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

The current interest in mail-order shopping is hardly new. Mail order has been popular for more than a century, in large measure because direct mail assures low prices nationwide.

In the 1880s, consumers outside major cities depended on local stores with small inventories. Such stores were free to charge whatever the market would bear, and since there was often no other nearby source of goods and supplies, consumers paid high prices for common
merchandise.

Not only were local stores expensive, they were inefficient. Because they only served a small number of consumers, they could not place large orders. Without large orders, local stores could not get volume discounts that could mean big savings to consumers.

Enter mail order. Aaron Montgomery Ward started his catalog business in 1872 while Richard Sears mailed his first fliers in the 1880s. For the first time consumers were no longer captive. They could get attractive goods and prices whether they lived in the middle of Manhattan or a remote rural setting.

The contest between mail-order houses and local stores centered on three major issues — price, inventory and assurances — the very factors which made mail order houses successful.

On the issue of price, there was little doubt that mail order goods could be competitive.

The postal system allowed direct-mail companies to operate on a national basis. With a customer base that potentially included anyone with a mailbox, catalog companies could order in bulk, obtain huge discounts and then pass the savings on to consumers.

To see how this system worked consider the cost of bicycles. In 1897, according to Made in the USA, a history of American business by Thomas V. DiBacco, bicycles were selling from $75 to $100 — at least until the public saw the Sears Roebuck catalog. Sears, which sold thousands of units per week, charged $5 to $19.75 depending on the model selected.

Not only did Sears sell bikes, it sold just about everything. In 1897, according to the History of the U.S. Postal Service, “Sears boasted it was selling four suits and a watch every minute, a buggy every ten minutes, and a revolver every two minutes.”

Some mailers became so large that rather than buying from a factory at discount, they simply bought suppliers or created their own. In-house suppliers allowed mail-order firms to cut costs even further.

Not only did consumers want low prices, they also wanted variety — 20 kinds of dresses rather than two. Here again, the enormous volume generated by leading mail order houses made huge inventories not only possible but also practicable.

But price and variety, while important, have only limited value if the goods themselves are shoddy or poorly-made. So the mail-order firms protected consumers with powerful guarantees.

Montgomery Ward was one of the first companies to offer a money-back guarantee, and the Sears Roebuck pledge of “satisfaction guaranteed or your money back” is one of the best-known commitments in American business.

Today the marketplace has changed and so has mail-order marketing. Now firms of every size use mail order and the result has profoundly changed the American marketplace:

• Prices must be competitive regardless of location. If a local merchant cannot supply goods at reasonable costs, then consumers can turn to the national market created by direct mail.
• Because postage rates are the same everywhere, because the cost of a stamp is the same in both Alaska and New York, all sections of the country can compete on an equal footing.
• The economies of scale which work so well in manufacturing are also possible in retailing, especially when a “store” has no geographic boundaries.
• A company in a small community can reach consumers in the biggest markets nationwide through the mailstream.
• Merchandise which may be “seasonal” and out of stock in one area may be available through catalog companies that serve a national clientele.
• Residents of rural areas can get the same goods as those who live in major urban centers. And with mail order, those who live in country settings need pay no more than individuals who reside in the
  heart of major metropolitan regions.
• Mail order allows individuals to shop at their leisure, at 10 PM or at 6 AM according to individual needs and desires, a value not to be ignored in an era where two-worker families and single-parent
  households are common.
• Mail order makes specialization possible. For instance, while there may not be enough demand in one community to support a store that sells only carved wooden ducks, a catalog going to millions of people nationwide can easily support the plants and people who produce such carvings.
• Mail order allows local businesses to compete with huge national corporations. A hardware store, for example, can target consumers in a 1-mile radius with direct mail. Such small mailings may not make sense for a corporate giant, but they can produce excellent results at little cost for a local retailer.
• In practical terms, the Internet increasingly serves as a “front desk” where goods and services can be ordered — and then delivered (and sometimes returned) through the mailstream.

All in all, not bad for an industry that had it’s modern beginnings a little more than a century ago with Mr. Ward, Mr. Sears and a few stamps.

Technorati Tags: catalogs, choice, convenience, history, mail, Mail & Jobs, oppoortunity, options, postal, rural

And yet while the Internet is surely important there’s another story to tell: A traditional paper-based media is now more widely used than a decade ago. That media? The mailstream.

Did you know:

___Nine million jobs inside our borders could not exist without an efficient and effective postal system.

___Between 1996 and 2007, ad mail volume increased from 72 billion pieces a year to 104 billion — a huge gain, especially given the growth of email and online communication in general.

___U.S. advertisers will spend more than $60 billion marketing through the mails in 2008.

___America exports scrap paper worth almost $1.5 billion to China — scrap which includes some of the nearly 40 percent of all advertising mail we recycle each year.

___The mailstream reaches 148 million delivery points.

___Even if we do not build additional landfills, because of new technology America has a growing volume of landfill space.

___We have more forest acreage in the United States today than we had in 1920.

Postal2020.com is the meta site for the mailer community. It’s the place to find news, information, facts and figures regarding the postal system, the site to exchange ideas and the online space for all things postal.

Postal2020 — where the mailer community gets its say.

Technorati Tags: China, exports, forests, history, landfills, mail, Mail & Jobs