Dan Margulis Applied Color Theory - Inhouse or Outsource?

From: Dan Margulis, 76270.1033@compuserve.com
Date: Sun, Apr 2, 2000, 12:33 PM
RE: In-house or outsource?

Folks,

I just got an interesting philosophical question, one that faces a lot of smaller operations these days. Do you hire a specialist, or go have an outside firm do the work?

I think it's a hard question. I'll post a response tomorrow. Meanwhile, as I understand his current situation, art directors may or may not be responsible for color correction and may or may not choose to send the work outside. I am guessing around half a dozen art directors in total.

Dan Margulis

ORIGINAL QUESTION:
Dear Dan:

We have been discussing the question of ways to improve the efficiency of our art department. I suggested that there were two ways of doing that: 1) Hire a full-time artist to color-correct/retouch all artwork. 2) Outsource the color-correction/retouching so that our art directors could use that time on other things. I would appreciate your help weighing these suggestions. First, can you ballpark the annual salary of a decent artist for color-correction in-house? (I would hope to get someone who has attended your classes, so that I'm on the same page as them.) Then, can you recommend places where I could send images overnight to have them corrected? I would love to find out how they base fees, and what their turnaround time is.I need to explore both avenues before we can make any kind of decision, and I am hopeful that you can provide me with the guidance I need to proceed. (Who knows; maybe there are the seeds of a future article in this decision process?)

From: Chris Murphy, lists@colorremedies.com
Date: Sun, Apr 2, 2000, 1:41 PM
RE: Re: In-house or outsource

It's a matter of mathematics. Can you maximize a full time color correction/enhancement position, and what will their turnaround be in comparison to outsourcing? Generally you will pay more per item for outsourcing. But if you would have only needed a part time indidivual to do the same work, it ends up costing less to outsource because you don't have an idle employee.

Also when you outsource, the actual person doing the work may be different for each item depending on who's available. This could lead to inconsitencies if the goal of color correction is "pleasing" color. Each person has their own idea of pleasing and interpreting what is intended for final output.

The other aspect is turn around. You will have to wait for outsourcing. If you have to overnight a package to someone in another city, it's impossible to do anything shorter than a three day rush. The same day or next day rush need is organization specific. If you don't have a need, this this isn't a big deal. If you do have this need and you are able to charge customers accordingly, the profit margin is higher on rush jobs; assuming you can fill them in an appropriate time frame.

This would necessitate someone in-house. It's unlikely you can charge a sufficient amount of money for a three or four day rush and make anything more than that which would cover the TRUE one to next day rush charge you'd have to pay the outsourced provider. So you will be paying for same day or next day rush, but only be able to provide the customer the materials in three or four days because of shipping delay; yet somehow you're going to have to find a way to recoup the cost of overnight shipping x2, and the provider's rush charges.

Chris Murphy

From: David Riecks, david@riecks.com
Date: Sun, Apr 2, 2000, 3:59 PM
RE: Re: In-house or outsource?

Chris:

If you do already have an RGB scan sufficient in resolution for the job, be advised that there is a new company on the block, http://www. colorcentric. com, that can convert an RGB to CMYK for $15, with less than a 24 hour turnaround without any courier charges(and a same day express service). I'm new to this list serv but didn't see anything in the archives from the past month or two about this service so thought I would mention this option.

It's easier to go to their site and see the flash file demo than to explain, but in a nutshell you download their diagnostic software, drop your RGB uncompressed TIFF file on the software, and after inputting your specifics (linescreen paper type, GCR, UCR, etc) a diagnostic file is created and uploaded to a password protected area on their site. One of their techs does the conversion and creates a "correction" file. This file is placed in the same password protected area, downloaded and applied to the file, and voila, you've got a finished CMYK file.

I've used them for three major projects in the last two months and they have been a real time saver for me when I get in a crunch. In many cases they have gotten a much better result from problem files that I was not able to get a good result from in earlier attempts. I've only been dealing with CMYK on the desktop for about 2 1/2 years, so this might have something to do with it, but I have been pleased with the bang for the buck.

If you only have slides this isn't an option, but if you have good RGB files on hand from a digital camera or high res scan it's worth looking into.

Usual disclaimers, I have no affiliation with colorcentric, just a pleased customer.

David Riecks * david@riecks.com
701 W. Washington St * Midwest/Chicago ASMP
Champaign, IL 61820 *
ph/fax 217-239-FOTO(3686) * http://www.riecks.com/

From: Dan Margulis
Date: Sun, Apr 2, 2000, 11:38 PM
RE: In-house or outsource?

The question is:

>>I suggested that there were two ways of doing that: 1) Hire a full-time artist to color-correct/retouch all artwork. 2) Outsource the color-correction/retouching so that our art directors could use that time on other things.>>

There's really a third option, which is to force the art directors to learn enough about Photoshop that they can do their own work efficiently.

Each of these approaches has its negatives.

1) Hiring one person has the horrible disadvantage of, what happens if you make a mistake? What happens if the person gets sick on a critical production day? If you haven't been giving your local prepress supplier much work recently because your in-house retoucher has been doing it all, you won't have a lot of leverage with them when you have to go to them hat in hand because your in-house retoucher quit or forgot to show up for work that day. Also, if you are dissatisfied with quality, you will find it a lot easier to fire your outsourcer than your in-house retoucher.

2) If you send the work outside you have no idea who is going to be doing it or whether he knows what he's doing.

3) If you require the art directors to do the work in principle this is fine. The only thing is, art directors are already supposed to know Quark and Illustrator had have a good grasp of design. How much more do you feel comfortable asking them to know?

To me, the decision becomes very situation specific. If you know the person you are thinking of hiring as your in-house retoucher, that's probably the best alternative. If you don't, it's probably the worst alternative of the three. If you think your art directors might respond to the challenge of having total responsibility for the work, let 'em have it. If you don't think they can handle it and force them to do it nevertheless, you're asking for disaster.

If I weren't confident in the retoucher I proposed to hire, or in the art directors I proposed to train, then I would think that alternative #2 is the best one in spite of its disadvantages.

>>First, can you ballpark the annual salary of a decent artist for color-correction in-house?>>

This is very region-specific. In the large cities, there's a lot more sensitivity to the laws of supply and demand. With more people wanting to hire than there are skilled people available, salaries have risen drastically. In New York I think you would be looking at $60,000 and up to get a reasonably skilled color technician and close to $100K to get somebody really good. In other regions things aren't nearly as bad from the employer's POV.

Dan Margulis

From: HOSTCompVIOC@aol.com, HOSTCompVIOC@aol.com
Date: Mon, Apr 3, 2000, 12:36 AM
RE: In-house or outsource? -my thoughts

The Question:

>>We have been discussing the question of ways to improve the efficiency of our art department. I suggested that there were two ways of doing that: 1) Hire a full-time artist to color-correct/retouch all artwork. 2) Outsource the color correction/retouching so that our art directors could use that time on other things. >>

Ive managed an internal "art department" of a large corporation for the last 15 years. Our group is made up of talented writers, photographers and designers. As a company that markets internationally, we interact with agencies all over the world.

Its been my experience that most agencies have designers that are responsible for specific tasks. For example, senior art directors are responsible for creative concepting and overseeing all aspects of executing the piece (photography, retouching, typography, etc.). Another team of graphic designers or production artist are responsible for generating the actual mechanical. These folks are responsible for knowing ad specifications and properly preparing the page layout documents so it outputs accurately and within the publication's size limits. Most agencies deal with outside service bureaus for prepress and retouching. Larger agencies have been in the prepress business for years, but now smaller agencies are starting to realize the potential for profit and taking advantage of the smaller investments needed to bring color in-house.

How you structure your department depends on your circumstances. For example, in-house graphic departments are likely to keep their graphic artist for many years, and have very lean staffs. So it makes more sense to teach these designers production and even prepress. Matter of fact, this could add millions of dollars to your company's bottom-line and even insulate your group from that next "reduction-in-force." This structure makes less sense for the larger agency because of the high turn-over-rate among their creatives. Clients are always looking for "fresh eyes" and as a result, high salary art directors always come and go.

Theres many ways to improve the efficiency of an art department. In my opinion, bringing prepress in-house is an excellent investment. Other benefits of this investment would be the competitive advantage associated with faster turn-around-times. You could even take this a step further and create a small digital photography studio. In any event, the very first course of action should be a trip to accounting to profile your company's spend on prepress activities.

If your company is not in the mood to add employees (its not a popular trend these days), theres many other ways to improve efficiency with smaller capital investments or even no investment at all. You could study workflows and perhaps upgrade your network or key workstations.

One of the most valuable tools we use is a creative fact sheet where the key facts and objectives of a project are listed and agreed upon well before any work begins. Once this work sheet is complete, the copy and creative can get started on the same foot. If you use this tool, you'll find less time spent on costly revisions and redos, not to mention a higher level of client comfort and confidence. If you would like a copy of this work sheet, just drop me a note. Its a simple Excel document yet it has the potential to save many hours of costly staff activities.

Regards,
Jeff Walker

From: "Richard J. Gitler", rgitler@colorcentric.com
Date: Mon, Apr 3, 2000, 11:50 AM
RE: re: In-house or outsource?

In response to the question of "In-House, Outsource, or Learn Color?", I would - hopefully with no offense to the list - like to throw out another option. Colorcentric.com is a company dedicated to providing high-end CMYK conversions and/or color corrections over a standard dial-up internet connection for $15 per image with 1 minute uploads no matter what the original file size.

The software is freely downloadable at http://www.colorcentric.com and it costs nothing to create an account. (There is also a self running flash demo there). The staff in production has an average of 15 years of experience in providing high-end, crafted color. The more you tell our craftsmen about what you want , and where the file is going - the tighter they can dial it in for your specific needs.

I apologize if this sounds a little salesy for a listserve but it's difficult typing about something that's this new and revolutionary without coming off in such a way (plus I am excited and I am a salesman). We encourage anyone on the listserve to try a free test file (simply type "colortest" in the comments section of the job ticket). If you have any questions or would like further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us directly at the numbers below...

Richard J. Gitler
Vice President Sales
Colorcentric.com

800-301-5751 Toll Free
612-340-0404 Phone
612-340-1028 Fax
rgitler@colorcentric.com
www.Colorcentric.com

From: JWalton,
Date: Tue, Apr 4, 2000, 12:43 PM
RE: Fwd: RE: In-house or outsource?

Interesting post, and good points made.

There are a few disadvantages to hiring in-house. You mentioned one, with having a limited number of CCR guys losing one to vacation/sickness is a big hurt.

But here's one you may not have considered.

--You are now hiring the best your images will ever look.

Prepress or color houses will often have several guys that are absolutely top-notch retouchers/color guys. An ad agency that hires in would have to _know_ that they are hiring as good as they need. Many make the mistake of hiring people who, though extremely confident, do not have the same ability as those who make more money at prepress houses.

That's a tough thing, because I think everybody feels they are as good as it gets unless they have a point of reference. I may feel I'm the best in the universe, except that I know Dan is much better at color correction. There's my point of reference.

As far as the money thing goes, Dan's salary estimates are indeed acurate, but they are market-specific. In Los Angeles they may be a bit high, but in San Francisco they are pretty accurate. But Dan had the high-end of his estimates going to top-notch operators. Not every operator can be such, even if they want to be. That takes time, natural ability, and desire.

You may in fact be underpaid. But you can't compare your salary to what they used to pay the service bureau (You can't make several hundred thousand dollars). If anything, you should compare your salary to what _you_ could make at another job doing the same thing. That's not graphics industry-specific, that's just a fact of negotiating. Next time your review comes around, you need to know what you could make somewhere else so you can negotiate closer.

<surlymode>Oh yeah, and when you make the money you used to think was extravagant, you find out it's not really. The government takes almost half of it, and you end up pissing away the rest on things you can't find 6 months later.</surlymode>

J

From: Scott.Thompson@cyrk.com, Scott.Thompson@cyrk.com
Date: Tue, Apr 4, 2000, 11:27 AM
RE: Re: In-house or outsource?

I am the photography studio manager for a large corporation that produces dozens of catalogs per year. I believe that if a company has any kind of volume at all the decision to go "in-house" is a no brainer. I recently did a study on cost savings on "in-house" photography and color (we have two full time color people). I found we save the company so much money that getting equipment upgrades if fairly simple. The "suits" are bottom line people after all and they understand that spending $50K or $100K a year on upgrades saves them many times that.

Besides money, the savings in time is now indispensable. We shoot most of our images digitally and when we have to shoot film the Art Directors cry like little girls. Even though we scan "in-house", the extra day makes it seem like we came to a stop.

Finally the convenience. Color matching our merchandise is, of course, paramount and many items we shoot are of a certain color that doesn't photograph true, either digitally or film. Being "in-house" we can easily take all of the samples into the Color Department so they can have them in the light booth. If we did it outside we have to shlep all of the stuff, frequently in the hundreds, to the color house. The convenience of having "in-house" saves the Designer and Art Director having to spend shooting days outside of the office. In addition reshooting something goes from days to minutes.

Scott Thompson

From: Dan Margulis
Date: Tue, Apr 4, 2000, 10:32 AM
RE: Re: In-house or outsource?

Folks,

I post the following at the request of a list member who asked that I remove his name before passing it on.

Dan Margulis

------------

I read this question with great interest as I am one of those people who is in the unique, or maybe not so unique anymore, position of being hired specifically as the in-house color correction/retoucher/cmyk conversion etc etc etc technician for the advertising dept. of a large retail corporation. There are definite advantages for any large, high production company going this route, the most obvious of which is financial. Going from being billed for hundreds of thousands of dollars per year by a prepress bureau to paying one person a salary and benefits makes the bean counters froth at the mouth. The other advantages of course are much tighter quality control over images, and a consistency that we didn't get with work from a service/prepress bureau. We've also managed to streamline our workflow and provide very fast turn-around times. The disadvantages are that if your one color correction/retoucher is sick or goes on holidays, as you pointed out, the whole thing can kind of fall apart. Unless you've properly planned and trained for adequate coverage, then it's back to the prepress bureau. The other disadvantage that I find is the insular nature of doing this job in one area of industry; you don't get the interaction and constant exchange of ideas or variation of work you might otherwise have with different clients (hence the reason a list like this is so useful). I'd be interested to hear if there are other people in similar positions to mine that subscribe to this list as it seems that a lot of large companies are now bringing their advertising, production, photography etc in-house. Some of the problems I've encountered stem from the fact that you're employed by a company that does not necessarily understand the graphics industry and doesn't always understand the need to invest in proper equipment, software etc.Also, depending on the type of company, their idea of a fair salary does not necessarily reflect that of the graphics industry. If I go by your salary suggestion as a high benchmark, then I am being grossly underpaid considering the amount of work I do and the amount of responsibility I now have. If was paid one tenth of what used to be billed to us, I'd be driving a really nice car. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy my job, but the bureaucracy can be frustrating at times. Anyway, that's just my two cents.

From: Dan Margulis, 76270,1033
Date: Wed, Apr 5, 2000, 4:27 PM
RE: In-house: author responds

Folks,

I forwarded the responses of the group to the gentleman who asked the original question and he sends the following comments.

Dan Margulis

------------
Dan:
In reading the responses it seems clear that a lot of these people already outsource color correction. I say that because if they tried doing color correction in-house as I have for the past years, they would realize that training art directors to do this not only faces the challenge of long learning curves and the resistance to added responsibility, but also the reality that no two art directors are possessed of the same level of skill in accomplishing pleasing results. I am spending an inordinate amount of my time teaching, reviewing, and re-retouching photos, which is what led me to contacting you in the first place.
I thought that having ONE person do ALL of the work would remove the question of personal taste, and also simplify any training. However your comments about the problems associated with having "all our eggs in one basket" as it were, and the question of hiring the RIGHT individual are all points well taken.

I have already experienced the difficulties of outsourcing locally via printers and pre-press shops; even the same shop has different results, depending on which person worked on the separation that particular day. It only exacerbates the problem, since I give them the work based on the assumption that an expensive shop will produce acceptable results--therefore I do not budget time or money for fixing the work once it is received. That assumption has been proven incorrect more often than not of late. The problem has reached critical mass as our agency grows...

I will explore Colorcentric's services; it sounds too good to be true, and you know what they say about that. But for $15 I think it's worth a try.

Thank everyone who responded for me, and thank you again for your assistance and feedback. I will send you an update in a few months to let you know how it's working out, whichever way we go.

Adobe Photoshop training classes are taught in the US by Sterling Ledet & Associates, Inc.