I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the effectiveness of direct mail. Each day when I come home from work, I dread going through the mail. It’s a chore. I might get lucky and find a Sports Illustrated or Wired, but most of the time it’s just bills and crap.
I have never bought a product or visited a business as a result of a direct mail piece.
Direct mail falls under the category of interruption marketing. Interruption marketing is the opposite of permission-based marketing. The consumer opts in to permission based marketing and gives the company permission to market to the consumer. This is usually done in the form of e-mail marketing.
I have bought a product as result of an e-mail.
The difference is that I asked to be sent the e-mail. The e-mail made reference to a prior purchase. The e-mail had a definitive call to action. It was turnkey marketing. It was easy.
So why do we continue to rely upon direct mail to get the job done? We don’t know any better. We’re creatures of habit and expect that if we knock our heads enough against the wall long enough, that something positive will come out. It’s not that the piece isn’t well designed or that it’s not eye catching. It’s the fact that the consumer doesn’t want to receive it. The piece falls into the crap category with all the other junk mail.
Do more e-mail marketing than direct mail in 2009. It will cost your company less money, be more effective, and help you connect with your consumers.
Jim Gilbert said
Michael, it’s not that “we don’t know any better”. Direct mail, like email, works on a percentage basis. I other words, if 99 out of 100 people throw a given mail piece in the trash, the company will make money. Same for email.
The goal of direct mail is to target the right individuals with relevant offers. Somehow people who mail to you find you relevant (or you, or someone in your home must have responded to a previous offer).
The good news is, many people feel the opposite of you and see direct mail in a positive light, even more-so when it comes to catalogs which are seen as a trusted friend.
Believe me when I tell you, people are much less reactive to receiving mail then email, or telemarketing calls. Lighten up on direct mail. Without it, you’d be paying a couple of dollars each to mail your Christmas cards!
Jim
http://gilbertdirectmarketing.wordpress.com/
Chad Gramling said
I can’t say that one works better over the other. But methinks a lot of it depends upon the target. Obviously some are more receptive to direct mail versus e-mail. But, in making a case for direct mail, I must contend that it at the very least results in an exposure. Subscribers of the Mere Exposure theory will suggest that every exposure creates a stimulus that might be a component of a later decision. So, while the direct mail might not work up front, that exposure might make them more receptive to future coordinated efforts (like e-mail, television, personal engagement, etc.).
Ron Shevlin said
You’ve “never bought a product or visited a business as a result of a direct mail piece”? You mean, you’ve NEVER received — and used — a coupon for $5 off a pizza, dry cleaning, or something else? Wow. You are definitely in the minority.
While direct mail may be an “interruption” to you, for many people it helps them find good deals on things they already buy, and sometimes, on things they haven’ bought before.
And I fail to see how a piece of physical mail is any more an interruption than an email message. In fact, I think email is even more an intrusion, since my snail mail address is public, but my email addresses aren’t.
Should firms stop advertising on TV? After all, THAT’S an interruption. But oh, I see, advertisers underwrite the free access we have to TV. Well, Jim Gilbert was spot on w/ his comment — it’s the same for mail. Watch your postage costs skyrocket if firms didn’t sent out DM.
As for the “permission” part of it, I have your email address — how about I forward you all of the unwanted email offers I receive in a week?
I think it would be really cool if 2 firms (especially financial services firms) were to run a test. One eliminated DM for a year in favor of email, and the other one didn’t. I betcha $10 the one the eliminated DM will show a better return on its $ — but not grow very much. Cuz you simply can’t reach as many people w/ email as you can DM.
Michael Hostetler said
This interaction is exactly what I was hoping for with this blog.
I admit being a little harsh towards direct mail. That may stem from a personal frustration and preferring online communication. The point I was trying to make is that companies need to evolve with the new marketing tactics available. E-mail is just one of those tactics. It’s increasingly difficult to gain consumers’ attention, and companies need to find ways to adjust accordingly.