According to a recent report in Knowledge@Wharton, marketing in print is so much more effective than in digital media. Actually, it is the print that drives the traffic to the web sites! The findings were supported by several comments to the article.
The report was also referred to in the Print CEO Blog, again with a supportive comment about the positive effect of combining blogging and print advertising.
An IT researcher at the Helsinki Institute for Information Technology (HIIT) told me that the digital media as web and e-mail are overrated. Paper and print ar often superior. But we are lacking (simple) tools to create printed products (user-generated print media). Unfortunately, there is no actor that takes this really seriously. The digital media industry just don’t get it with paper media. The paper industry has as always its focus on the large paper mills, with hundreds of thousands of tonnes that are “allocated” to different markets. The graphic industry is fully occupied with becoming certified printers according to the ISO 12647 standard.
Who will take the first step?
Read Risto Sarvas post here:
The industry must show both consumers and businesses that paper is often far superior to digital alternatives. Finally, the industry must accept new design and business perspectives such as human-centric design and user-generated content.
I asked Rolf Jensen (of Dream Company):
What do we actually mean with INNOVATIVENESS?
Can it at all be measured?
What does it take to define a person, a group, a company or a region (city/country) as truly innovative?
Rolf Jensen answered:
Dear Petter Kolseth,
Innovation is used in a lot of ways, I do not believe we can measure it. To me an innovative person/company is one that can put together things or ideas – that other people haven’t thought about. My favourite quote just now is this: “Unless, there is a consensus that it is nonsense what you are doing, it is not a breakthrough” (by Burt Rutan, the guy with SpaceShipOne)
I read Gary Hamel’s new book The Future of Management with enthusiasm and frustration. He sets the tone already in the preface with the following statement:
Most companies have a roughly similar management hierarchy (a cascade of EVPs, SVPs, and VPs). They have analogous control systems, HR practices and planning rituals, and rely on comparable reporting structures and review systems. That’s why it’s so easy for a CEO to jump from one company to another…
His main message (to me) is about utilising the collective power of the organisation in all decision making, which calls for openness and a lot of lateral communication. Unfortunately, lateral communication is too often blocked by hierarchical structures.
Maybe I am a “romantic” (just as Gary Hamel?) who is so inspired by the book that I want to begin a crusade against 19th century management principles. Would it not be fantastic if one of the many dinosaur companies could change?
Watch an excerpt from a speech by Gary:
Continuous Management Innovation: What, Why and How?