Talk:Direct marketing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Connect this page to search term "direct sales"

There is a 31-page comprehensive discussion of the history of direct marketing (from the first catalogs in 1450 to Lester Wunderman coining "Direct Marketing" in 1961 -- and beyond) that can be found by typing in "direct marketing history" in Google. In actual present-day practice, direct marketing can be used in any medium where a response is the objective. I don't believe in the current practice of marketing that there is any distinction between "Direct Marketing" or "Direct Response". SMAresource 03:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed . I also do not believe in the accuracy of having different terms like direct sales, or direct response Sanjiv swarup (talk) 02:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


Term Direct-Sales and Direct-Response can be taken as the practice to understand direct-marketing. Direct-Response comes after Direct-Sale is done; and when both looked together it is Direct Marketing. Ritesh Raghuvanshi (talk)

[edit] Remove and create standalone Direct Response article

Direct response marketing does not really fit into this article and really deserves its own. Thoughts?

I agree. Both articles should mention the other however, because people tend to get the two terms confused. mydogategodshat

Direct Marketing is a sub disipline of marketing that can be used as a stand alone marketing strategy (Dell computers), an integrated part of marketing (a loyalty club) or as a peripheral part of marketing, simply at a tactical level.

Spam and junk mail are not true forms of Direct Marketing as these mediums are not targeted. At the very least recipients of Direct Marketing are "prospects" who are likely to be interested in the product.

Direct Marketing is a strategic dispicline. Direct Response advertising is a form of media.

This article does not truely describe what Direct Marketing is. This is understandable considering Direct Marketing is only just coming into the mainstream marketing world. I would help write the article but think someone else could do it better.

DM relates heavily to Database Marketing and Relationship Marketing.

I agree that they do not overlap enough to merge.--SarekOfVulcan 18:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Both articles should mention the other.

But let us hae a para here to explain the distinction. Should I go ahead and do it ? Sanjiv swarup (talk) 08:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This article is worthless and not written by experts in the field

If you're reading this article, please seek other sources for information on direct marketing. This article was penned by relatively uninformed writers so please do not rely on it too much. It needs to be entirely rewritten by an expert in the field.

Guys, there is no real world distinction between direct marketing and direct response. I'm a university professor of marketing and a former DM agency chief creative officer. Direct marketing, done properly, is ALWAYS an interactive effort -- an attempt to get a RESPONSE back, not just an outgoing contact. There are people who do send things without asking for a response. The proper term for that is NOT direct marketing; it is general advertising that just happens to use the media of mail. The distinction drawn in this article between direct marketing and direct response is rubbish. "Junk mail" aka direct mail is always direct marketing if it seeks a response. Targeting can be a matter of degree but even untargeted mailings that seek a response are direct marketing to the extent they are delivered to a single customer or prospect in an attempt to start a relationship.

Maybe one day when I have time, I can set this article straight. But for now, if you're using this article for research, please don't rely on it too heavily. You'll be better off starting with a textbook. I recommend the latest edition of Direct Marketing by Ed Nash if you can find it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Yepperdoo (talk • contribs) on 5th August 2006

That's a perspective from an insider in the industry, not an expert. Ralph Nader would be an expert. Ken 01:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this article is rough. The Direct Mail sections should be merged together without the B2B section in the middle, the current article doesn't flow, there are POV rambles, and it would be good to have a history of direct marketing. This section and this section are well-written. It could definitely use more attention from people well-versed in direct marketing. --Ac246 10:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I Totally agree that this article is rubbish. It equates unsolicited mail with direct marketing, which is very inaccurate. Direct marketing is about creating relationships with clients (existing and potential). It leaves out some v important direct marketing channels: telemarketing and online marketing to name two. I think it couyld do with a complete rewrite And as the first commentator said, it should come with a warning that the content is tripe and should not be used as research material. --Kirst68 06:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Direct Market

The article Direct Market deals with a distinct subject which is not the same as "direct marketing" (i.e. it isn't even an example of that concept), so I've removed the MERGE tag from here. Tverbeek 18:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


i agree Lksajeev 05:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JunkMail equals DM, or not / pro-DM bias

The article Direct Market deals with a distinct subject which is not the same as "direct marketing" (i.e. it isn't even an example of that concept), so I've removed the MERGE tag from here. Tverbeek 18:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The search-term "junk mail" currently feeds directly into this article, "direct mail", yet the Direct Mail article goes to great lengths to divest itself of any association with "junk mail". Further, the use of "targeting" to separate DM from Junkmail is invalid, because it is not in line with the widely used definition of junkmails (as verified by almost all online dictionaries). Wikipedia is dedicated to portraying reality, not altering public opinion. Therefore, this monority view/advertising push should be altered to more correctly represent the popular view (that unsolicited mass-mailed ads = junkmail, whether the ads are "targeted" or not).

The minor distinction of targeted versus untargeted is a distinction used ONLY by the small minority of DM professionals, not by the overwhelming public majority who actually decides what is or is not "junkmail".

Worse, the article-- although written by DM professionals-- reads less like a description of junkmail/DM as it is truly seen in the public eye, and more like an attempt by DM professionals to free their profession --and junkmail/direct-mail-- of any negative connotations.

This article should either be separated from the term "junkmail" (in which a more balanced, accurate picture of the public's view of junkmail could appear), or the article should be carefully rewritten with the pro-DM bias removed. Wikipedia is in the business of describing reality, not molding public opinion. Let advertisers pay for commercial time, if they wish to modify public opinion. Sethnessatwikipedia 07:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I thought it was very confusing when I figured out that when you search for "junk mail" you get directed to this article. I think it would be better to have a separate "junk mail"/"direct mail" article that could include a tracing of the history of this phenomenon. It could include a link to the "direct marketing" article. And the "direct marketing" article could include a shortened version of the "junk mail" article, with a link saying that the full article on junk mail is the junk mail article.
It seems like "direct marketing" is a much broader concept and practice than junk/direct mail. It includes a lot more in terms of practices than direct mail, and it also has a theoretical aspect to it--i.e. it's more or less a term from the jargon of the marketing field. The "direct marketing" article could trace the history and nature of direct marketing within the context of marketing in general. And maybe could have short descriptions of several practices/examples, including direct/junk mail. Whereas the "junk mail" article could focus in specifically on junk mail and look at it more in the context of society at large.
What do you think?
Mspandana 06:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Someone should now add the public opinion of junk mail to the junk mail article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.152.115.183 (talk) 23:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I've updated the section to remove the PoV judgement as to what is and is not junk mail, as according to Webster's and the OED junk mail simply refers to advertising mail, not "untargeted" advertising mail. It's a drop in the bucket of changes that the article needs, though, as the article still reads like a marketing textbook.--Trystan (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Separate article for junk mail. I agree Sanjiv swarup (talk) 04:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] history of direct marketing

  • 1498 - First book catalogue (Italy)
  • 1667 - First gardening catalogue (Eng)
  • 1727 - Mail order library (USA)
  • 1833 - Customer buying clubs (Eng)
  • 1872 - Montgomery Ward founded (USA)
  • 1874 - Sears Roebuck (USA)
  • 1905 - UK modern mail order catalogue
  • 1926 - Modern book club (USA)
  • 1950 – Diners Club (charge card)
  • 1958 – American Express (charge card)
  • 1958 – Bank Americard (first Visa card)
  • 1966 – Barclaycard (first UK Visa)
  • 1972 – Access (first UK Mastercard)
  • 1970 – Storecards (House of Fraser)
  • 1991 – Homebase Spend and Save (first mag-stripe loyalty id card)
  • 1995 - Tesco Clubcard (first 10 mill user card)


Brief, not complete

Any direct marketing pre-1498? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.39.100.177 (talk • contribs) .

Catalogues are not the same as direct marketing -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

RE: Zzuuzz - Direct selling is the predecessor of direct marketing, and therefore is acknowledge above. Also, on the article for this topic, catalogues are acknowledge as a form of direct marketing —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.39.97.83 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Introduction too long

The several paragraph introduction is way too long and fails to get to the point. It should be one paragraph, since this topic is actually pretty simple. Like, "Direct marketing is an industry term for unsolicited commercial communication with consumers or businesses." Ken 01:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

With respect, "unsolicited commercial communication with consumers" is using unnecessarily clinical words in place of commonplace, well-understood terms. It avoids using the words that the public knows best: "junk mail" and "spam". Let's use "junk mail, spam, and other forms of mass-distributed unsolicited commercial communication". Sethnessatwikipedia (talk) 09:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


agreed will you do the needful ? Sanjiv swarup 16:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


Made the corrections: Please edit 59.183.41.204 (talk) 11:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History addition

I believe that direct marketing was pioneered by Julius Seligsoehn Netter at BIA based in Moorgate, London (British International Addressing) in the 1940s. A German Jew new to the UK he set up the company to hold paper-based databases of Doctors and other professionals who companies could then target and send out direct mail to. I believe their largest client was Shell Oil who was interested in marketing to certain types of individuals. If anyone has more info on this maybe we can update the main page on Direct Marketing to include this information. Pete Nelson 20:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DMNews.com

Do you mean external links section? As a reference it seems inappropriate to link to the main page of a changing website, especially when it's not clear which assertions it's supposed to back up.
If you do mean the external links section - I think a link to one industry magazine could be good. Do most editors think this is the best one? -- Siobhan Hansa 13:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] there should be some external links to suppliers of mailing lists

What do the editors think about this idea ? post by Ramesh debata 10:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be better to link to Wikipedia articles about companies which supply mailing lists, assuming such articles exist.. or to a dmoz listing of such companies. --Versageek 10:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
This is the dmoz url: dmoz.org directory of mailing list vendors --Versageek 11:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I really don't like the idea of us linking to even a directory of list suppliers - it would be like the article on writing linking to a list of book shops - This article isn't about the lists it's about the subject of direct marketing, lists are just one tool. Linking to list providers not only fails to provide any encyclopedic information, it's somewhat tangentially related to the article subject. It fails our external links guidelines and what Wikipedia is not policy. -- Siobhan Hansa 14:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
The paragraph above explains quite clearly the reasoning against external links in this case.. Upon further consideration, I have to agree with Siobhan here. --Versageek 15:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC).
I have to concur with Versageek's original thought.

Considering that mailing is a major activity of DM, an external link to a dmoz listing should be apt. Looking at it from a user perspective of what an encyclopedia is, I would give him the choice to go to a list. Sanjiv swarup 14:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure which encyclopedias you've been reading that generally list commercial suppliers of related services - but I've never used them, and I'd be unlikely to think they gave an objective view of the subjects they covered.
If we have a link to a directory of mailing lists there are a bunch of other directories that are as or more appropriate. For instance, lists of Direct marketing firms, telemarketers, and customer relationship management software are all as relevant as sellers of lists. we are not here to facilitate direct marketing by individuals (or to hinder it), but to provide information about the concept of direct marketicing, it's history and how it impacts the world in which we live. -- Siobhan Hansa 18:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Please review the foll link for inclusion : http://dmoz.org/Business/Marketing_and_Advertising/Direct_Marketing/Mailing_Lists/ Ramesh debata 14:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

yes _ good idea Sanjiv swarup 02:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
So why is a list of direct mail list providers more relevant than, for instance, a list of direct marketing companies? Or a list of telemarketing firms? -- Siobhan Hansa 02:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


Valpak "blue envelopes" are sent to millions of addresses in the USA. Their stated policy is that you can be removed from their list for two years if you write to them in Florida. This kind of perpetual anonymous mailing should not be legal. Are there any tree-loving class action lawyers out there?

Please elborate upon the relevance of this post Sanjiv swarup 02:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The content seems region specific (US). More general content on how direct markteing is done around the world could be added. Unsigned by Vinush2000 09:44, 26 June 2007

The article is tagged as needing a cleanup, that is non-general content should be removed or replaced. Erik Warmelink 18:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let's Get This Right

I'm very interested in helping everyone get this page right. I think that while the industry does not have deep roots in academia this site can work with the leading academic programs that do exist to refine the listing and keep it current without relying too heavily on a purely commercial POV (although accurate information about commercial innovations is inseparable from a useful discussion of direct marketing).

Right now the leading programs are:

Mercy College http://www.mercy.edu/acadivisions/busacctg/grad/directmarketing/ NYU http://www.scps.nyu.edu/areas-of-study/marketing/graduate-programs/ms-direct-int-marketing/index.html Baruch http://zicklin.baruch.cuny.edu/centers/dmc/ FIT http://www.fitnyc.edu/aspx/Content.aspx?menu=Future:SchoolsAndPrograms:BusinessAndTechnology:DirectMarketing

One of the key issues this page needs to address is the quickly-developing relationship between direct marketing and the whole basket of web-based marketing tools (SEO, email etc.). The Direct Marketing Association (DMA) has a done a good job of trying to claim the mantle of industry trade group for the web. In fact "Direct Marketing" is quickly becoming an accepted catchall term for mail + phone + DRTV + web marketing (all of the programs listed above list their programs as "Direct & Interactive Marketing"). This places a heavy burnen on this page to clearly describe the main subdesiplines and point readers to pages that can explore them in detail. It should emphatically not be too skewed too much towards direct mail which should have its own page (and the term Junk Mail can be explored on that page).

- Peter Milburn (Direct Marketing Club Board Member) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.185.130 (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Milburn would like the page to be written by academics TEACHING HOW to do direct marketing, and by professionals in the junkmail/spam industry. Where's the NPOV in that? This article needs some serious rewriting with attention given to the majority viewpoint, that junk mail is unwanted. We can't take seriously a request for external links to mailing list providers, unless we also provide links (and watchdogs for this article) from anti-spam, anti-junkmail organizations. Let's get them involved. Sethnessatwikipedia (talk) 09:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Direct Response Television Marketing

This section was added a few days ago, but just with two sentences and no citations. It seems to contradict the basic definition of direct marketing provided in the article, which specificies forms of marketing which don't use mass media.--Trystan (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Elaboration has now been done . Now maybe a link leading to a list of DRTV firms would be useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjiv swarup (talk • contribs) 03:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] references

^ Origin of the term "spam" to mean net abuse, Bad Templeton's website. Retrieved 2008 February 19.


should a link to Bad Templeton be maintained ? Sanjiv swarup (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I assume you're question this because the article was red linked - that was due to a typo of mine. It should be Brad Templeton, who does have an article. I've fixed this on the article page. -- SiobhanHansa 15:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


Thanks. Now how do we consign this discussion para to the archives. Could you please do it ? Sanjiv swarup (talk) 04:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Legislation

Suggest moving the mail aspects to the direct mail article Sanjiv swarup (talk) 10:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


As no feedback: have acted Sanjiv swarup (talk) 06:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] March 15th revert

I just reverted most of this edit. A link to a home page of an advocacy organization was used as a reference - the page does not provide appropriate verification of the claim that 41 pounds of junk mail are received by Americans and gives us no way to judge due weight - unless the claim is - "the organization 41pounds claims Americans receive...." in which case - that's really not a significant enough opinion to put in like that. Using the studies on which that organization bases its claim may be appropriate depending on what those studies are though any claim that applies to just one country needs to be put in context (it's a good country to do it with but still). The second source used was to a flyer from the EPA that included third class mail among many other constituents of solid waste. It did not say that third class mail was a significant contributor. And the juxtaposition of these to studies is improper inference. To make a claim that junk mail is a significant contributor the source itself needs to say that junk mail is a significant contributor. We can't go synthesizing assertions like that.

Because of the mix of sources I'm not entirely certain of the point the editor was trying to make - is it that there are many organizations that are working against junk mail on environmental grounds? Or is it that environmental scientists pinpoint junk mail as a significant contributor to global warming? Those are different things and would likely require different sources (and we may be able to find them - but we ought to actually find them not mix things together that don't really do it).

Also it's probably more fitting to put into the main direct mail article than in this summary. Depending on the significance of the content there it might be appropriate to summarize here. -- SiobhanHansa 13:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


Your approach is correct Sanjiv swarup (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)