Time Inc.'s CTP Crusade: The Benefits Are Worth the Battle

Folio: The Magazine for Magazine Management, Nov, 2000 by Caroline Jenkins

Q&A: Frank Scott

FRANK SCOTT LED TIME. INC.'S CHARGE FOR TOTAL CTP CONVERSION AT A TIME WHEN MOST OTHER PUBLISHERS WERE JUST CONSIDERING DIGITAL WORKFLOWS. THE PRIMARY REASON FOR THE PUSH? TO KEEP PRINT COST-EFFECTIVE AND COMPETITIVE IN A FRAGMENTED MEDIA LANDSCAPE. HERE SCOTT TALKS ABOUT THE JOURNEY.

In 1997, when the majority of the industry was still in open debate over the advantages and risks of a computer-to-plate workflow--and the average overall industry volume of pages being printed CTP was just 12.5 percent--Time Inc. was printing 100 percent of its titles CTP at the company's domestic printing plants.

Behind Time Inc.'s technology charge was Frank Scott, director for digital development. In the 11 years since joining the company, Scott not only moved all of Time Inc.'s titles to CTP, he helped create the company's digital ad repository and developed a transmission system to send pages to remote printing plants. Plus, he convinced the ad community to cooperate with Time Inc.'s vision by creating a Digital Partnership program that aims to banish film by soliciting digital ad files. And to ensure its success, Scott helped develop a digital ad specification media kit that established a universal, Time Inc. digital ad standard.

This month, Scott leaves Time Inc. to become vice president, director of research at the Graphic Arts Technical Foundation. During his final week at Time Inc., he talked with FOLIO: about some of his accomplishments, his views on the benefits of digital technology, and where he believes publishing is headed in the future.

Q: What prompted Time Inc. to be so aggressive in pursuit of CTP?

A: We looked at our future as a company and realized that if we didn't take advantage of new technologies, print production and print media would become less and less cost-effective. The only way to be competitive is to produce a timely, relevant, better-looking product. CTP does that. I guess you could say our pursuit of GTP was a drive for excellence.

Q: What kind of obstacles, if any, did you encounter at the beginning?

A: The early technologies weren't very efficient--it's taken almost 20 years to come up with a technology that is practical and cost-effective. Until there was the ability to create fully composed pages, we had to figure out how to put everything together when we made a CTP page. Some other big issues a few years ago were networking speed, data storage and file management. It took several key initiatives to come together at the right time and right place to make this viable for us.

Q: What do you feel are the biggest advantages of going CTP?

A: Cost savings is obviously a big one. From a production perspective, you gain flexibility and control, while simultaneously compressing the time schedule. Now we can do more pages, close earlier or later if we need to--and we don't have to pay a lot to do those things.

Q: What kind of money have you saved on all of these digital technologies combined?

A: The numbers look good, and continue to look good. Right now we are making a profit, and we are also saving money.

Q: Time Inc. has been extremely proactive about receiving ads digitally. Why was that critical?

A: At the beginning of 1996, we realized that CTP could be a real and viable option for us. So we told our printers that we wanted to have an infrastructure in place and to be CTP-ready by mid-year. Our goal was to be 100 percent CTP with all of our titles by the end of that year. We achieved that 100 percent mark in February of 1997.

At the same time, we were testing and looking at digital ad production. We felt that going CTP and receiving ads digitally at the same time was the best way to go. As you start the CTP transition--and especially if you're a consumer magazine dealing with ads--a lot of the time you're still receiving supplied film, and that means you have to copy-dot scan ads. Copy-dot scanning costs time and money--and we felt that the quality wasn't that great.

If we were receiving digital ads and working in a conventional environment with film and plates, then the cost and time to make film wouldn't be on our side. Neither system had the best advantages, but when you combined the two, it became a win-win situation.

Q: Are you receiving all of your ads digitally now?

A: We're probably close to being 90 percent for all of our titles. The weeklies are achieving 100 percent digital ad submission on a routine basis. Some of the monthlies are still lagging in the 80 to 90 percent range.

Q: When do expect to hit that 100 percent mark?

A: There are still a few advertisers out there who don't see digital as being better, and are therefore reluctant. There are also a few advertisers who are technology-challenged, and it's not to their advantage to provide digital files. For them it's not a technological issue, it's more of an emotional issue.

Even with the digital ad partnership in place, we haven't dictated that our advertisers supply only digital files. We strongly recommend it. Advertising is a big revenue source for us, so we don't want to alienate anybody. Unfortunately, the publishing industry overall isn't taking a strong approach to receiving digital ads. Many publishers today require or accept film. If all publishers accepted only digital ads, then we would be at 100 percent right now. But because there are publishers and advertisers who don't want digital files, film still has to be used.