MANUFACTURING / JAPAN SOURCING
Digital or offset: are the quotations for the same print job?
Compare the finished piece, quantity by artwork version and included work before choosing a printing method. A lower unit price can describe a different paper, proof or finishing scope.
Give both quotations the same finished job
Imagine comparing two offers for a multilingual product booklet. One price is for one language, a substitute stock and delivery as loose sheets; the other includes several versions, the specified paper and binding. The cheaper copy price has not yet answered the same request.
Define finished size, page count, sides, artwork versions and quantity per version. State the paper by an identifiable specification and show the required folding, binding or other finishing. Include the delivery point and schedule. If an alternative is welcome, ask the supplier to identify it beside the requested work rather than replacing the request without comment.
Separate the quantity needed now from a possible reprint. A larger first run may reduce a quoted unit price while creating stock that a later artwork change makes unusable. Ask for the two order scenarios explicitly; a single generic break-even copy count cannot choose the method for every job.
Ask which process the proposed price uses
Tokai Denshi Printing’s guide shows separate workflows for offset and on-demand work, including plate-making on the offset route and direct data output on the on-demand route.[1] Ask which preparation and data work are included in each offer and what changes if the file is revised. The workflow explains a cost question; it does not calculate your price.
The word “digital” alone does not identify the press or marking process. Graphic describes toner and inkjet options and notes conditions where a specified order category may be supplied digitally.[2] Ask the printer to identify the method actually proposed for the selected paper and product. Keep any permitted substitution or approval requirement in the order.
- 1Job reference: the same artwork, paper request and quantities by version
- 2Offered process: identify preparation, actual printing method and any alternative
- 3Finished piece: compare the proof basis, included finishing and delivered quantity
The paths are a simplified purchasing comparison. They do not establish a universal cost ranking, identical colour or that a job can run on either process.
Compare the work through finishing and delivery
Ask each candidate to complete the same fields. Do not turn a general “short run” recommendation into confirmation that the selected stock, colour or finishing can be produced as requested.
If the proposal changes paper or process, ask which reference demonstrates the offered result. A file-content check and a physical colour/finish evaluation answer different questions. Carry the accepted reference into the order and use the colour-proof article when that comparison needs more detail. The acceptable result belongs to the particular design and use.
| Compare | Use one enquiry basis | Supplier identifies |
|---|---|---|
| Versions and quantity | Use one enquiry basisArtwork revision; language/design versions; finished quantity per version | Supplier identifiesFirst order, reprint scenario and quantity deviations |
| Paper and colour | Use one enquiry basisStock reference, relevant weight/thickness, sides and colour requirements | Supplier identifiesActual stock, colour/marking process and alternatives |
| Proof and acceptance | Use one enquiry basisReference sample, what to approve and required timing | Supplier identifiesProof type, what it represents and review still needed |
| Finishing and delivery | Use one enquiry basisFolding/binding or other work; packing and delivery point | Supplier identifiesIncluded operations, finished state and exclusions |
| Price and revision | Use one enquiry basisRequested order scenarios and likely data changes | Supplier identifiesSetup, run and finishing charges; changes requiring a new quote |
Keep revision and reprint conditions with the decision
For a revised reprint, identify the accepted job and the new file revision, then list what changes: text, image, language mix, quantity, stock or finishing. Ask what can be reused and what requires preparation or a new proof. An unchanged file does not itself guarantee that a different press or paper will reproduce the accepted reference.
If variable text or images are part of the job, describe the variable fields, number of versions and checking responsibility when asking for a quote. Tokai’s guide presents variable printing as a separate data-driven task.[1] Agree the data format and checking process with the printer; do not assume that naming a digital process includes data preparation or verification.
Send HAM the intended printed product, destination, artwork status and the comparison still open. The useful choice is a proposal that meets the agreed job with visible deviations and a clear total scope, rather than a method selected from copy count alone.
Questions to send your supplier
Open supplier questions
Printed product, use and destination: Finished size, pages, sides and finishing: Artwork revision; language/design versions and quantity per version: Specified paper and colour requirements; permitted alternatives: First-order and possible reprint quantities: Please identify the actual printing process and included preparation/data work. Proof type, what it represents and approval timing: Included finishing, packing, delivery point and exclusions: Please separate setup/run/finishing and identify changes requiring a new quote. Variable data scope, format and checking responsibility if relevant:
Sources
- Tokai Denshi Printing — On-demand printing guide
PDF pages 1–2: printing workflows, variable printing and supplier-specific specifications. Used for distinct setup and data requirements. Paper ranges, machine limits, prices and minimum quantities are not generalized.
- Graphic — Offset and on-demand printing FAQ
Read the FAQ body: process types, paper/finish differences and actual supply-method conditions. Supplier-specific quality rankings are not universal acceptance rules.