Several times per year I’ll hear a business owner or manager tell me, “I’ve tried [using] direct mail in the past and it doesn’t work”. They also usually find some way to work the word “expensive” into the conversation.
Let me state at the onset that direct mail does work, it is still an important marketing tool, and it is still relevant even in these days of electronic communication.
So why do so many people out there seem to think direct mail does not work or that it cannot work for them?
The answer lies in the complexity of direct mail and just how easy it is to get one small element wrong such that it renders the entire effort ineffective.
Just of few elements of a common direct mail package include:
• The envelope (size, color, etc.)
• The type face used and style of the writing
• The offer itself
• A sales letter
• A brochure
• Headlines, subheads and teaser copy on the outside of the envelope
• A response mechanism (order form, postage paid reply card, toll-free telephone number, etc.)
• The mailing list
• The type of postage used (ex. live first-class stamp vs. imprinted indicia)
Why does direct mail seemingly fail some people?
Direct mail requires commitment and a willingness to experiment. Often small business owners or inexperienced marketers do not realize that a successful direct mail effort requires experimentation, measurement and multiple mailings to optimize to the point where it will be profitable.
Direct mail results can be made or broken by one single element of the mailing. You can spend months coming up with what you believe is a great offer, but if your prospects do not find much value in your offer they will not respond. A simple headline can drastically change direct mail results to the point where a difference in headline alone can make the difference between a successful campaign and a losing one. Your mailing list can make or break your campaign. What if you have done everything mechanically correct with your direct mail package but send it to the wrong prospects? It will fail.
The fundamental mistake I often see are people who develop a direct mail package and then spend their entire budget sending it to as large a list as they can afford. They then wait to see it whether or not it “worked” by measuring increased sales that they can directly attribute to the mailing. Done in a vacuum, this can be very expensive, very risky, and very disappointing.
The better way is to start small using split-tests and optimize the mailing before rolling it out on a massive scale. A split test is where two different versions of a mailing are sent out and the results measured against each other.
Ideally, each split test will test only one single element of the direct mail package. In other words, everything is the same in the two mailings except for one thing, be it a different list, a different headline, a slightly different offer or some other element. The two different versions are then specially coded in some way so you know which version drew the better response and got the better results. Then use the mailing that got the better results and test some other element using another split test. Continue the process until you have a winner and the numbers are working in your favor.
Once the numbers are working in your favor, you then have a “control” that you can send out successfully and profitably to a larger list. Even with a winning direct mail package you should continue to test new elements using the split-test method until something outperforms your control.
Test everything. Test your offers. Test your list. Test the difference between a live stamp and postal indicia. Test difference response vehicles. Test different sales copy. Test headlines. Test it all. In this way you will optimize your mailing and then you can roll it out on a larger scale once you know it is effective and profitable.
Direct mail does work but it is complex. When it fails, it is usually because some marketer decided ahead of time that his or her direct mail package “should work” and then it doesn’t. The marketer then declares, “direct mail doesn’t work for me” or worse, “direct mail doesn’t work”.
You can never guess what your prospects will respond to ahead of time. Sure you can have pretty good intuition about it, but until you test it and measure response you simply never know. Sometimes your prospects will surprise you.
Commit to optimizing your direct mail, agree to test it with multiple mailings, and make the decision to experiment to see what works and what doesn’t work for you. If you need some help and want to bring some experience to the table, enlist the services of a direct mail consultant, professional copywriter or ask a veteran of direct mail for some assistance.
A direct mail campaign is a process not a single event.
Treating direct mail like a single make-or-break event is likely to not work for you if you are relatively inexperienced in the science.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Friday, February 10, 2006
Video blog entry: Direct Marketing and the Marketing Mix
OK, we used to simply call these things videos, but here is a podcast/video blog entry/video podcast/educational video that discusses how direct marketing is related to the rest of the promotional mix based on a question recently asked by a visitor to my website.
8.45MB .wmv file 
31.9MB .mpg file
8.45MB .wmv file 31.9MB .mpg file
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Politicizing your brand? Think twice, please.
Many of the business books and articles that I’ve read lately reflect an interesting and relatively new phenomenon. I have noticed an obvious trend where business writers inject their personal views on politics into the mix. In fact, I have turned this trend into a personal sport in which I see if I can discern the author’s political leanings by simply reading his or her business writing. Surprisingly, often times I can. This was relatively unheard of only a few years ago.
The latest is a blog entry by Nick Wreden, author of Fusion Brand. I have read many other books and articles that inject politics, but this one simply happened to be the one that pushed me to the point of commenting.
Don’t get me wrong, I like Nick Wreden and admire his work. In fact, I find his blog entry to be fascinating and informative. Nick once sent me a very nice email after reading some comments I made in a business magazine and I find his views and advice on branding to be excellent. I highly recommend his books to anyone. I’m not even stating whether or not I agree with his political views. I’m simply stating that the fact that I know his political views is unnecessary.
Thinly and not-so-thinly veiled political commentary from all across the political spectrum seems too often to come from authors who write articles, books, marketing copy or blogs that promote products and services that have nothing whatsoever to do with politics.
From a marketing perspective, I am left to wonder why authors and marketers divulge their politics if doing so is not a relevant part of their brand. If you are Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken or a professional politician it makes sense because you are building your brand and the things you believe and stand for politically are essential components of your brand. If you are an author trying to sell a book on some aspect of business management, however, it makes little sense.
I am getting tired of just about everything in society becoming politicized.
I find it very disturbing that more and more we are being forced to view everything through a political prism—especially when making any sort of political connection is a bit of a stretch.
Sometimes as a consumer I simply want to buy product brands that live up to their promises without any political considerations. Sometimes I want to read a book or article that provides solid business information that is not connected to politics in any way. Sometimes I feel intruded upon when an author or copywriter reveals his or her politics when doing so is not relevant to their offering. Sometimes I read business communications to get away from politics, not engage in them.
There is a lesson to be learned. As a marketer, unless a political agenda is an essential part of your brand’s promise, my advice is to steer clear of discussing politics in your marketing communications.
To be sure, there are brands that position certain political stances as essential components of the brand. Brands with a social conscience or that take an activist position indeed have their place. It is important for these brands to communicate their core values, BUT unless your political opinions are an essential part of your core brand values, then the dangers lurking under the marketing communications waters may be more destructive than constructive for your brand.
From my vantage point, if you inject personal politics into your brand communications you should expect one of only a few results. It will either: a) bolster consumption amongst those who already enthusiastically agree with your politics, b) cause consumers to consider your politics when making brand decisions when they otherwise would not have had any reason to do so, or c) lead to alienation of at least 50% of your potential market who may then actively avoid your brand and tell other like-minded individuals to do the same. If you examine these three outcomes, there appears to be more to lose than to gain.
It is tempting for marketers to inject their political views when they know people are listening. If you choose to do so, make sure it is a measured decision and that you have weighed the risks. Ask yourself if your politics are relevant to your brand before bringing them into your marketing communications.
Politics do not usually belong in the business arena. I’m getting to the point where I might avoid brands that bring politics of any kind into the communications mix when they don’t belong.
The latest is a blog entry by Nick Wreden, author of Fusion Brand. I have read many other books and articles that inject politics, but this one simply happened to be the one that pushed me to the point of commenting.
Don’t get me wrong, I like Nick Wreden and admire his work. In fact, I find his blog entry to be fascinating and informative. Nick once sent me a very nice email after reading some comments I made in a business magazine and I find his views and advice on branding to be excellent. I highly recommend his books to anyone. I’m not even stating whether or not I agree with his political views. I’m simply stating that the fact that I know his political views is unnecessary.
Thinly and not-so-thinly veiled political commentary from all across the political spectrum seems too often to come from authors who write articles, books, marketing copy or blogs that promote products and services that have nothing whatsoever to do with politics.
From a marketing perspective, I am left to wonder why authors and marketers divulge their politics if doing so is not a relevant part of their brand. If you are Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken or a professional politician it makes sense because you are building your brand and the things you believe and stand for politically are essential components of your brand. If you are an author trying to sell a book on some aspect of business management, however, it makes little sense.
I am getting tired of just about everything in society becoming politicized.
I find it very disturbing that more and more we are being forced to view everything through a political prism—especially when making any sort of political connection is a bit of a stretch.
Sometimes as a consumer I simply want to buy product brands that live up to their promises without any political considerations. Sometimes I want to read a book or article that provides solid business information that is not connected to politics in any way. Sometimes I feel intruded upon when an author or copywriter reveals his or her politics when doing so is not relevant to their offering. Sometimes I read business communications to get away from politics, not engage in them.
There is a lesson to be learned. As a marketer, unless a political agenda is an essential part of your brand’s promise, my advice is to steer clear of discussing politics in your marketing communications.
To be sure, there are brands that position certain political stances as essential components of the brand. Brands with a social conscience or that take an activist position indeed have their place. It is important for these brands to communicate their core values, BUT unless your political opinions are an essential part of your core brand values, then the dangers lurking under the marketing communications waters may be more destructive than constructive for your brand.
From my vantage point, if you inject personal politics into your brand communications you should expect one of only a few results. It will either: a) bolster consumption amongst those who already enthusiastically agree with your politics, b) cause consumers to consider your politics when making brand decisions when they otherwise would not have had any reason to do so, or c) lead to alienation of at least 50% of your potential market who may then actively avoid your brand and tell other like-minded individuals to do the same. If you examine these three outcomes, there appears to be more to lose than to gain.
It is tempting for marketers to inject their political views when they know people are listening. If you choose to do so, make sure it is a measured decision and that you have weighed the risks. Ask yourself if your politics are relevant to your brand before bringing them into your marketing communications.
Politics do not usually belong in the business arena. I’m getting to the point where I might avoid brands that bring politics of any kind into the communications mix when they don’t belong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)