More Reasons to Add Cross-Media

By | November 6, 2008

Printers sticking close to home with print production only should take a clue from AdWeek (11/5). As reported by IAB,

Marketers trying to reach the elusive 25- to 44-year-old Generation X segment, which is at the peak of its buying power, face several key obstacles, including splintered media consumption, a greater diversity in “lifestyles,” more penny-pinching habits than Baby Boomers and an aversion to traditional ads, eMarketer has found. Potential avenues of success include ads on social networks, boosting mobile marketing efforts and making online shopping more user-friendly.

For printers, this means that their customers may be finding traditional print marketing methods to be increasingly ineffective, and if those customers are not tracking their marketing channels, they may or may not know why.

Consequently, if marketers see an overall decline in responsiveness to print, they may assume that this decline is a general decline when, in fact, it may be due declines in certain demographics such as this one.

This potential “generation confusion” should be a great concern to printers. As marketers mix up their channel priorities, printers risk losing print jobs to electronic media when not all of this migration is warranted. In some cases, marketers may be better served by switching to electronic media. In others, it may be counter-productive.

Printers need to make sure they understand the dynamics of generational media. Not only as they continue to tweak their marketing services offerings, but also to protect themselves against unnecessary attrition from print. To do this, they need to understand which demographic segments respond most powerfully to which media. Then, they need to begin (or continue) to position themselves to provide (or protect) offerings that best serve each demographic segment.

Pundits have been saying for quite some time that printers need to better understand their customer’s customer, but now the drivers are changing. It used to be that understanding the end user would help printers sell various print applications. Now it may help them protect themselves from losing them.

Share this post

 

2 thoughts on “More Reasons to Add Cross-Media

  1. Phil Rose

    Hi Heidi –

    I couldn’t agree more with your post. Understanding your audience and tailoring your message accordingly will directly affect the success of the campaign. The ability to see — in real time — how well a campaign is working and exactly where it needs refinement can give marketers the definitive information they need to increase their ROI. As you infer, you can’t control what you can’t measure.

    It’s valuable to track all related events of the campaign, regardless of channel – print, Web, e-mail, or even SMS – because only from this data can you determine what really is or is not working. XMPie’s uProduce Marketing Console provides this capability to users, allowing them to show their clients a high level of analysis and work with them on refinements for optimal results that offer a competitive advantage.

    XMPie addressed this topic among other unique challenges, solutions and opportunities presented by cross-media marketing in a white paper titled “Revolutionizing Marketing: The New Power of Cross-Media Communications” prepared by XMPie president Jacob Aizikowitz. The full white paper can be downloaded at http://www.xmpie.com/whitepaper.

    Thanks Heidi,

    Phil Rose, XMPie Product Marketing Manager

  2. G F Mueden

    I don’t think the printers are at fault; look to the designers who forget that we oldsters with failing vision by-pass poor legibility caused by poor contrast (pale ink is “in”), poor font selection, leading, etc., and the publishers lose our attention.
    I have been searching, without success, for a way of testing and grading the legibility of printed material, and for legibility standards. I have heard of three standards: for aircraft wiring, briefs for a federal judge, and for material that State sends to the President.
    I would like to relate a legibility grading system to the charts that optometrists use for testing near-vision acuity.
    Dr. Colenbrander, an eye spedialist, suggests that a commercial minimum standard of legibility does exist: the newspaper. If they can’t read it they won’t buy it.
    If anyone in the printing industry is working on these things I would love to learn about it.
    ===gm===

Comments are closed.