If only paper didn’t grow on trees – James Cryer’s commentary

The recent APIA meeting gets industry commentator, James Cryer, thinking about what needs to be done next. He shares his thoughts.

I am all in favour of anything which promotes paper and print.
 
Having said that, the thought of chopping down trees is only one step up the food-chain from clubbing Canadian fur-seals in the hierarchy of evil as imagined by much of the public. Trees seem to have acquired a humanoid form, with their tall, stately trunks where we feel the pain of the buzz-saw just as if it were applied to our own skin.
 
To counter this negative stereotype is the ambitious challenge taken on board by APIA, the recently-formed lobby group sponsored by the major paper-industry players. And it has chosen to fight that most elusive of enemies: attitudes and emotions.
 
 
Who is the campaign aimed at?
 
So just "who" should be the target of this ambitious and highly-commendable program?
 
Should it be the print specifiers and other decision-makers who choose between print and alternate media?
 
Should it be the "end users", ie, the buyers of books and the readers of newspapers, who should be encouraged to become more voracious consumers of paper,
 
Should it be school kids who could, or should, be "educated" on the virtues of paper, via kits and promotional material which would present the case for properly-harvested paper being a renewable resource?
 
This highlights the eternal dilemma – who exactly do we aim our artillery at, when trying to stimulate the use of print … oops! I mean paper.
 
 
Paper or Print?
 Here lurks the next dilemma. Paper and print are inextricably linked – up to a point. Printers (as opposed to paper-merchants) don't get excited about copier-paper, tissue-paper or even toilet-paper except for very personal reasons. And yet paper-mills can become extremely passionate about such things.
 
So, are we trying to shift more paper tonnage – or sell more printed material? Print is the great "value-add" which turns paper from a rather boring medium into an exciting graphic communications platform. Should not the focus therefore be on selling the sizzle (print) rather than just focussing on the steak (paper)?
 
This may be a small point that should not stand in the way of progress … unless, you ask printers to contribute financially to the campaign. In which case, they may prefer a campaign which favours "print", rather than just paper.
 
But to be fair, this promotional initiative was conceived by the paper industry, not the converting arm (ie, the printers), and is being driven by their natural desire to rectify serious public misconceptions about the environmental merits of paper as a sustainable resource.
 
But the paper suppliers are relying on support – emotional and financial – from their brothers-in-arms in print. And there is a strong case, in terms of equity, for printing companies to come to the party - to the extent that they will be beneficiaries.
 
 
How to Raise Funds – Fairly
How does one apply a levy across the "printing" industry, so that it falls lightly, evenly and fairly upon all players - in some vague relationship to the benefits?
 
Voluntary contributions will penalise the good and benefit the complacent.
 
A flat levy will penalise the small players and benefit the large.
 
A contribution from various associations may also bear no relationship to "benefits" but rather what's in kitty at the time.
 
The only fair way is for the paper suppliers to charge an infinitesimal "tax" on paper sold to convertors, as that will reflect exactly the relative usage of all players. The charge would be so small as to be non-hurtful. I chose this number specifically, as this is the amount recommended in the newly-proposed, so-called "Robin Hood" tax to be levied on global financial transactions and dedicated specifically to world poverty.
 
If this amount is ear-marked specifically for the war-chest, no one could object as it's painless and it's equitable.
 
 
Measures of Success?
That's all very well, but as a contributor, how do I know I'm getting value? Or, putting it another way: what am I getting for my "painless" experience?
 
This is where we again venture into the unknown, as the stated Campaign Objective is to "improve perception" (of print-based communications …). Ideally, for any campaign to be successful there should be quantifiable or measurable KPI's – but frankly, I admit it's going to be difficult to convince "contributors" of what they'll be getting for their money.
 
In all fairness, we may just have to have faith in the quality of the campaign, on the basis that to do "nothing" is worse than doing "something" – even though we may never know (exactly) how effective, or otherwise, it was.
 
 
Reasons for the decline in paper usage
Let me re-visit the question of who is the "enemy"?
 
We wouldn't be mounting this campaign without a reason. Is it because of:
 
1) unfavourable publicity regarding paper's sustainability as a resource? Or
 
2) is it because paper volumes are declining – long-term?
 
While there is some overlap, I see them as two different issues/enemies.
 
In other words, there are two different consumer "behaviours" at work. One reason for the decline in paper consumption may be the extremist views about "chopping down trees" which obviously haunts a small proportion of the population (who mistakenly see sending emails as the way to salvation). To mount a successful campaign at them, I believe you have to focus on the young, ie, school-kids and school-leavers. This "target group" weren't mentioned in the campaign notes (with its focus on "publishers … corporations, governments", etc), but I'm convinced we have to reach into the hearts and minds of these "next-Gensters"  to rectify the negative stereotyping they are probably receiving from mainstream educators.
 
This can be easily done by distributing kits, which teachers love as it makes their job easier. I've spoken to the BPIF at length about their highly-effective "Print It!" campaign, aimed at schools, and they have already offered to give us (that's correct) their marketing collateral, free and at no cost. So why re-invent the wheel? This is a highly effective campaign which has run now, for several years in the UK, with highly visible results - ie, more school-leavers going into print, armed with a positive view of paper.
 
I suspect this approach, ie, aiming at the young has another pay-off: it will help attract more entrants to our own industry which is sadly losing the race to other more environmentally-friendly industries.
 
If on the other hand, as I suspect, the decline in paper usage is part of a long-term gradual shift away from print (eg, phone books, magazines, newspapers and especially the classifieds) then there's probably nothing that can really be done about that. This latter problem is a structural re-adjustment as society works out the "suitability for purpose" of different media – be it paper, emails, multi-media or "social-networking" options. And no amount of campaigning will arrest this trend.
 
Summary
At one level, as human beings we're very inconsistent. We don't mind killing some animals (eg, cows) but hate killing others (eg, harp-seals or baby elephants). By the same token, we don't mind "destroying" some plants (eg, wheat crops) but hate "destroying" others (eg, old-growth forests). Centuries ago, wheat-farmers got smart – they separated their crops from the forests and even gave them a special name – paddocks!
 
The problem with paper (in the public's mind) is it can't separate those trees which get chopped down for paper (in so-called plantations) from the ones which don't (ie, in forests). This is partly because the lines are somewhat blurred – rightly or wrongly – as to exactly where did this paper product actually come from? While there is NO perfect way of addressing this issue, until all paper plantations are ring-fenced away from "forests", so the public understands these trees are just another crop, like Farmer Brown's wheat – and that old-growth forests aren't being raided – we may face a losing battle.
 
But to end on a lighter note, one can always "find fault" with anything, particularly an adventurous new initiative such as this, which is exploring new territory. There are some issues, as highlighted above, which may have to be resolved, but let us all get behind it in good faith. It may also help bring the industry's various tribal factions together in a spirit of cooperation.
 
That alone may be a good thing.
 
Websites of Interest
 
The British schools program – www.printit.org.uk  – a brilliant, whimsical look at print and its potential through the eyes of young kids;
 
The US-based The Print Council – www.theprintcouncil.org – who've published an outstanding full-colour booklet called "The Top 10 Ways Print Helps You Prosper", and
 
The British-inspired "Two Sides" project – www.twosides.info – a myth-busting alliance of printers and other stakeholders in the print-supply chain.