Chisina.Com

"Do not let trifles disturb your tranquillity of mind.... Life is too precious to be sacrificed for the nonessential and transient.... Ignore the inconsequential!"
- Grenville Kleiser

By Michael Masterson

You've got a top-notch copywriter. One who's made millions of rands for his clients. He's at your disposal, ready to answer your biggest questions about what makes a direct-mail sales package attractive to a prospective customer. Do you ask him about the best colour for a headline? Or the best type of style to use? Or the best paper stock?

Copywriting expert James Sheridan warns against getting bogged down in such things.

"Sure, you can test them," says James," but those are details that don't matter."
Testing is widely accepted as one of the most powerful tools a direct marketer can use. But testing insignificant choices is one of the most common mistakes direct marketers make.

In an effort to "perfect" or "tweak" a promotional package, they test all kinds of things that have no real chance of producing a meaningful change in response rate. What they get is usually in the plus or minus 10% to 25% range.

That range is enough for many. For me, it's inadequate.

I am not a statistician, so I can't make the statistical argument - but I can tell you this: Getting a 10 percent or even a 25% lift on a test cell of 5,000 or even 25,000 names is not always reliable. It may sometimes be enough to validate going forward with something you want to do anyway (say, changing your price or your guarantee or the bonus you want to offer), but it may not give you the level of confidence you are probably looking for.

I've had 20 years of experience in planning and reacting to more than a billions worth of direct-mail testing. I've seen - and have been responsible for - just about every kind of test you can imagine. During that time, I came up with all kinds of interesting theories that I proved through testing, satisfying myself with 25% lifts, only to see those results negated on back-tests.

This happened not just once but hundreds of times. In fact, I think it's fair to say that back-testing nullified my prior tests more times than not.

After thinking about this problem for a long time and reading some serious statistical stuff recently, I came up with a rule of thumb. I offer it to you for consideration: Test nothing except that which can potentially give you a 100% lift in response.

It's radical thinking, but it does two things that are very good for your mailing results:

* It dramatically reduces useless testing and, thus, increases your profits.

* It forces you to do the hard thinking necessary to come up with truly breakthrough testing ideas.

The question is this: what can possibly double response rates? Well, first I'll tell you what won't work:

* Changing your colour scheme, paper stock or type size.
* Making your body copy smoother or cleaner.
* Correcting your data.
* Substituting a Johnson Box for a regular headline. (You've seen a Johnson Box: an outline of a box on top of the salutation inside of which the headline and/or lead goes.)
* Changing the person who signs the sales letter.
* Adding marginalia.
* Using a live stamp vs. an indicia vs. a meter.
* Changing the response method.
* Using testimonials.
* Using a product photo vs. an illustration.
* Your selection of premiums.
* Most forms of personalisation.
* Individual involvement devices.
* Most lift notes.
* A BRE vs. a self-mailer.

I'm not saying these things don't matter. They do. When you design your direct-mail sales package, you need to keep all of them in mind and use your judgment to make the most appropriate choices. But though they matter as a group, they are insignificant individually. So don't test them unless you have a very good reason to... unless you think they can make a very big difference.

But what CAN double your response rate?

* Your headline
* Using teaser copy on your envelope
* The subject line in your e-mail solicitation
* Your lead paragraph

Remember, most of those direct-marketing experts are copywriters who see, relatively speaking, very few test results and aren't responsible for the bottom line.