<?xml version="1.0"?>

<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
<title>Quad/Graphics -- Joe's Blog</title>
<link>http://www.qg.com/joesblog.asp</link>
<description>Joe's Blog by Joe Schick</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2010 Quad/Graphics Inc..  All Rights Reserved.</copyright>

<lastBuildDate>Sun, 7 Mar 2010 14:00:01 GMT</lastBuildDate>

<ttl>60</ttl>

<item>
<title>Ensuring a Viable Postal Service for America Those of us that attended the USPS briefing last Tuesday were encouraged that the USPS was finally laying out plans for the future.</title>
<link>http://www.qg.com/joesblog.asp?newmessageid=32204&amp;utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=joesblog_rss</link>
<description>Those of us that attended the USPS briefing last Tuesday were encouraged that the Postal Service was finally laying out their plans for the future. Given their fragile financial position and the rapidly changing environment in the way that content ...</description>
<pubDate>Sun, 7 Mar 2010 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.qg.com/joesblog.asp?newmessageid=32204</guid>
</item>

<item>
<title>Outside Influences -Not a Roadmap toUSPS Solvency It is important to consider the environment the USPS operates in when judging the success of its management.</title>
<link>http://www.qg.com/joesblog.asp?newmessageid=31778&amp;utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=joesblog_rss</link>
<description> ...</description>
<pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2010 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.qg.com/joesblog.asp?newmessageid=31778</guid>
</item>

<item>
<title>The Balancing Act:Operational Efficiency vs. Revenue Growth The USPS is reducing service, restricting creativity and adding costs for mailers. Is this any way to attract business?</title>
<link>http://www.qg.com/joesblog.asp?newmessageid=31148&amp;utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=joesblog_rss</link>
<description>The USPS has long been an operations-focused entity. That fact cannot be disputed, and in a monopolized business model, could be expected. However, in today's high-tech, digitized world, what once were monopoly segments of the USPS' business (magazines, ...</description>
<pubDate>Mon, 11 Jan 2010 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.qg.com/joesblog.asp?newmessageid=31148</guid>
</item>

<item>
<title>Joe's Blog:Postal Pricing, Part II I recently received confirmation from a USPS VP that they will not make any changes to the pricing for Market Dominant products in 2010.</title>
<link>http://www.qg.com/joesblog.asp?newmessageid=29937&amp;utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=joesblog_rss</link>
<description>In response to my recent post on budgeting for a postal increase, I received an email from USPS Sr. VP of Customer Relations, Steve Kearney. Steve was responding to my mention of the possibility that the USPS could &quot;tinker&quot; with prices within a class ...</description>
<pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2009 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.qg.com/joesblog.asp?newmessageid=29937</guid>
</item>

<item>
<title>Joe's Blog:Budget for a Postal Increase? While there is no postal price increase in 2010, prices and/or workshare discounts within a class of mail could change.</title>
<link>http://www.qg.com/joesblog.asp?newmessageid=29874&amp;utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=joesblog_rss</link>
<description>Earlier this month we celebrated Christopher Columbus discovering America and the USPS discovering that all it takes to make mailers happy is to announce that there will be no postal price increase for Market Dominant Products in 2010. (Note: Competitive ...</description>
<pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.qg.com/joesblog.asp?newmessageid=29874</guid>
</item>

<item>
<title>Joe's Blog:Worldwide Postal Pursuits We fully support the Universal Postal Union's Direct Mail Advisory Board and encourage other printers to do the same.</title>
<link>http://www.qg.com/joesblog.asp?newmessageid=29253&amp;utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=joesblog_rss</link>
<description>It might surprise you to know that Quad is formally involved with postal services around the world. Since we have print interests in Poland, Brazil and Argentina, building relationships, or at the very least having contacts with the Post in each ...</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.qg.com/joesblog.asp?newmessageid=29253</guid>
</item>

<item>
<title>Joe's Blog ...  The Cost of Droopy Flats Changing mailpiece characteristics to meet flexibility requirements will add costs.</title>
<link>http://www.qg.com/joesblog.asp?newmessageid=28791&amp;utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=joesblog_rss</link>
<description>There have always been some specific postal regulations regarding the flexibility and/or rigidity of flat mail pieces known as deflection standards. Why you ask? Well, it's because of the machinability requirements for USPS flat sorting equipment.  ...</description>
<pubDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2009 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.qg.com/joesblog.asp?newmessageid=28791</guid>
</item>

<item>
<title>Exigency: What Does It Mean? If the USPS' financial position does not improve, it will have no choice but to invoke the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act's exigency clause, which gives it authority to increase postage rates above the CPI.</title>
<link>http://www.qg.com/joesblog.asp?newmessageid=28284&amp;utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=joesblog_rss</link>
<description>In trying to project what to budget for postal prices in 2010, there should only be one thing to monitor in coming up with a percentage. That would be the running average of CPI-U. We all know that in the 2006 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act ...</description>
<pubDate>Mon, 3 Aug 2009 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.qg.com/joesblog.asp?newmessageid=28284</guid>
</item>

<item>
<title>IMb Readability - Act II The USPS should be commended for listening to mailers (printers in particular) in coming to the resolution on IMb readability.</title>
<link>http://www.qg.com/joesblog.asp?newmessageid=27811&amp;utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=joesblog_rss</link>
<description>I wanted to provide some followup information to an earlier posting (5/15/2009 - Raising the Bar on Barcode Readability). The USPS and the mailing industry, through the Mailer's Technical Advisory Committee (MTAC), have come to an agreed upon process ...</description>
<pubDate>Wed, 8 Jul 2009 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.qg.com/joesblog.asp?newmessageid=27811</guid>
</item>

<atom:link href="http://www.qg.com/joesblog.asp" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
</channel>
</rss>