Paul Rossi, Economist publisher for North America says that the magazine industry needs to be prepared to respond to environmental groups that target wasteful practices of the magazine trade.
"We as an industry are next on the list as a target," Mr. Rossi said, speaking at a breakfast hosted by the Magazine Publishers of America. Under current practices, for one thing, selling magazines on newsstand involves throwing away many, many unsold copies -- sometimes three out of four delivered to the racks. "We have to wake up to this," he said. "We need to be able to say we're working on an answer." (via AdAge.com)
Some magazines have already started to move towards more environmentally friendly and sustainable paper products.
Earlier this year Rolling Stone magazine announced their efforts to go green by printing on "carbon neutral" paper from Catalyst Paper. However the magazine found out that green isn’t green enough for some including an environmental group that criticized the Rolling Stone for not using recycled fibers in their publication.
Inc. magazine and Fast Company magazine announced that starting July 2007, they will print on 100 percent recycled paper (85 percent recycled post-consumer waste, 10 percent waste from unsold magazines and five percent recycled printer waste).
The Institute for Sustainable Communication is a good place to start for those that want understand the environment impact of printing and publishing processes. ISC offers research, consulting, and training programs that help advertisers and publishers measure and document their environmental impact and then take action to reduce it.
Discussion
By Pat Berger on Oct 01, 2007
Environmental groups should look in the mirror first before they make any comments. Does the environmental group run any air conditioners? If so why? Do they fly around the country preaching green and then claim buying carbon offsets for their flight? The printed word has a ONE TIME carbon charge. Every time it is used the carbon charge per use goes down. Any electronic device used for information has a carbon charge or use every-time it is accessed. A book from the 1600's can still be used today without any power. Here I am the Hypocrite using a carbon sucking power hungry computer to make my point.
By Noel Ward on Oct 02, 2007
Rather than criticize environmental groups when they make a point, why not consider what they are saying? Like all us and our businesses, they have their flaws, but that doesn't mean they don't have some valid points. The printing and publishing industries do need to be paying attention to enviro issues. Ours is not exactly a "clean" or "green" industry, and we need to act proactively to show that we are taking steps to clean up our act. There are a lot of parts to this and they span every aspect of printing and publishing. And bear in mind there's also an enviro push to reduce direct mail, which is another thing to be thinking about. For magazine publishers the waste issue is tough, because all those copies at newsstands are part of their reported circulation--what advertisers think they are buying. Cutting that so fewer copies are available affects the perceived reach of a magazine and devalues it in the eyes of advertisers; not something mag publishers are inclined to do. But still, using recycled stocks and having a formalized recycling program for returned copies would help magazine publishers look a lot greener. So would more careful selection of where a given title is sold. Those things are worth looking at. But don't kid yourself on print having a one time "carbon charge." There are multiple carbon charges involved with magazine publishing. Logging to provide wood pulp, making the paper, shipping it to a printer, printing the magazines, shipping them to distribution and sales locations, recycling or destroying those old copies. Those all require energy. Your book from the 1600s may not require energy to use, but magazines have a short life and are a continuous energy drain. And Pat, lest you have any angst about your "carbon sucking power hungry computer" just use a laptop. They use very little electricity.
By Patrick Berger on Oct 02, 2007
My view of a one time carbon charge is enclusive of all that was done to get a finished product to its final destination.
By Dave on Oct 02, 2007
Very smart move. The world is more environmentally friendly than ever and while many magazines do use environmentally friendly they don't really advertise it. Companies who make mention of their paper products stand out to the largely growing "environmentally friendly" group of people. This trend has caused our company to make mention of our recycled paper usage on our website.
By Mark on Oct 02, 2007
I must be an idiot. Everything I read about the environmental impact of publishing touts the use of paper with post-consumer recycled content. Can someone explain to me why that is good for the environment? I understand that recycling saves trees. But using recycled content in magazine papers doesn't cause more recycling, it just diverts recycled pulp from more efficient uses like newsprint or cardboard. I remember a paper rep explaining to me that his mill would be happy to put recycled content in its paper but that it would have to sell the paper at a premium because it would need more kraft pulp (which would require more trees per pound than the mechanical pulp it would replace). Rolling Stone should be commended for providing real leadership in the industry by working with its paper supplier to develop carbon-neutral paper; instead, it gets criticized for not using recycled content. And, by the way, why does only post-consumer content count? What are printers and newsstands supposed to do with their waste?
By Rob Brai on Oct 03, 2007
MPA is undertaking an industry-wide public education campaign to let readers know that magazines can and should be recycled. MPA has created a pair of Please Recycle logos for members to prominently display in every issue of their magazines. Additionally, two public service advertisements (PSAs) have been created for publishers to run in their magazines to reinforce the message that magazines are recyclable and bring additional attention to the Please Recycle logos.
Publisher should also consider digital editions to avoid using any paper at all and the additional carbon reductions from not prinitng or distributing these copies.
By Erwin Hudelist on Oct 03, 2007
The issue of recycled or not is questionable to a certain degree. Studies suggest that a 30% recycled fiber with 70% FSC certified fiber has the most positive impact on the environment considering all the variables.
The focus of our industry should be how to keep the "wasted" or unused magazines out of the waste stream - how can we offer a service to our customers to return the magazines?
We implemented a "PaperBack" program that has been successful; this program has the unused magazines returned to a recycler for no cost to the publisher. We need to establish a closed loop system with our raw materials.
By phil on Oct 03, 2007
Instead of being worried about the impact unsold product has on the enviroment, maybe the Magazine Publishers of America should be more worried about all of the kids out there getting killed selling their magazines door-to-door. Maybe the MPA should be a little more worried about all of the homeowners that are being raped and murdered by their sales agents. It seems to me that the underbelly of the MPA and the practice of selling magazines door-to-door should be a high priority. But of course if the MPA stops selling magazines door-to-door they will loose money. And in the end that is what the MPA is driven by. After all why should the MPA care if an occasion kid is killed in a van crash or an occasional homeowner is raped or murdered. It's just the price of doing business. Too bad for the MPA, after asking and begging then to stop these unethical and immoral business practices for years, that they continue to ignore this reality and the fowl underbelly of their industry. What a sad state of affairs to think that the MPA is more concerned with paper waste than the life of a human being.
By Richard Stephenson on Oct 04, 2007
About 25% of the magazine cost is energy. Paper making, whether recycled or from virgin timber, uses a lot of heat, power and water. Then it has to get printed, shipped and delivered. And if it is a free magazine, you can be pretty sure a good 50% ends up in the trash without being opened. When you think about it, the industry is not going to win any efficiency awards. But it makes good money as advertisers like the glossy quality and big impact of double page spreads. For those readers who care about these issues, they should be given a choice.....get it through the mail or get it on-line. Unlike websites, on-line mags still carry the full ads and hey....we can file it with a click and not let them pile up behind the couch! By giving a green choice, the industry rents a halo for a while and may avoid the spotlight being shone on them too brightly.
By Jean-Marie Hershey on Oct 04, 2007
Creative uses for unsold magazine copies:
Urban Outfitters offers this helpful décor idea: A Recycled Magazine Mirror “covered with coils of recycled magazine pages. Rolled into coils, the pieces of paper are attached to the mirror's frame and then sealed for durability and shine. Finished with embedded hook at the back for hanging. Imported. Wipe clean.” (Imported?) www.urbanoutfitters.com
Accessorize by making your own Recycled Magazine Handbag. Instructions (using National Geographic) are available at www.craftbits.com.
And www.TreeHugger.com includes a Recycled Magazine picture frame and another Recycled Magazine Handbag ("handmade-in-Brazil"!) among its Top 5 Recycled Paper Products.
Christmas is coming. I’m going right down to the landfill to stock up.
Discussion
Join the discussion Sign In or Become a Member, doing so is simple and free