(Updated in September 2016)
A colleague once mentioned that her company had a small print employee newsletter. They published it three times a year, but were thinking of dropping the frequency to twice and increasing the size.
My first reaction was dismay. No matter what the format, print or electronic, twice a year is just too little to engage employees.
It’s possible employees were getting all the information they needed online or in person. If that was the case, you could certainly reduce the frequency. And in that case, you might as well just go with once and make it an employee annual report. But it didn’t sound like that was the situation, especially when it appeared employee engagement was an issue.
Like many areas of communications, the answer to newsletter frequency appears to be the not-so-helpful “it depends.”
- You want your publication to be seen often enough that it’s familiar, maybe even expected or anticipated, but not so often that it’s annoying.
- You want the content to be timely enough to be useful, but not so infrequent that it’s out of date.
- You want it to complement the information available elsewhere (online in the case of print), providing the background and perspective, rather than rehashing the once fast-breaking news that has become old news.
To answer the “how often” question more precisely, go back to your strategy and the reason for the publication. And notice I am talking here about any kind of publication, print or online. How often do you need to publish to serve your purpose?
- Once is fine for an annual report or anniversary celebration, but don’t call it a newsletter.
- Save two or three times a year for a special report, complemented by more frequent online information. An IABC contact on Twitter said her company’s three issues a year aren’t enough, and she’d like to see a shorter, more concise monthly newsletter.
- Monthly is a nice regular way to keep employees informed and to encourage a connection to the company. Mario Almonte, a partner at a PR firm in New York, says a monthly newsletter “keeps your employees engaged but not overwhelmed.”
- Quarterly isn’t bad if you complement it with frequent news online. Employee communications evangelist Steve Crescenzo said in an email exchange that he prefers quarterly because he finds people don’t have time to turn out a quality monthly publication. On Twitter, communications professional Karen DeBreau said quarterly “seems ideal” for her 12-page publication, produced in five languages (!) for a global organization of 5,500 employees.
- Short weekly or even daily updates aren’t too often if your company is undergoing major upheaval.
Respected strategic communications expert Les Potter, ABC, says this: “Communicate frequently. A more frequent and cheaper…publication is always better than a more expensive, less frequent publication.”
And don’t worry that employees are drowning in information. Sure, their in-boxes are overflowing. But you know yourself that when you get something of value, you’ll read it no matter how much else is in your in-box. And that’s the other key — VALUE.
Please weigh in. What do you think is the best frequency?
Image: graur razvan ionut and FreeDigitalPhotos.net.
The research and my own experience with email newsletters confirms that you need to be regular and valuable without being a pest. When you publish too often, your open rates decline.
With marketing, we all seem to get too much. With news and information, often not enough. So a lot depends on what you are communicating.
It also depends on the media and frequency preferences of the people you are communicating with. Some people prefer short, ongoing bursts of information on social media, while others want to occasionally sit back with a glossy magazine.
Thanks for commenting, Barb! I agree, people have different preferences, and if we’re smart, we’ll provide information in a variety of ways. This is especially critical with different generations in the workplace. It’s helpful to check (1) if people received what you have already sent and (2) how they’d like to receive future communications.
Hi, Sue!
I agree with everything you wrote . . . and I’m a big fan of print. I think you CAN build continuity with a quarterly, which is my preference.
I find that monthly deadlines are just too tough . . . especially now that communicators are also responsible for doing so much online. They don’t have the time, the staff, or the resources to turn out a QUALITY publication.
By the time you put a monthly to bed, after all the politics and approvals and design issues . . . the next one is practically due. So there’s no time to do the research, the story planning, the photography and most important the WRITING that you need to do in order to create a quality publication that people will look forward to getting.
I’ve seen a lot of shabby monthlies in my work as a seminar leader–loaded with bad headlines, grip and grin photos, boring leads, bad quotes . . . and when I talk to the editor, I always get the same answer: it’s the best I could do given the time frame.
All that said, if you DO have the staff/budget/time/resources to do a high quality print publication . . . then you should! Print is still one of the most powerful tools we have . . . if done correctly. And it’s a great way to migrate people to your online stuff, too, like the consumer magazines do.
Thanks for starting this worthy discussion!
Steve Crescenzo
Thanks for your thoughts, Steve! Of course you know I am also a big fan of print, and a quarterly done right is certainly a good option. I like monthlies because there is always so much going on in any organization that there is no shortage of things to cover, but you are right, it should be done right.
I’ve been involved with publications that were very definitely of the “quick and dirty” variety, yet they were appreciated because it was obvious in a time of cost-cutting that we weren’t spending a lot of money, yet were trying to keep the information flowing. And I’ve been in the position of trying to crank out a regular publication, while it was probably the lowest on my priorities. Definitely a balancing act!