It was most enjoyable, and illuminating, speaking to a host of different print folk for this recent feature about cross-media, and whether it's all it's cracked up to be. In essence, the answer is "no", in that cross-media is not a universal panacea for printing companies looking to boost margins, or some sort of instant fix. At the same time, it's almost becoming the case that pretty much every piece of print is effectively a cross-media piece, because it is likely to instigate some sort of digital interaction even if it's not through something as specific as a QR code or augmented reality widget on the printed page itself. Last weekend I read an article about 50 best beauty buys (no laughing at the back) and went on to visit several websites as a direct result. Purchases are imminent and may be store or web-based. I'm sure various brands will have seen a spike in interest in their products because of this piece, but whether that will be attributed to the print or online article is another matter – as Howard Hunt's Lucy Edwards says, so-called "attribution modelling" is a complex beast. There's plenty of sound advice from Lucy and others in that cross-media feature, in particular the need for printcos large or small to make a conscious decision about where they want to be in the multiple-media space, and proceed accordingly. And I absolutely loved the comment from Andy Bailey at Inc Direct, about the client who started off wanting on-trend stuff involving apps and Facebook, but whose aims were actually better served by using a really good piece of direct mail. It's an inspiring example of knowing your stuff, being confident about it, and guiding the client to take a route that will be most effective – even if it wasn't the original starting point. Our multi-media world is full of new opportunities for print, and cross-media is not compulsory.