Talk:Direct mail

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] I suggest merging

referenc to the contents

4 Advantages and Disadvantages of Direct Mail

5 Opposition to direct mail



I suggest merging 5 Opposition to direct mail with


4 Advantages and Disadvantages of Direct Mail—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjiv swarup (talk • contribs)

I would oppose such a merge. The "Advantages and Disadvantages" section is written from a business perspective, while the "Opposition" section takes a more consumer advocate oriented approach. This dichotomy is part of a larger POV problem with the article, but for now, it is what it is. Switching between opposing viewpoints isn't ideal, but it's better than representing only one.
The latter section is currently much smaller than its potential; there is quite a bit of material out there on the environmental impact of advertising mail, different legislative systems to regulate it, and other similar topics. Keeping it separate will make it much easier for this material to be brought into the article.--Trystan (talk) 06:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Point accepted. I withdraw my suggestion. Please dele my suggestion

Sanjiv swarup (talk) 08:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Direct mail, also known as junk mail, admail or bulk mail,

i am referring to


Direct mail, also known as junk mail, admail or bulk mail, is a form of marketing in which communications are sent to customers using the postal service. It forms the most common type of direct marketing.


IMHO the mention of also known as junk mail, admail or bulk mail, gives a disproportionate importance to this minority viewpoint. It may be mentioned in the disadvantage section if necessary.


From the top three results of a google search


USPS - Direct MailEffectively target your customers with a Direct Mail campaign. A Direct Mail piece will make a lasting impression with your existing customers, ... www.usps.com/directmail/welcome.htm -


Direct Mail Marketing - Mailing List - DirectMail.comCreate direct mail marketing campaigns for postcards, brochures, letterhead, flyers and more. Purchase direct mail mailing lists, full color printing, ... www.directmail.com/ -


Sanjiv swarup (talk) 01:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The term junk mail is sufficiently well known to be included in every dictionary I have checked. I would venture a guess that it's a much more familiar term than direct mail for most people. The term admail is used by Postal Agencies such as Canada Post. The bulk mail article claims that the term is commonly used to refer to junk mail, but that claim isn't sourced.--Trystan (talk) 06:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Please help the discussion along by quoting from a couple of dictionaries. In the meantime, the Concise Encyclopedia Article for direct-mail marketing does not refer to junk mail, admail or bulk mail......

Method of merchandising in which the seller's offer is made through mass mailing of a circular or catalog or through a newspaper or magazine advertisement, and in which the buyer places an order by mail, telephone, or Internet. The rise of retail mail-order selling occurred in the late 19th century, when U.S. firms such as Sears, Roebuck and Montgomery Ward built large businesses selling goods primarily to farmers. Its use has grown steadily since the introduction of computerized mailing lists after 1960; it is now employed by tens of thousands of firms, and it reaches virtually every consumer in the U.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjiv swarup (talk • contribs) 08:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary defines "junk mail" as "circulars, advertisements, etc., sent by post to a large number of addresses"; Merriam-Webster's as "third-class mail (as advertising circulars)".--Trystan (talk) 09:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


What you were originally referring to was the definition of direct mail. This reads as Merriam-Webster as printed matter (as circulars) prepared for soliciting business or contributions and mailed directly to individuals Sanjiv swarup (talk) 09:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying that the definitions aren't equivalent; that they refer to different things? My understanding is that all the terms are used to refer to advertising materials received in the mail. "Direct mail" seems to be a marketing euphemism, "junk mail" a pejorative term used by recipients, and "Admail" the term of choice for Postal Services.--Trystan (talk) 17:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


"Direct mail" is not an appropriate term for this topic, as the term has not achieved such pervasive use in English that is has any special meaning beyond the sum of its words. Mail advertising, mail advertisement, mail advertisements, advertising through mail are clearly what is meant, but mail of this sort is absolutely no more "direct" than any other mail. In fact, it usually handled more cheaply and slowly and is much less direct than other mail.

It is inappropriate for an encyclopedic article to be titled with a euphemism favored by a biased party, and more so where that euphemism is, as in this case, inaccurate. I'm not sure what the title should be, but "Direct mail" is clearly inappropriate.

Perhaps Postal mail advertising or Advertising through postal mail? These are each so unwieldy, though. Perhaps simply Postal advertising? Other ideas? Stephan Leeds (talk) 11:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

As I mention below, I like Advertising mail. It's well supported in the sources, comparitively neutral, and its meaning is intuitive.--Trystan (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] suggest adding external link as below

http://www.dmoz.org/Business/Publishing_and_Printing/Printing/Products/Direct_Mail/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjiv swarup (talk • contribs) 01:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


added : Sanjiv swarup (talk) 05:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested section (no. 6 ) Advocates of direct mail

Can we please have some thoughts on what to put here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjiv swarup (talk • contribs) 08:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not clear how this section differs in concept from the list of advantages earlier in the article.--Trystan (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
You may have a point. In the same vein, are you having the same question for section = 4 Disadvantages of Direct Mail and section= 5 Opposition to direct mail Sanjiv swarup (talk) 05:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Not as the article is currently structured. As I said above, so long as the Advantages and Disadvantages section is written from the perspective of a marketer, it can't incorporate the material in the "Opposition" section.--Trystan (talk) 06:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Point noted . Let me bring some thoughts into this section from a non-marketer view-point Sanjiv swarup (talk) 16:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] sugested mentions are ..

  • SATISFACTION & ACCEPTANCE
    • 87% of consumers are either “very” or “quite” satisfied with the products they buy through Direct Mail
    • 56% of consumers said that value for money was the main benefit of buying through Direct Mail, whilst 63% said convenience—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjiv swarup (talk • contribs)


moved to main article Sanjiv swarup (talk) 06:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] suggested external link / junk mail

Please let us have your views Sanjiv swarup (talk) 09:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Additional citations

I've added a tag noting that most of the article lacks citations to reliable sources that allow verification of the page's contents. Thoughts on where best to begin the process of improving the situation are very welcome.--Trystan (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removing the terms "junk mail, ad mail, and bulk mail" from the article.

Direct Marketing in the US is a $200 billion industry. A lot of mail is unsolicited. The term "junk mail" is pejorative, a matter of opinion.

I will work on finding citations and sources. Thanks. --Jlazerus (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

In the above discussion, I've provided a link to Canada Post that demonstrates they use the term Admail to refer to advertising mail. According to the article, this is also the term used by the US Postal Service. I'm not clear on why you think we should remove it from the lead; it doesn't strike me as at all pejoraitve. Rather, I would tentatively support renaming the article to Advertising mail, since that strikes me as a much more clearly descriptive term than Direct mail, and is used by highly reliable sources.
The phrase junk mail is indeed pejorative, but that's not a reason to pretend it doesn't exist as a common descriptive term for advertising mail. (For confirmation of its widespread use, see the dictionary links above, or several of the external links currently in the article.) It isn't our job to decide whether terms in common usage are fair or not, only to report that they are in common usage. It is, as you say, a matter of opinion whether this topic is best charactised by the marketing industry euphemism "direct mail", the pejorative "junk mail", or the arguably more-descriptive "advertising mail." None of these terms is inherently more neutral than the others; they all convey implicit value judgements.--Trystan (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


Jlazerus: thanks for doing the research on why DM is a $200 billion industry, and what is the best definition Sanjiv swarup (talk) 06:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Junk mail redirects here (sort of), but there's no real mention of junk mail in the article i.e. cheap weekly unaddressed catalogues, some of the chief perpetrators being supermarkets, department stores and car parts sellers, rarely delivered via the postal system (mostly kids earning a bit of money). Opting out is done by putting a "No Junk Mail" sign on your mailbox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.221.228 (talk) 05:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Legislation

Legislation section added . This ia a cut paste from article = direct marketing Sanjiv swarup (talk) 06:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DMA "Do Not Contact" list

I'm moving this addition to the talk page for discussion:

Many consumers are frustrated than more marketers don't use the DMA's MPS file. One problem is that the DMA currently charges mailers to gain access to this list. But perhaps the largest downside from a marketer's perspective is the way this list is put together. In essence, it's an "all or nothing" proposition. To better illustrate this, let's say that you are an avid craft enthusiast, who has placed your name on the MPS list because you hate all of the unsolicited mortgage refinance and credit card offers you receive in your mailbox. A cataloger selling craft supplies who uses the MPS file would suppress (or drop) your name from receiving their latest mail piece - something the marketer and the consumer doesn't want to happen! This is why many companies choose to not use this privacy tool; it reduces the universe of good, marketable names to them. The DMA is currently in the process of re-vamping this file to include categories that consumers can "opt-in" or "opt-out" of. It's unknown when this new file will be ready for use or when it will reach a level of critical mass that marketers who originally shied away from the original file will feel more inclined to use it.

Much of it is good information, but we will need a verifying source to cite before we can add it to the article. We also need to be careful to avoid blanket statements that speak for both customers ("Many customers are frustrated...") and companies ("The largest downside from a marketer's perspective...") without reliable and verifiable sources that these are well-documented trends.--Trystan (talk) 20:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Undue weight and Environmental Impact move

I've reverted the removal of the mention of 41pounds.org and the Center for a New American Dream. They are both notable enough to have their own articles and have direct relevance to the subject of this article, so it only makes sense that we would mention them (however briefly) here. How does a single sentence mentioning these organizations' existence give them undue weight?

I've also moved "Environmental Impact" back to where it was. It's not an aspect of "Direct Mail Marketing," nor is it necessary to characterize the section as restricted to "Opponents of Direct Mail Marketing" when it can be approached in a much more neutral fashion. I don't think the EPA is really an "opponent" of direct mail, they just study and attempt to mitigate the environmental impact. The UK DMA certainly isn't an "opponent."--Trystan (talk) 03:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)