The “print is dead” meme is based on a couple simple assumptions. First, the digital world can do anything print can do, only better. And second, the economics of print—from turning trees into pulp into paper, then managing the distribution channels—just won’t cut it.

The evidence supporting the meme just keeps pouring in, like word today that The New York Times Company plans to shut down The Boston Globe (only to offer a reprieve shortly after the announcement). Layoffs and spending cuts haven’t produced the savings required to keep the paper afloat, so the Times announced it plans to shutter the paper in 60 days after failing to win concessions from the Newspaper Guild.

A lot of people predict the death of the newspaper industry. Steve Rubel has gone so far as to predict the death in the next decade of all tangible media.

As regular readers know, I have a $100 bet with Jose Leal that, in 2018, I’ll be able to buy a newspaper from a rack on the street.

The terms of the bet include nothing about what newspaper I’ll be able to buy. I never asserted it would be a newspaper publishing today. It could well be that somebody starts a print newspaper that captures the public’s attention and imagination after the one-time juggernauts of journalism have faded from the scene.

Ultimately, though, there’s nothing wrong with print. In fact, the best way to revitalize the print business is to recognize print’s strengths over online delivery and be bold in executing them.

For all the astounding content on the Web, a hyperlink-mediated environment can actually discourage the serendipitous discovery of content. Consider a visit to a news aggregation site. Your eyes skim over the hyperlinked headlines, but you click only on the items that interest you. While you may have absorbed some information from the headlines you dismissed, you’ll never see the additional links to content that might have been compelling on the pages you opted not to view.

Print, on the other hand, can be the source of endless serendipity, when done well. Turning a page should be an adventure: You have no idea what you’ll find, such as a design that delights you, a photo that wows you, a story that captivates you—none of which you would have searched for or clicked to. Quality printing also provides benefits you can’t get on-screen.

Sadly, as print media retrenches, publishers have gone exactly the opposite direction, embracing timidity instead of boldness. I can’t remember the last time the design of a newspaper page struck me as enticing and the stories are the same ones I read everywhere else, AP and Reuters filler that’s just as easily found in 10,000 online sites, not to mention other newspapers.

Whether the publishers of any surviving newspapers figure this out remains to be seen, but somebody will embrace the idea of the serendipity of the package. Once readers can’t wait to flip through an issue to see what unexpected delights they’ll discover, advertisers will follow. At that point, the fact that putting ink onto paper is an expensive proposition will be incidental—people will pay for products in which they find value.

I’m not suggesting, by the way, that print can regain its market share over digital content, only that print will find a place. But I recall talking to a communicator whose company had dispensed with print, taking its internal communications online. Only rarely—when she needed to make sure something stood out from the rest of the company’s communications—did she produce a printed publication for distribution to employees. When such a publication landed on employees’ desks, their response was, “Wow, it’s in print. It must be important.”

Like I say, it’s all in how well content producers understand the importance of the package.