Comments on: Surprise! Toner Print Bests Offset in Mailing Study

By: Patrick Whelan

Patrick Whelan — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 22:54:59 +0000

Heidi,

Great work. Keep it up. The article and the feedback were all very enlightening.

P. Whelan,

By: Matthew Heim

Matthew Heim — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:49:59 +0000

To comment on a a few of Joe Marin’s points:
1) The originating post office does seem to be the biggest culprit in damaging mail. In Honolulu, the amount of tearing is comparable with offset and digital (our USPS has difficulty with longer pieces). OTOH, “burning” (read extreme scuffing) is noticeable on both types of printing although much more significant with digital pieces. We’ve had both liquid and dry toner systems over the years with the same results. We’ve gone to coating 95% of all digital mail, with only about 20% of offset being coated. Offset, at least in Honolulu, is definitely more durable on this point.
2) I chuckled on the comment, “All USPS equipment is identical”. Every USPS location has different equipment based on purchase dates, equipment life cycles and service demands. When we started to coat our digital mail, USPS came back and said it was too slippery for their machines. We showed them a lot of “slippery” direct mail that originated across the country that we received intact without damage and said how can this be? They invited us to bring down some mail and run it through the facility to see if we could come up with a solution. Wow! I never knew that depending on what shift and what ZIP code the mail was going to, the pieces went through a different machine. Each machine was a different age with different mechanics causing burning on the front OR the back OR both AND in different places.** Then if the mail was destined for ZIP codes by let’s say Pearl Harbor, it was shipped via truck to that facility and processed there (with much smaller/older equipment). How do you plan for that??
** For those that mail for real estate companies, why is it that the burn/scuff spot is always on the agents head shot? We move that photo all over the dang card to no avail. The machine finds it every time. LOL.

By: John

John — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 13:32:52 +0000

I think it also says quite a bit about the expertise of the vendors in the mailing environment. If you look at what they did it appears that only a few vendors understand the mailing process, so they chose a more sturdy paper, other went for a softer more glossy sheet to make the print look better before the mailing, how dumb is that. I think this study also says a lot about the supposed expertise of the vendors.
One thing that is very clear I that the polymerized toners used by Oce & Canon hold up much better than the polyester toners of Xerox, Nexprss & HP. Don’t forget in that HP if you evaporate the liquid it’s still polyester toner in the bottle.

By: Heidi Tolliver-Nigro

Heidi Tolliver-Nigro — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:07:09 +0000

Great points, Skip. Since different stocks perform differently on different presses, it’s only fair to the press vendors to allow them to choose their own stocks. This way, each is operating under ideal conditions. The moral of the story is, if printers want to optimize the performance of their output in the mail stream, they need to check with their vendor first, since the “right” paper will vary by press.

By: Skip Henk

Skip Henk — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 13:45:45 +0000

In my days as a vendor, whether it was toner or inkjet, media was a key factor in both quality and image permanency so the vendors not agreeing on a stock is understandable. No one wants to use a stock that does not produce optimum results for their product.

The variables of base weight and differences in USPO systems are symptomatic of the “real world”.

What this tells me is toner based systems work. The fact it worked effectively without coating is key from a cost standpoint.

Many thanks to PIA.

By: Joe Marin

Joe Marin — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 17:43:43 +0000

All-

Hello! Joe Marin here from Printing Industries of America. I authored the research report and also developed the methodology for the study.

I just wanted to stress that the main focus of the study was survivability of print in the mainstream as a whole, not necessarily digital versus litho (although this was an interesting find and felt it was necessary to include in the report).

I also wanted to comment on a few of the posts made above:

-The report was absolutely not sponsored by any vendors/suppliers. It was an independent research study by the Printing Industries of America/Digital Printing Council.

-The litho produced postcards could have been coated (as our press does have an inline coater), but the baseline for the study was “no coating” on any of the printed material.

-I could not get the vendor participants to agree on one paper stock, so I allowed them to select the paper they thought would be most appropriate for this study.

The bigger issue, and main focus, with regards to the study results is how different the postcards faired from each mailing location. A quantity of postcards (1200) were mailed from 4 different cities (LA, Buffalo, Chicago, Miami) to Pittsburgh. What we found was that distance traveled had nothing to do with amount/degree of scuffing, but the originating mailing location did.

All USPS offices have identical equipment. But, just like anything else, how well (or in some cases, poorly) the equipment is calibrated and maintained has a dramatic impact on printed material sent through the mail.

Thanks for all the posts and interest in this study!

By: Heidi Tolliver-Nigro

Heidi Tolliver-Nigro — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 15:52:59 +0000

Christian — sorry, I missed your comment.

All of the results from each manufacturer were provided in the study. I don’t wish to go into them here because I want to keep the focus on toner vs. offset, not get into comparing or contrasting presses. I have a high level of respect for all of these manufacturers and my purpose is not to appear to promote one over the other. I simply find the overall results fascinating, especially the performance of different types of toners.

But, again, I prefer to focus on the type of toner, not to discuss specifics about individual manufacturer results. For that, readers can go directly to the DPC study. The Sutherland Rub Test results are also included by manufacturer.

By: Heidi Tolliver-Nigro

Heidi Tolliver-Nigro — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 15:33:57 +0000

As I’ve stated, coating was not applied to the sheets. The idea was to test the durability of the toner itself — without coating.

It’s interesting that you say that “toner-based digital output should be coated in order to be placed on a level playing field with offset.” The point of the study is that, at least in this test, this is not true.

Just to throw another wrench in the works. I was talking to one of the participants in the study and he pointed out that in a SUTHERLAND RUB TEST, both the Canon and Oce machines outperformed offset. Those results were at the end of the study, but I missed it until yesterday.

It is interesting to me how readers are dismissing the results of this study. It was not conducted by the vendors. It was an independent test conducted by PIA/GATF’s Digital Printing Council. I’m not sure why anyone would think that the ability to choose the stock would undermine the results of the study, but feel free to share your rationale.

By: Vscagnetti

Vscagnetti — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 13:45:44 +0000

Sounds like another dubious self-promoting study. Just the fact that they could choose their own paper is ridiculous.

By: mike barisonek

mike barisonek — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 13:09:41 +0000

Was the inline coating system on the offset press turned off for the test?

This seems to be an obvious question, however, most multi color offset presses are equipped with inline aqueous coating capability that contributes very,very, little to the per sheet cost.

This is one of the reasons that toner based digital output should be coated in order to be placed on a level playing field with offset.

The fact is that in today’s market, you would almost have to request that an offset printed piece not be coated, because the equipment is in place, the cost is negligible, and don’t forget that aqueous coating helps the offset printer get the work out of the shop faster!