Letters to the Editor

[Re: “Direct Mail Takes a Beating in Vertis Survey”, Direct Newsline, April 3.]

I have to say, Ray, I’m a little surprised at your interpretation of the data presented in the Vertis survey.

It should be no surprise that if you ask someone how they feel about direct mail, there is a very strong likelihood that they’ll say they don’t like it. But that’s because most people (not in the business) equate “direct mail” with the stuff they don’t respond to. On the other hand, ask them where they shop, and more often than not, they’ll rattle off the catalogs they buy from. Ask them how they subscribed to their favorite magazines, and they’ll describe responding to a DM subscription offer or a blow-in. Ask them how they got their credit cards, and there’s a good chance they’ll admit (if they remember at all) that it was from a DM offer.

People generally don’t think of the DM they do respond to as “direct mail.” They don’t perceive well targeted, relevant promotions they receive in the mail as “direct mail.” Just the ones they perceive as irrelevant, insipid and/or badly targeted.

In our in-house training programs, I stress to our new employees that our job is to make sure our clients and users of our compiled and managed data do the best possible job of targeting their offers to people who will perceive them as targeted and relevant. Accurate segmentation, smart selections, sophisticated modeling are just some of the tools we use to help them do that. More are on the way. If we are effective, we may — in time — change consumer perception of what direct mail really is. But that’s not really our mission; getting maximum response is. And response rates, we’ve learned, are not necessarily connected to consumer perception.

Going a step further, the article makes a point that people don’t view direct mail “as the medium most likely to influence their buying decisions.” As my daughter would say, “Duh…no kidding.” Is anyone in the business really surprised at that? DM stimulates an impulse buy or response. It often triggers the desire for something; if the desire is already there, DM may present a means of quick, easy and pleasurable fulfillment. Again, it is successful when the direct marketer — and his or her broker or manager — do a good job of targeting…of inferring that certain people based on demographics, psychographics and/or transaction history have a fully formed or latent desire for something.

I have no problem with you assuming responsibility for anchoring us to reality by pointing out the problems in our industry. But let’s focus on the real problems direct mail faces; let’s not damn the medium for what it is not, and was never meant to be.

Some of the numbers presented in the study are downright silly. You make a point that only 10% or survey respondent said they read all the advertising mail available to them.” So who reads all the ads in a magazine or pays attention to all the commercials on TV or radio? I’d bet that 10% is a comparatively good number.

You then go on to state that “38% indicated they occasionally read it (compared with 42% in 2001)” and that the percentage of those who never read it jumped from 23% in 2001 to 27%.” OK. Tell me, was there an increase in the volume they received? That would make a big difference in the conclusion you would draw. But more importantly, one of the first rules about DM I ever learned was that the number of non-readers of DM is actually irrelevant. The only truly relevant number is the number and percentage of respondents. Which, believe it or not, may also not be a function at all of how many refuse to even read it.

Finally, it’s interesting that your article was followed by other articles on Jos. A. Banks and Sharper Image, two organizations that apply an effective direct mail marketing model well, and are reporting excellent numbers in even these toughest of times.

Donn Rappaport
Chairman/CEO
American List Counsel
Princeton, NJ