In-Plant versus Ooops

To err is human, to really screw things up takes a committee.

Or, in this case, a Corporation.

R R Donnelley Screws up a job for Google, as reported by In-Plant Graphics. And they point out that an external company has to ultimately answer to their own shareholders more so than to the clients they are printing for.

Not sure if this qualifies as a full point for the In-Plant Team, but I know every In-Plant manager out there is making a copy of this story to put in their files.

Printer refuses to publish Legacy mag - News - The Daily Reveille - Louisiana State University

Printer refuses to publish Legacy mag - News - The Daily Reveille - Louisiana State University

Saw this article today about a printing company in Alabama refusing to publish the college magazine because some of the content was objectionable to the staff and leaders of the printing company.

It makes for an interesting question....

How much influence does, or should, the printer have in the process?

For many, many years now 'the Printer' has been trying to climb up higher into the decision making process and doing so under the guise of collaboration. Don't get me wrong, that is a good thing! By getting into 'the game' sooner the printer can help the client get a better project, sooner, and hopefully at a lesser cost by being able to steer the client away from costly mistakes.

The Printer in the article above is claiming Religious and Moral objections to the content of the magazine. Which is fine, it is their company after all.

But!

The Printer signed a contract to provide print services for a certain number of issues and, according to the client, had nothing in the contract indicating that the Printer could refuse work because of the content.

Its a tough one.