|
In June, I'm participating in a panel discussion on direct mail strategies at the annual New England Direct Marketing Association conference....
Our obligation is to focus on what's new -- or what's changed in the last few years. Some would argue that the big news is technology -- more sophisticated data management, variable data printing and electronic response options, among others. But I see some other changes and would love feedback on what you see as well.
Among my observations:
* When I started in this business 10 years ago, 3% response rates were common. Now we do table dances when we get 1%.
* In B2B, getting responses just isn't enough. I see a growing demand not just for leads, but for qualified leads. And not just qualified leads, but for a complete tracking and accountability process that records the source of each lead and assesses its value.
* Again in B2B, copywriters are being ask to supplement traditional copy (letters, brochures, e-mail, etc.) with more substantial content, such as reports, white papers and articles, that can be used as offers to attract response.
* In both B2C and B2B, I see a greater effort to integrate direct mail and web strategy. Sure, "integration" has been a buzzword for years. But for most of those years, it tended to be little more than buzz. Today, I see more real action, more real effort to coordinate direct mail campaigns with either short-term landing pages or long-term web content development plans.
I'm sure there have been plenty of other changes I've neglected to write down. What do you see? Is it the same old direct mail in a flashier package? Or have you witnessed more substantial changes in the last 5 - 10 years?
|
Comments
I would have to mark a big YES next to your last remark about B2C DM. I think the telling factor was the emergence of digital direct mail where marketers (albeit at great expense!) realised they could communicate on a one to one basis. As a result, data mining ensured that those most profitable segments were identified and mailed to more-so than the less-profitable ones.
Smaller volume segments were inevitable and in my experience led to the alternative treatment of the less profitable segments - i.e. the web.
A smaller level of investment was required to reach those borderline profit groups which then made them profitable again, without treating the cause of the smaller profits.
That said, it would be a fool who assumes that the internet is going to bring a NEW type of customer.
Both profitable and non-profitable customers use the net. For marketeers, the internet is just another vehicle to drive the message to them.
Having spent 5 years working for one of the largest direct mail printers/finishers in the world, I have seen volumes change significantly - but not the overall volume.
Marketeers are splitting their mailings up into smaller, more targeted segments in order to achieve higher response rates.
Posted by: Paul Fabretti | 05.12.06