“Lavelle Pepper with the post office in Shreveport says they too are feeling the affects of the same disease hitting the country… a struggling economy. ‘We employ about 685,000 people. If we do layoffs it would include clerks, carriers, mail handlers across all crafts.’”

“Pepper says the postal service is looking to eliminate 40,000 jobs nationwide. There’s not an exact number on how many of those could be from the Ark-La-Tex. Pepper says workers who are not part of union with six or less years of service would likely be the first on the chopping block. ‘We’ve identified 16 thousand people that are not covered under contract. We’ll see what those numbers add up to.’”

Meanwhile, on the usually well-regarded Mish’s Global Economic Trend Analysis, blogger Mish Shedlock mentions the story and then comments “I certainly am in favor of this.”

Really? I certainly am not.

How is anyone helped by the loss of 40,000 postal jobs? Or 40,000 jobs in any field? How is the country made better?

If 40,000 people lose their jobs that means a lot of local communities will see an increase in unemployment costs and foreclosures. A lot of households and families will suffer. Home values — even for Mish’s home — will fall as the inventory of locally-foreclosed properties increases. There will be fewer people to pay taxes meaning higher taxes for those who do pay or reduced public services.

And no, people cannot just be instantly retrained.

We have to change the way we think. Given that two-thirds of our economy is based on consumer spending we ought to hope that everyone has a job and that everyone has access to education and training so they can get a better job. Alternatively, if we favor lots and lots of job losses we’ll soon have an economy where most of the population will live in poverty or something close to it. That sure doesn’t sound like fun and anyone who has been to a poor country would agree.

Until this point the Postal Service has generally reduced its workforce through attrition and retirements — in other words, without layoffs. The Federal Times has reported that this policy MAY change with the elimination of 250 jobs at headquarters.

Moreover, in July the Postal Service sought a Voluntary Early Retirement Authority (VERA) from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Note the expression Voluntary Early Retirement. Not lay-offs. Not firings. Rather a continuation of past policies.

There is a huge difference between 40,000 voluntary separations and a reported 250 lay-offs. This is not to say that 250 job losses are somehow good, but rather that no one is thinking in terms of 40,000 lay-offs.

Indeed, the Postal Service has just issued this statement:

“A news story currently in wide circulation is reporting that the Postal Service will soon layoff 40,000 employees. This story is not accurate. Originating out of Shreveport, LA, the story does quote a Postal Service spokesperson. Unfortunately, that spokesperson was in error. The Postal Service is not laying off employees. Efforts to match our workforce to a reduced workload are focused on voluntary early retirements. Voluntary early retirement has been offered to a number of employees and to date, 3,685 employees have accepted the offer.”

Technorati Tags: attrition, lay-offs, Mail & Jobs, retirement

Figures from the Federal Reserve show that “the number of checks paid in the United States has fallen from 42 billion in 2001, to 37 billion in 2003, and to 30 billion in 2006.”

Whoops. That’s 12 billion checks that vanished in just five years. You can bet that the trend continues and that future reports will show even fewer paper-based checks in 2008 and beyond.

Why is this a mailstream matter? Why are postal jobs at stake? Should the Postal Service be concerned?

In many cases the reduction in check volume reflects the increased use of electronic deposits. If this means that a foreman no longer goes around the plant floor on a Friday giving out envelopes then we do not have a postal issue in the sense of deliveries and such.

But many checks are sent through the mails. It’s difficult to imagine that we have 12 billion fewer checks and no mail volume reduction. Okay, it’s impossible to imagine.

The Postal Service and the mailer community cannot undo either progress or technology. But the question ought to be asked: If the volume represented by checks — those checks that really are in the mail — is being reduced, then what new volume is being created?

This is the essential issue for the mailer community. As postal volume declines and fixed expenses largely remain, increased hard costs per piece must be absorbed by remaining users. As prices per piece rise the incentive to avoid the postal system grows.

What to do? The Postal Service needs to demonstrate why paper-based communication and exchange have value in the electronic era. There’s a good argument to be made — if only someone would make it.

Technorati Tags: checks, mail, Mail & Jobs, mailstream, postal, volume

“The Christian Science Monitor,” says the paper, “plans major changes in April 2009 that are expected to make it the first newspaper with a national audience to shift from a daily print format to an online publication that is updated continuously each day.

“The changes at the Monitor will include enhancing the content on CSMonitor.com, starting weekly print and daily e-mail editions, and discontinuing the current daily print format.”

In rough terms, the Christian Science Monitor has a circulation between 75,000 to 100,000 papers a day. This circulation is primarily distributed through the mailstream but times are changing.

The paper says that “producing a website that can be updated 24/7 and delivered instantaneously ‘better fulfills Mrs. Eddy’s original vision’ for the Monitor to be daily than does a five-day-a-week paper delivered by mail with frequent delays.”

Let’s go to the numbers.

Imagine that the CSM has a circulation of 87,500 papers a day and most of it’s delivered by mail. Imagine as well that in a year there are roughly 260 weekday deliveries. This means a potential distribution of as many as 22,750,000 papers annually.

The real number of papers moving through the mails is likely smaller but the point is this: By going from a daily print paper to a weekly, and by shifting to a news product which is largely web-based, there is less mail volume.

This is not good for the Postal Service, not good for jobs within the postal system and it may be implausible for most newspapers.

It’s difficult to see how newspapers can win in this situation. The Washington Post, as one example, just reported third quarter numbers. Revenue from the newspaper division, said the company, “totaled $196.2 million for the third quarter of 2008, a decrease of 7% from $210.2 million in the third quarter of 2007; division revenue decreased 9% to $599.6 million for the first nine months of 2008, from $657.2 million for the first nine months of 2007.” Such revenue, after various charges, produced an operating loss of $82.7 million in the third quarter.

Now look at the Post’s online operations:

“Revenue generated by the Company’s online publishing activities, primarily washingtonpost.com, increased 13% to $30.8 million for the third quarter of 2008, from $27.2 million for the third quarter of 2007; online revenues increased 8% to $87.2 million in the first nine months of 2008, from $80.5 million for the first nine months of 2007. Display online advertising revenue grew 32% and 20% for the third quarter and first nine months of 2008, respectively. Online classified advertising revenue on washingtonpost.com declined 8% in the third quarter of 2008, and was down 2% for the first nine months of 2008. A small portion of the Company’s online publishing revenues is included in the magazine publishing division.”

By any standard $87 million in nine months is a bunch of money — but it’s not enough to fund the Post’s news gathering operations at their current level of quality, volume and expertise.

You can see the dilemma here: Newspapers need print distribution for the foreseeable future because paper-based products produce vastly higher revenues than online sites. The Postal Service needs newspapers, magazines and newsletters to continue as print publications because otherwise it will lose billions of pieces per year in volume. Everyone needs a strong Postal Service because of the jobs it represents nationwide. At the same time, declining circulation and mounting losses make print-based products increasingly difficult to justify for financial reasons.

You can bet that newspaper executives will be watching the Christian Science Monitor — at least to see if its new distribution plan has a prayer. And folks with an interest in the mailstream will be watching too.

Technorati Tags: Mail & Jobs, newspaper, online, post office, postal, Postal Service, transition

Do MOST marketers want to get rid of direct mail? Is that what “MOST” marketers say? Where is the poll or survey to support such a claim? If that is what MOST marketers think, then why is it that marketers spent $61 billion advertising through the mails in 2007 — and $43 billion with newspapers?

Can it be true that “environmentalists” universally oppose the use of advertising mail? How can that be? According to their 2005 tax returns, the National Audubon Society spent $2,701,028 for fundraising postage and shipping; the National Resources Defense Council spent $1,147,114 on postage and shipping for fundraising — and raised $518,164 renting lists; and the National Wildlife Federation spent $1,516,178 on postage and shipping for fundraising, paid $185,736 to purchase list rental services and raised $916,034 from list royalties.

When asked about his group’s use of mail, Peter Bahouth, then executive director at Greenpeace, told ABC News long ago that “accusing environmental groups of paper pollution is a bit like saying that we need to get the ambulances off the street because they’re loud.”

Which major environmental group does not mail? Which major environmental group only uses websites and email? Does the Times believe that electronic media are environmentally pure?

And what about saving trees?

“Deforestation in the United States, rampant in the 19th century has stopped,” says The New York Times. “Forested acreage of the country began rising in the 20th century, and is still rising. Why? Wood is no longer a primary fuel, while high-yield agriculture allowed millions of acres to be retired from farming and returned to trees.” (See: There Goes the Neighborhood, January 30, 2005)

If the Times is concerned about saving trees, then should it not give readers the option to receive the paper without advertising inserts? Wouldn’t that save a lot of trees? And isn’t it true that the Times itself uses direct mail to market subscriptions? If yes, is the Times going to stop its direct mail efforts?

Since when did it become appropriate for The New York Times to disparage a competitive media by using the pejorative and derogatory term “junk mail” instead of direct marketing or ad mail?

As the Times itself says in its 2007 annual report, “most of our revenues are from advertising. We face formidable competition for advertising revenue in our various markets from free and paid newspapers, magazines, Web sites, television and radio, other forms of media, direct marketing and the Yellow Pages. Competition from these media and services affects our ability to attract and retain advertisers and consumers and to maintain or increase our advertising rates.”

“Magazines and newspapers have been at war with advertising mailers for a long time — ever since the mailers began siphoning ad dollars away from publications,” says The Washington Post. “Indeed, newspaper editorialists invented the term ‘junk mail’ in the early 1950s, according to Richard Kielbowicz, an associate professor of communications as the University of Washington, Seattle, and an expert on postal rate issues.” (See: The Junk Mail Plague: You Can Run But You Can’t Hide, April 22, 1991)

The Times reports that the direct mail business was “vilified even before global warming became a hot topic.”

Exactly who vilified direct mail?

“A number of foreign postal administrations deliver unaddressed advertising mail, and U.S. postal officials toyed with the idea as long ago as the 1950s,” according to The Washington Post. “The agency was not independent of the White House at the time and the Eisenhower administration rejected the proposal after a year-long test. It had come under attack by the newspaper industry, which coined the phrase ‘junk mail.’” (See: Special Delivery for ‘Junk Mail,‘ August 18, 1995)

If the Times would like to present its readers with an informed discussion of direct mail and the environment, that’s fine. Hopefully it will mention the 8,300,000 jobs and the $1.2 trillion in products and services anchored by the mailstream. Hopefully it will want to explain what their loss would mean to our country. Hopefully it will discuss how many people want to close their local post offices because of environmental concerns.

Unfortunately, an informed discussion is not possible when advertising mail is first slammed with a prejudicial term invented by commercial competitors and then saddled with one-sided claims of environmental damage. The Times owes an apology to its readers.

Technorati Tags: advertising, conflict, coverage, history, media, newspapers, spending

Given that mail is used by virtually all environmental, consumer and nonprofit groups, it should be fairly obvious that mail has a minimal environmental impact. That said, no product or service is without impact, so it makes sense to ask two questions: How does mail relate to green concerns and how can the environmental impact of mail be reduced?

Pitney Bowes has now comes out with an interesting discussion of such issues. Entitled The Environmental Impact of Mail: A Baseline, the 30-page report looks at such matters as CO2 emissions, carbon footprints, forest acreage, landfill use and related topics.

One item that struck me as interesting was CO2 generation. The U.S. annually produces 20.1 tons of C02 per person. How much of that is from the production and distribution of mail?

To get the answer we first need to convert tons into grams: For instance, according to the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility there are 909,091 grams of lead in a one ton, so 20.1 tons would equal 18,272,729.1 grams.

We can then look at mail. As the Pitney Bowes study explains:

“The USPS delivers about 515 letters per capita per year. Using a general estimate of 25 grams of CO2 per letter generated within the postal value chain and the worst case scenario of 50 grams of CO2 per letter, the distribution of these letters generates 13 – 26 kg of CO2 per capita.”

Let’s see, in one kilogram there are 1,000 grams, so 13 to 26 kilograms would equal 13,000 to 26,000 kilograms.

The sum of 26,000 goes into 18,272,729.1 a total of 702.797 times.

Seen the other way, 26,000 equals 0.001422 of 18,272,729.1.

The idea of the Pitney Bowes study is not that mail is without environmental impact, but rather that mail has a minimal green cost; efforts should be made to reduce such impact as mail has even further; and that all products and services — including email — have an environmental cost.

No less important, environmental costs must be balanced against the benefits produced by a given product or service.

No product or service has a zero impact and mail represents some 8,300,000 jobs nationwide. Given the minimal environmental cost of mail does it make sense to lose jobs in every neighborhood and community and to close local post offices in the quest for environmental perfection — something which can never be achieved?

Responsible environmental groups all have the same answer: They mail.

A copy of the study is available by pressing here.

Technorati Tags: benefits, CO2, costs, environment, grams, green, mail, tons

For the past few years the mail, and by implication the Postal Service, has been under attack. Although strategic and targeted responses have kept state do-not-mail laws from being passed or moving forward, the Postal Service and the people who depend upon the Postal Service, are losing the battle to win the hearts and minds of American consumers.

Recently, the Postmaster General announced that he had created a new position — the Vice President of Sustainability. The Postal Service is developing and sharing with its work force fact sheets that discuss the Postal Service’s accomplishments in “being green,” the value of the mail, and ways consumers can “manage their mail.” Personally, I do not think this is enough.

I think the Postal Service needs a Vice President of Survival. Just in case I get a chance to interview for the job, here is what I would tell the Postal Service it needs to do.

The Postal Service cannot let the dialogue focus around issues of “consumer choice” or the “environment.” The more time we spend talking about the mail in these terms, the more we pay homage to the buzzwords of those who don’t care if the Postal Service and the jobs it anchors survive.

Even if the Postal Service tries to do damage control and stay out of the fray by saying, “We just deliver,” this argument or position is also a loser. It’s too passive.

Big Brown and Dominos deliver. The Postal Service needs to focus, and get out the word, about what makes the Postal Service special.

The Postal Service needs to be LOUD and PROUD about its mission. If I were the Vice President of Survival, I would be a mail missionary. I would make it my job to persuade postal stakeholders, including customers, consumers, the labor force and others to become mail missionaries.

The Postal Service has a Constitutional mission to connect the country together. It is the only free access, universal communication channel. The Postal Service is sender-supported. There are no subscription or access fees.

The Postal Service runs on volume. On print and paper.

Any attack on mail volumes, print or paper, whether in the form of a law or a consumer movement that would curtail mail volume, would destroy the Postal Service and its ability to deliver on its mission.

Here are the messages that the Postal Service should be promoting. Let me make it clear. These are not lobbying messages. They are messages about the critical, country-connecting mission of the Postal Service.

1. Free Speech. Mailers have a right to send a message to all consumers as long as they pay the postage. There is no “right” to opt-out or choose what mail you want or do not want to receive. The right to send is part of the economic underpinning of the right to have access for free.

2. Economic Equity and Affordable Service. The Postal Service delivers mail and packages to a lot of people who depend upon mail delivery. Frequently these people receive very little mail but the mail they get is important to them. The housebound person who shops by mail, the senior who gets prescription drugs by mail, and the many households who get benefit checks, or payments by mail that are essential for their rent, food and expenses, are postal dependents.

The ability of the USPS to reach all households affordably and regularly is paid for by postage payers who want to reach all consumers and businesses. Much of the volume that underwrites the Postal Service’s network is advertising mail.

Any law, or consumer movement, that would give consumers a choice or incentive to opt out of the mail, or “redline” their mailbox, is elitist. There are a lot of “haves” in this country who get mail advertising from many sources. Most of these “haves” are wired, have cable, computers, Blackberrys, and Palm Pilots.

The “haves” do not need the Postal Service lifeline to get goods, services, and communications. Giving the well-connected upper crust some right to declare their mailbox a “gated community” will discriminate against the rates and services available to those who do not have so many communication choices.

3. Unrestricted Mail Promotes A Free Market System and More Jobs. The Postal Service has helped numerous small businesses get in business and stay in business.

The Postal Service helps businesses of all sizes with new products, services, and a way to reach consumers with “a better mouse trap.” For the past 25 years I have worked with an organization of small business advertisers. I have heard their testimonials about how coupons, shared mail packages, and classified ads in free papers help them get in business and stay in business. The mail remains the most democratic and accessible way a small business service provider, retailer, home-based business, or handyperson can target and reach a small-to-large audience.

I remember the story of a recently-divorced woman who lost everything and only knew how to clean houses. She sent a coupon in the mail to some well-heeled communities offering her services. What would have happened to her if these “we’ve-got-enough-mail-thank-you” households had declared their mailbox off-limits to mail paid for by senders?

America’s economic growth has historically been fueled by consumer spending. Anything that hurts or limits the rights of businesses to reach existing and potential customers hurts the American economy as a whole. It will hurt America’s small businesses, self-employed, and home service businesses the most. These are the businesses that are most dependent upon affordable and locally targeted mail.

Advertising is the fuel that helps businesses get in business and stay in business. You cannot just “build it” and hope they come. As a consumer, there are lots of great products and ideas I would never have discovered but for the coupons, catalogs, and mail offers that come to my door.

4. Mail Is Good. Mail shopping is fun and environmentally friendly. Lots of people like to shop. With the high cost of gas, traffic congestion, and the press of time, window shopping and mall-walking is not always possible. I would urge the Postal Service to promote and partner with the mailing industry about the pleasures of clipping coupons, cruising through catalogs, and finding values in circulars and shoppers.

The Postal Service should NOT be shaping its message by consumer opinion polls. If the Postal Service believes it has a mission, and believes it is doing the right thing, start telling people why. Create and share your message and story based on your own convictions.

What do I think makes the Postal Service special?

The Postal Service has REACH. The Postal Service’s ability to serve all, affordably and regularly, depends upon its ability to reach all.

The Postal Service, and the industry, needs to stop playing defense.

The Postal Service is driving America’s greenest, most democratic and affordable, SUV. That stands for SERVICE that is UNIVERSAL and VOLUME supported.

The Postal Service has a national network, touching and connecting all, that’s powered by print products and paper.

It is time for the Postal Service to start being LOUD and PROUD.

Technorati Tags: marketing survival, Postal Service

According to the paper each individual will receive 560 pieces of ad mail each year; 10.8 pieces per week; and it notes that 42 percent of all pulpwood is made into paper,

Let’s see, mail is generally delivered six days a week and there are 52 weeks a year so that means there are 312 delivery days annually. Less federal holidays, maybe 300 delivery days a year. So, if 560 pieces of mail are delivered each year and there are 300 delivery days that means each day results in less than two pieces of ad mail per person.

This hardly sounds like a crisis.

As to the 10.8 pieces of ad mail per week, just how remarkable is it given that there are six delivery days in a typical week? Still less than two per day.

Then we see that 42 percent of all pulpwood is made into paper. Notice that pulpwood is made into “paper” and not just mail. So, for example, according to the EPA in 2006 there were 44,840,000 tons of paper and paperboard products produced — of which 12,360,000 tons were used to make newspapers and 5,890,000 tons were used to create advertising mail. (See: 2006 MSW Characterization Data Tables, EPA, table 4)

Here are some interesting facts the Winston-Salem Journal left out:

Newspapers compete with the mailstream for advertising dollars. As the Washington Post has explained, “magazines and newspapers have been at war with advertising mailers for a long time — ever since the mailers began siphoning ad dollars away from publications. Indeed, newspaper editorialists invented the term ‘junk mail’ in the early 1950s, according to Richard Kielbowicz, an associate professor of communications at the University of Washington, Seattle, and an expert on postal rate issues.” (See: The Junk Mail Plague: You Can Run But You Can’t Hide,” April 22, 1991.)

If the Journal wants to tell the whole story, it should plainly inform readers that it competes with mailers. It should say that the term “junk mail” is a slur developed by the newspaper community to disparage a commercial rival. It should note that newspapers, like advertising mail, are made from paper but that a significant percentage of both products are made from recycled materials.

The Journal should explain to readers that advertisers can market their goods and services through a variety of media. Advertisers, being lucid and logical, will not use media that does not produce results.

The use of ad mail has proven to be effective and efficient for many advertisers. If that were not the case, surely advertisers would take their dollars elsewhere.

And ad mail has value: The mailstream anchors 8,300,000 jobs nationwide and the production of goods and services worth $1.2 trillion annually. Is the economy so strong that we can do away with so many jobs inside our borders?

The Journal can do better than this. It needs to update its style manual to purge the term “junk mail” from its pages — or it needs to explain to readers how the term came about each and every time it is used.

Technorati Tags: advertising, mail, newspapers

“The recent increase in the cost of a first-class postage stamp from 41 cents to 42 cents was hardly surprising, compared to the increased in the cost of gasoline, food and just about everything else,” said the paper.

“It could have easily been avoided, however. All the U.S. Postal Service needs to do to drastically cut expenses and the necessity for several future postal-rate increases is one simple thing: Eliminate Saturday delivery.”

And why should Saturday deliveries be curtailed?

“Just think of the amount of fuel that would not be burned if mail were not delivered on Saturdays,” said the paper.

“Most people,” continued the Observer-Reporter, “communicate with friends and family by e-mail now. Many receive and pay bills online. Most of what arrives in the mailbox these days is just junk mail, anyway.”

The thought that the Postal Service could cut costs by ending Saturday deliveries is no different than suggesting that hospital expenses could be reduced if only the emergency room was shut down on weekends.

The Postal Service has a high percentage of fixed costs — all those people, vehicles and local post offices. If local post offices are closed on Saturdays it means there is less volume to support the system but many of the fixed costs remain in place — you still need a given number of people, vehicles and facilities to reach almost 150 million physical addresses.

The Observer-Reporter says “most of what arrives in the mailbox these days is just junk mail, anyway.” In other words, advertising mail.

How is paper-based advertising sent through the mailstream any different than paper-based advertising delivered by the Observer-Reporter? Would the Observer-Reporter agree that it could cut its costs and save paper if only it would not carry advertising inserts one day a week? Think of all the fuel used by delivery trucks that could be saved if the Observer-Reporter published less often. Would not such economies please owners and shareholders?

A lot of newspapers and magazines go through the mailstream. In fiscal 2007, according to the Postal Service, 8.8 billion newspapers and magazines were delivered by mail.

Many communication companies that publish newspapers also have subsidiaries to market through the mailstream. Indeed, many newspapers offer “Total Market Coverage” plans that include postal deliveries. Surely it would not be good for TMC programs if the local post office was shut down on Saturdays.

Some TMC programs are huge. The Newspaper Association of America says that 3,520,000 million piece per week are delivered in Los Angeles, 2,385,371 in Chicago and 570,000 in Miami.

If advertising through the mailstream is not effective or productive, does it not make sense that advertisers would go elsewhere? Should not the marketplace decide such issues? In fact, according to Robert Coen, senior vice president, director of forecasting with Universal McCann, the huge advertising agency, advertisers in the world, advertisers now spend more marketing through the mailstream than through newspapers.

In the December 2007 issue of his “Insider’s Report,” Coen said that advertisers spent $60.998 billion with mail marketing in 2007 versus $42.94 billion with newspapers.

Although the Observer-Reporter is surely concerned by 42 cent stamps it somehow fails to mention the rates paid by newspapers — 13.6 to 16.8 cents per piece, according to the Newspaper Association of America.

The fact is that the U.S. marketplace is vast and all forms of advertising should be welcomed and encouraged because they stimulate sales and create jobs. That’s good for the economy, good for local communities and good for readers in Washington, PA.

Technorati Tags: close, Coen, mail, newspapers, post offices, Saturdays, TMC, Total Market Coverage

To be polite, they are awful.

“The percentage of loans in the foreclosure process was 2.47 percent at the end of the first quarter, an increase of 43 basis points from the fourth quarter of 2007 and 119 basis points from one year ago,” says the MBA.

What do foreclosure numbers have to do with the mailstream?

The mailstream is a major source of jobs and economic activity in the U.S. — some 8,300,000 jobs inside our borders are anchored by the postal system. Goods and services worth $1.2 trillion annually are related to the existence of a reliable and competitive mail system.

But the mailstream does not exist in a vacuum. People who face vastly higher mortgage costs order less from catalogs and online. People who are losing their homes are not likely to be big buyers, online or off.

The truth is that our economy is a two-way street. Mail volume will be impacted by general economic trends — and general economic trends can be significantly hurt when mail volume declines.

Those who complain about advertising in the mailstream — but not the same advertisements, by the same advertisers, on the same paper which are distributed in other media — need to understand that large numbers of jobs will be lost if the mailstream contracts artificially because of inaccurate information, false claims and fake comparisons.

No kidding, this was an envelope sent by PowerOfEnvelopes.org and saturated with seeds. All you do is place the envelope in the ground, add water and Nature will take care of the rest.

We sometimes forget the envelopes provide important values in the communication process. Mail is a tactile medium that you can touch and hold. It offers the benefits of utility, economy, authenticity, and universality. Words on paper are real, and so are signatures and sentiments. Envelopes, in particular, convey privacy and security. They are socially inviolate.

In fact, research from the Envelope Manufacturers Association Foundation shows that:

___84% of consumers says envelopes leave a memorable impression.

___Three out of four people prefer bills when sent inside an envelope.

___Americans are three times more likely to pay attention to direct mail sent to their homes than to unsolicited email, Internet banners or pop-up ads, telephone calls, text messages and at-home visits combined.

As to that envelope I received, I have a great place in the garden which could use a few more flowers.

Technorati Tags: envelopes, flowers, mail, privacy, tactile