News
TPF Group loses £20m-a-year Sky contract
TPF Group has lost its primary source print management contract with Sky, thought to be worth in excess of £20m-a-year, following the broadcaster's decision to set up an in-house print management team.
The company, which was halfway through a five-year contract thought to be worth around £100m, will now be invited to tender along with other potential suppliers for Sky's marketing communications.
A spokeswoman for Sky said: "Further to our review of print buying, we have decided to move our Marcomms print management in-house. Over the coming weeks, we will be requesting and reviewing proposals from a number of potential suppliers for our Marcomms ongoing print work.
"Our expectation is that, once a team is in place internally, they will undertake print management, allocating work to a chosen pool of print suppliers depending on the spec of each job. This will provide us with an efficient and flexible structure going forwards."
The loss of the Sky Marcomms contract, which comes just three weeks after TPF lost its £2.5m-a-year transactional print contract with the satellite broadcaster, will come as a severe blow to TPF, although the Northampton-based firm hopes to hang on to a significant portion of Sky's Marcomms spend.
TPF chief executive Steve Brundle said: "This has been a very special relationship and we're naturally sad to be losing such a superb print management client. We'll now be in there fighting harder than anyone for Sky's work as a manufacturer and I've no doubt that our unique experience and knowledge of their brand will stand us in particularly good stead."
Sky and TPF began working together in 2003, when TPF won Sky's then £10m-a-year print management contract from Centurion.
Brundle added: "I'm truly proud of what TPF has helped Sky achieve over the last five years and I look forward to this new phase in our relationship."
Brundle: we will fight harder than anyone to win Sky's ongoing work
Advertisement
Comments
The Mighty wind - 25 July 2008
Interesting finally companies are understanding that paying a middle man for a service just adds to complexity and cost.
Dave Dee - 25 July 2008
To be fair to TPF it was a managed service utilising a mix of inhouse print and outsourced print...not just acting as a middleman.
The service-led ethos they had on the Sky account couldn't really be faulted because they bent over backwards and the client always got what they wanted...
Colin Thompson - 25 July 2008
`True` Print Management Service Programmes are always a winning formula with the `right` skilled and experienced people on board.
Colin Thompson
Cavendish
www.cavendish-mr.org.uk
Gerrard Gilhouley - 25 July 2008
Phil Brooks - 27 July 2008
RBS gone, then Sky transactional, shortly followed by Sky Marcomms. I'm sure all is well though, its purely coincidence that the TPF FD and 50% shareholder of 17 years had just retired. Losing Sky must be a strategic decision by Brundle to free up large amounts of production capacity for the £87 million worth of contracts he said he won in the first quarter! -printweek article 17th April. Hope the accuracy of the £87 million is more reliable than Brundles quote of 4th July in Printweek after he lost Sky transactional, 'our entire focus from now on will be the Sky marcomms work, where its very much business as usual'.
Truth and Justice - 28 July 2008
"Interesting finally companies are understanding that paying a middle man for a service just adds to complexity and cost."
Well put. In general (and not in all cases), Print Management firms are just parasites. As for Colin Thompson, yet another ad for his company. Buy some ad space mate and stop hijacking threads with your boring diatribes.
Print Management? Bring it in house, employ the correct staff and run the business yourself.
Jon Fennell - 28 July 2008
PM has its place.
Its problems have come about through its own success and greed, it bled skills dry of good, experienced staff, which were the assett, and then recruited inexperienced, cheap staff, who could work the system which has become so much of the sell, and created order takers and not hand holders. Clients are easily impressed by the presentation on systems, but don't realise the reason for there existence is to make more profit and remove the need for staff. This de-values the service as starts clients asking questions.
As much as PM companies are disliked by Printers, the printer should remember how PM got such a hold in the first place. If printers hadn't treated Clients like interferring pensioners, who dared to ask questions of the 'dark arts', and been better at communicating, PM would not have done what it did.
Its also only recently that printers have started to diversify and create value services of their own, but remember this you print soapboxers, when you tell a client you are a 'one stop solution', and sub the work for a nice 'little' mark up, you have just done what PM does.
Also remember printers embraced PM, reasons: easy sales, new accounts, volume business that would not have been possible, PM doing the sell saving you the cost of the salesman, clients wanting the outsource facility, after all PM is nothing without the client, and the printer can always turn down the work.
I don't agree with some of the tactics used, the bullying, bad payment, unreasonable rebates, but not all PM operates that way. I also believe there is space for PM, especially with the lack of knowledge and skills, after all is a B1 printer really going to tell a client a job is better B2, some might but how many?
In answer to Truth and Justice ''Print Management? Bring it in house, employ the correct staff and run the business yourself''.
How much do good staff cost and how much of a print budget do they need to save to pay their way?
Dave Wright - 28 July 2008
Surprising move by SKY. Perhaps other companies will now start to follow suit?
Print Management was always going to take off the way it has, as long as the majority of manufacturers were inflexible enough to present marketers with constant problems, instead of actual solutions.
Maybe Sky's move is a sign that manufacturers are finally realising this and raising the bar enough to start to force a change and cut out the 'middle man'.
That said, a manufacturer can never offer the same product diversity as a Print Manager, which leads me to believe that the managed solution will always be around and always offer significant benefits.
What surprises me is TPF offer an actual 'manufacturing/print management hybrid' model, so what must be going wrong? From what I keep reading it seems to have been one set back after another for the last 18 months or so....
I guess only time will tell
Mark Smith - 28 July 2008
There seems to be a certain amount of glee surrounding the situation TPF find themselves in. All I can say is that having found myself in a very similar boat, the amount of heartache, grief and upset caused by contract changes, mid-term, is not a laughing matter. For the sake of his business, employees and everything he has worked for, I hope that Brundle can find a way through this. I also believe that companies with a budget upwards of £2 million on print, should manage the process themselves, negotiating with a raft of print suppliers who can offer a full product range.
Gary Smith - 28 July 2008
Hmmm... as a print management company I find 'Truth and Justices' comments unjust, if you can not contribute in a positive manner to the threads, I suggest you don't... I also don't tend to listen or take anyone seriously who hides behind a psuedo name. You're not the northern lass phoning up Print Management companies for readily available information on their set-ups are you? Why are you so anti- Print Management?
I find it so ironic that so many printers are so anti - PM but they agree to do the work in the first place! The first place so many look when they have press trouble is a PM Agency to bail them out...
Back to the thread, Sky is such a massive company they're easily over that threshold where it is cost most cost effective to bring print buying in house. But there are masses of companies who do not have that critial mass to be able to afford a full time print purchaser to make it viable. That's where Print Managers are effective.
I feel 'Truth & Justice' whom ever he/she maybe, is stuck in the eighties, Print Management has moved on and done a lot of good for both sides of the fence - and I'm sure if you phoned up Sky and asked them I'm sure they would disagree with you. Maybe you should pull your head out of the sand?
What you also have to understand is that Print Managers, when outsourcing, are spreading the wealth across the print industry, instead of using one or two favourite suppliers so common with buyers who are not doing their company the best possible service.
Jon Fennells first line sums it up - "PM has it's Place' But disagree on bleeding the industry dry, (Can you back that up with fact or evidence?)... I feel that should be more aimed at the Government's door - not funding enough in good training and apprenticeships in the industry. Or that The PM's are offering better wages and staff have jumped across the fence? Who knows? But also take a good look at yourself how much have you invested in training, do you have IIP status? Asides from that a good balanced thread Jon - unlike T&J!
Like any industry, there's always going to be the unscrupulous operators and individuals but they're not normally around very long or rear their heads numerous times as we all ready in print week from time to time.
Feel free to call me T&J if you'd like to discuss further - or be brave and reveal yourself - go on... you feel a lot better!
Well that got that of my chest!
Gary Smith
Redactive Print Management
020 7880 6203
Matthew Parker - 28 July 2008
I think that more companies will seriously look at bringing print buying back in house. If I am right, what will be interesting is whether it is now possible to achieve this efficiently as, in my opinion, there is a huge skills shortage in the print buying area. Handing the responsibility of managing a large budget to a marketing team or a general procurement team will often not achieve the desired results unless there is someone with the knowledge of the best ways to achieve the company's needs. Companies will often need outside help, if only on a temporary or part-time basis, in setting up a print buying operation.
Matthew Parker
www.printandprocurement.com
Dave Dee - 28 July 2008
I don't see the situation changing per se because of the savings - monetary and process - that outsourcing specialists can offer...why would companies invest in areas/resource for activity that is non-core to the key purpose of a business (ie. print, F.M. etc)
What clients may look for now are companies that can offer more than simply being a print farmer - whether this is manufacturers who expand their offering, or PM companies that get involved in other related areas.
Jon Fennell - 28 July 2008
Gary, didn't refer nto PM bleeding the industry dry,
The point I was making is that PM used up the best of talents in its early years and sucked out the knowledge only to replace it with house trained staff who don't know the technicalities or abilities of its supplier base, let alone be able to work through problems with a client and link back into a supplier to make the fix.
From my experience clients don't always want to be in the dark, and some even want to learn more about the industry they rely on.
My team are drawn from the business.We take a very much hands on approach, with the supplier being as much apart of our business as the client.
Value added service is important and justifies our existence, not all PM companies see this as being relevant. That is their problem. On a similar line some suppliers still struggle with the concept of communication and levels of 1st hand dealing through sales staff is at times poor, the sooner the perception of the company they represent is addressed the better off they will be. Many printers have top notch AE's and production staff that are let down by initial sales that over promise and have poor knowledge of the businesses they represent.
Simon Biltcliffe- Webmart - 28 July 2008
Print Management as it has been known is dead & has been dying for 3-4 years. A parasite that kills it's host is not just intellectually/ethically wrong- it's plain stupid.
The daft thing is that BOTH customers AND suppliers lost from this way of trading in the medium term. Costs were not eliminated, just shuffled from client to PM & the printer had to pay for it by reducing the prices.
The new way is here AND IT'S FREE ( like so many other internet based things). There is not one printer or client who i have shown the free model that we have developed in-house that can't see it as being the future as it delivers a great price to clients and a better profit to the printer.
A Win- Win. Printers like it, customers like it and it costs nothing.
This is a tipping-point; time for an intelligent debate- either moderated by PW or the BPIF or anyone who cares about the future of the print industry- Felix Dennis?Time for Print Management 2.0 where no one loses(except the parasitic print management companies who are gradually bleeding to death anyway).
Simon Biltcliffe
MD
WEBMART Ltd.
www.FreePrintManagement.com- for clients
www.FreePrintSales.com- for suppliers
does what it says on the URL & costs nowt- ever
Martin Bloomfield - 28 July 2008
We are running a debate on this topic on September 22nd or 29th in London at Stationers Hall. As it turns out my working proposition isn't a mile away from the debate here;
“Online tools will cut out many in-house print buyers to the advantage of printers through the creation of an even playing field and eliminating the demand for print management companies.”
The proliferation and testimony of print management companies has squeezed out both print buyers jobs and printers margins, but do they add value? If outsourced print management is better than in-house print buyers, then is it time to raise the game of the in-house print buying community and to leverage online and management tools more effectively? Alternatively, is it better to outsource the print buying function to print management companies or more radical still, have the customer, the originator of the work, deal direct?
Anyone who wants an invitation or better still to speak and say thier piece, please email me at;
martingrbloomfield@hotmail.co.uk. These debates get quite lively and this one has some promise!
Martin Bloomfield
martingrbloomfield@hotmail.co.uk
Lee Deacon - 28 July 2008
Ah what a debate! The Print Buyer vs Print Manager. Why is there always such a debate about the difference between these two great pillars in the print community and weighing up the pro's and cons for each.
What it actually boils down to is the skill set and perfomance of the individuals carrying out that function. It doesn't really matter if the person(s) responsible for buying and managing the print, works for the end customer, or an outsourced company - does it?.
The job function is usually in both cases -
Save money and get the job done to the stakeholders satisfaction.
The real problem is, as Matthew & Jon said earlier, finding people with the right skills. When I started out as an teenage Oik!, I went through a series courses to learn the basics, but then my greatest learning experience was given through working with several mentors that were passioniate about the print industry. I gained a mutlitude of knowledge and experience through these guys and continue to do so now. The problem is, there are less and less mentors that actually know their stuff around and certainly the passion is somewhat lacking aswell.
Today's society of "sink or swim" has meant people have been thrown in at the deep end and are managing to swim, but have no idea how, and to be honest, probably don't care anyway.
The industry as I see it is evolving into a heap of orders takers on both sides of the fence. The print buying experts are few & far between and I think it's the employers that have de-valued it, by not ensuring correct recruitment or sufficient training.
I am a strong believer in the electronic systems for helping with admin and the placement of work, but only with this in mind - That the individuals using such systems know what they are doing and use them to facilitate a speedier administration flow, not as a total reliance for doing their job because they wouldn't have a clue how to if their PC broke!.
Andrew Michael - 28 July 2008
From my own personal point of view, I really do hope that this is the beggining of the end for "old style" Print Management. These businesses would not know Added Value if it stood over them wielding a big stick!!!
The parasites who have driven margin out of what was once a speacialist communication function should hang their heads in shame and consider why so many businesses are now struggling. Have you never heard of nurturing your relationships with industry leading suppliers instead of abusing their good nature??
If you had thought outside the box and utilised their skill sets to further your client relationships and service offerings, then we wouldn't even be having this debate!!!!
If the skill sets and understanding of what the client actually wants gets any narrower, then I don't think it bodes well for the DM\Integrated Coomunication sector as a whole.
I will leave you all with one last comment ......unless we embrace added value, work with clients to remedy their issues and truly learn how to utilise data and offer service offerings that enable the client to work smarter and not harder, then we all need to think again....because there won't be many of us left.
Jon Fennell - 28 July 2008
Martin, to use online tools, you first have to know what you want. The debate had run through the use of systems but they don't make up for experience. In these days of paper efficiency and price conscious clients, using a system, how is a 'un educated' client or agency going to know the job is plain impractical and out of budget reach.
Systems seem only to good at driving us all into a near commodity market.
Are you saying this is good for printers or the client?
How does this help value added services or building good client relations? How will this stop print managers the larger ones already use this technology, probably to the detriment of all.
Julie Cook - 28 July 2008
PM firms do have a place in print, if they can add value to the product/service, no print firm can offer everything in-house, it's simply not possible, we're such a diverse industry. PM firms should add value, as many print firms can not, they shouldn't treat printers as an auction place going from one firm to the other looking for the best price on bog standard work. Most printers don't know better, we only wish to provide, quality print at the right price.
As for PB some look for added value in print, but many I would tarnish as the same as PM firms.
There are so many oportunities out there for all, such as direct mail, personalisation, database management, asset management, stock holding, the list is so so long, you have software at you're fingertips such as direct smile and so so so so many others, but most PM and PB look for the cheapest print possible without looking at the return on investment.
Gary Smith I hope you're not indicating me as - The Northern Lass, as the culprit to the many phone calls PM firms have received, but it's great that you PM firms have such a repor with each other that you could spot timewasters, and pass such information to each other. I only wish printers out there could do the same.
If there is a topic worthy of debate it's
http://community.printweek.com/forums/p/1160/3222.aspx#3222
Jon Fennell - 28 July 2008
If any of you guys fancy PM have a read of the jobs column, Sky are recruiting for a team via Blue Buffalo. Having read a bit on the company, things could get interesting, the philosophy hangs towards commoditising through product standardisation. The MD is an ex commercial manager for Virgin, could Mr Brundle have a stalker in Alice Elder? see http://www.supplymanagement.com/EDIT/SECTOR_pages/manufacturing_item.asp?id=14805
Truth and Justice - 29 July 2008
Regarding PM, a lot of what has been said I agree with but from a printer's point of view we're stuck with PM companies showing no loyalty or appreciation of the skills and specialities of a company and just 'junk mailing' quotes and picking the lowest price. (Present company excepted of course...) The staff wouldn't know a Quark document from a spreadsheet and all queries have to be referred to the person we should be talking to in the first place. ALL jobs arrive with the bare minimum of production time and all are NO FAIL deliveries (no matter that the project has been in planning for 2 months). Mind, there's always time for a reprint! ;-) They are obsessed with (and no doubt sell to their clients) 'systems'. Electronic orders arrive with no discussion, along with reams of 'compliance' documentation. Different people dealing with the same job etc etc.
Outsourcing this function is, IMHO, mostly a method of clearing down costs from the firm's balance sheet. Of course the salemen love it! No visits, no entertaining, no selling! Just wait by the Inbox....
If PM companies want to sell a real service to their customers and not just the cheapest then involve your printers and build a relationship. Top quality, if sold correctly, will always have its place.
Lance Hill - 29 July 2008
As my old friend Lee Deacon says, this is an interesting debate, albeit a tad long in the tooth. I believe there are three key points here. 1. PM is hear to stay for some considerable time yet and I suggest the moaning bunch that don't like it go and do something else - life is too short. 2. We are fortunate enough to deal with a mix of blue chip direct clients and PM and the majority of our PM clients are at the slicker end ie they add value to both clients and suppliers, you just have to be prepared to embrace it. 3. TPF's situation will probably become more commonplace over the next few years but they have obviously done something right for Sky and who will Sky first be turning to when they get their own team sorted? It will be TPF I guess as they will offer continuity of service along with the introduction of some other new suppliers along the way. The point here is to play the long game, make the most of the PM relationships that do work and if one or two of their customers do a Sky then if the relationship is right it is highly likely that the end client knows who you are and will probably turn to you as the first port of call to become a key or lead supplier.
Lance Hill - MD, Transcom 4DM
www.4dm.co.uk
Lee Deacon - 29 July 2008
I thank my learned friend Lance for his comments of calling me an "old friend" which just goes to show success is built on building and sustaining good working relationships. I haven't given Lance an order in about 9 years, only because I no longer buy any direct mail services, but we still have good words to say about each other.
Good luck with the Venturini relationship.
Andrew Bartlett - 29 July 2008
This is the wrong debate. It should be about ethics and sustainability.
No one solution fits all, so I’m not sure that debate should be about in-house print buyers v PMC’s. The issue is they are still both working in the same old environment and they both have the same problems with skill levels, staff and quality. Out-sourcing is a legitimate business model for corporates, so we shouldn’t be debating which is the best model but finding ways to stop them both being abused.
All corporates want is an open transparent process where they know exactly what they are paying for and they understand the added value that any party brings to the table.
No smoke and mirrors, no hidden rebates and then corporates can make educated choices based on accurate information.
Print buyers, where ever they reside, are usually passionate about our industry and would like it to become sustainable. Working together in the only way forward.
I put it to you that what’s required is visibility and accountability throughout the entire life of projects, within corporates as well as suppliers.
iPPSA is a new Trade Association for Buyers of Print and has created a new environment that provides visibility and accountability throughout the whole supply chain. This is an open environment that moves away from one to one relationships to one where visibility and accountability are achieved in a many to many relationship.
Collaboration, standardisation, automation, education and training are our mantra.
Andrew Bartlett
iPPSA www.ippsagroup.com
mobile 07979703216
Jane Rosen - 29 July 2008
I have had dealings with almost all PM companies, and they are all much of a muchness. When you get to see them for the first time they spend a lot of time convincing you that price is a factor, but not an important one. Your enviromental and quality certification and customer service is more important. ''We are a partnership'' they tell you.
Then you quote £1800 for a job and they ask you to reduce your price to £1200 if you want it as XYZ press in The Outer Hebrides has quoted less. In fact, they tell you that 14 printers were cheaper and only 6 more expensive. These days I deal with one print management company, they are head and shoulders above the rest, and in order to stop my tongue going brown they shall remain nameless.
Jon Fennell - 31 July 2008
Jane you have not dealt with us, we do work on partnership, price is not always everything.
But what makes you different from supplier with CTP, Heidelberg, Stahl/MBO. I don't mean this in the wrong way, but what sets you apart from the others?
Why are you worth £600 more?
How do you justify your costs to a client if they shop around.
From what you are saying the print managers have justified thier existence and saved the client money, how would you justify your cost.
David West - 31 July 2008
This really has sparked a furious debate hasn't it, full of passion, and vitriol, the fairly frequent description of PM companies as parasites is pretty strong stuff.
I must declare myself a client of a PM company (in the spirit of earlier contributors I shall not name them), and perhaps I would feel differently if I were a manufacturer. I dont have sufficient experience or knowledge to judge whether PM companies have had such an adverse, and unfair, effect on their business as appears to be suggested here by some.
The online tools, digital systems etc, as Simon describes, must have some effect on this business, and this infrastructure forms an important part of our relationship with our PM partner.
As important a part as this is, its way from being the most critical.
The added value that is the subject of discussion has been evident throughout our relationship. The fact that they have such a broad range of experiences, and clients, has meant for us we've learned from each other, across a multitude of disciplines, and I hope their other clients have benefitted likewise from us. The incredibly diverse range of things a large marcomm department generate require a very broad range of expertiise, which mostly we've seen eveidence of. With a need for pan European response, and clients based in every country in Europe, again, there is a breadth of knowledge and experience which is required. Our relationship has evolved and built over some years, and their involvement in many aspects of our business, outside of purely printed stuff, has been a genuine benefit, and we have what I believe to be a real (a grossly over-used word I know in these circumstances) partnership.
This always has to be under-pinned by an ability to show cost benefits, sometimes hard benefits, and sometimes soft, process improvements, agency cost reductions, improved product etc. It would be daft for me to suggest that these were not important, and the analysis of this is imperfect, I accept that, but I have enough ROI evidence to show the worth of the relationship.
There may be a case for saying that the days are numbered for "bad" PM companies, good, thats as it should be, but my experience of "good" PM companies (and I have encountered many bright, talented business people within PM not just our incumbent) leads me to believe that this is still a very valid and viable option. There is no one solution, no one size fits all, no absolute answer but I think PM has been, and still is, a sensible option for many.
For the Workers - 31 July 2008
Having read through the entire string of comments the majority of people are making good cases for and against Print Management companies and as adults we are all allowed to express our opinions. My one disappointment with this entire string is the colourful Mr Brooks comments AGAIN, look Phil everybody who reads any TPF related article in printweek.com understands that you have an issue with SB and that you are always looking for a way to put him down and this must have been the big one you were waiting for. However on this occasion try engaging your brain and thinking about the people that work for the organisation, they are probably wondering what this is going to mean to them and their families. It doesn't take a genius to see that a move like this by SKY is probably going to mean some form of reorganisation within TPF even if it’s just in the way they attract new business to the company.
Apologies to the rest of you guys for interrupting the string but I get really bored of this sort of cheap shot taking.....
The Mighty wind - 01 August 2008
Mike Morris writes:
The service-led ethos they had on the Sky account couldn't really be faulted because they bent over backwards and the client always got what they wanted...
doubtful or they would have retained the contract
Mark Smith - 01 August 2008
"doubtful or they would have retained the contract"
Umm. I can say from personal experience that bending over backwards to give a client what they need at all times does not always guarantee keeoing a contract. Sometimes it just takes one personality change at the client end for everything to tumble down, despite the hard work. And just because a client is blue chip, it doesn't mean this sort of thing doesn't happen.
Nick Sadler - 05 September 2008
As usual i find my self in agreement with Jon Fennel.
It isnt always about price we can always buy cheaper but if you can justify the cost it is rarely a problem. Jon's company Active International used to regularly pay my Company £12,000 more than a cheapest competitor for critical work that he knew would go without issue. We added value...
we did without doubt make things very easy for the print managers by our poor understanding of the value of solution selling.
if we really saw it as a problem we could always price the PM's out of the market and refuse to deal with them , but we dont we still embrace them and welcome them on board. There is a place for everyone at the table.
As for the sky contract it was the preverbial "Gravy Train" for TPF and like every good thing natrually comes to an end. He lost Ladbrokes and still survived so i am sure he will survive this especially as he has won Allianz recently.
Lance also makes some very valid points.
Good to see the level of interest this generated love him or hate him SB's got us all talking!!!
To post comments please log in here