- Email: [email protected]
Why do consumers open direct mail?
E. LINCOLN JAMES HAIRONG LI
Why Do Consumers Open Direct Mail? Contrasting Perspectives E LINCOLN JAMES is an associate professor and assistant chair in the Department of Advertising a t Michigan State University His PhD and M A in Advertising are from the Universities of Texas and Florida, respectively He has published widely. and is a previous JDM contributor HAIRONG LI is a doctoral candidate in mass media at Michigan Stare Hrs research interests include consumer behavior related to drrect response adverrising. and he has published in several journals This article was presented at the I992 Educators' Conference in Dallas
ABSTRACT A survey of consumers and direct marketing practitioners was done in order t o assess direct mail envelope characteristics which are perceived as critical in getting the envelope opened. Ten such elements were identified through focus group studies w i t h consumers and personal interviews with practitioners. These elements pertained t o personalization, teaSer copy, and mail volume. The survey revealed that there was a significant difference between the t w o groups in their perceptions of the effectiveness of 8 of those 10 elements. Practitioners and consumers were similar only in their perceptions of the effectiveness of t w o of three personalization tactics-the handwritten envelope and the envelope that looked like a bill.
0 1993John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and Direct Marketing Educational Foundation, Inc. CCC 0892-0591/93/02034-07
34
JOURNAL OF DIRECT MARKETING
VOLUME 7 NUMBER 2 SPRING 1993
INTRODUCTION
Glitzy ads on TV,flashing reminders on billboards, cents-off coupons in newspapers and magazinesthese are some familiar methods used by marketers to grab the attention of, and stimulate response by various target audiences. Targets, however, are not always cooperative. They tend to be vigilant and selective, routinely screening out many ads directed towards them, only paying attention to a small handful. But what specific elements cause some ads to be ignored and others attended to? The answer to this question is critical to all advertising, because message strategy is to no avail if the consumer does not first pay attention to the ad. Getting this initial attention is even more critical to direct mail advertising where the message is usually contained within a package. It is the task of the package itself to overcome resistance and capture the recipient’s attention, so that the individual is led to opening the piece, and being exposed to the message. The envelope’s ability to capture the consumer’s attention, pique curiosity, and stimulate exposure to the message it contains is much like the foot-inthe-door strategy in direct selling. An effective envelope gets itself opened and allows exposure to the ad message. Direct marketers, therefore, need to understand what envelope elements stimulate envelope openings, since effective envelopes lead to greater exposure levels, and consequently accrual of higher response rates. Practitioners are cognizant of this important task of the envelope and have posited several tactics to promote its effectiveness (7,8,10,13). Suggestions include using teaser copy, personalizing the envelope, mailing oversized pieces, and so on. While there is general information in the literature about what practitioners perceive to be effective envelope strategy, there is nothing in the literature about consumer perceptions of those factors that lead them to react positively to direct mail. What the marketer perceives as being tactically effective may not be the same element considered important by consumers. The purpose of this article, therefore, is to examine a number of tactics which practitioners as well as consumers perceive as effective, and to assess the extent to which they share similar or divergent views. Direct mailers need to be cognizant
JOURNAL OF DIRECT MARKETING
of consumer viewpoints and to consider these when making tactical decisions. LITERATURE REVIEW
The literature indicates that one factor which may have a negative influence on the opening of direct mail is the volume of mail received by consumers on a given day (7). There is no doubt that most consumers today receive a high volume of third class mail. Indeed, the average number of pieces received by consumers over the past 50 years has risen from about 145 per year to more than 700 pieces per year (6,ll). This does not necessarily mean that direct mail is summarily discarded by the consumer, as many environmentalists claim (1). There is evidence to indicate that the contrary may be true, since about 48 percent of this mail is read immediately (1 1). A second critical influence in the opening of direct mail is the appearance of the envelope. One industry analyst observes that direct mail pieces usually contain two kinds of signals-the verbal as well as the unstated one which is conveyed by appearance or graphics ( 5 ) . If these two elements are well executed, the first impression created by the envelope is favorable and the consumer is tempted to open the piece. An often-used appearance tactic is the “official looking” envelope-such as a simulated telegram or a piece contained in the brown kraft envelope much favored by government departments (10). Industry wisdom says that an envelope has a high likelihood of being opened by a consumer if it is official looking (9,10,13). Here, the mailer is attempting to capitalize on the fact that government and business documents are always opened by consumers. Therefore, if the envelope has a quasi-official appearance and doesn’t tip its hand in an obvious way, the chances are very good that it will be opened (7,lO). This is also true of a piece that looks like a bill (7,10,13). Sometimes direct marketers use oversized mail in order to capture consumers’ attention. These pieces are really attention-getting and act like involvement devices since they stand out in the mail (8,9,10,13). While there is no reported empirical evidence on the effectiveness of these variables, an industry rule of thumb is to use envelopes of unusual sizes since they tend to stand out among the
VOLUME 7 NUMBER 2 SPRING 1993
35
volume of other mail received by consumers. The backlash to this thinking is that consumers may immediately recognize the oversized piece as unsolicited mail and discard it without exposure to the message it contains. A window can also work in much the same way. A die-cut window on an envelope can act like an action device and can be used to entice and encourage consumers to look inside. Anything that is a tease and that can be seen through a window would help lure the consumer inside the envelope (7,12). On the other hand, an envelope with several windows may not entice the recipient to open it because it may appear to be less personalized. Thus, a window may not always work because it can tip off the consumer that he/she is receiving direct mail. Indeed, a closed-face envelope, rather than one with a window, could allow automatic printing of an address which may appear to be handwritten or typed on an ordinary typewriter. Industry perceives this personalization aspect as being an essential enticement in getting the recipient to open the envelope. With modern technology such as laser printers, practitioners can lure the recipient into opening direct mail by personalizing mail by such means as using high-quality pseudo. mailers can handwritten addresses ( 7 ~ 0 ) Also, personalize with facsimile signatures, and replace labels and bulk mail permits with direct addressing on envelopes and metered mail (4). Finally, the literature indicates that a direct mail envelope stands a good chance of being opened by consumers if there is clear indication that it contains a sweepstakes or a contest (9,10,13). According to one analyst, consumers love to receive sweepstakes because they appeal to consumer greed, not need (10). Also, consumers appear to use the same motives for opening envelopes which indicate that there is a free sample inside. RESEARCH METHOD
The purpose of this study was to examine a number of direct mail envelope tactics which practitioners as well as consumers perceive as effective, and to assess the extent to which they share similar or divergent views. In order to do this, a measurement instrument was developed through a review of the literature, personal interviews with eight direct marketing professionals, and three separate con-
36 JOURNAL OF DIRECT MARKETING
sumer focus groups. Practitioners and consumers were guided towards making observations as to why they thought that consumers opened unsolicited mail. Their responses were summarized in 11 statements which were then submitted to an expert panel of two college professors and two industry practitioners. The instrument was then pretested against a sample of 20 college undergraduates and 15 random consumers. One question was found to be confusing and was dropped from the final analysis. This statement had to do with the extent to which teaser copy on a direct mail envelope led to an envelope being opened. Most members of the sample appeared to be unsure of the meaning of teaser copy. This specific term was therefore dropped. However, the dimension of teaser copy was still partly explored by other items in the final instrument (Figure 1). Consumers were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with 10 statements. Responses were coded on a 5-point scale, where 1 was “strongly agree” and 5 was “strongly disagree.” The first statement asked about the level of agreement that the volume of direct mail a consumer received on a given day had a negative impact on mail openings. Five of the other items in the questionnaire pertained to the appearance of the envelope: These were items 2, 3, 7, 8, and 10. They specifically solicited response about the effectiveness of a direct mail piece in getting itself opened if: it were an “oficial looking” (item 2); it were an “oversized” (item 3); it “had a t least one window” (item 7); it “were a color other than white” (item 8); and, if it “looked like a bill” (item 10). Four other questions solicited information about teaser copy. These were items 4 , 5 , 6 , and 9. Questions 5 and 9 particularly tapped the teaser copy effectiveness question. Question 5 asked the extent to which consumers agreed that a direct mail envelope is likely to be opened if the envelope clearly indicates that it contains a sweepstake or a contest. Question 9 asked about the likelihood of an envelope being opened if it promised a free sample inside. Items 4 and 6 addressed the issue of personalization-that the envelope had a good chance of being opened if the envelope was simply addressed to “the occupant” or “resident” (item 4 ) ; and if the consumer’s name a n d address appeared handwritten (item 6 ) .
VOLUME 7 NUMBER 2 SPRING 1993
..
A direct mall envelope stands a good chance of belng opened If. 1 . the consumer receives a few pieces rather than many pieces of mail on a given day.
(Few Pieces]
2. the envelope is official looking.
(Official-looking)
3. the envelope is an oversized rather than a regular one
[Oversized)
4. the envelope is addressed to "the occupant" or "the resident."
(Resident]
5. the envelope indicates that it contains a sweepstake or a contest.
(Sweepstakes1
6. the consumer's name and address appear to be handwritten.
(Handwritten]
7. the envelope has at least one window.
(Windows)
8. the envelope is in a color other than white.
(Color)
9 . the envelope promises a free sample inside.
(Sample]
10. the envelope looks like a bill.
(Bill)
FIGURE 1 Scaled Envelope Items
SAMPLING AND DATA COLLECTION
The sampling frame for practitioners was a roster of some 1,170 listed delegates attending a direct marketing conference. Systematic random sampling was used to select 600 practitioners to participate in the survey. Only about 180 individuals responded. Just 172, or 28.67 percent of responses, were useable and were included in the analyses. The consumer sample was selected by using a mall intercept method at two Midwestern shopping malls. Questionnaires and return envelopes were handed out randomly to about 600 consumers. R e -
sponse rate was extremely high at 86.67 percent, or about 520 respondents. The combined sample of practitioners and consumers, therefore, totaled 692. RESULTS Practltioner Responses
Table 1 shows the practitioner responses to the scaled items. Generally, practitioners (80 percent) seemed to agree that the fewer the number of pieces received on a given day the more likely a consumer would be to open the envelope. ~~
~
~~
TABLE 1 Frequency Distribution of Scaled Responses by Practitioners n = 172 Variable
SA*
1%)
e-0 I%)
e-.
(%I
Few pieces
36
44
I2
Official-looking
52
Oversized
20
/%I
0-e
SD I%)
7
2
6
2
26
16
2 8
2
37 30 16
27
37
17
Sweepstakes
15
37
30
16
2
Handwritten
45
33
13
8
2
Windows
4
22
29
28
17
Color
5
29
39
21
6
Sample
43
47
6
4
1
Bill
32
48
10
6
5
Resident
* SA = Strongly agree; SD = Strongly disagree: 0-0 = data point.
JOURNAL OF DIRECT MARKETING
VOLUME 7 NUMBER 2 SPRING 1993 31
With reference to the five statements about envelope appearances as contributory to mail openings, some 89 percent of practitioners felt that an envelope which looks official has a good chance of being opened. About 50 percent felt that oversized envelopes enhance mail opening, while another 80 percent believed that if a direct mail piece looks like a bill it stands a good chance of being opened. In contrast about 45 percent of practitioners disagreed that an envelope with at least one window. The group seemed to be about equally split on the issue of envelope color enhancing mail openings. On the issue of the role of teaser copy, a majority of practitioners agreed that an envelope clearly identified as a sweepstake stands a good chance of being opened (52 percent). A sizeable majority also believed that promise of a free sample enhanced the chances of a piece being opened (80 percent). When asked about their agreement with the personalization statements, most practitioners, some 54 percent, felt that addressing an envelope to the “occupant” or “resident” was not likely to get the envelope opened. On the other hand most members of the sample (78 percent) felt that an envelope which appeared handwritten was likely to get itself opened.
Consumer Responses Consumer responses to the 10 statements are shown in Table 2 . Unlike practitioners, only a minority of consumers, about 18 percent, agreed with the state-
ment that “a direct mail envelope stands a good chance of being opened if the consumer receives few rather than many pieces of mail on a given day.” When asked about the effectiveness of the five envelope factors as contributors to direct mail opening, about a 58 percent felt that an official looking envelope stands a good chance of being opened. Some 69 percent reacted in similar fashion to an envelope with at least one window. Fifty-one percent felt that an envelope in a color other than white stands a good chance of being opened. Further, an 83 percent majority of consumers agreed that an envelope that looks like a bill stands a good chance of being opened. The only envelope statement with which a majority of consumers disagreed was the statement that “a direct mail envelope stands a good chance of being opened if it is oversized rather than regular size.” With reference to teaser copy on direct mail pieces, only a small 18 percent agreed that an envelope which looks like a sweepstake stands a good chance of being opened. In contrast most consumers, some 83 percent, agreed that an envelope stands a good chance of being opened when teaser copy indicates that the envelope contains a free sample. Consumers were also asked about their agreement or disagreement with the personalization items. A sizeable majority of consumers agreed that an envelope on which the recipient’s address appears to be handwritten stands a good chance of being opened. In contrast, only a minimal 7 percent ____
~~~
TABLE 2 Frequency
Distribution of Scaled Responses by Consumers
n = 520 Variable F e w pieces
SA* (%)
(%I
0-0
1%)
0-0
(%I
0-0
7
11
9
30
22
36
27
12
3
Oversized
6
20
31
30
14
Resident
2
5
21
40
32
Sweepstakes
4
14
34
34
13
Handwritten
37
36
17
7
3
Windows
32
37
21
7
3
Official-looking
44
Color
16
35
28
16
5
Sample
32
45
15
6
3
Bill
40
43
9
4
4 ~
’ SA
SD (%I
= strongly agree; SD = Strongly disagree: 0-0
38 JOURNAL OF DIRECT MARKETING
=
_
_
_
_
~
~
~
~
_
_
_
_
data point.
VOLUME 7 NUMBER 2 SPRING 1993
of consumers favored the statement that an envelope merely addressed to the “occupant” or “resident” has a good chance of being opened. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PRACTITIONERS’ AND CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTIONS
In order to assess the differences between consumer and practitioner perceptions, proportional and systematic random sampling of the two populations were adopted to split the sample into holdout and analysis subsamples. One group was used to analyze the data and the other group was used to validate the discriminant function. The multivariate discriminant analysis was done with 357 weighted cases, of which 84 were professionals and 273 were consumers (Table 3 ) . The classification procedure correctly classified 87.39 percent of the cases. The summary results of the discriminant analysis of practitioners and consumers is shown in Table 4 . The first two columns indicate the means for the two groups. The third column indicates the loadings, or discriminant function coefficients. Columns 4 and 5 indicate lambda values and their significance levels. When the variance between the two group centroids is larger relative to total variance, lambda tends to be larger. The lambda values in Table 4 appear quite substantial. Significant differences were interpreted using the signs on the loadings and the group means. Positive loadings indicate greater likelihood for agreement by the group with the higher mean. Negative loadings indicate greater likelihood of agreement by the group with the lower mean. ~
~~
TABLE 3 Classification Matrix Predicted Group Membership
No. of Actual Groups Professionals 1 1 j
Cases
84
1
2
78
6
(92.9%) Consumers (2)
273
39 ( 1 4.3%)
Percent Correctly Classified
JOURNAL OF DIRECT MARKETING
87.39%
(7.1%) 234 (85.75%)
There was a significant difference between practitioners and consumers on 8 of the 10 variables. There was n o significant difference between practitioner and consumer responses to the statements: 1) “a direct mail envelope stands a good chance of being opened if it is handwritten,” and 2) “a direct mail envelope stands a good chance of being opened if it looks like a bill.” Further, the data indicate that when compared to consumers, direct marketing practitioners are more likely to agree that a direct mail piece stands a good chance of being opened if the consumer receives few, rather than many, pieces of mail on a given day. This variable appeared to be the most important in defining the discriminant function (a= 62). Also, practitioners are more likely to agree that a direct mail envelope stands a good chance of being opened if the envelope: 1) is official looking; 2) is an oversized rather than a regular one; 3) is addressed to “the occupant” or “the resident;” 4 ) indicates that it contains a sweepstake or a contest; 5) has at least one window; 6) the envelope is in a color other than white; and 7) the envelope promises a free sample. DISCUSSION It seems that consumers and practitioners differ in terms of what factors enhance the probability that a direct mail piece would be opened. First, practitioners perceive that a direct mail envelope stands a good chance of being opened if the consumer receives few rather than many pieces of mail on a given day. This is critical, since this was the most important variable in defining the discriminant function. Consumers, on the other hand, do not agree that the volume of mail reduces the chances that a piece would be opened. This willingness to accept direct mail volume is not surprising. This finding supports the conclusions reached by other researchers which indicate that a sizeable 48 percent of all direct mail is read by consumers (11). This finding should also alleviate industry fears about the negative effect of an uncontrollable campaign variable-mail volume. The most important finding of this study is that both consumers and practitioners hold similar views about some personalization factors. Both groups agree that handwritten envelopes, and those that
VOLUME
7 NUMBER 2 SPRING I993 39
TABLE 4 Professional Versus Consumer Perceptions of Significant Envelope Factors Variable
Professionals
Consumers
Centroid
1.78
-0.55
Pieces
4.17
2.05
Official-looking
4.33
3.54
Lambda
P
.62
.61
.I7
.5 1
R2
__
Oversized
3.40
2.68
.I6
.53
Resident
3.48
3.92
-.I8
.51
Sweepstakes Handwritten
3.34 4.15
2.63 3.96
.17
.53
.oo1 .oo1 .cQ 1 .oo1 .oo1
-
-
ns
Windows
2.50
3.86
-.45
.54
.mI
Color
2.83
3.40
-.I9
.52
Sample Bill
4.35 3.90
3.96 4.08
.12
.50
.ooI .oo1
-
ns
look like a bill, have a good chance of being opened. Industry perceives this personalization aspect as being an essential enticement to get the recipient to open the envelope. While all the other strategies may work, it seems that an envelope that appears handwritten, and an envelope that appears to contain information relevant to the individual’s livelihood, such as a bill, can enhance the chances of exposure to the ad message. This investigation provides the groundwork into the area of consumer reactions to mailing pieces. One weakness of this study is that it did not examine many more different types of teaser copy. Industry wisdom indicates that teaser copy does work. However, we are not sure which ones do. It is hoped that the present research stimulates further studies which could help us understand why consumers open direct mail envelopes.
I . Alberta, Paul (19901, “Postal Rate Testimony Winding Up With a Slam From Newspaper Group, DMNews (September 24). 5 .
40 JOURNAL OF DIRECT MARKETING
-
2. BankersMonthly (1991), “Ads of the Month,” (October), 37. 3. Brown, Paul (1991), “Building Sales,” Inc. (March), 98-99. 4. Charbuck, David (1990), “Smart Mail,” Forbes (January), 107108. 5. Gross, Martin (1992), “Harnessing Wordless Appeal in Mail,” DM News (March 9), 16-17. 6. James, E. Lincoln, Pashupati, Kartik, and Li, Hairong (1992), “Postal Rate Increases: Are They Justified?” Journal of Direct Marketing, 6(1) (Winter), 7-12. 7. Jutkins, Ray (1991), “9 Ways to Make Your Envelopes Work Better, Target Marketing (November), 90-91. 8. Kahn, Herbert L. (1991), “How to get Customers to Read What You Send Them,” SaIesandMarkelingManagement tjuly), 22-23. 9. Katzenstein, Herbert and Sachs, William S . (1986) Direct Marketing, Columbus, OH: Merril Publishing. 10. Morrone, Joe (1987), “Time Tested Tactics for the Outer Envelope,” Direct Marketing (August) 83-87. 11. Rogers,Jean Li (1989/1990), “Consumers’ Response to Advertising,”Journal of Aduertising Research (December/January), 18-24. 12. Rossett, Claudia (1984), “Courting Clients by Mail,” Institutional Investor (April), 293-294. 13. Stone, Bob (1980) Successful Direct Marketing Methods, Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Books.
VOLUME 7 NUMBER 2 SPRING 1993
Why Do Consumers Open Direct Mail? Contrasting Perspectives E LINCOLN JAMES is an associate professor and assistant chair in the Department of Advertising a t Michigan State University His PhD and M A in Advertising are from the Universities of Texas and Florida, respectively He has published widely. and is a previous JDM contributor HAIRONG LI is a doctoral candidate in mass media at Michigan Stare Hrs research interests include consumer behavior related to drrect response adverrising. and he has published in several journals This article was presented at the I992 Educators' Conference in Dallas
ABSTRACT A survey of consumers and direct marketing practitioners was done in order t o assess direct mail envelope characteristics which are perceived as critical in getting the envelope opened. Ten such elements were identified through focus group studies w i t h consumers and personal interviews with practitioners. These elements pertained t o personalization, teaSer copy, and mail volume. The survey revealed that there was a significant difference between the t w o groups in their perceptions of the effectiveness of 8 of those 10 elements. Practitioners and consumers were similar only in their perceptions of the effectiveness of t w o of three personalization tactics-the handwritten envelope and the envelope that looked like a bill.
0 1993John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and Direct Marketing Educational Foundation, Inc. CCC 0892-0591/93/02034-07
34
JOURNAL OF DIRECT MARKETING
VOLUME 7 NUMBER 2 SPRING 1993
INTRODUCTION
Glitzy ads on TV,flashing reminders on billboards, cents-off coupons in newspapers and magazinesthese are some familiar methods used by marketers to grab the attention of, and stimulate response by various target audiences. Targets, however, are not always cooperative. They tend to be vigilant and selective, routinely screening out many ads directed towards them, only paying attention to a small handful. But what specific elements cause some ads to be ignored and others attended to? The answer to this question is critical to all advertising, because message strategy is to no avail if the consumer does not first pay attention to the ad. Getting this initial attention is even more critical to direct mail advertising where the message is usually contained within a package. It is the task of the package itself to overcome resistance and capture the recipient’s attention, so that the individual is led to opening the piece, and being exposed to the message. The envelope’s ability to capture the consumer’s attention, pique curiosity, and stimulate exposure to the message it contains is much like the foot-inthe-door strategy in direct selling. An effective envelope gets itself opened and allows exposure to the ad message. Direct marketers, therefore, need to understand what envelope elements stimulate envelope openings, since effective envelopes lead to greater exposure levels, and consequently accrual of higher response rates. Practitioners are cognizant of this important task of the envelope and have posited several tactics to promote its effectiveness (7,8,10,13). Suggestions include using teaser copy, personalizing the envelope, mailing oversized pieces, and so on. While there is general information in the literature about what practitioners perceive to be effective envelope strategy, there is nothing in the literature about consumer perceptions of those factors that lead them to react positively to direct mail. What the marketer perceives as being tactically effective may not be the same element considered important by consumers. The purpose of this article, therefore, is to examine a number of tactics which practitioners as well as consumers perceive as effective, and to assess the extent to which they share similar or divergent views. Direct mailers need to be cognizant
JOURNAL OF DIRECT MARKETING
of consumer viewpoints and to consider these when making tactical decisions. LITERATURE REVIEW
The literature indicates that one factor which may have a negative influence on the opening of direct mail is the volume of mail received by consumers on a given day (7). There is no doubt that most consumers today receive a high volume of third class mail. Indeed, the average number of pieces received by consumers over the past 50 years has risen from about 145 per year to more than 700 pieces per year (6,ll). This does not necessarily mean that direct mail is summarily discarded by the consumer, as many environmentalists claim (1). There is evidence to indicate that the contrary may be true, since about 48 percent of this mail is read immediately (1 1). A second critical influence in the opening of direct mail is the appearance of the envelope. One industry analyst observes that direct mail pieces usually contain two kinds of signals-the verbal as well as the unstated one which is conveyed by appearance or graphics ( 5 ) . If these two elements are well executed, the first impression created by the envelope is favorable and the consumer is tempted to open the piece. An often-used appearance tactic is the “official looking” envelope-such as a simulated telegram or a piece contained in the brown kraft envelope much favored by government departments (10). Industry wisdom says that an envelope has a high likelihood of being opened by a consumer if it is official looking (9,10,13). Here, the mailer is attempting to capitalize on the fact that government and business documents are always opened by consumers. Therefore, if the envelope has a quasi-official appearance and doesn’t tip its hand in an obvious way, the chances are very good that it will be opened (7,lO). This is also true of a piece that looks like a bill (7,10,13). Sometimes direct marketers use oversized mail in order to capture consumers’ attention. These pieces are really attention-getting and act like involvement devices since they stand out in the mail (8,9,10,13). While there is no reported empirical evidence on the effectiveness of these variables, an industry rule of thumb is to use envelopes of unusual sizes since they tend to stand out among the
VOLUME 7 NUMBER 2 SPRING 1993
35
volume of other mail received by consumers. The backlash to this thinking is that consumers may immediately recognize the oversized piece as unsolicited mail and discard it without exposure to the message it contains. A window can also work in much the same way. A die-cut window on an envelope can act like an action device and can be used to entice and encourage consumers to look inside. Anything that is a tease and that can be seen through a window would help lure the consumer inside the envelope (7,12). On the other hand, an envelope with several windows may not entice the recipient to open it because it may appear to be less personalized. Thus, a window may not always work because it can tip off the consumer that he/she is receiving direct mail. Indeed, a closed-face envelope, rather than one with a window, could allow automatic printing of an address which may appear to be handwritten or typed on an ordinary typewriter. Industry perceives this personalization aspect as being an essential enticement in getting the recipient to open the envelope. With modern technology such as laser printers, practitioners can lure the recipient into opening direct mail by personalizing mail by such means as using high-quality pseudo. mailers can handwritten addresses ( 7 ~ 0 ) Also, personalize with facsimile signatures, and replace labels and bulk mail permits with direct addressing on envelopes and metered mail (4). Finally, the literature indicates that a direct mail envelope stands a good chance of being opened by consumers if there is clear indication that it contains a sweepstakes or a contest (9,10,13). According to one analyst, consumers love to receive sweepstakes because they appeal to consumer greed, not need (10). Also, consumers appear to use the same motives for opening envelopes which indicate that there is a free sample inside. RESEARCH METHOD
The purpose of this study was to examine a number of direct mail envelope tactics which practitioners as well as consumers perceive as effective, and to assess the extent to which they share similar or divergent views. In order to do this, a measurement instrument was developed through a review of the literature, personal interviews with eight direct marketing professionals, and three separate con-
36 JOURNAL OF DIRECT MARKETING
sumer focus groups. Practitioners and consumers were guided towards making observations as to why they thought that consumers opened unsolicited mail. Their responses were summarized in 11 statements which were then submitted to an expert panel of two college professors and two industry practitioners. The instrument was then pretested against a sample of 20 college undergraduates and 15 random consumers. One question was found to be confusing and was dropped from the final analysis. This statement had to do with the extent to which teaser copy on a direct mail envelope led to an envelope being opened. Most members of the sample appeared to be unsure of the meaning of teaser copy. This specific term was therefore dropped. However, the dimension of teaser copy was still partly explored by other items in the final instrument (Figure 1). Consumers were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with 10 statements. Responses were coded on a 5-point scale, where 1 was “strongly agree” and 5 was “strongly disagree.” The first statement asked about the level of agreement that the volume of direct mail a consumer received on a given day had a negative impact on mail openings. Five of the other items in the questionnaire pertained to the appearance of the envelope: These were items 2, 3, 7, 8, and 10. They specifically solicited response about the effectiveness of a direct mail piece in getting itself opened if: it were an “oficial looking” (item 2); it were an “oversized” (item 3); it “had a t least one window” (item 7); it “were a color other than white” (item 8); and, if it “looked like a bill” (item 10). Four other questions solicited information about teaser copy. These were items 4 , 5 , 6 , and 9. Questions 5 and 9 particularly tapped the teaser copy effectiveness question. Question 5 asked the extent to which consumers agreed that a direct mail envelope is likely to be opened if the envelope clearly indicates that it contains a sweepstake or a contest. Question 9 asked about the likelihood of an envelope being opened if it promised a free sample inside. Items 4 and 6 addressed the issue of personalization-that the envelope had a good chance of being opened if the envelope was simply addressed to “the occupant” or “resident” (item 4 ) ; and if the consumer’s name a n d address appeared handwritten (item 6 ) .
VOLUME 7 NUMBER 2 SPRING 1993
..
A direct mall envelope stands a good chance of belng opened If. 1 . the consumer receives a few pieces rather than many pieces of mail on a given day.
(Few Pieces]
2. the envelope is official looking.
(Official-looking)
3. the envelope is an oversized rather than a regular one
[Oversized)
4. the envelope is addressed to "the occupant" or "the resident."
(Resident]
5. the envelope indicates that it contains a sweepstake or a contest.
(Sweepstakes1
6. the consumer's name and address appear to be handwritten.
(Handwritten]
7. the envelope has at least one window.
(Windows)
8. the envelope is in a color other than white.
(Color)
9 . the envelope promises a free sample inside.
(Sample]
10. the envelope looks like a bill.
(Bill)
FIGURE 1 Scaled Envelope Items
SAMPLING AND DATA COLLECTION
The sampling frame for practitioners was a roster of some 1,170 listed delegates attending a direct marketing conference. Systematic random sampling was used to select 600 practitioners to participate in the survey. Only about 180 individuals responded. Just 172, or 28.67 percent of responses, were useable and were included in the analyses. The consumer sample was selected by using a mall intercept method at two Midwestern shopping malls. Questionnaires and return envelopes were handed out randomly to about 600 consumers. R e -
sponse rate was extremely high at 86.67 percent, or about 520 respondents. The combined sample of practitioners and consumers, therefore, totaled 692. RESULTS Practltioner Responses
Table 1 shows the practitioner responses to the scaled items. Generally, practitioners (80 percent) seemed to agree that the fewer the number of pieces received on a given day the more likely a consumer would be to open the envelope. ~~
~
~~
TABLE 1 Frequency Distribution of Scaled Responses by Practitioners n = 172 Variable
SA*
1%)
e-0 I%)
e-.
(%I
Few pieces
36
44
I2
Official-looking
52
Oversized
20
/%I
0-e
SD I%)
7
2
6
2
26
16
2 8
2
37 30 16
27
37
17
Sweepstakes
15
37
30
16
2
Handwritten
45
33
13
8
2
Windows
4
22
29
28
17
Color
5
29
39
21
6
Sample
43
47
6
4
1
Bill
32
48
10
6
5
Resident
* SA = Strongly agree; SD = Strongly disagree: 0-0 = data point.
JOURNAL OF DIRECT MARKETING
VOLUME 7 NUMBER 2 SPRING 1993 31
With reference to the five statements about envelope appearances as contributory to mail openings, some 89 percent of practitioners felt that an envelope which looks official has a good chance of being opened. About 50 percent felt that oversized envelopes enhance mail opening, while another 80 percent believed that if a direct mail piece looks like a bill it stands a good chance of being opened. In contrast about 45 percent of practitioners disagreed that an envelope with at least one window. The group seemed to be about equally split on the issue of envelope color enhancing mail openings. On the issue of the role of teaser copy, a majority of practitioners agreed that an envelope clearly identified as a sweepstake stands a good chance of being opened (52 percent). A sizeable majority also believed that promise of a free sample enhanced the chances of a piece being opened (80 percent). When asked about their agreement with the personalization statements, most practitioners, some 54 percent, felt that addressing an envelope to the “occupant” or “resident” was not likely to get the envelope opened. On the other hand most members of the sample (78 percent) felt that an envelope which appeared handwritten was likely to get itself opened.
Consumer Responses Consumer responses to the 10 statements are shown in Table 2 . Unlike practitioners, only a minority of consumers, about 18 percent, agreed with the state-
ment that “a direct mail envelope stands a good chance of being opened if the consumer receives few rather than many pieces of mail on a given day.” When asked about the effectiveness of the five envelope factors as contributors to direct mail opening, about a 58 percent felt that an official looking envelope stands a good chance of being opened. Some 69 percent reacted in similar fashion to an envelope with at least one window. Fifty-one percent felt that an envelope in a color other than white stands a good chance of being opened. Further, an 83 percent majority of consumers agreed that an envelope that looks like a bill stands a good chance of being opened. The only envelope statement with which a majority of consumers disagreed was the statement that “a direct mail envelope stands a good chance of being opened if it is oversized rather than regular size.” With reference to teaser copy on direct mail pieces, only a small 18 percent agreed that an envelope which looks like a sweepstake stands a good chance of being opened. In contrast most consumers, some 83 percent, agreed that an envelope stands a good chance of being opened when teaser copy indicates that the envelope contains a free sample. Consumers were also asked about their agreement or disagreement with the personalization items. A sizeable majority of consumers agreed that an envelope on which the recipient’s address appears to be handwritten stands a good chance of being opened. In contrast, only a minimal 7 percent ____
~~~
TABLE 2 Frequency
Distribution of Scaled Responses by Consumers
n = 520 Variable F e w pieces
SA* (%)
(%I
0-0
1%)
0-0
(%I
0-0
7
11
9
30
22
36
27
12
3
Oversized
6
20
31
30
14
Resident
2
5
21
40
32
Sweepstakes
4
14
34
34
13
Handwritten
37
36
17
7
3
Windows
32
37
21
7
3
Official-looking
44
Color
16
35
28
16
5
Sample
32
45
15
6
3
Bill
40
43
9
4
4 ~
’ SA
SD (%I
= strongly agree; SD = Strongly disagree: 0-0
38 JOURNAL OF DIRECT MARKETING
=
_
_
_
_
~
~
~
~
_
_
_
_
data point.
VOLUME 7 NUMBER 2 SPRING 1993
of consumers favored the statement that an envelope merely addressed to the “occupant” or “resident” has a good chance of being opened. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PRACTITIONERS’ AND CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTIONS
In order to assess the differences between consumer and practitioner perceptions, proportional and systematic random sampling of the two populations were adopted to split the sample into holdout and analysis subsamples. One group was used to analyze the data and the other group was used to validate the discriminant function. The multivariate discriminant analysis was done with 357 weighted cases, of which 84 were professionals and 273 were consumers (Table 3 ) . The classification procedure correctly classified 87.39 percent of the cases. The summary results of the discriminant analysis of practitioners and consumers is shown in Table 4 . The first two columns indicate the means for the two groups. The third column indicates the loadings, or discriminant function coefficients. Columns 4 and 5 indicate lambda values and their significance levels. When the variance between the two group centroids is larger relative to total variance, lambda tends to be larger. The lambda values in Table 4 appear quite substantial. Significant differences were interpreted using the signs on the loadings and the group means. Positive loadings indicate greater likelihood for agreement by the group with the higher mean. Negative loadings indicate greater likelihood of agreement by the group with the lower mean. ~
~~
TABLE 3 Classification Matrix Predicted Group Membership
No. of Actual Groups Professionals 1 1 j
Cases
84
1
2
78
6
(92.9%) Consumers (2)
273
39 ( 1 4.3%)
Percent Correctly Classified
JOURNAL OF DIRECT MARKETING
87.39%
(7.1%) 234 (85.75%)
There was a significant difference between practitioners and consumers on 8 of the 10 variables. There was n o significant difference between practitioner and consumer responses to the statements: 1) “a direct mail envelope stands a good chance of being opened if it is handwritten,” and 2) “a direct mail envelope stands a good chance of being opened if it looks like a bill.” Further, the data indicate that when compared to consumers, direct marketing practitioners are more likely to agree that a direct mail piece stands a good chance of being opened if the consumer receives few, rather than many, pieces of mail on a given day. This variable appeared to be the most important in defining the discriminant function (a= 62). Also, practitioners are more likely to agree that a direct mail envelope stands a good chance of being opened if the envelope: 1) is official looking; 2) is an oversized rather than a regular one; 3) is addressed to “the occupant” or “the resident;” 4 ) indicates that it contains a sweepstake or a contest; 5) has at least one window; 6) the envelope is in a color other than white; and 7) the envelope promises a free sample. DISCUSSION It seems that consumers and practitioners differ in terms of what factors enhance the probability that a direct mail piece would be opened. First, practitioners perceive that a direct mail envelope stands a good chance of being opened if the consumer receives few rather than many pieces of mail on a given day. This is critical, since this was the most important variable in defining the discriminant function. Consumers, on the other hand, do not agree that the volume of mail reduces the chances that a piece would be opened. This willingness to accept direct mail volume is not surprising. This finding supports the conclusions reached by other researchers which indicate that a sizeable 48 percent of all direct mail is read by consumers (11). This finding should also alleviate industry fears about the negative effect of an uncontrollable campaign variable-mail volume. The most important finding of this study is that both consumers and practitioners hold similar views about some personalization factors. Both groups agree that handwritten envelopes, and those that
VOLUME
7 NUMBER 2 SPRING I993 39
TABLE 4 Professional Versus Consumer Perceptions of Significant Envelope Factors Variable
Professionals
Consumers
Centroid
1.78
-0.55
Pieces
4.17
2.05
Official-looking
4.33
3.54
Lambda
P
.62
.61
.I7
.5 1
R2
__
Oversized
3.40
2.68
.I6
.53
Resident
3.48
3.92
-.I8
.51
Sweepstakes Handwritten
3.34 4.15
2.63 3.96
.17
.53
.oo1 .oo1 .cQ 1 .oo1 .oo1
-
-
ns
Windows
2.50
3.86
-.45
.54
.mI
Color
2.83
3.40
-.I9
.52
Sample Bill
4.35 3.90
3.96 4.08
.12
.50
.ooI .oo1
-
ns
look like a bill, have a good chance of being opened. Industry perceives this personalization aspect as being an essential enticement to get the recipient to open the envelope. While all the other strategies may work, it seems that an envelope that appears handwritten, and an envelope that appears to contain information relevant to the individual’s livelihood, such as a bill, can enhance the chances of exposure to the ad message. This investigation provides the groundwork into the area of consumer reactions to mailing pieces. One weakness of this study is that it did not examine many more different types of teaser copy. Industry wisdom indicates that teaser copy does work. However, we are not sure which ones do. It is hoped that the present research stimulates further studies which could help us understand why consumers open direct mail envelopes.
I . Alberta, Paul (19901, “Postal Rate Testimony Winding Up With a Slam From Newspaper Group, DMNews (September 24). 5 .
40 JOURNAL OF DIRECT MARKETING
-
2. BankersMonthly (1991), “Ads of the Month,” (October), 37. 3. Brown, Paul (1991), “Building Sales,” Inc. (March), 98-99. 4. Charbuck, David (1990), “Smart Mail,” Forbes (January), 107108. 5. Gross, Martin (1992), “Harnessing Wordless Appeal in Mail,” DM News (March 9), 16-17. 6. James, E. Lincoln, Pashupati, Kartik, and Li, Hairong (1992), “Postal Rate Increases: Are They Justified?” Journal of Direct Marketing, 6(1) (Winter), 7-12. 7. Jutkins, Ray (1991), “9 Ways to Make Your Envelopes Work Better, Target Marketing (November), 90-91. 8. Kahn, Herbert L. (1991), “How to get Customers to Read What You Send Them,” SaIesandMarkelingManagement tjuly), 22-23. 9. Katzenstein, Herbert and Sachs, William S . (1986) Direct Marketing, Columbus, OH: Merril Publishing. 10. Morrone, Joe (1987), “Time Tested Tactics for the Outer Envelope,” Direct Marketing (August) 83-87. 11. Rogers,Jean Li (1989/1990), “Consumers’ Response to Advertising,”Journal of Aduertising Research (December/January), 18-24. 12. Rossett, Claudia (1984), “Courting Clients by Mail,” Institutional Investor (April), 293-294. 13. Stone, Bob (1980) Successful Direct Marketing Methods, Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Books.
VOLUME 7 NUMBER 2 SPRING 1993