Publishers assess moves to CTP at Spectrum

Folio: The Magazine for Magazine Management, Nov 1, 1998 by Dzintars Dzilna

Dzintars Dzilna, editor of Ditigal Publishing, can be reached at dzdzilna@aol.com.

While this fall's Digital Spectrum 98 (hosted by Alexandria, Virginia-based Graphic Communications Association) offered seminars on a range of emerging technologies, magazine publishers seemed to buzz the most about computer-to-plate workflows. While few doubt that most magazines will eventually move to all-digital, publishers continue to assess just how CTP offers "faster, cheaper, better" production for them and their individual magazines.

"I think everyone was in agreement that we will move to digital," says Dawn Schork, director of operations, print publications, for Westport, Connecticut-based Mecklermedia Corp. and a Spectrum panelist. "It's just a question of, should we move now or should we move later?" Although no date is set, Mecklermedia's Internet World plans to use CTP in the future. It has started talking to its vendors about the switch, and has sent letters to advertisers describing plans to accept digital ads.

Time, cost, quality

Because Internet World is a weekly publication, cycle-time reduction is important because it offers later deadlines for editorial and ads. For monthlies, however, the value of CTP's time savings is less. "Although every editor and creative person has disagreed with me on this, as a monthly publisher, I'm still in that 21day delivery cycle," says Jerry D'Elia, vice president, director of printing and transportation services for New York City-based Hearst Magazines and a Spectrum panelist. "So I don't want to spend more money to be able to close my book one or two days later, when it's still going to take me three weeks to deliver it. The best my news is going to be is three weeks old."

Going to CTP can also add major expenses to a magazine's production, including the costs of copydot scanning ad film, training staff and purchasing equipment to handle digital ads. "I think that it's only been recently that the printers are saying, 'Okay, we'll make CTP cost-neutral for you, because they have to do something to get publishers on board," observes D'Elia. Indeed, printers that run a CTP workflow--along with a film-based workflow--simply need clients to use new equipment they have invested in. With both CTP and film, vendors are, in effect, running two operations, which raises their overhead.

Publishers need to make sure that the extra overhead doesn't impact their overall printing rates--whether or not they are on the printer's CTP equipment. "How long can printers using CTP eat costs where it starts to affect them?" D'Elia asks.

D'Elia is also vigilant about keeping the high quality he has in his books. In general, the magazine industry is enjoying the quality that printing vendors offer today. "So far as the claims that CTP gives better quality, that's great, except I don't have a quality problem now," he adds. Hearst has two magazines running CTP today, and continues to do tests in some of its other magazines.

The bottom line is publishers don't want to spend more on a process that offers, perhaps, only nominal benefits. "We're not [even] looking to save, we're just looking to break even in the change in processes," says Stephen Romeo, manager of quality services at New York City-based Gruner Jahr, and a Spectrum panelist.

"What matters to us is that [CTP] is the future," Romeo says. "It is the direction of the industry, and we want to move along with the industry. We certainly don't want to buck the trend. But we don't want to pay for it, either."

FOLIO:'s 1998 Desktop publishing survey (see "Doing more but spending less," FOLIO:, October 1998, page 55) reveals that the average volume of magazine pages produced CTP today is about 20 percent, up from 12.5 percent last year. Of those publishers who aren't CTP, 75 percent plan to implement it sometime in the next two years. A full 21 percent do not plan to use CTP at all.

The case for computer-to-plate

A look at what CTP offers, versus what publishers already have.

Speed: Saves time by eliminating the need for film and proofs like bluelines. But production time savings for monthlies is nominal compared to lag in distribution.

Cash: Saves in film output and conventional stripping, but creates costs for copydot scans, training and new equipment.

Looks: Less dot gain, better consistency across different printing plants. But consumers may not notice a difference: Consensus is that printing quality now is "fine" to the untrained eye.