Channel hopping
“Printers are still thinking too much about print whereas maybe they should be thinking about multichannel communications and how they fit into that instead,” says Parker. “You’ve got the environmental printers who say ‘we’re fabulously environmentally friendly’, but I never hear anyone say ‘here are some interesting comparisons between print and digital’s environmental performance to show you that the issue may not be as simple as you think.”
There are, though, those who would say that this isn’t within printers’ remit or indeed in their best interests. “There is a danger that if printers pipe up and say digital has environmental factors to consider, it could be seen as the print industry just railing against the competition,” says BSkyB’s Cruise.
Trying to undermine the competition might look particularly futile, some would add, because actually there often isn’t actually a competition between the two media. Where a company feels a digital campaign will get a better consumer response, they are likely to go for this medium regardless of environmental concerns, says Two Sides’ Martyn Eustace. And similarly where a print campaign will deliver a better ROI this will be the deciding factor – not the environment.
“To put digital and print in direct competition with each other on an environmental front misses the point,” says Eustace. “I don’t think anyone is going to think ‘I wonder if it would be more environmentally friendly to do 50 brochures or 50,000 emails.’ People should ultimately use what’s right for their business and be assured that whatever they’re doing, the impact on the environment is as low as possible.”
But there are some who would argue that there are still instances where cost and result will be balanced with digital and print’s relative environmental credentials. Here, a demonised printed product obviously runs the risk of losing out so it is in the print industry’s interest to set the record straight.
“When you’re weighing up whether to use digital or print there’s the usual considerations of quality, cost and response rates,” says HSBC’s Titheridge, “but if it was a 50-50 split once you’d weighed all that up and you weren’t sure which way to go, environmental factors could tip the decision.”
Resigning oneself to the fact that cost and result will always be the only deciding factors when a company is choosing between print and digital, is also, says Taylor, a defeatist attitude in the context of the environmental challenges our planet currently faces.
“I don’t think enough decisions are made on an environmental basis,” she says, “but I do think this will start happening more and more if we make it easier for buyers to access the relevant information and compare digital and print’s environmental performance.”
As electronic communications become ever-more ubiquitous, it is then perhaps the responsibility of anyone in the know to debunk pervasive myths about digital’s environmental neutrality. And it will be the responsibility of those printers branching into electronic communications particularly, to encourage buyers to consider environmental factors when choosing between print and new media.
Even for the printer who doesn’t sell digital and isn’t concerned that printers lose out as a result of buyers choosing so-called ‘environmentally friendly’ digital, here might be another chance for printers to tell a good environmental story. Educating buyers not only about the issues surrounding print, but also those surrounding another aspect of their job description, might just prove to be the key to even stronger, more trusting relationships with buyers.
"Change has to be led by consumers. They are the ones who will influence buying decisions."
Mark Cruise, BSkyB
