Why I don't believe in 'one-size-fits-all' industrial printing

I've been managing equipment procurement for a mid-size label converter for about 6 years now. When I say 'managing,' I mean I track every dollar—from the initial quote to the final maintenance invoice. And here's my hot take: The 'one-size-fits-all' printing press is a myth that's costing you money.

I get it. The idea of a single machine that handles flexo, letterpress, and screen printing is seductive. One purchase. One training curve. One spare parts kit. Sounds efficient, right? Wrong. In my experience, that 'efficiency' is an illusion that usually breaks down somewhere around the third year of operation.

The 'universal' trap

Let me start with a concrete example. In Q2 2023, we were evaluating two options: a Gallus TCS 250 (which is basically a flexo specialist) versus a 'multi-process' press from another manufacturer that claimed it could handle flexo, letterpress, and screen in one unit. The multi-process machine was priced 18% higher than the Gallus.

Now, based on sticker price alone, you might think the Gallus is the better deal. But I've learned that price is just the start. Here's what my spreadsheet showed after I factored in real-world operating costs over a 5-year period:

• Waste rates: The multi-process press had a 2.3% higher waste rate on flexo-only jobs. At our volume (about 450,000 labels per month), that added up to roughly $12,600 in wasted material annually.
• Changeover times: Switching between processes required recalibration. Average changeover was 37 minutes vs. 14 minutes on the Gallus. Over a year, that's about 200 hours of lost productive time.
• Maintenance complexity: Multi-process means more moving parts. Our maintenance team estimated spare parts and service costs would be 31% higher based on their experience with similar machines.

Basically, the 'universal' solution was costing us about $28,000 more per year after the purchase. That's before you even get to the quality side of the equation.

Does expertise really matter?

I think people assume that if a machine can do multiple processes, it must do them all well. That's a dangerous assumption. I've seen multi-process presses struggle to maintain consistent color registration when you push them to their limits. When we ran the same Pantone 286 C job on both machines, the Gallus hit a Delta E of 1.8 consistently. The multi-process press averaged a Delta E of 3.2—that's noticeable to a trained eye.

Now, is that always a problem? No. If you're printing labels for a warehouse that nobody looks at, maybe Delta E of 3.2 is fine. But if you're doing brand-critical work for a CPG client? That's a quality difference that could cost you the account.

The vendor who sold us the multi-process press said, 'It's fine for 90% of jobs.' I didn't ask for the 10% that it isn't. Turns out, that 10% is where the profit lives.

Here's the thing about flexibility

I'm not saying multi-process machines have no place. They absolutely do. If you're a job shop that needs to take on any job that walks in the door—regardless of process—a universal press gives you options. But you're paying for that flexibility in other ways: slower changeovers, higher waste, and potentially lower quality on any single process.

For most label converters, though, 80-90% of their work is flexo. Maybe a small percent is letterpress or screen for special effects. In that scenario, buying a specialist machine for the bulk of your work and outsourcing the niche stuff is usually cheaper and higher quality.

The numbers said go with the multi-process press—18% cheaper upfront. My gut said stick with the Gallus. I went with the numbers. And I regretted it. The 'cheap' option resulted in a $1,200 redo when a client rejected a batch due to color variation.

Does 'simple' mean limited?

There's this misconception that specialized presses are 'limited.' Like, if you buy a flexo-only press, you're somehow cutting off future possibilities. I don't buy that. A Gallus TCS press isn't limited—it's focused. It's designed to do one thing exceptionally well. And when you need something else? Subcontract it. Or add a dedicated unit later. Don't try to be everything to everyone.

I'd rather work with a specialist who knows their limits than a generalist who overpromises. That applies to printing presses, too.

Bottom line: If your work is diverse and unpredictable, a multi-process press might make sense. But if you know your core process? Buy the specialist. Your TCO will thank you.

Approved the purchase order for the multi-process press and immediately thought 'did I just make a $28,000-per-year mistake?' Turned out I did. That 'free' implementation offer? Cost us an extra $4,200 in training time.