🚀 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!

> do you folks know of any study that correlates user satisfaction
> or product confidence with paper quality? 

Any chance you could talk some sympathetic marketing type
into running a focus-group study to find out?  Or maybe you
could round up some customer comments yourself.  Either
way, I suspect that the loudest voice you can speak with in
this matter is that of the customer.

Good luck,

Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"

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   <------------------+