It is a truth universally acknowledged that there's no point doing work if you're not going to get paid for it. Or rather, paid within a reasonable timeframe.

Thus I noticed with interest the closing sentence of a recent news story about pre-packs, where KBA UK managing director Christian Knapp called on the BPIF to name and shame large client companies who enhance their own cashflow by imposing unreasonably drawn out payment terms on suppliers.

It's a topic that often comes up in conversation. One print contact recently bemoaned a customer whose terms were 60 days from the end of the invoicing month. Other examples are worse - 90 days, 180 days... the list goes on. Of course the print supplier can always refuse to take on work on such negative terms, but it seems apparent that far too many printers simply aren't in a position of enough individual strength to be able to do that; just as lots of SME companies feel unable to exert their rights under the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998, in the certain knowledge they will lose the customer if they do.

So Christian has a good point, and this is something the BPIF could usefully engage in. Strength in numbers, and all that. And of course here at PrintWeek we are also able to bring any examples of bad practice of this ilk to a very wide audience when the information comes our way.

Perhaps this is an area - along with cheese, wine, weather and work/life balance - where the French have got things right. Since the beginning of the year a blanket law applicable to all companies has kicked in, regulating the amounts due between parties to 45 days from end of month, or 60 days from date of invoice. Seems sensible, non?