Discussion in 'AP Magazine Feedback & Suggestions' started by swanseadave, Jun 18, 2015.
Has anyone noticed AP is shrinking?In recent weeks it`s about 1cm narrower.
No doubt one of the staff could say. My guess would be that they've sold fewer pages to advertisers.
The paper size was reduced at the beginning of the year:
7mm in height, 10mm in width. This was not at the expense of content however (full/double page pictures excepted) as it was taken up by a reduction in the size of margins etc.
If the truth be told. Either the Printing equipment, the paper web or both, can fit more pages to view (or more economically on a narrower web) in the new slightly smaller finished size. The increase in production in terms of time and material. The resultant savings, including savings or postal costs, far exceed any downsides as to size, content or design considerations.
It is strange how rarely clients will ever, even consider small changes of page size as a factor, when print buying. When they have no hesitation at all, changing stock quality, pagination, or even production methods.
Hopefully as a result of this change AP will be able to hold the cover price a little longer.
Or a lot longer, for preference
Back when I was a full time newspaper person, one of my (many) side of the desk jobs was handling external print customers. The group was slowly changing to Offset and the board was keen to sell as much contract printing as possible, to pay for the new kit.
We had an approach from a publisher of trade magazines, who was then printing 11 x 12 across the board. I did two prices for them, based on using our loose time between editions. One quote was for their existing runs, which were basically valueless for us because we'd waste so much of the web; the second was for A4, because we were already looking to move to A3 for the tabloids (very forward thinking of us, eh?) so we could print and slit with no changes except to the plates.
They didn't like it, even though the A4 price, they admitted, was close to half their current deal. Off they went in a huff.
A year later I had left the company but was still in touch with a couple of colleagues. One evening, I met up with them for a drink and they were very happy. The trade press people had come back and signed a two year deal for all thirty of their titles...
My mates had reason to be cheerful: everyone in the department was getting a bonus on the back of the deal. Everyone except the bloke who'd worked out the pricing, written the schedules and then left the group, who was, err, me.
Maybe AP is slowly mutating into one of those handbag sized magazines that various lady's publications produce.
Ideal size to go in your gadget-bag (or whatever they call the these days) and may increase the market for the mag...
Haha! My gadget bag IS my handbag.
Nah! We can manage bigger things than that!
https://flic.kr/p/avEt9xa little light reading https://flic.kr/p/avEt9x by Kate Ferris https://www.flickr.com/photos/kate_ferris/, on Flickr[/IMG]
https://flic.kr/p/4gQRgKWell... if you won't play with me! https://flic.kr/p/4gQRgK by Kate Ferris https://www.flickr.com/photos/kate_ferris/, on Flickr[/IMG]
You must be extremely young.
Back in the real days, it was a choice of octavo, quarto or foolscap. But remember the stooshie when they introduced teletypesetting so that the copy set on a teleprinter in the London branch office emerged as linotype in the Edinburgh print works (and the unions insisted that as it was doing the job of two men (teleprinter operator and linotype operator) it had to be manned by two men. (Women, in those days, were restricted to hand-setting the stop press chase).
The old imperial printing stock sizes were.
Crown 16¼ x 21
Demy 17¾ x 22½
Medium 18¼ x 23
Royal 20 x 25
Super Royal 21 x 27
Double Pott 15 x 25
Double Foolscap 17 x 27
Double Crown 20 x 30
Double Demy 22½ x 35½
However paper for web printing could be supplied in virtually any width as it would be ordered as a making of many tonnes. But the nearer you could get to the full width of the paper making machine the more economic it would be.
I sometimes bought side runs by the tonne (the bit not required at the sides or ends of rolls, when they were slit at the converters) and had them sheeted into SRA3 for use on Heidelberg GTO's machines.
(you had to put up with the wrong grain direction sometimes but it was cheap)
It's very kind of you to say so sir!
I just happened to hit the crest of the big changes: metrication, de-unionisation, offset and computerisation, most of which occurred over the few years I was active in the business.
I was also lucky to come in sideways, so I never got caught up in the union nonsense. More than one colleague told me I was a scab's scab because I never joined up. None of the unions would have me in any case, because I cut across so many trades. Looking back at my working life, I was somewhat ahead of the curve, reskilling myself as new tools and processes appeared, but I wasn't alone; I met many people who were following a similar path.
In one sense, the space for people like me is shrinking: everyone wants specialists nowadays, so it's back to the past across much of British business. I think that's very short sighted, frankly. It was excessive specialisation that strangled the print business and I can't see it working any better with the new industries.
For a while there were No established experts. If you could actually do things and cope with change and new technology, You were valuable.
Qualifications and training were non existent in the new fields, you coped or you sank without trace. everything came one after another. Offset, Phototypesetting, Apple computers,Quark, Film setters. direct to plate. Skilled Jobs went out the window faster than they could be learned, or than linotype slugs could fly.
To day there is another world in all the forms of Digital print. "White suit" working is here to stay. On the run... Every page, a different page, is entirely possible. The experts are back. Qualifications now start at degree level.
What goes around comes around.
Separate names with a comma.