Reading a printed newsletter

The Question: Which is better? An emailed newsletter or a printed one mailed? That’s the question. Better? Meaning better on an overall basis, and more effective and with greater impact. And do you have a bias before you really address this, thinking one better than the other, or you totally don’t know and are looking for clarification to help you to decide? Either is fine, and I’ll give you my perspective from years of producing newsletters of both kinds for and with clients. And then you decide. Let’s assume that you have clear and compelling reasons, some objectives of substance, to produce a newsletter to distribute to clients or customers beyond “keeping your name in front of them.” If not and that’s all that you want to do, send a post card.

The Common View: Searching the web for what others have to say on this question, I find I’m not impressed. Many of their views, while not all, seem simplistic, in my opinion, listing a few advantages and disadvantages and not providing much of an analysis and no strong conclusion. Many of these end up saying, well, both methods have their advantages, so do both if at all possible. Does that help? Blah, blah, blah.

Study and decide what should be the most important criteria

Basis of Decision Making: The question of which is better really comes down to, as most things do, the basis of decision-making. This is what others seem to ignore. What is the basis of decision-making?

1. Lowest price?
2. Acceptance by reader?
3. Highest readership or response?
4. Most time and attention given to your communication?
5. Least amount of labor or time investment?
6. Ease of production?
7. Speed of composition and delivery combined?
8. Ease of distribution?
9. Speed in distribution?

You see that these all start to be part of the answer, and if it was incredibly clear to everyone ‘which is better,’ then there would be no need to search for a piece like this one to help answer that question. You’d know. It would be obvious.

An Email Newsletter and delivery is the number one choice and favorite...

Consider Email Newsletters First: An email newsletter is the hands-down favorite and most popular as judged by the volume of newsletters – not any official research, of which there is little and little to be trusted, just common sense and observation and informal reporting. Why does this method seem to be the number one choice? Price is probably the biggest advantage, because the price is comparatively and incredibly low (not cost; price). Distribution via email means that distribution is free – no postage. Even if you use a paid service like Constant Contact or others, the price is very, very low. No printing. You can create it in any number of desktop software programs and you don’t have to worry about setting it up/preparing it for print or using a higher-level composition/page layout program. No commercial printers to work with or worry about, so no trips to the printer, or to the post office. No labels, nor affixing them to each newsletter, and no postage or affixing that. BIG time savings. Big labor savings. But there are more features and benefits, like that it’s delivered right the person’s personal computer. Bang. Right there. And you can use hyperlinks, write shorter articles, and link them to continuing on a website that you control, link to other references and directories and information. Statistics are incredible, and these can tell you how many opened the newsletter, clicked on a link, etc. Really nice (translate as needed: cool, sweet, awesome, etc.)! Sounds like a sure winner!

Stop! Does email really win...?

Does Email Win? How can you not be sold on doing an email newsletter, in concluding that a newsletter delivered by email is far superior? In terms of criteria listed above, it wins in most all categories:  Number 1 above, and then 5 through 9, in those all important bases of decision-making. Lowest price, least amount of labor and effort, and speed, well, some think that should just take it all right there. If those are your sole bases of decision making, well, there you go. And that is the conclusion that the vast majority of people come to, that email is better and this becomes the common choice, and hence the popularity. Is it really a contest? Well, yes, if numbers 2, 3, and 4 have anything to say about it:  acceptance, readership, response, attention to the messages. These are critical areas in which email newsletters fail to score.

Downsides to Email Newsletters? Yes. While distribution is free, you get what you pay for. It is electronic, it is email, and email is quirky, uncertain, and quite easily blocked by both users themselves and by IT departments and in the general maelstrom that is the internet. Firewalls, spam filters, anti-virus programs. And one person’s well intentioned email is another person’s spam. Sending out masses of emails from your own computer may get you blacklisted or even dropped by your ISP and by others. It depends. Third party services? You can use these if you can find the right one, but even this is a little shaky. Using a legit service like Constant Contact or Infusion Soft is possibly better. But what do they tell you after you get all excited about getting your message through to customers or clients? Well, you can look at the stats of your email, and you’ll find incredibly low numbers actually received by people you’re sending to, and a very low number that even open your email, let alone read it. Thirty percent? Well, friend, go celebrate because you’re email distribution is fantastically successful. Hmm. Really? Those who are really, really happy with emailed newsletters are those producers who never look at their statistics nor think about the meaning of them.

I just can't read all these things people send me...

Some Other Downsides: With so many producing email newsletters, so easy that anyone can do it, email inboxes can get overloaded with newsletters and what passes for them. Talk to people. Ask them what their experience is. What is your experience? If you asked me I’d tell you that I get an average of maybe 5 emailed newsletters a day – average. Some are companies I know, and most I signed up for, one way or another. How many do I read? Not many. There is just too much of an onslaught, and some of the emailed newsletters are so badly done. And if I’m really busy, that day goes by the wayside. I get an average of 250 emails a day, while much of it goes to a junk folder. Worse, I read one study online that said that no more than 11% of email newsletters are read thoroughly. Who can think that is good? Add to this that readability in general goes down when you are talking about reading on a computer, let alone on a phone, so that long articles of any depth and length just don’t get readership. In general, attention spans are said to be down, and even on websites visitors click, click, click, and go. Why expect long or focused attention to an electronic email newsletter? And if you send in an html format, any number of email software programs are set for text only, so your design morphs into text alone. Is it really a newsletter? Is it more of a down and dirty, quick bulletin? The electronic nature of this kind of newsletter somehow degrades the medium itself, and the message, too. It seems that way anyway. Frustration. So many positive benefits – so many downsides.

You can read a printed newsletter anywhere...

Printed Newsletters:  What’s the Story? Again, going back to the basis of decision-making, what is it? If you are looking for “bang,” a printed newsletter has it all over an email newsletter:  acceptance, readership, response, attention to the messages, and more. Downsides? You bet. It’s more expensive, time consuming to produce, labor intensive, etc., but print can deliver the goods where emailed newsletters fail miserably. It starts with distribution. It’s not free, of course, and while the post office takes a lot of ridicule, it responsibly delivers the mail. If you are going to have high or higher readership, why not start with 95% to 100% delivery? When your newsletter arrives, it stands out and gets attention first because the competition isn’t there. One rule not followed as often as it should be is “Go where your customers and prospects are but where the competition isn’t.” That’s smart. The mailbox is open. The competition is gone. This is print. The recipient doesn’t need technology to read it (computer, iPad, phone). You control the form, both text and images, and nothing changes that in delivery because you have “fixed” it in print. It is tangible, it has a physical presence, it has a feel, and the very nature of it conveys messages to the reader. If it is high quality paper, has outstanding images that glow with text and writing that flows in simply a great layout, that says a lot about you, your organization, what you have to offer. It does this so much better than an intangible, electronic, emailed newsletter that’s jammed into a crowded inbox. It has staying power, as it often stays around the office or home, and it can get passed around if it offers good things. Long items, short items, and you can still refer to online info and links – the reader can’t click on them, but they can be there. You won’t get statistics. You won’t know specifics. But your chances for response, attention, more complete readership, and message comprehension are greatly enhanced. If you build in response cues and ways to get feedback, you’ll get to know much more.

A comparison must be equal...

Apples and Oranges? Yes, they’re both fruit. Those that choose only to produce email newsletters often labor under the misconception that they are getting exactly the same benefits of a printed newsletter, only so much easier, faster, and cheaper. They think the comparison is apples to apples, but it is decidedly not. However, that is the attraction and perception while, in my opinion, it’s dead wrong.

Alternatives in Print? There are some alternatives, services that make printing and processing less painful and time consuming. If these services have a newsletter template that suits your particular needs, you can upload the newsletter to them in PDF or another common format, upload a mailing list, and pay online. They take care of printing, printing the person’s name and address, postage, and delivering it to the post office. They can personalize it to the recipient, too. While you still pay for these services, it does take the pain out of it somewhat if you’re the one that has to put stamps or labels, for example, on 1000 newsletters, and then cart them to the post office. Downsides? The printing sometimes is not precise. You don’t get a hard copy proof. You don’t get a post office mailing receipt if you feel that is important. Pros and cons, always.

Conclusions? Did I have a bias when I started out? When I started preparing to write this, and then in beginning to write, I was leaning toward print while the reasons I hadn’t clearly or completely  formulated yet. If I had to choose, I thought, I’d lean toward print, but it was only a lean. I’ve done both types of newsletters, but after prepping for this and in writing it, I no longer had a bias, but a strong conclusion that print is far superior. Costly, but recognizing that you get pretty much what you pay for, it is far more worthwhile. A big time sink, however, is writing and crafting an email newsletter, difficult when so few will receive it, so few will open it, and so few will read a part of it. It is difficult to invest that time in something that is treated so trivially. Would I personally still produce and distribute an email newsletter? Yes, but only when it wasn’t really important to reach all of my clients, it was mostly promotional in content, and the messages weren’t vital to my purposes in providing services to clients. And real short.

Response? What do you think? What has been your experience? Do you agree or disagree? Has this helped you sort out what is most important, or helped you come to a conclusion on which is better? Have you changed your mind at all? How?

I had one prospective client who was completely sold on emailed newsletters to the exclusion of any discussion or consideration of print. Wouldn’t even discuss it. Too bad. And this was before writing out this article when I was only leaning toward print. Now I’m sure that my own response would be different.

A number of years ago I was a professional sales representative selling industrial advertising to mid-sized industrial companies. I called directly on company presidents, and rarely dealt with anyone other than the president or owner. The personalities and styles of these CEOs varied widely, and overall they were sharp, intelligent, professional, and usually polite. Most. Some had pretty big egos that you had to deal with. I had to get very good at “reading” people and their signs, behaviors that fairly well communicated this:  “I think I’m really important, so you better take note.”

For them to buy what I was selling they had to focus, to listen, to examine information carefully, and make sense of the concept and the details, as some of this was intangible and somewhat complex. I knew that when they didn’t engage and pay attention I wasn’t going to get a sale. To increase my chances I would make an appointment to see them, often a week in advance, and I’d show up on time prepared with materials and information specifically related to their business and industry segment. I usually got across the idea that what I had to discuss with them was important for their business and they would engage and pay attention.

Once in a while there were interruptions, significant interruptions that generally went like this:  I’d start into presenting the ideas and then the phone would ring and my prospect would answer it. After all, this was the president. However, these calls were often trivial, not critical business – obvious, you could tell by listening to what he said and was discussing. After a time he’d hang up. I’d start again and a minute later the phone would ring – again he would answer it. Two minutes would go by, three, four, before he’d hang up, saying, “Oh, uh, now where were we?” (It was as if the more calls he got, the more people wanted something from him, anything, the more important that he felt he was). I’d start in again. The phone would ring; he’d answer. While he was on the phone, I would pack up my materials, close my briefcase, and stand up in front of his desk, waiting for him to get off the phone. The second he hung up I would extend my hand to shake hands and say, “Thank you very much for your time. If you’re interested in this I can make another appointment for a future time when you aren’t busy with pressing matters. I may phone you next week sometime. Thanks again, and it was a pleasure to meet you.”

What was the response? Usually an apology, a sincere apology, followed by an insistence for me to sit down and proceed, a quick call to a secretary to hold or take all his calls and not to have anyone interrupt him. Why an apology? Why indeed. Because he realized, most realized, that they had been disrespectful, discourteous, that their behavior was offensive and had said this:  no matter who is calling me, no matter how trivial perhaps, it is more important to take that call than to listen to you or attend to you. The person on that phone, whoever they are, is more important than you are. It is singular disrespect, and it is offensive. It is telling. It is a power trip. It is a “Dis…” It is a lack of manners and common courtesy. Doing this is the same as turning your back on someone.

[An aside: Mutual respect is very important in most relationships. Additionally, it is much more difficult to buy something from someone you don’t respect. I respected them and I expected them to respect me, and I politely made sure that I got theirs and that they knew my expectations. The sales rep who thinks that the way to get a sale is to give in on any point, to pander, to grovel, doesn’t understand this, obviously. When I went on an appointment and was kept waiting, I’d wait 15 minutes past our appointment time and not a minute more. Again, it is an issue of respect. I respected their time, why I made an appointment, and I expected them to respect mine. I’d leave my card with the receptionist and indicate that I may call back for another appointment. Sometimes I did if the prospect was significant; sometime not, and felt it was their loss.]

Why do I feel compelled to explain all this? Why must I? I have to say all this because now we are in the age of cell phones. Vast numbers of people have adopted the very phone behavior illustrated above as perfectly normal, perfectly acceptable, and they do it all day long with their cell phones. Much worse, they see nothing wrong whatsoever with taking a call while sharing a meal, discussing something important, watching a program, playing a game, etc., sitting there talking or texting and ignoring who they are with. Two people talking, one person’s phone rings, and they are off in a conversation or a texting with someone, oblivious to the person they are sitting with. And the message that the other person sitting there gets is very clear:  “No matter who is calling me (or texting me), I’d rather talk to them than to be here with you or talk with you.” The phone has top priority. And this kind of behavior can become more extreme, as we experienced recently.

We had guests over as we were holding a small party for a younger person visiting us from out of town, and about six people arrived, young men and women 25-30 years of age. Old friends with our visitor, most everyone knew everyone else and was enjoying the reunion. Conversation was easy. Sitting in the living room we were all talking and enjoying drinks and snacks when one person pulled out their phone, presumably to check messages. Instantly out came 5 other phones and, at that very moment, one person’s phone rang, they answered it, and stood and walked out of the room talking on the phone. Soon silence, complete silence blanketed the room, other than a few click noises on keypads. No one was talking to anyone else in the room, and all heads except our two were bowed to the phone gods, viewing screens, smiling, punching buttons. I wondered if one of them or more was texting someone in the room rather than talking to them?

Ready! Set! Text! Call! Search! Tweet!

Another person sitting there and looking down actually called someone else right then and got up and left the room without a word to us or anyone else. The silence continued. And continued. The first person who had left the room hadn’t returned, and some time had gone by.

All this behavior was bizarre to us, but to everyone else it seemed to be “situation normal.” And all of that silence and phone engagement said these things:  I don’t want to be here. I’m uncomfortable in the here and now. Anything on this gadget in my hand beats engaging with you. And somebody sending a message that they just went to the bathroom and, ugh, they are still having a bad hair day and don’t you know what that’s like and, well, that’s an important thing to communicate. Smiley face. Smiley face.

Hmmm...another bad hair day, eh?

Cell phones. A mobile computer in your hand. Huge benefits. Huge and seemingly uncomprehended costs.

Have you experienced things like this? I asked a dinner guest to turn off her cell phone because she’d received and taken several calls in succession since her arrival, at least to turn it off during dinner, a dinner that a lot of time and effort and care went into the preparation. She gave me something of an argument, saying she didn’t see why that was necessary and that she might miss an important call. I smiled warmly, and said, “Well, I insist. And that’s what voice mail is for, so you don’t miss important messages. It’ll be okay.” Reluctantly she turned it off.

Cell phones. Improved communication? A step forward? Surely. But how many steps back? What do you think? How do you see it? What are cell phones doing to in-person communication and relationships?

One-on-one communication...

Here are some observations and possibly some conclusions, just to start.

Maximum Communication? Two people sitting and talking together, one on one and in fairly close physical proximity, perhaps facing one another and making eye contact:  this model may be the ideal, perhaps the best possible chance for communication. Here you get the full weight of visual cues, non-verbal visual communication, feelings, perceptions; no words but a lot of communication back and forth. Add language, conversation, questions, and answers to this, adding voice, sound, nuance; no communication technology needed. Is this not the ideal? If this is ideal, then most everything else is less.

Distance: Distance is where technology enters, whether it is a note or letter or a telephone or telegraph or a smoke signal or email. When physical distance comes between peoples ability to communicate, enter technology, so pick your poison.

Poison? Poison? All the technologies that have been invented, those just mentioned plus cell phones, interactive communication, social media, answering machines or voicemail, call forwarding, single phone answering from multiple numbers, and so on:  these are all positive and have enhanced our ability to communicate. Yes? Yes, most certainly, and then again, no.

Two Way Street: For every advance, or supposed advance, in communication technology, there is a retreat or a diminishing of communication at the same time. A negative? A diminishing? How’s that? Some examples?

The Telephone: Benefits of the telephone are obvious, and you can talk from just about any distance. In the middle of the 20^th century, people always answered their phones when they rang, 99%, whether in a business or at home. When the phone rang, you answered it – period. You had no idea who was calling, but it could be an emergency, something awful or good, or something important. When you telephoned someone, you expected them to answer and, if they didn’t, it was presumed that they weren’t there. Reasoning:  if they were there, they would have answered. If you got phone calls at home when you or anyone else was not at home, you didn’t know it. If you didn’t know someone’s phone number, you called information for free, or looked it up in the free phone book, because if someone had a phone, their number was published. Prior to cell phones, telephones were landlines, of course, and were tied to a physical address.

Answering? Calls when you weren’t at home to answer? Did anyone call? Who called? What did they want? Enter the answering machine. Problem solved. However, this meant that often, even when you were at home, you could find out who was calling before you picked up, if at all, by listening to the message. Now, you didn’t really need to answer. Many people stopped answering and started screening their calls. The telephone was no longer so direct – the expectation that if someone was at home they would answer was replaced with doubt. Home? Not home? Being ignored? With or without an answering machine, enter the enhancement of Caller ID. Answering the telephone decreased even further. Screening was easier and faster. Enter the introduction of paying to block a Caller ID to a call recipient, and also enter the technology to use a bogus alias to get someone to think it was someone else calling altogether. The reliability of Caller ID decreased.

Cell Phone Confusions: Enter the cell phone, no longer tied to a location, and suddenly communication improved immeasurably, and became very much worse all at the same time. When there is no answer when calling a cell phone that you figure is with a person all the time, wherever they are, what does one think? It goes to voice mail. Are they on the phone talking with someone else? Are they seeing who it is and deciding not to answer your call? And they don’t call back? What to think then? What you feel is uncertainty. Yes, their phone could be dead, out of cell tower range, etc., but it is unsettling to say the least. If you know that someone you know lives even a couple of blocks away, try to find their telephone number when all that they have is a cell phone. It’s not fast, it’s not convenient, and it’s not as easy as calling the former telephone company information number and getting it in seconds.

Conclusions? Many conclusions here, of course, but it’s really a mixed bag of pros and cons and paradox, enhanced and diminished at the same time. Remember, people used to actually answer the phone, all the time, while having no idea who was calling. It was a risk, kind of. And when you see clearly that technology that is touted to improve and enhance communication is actually and mostly used to block communication, it can be a little bit of a shock. The answering machine and voice mail and Caller ID do just that. That’s my take on this – what’s yours?

Time flies when...

Time flies when you’re having… well, fun or not, time flies. I started this blog with good intentions, of course, and pictured myself blogging every day and all the time. I have no idea how people have the scads of time I understand that they put into tweets, facebook, YouTube, blogs, and all the rest. How do they do it? The best advice I’ve heard is a strict weekly schedule which I’m going to try to get into. However, I hardly have time for all the things I really do have to do, absolutely MUST do. However, it’s my blog, my time, my deal, so it will go how it will go. You have to start somewhere, and it’s taking that first step that is the most important thing, just to get started… So, I’m there.