Digital inkjet for short and medium run labels

Transcription

1 White Paper Digital inkjet for short and medium run labels A Cost Analysis

2 Index Introduction 3 Today s Market 3 Competing technologies 4-5 Comparative Costs 6-8 Cost analysis 8-9 Digital inkjet in practice 10 Conclusions 11 2

3 Digital inkjet for short and medium run labels A Cost Analysis Introduction Changing market demands bring changes to production planning and opportunities for new technology. But which is the right one to choose, and how can one maximise its potential? This White Paper evaluates the current state of the label market, offers an overview of the technologies available and, utilising industry sources, provides a data driven approach that allows each converter to choose the most appropriate technology for the type of work being undertaken. By looking at the various types of print technology being used in today s label market it is possible to build a model that evaluates the relative costs of each. These include gravure, flexo, offset, and screen among traditional analogue techniques, as well as toner (liquid and dry) and inkjet digital print technology. For the purpose of this White Paper, UV-flexo and UV-inkjet have been chosen as the two most likely competitors, and a comparison of their respective costs for producing the same or similar labels has been made. These costs include all aspects of start up from plates to ink to waste, and include time and labour too. By summarising real production data provided by approximately 20 label converters, it is possible to identify the crossover point at which one technology becomes more cost effective than the other. While this can be influenced by a number of variables, including substrate and label usage, it does offer a valuable guide both to converters who are planning their next investment in print technology, and also those who were not planning any short term change, but who may now draw conclusions that new digital inkjet technology may be a better fit for their business, even if it means de-commissioning existing flexo plant. Today s Market Label converting is following a pattern that reflects the global print market in which run lengths are declining and mass production is being replaced by more personalisation/versioning. This is due partly to a radical change in consumer buying habits, on which both the Internet and Social Media are having a major influence, and also the capability of new technology, especially that of digital printing presses. Print volume overall continues to rise, but as run lengths shorten, the number of jobs increases too. As Brand Managers react to these changes in market demand, technology has to cope with JIT practice, with the requirement for an 8-hour turnaround from order to delivery becoming more commonplace. In addition to more short run jobs, there is now a vastly increased number of SKUs in which small but important print variations are required. These account for a disproportionate level of production time if printed flexo, so the problem is one of capacity as much as cost. Variable data is also used for product traceability, promotional activity, gaming, and loyalty schemes. To cope with this changing situation, a new way of thinking and new means of production are required. This White Paper offers a statistical analysis of typical label jobs and breaks down their constituent costs in a meaningful way to provide a practical guide. 3

4 Competing technologies The market for self-adhesive labels is relatively young, with the production technology and substrates being developed as recently as the middle of the 20th century. Beginning, and largely staying with narrow web presses in the mm web width range, there have been numerous changes in print technique from rotary letterpress to flexo and offset, with additional screen and gravure print units available for special jobs or finishes. The advent of UV curing and computer-toplate (CtP) technology, along with improved anilox roll and better inks allowed flexo, a one time poor relation in terms of quality, to overtake letterpress and close the gap to offset. Today, UV-flexo dominates the market for narrow web analogue production of labels in terms of the number of presses installed, many of which are combination lines with other print techniques, such as screen, and inline finishing options like hot or cold foil, and laminating and varnishing. Digital technology is very much a 21st century creation in terms of multi-colour printing, although in inkjet form it had existed for many years previously. Today there are two fundamental techniques used for labels: one that uses toner (liquid or dry), and inkjet. Each has its advantages and disadvantages relative to the others, and there are countless installations globally of all three types. While the two toner technologies can only be used as digital print stations (with or without inline finishing), a recent development in the inkjet market has seen a number of flexo/inkjet hybrid machines enter the market, which offer similar versatility to the combination analogue machines mentioned earlier. In addition, the latest series of inkjet presses are available with proprietary brands of offline and inline finishing systems that allow single pass production. One area where analogue presses have always been superior is running speed. Typically, a modern narrow web flexo press will be capable of speeds up to 180m/min, although more usual production speeds may well be half that, or even less. This compares with digital toner presses that typically run at 30m/min and digital inkjet at 50-75m/min, or far closer to that of a flexo press. But, production speed of course tells only part of the story it is total production time that holds the key to profitability (see Fig 1), which identifies various elements of daily label production for the three different print techniques when producing the same production jobs.. While running speed is the principal part of each, especially toner, both digital techniques consume less time for the nonprinting activities. 4

5 Digital inkjet for short and medium run labels A Cost Analysis Total Production Time (mins) Domino N610i Flexo Liquid Toner Daily start-up & 'wash up' time (mins) Finishing (mins) Make ready time between jobs (mins) Time to print (mins) Time for roll & version plate changes (mins) Fig 1 The analysis requires other costs like substrate, ink, plates, make-ready time, and other consumables to be calculated (see Fig 2). Here, inkjet and flexo are close in performance, but interestingly this is achieved in different ways. Where ink costs are higher for inkjet, it has no plate costs, and this makes it ideally suited for short run work where multiple versions are required, typically the personal care market and others where the SKU count is high. In today s production environment, the pressure is on reducing the time the press is stopped not on running it faster as time costs money, so downtime hurts margin, and the ability to print a job in 20 minutes is often less important than the 60 minutes or more that may elapse between the press stopping and starting again. 3,000 Total Costs ( ) 2,500 2,000 1,500 1, Domino N610i Flexo Liquid Toner Media Cost Ink/click Cost Plate Cost Other consumables Labour Cost Other Cost Fig 2 5

6 Application fit is another important factor in determining the best technology to use. The advent of high performance UV-curable inks brought a vibrancy to colour labels that had been hitherto unknown. They are also highly durable in harsh environments such as high humidity, chemical or saline conditions, and have good abrasion resistance. For these reasons, UV-inkjet is preferred to toner printed labels in household and home care markets along with industrial applications. In addition, the quality of the inkjet white, which is often compared with screen, and superior to flexo and toner white, opens up the personal care market too. Where UV inks are less popular is in the food market, where the possibility of harmful migration is ever present, at least in theory. In practice, a large proportion of food packaging is currently and successfully printed using UV inks and lacquers without problem. As media reports confirm, it is the qualification mechanism and production processes that are critical. In summary, UV, whether inkjet or flexo, offers the widest performance capability, and for today s market of shorter runs, more SKUs, and JIT delivery, it has to be UV-inkjet that holds the key to unlock profits. Comparative costs To understand which is the most appropriate technology for any job, one needs to define the term short run. Inevitably, opinions on this differ wildly, but for the purpose of these comparison tests three Bully label jobs that total 120,000 labels, and equate to a little over 6,000 linear metres of substrate have been chosen (see Figs 3 & 4). Where both inkjet and toner presses require less time for daily start up, no time for version changes, and minimal time for make ready between jobs, flexo has only its running speed as an advantage. The net result is a comfortable win for inkjet and comfortable loss for toner. If the daily press usage is calculated, inkjet is a clear winner on annual label capacity, with 30% more than its nearest rival, flexo. Perhaps, one of the most significant statistics here is the level of wastage, which considering the price of today s substrates, puts flexo production in a poor light both financially and environmentally. Low Coverage Medium Coverage High Coverage Looking in more detail at the breakdown of costs involved in the three jobs, one can see that this waste accounts for an additional 8% of material costs with flexo over and above the digital processes, but when ink or click charges are taken into account, the toner process is the most expensive, and what flexo saves in ink, it loses in plate costs. It is important that finishing costs are also considered when comparing the costs between flexo and digital label production. A flexo press generally includes finishing, so die-cutting and waste removal are an inherent part of this process. In order to make a fair comparison, the time and costs for these processes must also be considered for digital production (see Fig 3) so that a representative Total Cost Per 1,000 Labels ( ) can be calculated for finished labels for all three technologies. Overall in our example, if one includes labour, press amortisation, and servicing, and with no versioning included, digital inkjet wins by a margin of 4% over flexo, and a substantial 43% over digital toner. However, nowadays, the majority of jobs involve multiple SKUs. Including additional SKUs with the associated plate costs, down time, waste etc would show a significantly higher advantage for inkjet. 6

7 Digital inkjet for short and medium run labels A Cost Analysis TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP Domino N610i Flexo Liquid Toner Number of jobs Run length (label) 120, , ,000 Run length (linear m) 6,185 6,185 6,185 Daily start-up & 'wash up' time (mins) Time to print (mins) Finishing (mins) Time for roll & version plate changes (mins) Make ready time between jobs (mins) TOTAL PRODUCTION TIME (hr:min) 3:28 4:13 7:19 Press capacity utilisation (Day) 43% 53% 91% Press capacity utilisation (Year) 0% 0% 0% Max. label production per year 61,273,307 47,113,120 26,362,600 Total media waste (linear m) Ink usage (incl. flush/clean-up) (kg) 8 6 COSTS Total media cost ( ) Ink & flush cost ( ) Click charge ( ) 800 Plate costs ( ) 680 Other consumable costs ( ) Labour costs ( ) Capital amortisation ( ) Allocated service cost ( ) Utilities & other attributable costs ( ) TOTAL COSTS ( ) 1,927 1,998 2,751 Total cost per 1,000 labels ( ) Fig 3 Total Cost Per 1,000 Labels ( ) Domino N610i Flexo Liquid Toner Fig 4 7

8 Using the Bully labels, a 6,000m run length including the three versions is the cross-over point, where printing with digital inkjet or flexo have similar costs. Run lengths over 6,000m will see flexo generally becoming more cost effective, for run lengths less than 6,000m, or for where there may be more multiple versions, digital inkjet is the best technology. By grossing up the press utilisation percentage for each of the three print techniques, digital inkjet wins by a considerable margin of 30% more than its nearest rival flexo, and is a staggering 132% more productive than digital toner technology (see Fig 5). If shorter runs are factored in, the case becomes even more compelling for digital inkjet. 70,000,000 60,000,000 50,000,000 40,000,000 30,000,000 20,000,000 10,000,000 Maximum Label Production Per Year 0 Domino N610i Flexo Liquid Toner Fig 5 Cost analysis For this to make sense in the working environment, each converter must assess his/her own company s production data. This needs to be an objective exercise using real information, not a gut feel of how figures might stack up on the production floor. To help with this, a working model has been created that allows each converter to key in relevant statistics to produce an accurate calculation for each and every job. Given that toner is almost always more expensive, the two most likely competitors for this calculation are a UV-flexo press, and a digital UV-inkjet press. Domino N610i v Flexo Crossover Calculator Insert Company name or logo here Domino N610i v Flexo Crossover Calculator Flexo N610i Set-up & print time (mins) Media cost Cost of media waste Plate cost Ink cost Cost of ink waste Labour cost Equipment cost (amortisation) TOTAL COST OF JOB Time (mins) Set-up & print time (mins) ,251 1,501 1,751 2,002 2,252 2,502 2,752 3,002 3,253 3,503 3, Job run-length (m) Flexo N610i Flexo cost and specifications Capital cost 375,000 Amortisation period 10 years Ink cost (per kg) 15 Initial Set-up waste 200 metre Waste per version plate change 150 metre Number of colours 4 Number of versions 2 Plate changes per version 1 Cost per plate 40 Number of plate uses 2 Time required for plate change 10 mins Ink waste per colour per job (g) 50 Number of operators 1 Print speed 60 m/min Job set-up time 60 mins JOB COST 1,200 1, ,251 1,501 1,751 2,002 2,252 2,502 2,752 3,002 3,253 3,503 3,753 JOB RUN-LENGTH (METRE) Flexo N610i Fig 6 8

9 Digital inkjet for short and medium run labels A Cost Analysis Each converter uses the calculator (see Fig 6) to insert data relating to a particular job. Set up and printing time in minutes is calculated against press hourly running cost, and the cost of substrate (used and wasted), plates (for flexo), ink (used and wasted), and labour, are all added. The example shows that costs are equal on a run of approximately 2,500 metres (see Fig 7). This is what is called the crossover point. It is neither fixed nor a hard and fast rule, but is intended more as an indicator of where each of the two technologies performs well and less well on a typical short run label job. 1,200 Digital/Flexo Crossover Point 1, JOB COST ,251 1,501 1,751 2,002 2,252 2,502 2,752 3,002 3,253 3,503 3,753 JOB RUN-LENGTH (METRE) Flexo N610i Fig 7 This graph is based on a number of statistics that for the purpose of this White Paper have been assumed (see Fig 8). For example, the flexo press costs less to buy and is written off over twice as many years as the digital inkjet machine. But, in every other sector, apart from running speed it is outperformed by the digital inkjet press. These statistics are based on producing 75,000 four-colour labels (in two versions), three-up across a 330mm wide web of substrate costing 0.39/sqm. Both presses work eight-hour shifts, five days per week, 48 weeks per year, and require one operator whose hourly cost is 40. The calculation is simple, and often alarming to those who make the comparison using real numbers for the first time to indicate true performance. Flexo cost and specifications Capital cost 375,000 Amortisation period 10 years Ink cost (per kg) 18 Initial Set-up waste 200 metre Waste per version plate change 150 metre Number of colours 4 Number of versions 2 Plate changes per version 1 Cost per plate 40 Number of plate uses 2 Time required for plate change 10 mins Ink waste per colour per job (g) 50 Number of operators 1 Print speed 60 m/min Job set-up time 60 mins Domino N610i cost and specifications Capital cost 600,000 Amortization period 5 years Ink cost (per kg) 70 Number of operators 1 Print speed 50 m/min Set-up & finishing time per job 10 mins Set-up waste 10 metre Label details Ink coverage per label (g) (see reference tab) Width (mm) Length (mm) Number of labels 75,000 Print width (mm) 333 Label impositions 3 Other costs and information Media cost (/m2) 0.39 Job run-length without stop 2,502 linear metre Employee cost per hour 40 Operating hours per day 8 Operating days per week 5 Operating weeks per year 48 Fig 8 9

10 Digital inkjet in practice For those using digital inkjet technology in everyday commercial production the difference is breathtaking. Imagine the plate costs and job changing time involved in producing 30,000 labels with 15 different versions, or 64 versions of six different four-colour labels in batches of 1000, as one converter was accustomed to doing on a flexo press. The same jobs are run now on a digital inkjet press in as few hours as it used to take days to complete the work. With the capability of printing high definition on a variety of substrates that require neither pretreatment nor lacquer/lamination, at genuine speeds of 50m/min and above, and with little or no make ready and job change waste, digital inkjet makes good commercial sense. With digital inkjet, colour is more consistent, registration constant, and the only human influence is at the pre-press stage, which removes another potential variable to quality. Once a file is ripped to press, no further adjustment is required. The ability to laydown a high quality white is a major bonus. Compared with the cost of running a screen white on an analogue press, which would be required to match the quality, the opacity on clear and metallic substrates offers new market opportunities to label converters with a digital inkjet press. It comes with no price penalty, nor does it compromise running speed. 10

11 Digital inkjet for short and medium run labels A Cost Analysis Conclusions A digital UV-inkjet press offers label converters a highly competitive production alternative to analogue technology, and this White Paper demonstrates that the principle applies both to short and many longer run jobs. It is an easy press to learn and operate and offers definition and colour quality that is more than a match for UV-flexo. With no plate costs and minimal set up waste, it is at its most economical on work where there is any degree of versioning and is ideally suited for today s increased number of SKUs. It is also the only print technique that fully meets the requirements for personalisation. Given that it requires no added lacquer or lamination, and that it offers high abrasion, chemical and water resistance, it is the print technique of choice for labels supplied to the industrial and home care markets. With its extended colour gamut and screen-like white, is also well suited to the personal care product sector. Cited by users as the first press investment ever to justify its cost by the new business it has attracted, a digital inkjet machine makes cost savings that are impossible to achieve with analogue or digital toner technology. In doing so, it frees capacity on other existing printing presses, and makes a compelling case for increased production efficiency. While economic on very short runs of only a few hundred metres, digital inkjet can compete at 3,000 linear metres and more. To find out if digital UV-inkjet technology is right for your business, consider three key questions: What proportion of your work is of 3,000 linear metres or less? What additional work could you attract if you had a digital label press? How would a digital label press allow you to make better use of your existing analogue technology? By utilising the Digital v Flexo Crossover Calculator one can easily assess which technology most benefits the company s type of work. If existing production facilities are entirely analogue, whether flexo or otherwise, there is probably an amount of work that is already being outsourced to a digital converter. Imagine how the business might grow if digital inkjet capability was brought in-house. And, if it was, and freed up capacity on analogue presses, how much more profitable work could be accommodated by switching the short runs jobs to digital? 11

12 Tel: Watch The Digital Debate here Hear what our customers say