“I get post from university which is always important and I get special vouchers from Boots because of my loyalty advantage card… They send me offers in the post based on items I’ve bought in the past.” (Participant C, 19)
The marketing director (Participant A) outlined for some sectors that DM is still the only available tool to communicate with B2B clients:
“For independent retailers, it’s got to be DM. That market does not respond to or interact to Email or anything digital. For tradesmen such as deckies or builders too, it can’t work any other way but DM. Telesales might work but not within office hours when they’re at their busiest, so for the best return we know its DM.” (Participant A).
However, participants conceded with the perspective of the conceptual framework (Figure 5), correlating to the negative perception surrounding cost-efficiency and expensiveness of DM as a ‘two-way’ communication tool, citing stamp costs as an obstruction:
“I hate the hassle, because of the cost of stamps. When it’s freepost then great, I’d do it if it was worth it, but if I need to buy a stamp I sometimes won’t bother.” (Participant B, 26).
“I don’t mind mail, it’s just a cost and time issue because stamps are expensive and then I have to find a post box or post office. So I’d prefer to send an email which is much less hassle.” (Participant C, 19)
DM CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
Secondary data indicates strong ROI via cold prospecting within DM communications (Appendix 1). This corresponds to a preference for unsolicited DM as opposed to spam email which was instantly deleted by participants (Appendix 2). Specifically, BMW’s DM response rate of 10% resulted in an additional $7million in new sales (Appendix 1). Literature generally perceives that DM is perceived as junk, but its value compared to Email in the interviews uncovers a unanimous agreement that DM is less intrusive than ‘Spam Email’ due to the large volume of Spam Email received on a daily basis (Appendix 1). This contradicts with the literature review’s findings that DM causes consumer annoyance (Kellior, 2008). This points to the premise that DM still has some relevance for marketing, owing to changing perceptions to Email. Additionally, the sample preferred DM for customer relationship purposes, correlated in the case study sample where there is high ROI (Appendix 1). This corresponds to the literature review’s understanding of opt-in mail, which highlights when there was relevance and personalisation, DM had a longer shelf-life and subsequent response rate (Françoise & Andrews, 2015). This was perceived within the interview sample where personalised vouchers and samples were more likely to be retained and drive a call-to-action as opposed to mass-market DM which was less useful. Overall, consumer behaviour supported DM as a suitable channel throughout information search, but perception towards its preference over other channels are still contentious owing to attitudes surrounding cost-efficiency and annoyance.
4.1.3. DIGITISATION
The sample conceded that Email is viewed as a common communication source, but most Emails go unread due to spam filters and the volume received daily, impacting its value. In comparison, DM is seen as more personalised and relevant, offering less intrusive value.
“My mail is always personalised because I don’t opt-in to mailing lists unless needed. I get all my spam through Email and they stay unread or deleted.” (Participant C, 19).
“It’s always unsolicited Email now.” (Participant D, 36).
The marketing director conceded with the sample, arguing although digital tools have progressed, there is lower perceived trust which allows DM to maintain relevance:
“There is a rise in customers blocking and deleting Emails, so they aren’t getting through in the first place. So actually, DM can be useful as a first point of contact, then to be followed up by other channels such as microsites even” (Participant A).
However, c
