2.5. DIRECT MAIL & MCC
Following the emergence of MCC, marketers have begun to adopt integrated communications which encompass DM, suggesting its potential as a relevant tool in marketing strategies today (Kellior, 2008). Despite DM’s existing presence in communications, there is still relatively little literature published in its applicability to MCC today (Luceri et al. 2014). Kalyanara and Phelan (2013) focused on DM’s ability to drive store traffic as a call-to-action whilst Kellior (2008) refuted that a combination of DM and Telemarketing yielded positive results after one study sample switched from use of integrated Email and Telemarketing. Findings uncovered that whilst this approach was not as inexpensive as using Email, DM offered a more personal and directed form of communications to customers (Kellior, 2008).
However, an opposing view concedes the superiority of Email to DM, combining the strengths of more traditional marketing with advantages only available via technology such as personalisation (Danaher & Rossiter, 2011). Coelho and Easingwood (2008) emphasise as a communication channel, Email can deliver the same corporate goals as DM, therefore occurring as a cost-effective replacement. In practice, given the complexity of the digital world (Figure 2), it can be assumed that Email offers better flexibility and adaptability compared to DM which is bound by a rigid print infrastructure (Mulhern, 2009). However, as practitioners argue that contemporary GDPR has emerged to combat data negligence and poor consumer trust, statistics show that DM perceptions continue to fluctuate (Sage, 2018). For example, The Drum (2017) uncovered 87% of consumers found Email to be more credible than Email (48%), whilst a Forbes (2017) study unearthed for business, DM achieved a 4.4% response rate compared to Email’s 0.12%. Consequently, as research points to polarising perceptions of DM over time in its applicability, there is little consensus to the dimension of value that DM generates today.
2.6. CONSUMER BEHAVIOUR
It has become critical to understand the process in buying behaviour, specifically as society has transformed digitally and the marketplace continues to change in structure. To depict the changing behaviours, preferences and expectations of customers, market fragmentation is the concept coined within academia to pinpoint growing trends towards individualism (Zeithaml, 1985). Its thesis is based on the increase of sub-groups in consumption based on factors which transpose traditional demographics (age, sex, income) (Gambardella & Giarratana, 2013). Instead market fragmentation emphasises trend variables such as attitudes, lifestyles, hobbies, interests, religious beliefs and ethnic origins which impact consumption (Evans et al. 1995).
In consequence, trend variables has cultivated a demassification of the marketplace, resulting in a proliferation of consumers who purchase based on a deeper psychological level. Considering the implications of consumer behaviour towards channel consumption, Shine (1994) suggests that the demassif