUs, which facilities they’re assigned to, and what the realistic lead times are for each. That information doesn’t require a sophisticated system to be useful. What it requires is that someone is actively maintaining it and treating print materials with the same planning discipline applied to core inventory.

A print coordinator tracking weeks-of-coverage per FC, flagging items that haven’t been reordered in longer than expected, and factoring in upcoming artwork or claim changes before a reorder — that kind of active management prevents most of the surprises that scaling brands run into.

Aligning production with distribution

The lowest per-unit print price is rarely the most cost-effective choice when freight, lead times, and brand requirements are factored in.

A brand with seven fulfillment centers — the majority of volume on the East Coast, the remainder spread across the Midwest and West Coast — found that producing in the Midwest offered attractive unit costs but required long-distance freight for most finished goods. Producing on the East Coast created more efficient lanes for the bulk of demand, with only a small portion of volume exposed to higher freight costs. The math favored regional concentration even at a higher unit price.

The right production footprint follows the demand footprint. Where does most of the volume ship? Where are the lead time pressures most acute? Which facilities can least afford a stockout? These questions should shape the sourcing decision as much as the price per thousand.

What coordination actually looks like

The operational decisions above — sourcing footprint, production model, inventory discipline — don’t manage themselves. They require someone watching the signals, asking the right questions, and adjusting when conditions change.

At Flyleaf, that’s the work. Monitoring order activity across facilities. Flagging items that look like they’re drifting toward a shortfall. Asking whether a reorder makes sense now or whether an upcoming artwork change makes it worth waiting. Staying close enough to a brand’s supply chain reality to anticipate problems before they become schedule disruptions.

Print coordination at scale isn’t complicated in theory. In practice it requires consistent attention across a lot of moving parts — and the discipline to treat print materials with the same seriousness as everything else moving through the supply chain.

You may have heard a lot about flexible packaging, but many are not entirely sure what the term actually means. In its most basic form, flexible packaging is any package or part of a package whose shape can readily be changed when filled or during use. Think about everything you have in your pantry, bathroom or garage that comes in a resealable, crinkly packaging: from laundry detergent pods to dish soap to snacks to motor oil. Flexible packaging is becoming more common not only because it saves space in cabinets and drawers, but also because refillable pouches typically use less plastic than rigid containers. Flexible packaging expert Christine Barrington has had a front-row seat to that evolution. Here, she shares what people get wrong, what trends are reshaping the field, and the clever ideas (and machines) that hint at where flexible packaging is headed next.

From your vantage point, what are the biggest misconceptions people still have about flexible packaging, and what do you wish more teams understood?

I do a lot of posting about flexible packaging on LinkedIn, and I sometimes get pushback from folks saying it’s not sustainable. And yes, I get where that comes from – it’s frequently used for single-use applications, and mixed-material plastics can’t be recycled. All of that is true, but it leaves out a huge part of the story. Up until the moment flexible packaging is discarded, it’s actually more sustainable than many alternatives. It takes far less energy to produce than cartons or rigid containers, and because it’s lightweight, it cuts transport emissions at every stage: from our plant, to the manufacturing facility, then to a warehouse, and then to a retail shop. It can also significantly extend the shelf life of our food, leading to reduced food waste. Think about potato chips. Without that high-barrier metallized BOPP bag, and instead in, say, a kraft paper lunch bag, those chips would go stale fast. The barrier properties in flexible packaging are what keep products fresh. This is a significant advantage despite challenges in the US recycling infrastructure. In this category, we need investment in infrastructure and innovation. Flexible packaging doesn’t need to go away. It just needs advancement in circularity. 

It is an area that has evolved dramatically over the last decade. What changes have surprised you most?

If you were to look back 10-15 years ago, digital printing in flexible packaging wasn’t really a thing. It was only with the introduction of the HP20,000 digital printing press that you’d begin to see small to medium-sized businesses with flexible packaging looking just as good as the leading big brands. Before digital printing, brands would have to spend  $10,000 –  $15,000 to make custom printed flexible packaging; now they can do it with a fraction of the investment. 

Which brands do you think are exemplary in how they leverage flexible packaging — either through format, functionality, or how it supports the broader customer experience?

I specialize in digital printing in the cannabis industry, which is all about SKU proliferation. A lot of brands in that space still rely on rigid containers, especially for flower, but I’m seeing more companies transition to flexible pouches instead. I’ve seen some companies switching from rigid containers to pouches – a rigid container might weigh 28 grams, where a pouch would weigh closer to 5 grams. The one study I did reduced the plastic consumption by about 85%. When you’re able to eliminate plastic from the waste stream while lowering the overall packaging cost, it’s a win-win. 

Two jobs. Two long-term clients. Both involving brand-new items. Specs lined up, vendors sourced, deposits made, production locked in. Then the changes came.

One client decided they preferred Tyvek labels sheeted and packed in stacks rather than finished on rolls. Another asked that an insert previously held in die-cut slits be secured with a glue dot instead. Small requests on paper. In both cases they significantly disrupted the production plan. Costs shifted. Timelines stretched. One line item — roll vs. sheet, glue dot vs. no glue dot — made a measurable impact on jobs that had already been set in motion.

The clients never felt the fallout. But if they had been managing it directly, they would have. That’s the reality of print: it can be unforgiving, especially when you’re moving fast.

The price you get isn’t just about the job — it’s about the fit

Clear specifications are the baseline. Without them, pricing is meaningless — ask for “labels” without specifying substrate, finish, adhesive, liner, and unwind direction, and two vendors will quote two completely different things. But even with perfect specs, pricing can vary in ways that have nothing to do with the spec itself.

The same job, identically specified, recently came back at $0.07 per unit from one vendor and $0.27 from another. The difference wasn’t materials. It was fit. The higher-priced vendor’s equipment wasn’t set up efficiently for that run. The die-cutting wasn’t inline. The job would have required shutting down another line to accommodate it. Some vendors will tell you directly that a job isn’t a good fit for them. Others quote it anyway — at a price that takes them out of contention — because declining feels worse than submitting an unusable number.

What you’re pricing when you request a quote isn’t just ink and substrate. You’re pricing someone’s operational efficiency — their capacity, their tooling, their current schedule. Those variables are invisible in the quote. They show up in the number.

What a small change costs

The spec change examples from above aren’t unusual. They’re representative of a dynamic that plays out regularly in print: a change that seems minor to the person requesting it requires a vendor to reprice, reorder components, or restructure how the job runs through their facility.

Roll vs. sheet changes how a job is finished and packed out. A glue dot added after tooling is set may require a separate production step. A different board grade on a folding carton can change which press the job runs on and whether the die-cutting is inline or offline. Each of these is a contained problem in isolation. Each becomes a cost and timeline consequence when it arrives after production has been set in motion.

The difficult part isn’t that changes happen — they do, on almost every job. The difficult part is that the production implications of a given change aren’t visible to someone who doesn’t know how that job runs through a specific vendor’s facility. A request that looks like a minor adjustment from the outside can look very different from the production floor.

What being in the market constantly means

If you’re managing print on top of everything else, you’re quoting once per launch cycle — maybe once a quarter. You don’t have a pricing history to compare against. You can’t tell whether the quote you received is reasonable, high, or structured in a way that will cause problems when the job actually runs.

The pattern only becomes visible with enough repetition. Which quotes signal a poor vendor fit before production starts. Which spec changes carry real production risk and which ones are genuinely minor. Which variables are worth asking about before a job is locked rather than after.

The variables that determine whether a print job runs cleanly are largely invisible to someone who encounters them occasionally. That’s not a flaw in how print works — it’s just a side effect of how specialized and opaque the system is. Knowing which questions to ask, and when to ask them, is almost entirely a function of how much time you’ve spent inside it.

When you hear the phrase “full color printing,” what it really means is process color printing — using the CMYK color model: Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, and Black. These four inks are layered in tiny dots to simulate a broad spectrum of colors. It’s a remarkably efficient system — but not limitless.

The following article will help explain what full color means, how it differs from spot colors and when it should be used while preparing your artwork for commercial printing. 

Full Color Printing: CMYK in Action

Full color (also called 4-color process printing) uses the four ink bases — Cyan (C), Magenta (M), Yellow (Y), and Black (K) to create a wide range of colors through overlapping dots. All colors are printed at the same time in varying combinations, which makes it ideal for photographs, gradients, or complex multi-color designs.

Think of it as a sophisticated mix: by adjusting how much of each ink is applied, printers simulate thousands of tones. But “full color” has its limits — bright neons, deep blues, or metallics may not reproduce perfectly because CMYK can’t capture every hue the human eye or an RGB screen can display.

Useful info about full-color printing:

• Also known as 4-color process, process printing, or CMYK printing
• Typically used for catalogs, business cards, labels, stickers, and photo-heavy content materials
• Best for designs that include many colors or subtle shading
• Usually produced via digital or offset printing

Spot Color Printing (Pantone or PMS)

Spot color printing uses pre-mixed inks, often Pantone or PMS colors, applied one at a time — one color, one plate, one layer. Each color is printed separately, meaning your design will require a unique printing plate per ink color.

For example, a two-color design might use one lighter shade applied first, followed by a darker ink to add depth and contrast. This method is especially common in branded packaging, where color accuracy and sharp registration are key.

Useful info about spot color printing:

• Ideal for 1, 2, or 3 color designs
• Each color requires a separate plate
• Offers more consistent and accurate color thanks to pre-mixed inks
• Can be more cost-effective than full-color printing for simple artwork
• Compatible with a variety of eco-friendly paper stocks

So Which Should You Choose?

If your design relies on photographs, gradients, or more than four colors — full color is the way to go. But if you need exact brand colors, clean logos, or simple graphics — spot color printing will deliver sharper, more predictable results (and may save you money).

“Full color” might sound like the ultimate option, but it’s really a smart balance between science and illusion. Understanding the difference between spot and process color printing helps you design smarter, manage costs, and ensure your brand looks exactly as intended — on every bag, label, and page.

Navigating The Cultural Shifts of the Modern Workplace

In today’s teams, responsibilities shift fast. Priorities change. Resources get pulled. And suddenly, you’re leading a project you didn’t plan for — often without clear direction or support. It’s a scary term: print management. Or print service management.

Print tends to be one of those projects that floats — it’s important, but no one’s quite sure who owns it. It’s complex, deadline-driven, and specialized enough to feel outside most people’s comfort zones. So when it finally demands attention, it often ends up with someone who’s already juggling a dozen other things.

This kind of scenario happens often enough that Gartner coined a name for it: the accidental project owner. Someone who inherits a critical initiative not through planning, but proximity. Print is a textbook case.

Good News: You’re not alone

We’ve worked with plenty of people in that same moment — suddenly responsible for a print project they didn’t ask for, trying to get it right without much guidance.

At first glance, it might seem straightforward. But the reality is, there’s usually more coordination involved than expected. Timelines can be tight. Specs aren’t always clear. And getting a clean outcome means managing details across different teams and vendors — often with little room for mistakes.

At that point, what you’re managing isn’t just a checklist. It’s a job to be done — a way to make meaningful progress in a situation that wasn’t handed to you with instructions. You’re not just producing print — you’re keeping things on track, showing reliability, and building confidence in how you work.

The Real Job Behind the Job

From the outside, it might look like you’re just coordinating a brochure or getting labels printed. But if you’ve ever had a call on a Friday night from someone in panic because a truck’s about to leave without what it needs — you know this isn’t just print.

In the Jobs to Be Done theory (coined by Clayton Christensen), people don’t just complete tasks — they “hire” solutions to make progress in their lives or work. So while it may seem like you’re managing a one-off project, what you’re actually trying to do is much bigger:

• Keep the supply chain moving. A missed delivery doesn’t just delay a campaign — it can stall product shipments, frustrate operations teams, and damage customer trust. When Reno’s fulfillment center is waiting on subscription collateral or a truckload of mattresses is held up over a missing label, print becomes the bottleneck. You’re trying to avoid that.
• Earn trust and credibility. You didn’t ask for this project — but how you handle it might shape how leadership and cross-functional partners see you. Pull it off, and people remember.
• Avoid rinse-and-repeat chaos. If print’s done sloppily, you’ll be back at square one next month fixing preventable errors. You’re trying to build something sustainable.
• Prove you can manage messy work. Print is rarely neat. You’re navigating ambiguity, tight timelines, scattered information, and a process that doesn’t run itself. Being the person who can pull it off — even without a blueprint — matters.