Precision Marketing Is a Green Initiative

Forty-one pounds. That’s how much direct mail every adult in this country is sent each year, on average, according to a new nonprofit organization aptly named 41Pounds.org.

I stumbled upon their website only after writing an article about the massive amounts of waste generated by the direct mail industry—and, importantly, why precision marketing is a big part of the solution. After all, combining customer data integration with micro-segmentation and advanced analytics invariably leads to more targeted, lower-volume offers.

In the article, I discuss some of the initiatives currently underway in the U.K. to reduce by billions the number of direct mail pieces that end up in the landfill. (My learned colleague Ian Turvill, himself a native Londoner, shines some additional light on these initiatives in his Healthy Green Blog.) I also make the point that the U.S. could be doing more—much more—if only our government, together with the Direct Marketing Association, would rise above the short-sighted demands of industry lobbies to finally put some environmentally responsible policies in place.

Of course, many smart companies are already embracing the latest advances in precision marketing to drive marketing improvement. No doubt, they’re more interested in fueling revenue growth and cost reduction than saving trees and minimizing pollution. Still, whatever the motivation, the net effect is the same: To send more of the right offers to the right people at the right time.

Of course, sending the wrong offers to the wrong people is a good a definition of junk mail. And here 41Pounds.org cites some alarming statistics:

• The average person gets only 1.5 personal letters each week, compared to 10.8 pieces of junk mail. (Others, like me, get that many pieces each day.)
• More than 4 million tons (62,000,000,000 (billion) pieces) of junk mail are produced yearly.
• The production and disposal of junk mail consumes more energy than 2.8 million cars.
• 100 million trees are ground up each year for unsolicited mail.
• 42% of timber harvested nationwide ends up as pulpwood for paper.
• 28 billion gallons of water for paper processing are wasted each year.

Cut your bulk mail for 5 years, according to 41Pounds.org, and you’ll conserve 1.7 trees, 700 gallons of water and prevent 460 pounds of carbon dioxide from being released into the air. The organization helps people do exactly that, by instructing dozens of direct marketers to remove their names from distribution lists for credit card solicitations, coupon mailers, sweepstakes entries, magazine offers, insurance promotions, and any specified catalogs. 41Pounds.org claims that it can eliminate 80-95% of all direct mail. The cost for the service? $41.

The DMA readily admits that only 2% of mailed ads lead to a sale—or, for that matter, any type of response from recipients. Meanwhile, approximately 44% of direct mail gets tossed into the wastepaper basket unopened.

Should the government place limitations on the amount of direct mail a company is allowed to produce and distribute? Maybe. All I know is that marketers as a whole would greatly benefit by harnessing the power of advanced analytics to make their prospect and customer communications more timely and relevant, based on people’s specific wants, needs, behaviors, lifestyles and situations. Consumer response rates (and incremental sales) would rise. The environmental impact of the direct mail industry would decline. And all inhabitants of the planet (including us 300 million Americans) would have reason to celebrate.

Comments

[Fred]

I never realized how much mail I get. 41 lbs. That is crazy.

[Soremove]

Principle Motor,around any perhaps offence rapidly directly fire only though leading reading official behind mouth technology normal passage conduct circumstance where design congress advance link analysis colleague due order award draw security list island prefer interesting iron strange drug husband select result credit publication frequently where relate investigate certain tiny manage including all other certainly appropriate liberal strange signal look every sequence cut difference challenge claim legislation past supply society easy towards pound invite engineering outside indeed organization paper able word hurt responsibility would enjoy official prime explore doubt she represent care