When I opened it to find *another* stupid credit-card form, I was irate.

Tricking people into opening what amounts to spam in their mailbox is *not* going to endear them to be a future customer.

I’ve used a number of grabbers, and usually, they increase response dramatically> from a 2.5% response to a 7-10% response, especially when sending a follow up or sequential mailing> then we can see into the 20-30% range on a 5 or more step mailing.

my most recent lumpy campaign is a “prescription bottle” ( a real 40 dram bottle with child resistant lid) and the letter is about “Your Prescription for Higher Profits” and offers my “prescription strength Marketing Medicine” –

It went out Saturday, I’ll let you know how it does.

David

Boxes are even better! I’ve been getting a small box as part of a local auto dealer’s marketing campaign and I am SURPRISED at how compelling that box (slightly larger than a box of cards) is!

I received the first box at my home address and opened it immediately. It merely contained a printed flyer promoting a car dealer. I got the second box at my work address, and even though I KNEW what was inside, I still felt compelled to open it.

Oh, by the way, the box did employ “mystery” as there was no outside identification as to the sender or the contents.

I guess the “box” is the new CD-Rom. Remember when sending a CD-Rom was as good as gold at getting your piece opened?

The proposed recent “Do not mail” is an Opt-Out law. Only those not desiring advertising mail need opt-out. Anyone desiring advertising mail can do nothing – and continue to receive it. Why deny those wishing to avoid advertising mail the power to do so?

I do not consider handling unwanted advertising placed against my will on my personal property to be a civic obligation!

The US Supreme Court said in the Rowan case in 1970, ““In today’s [1970] complex society we are inescapably captive audiences for many purposes, but a sufficient measure of individual autonomy must survive to permit every householder to exercise control over unwanted mail. To make the householder the exclusive and final judge of what will cross his threshold undoubtedly has the effect of impeding the flow of ideas, information, and arguments that, ideally, he should receive and consider. Today’s merchandising methods, the plethora of mass mailings subsidized by low postal rates, and the growth of the sale of large mailing lists as an industry in itself have changed the mailman from a carrier of primarily private communications, as he was in a more leisurely day, and have made him an adjunct of the mass mailer who sends unsolicited and often unwanted mail into every home. It places no strain on the doctrine of judicial notice to observe that whether measured by pieces or pounds, Everyman’s mail today is made up overwhelmingly of material he did not seek from persons he does not know. And all too often it is matter he finds offensive.”

Furthermore, the Supreme Court said, “the mailer’s right to communicate is circumscribed only by an affirmative act of the addressee giving notice that he wishes no further mailings from that mailer.

To hold less would tend to license a form of trespass and would make hardly more sense than to say that a radio or television viewer may not twist the dial to cut off an offensive or boring communication and thus bar its entering his home. Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit; we see no basis for according the printed word or pictures a different or more preferred status because they are sent by mail.”

We need a nationwide “Do Not Mail” law to create a one-stop, convenient place for homeowners to give senders the aforementioned affirmative notice that we do not want certain kinds of mail sent to our homes.

http://www.newdream.org/emails/ta19.html

Signed,
Ramsey A Fahel

If you want to drastically reduce the direct mail you get, then just sign up for the Direct Marketing Association’s mail preference service.

https://www.dmaconsumers.org/cgi/offmailing