Printing Leaks Need Addressing — Cagle

BITS AND PIECES

COMMERCIAL PRINTING has been fighting battles on a couple of fronts recently. One involves direct mail, the other annual reports—both critical turfs.

Last month, we reported on proposed legislation in the Illinois State House of Representatives that could curtail the volume of direct mail pieces via a “Do Not Mail” list, patterned after the national “Do Not Call” registry. Proponents of the proposed law point out that officious-looking mailers—which help campaigns get a foot in the door (or a letter opener through the envelope)—are deceptive to the point that the elderly have complained about being exploited by them.

In a column that appeared in PI Weekly, our e-newsletter (sign up at www.piworld.com), I wrote that despite being sympathetic to the elderly, this is not a reason to put a halt to the most unintrusive one-to-one marketing tool at an advertiser’s disposal. There are other ways to remedy the problem of people getting manipulated by deceptive people, who (mind you) are unlikely to respect any law aimed at reducing deception, anyway. Mail is not to blame; it’s the old “kill the messenger” theory.

For one, how do we determine what is and isn’t a legitimate advertisement for a product or service? Are we criticizing the window dressing (literally) or the content? On the latter count, who is to decide whether, for example, term life insurance or a reverse mortgage is fiscally wise? A recent news report chronicled how the elderly have been duped into parlaying their life savings into retirement programs that do little other than bolster the coffers of those running the programs. But they’re legal. It’s not the vehicle that’s responsible for the new age of manipulation. Stopping direct mail will do little to remedy the problem. But it will do a lot to hurt a multi-billion-dollar industry.

In the end, cutting off direct mail, either at the state or federal level, would be a crippling blow to the printers that rely on this market as a bread-and-butter source. Printers have a great deal to worry about these days.

ELECTRONIC BLUES: Now that postal reform seems to be a fait accompli, there are other issues coming to the fore. One of those issues is the Securities and Exchange Commission’s proposed rule adoption that would allow the paper-based proxy materials process to be replaced with an electronic system of notification and balloting. Thus, annual reports and voting materials could be sent electronically rather than through snail mail as hard copies, which would be available by request.

Aside from the impact such a law would have on the printing industry, the PIA/GATF notes that shareholders without Internet access could become disenfranchised from the electronic notification and balloting process. Further, the association feels that senior citizens may be adversely affected, given the (perception, at least) that our nation’s greatest generation is not wired.

Hey, what is it with seniors impacting print, anyway?

The PIA/GATF hopes, and I agree, that there’s a happy medium to be found. Without a doubt, voting is something that can be done electronically. But do annual reports belong on hard copy? Probably.

The financial portion of an annual report can be scalable via your browser. But the “glamor” portion, the front matter, contains the message that companies are trying to convey, and surely it would get lost on the electronic frontier. Would shareholders, analysts and other interested parties bother to read the “message to shareholders” on screen, or make their own printouts? Or would they say, “to hell with it,” and close the PDF?

Clearly, our industry would be hurt by the loss of printed annual reports and other financial work. Is this a natural progression, or would the annual report become marginalized in electronic form? Your thoughts are welcomed at ecagle@napco.com.

FAMILY MATTERS: Few things in this profession make me flinch, except for the sight of a press release that deals with printer-union relations. That’s certain to bring a cringe and an Archie Bunker-esque “aw, geez” exclamation.

There’s a pair of union-related briefs in our “Upfront” department this month. Truthfully, I’d be happy if we’d never have to run another one. They’re the business equivalent of child custody battles, fraught with “he said, she said,” allegations and hyperbole that would make the Super Bowl seem like a pickup game of flag football. The rhetoric is so self-serving and narrow minded, it’s surprising that peace accords are ever possible.

I have my own opinion on the effectiveness and value of employee unions, which I’ll spare you. The truth of the matter is that no one wants any part of labor relations strife. That’s an in-house issue that should be addressed internally.

Why drag Quebecor World out in the street and give them a public berating, for example, or accuse the Teamsters of bullying shops at the local level? The trade press certainly isn’t going to conduct an investigation into claims of employee mistreatment or union intimidation. We’re not the Washington Post. Above all else, these tactics serve no purpose toward the goal of hammering out an agreement.

It’s like sitting next to a couple that’s airing their grievances in a crowded restaurant. All we can do is sigh and stare straight down into our split pea soup.

—ERIK CAGLE