While Mark Twain was talking about his own death, there is another reported death that I am thinking about.  Back in January 2009 I included a quote about banner ads being the next direct mail.  I mean no offense to direct mail but the implication was that the value of a banner ad was diminishing.  The belief was that banner ads were being replaced by social media, which is a disruptive technology much in the same way that e-mail marketing has replaced direct mail in many industries and situations.  Direct mail still is a valuable channel but it is being used more selectively than it once was.

Well reports of the death of the banner ad might be premature.  A recent study by eMarketer predicts that banner ad spending in 2010 will be up 8.2%.

Direct mail marketers face several challenges. First and foremost, they get no respect. Almost everyone refers to direct mail as junk mail and many think it is bad for the environment. Second, their business has been negatively affected by the current economic conditions. The credit card companies who were responsible for mountains of solicitations have fallen on hard times and reduced their mail volume. Third, e-mail is replacing some direct mail as it is cheaper and offers the same measurability as direct mail. And now there is news of Postal Service carriers who did not deliver the mail entrusted to them.

According to a recent Associated Press article, one Postal Service carrier stored third class mail in his garage for six years. He was placed on probation and fined $3,000 but an e-mail marketing firm, MailChimp, paid the penalty. AP reported that Ben Chestnut of MailChimp said, “We’re doing everything we can to stop junk mail.”

During the holidays a friend of mine was complaining about the number of solicitations she received from one charity.  She had sponsored a friend who was raising money for a good cause.  Now, she received solicitations every few weeks from the same charity. 

I became excited thinking that she objected to the same things I did.  I assumed that she was angry because there appeared to be no communication strategy, no plan with respect to contact recency and frequency.  Immediately I wondered, did they provide a suggested donation amount based on her past gift?  Would they ask for a donation near the same time of year as her original gift, recognizing that some donors give at the same time every year?   Was she getting multiple mailings to increase the likelihood of a response, as some credit card companies do?

In fact, she was upset for a different reason.  She was concerned that so much of her gift (and others’ donations) went toward marketing.  By sending multiple mailings, it only diminished her likelihood of donating again.  After she first donated, the charity could have sent her a thank you letter and directed her to their on-line preference center.  By enabling her to provide feedback on the type of communication (e.g., e-mail or direct mail) and the frequency of contact, the charity saves money by avoiding superfluous mailings and increases the chances of a second donation.  In addition, it deepens the relationship because the charity has asked for her input and directed her to their website where she can learn more about their mission.

Creating a preference center and following customers’ preferences, one of my suggested new year’s resolutions for e-mail marketers, also applies to direct mail.

You probably already know that but, in this case, the United State Postal Service has announced that it will be raising its shipping rates on January 18, 2009.  There is a link on the home page of usps.com with the new shipping rates.  

Any price changes related to mailing services, which includes stamps, will be announced in February 2009 and will go into effect in May 2009, according to the USPS website.

I was catching up on Tangyslice’s blog and enjoying his 5 meaningless marketing metrics post, when I thought of another meaningless metric.  Last week I was reading a presentation which described the response rate of one group as slightly greater than the control group.  What does slightly greater mean in this context?  Well, it turns out the difference was statistically significant once I did the math.  What I find meaningless is when analysts do not look for statistical significance when comparing two groups.  This is known as A/B Testing.

Conceptually A/B testing is very simple.  You are comparing Group A to Group B.  A might be a control group and B the test group.  Alternatively, A and B might be two different offers, landing pages, e-mails, direct mail lists, or landing pages.  As the name suggests, this is a test which is why A/B testing is also known as split testing.  Ultimately, you want to know if A and B differ in a way that is statistically significant.

Here’s an example to make it concrete. Let’s say that you marketed to 50,000 customers encouraging them to purchase product A and 5,000 of them responded. That is a 10% response rate. In addition, there were 5,000 customers that you could have marketed to but that you did not.  Instead, you assigned them to the control group.  They look and act just like the 50,000 customers that you mailed. The reason for the control group is that some customers might buy product A regardless of whether you market to them or not.  In this example, 450 of them or 9% purchased the product. Is the difference between 10% and 9% statistically significant?  Was the campaign successful?

In this case, we perform the two-proportion z-test for equal variances using the following formula:

and

where…

p1=10% (response rate for Group A)

p2=9% (response rate for Group B)

x1=5,000 (number of responders in Group A)

X2=450 (number of responders in Group B)

n1=50,000 (quantity mailed in Group A)

n2=5,000 (quantity mailed in Group B)

If the value of z is greater than 1.96 then the difference is significant at 95% confidence.  In this case, the z value is 2.26 so the difference is statistically significant.

In order for the test to be valid a few assumptions must be met:
1. Your control group needs to contain customers or prospects that look and behave like the treatment group
2. You need to have sufficient numbers of direct mail recipients and responders such that n₁ p₁ > 5 AND n₁(1 − p₁) > 5 and n₂ p₂ > 5 and n₂(1 − p₂) > 5 and n2>29 and the groups contain independent observations

The math might look scary but really the hard part is making sure that the test is done properly.  It is vital that the control contains a random selection of customers who are similar to the treatment group.  If not, you could end up with very strange results

Limeduck sent me this excellent comic strip about direct mail and targeted marketing.  Hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

The United States Postal Service has announced its third quarter results for Fiscal Year 2008.  It reported a 5.5% decrease in mail volume for the same period last year.  Mail volume in the quarter was 48.5 billion pieces.  First-Class Mail and Standard Mail also fell 5.5 percent from the third quarter of FY2007.

A colleague of mine recently told me, “direct mail is dead.”  I can certainly understand why he would say this.  First, mail volume has been falling.  Unsolicited direct mail by the financial industry has declined due to concerns about the credit markets for example.  Given the continued economic challenges in the United States, mail volumes are expected to continue to fall.  Second, direct mail is viewed as junk mail that quickly goes into the waste bin.  Add to that concerns about the environment and waste.  Sending multiple mailings to the same customers or prospects can alienate them. Third, e-mail is an attractive alternative where e-mail addresses exist, as it is cheaper and offers many of the same advantages of direct mail.

However, as an article in the New York Times yesterday detailed, direct mail is not dead but undergoing a transformation.   The return on investment from direct mail is too high for it to be abandoned.  When direct mail is targeted to the right person at the right time, it can be incredibly effective.  I know because it worked on me.  A few years ago I was involved in a volunteer committee that donated company funds to non-profit organizations.  One of the other volunteers suggested that we give money to Doctors without Borders and in the process educated us about the organization.  Around the same time, I read about their mission and efforts to help individuals in the Middle East in the New York Times.  Thus, when an unsolicited letter requesting a donation arrived in my mailbox shortly thereafter, I gladly gave to the organization. 

Direct marketers are pushing for direct mail processes to be more efficient, for the offers to be more targeted and the pieces themselves to be more environmentally friendly.  The DMA and others are pushing for all sorts of improvements including cleaning or purging purchased and house lists of undeliverable addresses, using soy inks and recycled paper in mail pieces, and recycling waste materials.  It remains to be seen how effective they will be; however, it is in their best interest to develop standards.  They run the risk that future legislation will dictate what they can and cannot mail.

Direct mail is not dead but rather will be used more sparingly and in concert with other channels, especially e-mail.