After working for web to print vendors for the last 15+ years, needless to say it’s interesting to look at the industry from a different perspective. Now that I have an independent perspective (not filtering everything through the role of selling a single technology), I would like to share some insights on how printer’s could [...]
After working for web to print vendors for the last 15+ years, needless to say it’s interesting to look at the industry from a different perspective. Now that I have an independent perspective (not filtering everything through the role of selling a single technology), I would like to share some insights on how printer’s could improve the process of choosing a web to print vendor.
So much of technology marketing and sales is centered on what I’ll call the lowest meaningful attribute (the feature). There are endless feature matrices comparing the specific details of every solution – I guess when we dig into the details we feel we’ve done our “due diligence” in the selection process. The challenge with this approach is that an intense focus on software features can limit your attention to the really important stuff, like the right partner with the right vision and the product which is the easiest to use and has an architecture that is flexible enough to evolve and scale with you and the ever changing internet ecosystem.
Huh? If all you heard was… blah, blah, blah… we’re busy comparing feature matrices to make sure we get the best value, more features more value right? Here’s where it gets interesting. If you choose the product with the most features and it turns out to be too hard for anyone to use in a self service fashion, nobody is going to use those features anyway. More features can sometimes mean more value but it ALWAYS means more complexity. Simplicity is hard. But simplicity wins, here’s a good graphical representation…
Even if software features aren’t ever used they add to the overall complexity of the solution. When solutions get complex, they move slower (less releases) and they get harder to test (more overall code).
Here’s something that should not surprise anyone, that feature matrix you’re starring at, it was filled out by the vendors. They will do back flips in reasoning to check “yes” on everything; do you want to be the one vendor in the matrix that doesn’t support cross media campaigns in double-byte languages?
How the heck am I (a printer with limited time and expertise) suppose to evaluate a partner, architecture, usability, and product vision? You’re smarter than you think, technology isn’t as complicated as it’s made out to be, it’s just been advantageous to confuse people by overwhelming them with technical jargon.
Here are some suggestions for evaluating the factors that really matter:
Usability
OK this one is easy, you have customers (business to business purchase), ask them to try and use the product BEFORE you buy it. If they can’t figure it out, it’s not usable. If you’re diving into the business to consumer world, ask a relative, friend, someone outside the print industry to use it (without guidance) to test its usability. Test it against the online competitors. Don’t let your pre-press / production people be the judges of customer facing usability, people get print knowledge embedded in their heads permanently and they can’t take that expert hat off to step into the shoes of someone who has very little print knowledge (your customers).
Partner
Are these people you want to work with (skip the technology stuff, do you trust these folks?) Seriously, this is a partnership not a one-off sales interaction. Get a sense of the team, not just the sales rep. Call the support desk (make it near closing time), talk to current customers and see how they are treated post sales. Maybe try and find current customers yourself rather than asking for the referrals list? Lots of web to print installations can be found by their product name by searching on the web.
Architecture
This one can be trickier, a lot of people think architecture is what platform was the solution coded on (Java, .Net, Rails, Python), you can build horrible architectures in any programming language. Architecture in my opinion is how the solution is organized (relationships between the different entities – print locations, customers, payment methods, products, categories, etc…) and the ability of the solution to integrate with other technologies (extensibility). Remember integration is a word used rather loosely; ask more direct questions like, what data is passed? how often? using what protocol?
Vision
Google’s power scares me somtimes but you have to like the fact that they openly publish their “vision/philosophy“. I’m not saying every web to print software vendor has to have a documented manifesto but someone is making decisions about what gets in the product roadmap (typically the product manager). What is their vision for the product? Don’t accept a list of features as a valid answer ;-)
I think this is a killer article. I share the exact same thoughts with the author. As a person that has implemented many web to print sites, working with 3 products, features are meaningless unless they are actually used. I tend to stick with the mentally of “keep it as simple as Google” and dont bombard the customer with features that are prone to cause confusion. Even list integration with W2P tools may be too much for many customers – since it’s really a science on buying the right list.
All too often we forget about the support and quick fixes that need to be made to a site. Im a huge proponent of working with small w2p companies. The support is much more personal, they are very flexible and can roll out fixes to bugs or add new features within days instead of the “next software version”. I personally work with PageDNA and RedTie and can speak very highly of these two companies.
Having a feature list might be good if your implementing a MIS or CRM tool, but since your just trying to make the customer’s life simpler with W2P, less is always more.
Have you heard anything about Rocket Print?
I have seen Rocket Print in the Google search returns. I don’t have any direct experience with the technology.
Nice article that couldn’t be more spot on. Following this advice is very likely to save you from a serious mistake you might make otherwise.
That’s the intention – prevent printers from doing a lot of work and then ultimately making the wrong decision because they were evaluating solutions based on features alone.
I’m thoroughly impressed by this article.
As a W2P solution provider ourselves we often have the same challenges in communicating the differences of our solution vs. other solutions. After a while all the solutions sound pretty similar – although I can assure readers that they are not (I have sat through more demos than I care to admit).
Complicating the situation is the fact that W2P means different things to different people. Some people view W2P as a “storefront” technology. Others view it as a means to achieve Supply Chain Optimization (SCO) or automation…either for their print shop or for a customer. And many are looking for a blend of the two.
I happen to think that the ‘good partner’ aspect is one of the most critical elements to choosing a workable solution – particularly for more complex variable data or SCO implementations. I’ve seen a business scrap an already purchased five digit piece of software because it wasn’t flexible enough to handle an essential custom requirement. Whereas a ‘good partner’ can often work together to get past that hump. Being a ‘good partner’ starts during the sales cycle by listening to what a customer needs and providing honest feedback about what a particular solution is capable of.
Sincerely
Scott Levy
slevy@colorquick.com
Scott – thanks for the additional comments to the article. I found that after printers had looked at many solutions and then selected the solution I was representing – they actually believed they were buying an amalgam of all the solutions they had seen. You can’t blame them for mixing them all together, its human nature to actually think about the components you liked about each one and convince yourself you can have the perfect solution that combines them all.
When considering a purchase, I like to focus on what has permanence – changing the overall architecture of a solution is very tough (without a full rewrite), changing the culture of a company is also tough (partnership), what we’re doing now is focusing on the components (features) which do NOT have permanence because software should always be evolving.
Re. “partner” section.
A funny thing that crops up with mainly american customers is question “How big are you”?
- No, we ain’t big.
- Oh … (unhappy)
- You want someone really big? Try Lehman Brothers.
Usually it’s the end of the conversation.
Well, what can I say? We ain’t big and they want someone big to toss them around :)
Big companies play defense – protect revenue streams, small companies play offense – trying to innovate their way to new revenue streams. You make a great point, does BIG mean secure. Hmmm Lehman Brothers, Arthur Anderson Consulting, Enron, GM… I think BIG or SMALL is not as important as innovative, some big companies are REALLY innovative (Apple, Google, WalMart), some little companies are not. BIG does not = secure. Small does not = insecure. I think this is a hold over from the web 1.0 dotcom craziness when so many companies disappeared. I like your response. Here’s another one – do you want to be the smallest customer buying from a large company (very little influence) or do you want to be one of the bigger customers buying from a small company (lots of influence)?
Great post and replies. I’ve been with a web-to-print provider about seven months. As someone new to the industry as well, it’s been interesting to see the process prospects go through to select a web-to-print provider and understand specifically why clients– and vendor partners– choose a supplier. I completely agree with the partnership approach as an important factor- it’s one that our customers and partners tell us time and time again is why those choose to work with us. As they say, all things being equal, customers tend to work with people they like and trust.
I’ll ask a question or two of my own, if I may:
1) Maybe this is related to partnering, but what about seeking to really understand what it is the customer is trying to accomplish? Basically, ensuring that the solution is right for the customer’s specific web to print and workflow needs?
2) Innovative for who? Those same companies that churn out features may create what they think are “cool innovative features,” but they don’t mean a thing to the customer.
As far as simple, web-to-print is not usually as simple as it seems, so from my stand point, implementations almost have to be done in stages, with additional capabilities rolled out as the customer works through what the software means for their individual workflow and process.
Keep up the good posts!
Elisha – I agree with you features do NOT necessarily = innovation. I believe the new definition of innovation is “how” you solve problems rather than “how many” you choose to solve. Steve Jobs famously said he’s more proud of the products they choose NOT TO BUILD.
Printers would be better served by asking more “how?” questions than “if?” questions. Do you convert native files to PDF OR how do you convert native files to PDF? Do you do approvals vs. how to you do approvals?
Everything can be solved in multiple ways, the most complex way is the easiest, the best way is usually the hardest (simplify it so much that users don’t even notice it). Unfortunately, a lot of software is sold on the number of features vs. the number of features that are actually used or usable.