« What does Sir Tim Berners-Lee know that we don’t? | Main | The real story of the State of the Blogosphere »

Another Example that No New Medium Ever Killed an Old Medium

The New York Times reported that "Junk Mail is Alive and Growing". Despite being 10 years into the Digital Revolution, this isn't really a surprise.

It has often been noted that radio didn't kill the newspapers, TV didn't kill radio, and VCRs didn't kill network TV programming. So why should any one be surprised that electronic media haven't killed traditional media?

Max Kalehoff's post laments that this means that the consumer has to pick "Which Spam is Least Offensive?" While I agree with his objection to the deceptive design tactics often used, I think he misses the point. The only way to eliminate spam in his definition (which seems to be anything that doesn't generate an immediate response) is infinite, perfect information about every individual. I don't know about you, but I'm not giving up that much of my privacy.

The real point emerges from these three consumers quoted in the NYT article:

Andrew Shivone of San Antonio TX says, "I pretty much throw them out, but I have no problem with getting it."

  • Sorting mail is such a minor annoyance that it doesn't rise to the level of being considered 'spam'.

Jim Killeen of Sierra Madre, CA says, "At least with mail, because of the cost,they have to put more effort into it. Its applicable because it is useful to me."

  • Targeting may be imperfect, but a high enough percentage of mail is relevant that it isn't junk. And the costs of mail are a built-in spam deterrent.

Julie Grayson of Winter Park FL says, "But I do love catalogues. I try to throw them away but they get me. And I'm hooked."

  • There's some thing about the tactile experience that strikes a different chord than the digital experience.

The last time I looked, DoubleClick's email division reported that each email a retailer sent generated $.25 in sales. A little quick math on catalogues (4 - 5% reponse to a house list, average order around $100) means each catalogue mailed generates $4 - 5.

So the question for marketers remains not "how do I replace my traditional media with digital media" but "how do I integrate multiple media, using the unique strengths of each to create the best experience for my target?"

Posted by Jim Nail on November 6, 2006 at 02:51 PM | Email this post Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341cdcdc53ef00d834fc94e669e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Another Example that No New Medium Ever Killed an Old Medium:

Comments

Hi Jim,

I'll have to forward my junk mail on to you! I came home tonight and my mailbox was overflowing. I had so much junk mail -- mostly credit card offers, as well as a few custom-publishing magazines I never subscribed to -- that my mailbox wouldn't close. In fact, the two pieces of legitmate mail were on the ground, soggy, in a puddle, because those envelopes wouldn't fit into the mailbox. I'll clarify in case I wasn't clear: Spam is not any commercial message that is not perfectly targeted, nor is it any communicaiton which doesn't result in a direct response. Spam is an offer from a credit card company that I keep getting over and over and over -- despite how many times I request them to stop sending me the same offer. I got seven of them tonight. I'm miscategorizing, please let me know.

Integrating multiple media is a great idea. I aggree wiht you. Ceasing to abuse my usually generous attention is a better idea. And cutting down on sending me so much junk so as to avoid a broken mailbox lock is, above all, critical.

Lastly, I wonder how many people the NYTimes reporter had to call to get those quotes! I don't disagree with you, but do U.S. consumers really need to endure a 15% increase in junk mail over a course of only five years?

Cheers,
Max

Posted by: Max Kalehoff | Nov 6, 2006 10:46:59 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.