Reading through this thread, it almost seems like the consensus is to supply clients with versions of their logo for both coated and uncoated stock. Although, this can be situationally appropriate, I don’t necessarily agree that it should be a standard thing to do.
Most clients are naive about printing, file formats, which format to use for a given purpose, paper stock absorbency, etc. My experience has been that supplying these kinds of clients with too many options for specific purposes they don’t understand has caused a whole lot of client confusion. It’s our job as designers to inform clients about things they need to know, but it’s usually beyond the scope of the job to educate them about the intricacies of print production (something many designers are fuzzy about themselves). Many times, style and usage guides cover much of this, but not all client jobs pay enough to warrant a separate, custom style guide beyond the basics. I’ve learned to quiz clients on what files and instructions might be most appropriate to meet the needs of their specific situation and who will ultimately be working with these files.
I’ve often supplied .ai, .psd, .pdf, .gif or .png, .svg and .jpg formats along with RGB, CMYK, spot color, grayscale and B&W versions (depending on the file format). Since all these files can be confusing, I also include a brief description of what each is for. Even so, within a year, I’m often contacted by someone in the company requesting a “high-resolution” version of the logo since the only version that managed to circulate throughout the company was the JPEG that most everyone could open.
Almost doubling the number of files by including coated and uncoated versions of all the print formats confuses the situation even further.
There is no one-size-fits-all approach to creating standard uncoated and coated versions of a logo. Paper stock and press variables within each (especially for uncoated) are too great to consolidate into only two versions. Dot gain differs considerably depending on which uncoated stock is being used. For example, there’s a huge difference in dot gain between recycled newsprint and hard, smooth bond. The differences in dot gain (or its equivalent) between web, sheetfed and digital warrant custom settings for each, as do specific presses and/or inks within each of those categories. Supplying a separate coated and uncoated version of a logo doesn’t adequately address all these variables that are best customized for each job at hand.
Trying to compensate for dot-gain and color-shift possibilities in original source files creates the strong possibility of those compensatory measures getting doubled up during production. For example, let’s say that I, the logo designer, determine that the CMYK separations in a logo needed to be reduced by a certain amount for uncoated paper, so I recolor the logo with those uncoated separation percentages and give it to the client as their uncoated stock logo. A couple of months later, the company’s in-house designer inserts this uncoated logo version into an InDesign document whose color and profile settings are configured to compensate for uncoated stock. The result will be a logo that prints way too light since the adjustments for uncoated stock will have been applied twice.
As already mentioned, companies lacking in print production expertise will be baffled by all this. Companies with good, in-house print production expertise generally don’t need all these different file types anyway, since two or three separate Illustrator files with CMYK, RGB, Pantone, Grayscale and B&W versions, plus a few instructions, might be all that are needed. Companies landing somewhere between these extremes risk getting it right or getting in wrong no matter what, so complicating the situation with uncoated and coated versions of artwork that have a high potential for being misused, could easily the chances for problems.
As I mentioned, I’ve learned to dig a bit when working with clients to find out their level of knowledge, how they will be using the artwork and who will be using that artwork. Every situation is different, and depending on those differences (and budget), I’ll give them the files and instructions most appropriate for the company at hand. In the end, it will be the clients who will be using (or misusing) the artwork. It’s up to me to determine that middle ground that straddles the difference between giving them too much and too little. Overcomplicate the instructions and the options, and, rather than helping, it can increase the chances for less-than-knowledgable clients to make a mess of things.
None of what I’ve mentioned above are deal killers that, on their own, rule out supplying both coated and uncoated versions of logos. As already mentioned, sometimes, it’s totally warranted. Add up all these potential issues, though, and, more often than not, I don’t think it’s advisable for average clients. Keeping things simple, I’ve found, is often better.