Who Still Says 'In-plant?'
While at EFI Connect last month, I attended an in-plant panel discussion. An audience member, himself a manager, asked whether any of the panelists referred to themselves internally as in-plants. I’m sure you already know the answer to that question: none did. I was burning to make a comment, but decided to let the conversation move on. (And also, I knew I could write about it here.)
Who still uses the word “in-plant”? I mean other than In-plant Graphics, and the In-plant Printing and Mailing Association. In-plants don’t. They refer to their operations as Printing Services, Document Services, Printing & Publishing, Reprographics — but I have never heard of an in-plant that actually had the word “in-plant” in its name. If you call a company and ask the receptionist for the in-plant (as I learned long ago), you’ll just get a confused receptionist (and maybe a dial tone).
Some industry vendors use the term “central reprographics department” or CRD instead of in-plant. That’s never taken off in the in-plant community, but it does kind of sum it all up.
Others refer to “corporate print centers,” which entirely leaves out the higher-ed and government sectors. I’ve also heard the term “enterprise printing” but frankly that just makes me think of Spock running an iGen4 (in the starship’s basement, of course).
When I tell new acquaintances from outside the industry what I do for a living, I refer to you as “in-house printers.” They seem to get that pretty quickly. (I dread using the word “in-plant” in front of these people because I know they will think I said “implant,” which will conjure up images in their minds that I’d rather not confront.)
So if no one uses “in-plant” to describe themselves, and it’s a term from a bygone era, why do we keep calling in-plants…in-plants? I’ve struggled with this, and would love nothing more than to do away with the term. (That stupid hyphen alone always trips up my typing.) “In-plant” is of no help whatsoever as a Google search term. Try it. You’ll get dozens of horticultural sites, but no good in-plant news. (You’ll also learn about a place called Plant City, Florida, which, by the way, does not have an in-plant; that would be too perfect.)
When we changed this magazine’s name from In-plant Reproductions to IPG in 1996, I had my big chance to do away with the troublesome word. Several of my suggestions included “in-house” instead of in-plant. But the prevailing argument at the time was that if in-plants call themselves in-plants, we should as well, so it’s clear this is their magazine, not one for in-house designers.
Clearly, I’ve given this some thought, but I still don’t have an answer. Maybe everyone loves the word “in-plant” but me? Or maybe we’re just stuck with an awkward word, and it’s not worth the trouble to change it. Big sigh.
Bob has served as editor of In-plant Impressions since October of 1994. Prior to that he served for three years as managing editor of Printing Impressions, a commercial printing publication. Mr. Neubauer is very active in the U.S. in-plant industry. He attends all the major in-plant conferences and has visited more than 180 in-plant operations around the world. He has given presentations to numerous in-plant groups in the U.S., Canada and Australia, including the Association of College and University Printers and the In-plant Printing and Mailing Association. He also coordinates the annual In-Print contest, co-sponsored by IPMA and In-plant Impressions.
