Why Your High-Resolution Logo Still Prints Blurry on Custom Power Banks and USB Drives
When a procurement team sends what they believe to be a high-quality logo file to a supplier, they naturally expect the final product to reflect that quality. The file looks crisp on screen, the colours are vibrant, and the marketing department has confirmed it is the official brand asset. Yet when the first batch of custom power banks or branded USB drives arrives, the logo appears soft around the edges, slightly pixelated, or noticeably different from the digital mockup that was approved weeks earlier.
This disconnect is not a quality control failure on the supplier's part, nor is it evidence of corner-cutting during production. In practice, this is often where customization process decisions start to be misjudged, specifically at the intersection of artwork file format and the physical constraints of different printing technologies. The file that works perfectly for a website banner or email signature operates under entirely different rules than the file required for laser engraving on aluminium or UV printing on ABS plastic.
The root of this misunderstanding lies in the fundamental difference between raster and vector file formats. A raster file, such as a JPEG or PNG, is constructed from a fixed grid of pixels. When viewed at its native resolution, the image appears sharp. However, when that same file is scaled up to fit a larger print area, or when it is processed through industrial printing equipment that requires higher resolution than a screen display, those pixels become visible. The result is the characteristic softness or stair-stepping effect that procurement teams often describe as "blurry" or "low quality."
Vector files, typically saved as AI or EPS formats, operate on an entirely different principle. Rather than storing pixel data, vector files contain mathematical descriptions of shapes, curves, and colours. This means a vector logo can be scaled to any size without degradation. Whether it is printed on a 10mm USB cap or a 200mm exhibition banner, the edges remain crisp and the proportions remain accurate. For production environments handling custom tech gifts such as wireless chargers, Bluetooth speakers, or portable power banks, vector files are not merely preferred—they are often essential for achieving the quality that procurement teams expect.
The complication arises because most brand assets circulating within organisations are raster files. Marketing departments typically export logos for digital use, where PNG or JPEG formats are standard. These files are optimised for screen display at 72 or 96 dots per inch, which is perfectly adequate for websites and presentations but falls far short of the 300 DPI minimum that most printing processes require. When a procurement team forwards these digital-optimised files to a supplier, the supplier faces a decision: reject the artwork and delay the project, or attempt to work with what has been provided.
Most suppliers choose the latter, and this is where the quality gap emerges. The supplier may attempt to "trace" the raster logo into a vector format using automated software. This process can produce acceptable results for simple logos with clean lines and solid colours, but it struggles with complex designs, gradients, or fine typography. The traced version may lose subtle details, introduce unwanted artefacts, or alter the proportions in ways that are not immediately obvious until the product is in hand.
Alternatively, the supplier may proceed with the raster file at its original resolution, scaling it as needed for the print area. If the original file was 500 pixels wide and the print area requires 1500 pixels of detail, the software must interpolate the missing information. The result is a mathematically smoothed approximation of the original, which inevitably appears softer than the source file.
The situation becomes more complex when considering the specific printing technologies used for custom electronics. Laser engraving, which is commonly used for metal power banks and premium USB drives, works by removing material from the surface to reveal a contrasting layer beneath. This process requires extremely clean vector paths because the laser follows the exact contours defined in the file. A raster file converted to vector may contain thousands of tiny nodes and irregular paths that the laser interprets literally, potentially creating rough or inconsistent engraving.
UV printing, which deposits ink directly onto the product surface using ultraviolet-cured inks, has different requirements. While UV printers can technically work with raster files, the quality of the output is directly proportional to the resolution of the input. A 300 DPI file will produce noticeably sharper results than a 72 DPI file, even if both appear identical on a computer screen. Furthermore, UV printing on curved surfaces, such as the rounded edges of a wireless charging pad, requires the artwork to be precisely mapped to the product geometry. Vector files allow this mapping to occur without quality loss, while raster files may show distortion or softening in areas where the surface curves away from the print head.
Screen printing, though less common for electronics than for textiles, presents its own file format considerations. Each colour in a screen-printed design requires a separate screen, and the artwork must be separated into individual colour layers. Vector files with properly defined colour separations streamline this process, while raster files require manual separation that can introduce inconsistencies between colours.
The practical consequence of these technical realities is that procurement teams often receive products that do not match their expectations, despite having approved a digital mockup that looked perfect. The mockup was likely created using the original high-resolution source file or a carefully prepared vector version, while the actual production run used whatever file the procurement team provided. The gap between mockup quality and production quality is not a failure of the [customization process](https://ethergiftpro.uk/news/customization-process-custom-tech-gifts-uk) itself, but rather a failure of communication about file requirements at the project's outset.
Addressing this issue requires procurement teams to engage with their internal design or marketing departments before sending artwork to suppliers. The specific questions to ask are straightforward: Do we have vector versions of our logo in AI or EPS format? If only raster files are available, what is their resolution at the intended print size? Have the colours been specified in a print-appropriate colour space such as CMYK or Pantone, rather than the RGB colour space used for digital displays?
Suppliers can assist in this process by providing clear artwork specifications at the quotation stage, rather than waiting until production to discover that the provided files are inadequate. A professional supplier will request vector files by default and will flag potential quality issues before mockup approval, giving the procurement team time to source appropriate artwork from their design resources.
The broader lesson here is that file format is not a minor administrative detail to be handled by whoever happens to receive the email. It is a critical variable in the customization process that directly affects the quality of the final product. A procurement decision that overlooks this variable may save time in the short term but creates risk of receiving products that fail to meet brand standards, requiring rework, reorders, or difficult conversations with internal stakeholders who expected better results.
For organisations regularly ordering custom tech gifts such as branded power banks, wireless chargers, USB flash drives, or Bluetooth speakers, establishing a clear artwork protocol is a worthwhile investment. This protocol should specify which file formats are acceptable for production, where the master vector files are stored, and who is responsible for preparing production-ready artwork when a new order is placed. With this foundation in place, the gap between digital mockup and physical product narrows considerably, and the customization process delivers the quality that procurement teams rightfully expect.
There is another dimension to this issue that procurement teams rarely consider until they encounter it directly: the relationship between file format and colour accuracy. A logo file saved in RGB colour space, which is standard for digital displays, contains colour values that cannot be precisely reproduced by printing equipment operating in CMYK or Pantone colour systems. The vibrant blue that appears on screen may print as a duller, more purple-tinted shade. The bright orange that defines a brand identity may shift toward red or brown depending on how the colour conversion is handled.
This colour shift is not a defect in the printing process but rather an inherent limitation of translating between colour systems designed for fundamentally different purposes. RGB colours are created by mixing light, while CMYK colours are created by mixing ink pigments. The physics of these two systems produce different colour gamuts, meaning certain colours that are achievable in one system simply cannot be reproduced in the other. When a procurement team provides an RGB file without specifying the intended Pantone or CMYK values, the supplier must make assumptions about colour conversion that may not align with the brand's expectations.
The safest approach is to provide artwork files that already contain the correct colour specifications for print production. If the brand guidelines specify Pantone 286 C for the primary blue, the artwork file should reference that Pantone colour directly rather than relying on an RGB approximation. This removes ambiguity from the production process and ensures that every supplier, regardless of their equipment or location, is working toward the same colour target.
Some procurement teams assume that colour matching is the supplier's responsibility and that providing a reference sample or a printed colour swatch is sufficient guidance. While physical samples can be helpful, they introduce their own variables. A printed sample may have faded over time, or it may have been produced on a different substrate that absorbs ink differently than the product being ordered. Without the underlying colour specifications, the supplier is essentially trying to reverse-engineer the brand's colour intent from an imperfect reference.
The cumulative effect of these file format and colour specification issues is that procurement teams often find themselves in a reactive position, addressing quality concerns after products have been manufactured rather than preventing those concerns through proper preparation. Each iteration of corrections adds time and cost to the project, and in some cases, the final product still falls short of expectations because the fundamental artwork issues were never fully resolved.
From a production floor perspective, the difference between a well-prepared artwork package and an inadequate one is substantial. A project that arrives with vector files, correct colour specifications, and clear instructions about print area placement can move directly into pre-production setup. The mockup accurately represents what will be produced, and the approval process is straightforward. In contrast, a project that arrives with low-resolution raster files, unspecified colours, and vague placement instructions requires extensive back-and-forth communication, multiple mockup revisions, and careful quality checks at every stage to catch potential issues before they become expensive mistakes.
This difference in preparation directly affects lead time, cost, and final quality. Procurement teams that invest time in preparing proper artwork upfront typically experience smoother production runs, fewer surprises at delivery, and stronger relationships with their suppliers. Those that treat artwork as an afterthought often find themselves managing crises that could have been avoided with better initial preparation.
The lesson for procurement professionals is clear: artwork file format is not a technical detail to be delegated to the supplier or ignored until problems arise. It is a critical input to the customization process that deserves the same attention as quantity, pricing, and delivery schedule. By understanding the requirements of different printing technologies and ensuring that artwork files meet those requirements before production begins, procurement teams can significantly reduce the risk of quality issues and ensure that their custom tech gifts represent their brand as intended.