• Marketing Mag Website

  • Marketing One:2:One

One2one One2one

One:2:one

best practice on all aspectsof direct marketing

brought to you by
brought to you by

RIP direct mail

this article
  • Page 1 of
  • 4
  • 39

Eliot runs his own consulting business. Prior to his current day job, he worked as a marketing manager for Fuji Xerox Australia. Eliot holds a couple of degrees in printing and enjoys spending far too much time exploring the world of variable-data publishing. In his copious free time Eliot enjoys kayaking, writing, blogging, eating and sleeping.

Website: www.eliot.com.au

Advertise with us

I love to collect direct mail, like a bizarre obsession. Over the years I've built up a personal collection of the good, bad and very ugly DM pieces worthy of a home in my office drawer. One of my prize pieces is exactly that; a prize letter.

It wasn't sent to me but addressed to the previous occupant of our unit, so naturally I opened it. It was one of those catalogue mail DM pieces with the all too familar "unclaimed sweepstake" call to action. I remember first seeing these offers 20 years ago and they're still flooding letterboxes today.

20 years on and I really can't believe that there's an audience out there stupid enough to fall for this offer. While I'm guessing the target audience is probably little 80 year old ladies figuring out how to best spend their kids' inheritance, surely they're tuned in to what can only be a misleading scam.

The piece arrived in my mailbox in an envelope marked "PRIORITY DEADLINE". I guessed it must be important. But wait, there was also a tracking number printed on the envelope. Now, any untrained eye can spot that this tracking number was anything but unique - it had been printed using the same process as the rest of the envelope. Also, if it really was a priority tracked letter, then why did it land in my mailbox? Shouldn't I have signed for it? As a finishing touch, the envelope included a 'sender details' label, printed in a handwriting font, stating that my prize notification letter is waiting for me inside. If there really was a prize notification inisde, wouldn't this be the last thing to appear on the envelope? Do banks regularly send out PIN numbers and credit cards in envelopes which state their sensitive content?

But if this really is a compelling enough reason for the recipient to open the envelope, then inside they'll discover a two-page letter, which includes an official looking $100K voucher for an "unclaimed sweepstake prize" The prize amount on the voucher is printed using a cheque-style MICR font and even features a printed red seal just for added authenticity.

One thing that confuses me about the letter (and other DM letters I regulalry receive) is that the typeface is set in Courier. Please can someone tell me why marketers still choose to send out direct mail using Courier? If you can give me a valid answer, then I'll add you to my draw for the $100K sweepstake prize. It appears the United States Postal Service has an answer, in fact, they encourage marketers to use Courier for direct mail on their Web site, which explains:

"You might want to consider formatting the entire letter in the Courier font. It's the most commonly used and because it looks like a typewriter made it, it gives the feeling that the letter was written specifically for that consumer."

Now hang on a minute, "a typewriter made it"? I don't know about the US, but the rest of the world stopped using typewriters soon after computers came along. No one uses a typewriter today, and certainly not for direct marketing. Secondly, are you trying to tell me that a consumer is naive or stupid enough to believe that the letter was personally typed for them on a typewriter?

Courier is hardly a readable typeface either. For a document of any significant length, you really should pick an serif typeface. My eyes get sore just from looking at Courier's ascenders and descenders. But wait, this isn't any typewritten letter, it's personalised to the recipient - highly personalised in fact, with the recipents name appearing no less than five times scattered throughout the copy.

My final gripe with this piece is that it includes a prize 'claim ticket' which the recipent can cut out and attach to the enclosed reply form. I've never understood the logic behind this. Don't you want to make it as easy as possible for the recipent to respond? Why not include the lucky claim ticket on the reply form in the first place? Even if the recipient is deliberately misled into thinking this is a real claim ticket, surely it's an added inconvience for them to cut it out and stick it on another piece of paper, right?

While these types of mail pieces are obviously targeting a specific audience and they must be effective to a point (which is why they're still used today), I think the specific audience (almost exclusively pensioners) is being exploited in getting them to take an action and ultimately a purchasing decision to buy products that they probably don't need or want - all based on a misleading offer. These types of offers surely raise some ethical concerns in today's culture and it's this very type of direct marketing that is raising the attention of the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) and is causing them to recommend changes to the Privacy Act (see my earlier forum posting).

My final point is that this is a very poor use of personalisation. The sender has fallen into the classic pitfall of using personalisation for the sake of it--just because you can do it, doesn't mean you should. Personalisation is all about relevance. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big supporter of using recipient information in direct marketing, but it should be used responsibly to add relevance to the piece. This type of personalisation just adds noise to the copy and de-values personalisation as an effective marketing tool. It adds noise to the mailbox and makes it harder to distinguish between what are relevant direct mail pieces.

I'm wondering how much longer this DM will continue to exist. Surely the target audience will completely die off (literally speaking) in the very near future. When they do, hopefully this will also be the grave for this type of direct mail.

RIP. No flowers, please. Donations, if desired, to the Australian Direct Marketing Association.

Images

4 Comments

k1bo
  • Wrote on 13 Jun, at 03:37PM
Spot on Eliot!!! Love the burn on the US Postal Service....are they trapped in the dark ages!!!! Typewriters...GOLD!
There really is some rubbish DM out there, which is hurting the industry as a whole. This kind of crap needs to be flushed out and brought down by authorities such as the ALRC.
Gibbo
  • Wrote on 13 Jun, at 05:03PM
Nice article, Eliot.

I agree with your article but not the heading ;)
Dingo
  • Wrote on 16 Jun, at 01:12PM
Whilst they may be unappealing to some, these types of mailings will continue to exist for as long as they keep working for the organisations that send them. They usually undergo rigorous testing, so what they’re doing must work, no matter how unappealing it might be to others. Obviously it appeals to the target audience, which is not you by the way but the person who previously lived in your unit. I don’t want to sound like I’m defending this type of DM as it’s really not my cup of tea either and whenever I’ve seen something like this, I too wonder about the types who respond – but they’re out there and it works for them! Yes, it’s not amongst the best DM you see but there are also some pretty bad TV/radio/web/etc ads too. Fortunately the bulk of DM produced in Australia is of a very high standard - just look at the number of shortlisted DM entries at Cannes where Australia is second only to Germany. Long live DM I say!
Eliot
  • Wrote on 16 Jun, at 01:27PM
I agree Dingo. I'm sure this DM works to some level, which is why it keeps on coming. I remember the first time I received one of these sweepstake letters -- I was so excited. I fell for the convincing typewritten letter, voucher and all. I couldn't wait to mail-in my claim coupon and was naturally surprised and disappointed when I didn't receive my winnings... But that was 22 years ago and I was 11 years old. Back then, computers were scarce and electronic typewriters were commonplace in the workplace, so maybe I can be forgiven, given my age and era. I assumed it's a different story today and I'm surpised to learn that this call-to-action and deceiving creative actually still cuts through.

To have your say, login at the top of the page or register free and start commenting.