On Thursday 02 February 2006 10:33, Dan Jenkins wrote: > Fred wrote: > > In the Boston Globe case, there is an element of professionalism > > amiss here. It seems to me pretty darn tacky to use test printouts > > for wrapping paper. It shows no one cares a hoot about their image > > there. > > The only folk who ever see "toppers" are the people on the loading dock > and the reseller, like Cumberland Farms, where it was first noticed. So, > there's not much image involved here. About half of the newspapers I > support (about 8) use junk paper for toppers, though *not* with credit > card info on them. That part simply amazed me. (A topper is a piece of > paper on the top of a bundle with the number of copies in the bundle & > the name of dropoff point written on it, typically.) The recipient at > the Cumberland Farms, for example, would throw it out when they cut the > cord of the bundle before they put the papers in the display rack.
The *image* issue goes beyond what *the average public* might see. Yes, the toppers are not a big *marketing* issue, but it is an *image* issue, though obviously not high priority. It's more like insurance than anything else. And had they been concerned, this "little" snafu would've never happened, which has become a *major* image and liability issue. Attention to detail is everything, and you don't notice the benefits unless you aren't paying attention. Just a little thing like using *real* recycled paper, not reused paper, with perhaps their logo printed on it as an added touch, would not cost all that much more AND would avoid snafus such as this. Oh, but what do I know about image and marketing? I'm just a lowly software engineer after all... -Freedom Fred _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
