The short answer
- A reorder costs you less to produce — artwork, separations and specs already exist
- Store the garment, the decoration, the sizes, the approved proof and the colours against the customer
- The customer should be able to repeat an order in about thirty seconds
- Price reorders lower where your cost genuinely is lower, and say why
- Prompt them on their own cycle rather than yours
Reorders are the most profitable work a decorating shop does and the most commonly mishandled. Mishandled not by being refused, but by being treated as a new order — re-quoted from scratch, artwork located from an email, sizes asked for again, and a proof produced for something that was approved eight months ago.
All of that is work you have already done once, being done again at your expense.
Why reorders are the best work you get
Because most of the cost of a first order is not in the printing. It is in the thinking: understanding what the customer wants, preparing artwork, choosing a garment, working out separations, setting up. On a repeat, that is done.
| Cost | First order | Reorder |
|---|---|---|
| Artwork preparation | Full | None |
| Separations | Full | None |
| Digitising (embroidery) | $40–$100 | None |
| Colour matching | Full | Recorded |
| Press makeready | New job | Repeat, materially faster |
| Screens | Full | Full — they were reclaimed |
| Sales time | Full | Minutes |
Only one row is unchanged. Screens have to be made again, because they were reclaimed after the last run — which is why a reorder is cheaper but not free, and why charging full screens and reduced press setup is the honest structure.
It also explains why reorder rate is worth tracking as closely as revenue. A shop with a high reorder rate earns more per hour on identical turnover, because a growing share of its work starts from a known position.
What has to be stored
Against the customer, not against a job number in an archive. The test is whether somebody other than you can produce the repeat without asking a question.
Held against the account
- Artwork in its original vector form, plus the print-ready file
- Separations and the mesh counts used
- Ink colours with references and any mix record
- Garment — brand, style number, colour name
- Print size and placement, measured
- The approved proof, with its date
- Size breakdown from the last order
- The digitised file for embroidery, with the machine format
Placement and print size are the ones most often missing, and their absence is what turns a reorder into an argument — the second run comes out slightly different from the first, and nobody can say which was right. Holding them as measurements rather than as "left chest" removes that entirely.
All of this needs to live where the whole team can reach it, which in practice means attached to the customer in your order system rather than in one person's folder. A shop where reorder information lives in an inbox loses it the moment that person is away.
If a reorder requires a conversation, something that should have been recorded was not.
The customer's side of it
From their point of view a reorder should be: open, find the last order, adjust the quantities, confirm. Thirty seconds. Anything longer and it becomes a task rather than an action, and tasks get postponed.
That means their order history has to be visible to them, with enough detail to recognise which order was which — the garment, the design, the date. A list of order numbers is not usable; a list showing what was actually bought is.
For customers who order regularly, a standing store removes the step entirely. The approved products are already there, the branding is fixed, and reordering is just ordering. That is the structural version of the same idea.
Pricing a reorder
Lower where your cost is genuinely lower, and say which parts. An unexplained discount reads as arbitrary and invites negotiation next time; an itemised one demonstrates competence.
| Line | On a reorder |
|---|---|
| Artwork | Nil — on file |
| Digitising | Nil — on file |
| Screens | Full — reclaimed after last run |
| Press setup | Reduced — separations proven |
| Garments and run time | Current rates |
Some shops go further and waive setup entirely on a reorder placed within a defined window — sixty or ninety days. That is a real incentive to reorder sooner rather than shopping around, and it costs least when the artwork and separations are freshest.
What you should not do is quietly apply last year's prices. Blanks move, and a reorder honoured at an old price is a margin cut you did not decide to take. Reprice at current rates and show the setup saving.
Prompting a reorder
On their cycle, not yours. A club orders before a season; a company orders when new staff start or when stock runs low; an event customer orders annually. Knowing which cycle a customer is on is worth more than any general campaign.
Prompts that work
- Six to eight weeks before the same point last year
- Referencing the actual last order — garment, design, quantity
- With the current price stated, so there is no step to take
- A single clear action: confirm, or say what changes
- Once. A second chase is pressure
Naming the previous order is what makes this land. "Would you like to repeat your order from March — 48 navy polos, left chest, at $X?" is a decision. "Just checking in to see if you need anything" is not.
When it is not really a reorder
Be alert to the difference, because treating a changed job as a repeat is how a reorder goes wrong. A new garment, a new colour, a resized design or a different placement all mean the stored specification no longer applies.
A changed garment in particular deserves a fresh proof. A design digitised for a piqué polo will not behave the same on fleece, and a print sized for an adult front does not fit a youth garment. Both are common requests and both are new jobs wearing a reorder's clothes.
Check the stored garment against what they have asked for, every time. It takes seconds and it is the difference between a repeat that runs itself and one that produces a complaint. The rest of the software archive assumes the second order should be easier than the first.
