🚀 go-pugleaf

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

I described your problem to the graphic designer I work with and
after he said, "Proof?  You mean common sense isn't enough?" he
suggested Mohawk Paper (Albany, N.Y.)  as a company with a very
consumer-oriented marketing department.  You might see if they've done any
kind of survey.  Barring such evidence and a sudden conversion on the part
of your silly corporate nits:  He suggested that, if you can find it cheap
enough, a recycled paper will have less "read-through" than a virgin paper
of equal weight.  
==================================================
Maureen Tan                                                                
                            Who dares,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign                           Wins.
mtan@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
=======================================================
The opinions expressed here are undoubtedly *not* those of my employer!