The Industry You See vs. The Industry That Is Changing

Every morning I open LinkedIn and scan the industry, and at this point, the tone is almost predictable before I read a single post. There is always a sense of positive growth, innovation, forward motion paired with a quieter undercurrent of restructuring, leadership changes and reorganizations. I call it “glow and blow.”

The language is carefully calibrated. It reassures without fully concealing that something is moving beneath the surface. It rarely goes far enough to explain what is actually happening or why.

The gap between the glow and the blow is where I tend to focus my thinking. It is also why I pay attention to voices like Ray Stasieczko. While much of the industry remains anchored in product narratives and platform positioning, he consistently pulls the conversation down a level, into the structural forces that are harder to message and even harder to ignore.

Looking at the Wrong Layer

Over the past few weeks, most of the discussion in the customer communications (CCM) space has centered on software platform vendors like MHC, Quadient, Messagepoint and Smart Communications. All of these are owned by private equity firms, with the exception of Quadient, which is publicly traded.

The framing is familiar featuring expanded capabilities, improved flexibility, evolving business models for growth, etc. All of these important, but it also reflecting where the industry feels most comfortable analyzing change.

What is notably absent from these, and many other CCM-related conversations, is Xerox. The industry rarely brings large OEMs like Xerox, Canon or Ricoh into CCM discussions, but it should.

Xerox is not just another company navigating change; it is a proxy for how the investment community evaluates the broader category of business print and document infrastructure. When something shifts at Xerox, it tends to carry implications well beyond a single organization.

Like the Smart Communications valuation that caught the CCM industry by surprise last summer, what is happening at Xerox today will shape attitudes and direction of investment in adjacent markets. Printed and mailed customer communications sits at the center of that dynamic, an area Xerox itself helped shape beginning in the late 1970s.

Today the company announced a transition, with former COO Louie Pastor stepping in as the new CEO. On the surface, the message is one of continuity and operational focus. The language is disciplined and predictable, emphasizing execution and stability. It addresses what can be controlled and avoids what cannot. It does not answer the question that sits underneath everything: how does Wall Street see Xerox from here?

Leadership changes at companies like Xerox are rarely just operational decisions. They are often signals either to stabilize performance, reposition the narrative for investors, or prepare for a more structural move such as divestiture, partnership, or consolidation. The question is not just who is running Xerox, but what outcome that leadership is being asked to deliver on behalf of capital markets.

Where the Real Pressure Is Coming From

This is where Ray’s commentary is important. He shifts the focus away from product and toward capital, arguing that the most significant changes in the print industry and by implication, the broader customer communications market will not be driven by features or platforms, but by the decisions of investors, banks, and equity holders. I agree with that view and why it is a core focus for TreelinePress.

As someone once famously said about politics, “It’s the economy, stupid.” In the print, paper, and mail communications industry, the translation is simple, “Follow the money.”

That perspective is uncomfortable because it removes the illusion that the industry, with the help of analysts and trade media, can shape the narrative through messaging alone. Capital does not respond to narrative in the same way. It responds to return, to risk, and increasingly to where it believes future value will be created or, as I like to say, where the “default” in communications is shifting.

As Ray says in the video above, “reinventing a 100-year-old print business in the eyes of Wall Street is extremely difficult.” That difficulty is not rooted in technology. It is rooted in perception, and perception in financial markets quickly becomes valuation metrics for PE firms.

Once investors begin to view a category as structurally constrained even if it remains profitable, the implications begin to cascade. Multiples compress. Capital allocation becomes more selective. Exit strategies start to come into focus.

For companies backed by private equity, particularly those deep into a hold cycle, perhaps even dating back to pre-COVID this shift is not theoretical. The assumptions that defined value five or seven years ago are now being re-evaluated against a very different set of expectations, with AI influencing nearly every aspect of that reassessment.

The Center Is Moving

At the same time, there is a deeper and less discussed shift taking place, one that helps explain why capital is reassessing the space. The document itself is losing its position as the primary experience layer.

This does not mean documents disappear. They remain essential for agreements, contracts, compliance, and record-keeping. But their role is changing. Increasingly, they function as stored artifacts that are generated, accessed, and retrieved when needed rather than as the primary interface through which customers interact with organizations.

That interaction is moving elsewhere, into environments that are conversational, dynamic, and responsive in real time. Experiences are no longer fixed and linear; they are assembled around the user, adapting based on context and behavior rather than being delivered as a static sequence of pages.

As this shift occurs, the document becomes one component within a broader experience surface rather than the center of it. And when the center moves, the economics inevitably follow.

This is the missing link in most industry conversations. Capital is not reacting to print as a technology alone, it is reacting to a shift in the underlying unit of value. If value is moving from documents to dynamic, interactive experiences, then capital will follow that shift regardless of how well the legacy model continues to perform in the short term.

This Change Is Different

The industry has encountered disruption before and has largely managed to adapt without fundamentally changing its core model. The transitions from analog to digital, from offset to inkjet, from A3 to A4 all represented meaningful shifts, but they did not challenge the underlying assumption that documents and by extension, print, paper and mail were central to communication.

Today this is different because those assumptions are being questioned. The issue is no longer how efficiently documents can be produced or delivered, but whether the document remains the primary vehicle for communication at all.

That kind of structural shift is more difficult to process because it cannot be addressed incrementally. It requires a rethinking of what the industry is fundamentally organized around and whether that remains the document, or shifts toward something else, such as AI-driven interactions.

In response, the language of the industry often shifts toward terms that preserve continuity like “hybrid”, “balanced” and my favorite “print + digital.” These concepts are useful in extending the narrative, but they tend to connect the past to the future without clearly defining an end state. They describe the transition, but not the resolution.

Change From Somewhere Else

If there is a reference point for how this dynamic plays out, it can be found in Europe, where consolidation across the print service provider (PSP) market has already reshaped the landscape. Private equity roll-ups, portfolio realignments, and the transfer of customer bases from one owner to another have become familiar patterns.

These changes were not driven by a sudden loss of operational capability, but by regulations, rising postal costs, environmental concerns and shifts in how capital evaluated the long-term prospects of the category.

Even as industry events like the Imaging Network Group (ING), which recently held its meeting in Nassau, Bahamas, maintain a positive tone and highlight expanding business activity for U.S. PSPs, the broader market is demonstrably contracting. Growth among ING members is coming from consolidation around a smaller number of successful players, not from an expanding market. This is the first phase of the shift, and if not watched carefully, it will have significant consequences for U.S. providers.

This shows up in subtle but consistent ways such as larger clients concentrating spend with fewer providers, smaller PSPs struggling to maintain margin despite stable volumes, and increased M&A activity driven more by necessity than expansion. These are not indicators of a growing market, they are signals of redistribution within a contracting one.

Ray’s commentary suggests the same forces are impacting the OEMs, where scale, manufacturing economics, and investor expectations are colliding. The pressure coming from from capital marketings is not isolated, it is systemic. Whether through mergers, joint ventures, or broader strategic realignment, the OEM landscape itself is likely to consolidate as investors look for more efficient paths to value creation.

This is not a question of whether print and mail will survive. It will. The more important question is how many PSPs and OEMs the market will actually support in the future, and what happens to those left behind? It is a conversation the industry does not want to have, but one it needs to understand.

For those not aligned with where capital is moving, the outcomes are rarely neutral. They tend to follow a familiar path: margin compression, loss of relevance in digital channels, increased dependence on a shrinking base of print volume, and ultimately, a forced decision between reinvention, consolidation, or exit.

The U.S. print and mail market represented by groups like ING has been slower to internalize these dynamics, supported by its massive scale and entrenched customers base. But the underlying forces are no different from those affecting OEMs or the European market. They are simply less visible, for now.

This is an area where TreelinePress will continue to dig in, providing deeper analysis and perspective throughout 2026.

Andy’s Take

Industries rarely fail because they ignore change altogether. More often, they struggle because they continue to describe change in terms that allow them to delay responding to it.

Right now, much of the print and CCM industry in the U.S. is still describing the future through the lens of documents, while the market is beginning to organize around experiences. The investment community is starting to recognize that distinction, and it is beginning to price it accordingly.

This shift may not be fully visible in day-to-day messaging or press releases, but it can be observed in leadership changes, in the tone of earnings discussions, and in the types of questions investors are asking.

The conversation we are having in CCM may still be about platforms and features, but the more consequential decisions are being made elsewhere.

Follow the money.

This is not the article I wanted to post on a Friday, but this cannot go without notice.

Substack recently disclosed a security incident involving user data, including email addresses and, for some users, phone numbers. According to public reporting, the unauthorized access happened in October 2025, but was not identified and disclosed until early February 2026.

Substack has said that passwords, credit card numbers, and other financial data were not exposed. Even so, the gap between when the breach occurred and when it was announced is part of why trust and transparency matter so much in situations like this.

I am sharing this because I received a suspicious email this morning, Friday, March 20, from a known person and subscriber that, while flagged by Microsoft as suspicious, appeared legitimate in nearly every other way.

At first glance, the message appeared to include a Substack-related sender address. In Outlook, the visible sender line showed an mg2.substack.com address alongside the real-world identity of a known contact. But after reviewing the full message header, the situation looked more complicated.

The raw header showed the message authenticating as if it came from the sender’s business domain, not directly from Substack. It also showed that Microsoft classified the message as phishing and routed it to junk mail. What made it more deceptive was that the document link itself pointed to a real Adobe Acrobat sharing address, not some obviously fake or misspelled domain.

From my perspective, the delay and limited follow-up from Substack is frustrating. Granted, I was away on vacation in Hawaii when the incident was announced, so I may have missed part of the initial discussion. But even allowing for that, I would have expected more direct explanation, more context, and more visible follow-up for publishers and readers alike.

That does not mean this morning’s email was caused by the Substack breach or anything to do with TreelinePress specifically, other than the fact that this person is also a TreelinePress subscriber.

What I can say is that this is exactly what makes the current environment so difficult to navigate. A message can borrow the appearance of trust from multiple places at once: a familiar name, a known platform, a legitimate-looking sender pattern, and a real file-sharing domain.

So please follow the normal precautions. Be cautious with any unexpected email or text that references a subscription, billing issue, account verification, a shared document, or any other urgent request to open a file or follow a link. Do not click from the message itself. Go directly to the platform through your browser or app, or contact the sender through a separate and known-good channel.

This is also a good time to tighten basic security. Update your password if you have not changed it recently. Make sure the email account tied to your login is protected with two-factor authentication.

I am sharing this because trust matters. Transparency matters. Publishers depend on trust. Readers depend on trust. Platforms do too.

If you have any question or concerns about this, please let me know by sending me a message below.

Thank you and have a great weekend, Andy

Earlier this week, Reuters reported that U.S. Postmaster General David Steiner believes Americans may be willing to pay 90 or 95 cents for a first-class stamp, up from the current 78 cents. The same report noted that the Postal Service could run out of cash within roughly 12 months if significant changes are not made.

None of that was particularly surprising. The Post Office has been loosing money for years.

What was surprising was the reaction or lack of one across my social feed yesterday.

Across much of the postal and mailing community, the story passed almost quietly. On a platform like LinkedIn, where the print and mailing industry normally debates every postal rate adjustment, the response was muted. For a statement that touches the core economics of the entire mailing ecosystem, the silence was notable.

The story itself is not really about the price of a stamp. It is about the structural pressure facing the U.S. mail system.

Subscribe now

Mail volumes have been declining for years as more communications move to digital channels. Yet much of the industry conversation still revolves around how to preserve mail volume rather than how to adapt to the reality that the communication environment has changed.

Yesterday I spoke with colleagues in Australia who follow the global customer communications market closely. Their observation was blunt: they remain continually surprised by how far behind the U.S. is compared with other parts of the world in adapting to digital-first communication models.

In many countries, the conversation has already shifted. The role of the postal network is being redefined around essential services, logistics, and targeted communications not the preservation of mass paper output to keep the system running.

A functioning postal system is vital infrastructure. It connects rural communities, delivers critical documents, and remains an important part of the communications landscape. But maintaining that system by continuing to fill mailboxes with unwanted advertising and low-value mail is not a long-term strategy. Sure, the industry loves it, but its short-term solution to a long-term problem.

At some point the conversation has to move beyond defending volume.

The real question is what the postal system should look like in a world where the default channel for most communication has already moved elsewhere. Other postal systems around the world are figuring it out, and consumer behavior has shifted with it.

The Reuters headline about a 95-cent stamp is simply another signal that this shift in gravity is accelerating. The quiet reaction from the industry may say more about that reality than the headline itself.

Leave a comment

Subscriber Chat is meant to be a place for real discussion around the ideas we explore here like cha…

Read more

This isn’t a random pairing. The two companies have been architecturally linked since at least their 2021 OEM agreement, where Messagepoint embedded Sefas composition capabilities into “Messagepoint Composer” and offered Sefas enterprise communications processing through “Messagepoint ECP.”

The combined entity now spans more of the CCM lifecycle from AI-assisted content intelligence (Messagepoint’s MARCIE engine) through composition, processing, delivery/tracking, and archiving components in high-volume, regulated communications environments.

Sefas brings deep enterprise roots (founded 1991; acquired by Groupe La Poste in 2010, via Docaposte), and positions itself around personalized, omnichannel communications across print and digital.

Subscribe now

Andy’s Take

The CCM “print vs. digital” debate continues to fade. The consolidation trend is about control of the orchestration and production plane and who owns the end-to-end system of record for regulated communications when AI starts touching content logic, QA, compliance workflows, and delivery execution.

There’s also more to uncover on the capital markets dimension. As more details surface, the interesting question won’t just be what gets integrated technically, but what story the combined entity is building for the evolving customer communications market.

Read the full announcement here: https://www.messagepoint.com/resources/messagepoint-acquires-sefas/

TreelinePress’ Spring 2026 coverage calendar is now taking shape.

From Smart Communications’ Innovate 2026 North America to Comparting 2026, the National Postal Forum, and London Tech Week, the conversations this season extend well beyond incremental omni-channel optimization and legacy CCM. The underlying theme across these gatherings is structural: where authority sits inside enterprise systems, how AI is reshaping orchestration layers, and whether legacy throughput models remain aligned with buyer expectations.

Subscribe now

At Comparting 2026, the discussion shifts toward document intelligence and agentic AI. Documents are no longer static artifacts; they are becoming dynamic interfaces governed by data logic, compliance frameworks, and automation layers.

At Innovate 2026, the question is not whether customer communications platforms integrate with CX stacks. It is whether they move upstream into orchestration authority or remain inside broader AI-driven architectures.

At the National Postal Forum, I will join industry expert and journalist Mike Porter for an educational session titled Rethinking Success in Mail Services. The conversation will focus on structural pressures facing U.S. mail service providers over the next decade, what global markets are signaling, and which operational and strategic adjustments are no longer optional.

And at London Tech Week, TreelinePress will formally launch the UK PSP Market Study (2010–2026). This research examines consolidation trends, regulatory drivers, digital investment patterns, and the widening divergence between UK and U.S. print service providers.

Across these events, the theme is consistent: output volumes alone no longer determine control. Default positioning inside enterprise systems increasingly determines long-term relevance. Authority is migrating toward orchestration layers, compliance intelligence, and digital-first engagement models.

TreelinePress will also participate in and cover select gatherings throughout the year, with a focus on identifying where economic gravity is moving and how enterprise leaders are recalibrating in response.

If you will be attending any of these events and would like to connect, or if you are interested in having Andy speak at, moderate, or provide on-site coverage at a future event, the Fall 2026 calendar is now open for select sponsorship partners. Please reach out directly to Andy here or on Linkedin.

Compart has published a new Trends piece, “Moving Beyond CCM with Agentic AI” (February 26, 2026), marking the launch of a video series focused on the role of agentic systems in customer communications.

The four part video series features Thorsten Meudt, CEO of Compart, and is hosted by Andrew Young of TreelinePress. The discussion sets up a clear directional claim: AI is moving from productivity enhancements at the edge of CCM platforms into the operational core of how enterprises manage customer interactions. Topics include the limits of traditional AI assistants, the disruption of low-code development models, and the shift toward prompting and autonomous, agent-driven workflows.

A deeper TreelinePress analysis on what this could mean for the CCM category and where the “default” layer of customer communications ultimately resides will follow separately.

With Comparting 2026 taking place March 12–13 in Sindelfingen, Germany, expect Agentic AI to be a central theme both on stage and in the surrounding industry conversations.

Attending Comparting 2026? Let’s connect in Sindelfingen.

Subscribe now

The Transition

The language of the announcement is standard, but the timing deserves closer examination.

From a TreelinePress perspective, this is less about a press release and more about capital cycle positioning. Leadership changes inside sponsor-backed software businesses rarely occur in isolation. They tend to align with inflection points that are strategic, financial, or both.

In September 2019, when Strattam Capital made its majority investment in MHC, the market environment was materially different.

Interest rates were low. Software multiples were expanding. Private equity firms underwrote growth assuming capital would remain inexpensive and exits would remain accessible. The playbook was familiar: professionalize operations, scale the platform, increase SaaS mix, and exit within a defined window.

Four to six years was not aggressive. It was standard. Growth was expected. Multiple expansion was assumed.

Then came COVID.

The Disruption

Digital adoption accelerated in some sectors, stalled in others, and in some cases exposed the fragility of legacy systems that were never built to be “digital-first.” Cost structures shifted. Labor markets tightened. Interest rates rose. Debt became more expensive. Exit markets narrowed.

Multiple expansion through acquisition stopped functioning as a tailwind and began acting as a constraint on growth. Acquisitions that once signaled acceleration began introducing integration strain, technical debt, and execution risk.

Fast forward to early 2026. The hold period of MHC by Strattam now sits at roughly six and a half years.

That fact alone does not indicate distress. It does not confirm an imminent exit. It does not imply underperformance by former CEO Gina Armada.

But it is relevant.

Leadership transitions in PE-backed software companies around year six or seven are not incidental. Sometimes they precede an exit. Sometimes they sharpen growth ahead of a process. Sometimes they reflect a need for a tighter narrative in a more disciplined capital market.

I reached out to Strattam Capital for comment and received the following response:

“We are thankful for Gina’s leadership and the meaningful impact she has made at MHC. As we look ahead, Chris is uniquely positioned to lead the company into its next chapter of growth with a strong commitment to serving our customers.” – Hilary Fleischer, Partner

The statement is measured, as expected. It signals continuity. It also signals a new phase.

There is no indication of additional investment, acquisition, or debt restructuring activity at this stage.

But the clock is ticking.

A Rising Tide Floats All Ships

Last summer, August 2025, industry competitor Smart Communications reportedly achieved a valuation of approximately $1.8 billion in its transaction with Cinven. I cannot independently verify the final transaction structure or valuation details, although multiple industry sources cited the figure and, in some cases, suggested privately that the true number may have been higher.

Whether precise or directional, this new benchmark has effectively reset the bar across the global CCM industry.

When a transaction of that size closes in a defined category like customer communications, it recalibrates expectations. Boardrooms take note. Portfolio reviews adjust. “Best in class” becomes anchored to a number. Once a benchmark is set, adjacent companies feel its effect. Perfect comparability is secondary. The comparison exists the moment the headline circulates.

If you operate in customer communications infrastructure, you are now viewed through this lens. Depending on markets served, growth demonstrated, and the strength of the solution narrative, this could be favorable or constraining.

It remains to be seen how this will influence MHC’s trajectory, but positioning within the same valuation conversation as Smart Communications would likely require clear differentiation, sustained growth, disciplined execution and in some cases, new executive leadership.

Repricing Questions

Public SaaS markets have also shifted tone. Last week’s selloff on Wall Street was widely attributed to concerns about AI displacing certain layers of software. The impact was immediate and broad.

For the past several years, the dominant AI narrative suggested expansion. Automation would increase software consumption, expand seat counts, and drive growth. Recently, however, investor questions have changed.

If workflows become easier to replicate, feature moats narrow.

If automation reduces friction, pricing power may compress.

If AI lowers switching costs, durability is questioned.

Market shifts occur for many reasons, so I cannot attribute private equity valuation adjustments to a single driver. But repricing has occurred across segments of public SaaS, so when public comparables adjust, private equity expectations typically follow. Exit math is built on precedent transactions and public multiples.

This does not imply every platform in the global customer communications marketplace is exposed, but it does mean every platform must articulate why it is durable in the age of AI.

The Convergence

MHC’s expansion into accounts payable automation and embedded payments is more than adjacent product development. It reflects a broader structural convergence of legacy CCM into previously separate core enterprise systems. A review of the MHC website shows that a majority of its offerings extend beyond what would traditionally be classified as CCM and align more closely with finance and internal operations.

Traditional CCM centered on composition, regulatory notices, and output optimization. Accounts payable centers on workflow orchestration, vendor payments, fraud controls, and transaction flows.

As enterprises digitize operations, the boundary between outbound communication, transaction processing, and customer engagement narrows. CCM has already intersected with martech and customer journey orchestration. It now intersects with fintech infrastructure.

If a platform sits closer to money movement, compliance automation, and embedded payments, it occupies a different economic layer inside the enterprise. That repositioning has implications for exits and valuation multiples. Private equity firms, particularly those approaching the outer edge of a hold period, pay close attention to such distinctions.

Hartigan’s background at Quadient aligns with this convergence thesis. His experience is relevant to MHC’s trajectory as products and services extend beyond legacy CCM functions. He appears well suited to take on the role at a moment when repositioning may matter as much as execution.

Subscribe now

Pre-COVID Assumptions, Post-COVID Discipline

A private equity investment made in 2019 now exists within a higher interest-rate environment, an AI-influenced repricing cycle, and alongside a high-profile benchmark in its category.

Pre-COVID underwriting assumed expansion, while post-COVID capital demands precision, narrative clarity, and defensibility.

Debt costs more. Exit windows are narrower. Buyers are more selective. AI has reduced the distance between differentiation and commoditization across parts of the enterprise software stack. Leadership transitions in this context are less about personality and more about posture.

Private Capital Occupies the Room

Private equity’s role in customer communications and the broader print ecosystem should not be underestimated. Many of the most recognized platforms are controlled by PE funds. Private equity drives product expansion, enables scale, and creates liquidity in markets where organic exits are limited.

This capital, however, is not neutral.

Being owned by a private equity firm can drive what I have described as “unnatural” behavior, whether harvesting cash flow or pursuing growth to meet return thresholds. It accelerates consolidation. It compresses timelines. It imposes expectations that do not pause for legacy narratives. Many U.S. print service providers and CCM platforms funded between 2018 and 2020 now face similar recalibration.

Sponsors expect growth. They expect exit optionality. Refinancing, if required, now occurs in a materially higher interest-rate environment than in 2019. As a privately held company, MHC’s balance sheet is not publicly visible, but the broader cost of capital has increased, and that surely changes board-level decisioning.

Print service providers (PSPs) in particular face a strategic bifurcation over the next cycle: harvest print cash flows in a declining valuation environment, or consolidate and invest toward higher-multiple digital services.

One path optimizes near-term returns. The other attempts structural repositioning. Neither is passive. Both are shaped by capital markets that have recalibrated what they value.

Seven years ago, underwriting assumed expansion. Today, capital is selective and cautious, particularly with platforms heavily tied to print and document-centric workflows.

Follow the Money

The firms that understand the shift underway and align accordingly will determine whether they are active participants in the next phase of consolidation or simply assets within it.

I will be watching closely to see what unfolds at MHC. With significant private equity capital active across the CCM landscape, this transition is unlikely to be an isolated event.

Private equity is no longer a background actor in customer communications. It is increasingly shaping capital allocation, consolidation strategy, product direction, and executive turnover across the global market. The movement of sponsors, the timing of exits, the repricing of assets, and the narratives being underwritten in boardrooms are becoming as consequential as technology roadmaps themselves.

Over the coming year, TreelinePress will spend more time examining that capital layer. Not just who is investing, but what those investments tell us about where economic gravity in customer communications is actually moving.

Share

Read more

Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT)’s decision to deactivate its Print and Graphic Media Technology program goes beyond a single university or a single deg…

Read more

When the Wall Street Journal ran “How the AI Boom Is Leaving Consultants Behind”, it described a wave of frustration among enterprises that had bet heavily on consultants to g…

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read more

“Neither snow, nor rain, nor heat, nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds.”

Read more

When industry leaders start joining forces, it's worth reading the tea leaves. Consolidation is rarely about growth. It's usually about survival, scale, and repositioning. In this case, perhaps it’s …

Read more

We’re excited to share our latest collaboration with Racami: a new white paper that examines the evolving role of print in customer communicatio…

Read more

In the absence of regular industry events and clear voices leading the conversation, many in the CCM space are navigating change without direction. Meanwhile, much of the insight that does exist lives behind expensive annual subscriptions, gated platforms, or $25K+ licenses fees.

That’s why we’re moving to Substack under a new name: Treelinepress.
It’s a more open, direct way to share our research, benchmarks, and commentary. And it’s accessible to everyone—from executives and product teams to PSPs and practitioners—without the expensive paywall of traditional research models.

This isn’t just a newsletter. It’s a place to build community, share real data, and have meaningful conversations about the future of regulated, print and digital customer communications. Paid subscribers get full access to our research, early findings, interviews with industry leaders and direct connection with me, something you won’t get in traditional analyst reports.

I’ve always believed in being out front. I’m confident others will be following TreelinePress here at Substack.

Thanks for joining us here. I look forward to the conversations.

Andy