Why Your 'Print-Ready' Logo File Probably Isn't: The Hidden Artwork Gap in Corporate Stationery Orders

The phrase "we have all our brand assets ready" appears in nearly every initial briefing for custom corporate stationery projects. Procurement teams say it with confidence, marketing departments confirm it, and suppliers accept it at face value. Yet this single assumption causes more production delays, unexpected costs, and disappointing results than almost any other factor in the customization process for corporate stationery.

The disconnect is not about competence or carelessness. It stems from a fundamental misunderstanding about what "print-ready" actually means in the context of physical product customization, and how dramatically different that definition is from what most organisations consider acceptable for their digital brand applications.

When a marketing team builds a brand asset library, they typically optimise files for the contexts they encounter most frequently: websites, social media, email signatures, and digital presentations. These applications require files that load quickly, display consistently across screens, and integrate easily with common software. A 72 DPI PNG with an RGB colour profile serves these purposes perfectly well. The logo appears crisp on screens, the file size remains manageable, and the colours look vibrant on monitors.

The problem emerges when these same files are forwarded to a supplier for printing on notebooks, pens, folders, or other promotional stationery items. What works flawlessly on a screen becomes fundamentally inadequate for physical reproduction. The resolution that appears sharp at screen size becomes visibly pixelated when printed at actual size. The RGB colour values that display beautifully on monitors shift unpredictably when converted to CMYK for printing. The transparent backgrounds that work seamlessly in digital layouts create unexpected results when applied to physical substrates.

In practice, this is often where artwork preparation decisions start to be misjudged. The procurement team receives a folder of "approved brand assets" from marketing, forwards it to the supplier, and expects the customization process to proceed smoothly. The supplier opens the files, discovers they are unsuitable for production, and must choose between requesting correct files (which delays the project) or attempting to work with inadequate materials (which risks quality issues).

The situation becomes more complex when the original vector files no longer exist in an accessible form. Many organisations have experienced turnover in their design teams, changes in agency relationships, or simply poor file management practices. The vector artwork that was created when the brand was originally developed may now exist only as a flattened JPEG in someone's email archive. Recreating vector artwork from raster files is technically possible but introduces subtle variations that may not match the original brand specifications precisely.

There is also the question of which version of the logo is correct. Brands evolve over time, and organisations often have multiple variations of their visual identity in circulation simultaneously. The logo on the current website may differ slightly from the logo in the brand guidelines document, which may differ again from the logo that was used on last year's business cards. When a supplier receives conflicting files from different sources within the same organisation, they face the difficult choice of guessing which version is authoritative or pausing production to seek clarification.

The financial implications of artwork issues extend beyond the obvious costs of file correction or reproduction. When a supplier must invest time in artwork preparation that should have been completed before submission, those costs are typically passed on to the client either as explicit artwork fees or as reduced flexibility in other areas of the quotation. More significantly, the time required to resolve artwork issues compresses the remaining production schedule, potentially forcing rush charges or compromising quality control processes.

The most reliable approach to avoiding these issues involves establishing direct communication between the supplier's production team and whoever holds the original design files, rather than routing artwork through procurement or administrative channels. This direct connection allows technical questions to be resolved quickly and ensures that the files actually submitted match the files actually required.

Organisations that manage the complete customization process for branded stationery effectively typically maintain a separate archive of print-ready files distinct from their digital brand assets. This archive contains vector formats (AI, EPS, or PDF) with fonts converted to outlines, CMYK colour profiles applied, and resolution-independent scaling capability preserved. Having these files readily available before initiating a customization project eliminates the most common source of delays and quality issues.

The distinction between "having brand assets" and "having print-ready brand assets" may seem like technical pedantry, but it represents a genuine gap in how most organisations manage their visual identity. Closing this gap requires acknowledging that digital and physical applications have fundamentally different technical requirements, and that files optimised for one context will rarely perform adequately in the other. The investment in maintaining proper print-ready files pays dividends across every physical branding project the organisation undertakes, not just in reduced costs and faster timelines, but in consistent quality that accurately represents the brand as intended.