Archive

ValueNonsenseCheck

ValuePublishing #drupa20150 Review.001

@ 2016 by Andreas Weber, Mainz/Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

By Andreas Weber | German version

 

“Made it!” The glorious centenary celebration at #drupa2050 was over. The only representative, speaker, exhibitor, mediator and visitor on site was Benny Landa. Just before drupa 2020, Benny had fallen into a nano-ink container in an attempt to get a look at the all-new colour, Benny Orange, which surpassed all Pantone colours. Ever since, he radiated like the Dalai Lama and endowed the print industry with a transcendental touch. After the initial shock, Benny was sure that nothing more on Earth could be achieved.

And that wasn’t all. He had become immortal. Ever since 2020, he had always opened the drupe on 1 April. On 1 April 2050 — in other words, one hundred years after the foundation of drupa — he now stood on the nanographic-holography-7D exhibition grounds, which had passed into the ownership of the Jeff Bezos Foundation many decades before. In a clever move, Bezos had taken control of the world economy by buying majority shares in all specialised lawyers’ practices around the world. He was then able to use the TTIP agreement in order to destroy all of his competitors quite legally by way of prosecution, and filled his own coffers.

Jeff (still hale and hearty and well over 80, but now only active as a silent partner and co-boss) and Benny (the Immortal) get along great, since they both replaced the “Only-One-Man-Can-Lead” management principle with a Double Consul Agreement, similar to the tradition of the Ancient Roman Republic. The two liked to joke that each top position has a good side and an even better side. After months of visionary and tinkering work, Jeff and Benny managed to reproduce the Old Town of the Gutenberg city of Mainz using 7D printing — true to the original in the year 1460 — and to position it within seconds before the astonished eyes of the specialist audience on 1 April 2050 at 11.11 a.m. in Düsseldorf, thus pepping up the exhibition hall panorama, which had grown boring.

It was a real coup. As in 1951 in Hall 1 at Heidelberg, there was only one machine that just about fit into the 7D replica of Mainz Cathedral; a visionary-ravishing prototype according to the nano-end-to-end-solution principle was celebrated: In real time, the “BennyFire 007” was able to think up, produce, distribute, consume and integrate printed material in an environmentally friendly manner into the patented J&B-Cradle-to-Cradle-Recycling cycle … — All of the annoying problems with data quality, colour management, precision fit, logistics and postal costs and the constant trouble with the recipients/readers of the printed matter were overcome. — Benny felt good in Düsseldorf. — “Wherever you are happy, that’s your home.”


I WAKE UP, DRENCHED IN SWEAT. It is Saturday, 11 June 2016, 6.30 a.m. and #drupa2016 is over. And I obviously took the exhibition motto “Touch the Future” much too literally. — I pack, have breakfast and travel back home calmly, to the Gutenberg city of Mainz.

Print wins : Gutenbebrg and Benny.001.jpeg

ValuePublishing #drupa20150 Review.001

© 2016 by Andreas Weber, Mainz/Frankfurt am Main, Germany

Von Andreas Weber, der das #drupa2016-Motto „Touch the future wohl zu wörtlich genommen hatte… |  Englische Fassung

Geschafft! Die gloriose Hundertjahrfeier auf der #drupa2050 war vorüber. Der einzige Repräsentant, Redner, Aussteller, Mediator und Besucher vor Ort war Benny Landa. Benny war kurz vor der drupa 2020 in einen Nano-Ink-Container gefallen, als er das neue, alle Pantone-Farben weit übertreffende Benny-Orange in Augenschein nehmen wollte. Seitdem strahlte er wie der Dalai-Lama und verlieh der Printbranche etwas Überirdisches. Mehr kann man auf Erden wohl nicht erreichen, war sich Benny nach dem ersten Schreck über den Plumbs sicher.

Und damit nicht genug. Benny war unsterblich geworden. Seit 2020 hat er stets am 1. April die drupa eröffnet. Am 1. April 2050  — also hundert Jahre nach der drupa-Gründung — stand er nun auf dem Nanographic-Holografie-7D-Messe-Gelände, das Jahrzehnte zuvor in den Besitz der Jeff-Bezos-Foundation übergegangen war. Bezos hatte durch einen klugen Schachzug die Weltwirtschaft an sich gebracht, indem er weltweit alle spezialisierten Anwaltskanzleien mehrheitlich erworben hatte. Das TTIP-Abkommen konnte er sodann nutzen, um ganz legal alle Wettbewerber durch Klagen zu ruinieren und die eigene Kasse zu füllen.

Jeff (nach wie vor als über 80jähriger rüstig und fit, aber nur noch als still teilhabender Co-Chef aktiv) und Benny (der Unsterbliche) verstehen sich prächtig, da beide das „Es-kann-nur-Einen-geben-Highlander“-Führungsprinzip durch ein Doppel-Konsul-Agreement ersetzen, das der Tradition der antiken römischen Republik angenähert war. Jede Top-Position hat eben eine gute und eine noch bessere Seite, scherzen die beiden gerne. In monatelanger Visions- und Tüftler-Arbeit konnten Jeff und Benny per 7D Printing die Altstadt der Gutenberg-Stadt Mainz nachbilden — stilecht dem Jahr 1460 angepasst — und am 1. April 2050 um 11.11 Uhr in Düsseldorf vor den staunenden Augen der Fachwelt in Sekundenschnelle platzieren, um das langweilig gewordene Messehallen-Panorama aufzuwerten.

Ein echter Coup war gelungen. Wie 1951 in Halle 1 bei Heidelberg, gab es nur eine Maschine, die gerade noch in die 7D-Mainzer-Dom-Replik passte; ein visionär-hinreissenderer Prototyp nach dem Nano-End-to-End-Solution-Prinzip wurde zelebriert: Die „BennyFire 007“ konnte sich in Echtzeit Drucksachen ausdenken, produzieren, distribuieren, konsumieren und umweltverträglich in den patentierten J&B-Cradle-to-Cradle-Recycling-Zyklus einbinden… — Alle lästigen Probleme mit Datenqualität, Farbmanagement, Passgenauigkeit, Logistik- und Portokosten sowie der ständige Ärger mit Empfängern/Lesern der Drucksachen waren überwunden. — Benny fühlte sich wohl in Düsseldorf. — „Wo immer du glücklich bist, da ist dein Zuhause.“


SCHWEISSGEBADET WACHE ICH AUF. Es ist Samstag, der 11. Juni 2016, 6.30 Uhr. Die #drupa2016 war vorbei. Und ich hatte das Messe-Motto „Touch the future“ wohl zu wörtlich genommen. — Ich packe, frühstücke und fahre in Ruhe nach Hause in die Gutenberg-Stadt Mainz.

Print wins : Gutenbebrg and Benny.001.jpeg

Formel-1-Syndrom — Sebastian Vettel: „Wir müssen über den Schatten springen!“.001

Eine Manöverkritik aus aktuellem Anlass.

Von Andreas Weber

Über 200.000 Menschen wurden rund um den Grand Prix in Monaco zur Formel 1 befragt. Das Ergebnis ist eindeutig: Zu teuer, zu technisch, zu langweilig. Sebastian Vettel muss im Interview per ARD Morgenmagazin am 3. Juli 2015 gesendet, unverblümt zugeben, dass man sich im Rennzirkus wohl zu sehr mit sich selbst beschäftige. Und zuwenig mit den Zuschauern. Die Interessen der Veranstalter und Rennställe decken sich nicht mehr mit denen der Zuschauer. Die Fahrer leiden darunter, wie Sebastian Vettel und andere Rennfahrer einräumen. Vettel empfiehlt, zu überdenken, was man da tue. Und fordert auf, über den eigenen Schatten zu springen.

Das ist eine Steilvorlage, um im Rennen um werthaltige Kommunikation seine Position zu überdenken. Und das betrifft uns alle. In den letzten Wochen tun sich geradezu Abgründe auf, da auf breiter Front das Ziel verfehlt wird. Und der Dilettantismus Oberhand gewinnt. Beispiel: Die Messe Nürnberg schafft es mit der CO-REACH als Fachmesse für Dialogmarketing (mit Fokus auf Print, Online, Crossmedia) einen Dialog über das Messegeschehen gar nicht erst stattfinden zu lassen. Fast tragik-komisch: Auf Facebook lässt die Messegesellschaft auf der CO-REACH-Seite Bilder von Vorträgen posten, die Chart-Inhalte zeigen, die sagen, worum es heute geht, wenn man Erfolg haben will: Dialoge über Social Media führen, Bloggen als aktive Form der qualifizierten Kommunikation nutzen, um Dialoge zu initiieren, die Interaktionen in Gang setzen u.v.m. — Doch nichts davon passiert. Es gab bis zum Messeende am 25. Juni 2015 kaum likes oder Re-Tweets. Scheinbar verfolgt auch niemand im Management der Messegesellschaft, was da vor sich geht, ebenso wenig auf Twitter. Hier war die Messe Nürnberg so clever, gleich verschiedene Hashtags zu initiieren, statt nur einen. Folge: Die Resonanz versickert bzw. bleibt aus. Es interessiert kaum jemanden. Dies wird noch übertroffen durch Fachmedienpartner der CO-REACH, die emsig-bemüht, aber ziemlich amateurhaft agieren. Gerade, wenn man mit Kritik aufwartet. So geht es, wenn Printmagazine meinen, Online- und Social-Media-Kommunikation zu beherrschen, indem man klassisch Meldungen pusht und auf Feedback in Echtzeit gar nicht erst vorbereitet ist. Zugleich ist natürlich eine große Angst vorhanden, die Kontrolle zu verlieren.

Kommunikation: Ein Milliarden-Euro-Grab?

Spannend: Die Aussteller, die viel Geld für ihre Messebeteiligung ausgeben, lässt das völlig kalt. Sie bekommen es nicht mit, weil Sie unter dem oben beschriebenen Formel-Eins-Syndrom leiden. Dabei hätte man auf der CO-REACH nur zuhören müssen. Ausreichend qualifizierte Vorträge wurden geboten. Allen voran der von Mr. Media, Thomas Koch, aka @ufomedia. Er verzichtete auf Charts, und las der Branche besonnen, aber zielgenau die Leviten. Sein Thema: „Das Ende der Werbung“. Fazit: Nichts ist mehr, wie es war. Die Medien und die Werber haben nicht im Ansatz verstanden, was heute vor sich geht. Und profitieren davon, dass ihre Kunden es zumeist auch nicht besser wissen. Übrigens: Von der Rede von Thomas Koch konnte man nur Kenntnis erhalten, weil er im Anschluss an seinen Vortrag selbst wirksam darüber kommunizierte. Per Twitter und Facebook teilte er den Link zur Videoaufzeichnung seines Vortrags.

Dazu passt bestens eine weitere Beobachtung von Thomas Koch: Die Rolle von Chefredakteuren der Medien wurde von der Bloggerszene übernommen. News werden über uns alle nicht nur kolportiert, sondern qualifiziert wie auch emotionalisiert bewertet. Das Dilemma aber ist: Es wird soviel Geld für Kommunikation ausgegeben wie nie zu vor. Und noch nie wurde so wenig Wirkung wie heute damit erzielt. Angeblich fehle es an validen Messgrößen, weshalb sich Google und Facebook verbiegen, um mit den Mediaexperten ins Gespräch zu kommen, weil sich die Auftraggeberschar mehrheitlich noch auf deren Rat verlässt. Jeder, der Begriffe wie „Content Marketing“ oder „Targeting“ nur einigermaßen richtig aussprechen kann, erhält einen Auftrag. Unabhängig davon , ob die tatsächlich erreichbaren Möglichkeiten sinnvoll ausgeschöpft werden.  Beispiel: Social Media-Projekte werden in Unternehmen zu gerne über die Werbeabteilung per Outsourcing an „Agenturen“ vergeben, deren Wissen und Können oft nur darin besteht, per neuen Technologien die gleichen alten Push-Inhalte unters Volk zu bringen wie vorher auch schon. So entstehen Facebook-Seiten, die keine Interaktion hervorrufen. Und auch Facebooks Stärke, das beste Targeting zu bieten, gar nicht richtig nutzen. Per Blog-Technik entstehen Corporate Blogs genannte Sub-Websites, die per „Copy and Paste“ Inhalte erfassen, die längst ubiquitär sind und daher vielerorts im Netz schon aufgetaucht sind. So zahlen Kunden für angebliche Blogs, die streng genommen gar nicht der Bloggerkultur entsprechen, weil die Inhalte weder persönlich noch exklusiv sind; und somit zu keiner nutzbringenden Meinungsbildung führen können. Das geht alles bis dato soweit gut, weil der Auftraggeber es nicht bemerkt. Oder, weil kritische Geister, die es bemerken, sich in den Firmen ducken, weil angeblich die konservative Firmenstruktur es nicht anders zulasse. Oh je…

Stats co-reach Christian Kopocz 25062015 1716h

CO-REACH: Ziel verfehlt! Am Ende der Messe in Nürnberg gab es kaum Resonanz per Social Media.

Liebe Leute, ganz ehrlich: Ich bin in meiner Kritik noch zurückhaltend bis zaghaft. Es ist schlimm. Der blanke Irrsinn, was da auf breiter Front geschieht. Hört doch einfach auf Thomas Koch. Und auch auf Sebastian Vettel. Überdenkt, was ihr tut. Stellt es in Frage. Lernt dazu. Und besinnt Euch darauf, worum es geht: Kommunikation werthaltig zu gestalten. 

EMPFEHLENSWERT:
Videoaufzeichnung des Vortrags von Thomas Koch “Das Ende der Werbung”

PS: Rückblick

Die Besucherzahlen der CO-REACH sind übrigens gegenüber 2014 kaum gestiegen: 6.000 Besucher aus 12 Ländern vermeldet die Messe Nürnberg per 26. Juni 2015. 2014 waren es 5.778 Besucher aus 20 Ländern. Und 2009, als die CO-REACH noch Mailingtage hieß, war es 8.150 Besucher. Siehe: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO-REACH sowie http://www.marketing-boerse.de/Fachartikel/details/Abschlussbericht-mailingtage-2009-%96-Erfolgreich-am-Puls-der-Zeit/17235

Dies Ausstellerzahl war 2015 mit 266 gegenüber 2014 leicht rückläufig, da waren es noch 269 Aussteller. 2009 wurden noch 400 Aussteller vermeldet.

Newspapers dead caused by publishers.001

© 2014 by Value Communication AG, Mainz/Germany

 

By Sudarsha Rambaran, Value Art+Communication Fellow, Mainz
(This blog post is part of a new Value iBook “The Real Value of Print” which will be available soon)

 

ValueLearnings

• Beyond craziness? — The Woeful Tale of the Newspaper and its War with the Internet

• Publishers’ strange behavior (since decades): they ignore the needs of their customers

• The biggest enemy of print & publishing are newspaper publishers and their partners in the traditional media business

 

Five years ago, in an interview with Horizont, media expert and author of What would Google do?” Jeff Jarvis made some visionary comments about the future of the newspaper industry. He stated that society is being massively restructured because of the internet, however, Google is not the instigator of this process as many believe, but rather a result of it. These days, if you cannot be searched on the net, you cannot be found. The mass market for newspapers may be dead, but there is still a niche for them in the world. The news itself must change: it has to be tailored to target audiences, which is why regional newspapers can benefit so much from Google. Google itself is currently changing their whole marketing approach. They are concentrating on making the advertising relevant to local markets by personalizing the stories (nice example here). They no longer want to mass produce messages that work on a global level, and it’s working brilliantly!

The advantages of the online world for newspapers are many; low costs, cheap distribution, fast updates, and discussions with the readers. There was the nice example with the New York Times. They took down the paywall on their  site and their internet traffic rose by 40%, which started a snowball effect: they earned more money from advertisements, and they moved up the list on the Google search page, which led to even more readers.

Currently, the German regional newspapers are rebelling against Google, because they believe it doesn’t help their sites, especially on the Google News side. One prominent example of this is the “Braunschweiger Zeitung”, which has abandoned the Google News feature. Their  reasoning for this, in my opinion, made little sense: they wanted to show their confidence and independence from Google. They also want Google News to suffer for it; if many regional newspapers leave it, Google will have a problem. Yet in reality it would be their problem if they can’t be found! The whole story reminded me of this:

On the other hand, the Zeitung went about this in a clever way, as they started a massive marketing campaign in order to raise awareness and advertise the newspaper. However, They could have done the marketing campaign without leaving Google, and Google would only have supported it! The marketing campaign did increase the visits to their website by 27%, though, but I still don’t see how leaving Google helped with this.

So the big question we asked ourselves here was: why blame Google for the decline of the newspaper industry when all it’s doing is helping? (And why not Twitter, which would have made far more sense?). The facts:

  • Google is a great source of promotion. We send online news publishers a billion clicks a month from Google News and more than three billion extra visits from our other services, such as Web Search and iGoogle. That is 100,000 opportunities a minute to win loyal readers and generate revenue—for free.
  • In terms of copyright, another bone of contention, we only show a headline and a couple of lines from each story. If readers want to read on they have to click through to the newspaper’s Web site. (The exception are stories we host through a licensing agreement with news services.) And if they wish, publishers can remove their content from our search index, or from Google News.
  • The claim that we’re making big profits on the back of newspapers also misrepresents the reality. In search, we make our money primarily from advertisements for products. Someone types in digital camera and gets ads for digital cameras. A typical news search—for Afghanistan, say—may generate few if any ads. The revenue generated from the ads shown alongside news search queries is a tiny fraction of our search revenue.

Eric Schmidt, Chairman and CEO of Google Inc, writing for the Wall Street Journal

It all speaks for itself, really. Readers also don’t necessarily want to read newspapers solely on digital platforms, as many in the newspaper industry fear. The actual percentage of people who do exclusively want digital content is at 10-12%.

“News is not one-size-fits-all” – Jeff Jarvis

The newspapers do not just have a problem with the Internet, they also have a content problem. They need to change their approach by tailoring news to target audiences rather than trying to reach everyone, which is why regional newspapers, like the Braunschweiger Zeitung are so important today. Dr. Andreas Vogel put it quite nicely in a study:

“Bloß die Verlage glauben, [dass sie] mit einem Einheitsprodukt alle Leser [gewinnen können]”

Roughly translated, this means that only the newspapers themselves believe that they can reach all types of readers by creating one mass product.

Dr. Vogel believes that one possible solution to this content problem is to differentiate the product by offering different versions of it. Not too many, however; perhaps three or four intelligently created versions, which can be decided on by polling the readers and asking them about their interests. These versions might be smaller/thinner than the original edition, and cheaper. This is a great idea, as it is more personal, which is so important these days, and it views the buyer as a reader/consumer. Many newspapers seem to ignore this; fact is, what might be academically recognized as quality journalism may not be something the reader can cohere. Newspapers need to connect to their readers, or at least write pieces that their readers can relate to.

Now back to the evil that is Google, according to publishing companies. A German organization, VG Media, own by a number of media companies like Axel Springer SE, sued Google for copyright reasons; they claimed that Google was stealing from them by showing short snippets of their articles on the search page. The result was a law, called the Leistungsschutzrecht, which forbids Google from showing these snippets (it is rather vaguely written, though). The result of all of this ridiculousness was this: October 1st, 2014, Google announced that it would no longer show the snippets, instead just the name of the article and maybe the author. They don’t even show the paper’s logo on the search page. And the papers are crying wolf at Google again. At the end of the day, what really happened is that the newspapers blamed Google for the problems they were having (and still are). They were simply afraid that Google was taking business away from them and thus making more money. Whereas in reality, Google only promoted and linked to their content, thus delivering readers to them on a silver platter! The PR brochure promoting this stated that “If someone wants to use our content, they have to ask.” It’s pretty easy translate this into what they really meant, and German blogger Stefan Niggemeier did so flawlessly: “Google must use it and pay”. Now Google isn’t using it or paying, and they’re left crying in the corner because they got what they wanted; Google doesn’t showcase their content anymore. And they will lose clicks.

Newspapers dead caused by publishers.001

ValueCheck! — Zeitung

© 2014 by Value Communication AG, Mainz/Germany

 

By Sudarsha Rambaran, Value Art+Com Fellow, Mainz

 

ValueLearnings

• Learn why Google is de facto a vital source of promotion for newspapers, rather than “the enemy“.

• Newspapers no longer have a mass market, but a new niche. Discover it!

• What a lot of newspapers think Google is doing vs. what they are actually doing.

 

Five years ago, in an interview with Horizont, media expert and author of “What would Google do?” Jeff Jarvis made some visionary comments about the future of the newspaper industry. He stated that society is being massively restructured because of the internet, however, Google is not the instigator of this process as many believe, but rather a result of it. These days, if you cannot be searched on the net, you cannot be found. The mass market for newspapers may be dead, but there is still a niche for them in the world. The news itself must change: it has to be tailored to target audiences, which is why regional newspapers can benefit so much from Google. Google itself is currently changing their whole marketing approach. They are concentrating on making the advertising relevant to local markets by personalizing the stories (nice example here). They no longer want to mass produce messages that work on a global level, and it’s working brilliantly!

The advantages of the online world for newspapers are many; low costs, cheap distribution, fast updates, and discussions with the readers. There was the nice example with the New York Times. They took down the paywall on their site and their internet traffic rose by 40%, which started a snowball effect: they earned more money from advertisements, and they moved up the list on the Google search page, which led to even more readers.

Currently, the German regional newspapers are rebelling against Google, because they believe it doesn’t help their sites, especially on the Google News side. One prominent example of this is the “Braunschweiger Zeitung”, which has abandoned the Google News feature. Their reasoning for this, in my opinion, made little sense: they wanted to show their confidence and independence from Google. They also want Google News to suffer for it; if many regional newspapers leave it, Google will have a problem. Yet in reality it would be their problem if they can’t be found! The whole story reminded me of this:

On the other hand, the Zeitung went about this in a clever way, as they started a massive marketing campaign in order to raise awareness and advertise the newspaper. However, They could have done the marketing campaign without leaving Google, and Google would only have supported it! The marketing campaign did increase the visits to their website by 27%, though, but I still don’t see how leaving Google helped with this.

 

ValueCheck! — Zeitung Illustration.001

© 2014 by Value Communication AG, Mainz/Germany

 

So the big question we asked ourselves here was: why blame Google for the decline of the newspaper industry when all it’s doing is helping? (And why not Twitter, which would have made far more sense?). The facts:

  • Google is a great source of promotion. We send online news publishers a billion clicks a month from Google News and more than three billion extra visits from our other services, such as Web Search and iGoogle. That is 100,000 opportunities a minute to win loyal readers and generate revenue—for free.
  • In terms of copyright, another bone of contention, we only show a headline and a couple of lines from each story. If readers want to read on they have to click through to the newspaper’s Web site. (The exception are stories we host through a licensing agreement with news services.) And if they wish, publishers can remove their content from our search index, or from Google News.
  • The claim that we’re making big profits on the back of newspapers also misrepresents the reality. In search, we make our money primarily from advertisements for products. Someone types in digital camera and gets ads for digital cameras. A typical news search—for Afghanistan, say—may generate few if any ads. The revenue generated from the ads shown alongside news search queries is a tiny fraction of our search revenue.

Eric Schmidt, Chairman and CEO of Google Inc, writing for the Wall Street Journal

It all speaks for itself, really.

 

ValueCheck!
Please also check out Andreas Weber’s post, “Zeit-ung ist gleich Zeit-um?”, about a local newspaper here in Mainz, the Mainzer Allgemeine Zeitung!

 

Foto: Andreas Weber

© 2014 by Value Communication AG, Mainz/Germany (Left: Sükran | Right: Sudarsha)

 

By Sudarsha Rambaran, Value Communication Fellow, Mainz

A couple of days ago, became clear to us that many print companies believe that the internet and social media are fatal to their business. After discovering this, Şükran and I went on to research why that is; as digital natives, we could not imagine why print is believed to be a dying breed, especially by the printers themselves.

The research yielded some surprising results. I googled the term “print companies” and I found quite a few print companies from the US that are using the digital world wonderfully to their advantage. For example, Print Three is a Canadian company which has a beautifully designed website and a modern and innovative advertisement on YouTube. I loved the advertisement, since it was very customer-oriented and did not focus on explaining the technology of the printers, as printing companies tend to do. Instead, it elucidated the products, and fixated on what the company can do for “you” (i.e. the customer). They also have a sister company, Eden, which offers help on a social media level and also utilizing the web in a coherent way. Another impressive example was a company called AlphaGraphics, which works with a similar business model as Print Three.

I also came across a blog, written by UK expert Matthew Parker. It was like social media marketing for dummies, as he breaks it down into three simple steps and their advantages:

1. Create interest

  • Customers will take more of an interest in you if you stay in touch and send them valuable information.
  • Become a valuable resource for the customer; make sure you are the person they go to if they need something

2. Start engagements

  • Post interesting information, thus encouraging discussions. Why? Because every action has a reaction!

3.   Create opportunities for offline engagement

  • In order to truly do business successfully, you have to move the relationship away from social media in the final step
  • Use social media to set up human-to-human meetings

The above is such a simple concept, so I really don’t understand why it seems to be such a problem for printing companies.

 

Please read as well Sükran’s survey results.

Or watch the full movie with all results by both of us.

 

 

Vortrag Dresden 2014.046

© 2014 by Value Communication AG, Mainz/Germany

 

By Şükran Ceren Salalı, Value Art+Com Research Fellow, Istanbul

Even though print became very practical and popular with the new personalization techniques provided by attempts of various printing companies, the sector faces a crisis. Based on this, our intention was to research about the value of printing with its two faces that we called as the beauty and the beast.

My personal experience during the research was a kind of surprising. What I know as huge and famous companies in printing sector like Xerox, HP (as vendors) or Vistaprint (a leading Online printing service provider), were actually the ones who had the largest amount of complaints from their customers. Actually, the situation is also somehow related with the high amount of customers they have, however; this does not mean that they are successful and satisfying as much as they preach. Most of the complaints of customers were about the price, the technical quality of machines and the inadequate ink system. Moreover, most of the comments came with the business card demands of customers, a very simple print application.  For instance, a customer of Vistaprint was complaining about the way the company created their business cards and what he was unhappy about that they did not provide a business card holder. What he highlights made me think about the importance of personalization either by the design or by the gift attached to the printed product.

Innovation talent has to be approved

On the other hand, the success of an innovative print service provider like Elanders Germany came up as proof of increased amount of new and smart companies in the printing sector. When I read about their challenges and solutions, I was able to compare those disappointing results that came up from the companies like HP and Xerox.

As a last point, what I have found was an impressive article, or let‘s say the letter from a business developer who works for Xerox The Netherlands. In the letter, he gives several points about the value of printing and the paper. According to him, paper is much more influential than any other interactive platforms as it takes people into the digital world, being the most catchy product for customers.

Hence, as a result of the research on the two-faced value of print as the beauty and the beast, the printing sector faces with crisis which requires more innovative and communicative attempts from already famous and big companies by getting rid of technical problems of machines and by focusing more on the expectations of each customer with personalized products, benefits and even gifts.

 

Please read as well Suri’s alias Sudarsha blog post.

 

Or watch the full movie with the research results by both of us.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,002 other followers