Not All Direct Mail Is Direct Marketing
Friday, November 14, 2008 at 02:17PM Some look at the acronym DM and see Direct Mail. But when I see DM, I see Direct Marketing.
One would think this was obvious in today's complex marketing world. But this type of narrow thinking continues unabated. So we must continue to revisit the basics from time to time.
Let's look at this idea that not all direct mail is direct marketing
I received a piece of mail today from Cisco Systems describing its latest great new product. The call to action was this tepid statement: "See your nearest dealer."
The advertiser does not expect people to get in their cars, on the Internet or even on their phones to find out if their favorite retailer has this new product so they can check it out. And even if they did, there is no coding in the mailing to track response.
Clearly they do not expect direct response for fear of upsetting their distributors.
This is nothing more than advertising in the mail. It does not follow the fundamentals of the direct marketing strategy.
If it did, then the call to action would include a two for one offer, a $100 rebate or free one year tech support if the recipient purchased the product by X date. They would then provide a tracking code for the recipient to qualify for the discount and a toll free number to call, an Internet address or the name and address of a local retailer directly in the copy.
So to quality as direct marketing, the advertiser must track a direct response and evaluate the mailing based on its ability to sell the product.
If their was a pre-announcement mailing with no call to action until the main piece arrives with the detailed offer, then the pre-mailer is counted as a support for the direct marketing campaign. But even here, the pre-mailer must carry its own weight by lifting response sufficiently to justify the extra expense.
Now for the second idea. Not all direct marketing is direct mail.
As shown in the example above, the announcement of the new product with a strong offer can run on television, the newspaper, a magazine, online, an email, paid search and other available media applications.
The bottom line. The direct marketing strategy can use any available medium.
It is true that direct mail remains the core medium for many direct marketing advertisers.
One case in point are fundraisers. For many, direct mail represents 80% plus of their marketing budgets. For others, direct response TV has overtaken direct mail predominance. And at some point, many more fundraisers will depend heavily upon online marketing to raise the bulk of their dollars.
The only constant is the direct marketing discipline. Your media strategy and how you target your audience are all testable items with the winners quickly replacing media that no longer work as well as they once did.
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (2)
Ted, I often wonder why my clients do certain things - like only include phone and web site url, no BRC or reply form. Sometimes it has to do with budgets. Sometimes it has to do with capabilities. So some mail is NOT direct mail, and just because it uses the mail doesn't mean it has to be direct mail. I say go ahead, do brand advertising in the mail, if you want to. It guarantees a second or more that your message is in the hands of a targeted potential buyer. Better than a billboard? Yes. Are you not using the medium to it's fullest potential? Possibly. But maybe you have budgetary reasons for not being able to take leads by phone or some other means. Maybe the Cisco mailer didn't have a budget to personalize the address and phone of the local detailer on your postcard ... so instead of making less work for the recipient, you now have to look up the info. in your phonebook or online. Or maybe they didn't have a dedicated line established to take calls from people asking for the location of their nearest detailer (that's what the phone company is for).
I like to think of such an example as you've given with the Cisco postcard not as a DM sin - but rather with the attitude of "it's all good." It's good for the printer, good for the mail service, maybe even good for Cisco and some new customers. Could the mailing have been more effective? Sure. But well ... hey ... it's THEIR budget. Who cares? I would only care if I were Cisco. Or an environmentalist because if it's useless junk mail, it does add to the waste on the planet.
My take:
If they have the budget to pay for an expensive package, then its folly to omit a meaningful offer. They wasted at least 90% of their money. This is par for the course with a number of internal and external agencies.
So why should we be surprised when some CEOs view marketing budgets as an expense rather than an investment? This makes our jobs unnecessarily difficult when it comes to getting adequate budgets for what we do.
That, in a nutshell, is why I care.
By the way. Why can't you build the brand AND make an offer at the same time? Shouldn't these efforts at least incite trial?
So I suspect you hit it right on the head when you suggested a lack of capabilities when they failed to encourage sales by including an offer.