Somewhere, a list manager is being flogged.
No, no, hold your sympathy. There's no need to stay the hand that chastises someone who rented a 30-year-old name.
According to the Associated Press, Catherine Zenkus' wedding ring was returned to her 50 years after she'd lost it, thanks to what reports termed “junk mail.”
The ring had been lost in the early 1950s, when Zenkus' toddler toddled off with it. The ring didn't turn up until 2001, when it was discovered by John Fanuka, who now lives in what had been Zenkus' Northport, NY home.
But Fanuka wasn't able to return it in 2001. How could he, when the only clue to its rightful owner was an inscription on the ring that read “Kitty to Johnny — 3/31/51”?
There is a class of man that would immediately hock the ring for its metal value and head for the slots at the nearest casino. Fanuka is of the other class. After a phone-book search, queries to the home's previous owners and online searches didn't yield any clues, he put the ring in an envelope and stuck the envelope in a drawer.
Fast-forward to 2007. Fanuka received a direct mail solicitation addressed to Kitty Zenkus. That would be Catherine “Kitty” Zenkus, who hadn't lived in the house for more than 30 years. Fanuka remembered the ring, with its “Kitty” inscription. Now armed with a last name, Fanuka tracked her down and returned the ring.
All well and good. But the non-DM trade press missed the most important element of the story: How, exactly, did a 30-year-old name get into a list rental file?
Fanuka was unavailable to offer more information, such as what the offer was. This is a shame, because even basic facts about the mailing piece would have offered insight into who Zenkus is. And what a pity attitudinal segmentation is a relatively recent innovation. What might a truly targeted piece have revealed about her to Fanuka?
For instance, if the name was from a source compiled in the early 1950s, would the solicitation have reflected anti-Stalinist hysteria? Could it have been pulled from a list generated in the 1960s, and did the mailer address Zenkus in tones reflecting the experimentation going on in creative circles, or the political turbulence of the time? Was the source from the 1970s, and did it refer to the self-indulgence of the Me Decade, or the American malaise, as President Carter called it?
Did the piece address her as the woman in her 20s, 30s or 40s she was, or as the 74-year-old (according to the Associated Press; don't jump down my throat) woman she is now?
And above all, what sort of name is “Kitty” for a grown woman with a child?
Absent further comment from Fanuka, these questions will remain unanswered. But there is one certainty that arises from this story.
Somewhere, a list manager is being flogged.
W
For more of Richard H. Levey's Loose Cannon columns, visit http://directmag.com/opinions-columnists/loosecannon/index.html.
