Hmmmm...if just 5,000 printers world-wide sign up that's $39,250,000 in immediate high profit margin revenue. Then there's $30,250,000 each subsequent year at nearly 100% profit. And you don't see the value of the program?
Press Release:
"Terry Wyse, Principle of WyseConsul, hereby announces Wyse-Ass Certified Printing and Proofing Systems. For a mere $5,000 you can have your press or proofing system certified by....me.
After the first 1,000 submissions are completed and checks deposited, I will hereby retire."
Seriously though, I can understand the idea behind proofer certification but it's fraught with peril in my opinion.....to wit:
* You have to stick to the letter of specification in order to be "certified"....change ONE item (media, spectro, etc.) and you can't call yourself certified. For that reason, when a manufacture states in their marketing material that their "Chevrolet Ultra X9000 Super Printer" is SWOP or GRACoL certified it is completely MEANINGLESS. On the other hand, if I (as a super-duper color management guy) can show my customer that I've profiled their proofing system to within a dE2000 Gnat's Hair of the GRACoL specification, as far as I'm concerned I've just "certified" their proof to GRACoL despite whether it follows the ADS to the letter. It should be all about the numbers and tolerances....if you can demonstrate that, then as far as I'm concerned......
* ....but because of inter-instrument DISagreement, there's really no guarantee that my certified proof is going to visually match your certified proof.
Age-old problem......you have to open up the dE tolerances enough to account for inter-instrumnet disagreement...but by doing so, you've pretty much guaranteed that two "certified" proofs are not going to match visually with any certainty. Come up with a way to guarantee inter-instrument agreement and then get back to me.
Terry