5 ways to keep print contracts working for you

Award. Forget. Regret?

Why good print contracts go bad.

Most print contracts don’t go bad because a supplier sets out to overcharge a client. They go bad because nobody is checking. Left alone, unmonitored, unaudited, even a well-negotiated contract drifts, becoming less competitive, less relevant and less valuable over time.

In our latest Procurement Essentials, we take a closer look at the value of a well managed contract exploring 5 ways to keep print contracts working for you:

1. Contract value is a formula: Product + Service + Price = Contract Value. Judging any one in isolation sets the wrong standard.
2. Managing price after Day 1: Specifications, volumes, technology, paper costs and market capacity all shift; by year two, the deal on paper rarely matches reality.
3. Drift happens on both sides: Poor forecasting and unrealistic expectations can inflate cost and undermine service on all sides.
4. Systematic review matters:. Monthly compliance checks, quarterly KPI/SLA reviews, and an annual full audit – regulate regularly to confirm ongoing value and foster great client/supplier relationships.
5. Audit removes the guesswork: Regular, independent review means re-tendering becomes a choice backed by evidence. Don’t re-tender because you don’t know. Regulate so that you do.

Contract drift

The price agreed on day one is rarely the price being paid by year two. Why? Print specifications and requirements change, volumes shift, people move on, requirements evolve, manufacturing capability and technology improves, paper costs fluctuate and market capacity rises and falls.

Any one of these factors can erode the value of a contract.

It isn’t only the supplier side that needs regulating. Poor forecasting, last-minute changes, a failure to follow an agreed process, and unrealistic expectations on the client side can just as easily inflate cost and undermine service levels.

Three things need active management throughout the life of any print contract:

• Product
• Service
• Price

Marketing and procurement rarely weigh these the same way; understanding both perspectives is the starting point for effective contract negotiation and ongoing regulation.

In the words of the Italian playwright Carlo Goldini, we are reminded of the expression ‘the servant of two masters’ – in this case, the masters are Marketing and Procurement.

The procurement perspective: are we still getting what we contracted for?

Procurement teams are typically measured on delivered, sustainable cost savings rather than cost avoidance, so service cost and product price carry the most weight. A robust review should cover:

• What the supplier originally quoted for the service and the agreed management fee vs  what it costs now, with specific attention to the agreed management fee and any additional charges such as technology fees or hidden rebates that may have crept in.
• Whether the account team has changed since the contract started, does it need to be the same team or staffing levels? Could and should this be reviewed?
• Whether process improvement, simplification or automation – particularly relevant given the pace of AI adoption – has reduced the underlying cost of service.
• Whether the service remains commercially viable for the supplier. The 2025 increase in the National Minimum Wage, for example, materially affected pick-and-pack and logistics costs. Contracts priced before this change may no longer reflect real costs on either side.
• Whether the product range remains competitive against the current market, and whether specification changes have caused price creep on like-for-like items.
• Whether commodity costs, particularly on paper and board, have moved (an increase or decrease) since the contract was priced
• Whether one-off purchases, which don’t find their way onto price lists, as well as newly added items have been benchmarked.

This leads to the most important question for procurement: are the suppliers and processes being used therefore are the most appropriate for what is actually being produced now and potentially in the future?

The marketing perspective: are we getting the service and outcomes we were promised?

For marketing teams, the priority is a balance of price and service: does the supplier save time as well as money, and does the work produced improve return on marketing investment (ROMI)? Deadline reliability and brand consistency sit high on the agenda — in retail, for example, on-time delivery to store is a core KPI, since a missed deadline can mean a missed promotional window and lost sales.

In marketing terms, teams want be able to assess this: are agreed deadlines being achieved and is this supplier making my life easier?

A thorough review should therefore assess:

• Whether the supplier behaves as a proactive member of the team or simply processes orders.
• Whether the supplier understands what matters to the client and makes recommendations accordingly.
• Whether the supplier’s input reduces the time marketers spend deciding what to produce, when, and resolving production issues.
• Whether a well-documented quality assurance process exists, capturing issues and tracking their reduction over time.

One equation, not two conversations

Regulating a contract works best when procurement’s and marketing’s concerns are assessed together, not separately.

The equation is simple:

Product + Service + Price = Contract Value

Looking at any one element in isolation risks setting the wrong standard and rewarding the wrong behaviour. The right question is: ‘are we getting the right product, service and price for our stated requirements?’

If the answer is yes, best value is being achieved.

What a regular audit should cover

A sound audit process comes down to three tests:

• Costs against contract: checking for compliance and price creep.
• Costs against market: benchmarking current pricing, especially for new products.
• Costs for the service actually required and provided: value.

In practice, that translates into an ongoing review with clear, measurable steps:

• Monthly: a systemised compliance price check against the product rate card, enabling immediate corrective action if agreed pricing isn’t being followed.
• Quarterly: KPI/SLA performance, service issues, price exceptions, specification changes, savings and process initiatives, and stakeholder feedback.
• Annually: detailed spend analysis, representative product benchmarking, cost-of-service review, team and resource review, and a wider supplier and supply-chain review.

Why this matters more than re-tendering on a schedule

A systematic, planned regulation process removes the need to re-tender every three years simply because value can’t otherwise be confirmed. It turns re-tendering into a choice based on evidence, not a default triggered by uncertainty.

The regular audit process is the insurance.

If an incumbent supplier is competitive, delivering the right service and making marketing’s life easier, there’s little case for putting the business through an expensive RFP purely to prove that. And if the supplier isn’t performing, regular audit surfaces that well before year three – rather than at the point of contract renewal, when leverage is weakest.

Regular independent audit isn’t an alternative to a good supplier relationship; it enables one. Done properly, it’s what makes one possible by replacing assumption with evidence on both sides.

Don’t re-tender because you don’t know. Regulate so that you do.

Take the next step

Keep print contracts working for you: if it’s been more than a year since your print contracts were independently reviewed, it’s time to review.

theSPC provides independent, transparent contract audits which benchmark price, service and product against the current market, giving procurement and marketing teams the evidence to negotiate from strength, rather than guesswork.

With an initial discover completed free of charge, assumption can become certainty, fast.

Get in touch with theSPC to arrange a Contract Performance Review.