In packaging and label production, colour discussions often begin late — usually when something doesn’t look quite right.
A brand signs off on artwork, production begins, and somewhere between proofing and press, the phrase “almost right”enters the conversation. At that point, colour becomes a problem to be fixed, negotiated, or tolerated.
What’s less visible is that by the time colour is debated on press, many of the decisions that shape the outcome have already been made.
How “acceptable” colour gets defined upstream
Colour decisions rarely belong to one person. They are shaped gradually across marketing, design, packaging, procurement, and sometimes external agencies. Each stakeholder views colour through a slightly different lens — brand intent, visual impact, cost, timelines, or feasibility.
Along the way, expectations are often expressed in relative terms:
- close enough
- consistent with previous runs
- within tolerance
- acceptable under the circumstances
These phrases feel practical at the time. They allow projects to move forward when perfect alignment isn’t possible. But they also introduce ambiguity — especially when those expectations aren’t translated into production-specific criteria.
Where ownership becomes shared — and diluted
When colour expectations are loosely defined, ownership tends to fragment.
No single decision feels wrong. Each compromise makes sense in context. But collectively, they create a situation where responsibility for the final outcome becomes unclear.
By the time labels reach production, colour is often treated as a technical variable rather than the result of accumulated decisions. Press conditions, substrates, inks, and finishing processes are asked to absorb uncertainty that originated much earlier.
At that stage, production teams are no longer deciding what the colour should be — they’re trying to interpret what it was meant to be.
Why production becomes the focal point
Production is where colour becomes visible and measurable. It’s the last stage before labels reach shelves, so it naturally becomes the point of scrutiny.
When colour doesn’t match expectations, attention turns to:
- press stability
- profiling accuracy
- proofing methods
- execution quality
These factors matter. But they don’t operate in isolation. They respond to the clarity — or lack of clarity — built into the process upstream.
When expectations are flexible early on, outcomes are often judged strictly at the end.
The role of compromise — and when it becomes normalised
Compromise isn’t inherently a problem. In many cases, it’s necessary. Constraints exist, and trade-offs are part of real-world production.
The issue arises when compromise becomes the default rather than a conscious decision.
When “almost right” is repeatedly accepted without revisiting how colour is specified, approved, and owned, inconsistency stops being an exception. It becomes part of the system.
Over time, this can erode confidence — not because anyone failed, but because alignment was never fully established.
Reframing colour as a decision system
Colour consistency isn’t achieved solely through better presses, tighter tolerances, or stricter checks. It emerges when decisions upstream are explicit, owned, and translated clearly into production reality.
When expectations are defined early, trade-offs are acknowledged consciously, and ownership is visible, production has something solid to execute against.
In that context, colour becomes less about correction and more about consistency.
Closing the gap
Most colour issues don’t begin on press. They begin earlier — when intent, expectation, and responsibility aren’t fully aligned.
Recognising colour as the outcome of a decision system, rather than a production variable, shifts the conversation from blame to understanding.
That shift is where The Print Gap closes.