The print debate has moved on. Whether print is dying is largely settled. The real question now is what print is for in a multi-platform world and how publishers should use it. I set out my thinking in InPublishing's recent print special, and the argument is simpler than it might sound.
When print was the only game in town, it carried everything: breaking news, display advertising, listings, the lot. Digital has taken most of that. What's left is something more focused, the premium expression of a brand, the format that says something about the publisher and, just as importantly, about the reader.
That part doesn't get enough attention. Print is a form of identity signalling. The Sunday broadsheet on the kitchen table, the specialist magazine on the coffee table, the programme kept long after the event, these aren't just reading material. They're personal statements. Readers who choose print choose to be seen with it, creating an opportunity no algorithm can replicate.
Rather than defending print on nostalgia grounds or reach alone, I'd argue it does something digitally native formats can't: it turns attention into affiliation. When a reader picks up your print product, they're not just consuming content; they're associating with it.
For publishers still treating their print edition as a legacy obligation, something to maintain rather than invest in, that's a direct challenge.
The idealism comes with a reality check. Multi-platform publishing has increased the workload without a proportional increase in revenue. More formats, more teams, more touchpoints, often without more money to cover it.
Our answer is to build efficiency into every stage of production. Eliminate duplicated effort, simplify workflows, and choose tools that support rather than complicate. Left unchecked, complexity quietly eats into the bottom line.
At Papermule, we've been building workflow software for print publishers since 2003, covering advertising planning, flat planning and production workflow across some of the UK's largest newspaper titles, including NewsUK, The Guardian, Daily Mail, The Telegraph, and the Irish Independent. But the point holds regardless of what tools you use: the publishers making print work profitably are the ones who've treated operational efficiency as a strategic priority. The ones who haven't are feeling it.
The most commercially interesting part of the argument is about the print reader. Loyal, focused, and largely unreachable through digital channels, the print audience is a premium demographic that publishers consistently undervalue.
The behaviours that make digital audiences hard to monetise, ad blocking, tracking opt-outs, and curated feeds, are exactly what distinguish the print reader from the general online population. If you're paying to avoid advertising, you won't be reached by a programmatic display campaign. But you might well be precisely the person an advertiser would pay a premium to reach in print.
The value is there. The question is whether publishers are identifying it and making that case to advertisers.
My challenge to the "digital first" default is simple: ask what format best serves the story, the audience, the moment — and let that drive the decision. Sometimes that's digital. Sometimes it's print. Often it's both, used deliberately rather than by default.
Publishers who treat print as a platform in managed decline will get managed-decline results. Those who treat it as a distinct format with a distinct job to do, and resource it accordingly, still have something genuinely valuable on their hands.
If you want to read the full InPublishing article, click here.
Mike Hoy is Managing Director of Papermule, which provides workflow software for print publishers, including AdDesk, PlanDesk, and EdDesk. papermule.co.uk