4 ms·

I think his whole point is that junk mail's mere existence means that it works. Junk mailers pay real hard currency for every letter they send, so they've can'

I think his whole point is that junk mail's mere existence means that it works. Junk mailers pay real hard currency for every letter they send, so they've can't afford to use ineffective copy. Online, there is no cost to to sending an email, publishing a blog post, etc., so it's more difficult to determine what copy actually works.

Semiapies 17y ago
"there is no cost to to sending an email" Only if you're not paying for the servers or the copy-writers, etc. "so it's more difficult to determine what copy actually works." That doesn't follow. Any sort of tracking, A/B testing, etc. that you could do with junk mail, you can do with spam or more accepted email marketing - and probably more cheaply.
gnosis 17y ago
Or it could be that the old adage that "there's a sucker born every minute" applies not only to the consumers of junk mail, but to its purveyors as well.
- jamiequint 17y ago
  You could say the same thing about online advertising though. Sure, some people waste money, but the bulk of people get value for the money they are spending or it would not continue to exist.
  - gnosis 17y ago
    I don't know why people think businesses are immune from spending money on products and services they don't need or which are ineffective. They may well continue to make money regardless, or for some other reason than the money they spend on direct marketing (or on online advertising, for that matter). What we need are some serious studies published in peer reviewed journals that prove that direct marketing works, not claims that if it didn't work businesses wouldn't spend money on it.
    - jamiequint 17y ago
      Your argument is flawed. Why do we need these for direct mail any more than we need them for: Display Advertising PPC Advertising TV Advertising Radio Advertising Trade Shows In-Mall Kiosks etc. Also, how would you do the study anyway? Some people do this effectively and others do not. Certain types of advertising are better for reaching some customers and others are not. It seems you are assuming that in the general case direct mail does not work at all and people are using it just because they haven't measured their marketing ROI for that channel. With minimal research you could see that this is false.
      - gnosis 17y ago
        I am simply withholding judgment on the efficacy of direct marketing until I see some solid evidence. Same with the rest of the examples you mention. So far all I've seen are claims (mostly by direct marketers themselves), not any kind of reliable proof. As for how the studies would be done, I have no doubt that scientists (who are very clever at coming up with innovative research protocols) could figure something out. But here is a modest proposal: track the spending habits of a reasonably large, randomized group of people (should be easy enough to do these days), along with the ads they receive. See how many of the products are bought by people who receive and read direct mail ads vs those that don't. That should be a good start.

Semiapies 17y ago

"there is no cost to to sending an email" Only if you're not paying for the servers or the copy-writers, etc. "so it's more difficult to determine what copy actually works." That doesn't follow. Any sort of tracking, A/B testing, etc. that you could do with junk mail, you can do with spam or more accepted email marketing - and probably more cheaply.

gnosis 17y ago

Or it could be that the old adage that "there's a sucker born every minute" applies not only to the consumers of junk mail, but to its purveyors as well.

jamiequint 17y ago
You could say the same thing about online advertising though. Sure, some people waste money, but the bulk of people get value for the money they are spending or it would not continue to exist.
- gnosis 17y ago
  I don't know why people think businesses are immune from spending money on products and services they don't need or which are ineffective. They may well continue to make money regardless, or for some other reason than the money they spend on direct marketing (or on online advertising, for that matter). What we need are some serious studies published in peer reviewed journals that prove that direct marketing works, not claims that if it didn't work businesses wouldn't spend money on it.
  - jamiequint 17y ago
    Your argument is flawed. Why do we need these for direct mail any more than we need them for: Display Advertising PPC Advertising TV Advertising Radio Advertising Trade Shows In-Mall Kiosks etc. Also, how would you do the study anyway? Some people do this effectively and others do not. Certain types of advertising are better for reaching some customers and others are not. It seems you are assuming that in the general case direct mail does not work at all and people are using it just because they haven't measured their marketing ROI for that channel. With minimal research you could see that this is false.
    - gnosis 17y ago
      I am simply withholding judgment on the efficacy of direct marketing until I see some solid evidence. Same with the rest of the examples you mention. So far all I've seen are claims (mostly by direct marketers themselves), not any kind of reliable proof. As for how the studies would be done, I have no doubt that scientists (who are very clever at coming up with innovative research protocols) could figure something out. But here is a modest proposal: track the spending habits of a reasonably large, randomized group of people (should be easy enough to do these days), along with the ads they receive. See how many of the products are bought by people who receive and read direct mail ads vs those that don't. That should be a good start.