Blank Scroll

Challenge:

This is a whopper...A classic case of poor communication. Read VERY CAREFULLY.

A client requested research for a mailing list covering a specific area around 90 locations. After much discussion, they decided to provide their own mailing list. We provided a job quote and estimate for automated postage based upon one job of approximately 77,000 pieces.

During a call alerting us to the fact that the material was due to be delivered and the address data was ready, the client mentioned that different versions of the material would be clearly marked and that we could separate the data by codes embedded in the spreadsheet they would provide. HOLD EVERYTHING!

This is what really happened: One production run of like material totaling 77,000 pieces became 90 different jobs. Now, we were dealing with different versions of the printed piece and 90 subsets of data to create different mailing lists, not to mention 90 postal statements, postal sortation reports and CASS certificates.

The coupe de grace was the mail piece itself. The design featured a sphere screened directly in the addressing area. The graphic interfered with the US Postal Service’s ability to read the barcode and effectively eliminated the possibility of automating the mailing. The cost of labor and material needed to make the barcode readable in this case far outstripped the potential postage savings and was not cost-effective.

The client couldn’t understand why the production price and estimated postage were going to be higher than the original quote.

Solution:

The answer was simple:

First, we had originally quoted on one job. Now we were working 90. Had we been told there would be 90 “Site Specific” locations, we would have had asked the appropriate questions in order to determine the most economical mailing process that would take into account the different information for each location.

With today’s advanced technology, we could have ink-jetted the specific information onto the mail piece at the time of addressing, or used our Variable Data Press to actually change the specific graphics, return address and other aspects of the printing from codes embedded in the database. Either scenario would have preserved the single run configuration of the job and helped keep the costs down.

Second, we were not consulted about the design of the piece. Had we been included in the project from the beginning, we would have advised them not to print anything in the barcode area that could compromise their ability to achieve the best possible postage discount.

Truly a double whammy.

Challenge:

5,000 envelopes and inserts for an auto dealership have been sitting in our inventory because the client’s mailing list arrived after the material was ready, and the list was unusable.

Using an outside mail list provider, the client was unable to have new, usable address data sent immediately. The mailing has, therefore, been delayed for one full week.

Unfortunately, the materials are time-sensitive sales brochures advertising this month’s specials. Each day the mailing is delayed reduces the time during which recipients can respond to the offer and take advantage of the specials.

Solution:

The solution, of course, is to provide your mailhouse with the mailing address data well in advance of the printed pieces.

We always encourage clients to forward their mailing data as soon as the file has been generated and not wait until the material is printed.

We do this not because we want to pressure our clients, but because we want the opportunity to verify the mailability of the data provided and solve any problems BEFORE the material is ready for processing.

Challenge:

Today we received 90,000 pieces of a beautiful four-color brochure. Unfortunately, this client will have to pay thousands of dollars in extra postage because the size was larger than the 6 1/8" maximum height allowed for lettersize postage rates, and the weight of the piece exceeded 1 oz.

Either one of these factors would have put the piece in a much higher postage rate category. In this case, the damage was substantial: Unnecessary postage amounted to 22.5 cents a piece or a total of $20,250.00.

Solution:

Insist that your graphic designer or printer work within proper mailing guidelines or with professional mailing advice.

The above scenario could have been avoided by producing the very same brochure in a final folded size of 6 1/8" high and well within the weight limits by using a slightly lighter grade of paper stock.

Challenge:

This one is really serious. One of our very good clients, who really knows how to coordinate direct mail projects, arranged for an important mailing with a deadline. With the schedule in place for over a month, we agreed on exactly when we would receive the printed material, how long our production would take and the specific mailing date.

All components of this 200,000-piece job were to be delivered to us on a Thursday. On Friday morning, we notified the client that the material had not arrived. When she called back, she reported that her purchase order had been misread by her vendor; the mailing date was misinterpreted as being the delivery date.

This led to a chaotic reshuffling of production schedules, overtime processing and, most important, a missed mail date.

Solution:

Careful communication is the solution. Coordination is successful only when all parties involved in the process communicate clearly and often. In this instance, it’s easy to see that the delay could have been avoided by not assuming anything and confirming that the orders were clear to all involved in the project every step of the way.

Challenge:

Another design disaster showed up this month. We got a delivery of 30,000 envelopes for what should have been a straight forward mailing. However, a designer had decided that stripes would look good. Not only stripes, but dark stripes that ran diagonally over the left 40% of the envelope.

You guessed it. The stripes penetrated the addressing area and interfered with barcode placement. Because of the dark background of the stripes, the equipment used by the USPS could not read the barcodes. Subsequently, we could not obtain the highest postage discounting, and the client paid more than necessary.

Solution: The answer, of course, is to think the process all the way through and consult all the experts involved in your project INCLUDING the mailhouse.

Challenge:

No business owner wants unhappy or disappointed customers, and they hesitate to tell anyone else about such customers. However, we can all benefit from the following scenario.

A long-time, loyal mailer sent in a large mailing, with their mailing list and check to cover postage. They left the rest up to us, which they had done many times before and were always quite satisfied with our service. This time, however, they failed to tell us that they expected this mailing to be in at the post office two days after the material arrived in our shop.

While this is not an impossible task — in fact we deal with even shorter deadlines regularly — the lack of communication regarding delivery expectations resulted in our placing the job on a “regular” production schedule instead of one that handles “high priority” jobs. Consequently, the job did not leave our lettershop according to the client’s expectations. And, the after-the-fact conversation was difficult, especially since we were dealing with a long-standing, devoted and valuable customer.

Solution:

As in all production facilities — whether you handle widgets or mail — production schedules must be created and managed for efficiency and to meet clients’ needs. This enables the producer to maximize available resources and meet clients’ delivery expectations. In this case, the problem could have been completely avoided if both sides had discussed a firm time schedule that was realistic for both. Once again, communication is the key in the direct mail business.

Challenge:

The old computer adage "Garbage In - Garbage Out" is just as applicable to mailings as it is elsewhere in our computerized world.

With so many database management programs on the market, it's hard to explain how each works. However, it's not difficult to understand that "like" data must be captured in "like" fields.

In other words, Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr./ Rev. should be in a separate "prefix" field, first names go in the first name field, middle Initial in the MI field, and last names in the last name field, etc. This also applies to titles, department names, company addresses and street addresses.

If you wind up with mixed data (i.e., individual names and company names in the same field) your ability to maximize the use of the data is compromised. At the very least, you will not be able to utilize a salutation on personalized letters because one record would read "Dear Mr. John W. Smith" and the very next record would read "Dear ABC Plumbing, Inc." Not very professional at all.

Solution:

The solution, and it may be a task depending on the size of your database, is to create as many fields as necessary and separate the various components of your data, including at least several miscellaneous fields for future use, so that you can sort the database by any given field.

Then transfer your data into the new fields correctly. Ultimately, your life will be easier, and your data will be more flexible and accurate when operating with mailings in mind.

A fund raising booboo about money needlessly spent. This is especially onerous when talking about not-for-profit organizations. Their money should be spent doing the good work the organization was created for not wasting it. In this case, the organization did not change the artwork on their reply envelopes—an absolute requirement, if the outbound mail pieces are to be fully discounted by use of barcodes. So, the 25,000-piece mailing of the fund raising effort went out at higher postage rates simply because the reply envelopes were not automation-compatible. The cost—$1,125.00 in wasteful postage. OUCH.

Solution:

This is relatively simple, underline it, highlight it, write in capital letters.......

REPLY CARDS AND ENVELOPES MUST BE AUTOMATION-COMPATIBLE OR I WILL LOSE PART OF MY POSTAGE DISCOUNT.

Challenge:

The worst error that a lettershop can make is using the wrong data for a client’s mailing. With the advent of electronic (e-mail) data transfers, the potential for such a disaster has been compounded. In the days of disks and tapes, the data was readily identifiable, with its origin and intended usage clearly marked. Files were loaded and worked individually. Modern data processing involves capturing the lists attached to e-mails and saving them in specific folders and files. That’s the easy part. Problems arise when clients’ lists arrive via e-mail with generic names similar to—or the same as—files received from other clients. We cannot tell you how many mailing-list files come in named NEWSLETTER or MAILING LIST with no other identifiers. Even the most alert data operators are human and fallible.

Solution:

When saving and copying the mailing list to be sent to your lettershop for processing, be as specific as possible. Start with your company name when identifying the file. We suggest names such as:

• “ABCorpSpringPromoMay04.csv” or

• “XXHospDinnerDanceGala0904.xls” or

• “XYCoFallWidgetSale.xls”

If you’re sending multiple lists or lists to be used for different lots, file names should also contain that identifier, e.g.:

• “ABCorpSpringPromoMay04-Group1.csv” or

• “XXHospDinnerDanceGala0904-High Donors.xls”

If you take the time to be very clear and specific when naming your mailing list files, the risk of human error will be reduced dramatically. Couple that with professional data processing procedures and protocols, and the risk virtually disappears.

Challenge:

Clients frequently call with:

• "Rush…This job must go out right away!"

• "Our event is in a few days."

• "Our members must get this information as soon as possible!"

• "I forgot to tell you the job was coming."

• "A last minute change delayed everything."

• "The mailing must be in the homes by X!"

Solution:

The real and ONLY solution to such situations is planning and communication.

Generally, mailings are not created on the spur of the moment. Even the most modest projects require writing, printing, data processing and assembly.

If a "time" issue truly exists, you must inform all your vendors of your expectations. Honest answers from all of them will give you a realistic picture of how the project will come together and how soon each one can complete their task.

If you don't get your professionals involved in the process, there will come a time when there just aren't enough resources to meet your deadlines.

Challenge:

For this month's anecdote, we have to go no further than our own shop. A few years ago, we updated our workhorse mailpiece -a self-mailer list of local area zips codes and town names. We sent our first version to prospects in the hopes that they would post it and thereby have our name and phone number visible every time they would look up a zip code. We wanted our name to be associated subliminally with the zip codes and thereby with mailing in general. From the positive response, the marketing effort was a success.

After a lengthy redesign phase, which changed the look and feel of the piece, added color and amended the list of zip codes, it went to press. We printed 20,000 copies in anticipation of our scheduled mailings. Low and behold, two digits of our telephone number were transposed and one of the zip codes on our list was incorrect. The entire lot went into the recycle bin. Ouch.

Solution:

Proof reading is a necessary and vital part of any printing or mailing operation, especially when it involves lists and telephone numbers, which become even more important, if you are asking a prospect to call you. But sometimes our eyes don't see what they are looking at, particularly if the writer of the piece is also the proofreader.

Proofreading should never be done by the same people who either helped design, format or write the piece. Enlist the aid of an outsider if possible-someone who has not seen it before. The more eyes the better. Every project should be proofread at least four times....once for grammar, once for spelling, once for typos and transpositions and once more for good luck.