Doing it By the Numbers...

If a picture is worth a thousand words, sometimes a few statistics can trigger a million thoughts. To wit:

52%. Percent of total US mail volume that is direct mail.

$45.2 billion. The sum US businesses spent on direct mail in 2010—a 3.1% increase over 2009.

$48 billion. The projected expenditure in the US for direct mail in 2011—a 5.8% increase over 2010.

149 million. The number of addresses to which the USPS delivers mail.

171 billion. The number of pieces of mail delivered by the USPS in 2010.

$5.2 billion. The estimated amount in fundraising driven by non-catalog direct mail in 2010.

13.5 billion. The number of catalogs mailed in 2009.

15% and 12%. The percentage of consumers receiving respectively a catalog or a letter/postcard/flyer who then made a purchase on the company's website.

28%. The additional sum spent by individuals who received a catalog compared to individuals who did not receive a catalog.

43%. The number of B to B campaigns that fall in the 5,000 to 50,000-piece range.

33%. The number of B to B campaigns that fall in the 1,000 to 5,000-piece range.

391,000. The average number of pieces of mail processed at the USPS per minute. That's 23 million per hour and 563 million every day, in case you're curious. And yes, I know this number doesn't tally with the 171 billion number quoted earlier. It's another example of how statisticians and their numbers lie.

41.5 million. The number of address changes in 2010.

40%. Estimated percentage of new movers who changed addresses for economic reasons in recent years.

98%. The percent of consumers who collect their mail every day.

77%. The percent of consumers who sort through their mail immediately upon arrival.

3.1 million. The number of individuals employed in the direct mail industry.

A penny. What I'm willing to pay for your thoughts after reading these statistics.

Multi-Channel Marketing: A Generational Divide The Times They are a'Changing!

Bob Dylan knew it. Now Pitney Bowes confirms it. The Times They are a'Changing.

A new study by Pitney Bowes demonstrates that the practitioner's age makes a huge difference in media selection among marketers. 47% of marketers over age 55 are satisfied with the results they get with just one media channel, while only 16% of the under-35 crowd limit themselves to just one media.

Makes sense. Old codgers grew up in a time and space that had fewer options. They became familiar with and versed in a more limited universe of options. The youngsters had more technologies and options available to them. Like most of us, we go with what is comfortable.

And here is where it starts to get interesting. Really interesting.

Looking at online media, marketers under 35 are (no surprise here) most like to use email (66%), social media (34%), mobile media (28%) and QR codes (22%). Senior marketers use email (57%) while mobile marketing and QR codes are barely a blip on the radar screen for them.

That the youngsters embrace online channels shouldn't come as a surprise. This is, after all, their native language. They grew up with all things electronic. But their enthusiastic embrace of direct mail does come as a bit of a surprise.

According to the Pitney Bowes study, marketers under 35 are more likely (57%) to use direct mail than their elders. In the 35 to 54 age group 40% use direct mail and in the 55+ age group only 35% do.

Hypothesizing on the wide acceptance of direct mail among younger users, Joseph Piteo, a business development manager at Vision Critical, which conducted the survey for Pitney Bowes, suggests that the large numbers of entrepreneurs in their early 30s may be the reason. "Some of the digital marketing channels would be quite expensive to implement for a small and medium-sized business owner," he suggests.

So what's up with the old guys and direct mail?

Why the decline in direct mail use as the marketer ages? It is possible that older marketers who responded to the 500-person survey are individual consultants, not working within the corporate structure anymore. (Someone said a "consultant" is just an older person who is unemployed—and in this market, there sure are a lot of consultants on the street!)

As consultants, they may be focusing on electronic media to seem "hip" to the younger crowd, aka their client base. Like a man with a truly bad comb over wants to hide the obvious, they want to seem relevant to the footsteps they hear approaching from the rear.

On the other hand...

Despite indicating a preference for direct mail, younger marketers indicate they have less comfort with and knowledge of the media. They find it harder to track results with direct mail than with email or social media. Ultimately only 21% of the youngest marketers cite direct mail's proven effectiveness, compared to 42% of those over age 55.

Older marketers, the study suggests, have seen it all over time. They know what response rates are, and more clearly understand the value of that information. In other words: older marketers have more experience. Duh!

But can the older generation teach the youngsters what they know? And can the youngsters be patient with their elders as they fumble their way into social media acumen?

So many questions. So few answers.

Pitney Bowes says more studies are in the works. Maybe they will answer some of these unanswered questions. Or raise new ones. Only time will tell.

Direct Mail: Dinosaur or Dynamite?

If you're under 30 you may think Direct Mail is ancient technology. Passe'. A marketing dinosaur in an increasingly electronic age. But before you write off Direct Mail as being irrelevant, youngster, you may need a bit larger perspective than your tender years allow.

What you may not realize is that direct mail is the Grand Dame of marketing. Like Grand Dames everywhere, Direct Mail lead the way to Direct Marketing. Like what other Grand Dames—Katherine Hepburn and Elizabeth Taylor—did for the film industry, Direct Mail did for Direct Marketing.

If Hepburn and Taylor showed ingenue actresses who followed how to act with style and maximize their assets, Direct Mail showed upstart media like email, websites, microsites, text messaging, Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, other social media and YouTube how to do it with style... and how to maximize their results.

Segment data, test packaging, test messages. Use personalization, teasers and pinpoint messaging to get the best return on investment. The first media to do it all—and to do it all right—was Direct Mail.

But life goes on. Sometime around 1960 the electronic invasion began and direct marketing rules started to change. Equipment got smaller, faster. New technologies arose to take advantage of these smaller, faster thingies. Other new technologies allowed better data capture and collection. This is where you enter the picture, newbie—at the dawn of the electronic era.

The wave of new media changed the way we communicate, giving us many new ways to do so. And because the older generation really does want to communicate with the younger (please ask your Mother), Direct Mail had to learn a few new tricks as well. After all, a True Grand Dame can evolve—just look at what Elizabeth Taylor became. (I could digress at length, but will avoid the temptation.)

Today, savvy marketers of all generations say Direct Mail has proven to be one of the most effective means of driving leads to websites and mobile platforms.

How did Direct Mail do it? By integrating new technology into print media. That's how. Personalized urls (PURLS), and quick response codes (QR codes) are only two of the most obvious techniques Direct Mail has made its own.

Variably printed PURLs direct prospects to personalized microsites customized to the individual recipient's interests and concerns. On the self-named site, recipients can leave specific information about themselves, which allows the marketer to prequalify leads and segment lists for more accurate messaging later.

Want another great evolutionary and revolutionary example? Try QR codes! QR codes take a recipient with a smart phone straight from the printed page to the mailer's webpage, YouTube video, or FaceBook page.

Want to promote something with a web-based address? A QR code is the fastest shortcut to get an interested person there. Want to segment your list into different messages or different platforms? Use different QR codes—one for each message or platform.

And it gets better! The USPS is so excited about QR codes, that it is offering a 3% postage rebate in July and August of 2011 for mail pieces that meet the requirements. I mean, when have you heard of the government giving the public something? Big banks and brokerages, car manufacturers, oil drillers, Big Ag and pharmaceutical megalopolies, sure. But you and me? This is amazing!

But more is coming. This is only the beginning. Direct marketing is evolving as I type. Intense list segmentation and data mining is creating the possibility of ever more personalized approaches. Variable Data Printing ensures that each recipient can get a message and graphics specific to that person's needs and interests. I can't begin to predict where Direct Marketing will be in even a few months. But someone somewhere is working on an amazing new app today that will change the conversation yet again tomorrow.

After all, Grand Dames don't become Grand Dames by sitting around on their tushes and eating bon bons. They get out and do things. They make things happen. They change themselves and their worlds.

That's what Direct Mail has done... and is doing. In the process it has become marketing dynamite.

Getting Inside Your Head and Staying There

In an age when advanced neuroscience technologies like eye tracking, fMRI and neural activity analysis are standard for sophisticated marketing studies, (this is like yesterday's focus groups on steroids!) it was only a matter of time before someone studied human response to various media. And specifically, direct mail versus digital mail.

That "someone" was the United Kingdom's Royal Mail.

In the Royal Mail-funded study conducted last year, researchers at Bangor University discovered—natch—that we perceive messages on different media differently. Researchers used fMRI scanners to monitor test subjects' brain activity while the subjects either read a physical piece of mail or looked at the same presentation on a computer screen.

Stay with me, dear reader. This is great stuff. Really!

In the end, the researchers found three significant differences in perception:

1. Direct mail generates a deeper emotional response in the emotional centers of the brain.
2. The brain sees physical mail as more "real" than digital mail.
3. The areas of the brain connected to memory and introspection stayed engaged longer with direct mail.

Drawing conclusions from their findings, the researchers proffered that "the brain is more emotionally engaged and is...reflecting more of a response" when viewing direct mail. Also, because the brain sees mail as "real" (as opposed to digital images) the brain is creating deeper memories.

One researcher stated "From an evolutionary point of view, you pay more attention to something that is real and physical. You want to understand it more than something that is transient, like something on a screen."

I get it. Our caveman ancestors were more concerned about that hungry lion hiding in the grass, than about wispy pictures in the clouds.

Are you there, dear reader? I promise, there's a pay day coming!

So what does this science mean to you, a marketer?

Even in this digital era when email is fast and cheap, direct mail resonates more strongly with the recipient, and stays in his subconscious longer.

As a savvy marketer, then, you should include direct mail in every marketing strategy to maximize your potential. And that's what the researchers said!

But traditional measurement metrics like response rate and ROI don't tell the whole story. Direct mail has staying power that digital does not. Hence, direct mail builds brand recognition better than digital.

In the Old Days, we'd call that a "Lasting Impression." Today, the scientists call it "preferential treatment in the brain." Whatever.

Direct mail may be the tortoise to email's hare, but look who won that race in the end.

[Warning! Here is the research team again.] "Marketers need to start focusing on the overall impact of their direct mail rather than just the response rate. Direct mail has also raised awareness and left an imprint of your brand which we can substantiate with research."

"I don't think that marketers should see direct mail as just a direct response vehicle," the researchers concluded. "It can be both a brand building AND a direct response mechanism."

Bingo! Did you get it? Direct mail is better at getting inside your head...and staying there!

And that, dear reader, is exactly where you want your marketing to be: inside your customer's head.

It's not simply about immediate response rates. Sure, response rates provide the tale of the tape. Was the effort productive? Did you get new business? How much? What was the bottom line? That's what green-shaded bean counters—and your boss—want to know.

But Direct Mail provides more, according to this research. Because it sticks with the recipient longer, it provides an unquantifiable extra: time--time to absorb your message and mull it over. That extra time may be at a subliminal level, but it's there working for you. Hence, the value of oft-touted repeat mailings.

And that's what you, a savvy marketer, need to know: that your repeat direct mail efforts are building brand awareness among those who receive your literature.

This may not be new news, but it's great news. Direct marketers have known it for years: repeating your message builds affinity and responses.

Cutting-edge neuroscience simply proves it.

Postage goes on Sale this Summer. The USPS plays Texas Hold'em

Excited rumors have been circulating for several weeks now that the post office is preparing to put postage "on sale" this summer.

Rumor confirmed.

But like most rumors—and poker games—there's a grain of truth, a lot of misdirection, and real-time strategies and intricacies that haven't been thoroughly worked out yet. Unlike most poker games among friends, the stakes here are enormous.

Here's the deal as I understand it.

The USPS says that a small number of organizations spending more than $250 million a year on advertising could qualify. These unnamed 16 top advertisers (that's it—just 16 companies are being invited to participate!) will be expected to mail between 500,000 and 1 million pieces each of First Class or Standard mail.

Those are the basic rules. Limited players: only a chosen few can play at these rarified heights.

Lots of mail: this bargain comes at a price for the advertisers. And someone—but I don't know who—is developing a unique set of metrics to measure the success of the campaigns.

But is that someone playing with a marked deck? For example, who wrote "the unique set of metrics?" I dunno. How are these metrics different? "Unique?" I don't know that either. But that is where the cards could be stacked.

On this side of the table, the USPS is putting a lot on the line. If a mailing's response does not achieve "success," (as defined by that "unique matrix"), then the USPS will refund the participating company up to $250,000 in postage.

On the far side of the table, the participating companies have skin in the game, too. If their mailing test fails (that "unique matrix" again), the USPS will not refund printing and production costs.

Explaining the USPS's thinking behind this high-stakes challenge, a USPS spokesperson said "The Postal Service recognizes that... a number of large advertisers do not employ the mail as a key component of their advertising mix. We strongly believe that in any intelligent, integrated campaign, mail can play a part. The objective... is to put our money where our mouth is and to prove to large advertisers that mail will improve the ROI of their marketing campaigns."

The "sale" may be extended for as long as two years, but is limited to organizations spending less than 0.36% of their total ad budget on postage. It follows on the heels of other postage "sales" that the USPS initiated in 2009 and 2010 in an effort to boost lagging volumes.

Like a marathon poker tournament, apparently we won't know how this ambitious effort fares for quite some time. Let the chips fall where they may.

Printing and Direct Mail: We're in a Growth Industry! Or you can't believe everything you hear.

Doom-and-gloomers say that print is doomed. Direct mail is a goner. What started with the ancient papyrus-wielding scribes, grew exponentially when Gutenberg discovered offset printing, is finished. Caput. Stick a fork in it, they say. It's done.

They name the internet as the one singlehanded instrument of destruction. They cite video-game-generation short-attention spans as an accomplice and falling postal usage as evidence. Those of us in the putting-ink-on-paper business might as well be selling buggy whips, they say. We're done for.

But whoa, there, guys. Not so fast!

A leading marketing research firm, the Winterberry Group, has dramatic evidence that flies in the face of these print pariahs.

Winterberry predicts that direct mail spending will grow by 5.8% this year; while direct response print will increase by a not so robust, but still sweet 2%. But Digital and the variable data printing it provides—will increase by a whopping 14%.

14%! Wow! But let's back up a bit.

2008 to 2009 was catastrophic for print-based marketers. Printing and direct mail volume declined by a staggering 16.7% in that one 12-month period, ending up the year at $43.8B sales volume. But by mid-year 2010, things were turning around. From July to December, volumes bounced back by 3.1% producing an EOY value of $45.2B.

Winterberry predicts that all signs are for 2011 to continue the rebound, increasing by 5.8% and coming in with an EOY value of $47.8B—$4B higher than we were just 2 ugly years ago. Not bad for an industry on its deathbed, eh?

So what's going on?

The great recession seems to be easing. People are spending more again, and many marketers are returning to the mail. Furthermore, the long-touted email revolution isn't panning out quite the way it had been expected to. So marketers are abandoning the electronic world for good old fashioned print again.

At the same time, USPS-enforced regulations to keep lists cleaner, and greater acceptance of detailed response analytics mean that mailers can mail smaller, but more accurately and with more highly targeted campaigns. Hence, they should see better ROI for their efforts.

The USPS is doing its part by not seeking huge postal increases for 2011.

Digital is the big winner because as marketers mail with greater specificity, their volumes drop. And as you—savvy marketer that you are—probably knows, digital is more economical at lower run lengths. Added to the digital difference is digital's ability to create custom pieces for each recipient, thus targeting the messaging even more tightly.

So before you believe the doom-and-gloomers who are predicting the end of the print world, please consider that we are in rapidly evolving times. It's happened before and it is happening today.

We're at the conflux of technological availability and economic necessity. Printing and marketing is changing; it is not going away.

Get with it. Get Social.

If you're a youngster, you may have trouble fathoming this concept, so I'm here to help you. Give your thumbs a rest for a minute or two, and read on.

In the ancient times (before the last 5 years) when you wanted to talk with someone—say, your client—you picked up the phone and you spoke to him. Now I know in this day and age that practice of actually talking to each other sounds remarkably quaint. But it worked. Communication happened.

Then came email. Forget the phone. When you wanted to talk with your client, you sent him an email. It was fast but you had to wait for his response back. His response might necessitate another query from you which also demanded a response back.

And that was the big problem with email. It could take hours to have what had been a simple 5-minute phone conversation. Worse yet, in all the back-and-forthing, misunderstandings crept in.

Some PhD candidate somewhere (I've forgotten the exact details in a senior moment) discovered that 90% of emails were misinterpreted. It was shocking! If you ran your business (or love life, for that matter) on what you thought you had said and what you thought you had heard back, 90% of the time you would be wrong. Yikes! Communications where happening, but maybe not the communications you needed. On the other hand, you could at least have a paper trail that showed where the train went off the track.

But now I'm getting off track.

Today, 79% of corporations use Social Media today to interact with consumers. They use these communications to maintain top-of-mind presence, drive sales, get feedback, and award customer-loyalty.

The Altimeter Group cites that there are 600M (600,000,000) Facebook accounts and these 600M folks spend an incredible 700B (7,000,000,000) minutes per month on Facebook. Twitter is second with 175M users sending about 95M tweets a day. My calculator can't even figure out what this comes to on a monthly basis. Anyway, LinkedIn is third at 85M users. YouTube is another social biggie, but not quite in the same way.

If you are comfortable with the technology, and have the time each day to devote to the cause, you may find sending messages and responding to what comes back a rewarding experience. You'll be in good company. Virgin CEO Sir Richard Branson, Marriot CEO Bill Marriott and Sun Microsystems CEO Jonathan Schwartz all write their own blogs and tweets.

On the other hand, if you are like many busy people today (who don't have a support staff of thousands), maybe you want to write your own material, then have a trusted associate distribute it and respond on your behalf.

In many large organizations there are entire departments of tweeters and social media mavens, sending out tweets, blogs, text messages and checking in with Friends on FaceBook and folks in various interest groups.

Why are these firms devoting so much energy and resources to this effort?

Because it works!

Properly executed, social media does indeed maintain top-of-mind presence. A well-written blog, delivered regularly, builds community. It's one of today's communication tools of choice, and communication—whether by print, phone or by blog—builds community.

Social Media does drive sales (think text messaging, or an email click here to link to our new catalog)... get feedback (PURLs, informal focus groups and surveys)...
inspire folks to act (give to earthquake recovery, sign up for a whitepaper, register for a free webinar)... and award customer-loyalty (Panera and Ruby Tuesdays are masters of rewarding customer loyalty.)

Social Media supplements—not replaces—your other marketing efforts. It can not replace direct mail letters, catalogs in the mailbox or ads on the radio. What it can do is make your audience more receptive when your direct mail letter or catalog gets in their hands.

You learned in Marketing 101 that successful marketing is about building a relationship between your company and your customer. If you first heard this sage advice in the last century, you'll remember there were fewer avenues you could use then.

It's so easy today, though the rule of relationships still applies. Social Media is the perfect tool to build relationships. It works. And yes, it can be fun.

Get with it.

Data Appending. The Devil is in the Details.

Dear Prospect,

You called me last week about appending email addresses or phone numbers to your house list.

"Can you do it?" You asked innocently.

"Certainly!" I responded.

"What will my 'hit rate' be?" You asked.

"Arrrrrgh!" I thought, thinking to myself that this obvious question is as difficult to answer accurately as the other slow-death-by-quicksand question "What will my response rate be?"

I took a deep breath. Here we go again. I'm dealing with someone who wants an absolute number—almost a performance guarantee—in an area that has so many variables that any answer I give him will be wrong.

I thought about your question for quite a while before I spoke again. Here are some of the thoughts that were racing through my head in those 10 seconds of silence:

How fresh is your data? How often do you update? If we're trying to append information on data that is even 5 years old, lotsa luck!

Do you want the data to match to name only? To name and address? To name and zip code? To multiple "touch points"?

What about name variations? Maybe you have "Joe and Mary Smith" in your data. What about "Joseph and Mary Smith" or "Joseph L. and Mary A. Smith"? or "Mr. and Mrs. Joseph L. Smith" or any of a dozen other ways this name could be presented? How do you want to address this issue?

What do you need? Do you have specific goals and needs? If you've got a specific end-game, please let me know. I can help you better if you give me more information.

You didn't have any answers for me, but I kept slogging on.

Are you willing to invest time and money to bring your data up to snuff if it needs to be done?

How many passes are you willing to pay for to get the output you want? Are you willing to test vendors to see which produces the best outcome for you? After all, not all data files are created equal.

What are your expectations? If we get a 30% match is that OK? 60%? Or is nothing less than 100% acceptable? So much of our success will be dependent on your data. So much of your happiness over the results will be based on your expectations going into the process.

So here I am, on the horns of a dilemma. We can do what you want, but I know that you want an absolute number that you can plug into an equation that will prove (or disprove) the efficacy of the effort.

I can try to educate you about the process, yet the largest variable in the entire equation is your data. You're asking me to give you a project cost and a performance guarantee based on something that you know more about than I do.

The call ended with you saying (not too convincingly) that you'd get back to me. I fear I shattered your preconception that this would be an easy-in easy-out conversation. And it wasn't.

I hope you do call back. But I fear you've gone to someone who would give you a glib (and useless) answer.

I'll be waiting.

You should be Testier!

A wise man, Edward Eggleston, once said "Persistent people begin their success where others end in failure."

That's almost a definition of the marketing process. Put out your best effort. Wait for the result. Tweak. Relaunch. Wait. Tweak. Relaunch.

Testing helps speed up the launch-wait-tweak cycle. The goal of testing is to define and refine your materials until you have achieved the optimal presentation. The result of testing is that you get to that optimal presentation faster.

There are two philosophies to testing.

#1. Launch an almost identical package, but make one item different. Then you are testing that one element. For instance, if you mail some letters with a meter and some with a stamp, you are then testing if a meter or a stamp pulls better. Or you can test a personalized letter vs a generic letter; a closed face envelope vs a window envelope.

You can create one catalog with a blue cover and one with a red cover, but the internal content and presentation are the same. Then you're testing color vs color.

If one ad/email/billboard has a picture of a young girl and one has a picture of a young boy, but the content and presentation are the same, then you are testing the photos against each other.

You can test offers and price points to get the optimal mix of returns and ROI.

Got it? You can only test one element at a time to see if using that element enhances or detracts from your responses. If you test more than one element at a time you lose the pureness of the test and you won't be able to ascertain which change affected your results.

And of course, you need a head-to-head test to maintain accuracy. Both campaigns have to launch at the same time. Otherwise, time becomes an unknown variable, too.

If you want to move faster, launch three simultaneous tests (ie test stamp against meter against indicia). But the same rule holds: only one thing can be different from test to test to maintain your scientific honesty.

And of course, you have to maintain scrupulous records.

#2. On the other hand, you can create materials that are entirely different and test not just one specific design/copy feature but format against format.

For instance, in direct mail, you can test a #10 package against a 9x12 package or a Monarch. You can test copy about saving the whales against copy about saving polar bears.

You can test a tri-folded brochure against a bi-folded brochure, or a single sheet brochure against a multi-page brochure. You can test a 5.5x8.5 catalog against an 8.5x11 catalog.

You can test direct mail against email... or against radio, TV and cable, for that matter. You can test if ads or billboards or special events draw in more business... If an on-line catalog or a mailed catalog produces the best results... If electronic media workyou're your message... if social media has a place for you...if special events like golf tournaments or masked balls are worth the effort... if this trade-show giveaway is better than that give-away... if a PURL or an 800-number or a QR code produces the most results.

What you can test is virtually unlimited.

Why you test remains the same: to keep getting your message tighter, your presentation sharper, your ROI higher.

How you test is up to you. That's where marketing creativity — and persistence — comes to bear.

People who don't test, don't get it.

Greatness (and great marketing) is, as Edward Eggleston intimated, the performance of persistence.

Postal Rates Going up. But not for everyone. And then, not by much. Usually.

Unless you've had your head in the sand for the last decade, you know that the post office has been hemorrhaging money. Despite aggressively cutting jobs, closing facilities and taking draconian measures to staunch the flow, the loss continued in 2010, with the USPS losing $8.5 billion. (That's Billion with a "B"! dear reader.)

Desperate to reverse the trend, but hamstrung by legislation that mandates the USPS can not ask for increases in excess of inflation year over year, the USPS has proposed a very modest rate change that will increase postage 1.7% in a blended average over all mail classes. The increase, which goes into effect in April, will generate only about $340 million in 2011 to fill the deep hole that the USPS is in. But every little bit helps.

The really good news for mailers is that most will see minimal—if any—changes.

For instance, 4.25x6 postcard rates will rise by a penny, to 29 cents. First Class Presort rates for postcards will also rise, but only by fractions of a cent. And by "fractions of a cent" I mean one or two tenths of a cent.

Carrier Route saturation rates remain virtually unchanged—except for the same fraction-of-a-cent increases for DBMC deliveries, and at less dense delivery models.

Non-Profit and Standard mail will similarly remain virtually changed except in the fraction-of-a-cent category for less dense delivery models.

Periodicals—a target of recent huge rate hikes—will see only a 1.8% increase this time.

First class letters will remain at 44 cents. But for "overweight" letters, the additional ounce will go to 20 cents—one of the heftiest increases at almost 18%.

Other big increases will be First-Class flats which will increase by 5.3%, and first-class parcels which will see a 3.8% increase. First-Class international mail will also increase by 4%, and some parcels will see a whopping 11.3% increase.

So here's the bottom line: while there is a postal increase in the offing, the news is hardly doom-and-gloom for most of us. We should all be grateful for small (1.7%) favors.

What Goes Around Comes Around, "Snail mail" gains new creds

Just a few years ago, when online marketing was still a twinkle in the eyes of the marketing technocrats, those same overly ambitious techies prematurely announced, “Direct Mail is Dead.” 

And while the premature announcement of DM’s demise didn’t make the cover of Time Magazine, it nonetheless shook the marketing community to its roots. 

Direct mail (DM), the long-time savior of all things marketing, became denigrated as “Snail Mail” — slower than the electron-fast e-mail marketing that was rising to prominence.  Fast was in; slow was out.  Shotguns were in; rifles were out. 

Well, that view is so... yesterday.

Today, the brilliant target-ability of direct mail has proven its worth as a tried-and-true in-the-trenches marketing success story.  Sure, DM has taken a hit from email and its electronic cousins.  Mail volume has dropped dramatically over the last 10 years, hurting both the USPS and providers of mailing services.

But consider this:  your letter/postcard/catalog/package now shares the mailbox with far fewer competing pieces of mail.  That means your recipient has longer to ponder your offer than ever before.  You get more “eyeball time,” and because there is less competition, response rates are rising again.

One retailer analyzed side-by-side marketing performance of three media:  DM, email and in-store promos.  With response up 150% from the previous year with no significant change in strategy, DM was the hands down winner over flashier new media.

So here’s the headline:  Snail mail, the so-called “obsolete marketing media,” is outperforming digital, including social media.  Who’d a-thunk it just 10 years ago?  DM is leading the new marketing wave.

The Past is Prologue.

Word.

Show me a Little Love!

Every marketer—whether working in a for-profit or not-for-profit—has one goal: Get customers, clients and donors to “Show Me the Love.” You want them to sign in, sign up, and send money.

In the dark days of yore, your options to reach these folks were limited. Direct mail; print, radio and TV advertising (or PSAs); public relations (like press releases); telephone solicitations; special events, and of course, word-of-mouth. You recognize it: It’s Marketing 101 stuff.

But today is a Brave New World, gentle people. Statistics show that each one of us is bombarded with 5,000+ advertising messages per day. That’s more than our great grandparents saw in their entire lifetimes!

Email, social media, PURLs, and text messaging has added opportunity, but has made it harder to get your message to stand out from the crowd. Figuring out where you get your donations or sales from is affecting marketers in all industries.

We are all adrift in a sea of uncertainty. Some of us simply have better life jackets than others.

So many options. So few facts.

Before you develop that fatal deer-in-the-headlight stare, consider the age of your target market. Younger folk have a variety of paths from which they get information, and no single channel predominates. Muddying the picture further, the X and Y crowd don’t seem to have developed the brand loyalty of older generations, so their allegiance is up for grabs until a clear pattern emerges. Older folks tend to stay with what they know and are comfortable with.

Here is what’s working (or not!) for a variety of marketers:

Retail. 100% of us buy retail. Just ask Safeway. But just over half of us say they have made contributions at the grocery or retail store. Most of the contributors are younger, as older folk still prefer to receive their information through direct mail, and younger people tend to spend and give more spontaneously (ie “Would you like fries with that?” “Of course!”)

Internet. Despite lingering privacy issues, most of us shop on-line today. Retailers are making great headway on the web. Non-profits are benefiting as well. 35% of the Gen Xers have gone on a charity’s web site to contribute as have 29% of the Gen Yers. But here’s the bad news: What had gotten them to that website in the first place is still TBD.

Social Media. Social Media is still largely a young person’s game. Nearly 100% of individuals under 30 use social media, with that percentage decreasing as age increases. While many of the younger users look to friends for recommendations, older users don’t. 36% of those under 30 years old have talked about a charity with friends in the past month and 29% have posted that information on their Facebook page; oldsters, not so much.

Text messaging. With near 100% cell phone market penetration, you’d think that text messaging would be huge. For instance, 77% of the public had heard about contributing to Haiti earthquake relief via their cell phones and 36% indicated willingness to contribute this way. But there is a huge generational divide. While 13-14% of the X and Yers contribute by phone, only 4% of Boomers do.

Social Events. Younger people tend to prefer social events such as 5K runs and galas. Older individuals who participate in galas tend to be gala goers, not long term prospects for donations (“I want to be seen with the right people.”) Younger people tend to give/buy spontaneously without much forethought. By comparison, older donors like to do research before they invest (think Consumer Reports and charity watchdogs), hence social events provide a bit of peer pressure to get more from younger audiences.

Direct Mail. Direct Mail is still one of the best channels for reaching people. DM earned attention—and money—from almost 100% of the Boomers, 43% of the Xers and 26% of the Yers in the last year. The age divide continues: Individuals born before 1965 voiced a strong preference for direct mail; people born after 1965 preferred web sites.

It goes on and on. Today’s multi-channel environment demands that marketers find new ways to determine response rates and ROI. We’ve figured that much out.

We haven’t figured out how to compute the value of internet vs DM (direct mail) vs WoM (word of mouth) vs text messaging vs Social Media vs special events, etc.

So many options. So few facts.

Like so many things, it used to be simpler.

Give me a hug. I need one.

Charity Begins at Home

Old timers like me are generous donors to charities. Maybe it’s because we have more available funds, maybe because it’s become an ingrained lifestyle decision honed over decades of generosity. But recent statistics show that Baby Boomers—born 1946 to 1964—give $901 a year to 5.2 groups. We're exceeded only by older siblings and parents who give an average of $1066 a year to 6.3 charities.

So what kind of role models were we to our children? The study says we did OK!

Gen Xers—born 1965 to 1980—give on average $796 to 4.2 organizations a year, and the youngsters out there, the Gen Yers—born 1981 to 1991—give $341 to 3.6 groups a year.

Hence, as people age their charitable contributions increase, as do the number of charities they support. What is also changing is the number of ways nonprofits can approach donors.

Gen X and Gen Y combined now make up more than half of the available pool of potential donors, and they don’t seem to have the “brand loyalty” that their seniors do. So figuring out how to reach these upwardly mobile donors—and keep them donating!—is critical to nonprofits.

There used to be a limited number of tried-and-true ways to reach and influence potential contributors. The explosion of social media and the internet has made that effort exponentially more difficult. Now it gets really complicated.

Retail. Just over half of all age groups say they have made contributions at the grocery or retail store, but older folk still prefer to receive their information through direct mail. Younger folk have a variety of paths from which they get information, and no single channel predominates.

Internet. 35% of the Xers had gone on a charity’s web site to make a contribution as had 29% of the Yers in the past 2 years. What had gotten them to that website in the first place is still TBD.

Social Media. 36% of those under 30 years old said they had shared information about a charity with friends in the past month and 29% posted information on a nonprofit organization on their own Facebook page.

Text messaging. Text messaging is gaining wide acceptance. 77% said they had heard about opportunities to contribute to Haiti earthquake relief via their cell phones and 36% indicated their willingness to make a cell phone contribution. But there is a generational divide. Cell phones generated contributions from 13-14% of the X and Yers, but only 4% from the Boomers.

Social Events. Younger people tend to like social events such as 5K runs and galas. They also are generous volunteers. On the other hand, they tend to give simply because they are asked to do so and without conducting much research. By comparison, older donors like to know how much of the donation goes to overhead expenses.

Direct Mail. Still a very viable tool, Direct Mail got attention —and money— from 43% of the Xers and 26% of the Yers in the last year. Individuals born before 1965 voiced a strong preference for direct mail; people born after 1965 preferred web sites.

As the number of donation avenues increases, the old metrics of nonprofit fund tracking is becoming obsolete. An individual may have first learned about a nonprofit from a friend who directed the individual to a Facebook page which got him to a website. Or it may have come from an invitation to join in a 5K, an overhead public service announcement, an ad in a newspaper or even a direct mail solicitation.

The multi-channel nature of today’s giving environment necessitates a more global perspective on response rates and specific media ROI. Nonprofits have figured that much out. Nonprofits haven’t figured out how to compute the value of various input sources: internet vs DM (direct mail) vs WoM (word of mouth) vs text messaging vs Social Media vs special events, etc.

The world is changing. If you don’t know what is working, you don’t know why it’s working and then you don’t know how you can make it better.

Like so many things, it used to be simpler.

Easy Does It! Maybe.

It’s summer again. Children—young and old—are kicking back lemonades and heading to the beach to squish sand between their toes once again.

Colorful tattoos are appearing in places that weren’t even visible two months ago. Haircuts and skirts are shorter; nylons are history and neckties aren’t far behind.

Monday-to-Friday is now Monday to Friday-ish. People start wandering out the door at noon, only to reappear on Monday with a deep tan and a zen-like air of serene relaxation about them.

Nothing is hurried. It’s too hot to rush, anyway. Everybody has gone into “vacation mode.”

But maybe there’s too much of a good thing.

Studies show that students lose two and a half months of their hard-earned math skills over the summer break which is, conveniently, two and a half months. Hmmm. How about that. A one-to-one correlation between “time away” and “information lost.”

Now translate that to marketing. A lot of the effort of marketing is simply keeping your name, your brand, your message in front of your clients, donors or prospects.

Consider McDonald’s. Mickey D spends millions of dollars a week just to remind us that they are there. They just want to keep their name in our consciousness.

Focus group of one: when I get thirsty, I head to Mickey D’s for the unsweetened ice tea. So as I was driving through the line today to get my daily tea fix, I spotted a new menu item: Real Fruit Frosties. Sounds yummy. I passed it by today, but I can almost guarantee that lunch one day next week will be a Real Fruit Frostie. I’ll be fantasizing about that frostie for days until I can’t resist any more. Their ads won’t let me forget. That’s good marketing.

Why is your business any different? If your clients/donors don’t hear from you for two and a half months, that’s a lot of time lost. You’re out of sight, out of mind. You’re losing market share simply by wearing your summertime cloak of invisibility.

Taking it easy now is fun, but do you really want to have to rebuild your business again in the fall?

Use the summer to stay in touch with a newsletter, an email or a postcard. Use social media, text messaging and PURLs to let them know what you are doing and why it is important to them.

You’ll be top of the mind, and poised for business when the time is right.

And that’s even better than a long weekend at the beach.

What were you thinking?

Dear Marketing Commando,

I’m so sorry that your new marketing effort was not successful. No, let’s be real. I’m sorry it bombed.

I know that it was important to your organization. Yes, I’m sure it cost a lot of money.

And yes, I feel your panic. After all, you ran the program.

But that’s jumping ahead.

Three months ago you came to us and asked what we could suggest to boost your direct mail marketing. The old #10-with-an-indicia package was getting stale. You wanted professional help to revive your marketing, so you brought it to us.

We suggested that changing your package size and shape might improve response rates as it has for others. Using a larger invitation-style envelope and a “live” stamp would differentiate your package. An elegant calligraphy font would complete the invitation look.

So far so good. But that’s when things went horribly wrong.

You decided to do the job by yourself—to “Go Commando”—to save money. I cautioned that you’d probably pay more because you did not know the postal regulations and you did not have the production expertise we could provide. But nope, you were sure you could do it.

So with the self-confidence borne of years of inexperience, you skewered yourself.

Let me cut you a bit of slack. You were new at this job; you wanted to make a big impression on your boss. And boy, did you! I guess you’ve solved part of the problem because now you’re looking for a new boss, though I bet this effort won’t be featured on your new resume’. But that’s another story for another day.

Commando Newbie, you made errors that only years of production experience or listening to someone with years of production experience could have prevented. Since you preferred to go it alone, let me share a few of the finer points that you missed.

Bad call #1.
First you called the post office for guidance. After all, their advice was free; ours had a price. Sometimes you get what you pay for.

Anyway, the Post Office will give you good information if you ask the right question. Too bad you didn’t explain exactly what you were doing. So you asked a misleading question and got wrong information in return. Chalk that up to inexperience.

Following USPS addressing protocol is important. However, while using all caps may work with Times Roman or Arial, it makes no sense at all in an ornate calligraphy font. Bet you won’t make that mistake again, eh?

Pity the poor postmen. Your envelopes were almost unreadable, but you were in compliance with postal addressing regulations. You gotta feel good about that at least.

Bad call #2.
Then you turned to another expert—your younger sister’s boyfriend who is a sophomore graphics student at the university. He gave you good graphic advice: keep the font consistent throughout the package to help “brand” your message.

So he took your copy and converted it all into the elaborate calligraphy script. The result looked like medieval monks hyped up on caffeine had prepared your letters. You gotta thank the monks for their attention to the mail merge personalization details, though. It added a lovely time-travel quality to the letter.

By the way, did you really expect your audience to read two pages of calligraphy? Apparently you did. Maybe you should have tried to read it first, though.

One more thought on this subject: Sophomores got their reputation for being sophomoric for a reason. Understand why now? You were supposed to be smarter.

Bad call #3.
You asked your brother-in law, the printer, to print this package for you in his spare time. It was a great deal; he’d charge you for the paper only. Unfortunately for you, what should have taken days to print took weeks.

Granted, it cost you next to nothing to print. And that is what it ultimately produced: next to nothing. But that’s jumping ahead a bit.

Bad call #4.
You had never considered how you were going to assemble the packages. But by now you were in-for-a-penny, in-for-a-pound. So you called everybody you had ever met at church, at work, on the subway on the way to work, and the nice homeless men at the corner.

Your rag tag stuffing crew took another two weeks to get the piece folded, inserted, stamped, sealed and in the mail. Unfortunately, between the food you had to provide to keep them coming back night after night, and the minimum wage they required, their efforts cost a bundle.

Bad call #5.
You tried to send the mail out at a presorted rate, but that didn’t go your way, either. You couldn’t figure out postage rules, so you ended up mailing the job at First Class just to stop the pain.

As the accused often passively say, “mistakes were made.”

I don’t want to sound like a curmudgeon, but I warned you. Maybe direct mail is not as tricky as launching a military offensive, but there are a thousand details. Details that only years of hands-on experience can prepare you for. And quite frankly, you weren’t ready.

In a nutshell, the job failed because you, dear Commando Go-it-Alone, blew it. You grabbed defeat from the jaws of victory. You jumped into the abyss without guidance, without pre-planning, without a net. If you had listened to people who do this regularly, it might have been a better career choice.

Get what you pay for

The third rule of economics is simple: You get what you pay for. It’s been an immutable economic fact of nature. Until now. In a blink of an eye, technology took over and the rule changed.

TV has Tivo. Consumers can avoid those pesky commercials with a click of the button. That 30-minute show turns into a commercial-free 22 minutes just like that! 8 minutes saved! I love my Tivo. Of course, those commercials paid for that programming, but what the heck?!

OK, someone has to be watching the commercials that keep my shows on the air. But it isn’t me. Not any more.

Newspapers and Magazines are also seeing dramatically dwindling ad sales. The lucky ones find buyers or mergers. The less lucky ones go the way of the late lamented Gourmet.

The inventive survivors look for alternative income streams like paid on-line subscriptions (not gaining much traction yet) or ads (annoying, but necessary) or pay-for-special-features promotions (too early to tell).

In an act of solidarity with those who produce the written word, I send magazine subscriptions to family and friends at the holidays. I’m not sure my tiny “Atta Boy” is worth much in the great scheme of things financially to the publishers, but it makes me feel better about canceling my daily newspaper subscription two years ago.

You see, I couldn’t read the paper during my daily commute-by-car, and the ever-growing pile of newspaper carcasses impeded anyone from sitting in my passenger seat. So now I read the paper on the internet at lunch. For Free! A world-class newspaper for Free! It’s one of life’s real bargains. Thank goodness for the advertisers and readers who keep it afloat for me every day. I love you guys!

The internet—the technological instrument of destruction for thousands of magazines and newspapers—didn’t get it at first either. Obtrusive pop-up ads alienated viewers, then pay-for-click evolved. But this is still TBD, and the technology is evolving daily—just ask the SEO guys who are always scrambling to keep up. Do I do my part to underwrite this world-changing media? Probably not. My husband is doing more than enough. I’ll sit this one out, too.

My favorite NPR and PBS stations, realizing that they can get on board or get run over, are broadcasting on the internet, sending shows to anyone anywhere with a computer. They also podcast, webcast, simulcast and recast. And yes, hosts are on FaceBook and Twitter, too. Twice a year they ask for a donation which I am happy to fork over. I’d pay for those real-time traffic alerts, even without the extraordinary content.

So, like most of us, I pay for the media I most value, and hope someone else will pick up the bill for the other guys. With my Tivo I can watch TV and skip the commercials. With my internet connection I can read the newspaper I once subscribed to and ignore the ads that pay for it. I can listen to my NPR and PBS stations with no cash outlay should I choose to do so. It is obvious to me that technology is rewriting the third law of economics. Today, I can get what I don’t pay for.

What is less obvious is that mail is a medium, too—like TV, newspapers, radio, internet. Way before Al Gore thought of the internet, Ben Franklin was putting the post office together. Hence, direct marketing is one of the oldest media around, and is so institutionalized it is easy to overlook. But very time I put a stamp on a letter I’m helping to pay for it.

Direct Mail has been hammered by time and technology, too. Email has almost wiped out whole classes of Mail. The escalating cost of postage is a significant damper in its own right. But now comes “Do Not Mail” legislation—ostensibly a “green” movement upset over destruction of trees.

I’m probably the greenest person you’ll meet today, but I think this legislation, though well intended, is in fact destructive.

Recently Postmaster General John Potter took on proponents of “Do Not Mail” legislation, citing that advertising mail helps fund the USPS.

“Somehow, they think a sale offer coming through the mail—as opposed to a newspaper, a magazine, TV, radio or the Internet—is a bad thing” he said at the National Press Club. “Ads pay for the Internet as well as broadcast TV and radio programs. So, too, ad mail helps pay for universal mail service in America.”

That’s right: DNM threatens universal mail service.

Most of us love—and expect—universal mail service. It’s our right to get mail, even if it’s an envelope from ValPak chock-a-block with ads from maid services, tree surgeons and power washers. That blue envelope helps buoy up the US Postal system in a way that the monthly bill from the cable provider who rents me the Tivo can’t.

The volume of the advertising mail helps keep USPS numbers high. Ad mail doesn’t have to be delivered at a breakneck pace, giving the USPS opportunity to plan distribution and maximize delivery efficiencies. Hence, robust advertising mail numbers are vital to USPS financial health.

But mail volume is down by about 28 billion pieces in FY 2009—driven down by postage, by the internet, by the economy, by dire doom-and-gloom forecasts, by home foreclosures, and by a series of sequential well-reported economic disasters and expensive bailbouts. So despite slashing 40,000 jobs and trimming $6 billion from its costs this year, the USPS lost $3 billion.

Everyone knows the USPS can’t lose money like this forever. But everyone also expects to dependably receive mail. That’s what universal mail service is all about. It’s a given. Like the third rule of economics.

But today technology is voiding the third rule of economics. DNM could nix universal mail service just as effectively.