🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan12.211705.4427@unislc.uucp> zz@unislc.uucp (Garry Blake)
writes:

>To save money, our corporate printing operation has specified
>the use of very low-quality paper stock in our technical manuals. 
>The paper is very thin, and not at all opaque. Print from the
>back side of each page is clearly visible on the front side.
>Our cover stock is also flimsy, and we practically need a special
>dispensation to print in color - but that's another matter.
>
>I'm leading a local quality-improvement team, and we'd like to
>change to a better paper. We're convinced it would improve our
>products' image. It's hard to have confidence in a product when
>the manual looks like crap, right?
>
>Well, the corporate folks won't budge. They say we need hard data
>to prove that paper makes a difference. So, I appeal to the net;
>do you folks know of any study that correlates user satisfaction
>or product confidence with paper quality? Failing that, does anyone
>have a pithy quotation from some kind of expert that we could use
>as ammunition?

What kind of paper do the corporate folks use?  I'm guessing they use more
expensive paper for writing memos and messages than you use for printing
manuals.  If paper doesn't make a difference, shouldn't the entire company
be using the same stock?  You could even argue that the customer should
be getting better paper than that used by the company.


+------------------->  Signature Block : Version 4.1  <---------------------+
|                                                                           |
|          "The two most powerful warriors are patience and time."          |
|                                            --- Leo Tolstoy                |
|                                                                           |
+---------------->   Copyright (c) 1993 by Doc O'Leary   <------------------+