jay allen said:
If a printer agrees to print 72 Beefy T's, and for whatever reason screws up a couple shirts, you never hear about it.....he just makes it good out of his pocket. If you supply the T's the same thing happens, but it just causes much more hassle.The increased printing charge on supplied T's is to allow for this.
I admit this is the one thing I was thinking on earlier which makes me think twice.
Ultimately, I decided it's a shady practice anyway because the buyer isn't aware that this is what is going on. Businesses should aim for transparency and honesty with their customer-base. Essentially what you're talking about is hidden compulsory f**k up insurance. i.e. you pay an extra 50c a shirt, and if the printer f**ks up, they make it right.
Printers could always split the difference - if they want to charge $3 and $3.50 for example they could just charge $3.25 on both. If they are making costly mistakes they're going to be making them whether you supply the shirts or they do, so either way it's eating into their profit margins. Whether we're wearing it or they are is up to them, but there's no reason the printer's policy shouldn't be consistent across store supplied and customer supplied shirts.
Ultimately I'm talking about simplifying the fees so that they are easier for customers to understand and there are no hidden levies. If a customer sees the price to print 72 shirts, that should be the price to print 72 shirts regardless of where they came from. The idea that the printer would need to charge them more in case they screw up is not going to occur to most customers (if any).
A customer wouldn't expect to be charged a levy in case the printer tears a screen, needs to re-burn artwork, misplaces a case of t-shirts, or has an unusually high electricity bill this month - those are costs that would be incorporated into overall fee structures, and shouldn't change based on the source of the textiles. Why should this one be any different?
I know the
motivation of the printer is not shady, they're just covering their costs as you say, but the image they are creating in the minds of their customers is shady, because it just looks like price gouging (and hey, in some cases because it
is just price gouging).
I am curious though - what's the average number of screw ups in a print run anyway? Is it even going to cost a printer that much? Obviously if you're using expensive garments you've potentially got a problem, but assuming for a moment we're talking about a fairly standard wholesale t-shirt line got at good prices. How many shirts would the average decent printer ruin per 100? I simply have absolutely no idea. Mistakes happen occasionally - but I would have thought they'd be rare enough that it's not going be
that much of an issue.
jay allen said:
Let me ask you.....how many wealthy screen printers do you know? Is the guy that does your printing driving a BMW, and have a huge house on the ocean? You'll probably answer....yes, but the fact is, the vast majority are just making a living. To imply they are getting wealthy off the backs of unsuspecting t-shirt guys is laughable.
I didn't imply they were getting wealthy, so much as that it's a dishonest way to cover their costs.
Obviously I do know of some printers who have gotten extremely rich off what they do, and likewise I'm sure I'd have no problem finding a few that either barely get by or will be forced to declare bankruptcy. That's all beside the point - I'm not complaining about the
amount of money they make, I am complaining about the
method they use to make it.
jay allen said:
BTW...I DON'T charge people $1 per shirt to print.
I'm quite sure you don't, and yet it's the figure you used.
It's precisely because shirts don't cost $1/shirt to print that it shouldn't be necessary to inflate the costs in this way. If the cost was that low, it would be hard to make up the difference in lost revenue. Since it's not, it could easily be made back by increasing screen setup charges across the board (or a different fee - but consistently).
jay allen said:
I would suggest that you spend a few days washing out screens, pulling a squeegee, etc, etc, before posting anyting else about how shady screen printers are. You would have a new found respect for the process if you did that....not to mention a real foundation for future posting.
And I would suggest that you stop being so sanctimonious.
Not to re-open old wounds, but this is precisely what COS was talking about when he said you overstep your bounds in making so many assumptions about people. Your presumption and condescension is extremely rude and entirely unwelcome.
As it happens I'm a student screenprinter. That means I'm an extremely bad printer with a lot to learn, but washing out screens, coating screens, pulling a squeegee and "the process" is not, in fact, new to me.
It is clear that you have a lot to offer the forum members in the way of expertise (your Pool tips were interesting and showed a lot more depth than any other post on a trade show has here), but you need to learn that not everyone here is entirely ignorant either.