I'm not surprised with their responses, and I truly appreciate that they responded. What I'd really love to see, is a price quote for using virgin paper vs. recycled paper. Not that the magazines have to prove anything to me, I'm just truly fascinated and perplexed.
Body + Soul, Fast Company, Shape, Ready Made, Ms. Magazine, and others can swing it, why not Inc. and Entrepreneur Magazine?
I consider Inc. and Entrepreneur Magazine vital resources for learning about cutting edge businesses, and strategies for tackling business issues, how can it be that they can't tackle this one?
2 comments:
Hey Lia -- Having bought a lot of paper in the past, the idea of cost is a big issue.
Recycled papers cost more than virgin papers. Part of the reason is what it costs to remake a virgin stock, the ink must be removed before any paper gets made. Additionally, there's the issue of collecting the mature paper and bringing it back into the process, paper is very expensive to collect and deliver to the mill once it has been dispersed. And, lastly, there is less recycled stock to choose from or purchase, so the demand exceeds the supply and drives up the cost.
Secondly, to me, neither Inc. nor Entrepreneur gain any cache for using recycled stock. Their brand image is capitalistic, unlike Shape or the others you mention. Since the idea of using a recycled stock does not necessarily fit their image, it won't help their sales. Recycled stock could actually be a detriment to their image, the white is not as white, and the calendaring and coating may not meet their image requirements. Heck, National Geographic does not print on recycled stock for just those reasons (as well as probably many other reasons)(this information is circa January 2009).
Lastly, recycled stocks are not necessarily good for the environment. The chemicals it takes to recycle paper, remove ink, re-bleach to white (natural paper is not white), etc., can be extremely harmful to the environment.
Just some thoughts. But it is understandable to think that this should be a no-brainer to use recycled stock.
Hi Mike, Thank you very much for your thoughtful comment.
Inc. and Entrepreneur are missing out on both a lesson for their readers and an innovation for themselves: How do we continue to make a profit when our main product is both becoming expensive and scarce and quickly filling up the landfills?
Recycled paper, or digital only, is the future, and I'm disappointed that these pillars of "Innovation" don't seem to be innovating.
Where is the campaign to get their readers to recycle their current magazines (to create more product, and thus lower cost)?
Where is the campaign to band together with other magazine companies and lobby for a tax break for using recycled content?
Or for buying in bulk, in a group, and thus for a lower price?
Why not do recycled paper for just 2 issues a year, or maybe even 1/2?
Why? Because (I feel) they are afraid to face future complications. And to me, that is a complete failure on their part.
And if I am wrong, if they are trying to do all these things, why aren't they being transparent about it?
Post a Comment