Thomas wrote today with a great question about lumpy ("dimensional," for you purists) direct mail: 

I am new to the marketing and promo business and I read with much interest the article on Lumpy Mail: An Engine for Lead Generation. I enjoy creating ideas and programs such as this and have already learned from you in this article. I do have one question that I hope you can shed some light on. When you send an item, to the extent that it lends itself to it do you use a printed item or a blank item and just let the item and letter do the talking. For instance, the hockey puck or volleyball. Did you have that printed with your clients information (i.e. name, message, etc)? Thanks for the time and any other hints that you might kick back to me are much appreciated. 

 My reply:  

Glad you liked the article, and thanks for writing. I avoid printing on the enclosed item. That way, the item creates more curiosity, leading recipients to read the sales letter. The moment you print anything on the item, even your company name, it begins to look like a promotional item whose job is to put your name in front of someone, thus reducing the curiosity factor. 

Another mistake to avoid is what I call a "payoff headline." Placing an item in a box with a great headline on the outside is good. Putting a headline inside that gives away your message is bad. Suppose, for instance, that you enclose a tennis ball. A good headline on the outside of the box might be, "WHACK! (Details inside.)" But if on the inside of the box lid you print, "We could make a great match," you've just alleviated any need to read the letter. (Not to mention the fact that wimpy puns like that make for awful strategy.) 

For examples of well-crafted (if I say so myself) lumpy mail letters, click here. Clicking on any of the images will bring up the letter so you can read it. 

 Followup from Thomas: 

One last question if you don't mind. Where do I find postal regulation or guideline related to mailing "lumpy mail" or is all of it contained in a box or envelope as a standard piece of mail. The reason that I ask is that years ago I received a tennis shoe in the mail. It had a mailing tag attached with a postage label on it though it was not "packaged" in any way. Anything you can add to this is much appreciated. 

 My reply: 

My experience has been that you can address, stamp and mail just about anything, as long as it's non-hazardous and not likely to fall apart en route. You also need to watch for state regs. For instance, sending produce to California or Hawaii is tricky, and sending alcohol to Utah is flat-out illegal. It's always wise to check in advance with a business mail specialist at your main Post Office. They won't guarantee their answer, but it's usually reliable. You may have noticed that we mailed the volleyball without a box. We just shrink-wrapped an addressed envelope to the ball. We did the same thing some years earlier when we mailed frisbees for Wells Fargo. Each time, however, I called my USPS rep be sure it would be OK. (I pity the letter carriers who had oodles of volleyballs rolling around in the back of the truck, much less had to carry them from office to office.) 

 —Steve Cuno
Add Comment
 
 
When I was the advertising manager of a decent-sized hospital chain, we used direct mail to invite people to tour our newly opened urgent care facility. Knowing that an incentive offer is the Number 2 strategic peg in successful direct mail (extra points for readers who can name Numbers 1 and 3), we promised each visitor a certificate for a free Baskin Robbins ice cream cone.

Within a few days, I received a note from an outraged consumer. He felt it was deplorable that “…a health care organization would encourage people to ingest ice cream.”

(Let me state here and now that I had no idea people were actually ingesting the stuff. We thought they would merely eat it.)

The outraged consumer’s helpful letter concluded with a suggestion that we offer bran muffins instead.

I’m not making this up.

The urgent care center was mobbed with visitors, and the nearest Baskin Robbins ran out of its most popular flavor. Clearly the promotion did its job. Bran muffins might have been healthier, but no one would have come to our party.

Steve Cuno
Add Comment
 
 
According to a new Adweek survey, 50% of respondents say that advertising "rarely" motivates them to switch brands, 11% say that advertising "never" influences their brand choices, and people 18-34 say they are most likely to be "swayed by ads." 

I suspect there may be some truth in Adweek's conclusions. But, if so, their methodology doesn't establish it.  

The worst way to learn what influences people is to ask them. People don't know what they do, why they do it, or what makes them do it. But they sure think they know! So, when you ask, they'll give you an answer, and most likely they will mean what they say. Trouble is, they are often mistaken. 

For a valid, reliable way to learn what influences people, put them in a real situation. Do not let them know that a test is afoot or that anyone is watching. Then note what they do. 

Our firm recently conducted such a test for the parent company of two national brands that you have heard of. They wanted to know which of the two brands was stronger. We divided their market into three segments. All three received identical offers; the only difference was whether the offers came from National Brand A, National Brand B, or Unknown Brand C. Then, we counted orders. All segments bought at the same rate. We repeated the test and obtained the same results. Post analysis showed that the brand made no difference; only the offer did.  

I might add that no one in the parent company was pleased. Some had championed one brand, some the other. The finding that neither brand had power offended both camps. Getting to the truth doesn't always make an agency popular. 

I should also add that this test in no way proved that brands are powerless in general. This was but one case. But it certainly suggests that you should challenge whether your brand has as much power as you'd like to believe.

Back to the research. Since I suspect Adweek was on to something, you might ask, why quibble over the methodology? The reason is that I can't be sure of a conclusion, even one that sounds reasonable, that is attained by faulty methodology. When I was in grade school, I heard that mixing yellow and blue paint makes green paint. I verified it by stealing my older brother's water color set (don't tell him—he still doesn't know) and mixing up some green for myself. I could have flipped a coin. Heads, yellow and blue make green; tails, they don't. I might have gotten the correct answer. But there would have been a 50% chance of getting the wrong one. 

I deal with the science behind fallacious versus reliable research in chapters 8 and 9 of my book Prove It Before You Promote It, so I'll stop here in deference to those who have read the book, and to try and influence those who haven't to buy copies for themselves and all of their friends. Right now, if you please.

Steve Cuno
2 Comments