In a conversation, three experts explore the importance of digital thinking in the context of print. One possible answer to this question lies in the concept of faceto-face publications. You can learn more about it in this article. The participants in the conversation were Artur Wozniak-Feldmeier, responsible for all aspects of product information at WAGO, including modeling, data maintenance, process optimization and translations, as well as their publication in various channels, Horst Huber, CEO of the priint group, and moderation was provided by Thorsten Hamann of Laudert. The original discussion was shortened and adapted for this blog post, and the original video can be found below the post.

For me personally, the facet catalog is the realization of a long-cherished dream of an IT expert and engineer. IT experts think in rules, engineers work process-oriented, and these ways of thinking are reflected in the facet catalogs. Facet catalogs are catalogs that are consistently structured according to rules. At WAGO, we end up defining more complex tables of contents with rules, and the machine does the rest, so to speak. You can think of facets roughly like a content tree, which defines the rules for the catalog structure and the arrangement of products based on their properties.

In a sentence, a facet catalog is the structured path that users take on a website, similar to an online store where they use categories and filters to get to their desired products.

The principle of faceting has long been known in e-commerce. What exactly is innovative about it?

The comparison to a path is apt. In fact, our page headers are nothing more than an automated breadcrumb navigation resulting from this faceting. The main task is to develop a strategic approach to product lineup. We define rules based on precise product knowledge that determine the relevance of features to customers. This minimal effort makes it possible to try out different variants and analyze the results quickly.

What distinguishes the facet approach from classic catalog production?

Imagine we have products that are simple geometric shapes like triangles, circles and rectangles. For a particular customer, we want to present them in the catalog. These shapes, besides their contour, have colors and can be full-filled or only contoured. To create a catalog, we can simply specify that we want to display triangles and circles first. But we can also say that we want all blue and then green elements first, or sort by solid or contour. This is similar to filtering on a website. Within these groups we can subdivide further, for example by color. We can define this structure and sort by simple rules. With this method we have already created 500 pages for our first catalog.

In the classic method, an output structure for the catalog is created in the PIM and the products are arranged in this structure. In the facet approach, however, you do not plan the concrete products, but the rules that generate the products at runtime. This enables a more flexible approach and less manual effort.

And the difference in the priint:suite is that you don't schedule the concrete products. In classic scheduling, I would say "I now want a structure with, for example, evening dresses". Now we schedule rules, for example all red garments. And that's where the structure comes from. So the only technical difference is that I don't plan the concrete product, but the rules that then create the products at runtime.

Anyone who implements PIM projects is used to grief in the industrial sector or in the technical product sector. We're talking about products that sometimes have several thousand properties. If you now plan according to facets and have the advantage that new products automatically end up in the structures, what are the differences in the implementation? In other words, in the execution?

The implementation of the templates is similar to traditional PIM structures, but the templates are more flexible and can autonomously decide which information to display. In the current hierarchy, redundant information is obsolete because it is already derived from the hierarchy. This leads to a more efficient and flexible use of the templates.

At the beginning, workshops were held with WAGO to determine how attributes should be displayed horizontally and vertically. The question that came up was how best to create the tables for the catalog. For fashion products, this is easier because customer interests are clearer. At WAGO, priorities were set for the individual attributes in order to know which attributes are in which categories. This makes it much easier to create the tables. Were rankings established for the remaining attributes, or are they fixed?

Yes, we have established a central ranking that is easy to maintain and use wherever it is needed. As for the templates, we also need to consider aspects like overflow and rules, which require a bit more attention and logic.

Especially if you come from a catalog system mindset where hierarchies tend to be single or double page.

For years, the catalogs at WAGO were structured thoroughly and were used by sales colleagues as a guide for sales activities. Does the workload increase today when new products are introduced?

Definitely, we saved work. We had clear definitions of what goes into the catalog and in what order. The product managers or buyers didn't keep coming up with change requests, because everything was defined from the start.

But I want to make it clear that it is not a rigid system. You can define exceptions to the rules, but that requires more effort. The hurdle for exceptions is higher than simply moving content on a page.

You already had good data quality and a hierarchical structure of attributes. Horst, what other industries or markets do you think could benefit from facet catalogs? Who is the target group for the priint:suite?

The facet catalog is the best tool for checking data quality. It enables the perfect data set design that improves the user experience in all digital channels. Target groups are companies with products in need of explanation, especially in the industrial and technical sectors, which need to present products in different target group contexts.

I would say it's easier to define where not to use it. If all products are so unique that there are no common attributes or properties, it may not be useful.

It seems like this should be the new standard. What are the arguments against it?

Even if there are many exceptions, the facet approach offers a significant advantage. Defining exceptions is easier than manually adjusting content.

Even if there are many exceptions, the facet approach offers a significant advantage. Defining exceptions is easier than manually adjusting content.