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%.

One of my clients is focused heavily on e-mailing his customers.  However, it is only part of the equation.  Consumers are increasingly online 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.  Yes, they are still checking e-mails but they are also on Facebook, Twitter and blogs. 

It used to be that the question was direct mail or e-mail?  Now the question is not what channel to use but rather which channels to leverage.  The direct marketing strategy needs to consider traditional direct channels, such as e-mail and direct mail, as well as social networking sites.  The need for integration of branding and messaging has become even more important as consumers have a multitude of ways to learn about your company and its products and services. 

The other challenge with the plethora of channels that have evolved is that consumers are bombarded with information.  Some are abandoning their e-mail accounts because they are overwhelmed by their inboxes.  Others ignore their inboxes in favor of communication channels they control.  I don’t bother sending my sister e-mails anymore because they disappear into the black hole that is her inbox.  However, she will respond instantaneously to a text message and will e-mail me on occasion, when it is the best channel for her to communicate with me.   

As marketers, we need to go where our customers are and offer them relevant and honest information.

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.

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.