It has been notoriously difficult to get people to move from print to digital. People don’t seem to like to pick up a piece of paper and type in a URL. They’ll do it … sometimes, but my experience is that a digital call to action on a print piece doesn’t work as well as you hope it will.
It might be that print and digital reflect different moods. One is laid back and relaxed. The other is frenetic and connected. When someone is in the print mood, they might not want to use their phone.
“Doggone it, I’m reading now, leave me alone.”
QR codes were supposed to bridge this gap, but they didn’t catch on when they were first introduced in the 1990s. I think they were ahead of their time. They seem to be having a bit of a resurgence, probably because of the ubiquity of smartphones. And I think there’s a bit of a convergence between print and online activity. I think there’s still a psychological barrier in switching between them, but I think that barrier is eroding a little.
Recently we’ve seen some promising uses of the print medium. Some magazines are going back to print. Not anywhere near at the scale that print used to occupy. Don’t get carried away. But print is settling into some specific niches – usually as a premium or luxury item.
The Economist tested whether a print package could help with digital engagement. It was a smart thing to test. Most welcome series are yet another annoying email.
That raises an interesting point about email. An email is just an email. There’s not much you can do to make it look “premium.” You can put emojis in the subject line – which I recommend against, unless you’re marketing to teenagers – but generally speaking an email is an email. Once you open an email, there may be some differentiation. Some emails look very snazzy and some look rather plain.
Print is very different. There’s all the difference in the world in print. You have postcards, letters, and packages of various sizes. Sometimes print can be quite beautiful, and sometimes it just has a feeling about it.
A long time ago a friend showed me a handheld HAM radio, and it was just a cool thing to hold. It felt good in the hand. It felt substantial. It looked sleek.
Print can be that way. An email can’t.
Back to The Economist. They split their new subscribers into two groups. One group got a print welcome series while the other group got the traditional email welcome series. The people who got the print package were more engaged with the product. Generally speaking, better engagement means better loyalty and better renewals. Maybe we’ll get an update in a year to see if it played out that way, but in any event, it was a smart test.
I’ll put a link below to the article in The Audiencers.
There’s a bigger point here than just what The Economist did with this welcome package. The point is, don’t forget about print. It’s not magical. It’s never going to have the reach and influence it did a couple decades ago. But it’s still a legitimate tool in your toolbox, and in some cases it’s a far better tool than any digital option.
From time to time I get solicitations – both in the mail and in email – to look at new properties down by the lake in North Carolina. I’m not positive how I got on that list, but I’m on it.
I don’t give the emails a second thought. They go straight to the trash. I do look at the brochures.
Same with catalogs. L.L. Bean can send me a hundred emails and get far less interaction than one catalog. I’ll sit down with a cup of tea and page through the thing.
You might be thinking, “Yeah, but 100 emails cost less than one catalog,” which is true. I’m not saying print will always pay for itself. But it’s worth testing. In some specific applications, print might be your best way to reach your audience.
When the inbox is crowded, consider the mailbox.
Link
Stand out with an onboarding pack: How The Economist increased new subscriber engagement by 3.5%
One thought on “The Economist shows that print is still a legit tool for publishers”