‘Rather than adopt a one-size-fits all digital communications strategy, savvy news organisations and other businesses will continue to offer consumers a choice and in doing so, help to assure that those who are unwilling or unable to access digital information are not disadvantaged.’

Print media has seen significant disruption during the Coronavirus pandemic, with lockdowns changing the way we access and consume news and information. But even as familiarity with and use of online media has increased, print on paper remains a widely used and highly valued resource. This according to a new survey, ‘Paper’s Place in a Post-Pandemic World,’ commissioned by Two Sides North America and conducted by global research firm Toluna.

As a result of pandemic-related lockdowns, traditional news brands have successfully developed or enhanced their digital platforms, leading many to turn to online media as a primary source of news and information. But it cannot be assumed that everyone who moved online for news did so by choice or that all who moved online will remain there as restrictions on work, travel and leisure are lifted.

While the Two Sides survey showed that 58% of consumers intend to read more news online in the future, this percentage has not changed since 2019. And although print newspaper readership has taken a hit during the pandemic, 49% of consumers say they would be concerned if printed news were to disappear.

In addition, digital communication is not universally welcomed. Nearly three in 10 consumers (29%) prefer to read newspapers in print, and that number jumps to more than four in 10 for those over age 55. 44% of consumers say they gain a better understanding of a story when reading news in print versus online. When it comes to magazines, 38% of consumers prefer to read in print, with percentages climbing to 49% for those over 55 and 63% for those over 65. When all age groups are included, 44% prefer to read books in print.

As might be expected, the survey shows that younger adults, those aged 18 to 24 in particular, prefer to read all types of media online. But even among these younger consumers, 28% prefer to receive and read personal information from doctors and hospitals in print, 27% prefer to read books in print and 23% prefer to receive bills and statements from service providers in print.

‘It’s clear that digital communication is changing the way we receive news and information,’ Rowzie said, ‘but Americans’ growing dependence on digital communication brings its own concerns, which in turn presents opportunities for print media to hold and potentially reclaim a bigger slice of the consumer media pie. Our survey reveals that 52% of consumers believe they spend too much time on their electronic devices, and just over half are concerned that the overuse of digital devices may be damaging their health. As headlines about online security breaches become a common occurrence, 64% say they are increasingly concerned that their personal information held electronically is at risk of being hacked, stolen, lost or damaged.’

Consumers also are increasingly concerned about the environmental impacts of their communication choices, but there are a lot of misconceptions in the marketplace about the sustainability of both digital communication and print on paper. ‘Our survey shows that 67% of consumers believe electronic communication is better for the environment than print on paper,’ Rowzie said. ‘But the miniaturisation of today’s electronic devices and the ‘invisible’ nature of digital infrastructure and cloud-based services cause many to vastly underestimate the environmental footprint of electronic communication. This includes the mining of raw materials like iron, copper and rare earth minerals to produce electronic devices, the massive amounts of predominately fossil fuel energy used to manufacture and operate those devices and the server farms that support them, as well as the enormous and growing amount of e-waste generated.

‘Like all manufactured products, paper has an environmental footprint, too,’ Rowzie explained. ‘But in the U.S., it is a material whose industry grows and regrows its own raw material (wood fibre from trees), derives two-thirds of the power to drive its processes from renewable, carbon-neutral biofuel, cleans and returns more than 90% of the water it uses to the environment and recycles more than 95% of the chemicals it uses to turn trees into pulp. In addition, with a 66% recovery rate, paper is the most recycled material in U.S., according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. That’s a powerful sustainability story the electronics industry cannot match.’

TWO SIDES SOUTH AFRICA
info@za.twosides.info
https://za.twosides.info

Packaging printers are under constant pressure to improve their environmental footprints. But it is generally the brands who get it in the neck from consumer groups pressuring for change. That is likely to be the case for a while, although it isn’t necessarily a safe assumption to think printing companies are immune. In the UK recently an environmental group managed to prevent three newspaper printing plants from getting their papers out to newsagents. The protesters’ gripe was not on the basis that printing is bad for the environment, but that the national press does not provide enough coverage of environmental concerns.

This isn’t really fair because packaging has had extensive media coverage, in print and elsewhere. There is a close correlation between the number of stories in the news and the enthusiasm of consumers to start flexing their collective muscle in many geographies. They want to improve the dismal rates of packaging recyclability and this forces brands to consider how they can redesign their packaging to be easier to recycle.

The tube used to package Pringles crisps is a case in point. It is an extreme example, but even for less complex packaging, balancing functionality with recyclability is tricky, to say the least. But there are obvious things to avoid when designing a package. Plastic netting for instance is hard to recycle and can get snagged in sorting and recycling machinery. Laminates such as those used for crisp packets and chocolate should be avoided. Chocolate can be packaged in separate aluminium and paper layers without the risk of degradation.

Plastic in general is obviously a no-no. Most important of all is that packaging designs include clear recycling instructions on the package. Consumer awareness of recyclability is rising and with it the desire to minimise waste packaging. This is an opportunity both for innovative packaging designers and for brands who want to reassure their customers and encourage their loyalty.

This article was produced by the Verdigris Project, an industry initiative intended to raise awareness of print’s positive environmental impact. Verdigris is supported by: Agfa Graphics (www.Agfa.com), Digital Dots (www.digitaldots.org), EFI (www.efi.com), FESPA (www.fespa.com), Fujifilm (www.fujifilm.com/sustainability/), HP (www.hp.com), Kodak (www.Kodak.com/go/sustainability), Practical Publishing (www.practicalpublishing.co.za), Ricoh (www.ricoh.com), Unity Publishing (http://unity-publishing.co.uk) and Xeikon (www.xeikon.com).

THE VERDIGRIS PROJECT
http://verdigrisproject.com/

Newspapers are struggling still as they wrestle with new business models that shift from printed copy sales to digital delivery. The environmental impact of digital media is largely unquantified, but obviously digital media generate emissions throughout their lives. Print on the other hand, has a one-off carbon footprint and is based on a sustainable resource: wood.

Most newspapers still get the bulk of their revenues from printed advertising income, sourced from some 86% of circulation sales and subscription revenues. But the emphasis is changing. Notwithstanding the problem of digital news aggregators and social media parading as responsible content curators, it is the underlying shift away from established traditions that hurts newspapers the most, particularly the relationships between readers and their favourite titles.

This painful transition, necessary for both newspaper publishers and for readers, is well underway. According to WAN-Ifra’s World Press Trends report, the number of people paying to read newspapers in a digital format rose 5% year on year between 2018 and 2019. Unfortunately, global revenues are down by 3% which means there is less money to invest in delivering news content, digital or otherwise.

This is not good. Not good at all. Professional and independent news operations will clearly be under threat, if there is no money to pay people to commission, curate and manage content delivery. The World Press Trends report also found that although print still pays the bills, print advertising is still declining at a worrying rate. It was down by 7% year on year.

It might be that publishers are happy with the transition from print to digital delivery, which saves the costs associated with printing and distributing physical newspapers. However, the expense of managing and developing sophisticated websites, online advertising interactions and campaigns, as well as content curating, is not trivial.

Whether it is publishers’ specific intent to move to a digital model of punters preference for online viewing doesn’t really matter. But the newspaper business and readers function in an unchartered environment where platforms such as Google and Facebook have extraordinary power to shape news and information.

At the same time, Google and Facebook deliver readers to newspaper websites with remarkable efficiency and convenience. In this way, the platforms support the news industry, but they also pose an additional and unregulated threat to the established relationship between readers and news publishers. How can readers maintain their trust in information providers? Do they trust the online relationship or does their trust reside with print? If so, it’s a value added advantage that Google and Facebook cannot begin to match. And it’s better for the environment to boot.

This article was produced by the Verdigris Project, an industry initiative intended to raise awareness of print’s positive environmental impact. Verdigris is supported by: Agfa Graphics (www.Agfa.com), EFI (www.efi.com), FESPA (www.fespa.com), HP (www.hp.com), Kodak (www.Kodak.com/go/sustainability), Kornit (www.kornit.com), Practical Publishing (www.practicalpublishing.co.za), Ricoh (www.ricoh.com), Spindrift (https://spindrift.click/), Unity Publishing (http://unity-publishing.co.uk) and Xeikon (www.xeikon.com).

This work by the Verdigris Project is licenced under a Creative Commons attribution-noderivs 3.0 Unported licence http://creativecommons.org/licences/by-nd/3.0/

THE VERDIGRIS PROJECT http://verdigrisproject.com/