I have been getting a good deal of pressure to post my position on GRACoL G7, and have been holding off for one very simple reason. My comments will “go against the grain” as one fellow blogger put it. As one who was not involved in the process I feel that it would be somewhat counterproductive to take such a position. Which brings me to my point, why was I not involved in the process?
As a life long (adult life) student of marketing, I am very familiar with the concept of barriers to entry, and try to set them very high for anyone who chooses to play in my game (color measurement software). I think that in the professional world where one company is trying to win and to a certain extent must do so at the expense of another barriers to entry are a great thing.
Where I feel barriers to entry have no place is in the creation of industry wide standards. Let me illustrate with two examples. ColorMetrix is a dues paying member of NEPS (excellent organization providing exceptional benefits to members). As a small company our dues are a very reasonable and affordable $295/year. Payment of these dues gets us several high quality research reports each year AND membership on any CGATS group we wish to participate in. CGATS by extension provides access to ISO. It seems to me even a start-up company can afford $295/year.
Idealliance on the other hand, appears to have a minimum annual dues cost of $2,500. For a small company like ours, folks, this is a barrier to entry. Remember, this is like admission to the club; it just gets you in the front door. You still need to pay for all your own drinks. Or in the case of GRACoL all your own travel, etc. to the pressruns and any meetings being held. It is also not a one time fee, but an annual fee. I can maintain my membership in NPES for almost 10 years for that same $2,500.
This is a bit of a rant (which I have tried not to do here), but I can’t help but wonder if this barrier to entry is intentional. If you have never commented on a JimRaffel.com post…this would be the one.
We are talking about commercial offset printing; the environment is highly competitive, and exceptional quality is an important competitive advantage. Under that perspective, implementing a methodology (not merely buing a report), or being a member of a group that focuses on achieving high quality, should be expensive.
This is a possible explanation to the high cost.
I do not know if I agree. If implementing G7’s methodology achieves what it promises, it might well be a justifiable cost.
-D
We are talking about commercial offset printing; the environment is highly competitive, and exceptional quality is an important competitive advantage. Under that perspective, implementing a methodology (not merely buing a report), or being a member of a group that focuses on achieving high quality, should be expensive.
This is a possible explanation to the high cost.
I do not know if I agree. If implementing G7’s methodology achieves what it promises, it might well be a justifiable cost.
-D
Dimitri-Can the G7 methodology achieve high quality? It seems to me that the G7 methodology results in a lowest common denominator press curve. In other words, the ideal G7 curve that all participants aim for in the grey balance part of the methodology must be achievable by a large percentage of printing presses for the methodology to be widely accepted. So, if I am a very high quality high line screen or stochastic shop, and I adopt the G7 methodology might I actually be printing at a lower quality level?
Dimitri-Can the G7 methodology achieve high quality? It seems to me that the G7 methodology results in a lowest common denominator press curve. In other words, the ideal G7 curve that all participants aim for in the grey balance part of the methodology must be achievable by a large percentage of printing presses for the methodology to be widely accepted. So, if I am a very high quality high line screen or stochastic shop, and I adopt the G7 methodology might I actually be printing at a lower quality level?
I’m proponent of open standards and agree that there is a undesirable cost barrier to be part of an industry group that develops and promotes industry specifications — but that is what they are specifications not standards.
You could have joined the Print Across Borders mailing list and voiced any concerns you have with the G7 process or GRACoL. You would not of had official capacity to steer the direction of the GRACoL specification, you could have pointed out the pros and cons of the new method or pointed out any inadequacies. There has been lively discussions on the development of the new GRACoL methodology in which Don Hutcheson was actively involved on the list.
David McDowell is currently (it may have been released already) drafting a Technical Report: CGATS SC4 N 766 that analyzes the new GRACoL method. This report should get the discussion going within CGATS and ISO TC130.
I’m proponent of open standards and agree that there is a undesirable cost barrier to be part of an industry group that develops and promotes industry specifications — but that is what they are specifications not standards.
You could have joined the Print Across Borders mailing list and voiced any concerns you have with the G7 process or GRACoL. You would not of had official capacity to steer the direction of the GRACoL specification, you could have pointed out the pros and cons of the new method or pointed out any inadequacies. There has been lively discussions on the development of the new GRACoL methodology in which Don Hutcheson was actively involved on the list.
David McDowell is currently (it may have been released already) drafting a Technical Report: CGATS SC4 N 766 that analyzes the new GRACoL method. This report should get the discussion going within CGATS and ISO TC130.
Adam-I have actually attended a PAB meeting (last May in Chicago). As a guy who watched the CTTP e-mail forum become nothing more than a flame session, I choose to by and large no longer participate in e-mail forums. As for CGATS I participated in the meetings last month in Phoenix and will be at the meetings in Rochester in June. I have seen a draft of CGATS SC4 N 766 and look forward to seeing a more complete draft. For the record I support the point of view you state about standards on your linkedin profile.
Adam-I have actually attended a PAB meeting (last May in Chicago). As a guy who watched the CTTP e-mail forum become nothing more than a flame session, I choose to by and large no longer participate in e-mail forums. As for CGATS I participated in the meetings last month in Phoenix and will be at the meetings in Rochester in June. I have seen a draft of CGATS SC4 N 766 and look forward to seeing a more complete draft. For the record I support the point of view you state about standards on your linkedin profile.
Jim,
I think we easily forget that these organizations are also businesses. I did not due a thorough digging, but there didn’t seem to be any claim of not-for-profit status on the Idealliance site.
As the print industry is restaffed by younger folks who understand the internet, I think a lot of these old-style industry organizations are going to get clobbered to death as they lose their stranglehold on information.
So, the good news is that dues will likely be dropping 😉
Jim,
I think we easily forget that these organizations are also businesses. I did not due a thorough digging, but there didn’t seem to be any claim of not-for-profit status on the Idealliance site.
As the print industry is restaffed by younger folks who understand the internet, I think a lot of these old-style industry organizations are going to get clobbered to death as they lose their stranglehold on information.
So, the good news is that dues will likely be dropping 😉
Steve –
You are correct the strangle hold will have to change.
We need open print standards that can be implemented by anyone, without royalties or other restrictions. This will allow anyone to obtain and implement the standard. It will increase compatibility between processes.
We need to make new standards available to anyone with the necessary technical know-how and resources. They should be permitted to duplicate the process and change and publish new findings at their own will.
And most of all the intellectual property rights to the standard should be controlled by a not-for-profit organization, which operates a free access policy.
There should be no constraints on the re-use or modification of the standard.
Steve –
You are correct the strangle hold will have to change.
We need open print standards that can be implemented by anyone, without royalties or other restrictions. This will allow anyone to obtain and implement the standard. It will increase compatibility between processes.
We need to make new standards available to anyone with the necessary technical know-how and resources. They should be permitted to duplicate the process and change and publish new findings at their own will.
And most of all the intellectual property rights to the standard should be controlled by a not-for-profit organization, which operates a free access policy.
There should be no constraints on the re-use or modification of the standard.
Steve-Perhaps someone else knows the answer but I am almost positive that to be a .ORG as Idealliance is one has to prove non-profit status. Again I have been wrong many times in my life as my wife will confirm, but this I am pretty sure of. – Jim
Steve-Perhaps someone else knows the answer but I am almost positive that to be a .ORG as Idealliance is one has to prove non-profit status. Again I have been wrong many times in my life as my wife will confirm, but this I am pretty sure of. – Jim
There are no restrictions on the .ORG TLD. Anyone or any company can register a .ORG domain name.
See VIII. Differentiation of the .org TLD at http://www.icann.org/tlds/org/applications/organic/viii.html
If you read the IDEAlliance Bylaws you will see that the association is a Virginia Nonstock Corporation.
The Association is organized and shall be operated for such purposes permitted by the Articles of Incorporation and the Virginia Nonstock Corporation Act which are consistent with section 501(c) (6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended from time to time (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”).
IDEALLiance Bylaws: http://www.idealliance.org/about/bylaws&policies.asp
There are no restrictions on the .ORG TLD. Anyone or any company can register a .ORG domain name.
See VIII. Differentiation of the .org TLD at http://www.icann.org/tlds/org/applications/organic/viii.html
If you read the IDEAlliance Bylaws you will see that the association is a Virginia Nonstock Corporation.
The Association is organized and shall be operated for such purposes permitted by the Articles of Incorporation and the Virginia Nonstock Corporation Act which are consistent with section 501(c) (6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended from time to time (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”).
IDEALLiance Bylaws: http://www.idealliance.org/about/bylaws&policies.asp
I should also point out that I’m the proud owner of a .ORG domain — ColorInfo.org
I should also point out that I’m the proud owner of a .ORG domain — ColorInfo.org
In regards to the barriers to entry.
I have not seen any restrictions on the downloading or using of the GRACoL data or specification.
So the “We need open print standards that can be implemented by anyone, without royalties or other restrictions” doesn’t hold water. i mean, it makes sense and I agree, but it doesn’t apply in this case.
If you want to get involved with the standard and actually work in the working groups, go to the meetings, make your equipment available for testing, VOTE and control the spec. etc THEN it makes sense to join. (that kind of committment is also going to cost a lot more than the membership fees)
It also make sense to restrict the people who belong to the actual contributor / controller group so there aren’t a bunch of tire-kickers who simply slow the process down. $2500 is a fair amount of money but not too unreasonable for those who actually are players and want to help shape the industry.
From their website “IDEAlliance is a not-for-profit membership organization”
In response to “I think a lot of these old-style industry organizations are going to get clobbered to death as they lose their stranglehold on information.” – I think it is important to realize that the IDEALliance does not have a stangle-hold on the information and, in fact, their value to the industry is the shepherding of standards. They need dues to operate and so charging fees required to operate seems fair to me. This is a printing specification for businesses to operate and control. We are not talking about the average consumer here. Also IDEALliance is not only responsible for GRACoL they also have SWOP and a number of other things under their umbrella so buying a member ship gives you access to a number of different works-in-progress.
This in NO WAY means that the results of the work are not available, FREE for anyone who wants to download and implement them. The G7 training guide is up there, free, the press run data is up there, free.
Dale
In regards to the barriers to entry.
I have not seen any restrictions on the downloading or using of the GRACoL data or specification.
So the “We need open print standards that can be implemented by anyone, without royalties or other restrictions” doesn’t hold water. i mean, it makes sense and I agree, but it doesn’t apply in this case.
If you want to get involved with the standard and actually work in the working groups, go to the meetings, make your equipment available for testing, VOTE and control the spec. etc THEN it makes sense to join. (that kind of committment is also going to cost a lot more than the membership fees)
It also make sense to restrict the people who belong to the actual contributor / controller group so there aren’t a bunch of tire-kickers who simply slow the process down. $2500 is a fair amount of money but not too unreasonable for those who actually are players and want to help shape the industry.
From their website “IDEAlliance is a not-for-profit membership organization”
In response to “I think a lot of these old-style industry organizations are going to get clobbered to death as they lose their stranglehold on information.” – I think it is important to realize that the IDEALliance does not have a stangle-hold on the information and, in fact, their value to the industry is the shepherding of standards. They need dues to operate and so charging fees required to operate seems fair to me. This is a printing specification for businesses to operate and control. We are not talking about the average consumer here. Also IDEALliance is not only responsible for GRACoL they also have SWOP and a number of other things under their umbrella so buying a member ship gives you access to a number of different works-in-progress.
This in NO WAY means that the results of the work are not available, FREE for anyone who wants to download and implement them. The G7 training guide is up there, free, the press run data is up there, free.
Dale
Dale-Thank you for the well thought out response to my original post and the comments of others. In my original post I should have pointed out that at least one group operates in the graphic arts area with a “no dues” structure and that is BRIDGS. I also had not intention to single out any specific group, and have actually “defended” GRACoL in previous comment responses.
-Jim
Dale-Thank you for the well thought out response to my original post and the comments of others. In my original post I should have pointed out that at least one group operates in the graphic arts area with a “no dues” structure and that is BRIDGS. I also had not intention to single out any specific group, and have actually “defended” GRACoL in previous comment responses.
-Jim