Interesting facts on paper quality (hint for a certain publisher)

[Jukka Juutinen]

And if the budget is limited, far better way to cut paper related costs would be to cut the amount needed, i.e. less pages per book. And in Classic´s books there are plenty of opportunities ranging from better font to eliminating the excessive blank spaces.

[Ruy Horta]

Originally Posted by Jukka Juutinen

And if the budget is limited, far better way to cut paper related costs would be to cut the amount needed, i.e. less pages per book. And in Classic´s books there are plenty of opportunities ranging from better font to eliminating the excessive blank spaces.

You are at risk of not being taken serious if you continue this diatribe against Classic, who you only recently accused of printing books that were too thin.

1. paper not glossy
2. books too thin
3. not technical enough
4. etc

The list goes on, to me it appears to be a classic case of axe grinding.

Take it up with Ian Allan / Classic if you feel so strong about this issue.

[John Vasco]

Jukka,

You did'nt answer the question posed in my first sentence. The simple legal tenet of: "He who asserts must prove" applies here. Show the financial facts, or, quite simply, don't bother to post such vague allegations in the first place.

"And if the budget is limited, far better way to cut paper related costs would be to cut the amount needed, i.e. less pages per book." I have to say that this sentence appears to show a limited knowledge of the whole end-to-end printing process.


"Or maybe the UK is a place where everything is the opposite of the rest of the world." This kind of garbage is demeaning to UK residents. I don't know where you are from, or where you live, but I would never demean you or your country the way you have demeaned my country.

[Jukka Juutinen]

John, what more can you need? I won´t name the publisher I received the info from a couple of days ago via one of the authors working for that publisher.

As the above info was corroborated by with 100% by two Finnish publishers, all I can say is that the UK must be a different world. Or maybe not. After all, e.g. Hikoki and Midland are British publishers and they use glossy paper.

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by Jukka Juutinen

John, what more can you need? I won´t name the publisher I received the info from a couple of days ago via one of the authors working for that publisher.

As the above info was corroborated by with 100% by two Finnish publishers, all I can say is that the UK must be a different world. Or maybe not. After all, e.g. Hikoki and Midland are British publishers and they use glossy paper.

Ok, Jukka, let's get down to specifics. I'm not interested in the name of the publisher. Give me the financial figures that you claim result in a one dollar difference.
Give me:
a) number of pages;
b) black and white photo content;
c) colour photo content (if any);
d) coloured artwork content;
e) print run (and run-on costs, if relevant);
f) size of company (ie., number of staff);
g) staff costs in the preparation of the book as a total percentage of the book's budget;
h) publicity costs;
i) whether any part of the publishing process is sub-contracted, ie. proof reading, and if so, the percentage cost against the book's budget;
j) discount rate to outlets/retailers;
k) discount rates to direct sales customers;
l) author's royalties;
m) storage costs (if remote storage is used);

I don't claim the above list is exhaustive, and I'm not trying to be clever in outlining all of the above, but it gives you some idea of what is involved in the publishing process carried out by a reasonably sized company. What you have to bear in mind also, is that the unit costs varies proportionally to the size of the print run. So, the unit cost for a 1,000 print run is far removed from the unit cost for a 10,000 print run. And the margins in the unit cost between top quality paper used and lesser quality paper also necessarily vary according to the print run. If the publisher has its own printing works (After The Battle) then it's a diffent matter again. Another factor to consider is that the publisher pays for any waste that occurs as a result of the printing process. Printers usually print pages in multiples of 8 or 16 pages. If the final page count falls between those two figures as a multiple, then the cost for the whole printing process still fall on the publisher. That means in some instances publishers pay for thousands of half-sheets unprinted to be simply 'binned'. Publishing is not a simple process. We should all give thanks for the fact that the volume of works in print is as large as it is for the subject that is our interest.

Jukka, in my opinion you are vitriolic in what you state, and selective in what you reply to. I acknowledge your right to submit your views to this board, and to support them in the ensuing discussion. However, I do think you need to take a more even-handed approach to subjects on the board, and acknowledge that other posters do have valid points, rather than totally ignore points to which you have no answer.

[Richard T. Eger]

Good grief guys,

You all attacking Jukka are taking yourselves way too seriously and, I'm afraid, acting a bit absurd.

Like Jukka, I prefer glossy over matte and, also like Jukka, have decried the quality of Classic printing, but, no one seemed to listen, so I didn't see the point of publicly harping on it. But, we all know that the squeaky wheel is the one that gets oiled and, if enough Jukka's say that they want better quality, they might eventually be heard. Or, maybe it is competition from the Far East, which has been ahead of the rest of the world for ages. Just think Monogram. So, why, after all this time, did Ian Allan recently install a world class printing press?

Ruy, you missed Jukka's point about fewer pages. He wasn't saying cut the content, but rather cut the blank space so that more is printed on each page and thus fewer pages are needed. Classic does use a rather large amount of blank space.

John, so he pokes fun a bit at the British. Get a life!! We here in the Colonies can take a bit of ribbing, too.

And, John, your demand for literally how much the publisher spends on toilet paper is ridiculous. It is a straight paper cost comparison. Oh, maybe glossy paper might absorb a different amount of ink, so ink cost might be slightly affected. But anything else is a constant and thus irrelevant to cost differential determination, assuming that one doesn't have to purchase a new press to make it happen.

Franek, you seem to be inferring that, if a publisher does publish on glossy paper, he will only produce a photo album and that text = knowledge will simply shrivel away to nothingness. Pooh! If you would like to break your toe with a glossy book with a huge amount of text, just drop the English language version Schiffer book, Willy Messerschmitt: Pioneer of Aviation Design, from your desktop, aiming carefully. This monster runs 435 pages and is enormously heavy. When new in 1999, it was going for $49.95.

Now, Franek, it isn't unreasonable for a publisher to want to use high end printing where it will do the most good, i.e., with photos. So, yes, you are right that that is where a lot of emphasis will be placed. Franek and Ruy, take a look at Donald Nijboer's Cockpit: An Illustrated History of World War II Aircraft Interiors or Melvyn Hiscock's Hawker Hurricane: Inside and Out, then compare what you see in matte printing and let me know which one you think is better.

I guess I'm an equal opportunity offender, but, guys, don't act so darned defensively. Jukka has a valid point and should be respected for it, not ridiculed, as has happened here.

Regards,
Richard

[John Vasco]

Richard,

In reply to your comments, you tell me to get a life. Well Richard, I say to you go read all that Jukka has written in recent months. It has been in the main dismissive, negative, and with hardly any constructive criticism at all. His comment I took exception to was more than a little ribbing. See it for what it is. I can take piss-taking with the best, but his remark is beyond that. Wake up, Richard, to the fact that certain personalities on this board have a 'down' on certain nationalities, and certain companies, and seek to take a pop at them at every opportunity. Jukka's comment was a snide comment, and got the reply it deserved.

And it is perfectly reasonable for me to go to the lengths I did in my large post, simply because Jukka was making claims regarding comparative printing costs that he did not back up with hard facts. Or has 'political correctness' come so far in your eyes that I dare not challenge what he says, and dare not set out specifics regarding full costs in the publishing world.

You say in your last paragraph that Jukka has a valid point, and should be respected for it. Well, when challenged about his allegations he has come up with precisely nothing. I haven't ridiculed him, I have simply asked of him the tenet, "He who asserts must prove", and he has not provided any proof whatsoever regarding his claim to 'one dollar difference'.

Richard, you tell me to get a life? Take a reality check on this thread, and others, mate. Over time this board has been beset with people who are quite happy to castigate others, or make certain claims against others, or companies, that they have taken a particular dislike to. Go back and read the other topics/threads carefully, Richard.

"It is a straight paper cost comparison. Oh, maybe glossy paper might absorb a different amount of ink, so ink cost might be slightly affected. But anything else is a constant and thus irrelevant to cost differential determination, assuming that one doesn't have to purchase a new press to make it happen." This misses the point I was making totally. I was talking about the overall budget allocated to the production of a single book. Yes, finite budgets do apply in the publishing world. That's why I listed all the points that I did. You ignore that point completely. And that was the crux of my post. It is not a straight paper cost comparison. You are arguing from too simplistic a platform, and the danger is that others will come to believe that it is simply "...a straight paper cost comparison..." For a company the size of Ian Allen, who are the parent company of Classic as you know (but some others may not), ALL of those considerations I listed come into play. If they were not taken into account, they would soon be out of business due to having no structured financial business plan.

It is easy for someone like Jukka to criticise a company for not using the highest quality paper in their books at all times, and that is his right to speak his mind. But wait, this is a discussion board, so it is the right of others to challenge what he says, and ask for more information concerning what he asserts. Nothing unreasonable in that, Richard. Or is there? If there is, for the life of me I cannot see it.

And finally, you say that "You all attacking Jukka are taking yourselves way too seriously and, I'm afraid, acting a bit absurd.", and then you proceed to write a post that is every bit as serious as the ones you criticise. Hilarious! Additionally, where is the absurdity in what has been posted?

Richard, to quote your phrase, "Get a life!!"

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by Richard T. Eger

You all attacking Jukka are taking yourselves way too seriously and, I'm afraid, acting a bit absurd.

That's one interpretation, Richard!

I don't like much gloss paper or what I perceive as old-fashioned and cluttered layout designs. Would it be reasonable for me to post a complaint every time (plucking a publisher from the air) a new Schiffer book came out? Or would everyone get sick of reading it?

P.S. I also hate any attempt to evoke the Luftwaffe by using Gothic script but that's another story!

[Jukka Juutinen]

I took this up with Classic years ago. They did respond but with words (message), not with deeds (=fixing the problems). And Classic´s early advertizing promised books that were og of premium quality in all aspects, not just amount of photos. And they haven´t so far lived up to the very promises they made.

And if it helps, I think Osprey would need the better paper even more as the current paper is no good and in addition is so stiff as to stress the not too strong spine if the book is opened flat (necessary e.g. to view the New Vanguard series cutaway in full).