Paper or Pixels

I wrote an article for the American Society of Association Executives (ASAE) back in 2007 about the emerging argument over written newsletters vs. e-newsletters. At the time I was working for an organization that didn't have too much money to spend on development and constituent relations (a mistake made by several organizations these days). It's interesting to see where we were just two short years ago as we dawn on the age of social networking, a world I'm diving into head-first these days. Thought it would be interesting to share....

It occurred to me, after an extensive and lively discussion with my colleagues that there still remains a gap about the Information Age’s eternal question: What gets your message across better—print or electronic newsletters?

I think it is fair to say that the pronouncements on the death of paper are premature. To be sure, there are “pure-play” web and e-newsletters in existence, but it’s equally true that several pure-play Web publishers have added paper-based newsletter distribution as well, for many of the reasons to be spelled out in this article, including customer preference.

I found that the question of paper-based delivery versus electronic media is less about the “value” of the information than it is about tangibility. Paper provides a tangible reminder of the information and its source. If you think about the ability to loan out the information (think libraries—yes, even in the Information Age, they still thrive) and the casual pass-along opportunities paper provides, its value grows further still. I have worked with organizations that have done research on business-to-business newsletter subscribers, and it shows that 83 percent of newsletter subscribers retain back issues of newsletters (69 percent save the ones that come in paper format, and 22 percent save electronic ones). It also turns out that the best way to build a subscriber base is through distribution of sample print newsletters. Surveys show that 34 percent of prospects became subscribers after receiving a print newsletter sample, but just 6 percent of prospects who received sample e-mail newsletters subscribed. Interestingly, six in 10 newsletter subscribers still prefer to receive a print newsletter mailed directly to them. That said, the number of subscribers who would prefer to receive their newsletter electronically is growing. Of those receiving print newsletters today, 47 percent said they would prefer e-mail delivery, representing a 10 percent shift from paper to e-delivery.

I also found that our colleagues working with smaller trade association whose members are social and community economic organizations where the average member is 55, male, socially conscious, moderately computer literate (though many think they have a higher acuity than they really do) are dealing with a unique situation, or maybe not so unique.

Most provide a weekly or monthly e-newsletter that grows in subscription and readership rates. An analysis of who is opening the electronic newsletter shows that an average of about 50 percent are executives and 50 percent are mid- to low-level management. The overall open rates tend to hover around 67 percent.

But there has recently been a call to return to the “old-fashioned” printed newsletter. So many have started to snail mail a bimonthly newsletter. It seems the feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. The printed format allows them to provide more in-depth coverage. Preliminary reader polls are showing that an average of 89 percent of the print-newsletter readers are executives or CEOs, but only 50 percent of the same e-newsletter readers are high-level executives.

What does this tell us?

The popularity of the printed newsletter surprised me, as I too thought that most would prefer to get quick information through an e-newsletter. But I was not considering my whole audience or these subtle nuances that can make a printed newsletter desirable:

• It is tangible. It can be held and felt.

• It is portable, since you can throw it into a briefcase and take it home or read it on the train. Research shows that constituents are annoyed at the idea of printing out an electronic newsletter.

• The e-newsletter was getting lost among the myriad of electronic information members receive. The “old-fashioned” approach actually made organizations stand out more.

Now, after being force fed those numbers, this is not to say that the electronic based newsletter doesn’t have its place in the non-profit world. Simply putting something on paper rather than using much more efficient and cost-saving e-mail doesn’t make your message more valuable. This may have been true years ago, but not in the world as we know it today. My colleagues working with grassroots organizations may have budget issues that the larger trade associations don’t have to deal with. For some organizations, sending out a biweekly newsletter via snail mail is simply out of the question, but doing it via e-mail would be a no-brainer. The savings are considerable, but are the constituents satisfied? Most say yes, that they are spending their money wisely, and polls show that they are overwhelming satisfied with the way the organization is using their donations. The consensus is that even if they have a rather “old-fashioned” constituent base, at the request of many of their members, they are more often switching from paper to strictly e-mail because it portrays a more cost-saving way of spending their money.

I guess this is a long way of saying that whether you choose electronic or print delivery really depends on your audience, or what you can afford. If you can afford to do both print and e-newsletters, you have a considerable advantage in the market by covering both preferences. Otherwise, you have to weigh the cost involved with the production, postage and time spent the print version against taking a risk in reaching constituents who do not find the electronic version as valuable as the print version.

So have we truly answered the burning questions here or does the argument continue? In my opinion, it comes down to knowing your constituents. As with many issues in our world, if you turn your attention to the individuals and organizations you support, only then will you truly get your answer.