Anyone Do a Lot of Direct Mail and Want a Better Response Rate?

[senior-advisor-indiana]

While I can appreciate your skepticism, I'm positive it works. I doubt it works with all lines, but I'm sure this type of analytics works. It's very easy to say it's happenstance and of course this isn't taking into account their current carrier and rate increases, but it's entirely possible there are trends if they're actually measured and tested. When Medicare, maybe it's happenstance, with final expense, maybe it's more predictable. No way too know for sure unless it's tested. Coincidentally, they're only interested in testing this platform right now, not even selling it unless it is viable.

I wish them luck on it. Common sense would serve them well though...

 

[Josh]

I wish them luck on it. Common sense would serve them well though...

Exactly how much direct mail experience do you have across how many different verticals?

At the risk of being as rude as you're being, I think you have no credentials to be calling this a "common sense" decision. It'd be easy enough to tell if there was no pattern as well, but men vs women, different incomes, different zip codes, credit scores, homeowner status, property value, etc all probably have at least some impact on whether or not folks send back a mail piece (and as Newby added, actually purchase). To go back to the "common sense" point, "common sense" would also dictate to you that not everyone is going to be as likely to respond to your piece as any other random prospect, so if you have data sets that indicate the different demographics of the groups you're mailing to and track the results (response cards/sales), and the ability to measure what's happening, those trends should be easy to see.

Gotta love common sense.

 

[senior-advisor-indiana]

Exactly how much direct mail experience do you have across how many different verticals?

At the risk of being as rude as you're being, I think you have no credentials to be calling this a "common sense" decision. It'd be easy enough to tell if there was no pattern as well, but men vs women, different incomes, different zip codes, credit scores, homeowner status, property value, etc all probably have at least some impact on whether or not folks send back a mail piece (and as Newby added, actually purchase). To go back to the "common sense" point, "common sense" would also dictate to you that not everyone is going to be as likely to respond to your piece as any other random prospect, so if you have data sets that indicate the different demographics of the groups you're mailing to and track the results (response cards/sales), and the ability to measure what's happening, those trends should be easy to see.

Gotta love common sense.

No need to get butt hurt. I didn't realize you had such a vested interest in this. I don't know or care how well it works for other markets, common sense tells me it won't work here. Just like everyone thinks that if someone has a pink flamingo on their yard, they are a buyer, it's BS.

 

[Josh]

No need to get butt hurt. I didn't realize you had such a vested interest in this. I don't know or care how well it works for other markets, common sense tells me it won't work here. Just like everyone thinks that if someone has a pink flamingo on their yard, they are a buyer, it's BS.

I'm not butt hurt (only ever heard that term in video games, you play much), but you're talking about "common sense" as a subject matter expert when you to my understanding have zero background to indicate whether or not this would work. The only relevant experience it seems you've pointed out on this was a company doing "the same thing" that you paid money to and didn't perform.

Going back to your "common sense" argument though, could you elaborate? It seems like "common sense" to me that with any product you're pitching some groups are more likely to respond than others. It's your presumption that "common sense" indicates that all people in all groups would respond with the same rate?

We know that men and women respond differently to marketing pieces, I suspect that if the data was analyzed we'd find that men and women don't have an exactly similar response rate and we'd also find that married households were either more or less likely to respond. We know that incomes can factor into things and I'd presume homeowners vs renters would be different as well. The real question is, if measured, is there any statistical difference in the response rates on these folks.

So to be clear, you're "common sense" indicates that none of this matters and you should just mail everyone to get the same response rate regardless of these groups they fit in?

 

[tins]

I'm not butt hurt (only ever heard that term in video games, you play much), but you're talking about "common sense" as a subject matter expert when you to my understanding have zero background to indicate whether or not this would work. The only relevant experience it seems you've pointed out on this was a company doing "the same thing" that you paid money to and didn't perform.

Going back to your "common sense" argument though, could you elaborate? It seems like "common sense" to me that with any product you're pitching some groups are more likely to respond than others. It's your presumption that "common sense" indicates that all people in all groups would respond with the same rate?

We know that men and women respond differently to marketing pieces, I suspect that if the data was analyzed we'd find that men and women don't have an exactly similar response rate and we'd also find that married households were either more or less likely to respond. We know that incomes can factor into things and I'd presume homeowners vs renters would be different as well. The real question is, if measured, is there any statistical difference in the response rates on these folks.

So to be clear, you're "common sense" indicates that none of this matters and you should just mail everyone to get the same response rate regardless of these groups they fit in?

By common sense, I took it to mean that many people have attempted to re-create the wheel and found that it does not work.
Tweaking this word or that word or this age group or take out government pensioners or people that rent duplexes or women that garden or so on and etc and etc. When it comes down to it, agents have already tried it all. Every tweak from the tried and true methods results in diminishing returns.

 

[senior-advisor-indiana]

I'm not butt hurt (only ever heard that term in video games, you play much), but you're talking about "common sense" as a subject matter expert when you to my understanding have zero background to indicate whether or not this would work. The only relevant experience it seems you've pointed out on this was a company doing "the same thing" that you paid money to and didn't perform.

Going back to your "common sense" argument though, could you elaborate? It seems like "common sense" to me that with any product you're pitching some groups are more likely to respond than others. It's your presumption that "common sense" indicates that all people in all groups would respond with the same rate?

We know that men and women respond differently to marketing pieces, I suspect that if the data was analyzed we'd find that men and women don't have an exactly similar response rate and we'd also find that married households were either more or less likely to respond. We know that incomes can factor into things and I'd presume homeowners vs renters would be different as well. The real question is, if measured, is there any statistical difference in the response rates on these folks.

So to be clear, you're "common sense" indicates that none of this matters and you should just mail everyone to get the same response rate regardless of these groups they fit in?

No I don't play video games so that's not where I heard it. What kind of video games are you playing anyway?
Im not going to sit here and argue what I believe is common sense with marketing. I am an active agent that actually does quite a bit of marketing with lists and DM and have developed my own targeted lists. But as you said I know nothing about this. How many policies did you personally sell off of your lists last year? People buy insurance because of pain. How are you going to filter that demographic out? What exactly is your background on if this will work or not? Is it your skill of clicking a few buttons to order lists?

 

[Josh]

By common sense, I took it to mean that many people have attempted to re-create the wheel and found that it does not work.
Tweaking this word or that word or this age group or take out government pensioners or people that rent duplexes or women that garden or so on and etc and etc. When it comes down to it, agents have already tried it all. Every tweak from the tried and true methods results in diminishing returns.

I like you a lot, but you're wrong about agents trying everything. At best some carriers would have the budget for it, but usually at the carrier level they'd rather throw a ton of money at production/design/print vs really targeting on the data. This goes away above doing age and income filters.

Every week I hear agents talk about how the response rates on their direct mail aren't what they used to be or what they'd like to be and when my friend told me about what his company did it seemed like testing it out would be a no brainer. It literally wouldn't cost a penny to run the data and see if there is anything statistically relevant.

----------

No I don't play video games so that's not where I heard it. What kind of video games are you playing anyway?

I used to play Halo, but for the last year or two I've been pretty into Dota 2. I've played a few others, but Dota 2 is far and away my favorite.

Im not going to sit here and argue what I believe is common sense with marketing.

I'm not looking for an argument. You clearly thought enough about this that you thought it was common sense, so I was under the impression you may want to take that a step further. It doesn't make sense at all to use random data for mailing and believe that's how you'd get the best results and that nothing could improve it. I'm sure I'm not looking at it the same way you are.

I am an active agent that actually does quite a bit of marketing with lists and DM and have developed my own targeted lists. But as you said I know nothing about this. How many policies did you personally sell off of your lists last year? People buy insurance because of pain. How are you going to filter that demographic out? What exactly is your background on if this will work or not? Is it your skill of clicking a few buttons to order lists?

I didn't say you no nothing about this, I outlined what I thought your experience was and pointed out that's all I knew. Feel free to continue to add to your list of credentials, I surely don't know you well enough to know everything about you.

My skills on data analyitics aren't what I'm talking about, it's another company that has folks that deal with big data in very sophisticated ways. The guy that develops these algorithms has a PhD in Information Technology and that's just one of the smart guys at their office. All of them have worked for government contractors and come well credentialed. But hey, if none of the agents here think it makes any sense to get a free ride on this to see if comprehensive data evaluation can predict future responses it's no skin off my teeth.

 

[senior-advisor-indiana]

I like you a lot, but you're wrong about agents trying everything. At best some carriers would have the budget for it, but usually at the carrier level they'd rather throw a ton of money at production/design/print vs really targeting on the data. This goes away above doing age and income filters.

Every week I hear agents talk about how the response rates on their direct mail aren't what they used to be or what they'd like to be and when my friend told me about what his company did it seemed like testing it out would be a no brainer. It literally wouldn't cost a penny to run the data and see if there is anything statistically relevant.

----------

I used to play Halo, but for the last year or two I've been pretty into Dota 2. I've played a few others, but Dota 2 is far and away my favorite.

I'm not looking for an argument. You clearly thought enough about this that you thought it was common sense, so I was under the impression you may want to take that a step further. It doesn't make sense at all to use random data for mailing and believe that's how you'd get the best results and that nothing could improve it. I'm sure I'm not looking at it the same way you are.

I didn't say you no nothing about this, I outlined what I thought your experience was and pointed out that's all I knew. Feel free to continue to add to your list of credentials, I surely don't know you well enough to know everything about you.

My skills on data analyitics aren't what I'm talking about, it's another company that has folks that deal with big data in very sophisticated ways. The guy that develops these algorithms has a PhD in Information Technology and that's just one of the smart guys at their office. All of them have worked for government contractors and come well credentialed. But hey, if none of the agents here think it makes any sense to get a free ride on this to see if comprehensive data evaluation can predict future responses it's no skin off my teeth.

I'm not sure why you seemed so offended anyway. I couldn't care less if an agent tries it out or not. It's free so who cares? My experience is that it doesn't work. I have found a better way to target list. If it cost an agent money to try this out I would tell them not to. It won't work especially for insurance.

 

[Josh]

I'm not sure why you seemed so offended anyway. I couldn't care less if an agent tries it out or not. It's free so who cares? My experience is that it doesn't work. I have found a better way to target list. If it cost an agent money to try this out I would tell them not to. It won't work especially for insurance.

You're probably reading into it to much.

I very much doubt you have any experience doing this because I don't think any other companies are doing this currently; I don't think they have the systems/data to do it. What company were you using?

 

[senior-advisor-indiana]

You're probably reading into it to much.

I very much doubt you have any experience doing this because I don't think any other companies are doing this currently; I don't think they have the systems/data to do it. What company were you using?

Well I very much highly doubt you have any experience doing this. I'm shocked that you don't think others have done this or are doing this. Your buddies should do a little more research on their market. Just be happy that this isn't the shark tank.