New EPA Data Shows Mail Recycling Humming Along

For paper recycling trend watchers, and direct mail advocates, something happened in the latest Municipal Solid Waste Characterization data just published last month (June 2015) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. First, the actual report has been renamed “Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013.” Second, discarded advertising mail and catalogs now constitute just 1.6 percent of all MSW generated – down from 1.7 percent in 2012 and 2.3 percent at its peak in 2005 (before the Great Recession and 2006 postal rate hike).

Rarely, is discarded mail collected on its own for recycling – beyond post office lobbies and undeliverable mail collected by the U.S. Postal Service. This may be a direct result of single-stream paper and paperboard recycling in municipalities where office papers, newspapers, printed materials, magazines, catalogs, discarded mail, cartons, paper packaging and other mixed paper are more often than not collected in single bins (as they are in my hometown of New York City) by residential and commercial haulers.

While we may have lost some transparency into visibility of specific types of paper that are generated, recovered, converted to energy and landfilled – direct mail is no longer its own category for recovery, recycling and landfilling – we do see trends for paper and paperboard overall – and the results are encouraging.

First, a record 34.3 percent of all municipal solid waste (MSW) generated across all categories was captured for recovery in 2013. Disposal of generated waste in landfills decreased from 89 percent in 1980 to less than 53 percent in 2013 – and total MSW generated per capita stands at 4.4 pounds per person per day, about the same as it was in 1980, and down from its 2000 peak.

Not all recovered materials are recycled – some are composted and some are converted to energy. But all recovered materials are diverted from landfills.

For newspapers/mechanical papers (which include commercial printing papers such as direct mail and catalogs), the recovery rate reported in 2013 was 67 percent. In 2009, as much as 63.4 percent of discarded advertising mail and catalog had been recovered – but since 2010 recovery data for discarded mail has been rolled into the “newspaper/mechanical papers” category. For all paper and paperboard categories, 48.7 percent was recovered, and just 1.6 percent was landfilled. So we appear to be holding our own in recovery – and keeping fiber out of the dump.

As an aside, three categories of MSW did report growth in recovery in 2013: yard trimmings, consumer electronics and food – a direct reflection of the increase in composting (both residentially and at the municipal level), as well as manufacturer take-back programs and local electronics recycling collection efforts. The EPA report also states that the U.S. Postal Service is now instituting bulk mail recycling (lobbies and undeliverable bulk business mail) and that is helping to bolster recovery figures.

What’s our takeaway as marketers?

First, print marketers need to keep pushing consumers to recycle their mail, magazines and catalogs – after they’re done with them. The Direct Marketing Association “Recycle Please” and MPA | The Association of Magazine Media “Please Recycle” are two programs that encourage consumers to keep discarded papers out of the trash.

Second, just because you are digital, doesn’t get you off the hook for recycling. In fact, the EPA has consumer electronics recycling as a top priority – and smartphones, tablets, laptops, computers and other vehicles for digital advertising need to be recaptured. The DMA offers e-recycling data on its Recycle Please Web site as well.

So keep recycling America – read, respond and recycle that direct mail!

Truly Greening Digital: The DMA ‘Green 15’ Gain a Digital Edge

With little fanfare, the Direct Marketing Association just published a “refresh” of its “Green 15” sustainable marketing practices first announced in 2007, via the good work of the sustainability team from the DMA Ethics Policy Committee.

With little fanfare, the Direct Marketing Association just published a “refresh” of its “Green 15” sustainable marketing practices first announced in 2007. Via the good work of the sustainability team from the DMA Ethics Policy Committee: Green 15 Best Practices.

The original publication took on such areas as paper procurement and list management, among others, in a bid for the marketing field to reduce GHG emissions by 1 million metric tons through last year. Whether or not that goal was achieved has not been reported by DMA, but then again, there is likelihood of huge reductions in carbon emissions if only for the fact that that there is less mail in circulation today then in 2006 (source reduction).

Yet in the growth of digital, there are also greenhouse gas impacts, among other environmental concerns, says DMA:

The use of certified paper, renewable energy, and consumer messaging to encourage recycling are all well-established best practices that address tangible environmental issues associated with print communications. Today, the rise of data-driven and digital communication requires marketers to address less visible environmental impacts. Toxic ‘e-waste’ impacts people and the environment as a result of improper disposal of electronics. Air pollution, including elevated greenhouse gas emissions, is an environmental and economic consequence of the growing demand for fossil energy to power digital devices and data centers.

The new Green 15 gives some guidance on just what digital and data-driven marketers might look to do:

  • Conduct energy audits at offices and production facilities to identify cost-saving opportunities (energy reduction).
  • Determine the source of power facilities in your facilities, and look to purchase more renewables in the mix gradually. Leverage suppliers of digital and data services to do the same.
  • Use links instead of attachments when sending internal and external communications – minimizing bandwidth and storage space for such documents.
  • Immediately implement best practices for responsible disposal of all electronic equipment at end of life, using such resources as Earth911.com, the EPA’s Web site, and seeking recyclers who adhere to E-Stewards Certificate standards

As anyone on a corporate “Green Team” knows, this list is really just a beginning. The savings and gains in efficiency that can happen as a result, are real—and ripe—for business bottom lines. There’s no reason not to consider these steps. All it takes is an internal champion, and a belief that being digital alone is not being green. Data and interactive communication have to be managed from a sustainability point of view—just as print communicators have done. I am glad the DMA, for one, has taken the lead and given us constructive steps all integrated marketers should consider.

Where Earth Day Meets Big Data

When marketers laud the advantages of big data, it’s usually in the B-to-C marketing context. Sustainable fabric company Thread LLC takes a different approach. By using granular supply chain and social impact data, Thread helps customers improve brand integrity and increase the marketability of core products. For this special Earth Day blog

Happy Earth Day 2014! For this week’s Marketing Sustainably blog post, I welcome Adam Freedgood as a guest blogger. Adam Freedgood is a sustainable business advisor and co-founder of Third Partners, a New York-based firm that helps organizations implement strategies that create new revenue opportunities, reduce waste and improve environmental performance. He is also a sustainability expert on the DMA Ethics Policy Committee. —Chet Dalzell

Sustainable Product Companies Benefit From New Breed of Big Data
When marketers laud the advantages of big data, it’s usually in the B-to-C marketing context. Sustainable fabric company Thread LLC takes a different approach. By using granular supply chain and social impact data, Thread helps customers improve brand integrity and increase the marketability of core products. For this special Earth Day blog, I sat down with Thread CEO Ian Rosenberger, Director of Community Development Kelsey Halling, and Director of Marketing Frank Macinsky to learn how Thread is using big data to unlock new sales opportunities through positive social and environmental performance.

Q: What Does Thread Do?

Rosenberger: “Thread recycles trash from the poorest neighborhoods on the planet and transforms it into fabric. We then sell the fabric and the story of how it’s made to companies that are trying to be more responsible.”

Q: Other than recycling, what about your business model makes you sustainable?

Rosenberger: “In addition to holding ourselves to the highest supply chain standards on the planet, we’re a certified B-Corp, which means sustainability is in our corporate DNA.”

Halling: “Traditionally, the fabric business is linked to environmental and social problems, not solutions. Beyond being a recycling company, we are also interested in social impact.”

Q: What are some of the problems associated with the typical fabric supply chain?

Rosenberger: “There are huge problems with textiles. From labor practices to environmental pollution, many brands’ supply chains don’t measure up to their marketing. For example, last year at this time thousands of people died and were injured in the Rana Plaza factory collapse in Bangladesh. Thread exists because we think brands need a more responsible source of raw material.”

Q: What do you mean by “more responsible source of raw material”?

Halling: “We use ‘responsible’ as the overarching term covering social and environmental concerns. Today there’s a lot of greenwashing out there. A recent study from Rank a Brand shows that hundreds of apparel companies talk about sustainability, but only a fraction follow through with real action or data. It’s a big deal to be able to put proof behind the claims.”

Q: There are many companies recycling plastic from various sources for various products. Why did you focus exclusively on fabric as the end product for your material?

Rosenberger: “We saw an opportunity to conduct good business while solving an enormous global problem. First off, we believe fabric can end poverty.” The textile business is one of the dirtiest on the planet, both socially and environmentally. We offer a 100 percent transparent supply chain solution. By giving data to other companies, we are creating a new market for getting a billion pounds of trash off the streets. In Haiti and Honduras we have already pulled 70 million plastic bottles.”

Macinsky: “The great thing about the fashion brands we are speaking with is that the industry is a trend setter in a lot of ways. As more brands get involved and interested in this transformational shift in the way we do business, a lot of people will benefit worldwide.”

Q: Big data typically refers to marketers using consumer data to target marketing messages more effectively. How does Thread’s outlook on big data differ?

Macinsky: “Our key differentiator is powerful stories involving people. We are tasked with finding qualitative data about how people are impacted positively by our product. We think in terms of ‘triple bottom line’ metrics: positive impacts on people, business and the environment.”

Halling: “We’ve been tracking data since the very beginning. As we are setting up supply chains, we are measuring financials, efficiency and the impact we are having socially and environmentally. We track job creation, training hours, pounds of trash, and even the lifecycle carbon emissions associated with each step in our supply chain.”

Q: That’s a huge amount of data mixing qualitative and quantitative units. How does a Thread customer digest it all?

Macinsky: “As a fabric company, our product goes into consumer goods. Our job is to give our partner brands a very simple distilled story so they can turn that around.”

Halling: “It changes from company to company and from consumer group to consumer group. From the list of bragging rights we provide, brands choose the attributes that are most in line with their marketing strategy. Our impact report summarizes some of the data insights.”

Q: How is the data Thread captures different than leading supply chain tracking mechanisms in the apparel world—for example, Patagonia’s supplier tracking tool?

Halling: “We have a saying that we track everything ‘from ground to good.’ When we say we know our supply chain, it means we are literally on a first name basis with the people involved. Some apparel companies claim to know the factories where stuff is made. They run audits, verify codes of conduct, etc. We take it way further than that, back to the moment bottles are picked off the street.”

Q: What positive social impact can Thread show so far?

Halling: “To date we are supporting 2,000 to 3,000 income opportunities for the poor in Haiti and Honduras. In the first quarter of 2014, our supply chain supported 221 jobs and about 2,700 income opportunities with $100,000 paid to small businesses, and we have huge growth opportunities ahead.”

Q: What data would you like to have that you do not have today?

Halling: “We think our partners and consumers would respond well to more real time data like GPS tracking, so they could actually see movements as they are happening. Even the data we have is groundbreaking. Environmental impact tracking is not widely done in the developing world. It’s a real culture shift.”

Macinsky: “I’m most interested in tracking outcomes on how Thread is benefitting people in their homes, workplaces and actually proving what jobs and income opportunities mean to people. For example, do cleaner streets mean fewer health problems?”

Q: Can we expect to see your use of big data in products on store shelves soon?

Macinsky: “You sure will. Our first partnership is with a bag manufacturer called Moop. That product will be available in May.”

Q: Will Moop be talking about specific social impacts?

Macinsky: “For the first launch, the focus is on some of the more digestible tidbits of data we have to offer. We are starting with the basics like the number of plastic bottles that go into a product, jobs supported and similar stats. Long term collaboration will increasingly focus on the social storytelling side.”

Q: Who do you want to connect with in the marketplace?

Macinsky: “Our focus right now is on talking to brands that want to be more responsible in their supply chains.”

Halling: “We are excited about the larger impact that happens at volumes to help disrupt the textile industry. The industry is this multi-billion dollar force in the world, but it is still murky and hard to get data on supply chains. There is still tragedy happening. It doesn’t have to be that way.”

What Is ‘Omnichannel’? And Is It Different From ‘Multichannel’?

This is the year of “omnichannel” based on the amount of occurrences that I’ve heard this term. I’ve never been a fan of jargon—but I sure use it enough in some of my clients’ communications, often at their request. When I comply, I usually advise that a short explanation may be in order upon first reference to help define whatever the term is and to set a marketplace expectation. So what does “omnichannel” mean to me?

This is the year of “omnichannel” based on the amount of occurrences that I’ve heard this term.

I’ve never been a fan of jargon—but I sure use it enough in some of my clients’ communications, often at their request. When I comply, I usually advise that a short explanation may be in order upon first reference to help define whatever the term is and to set a marketplace expectation.

Often enough, analyst firms rush to fill the void too, explaining such terms as “big data,” “customer experience,” “customer engagement” and the like.

The good thing about being marketers and communicators is that we are all also consumers and business people and are able to put our own perspectives on the customer side of the equation. We all recognize we have more power now as consumers (though we’ve always had ultimate power in the wallet), and that what was once pure hit-or-miss with advertising (the consumer side of spray-and-pray) is more often, today, data-driven dialogue with the many brands we use.

So what does “omnichannel” mean to me, as a consumer?

  1. That a brand that I choose to use—and possibly have a data-based relationship with—will recognize me uniquely as a customer, no matter what the channel.
  2. That the data such brands may have about me is shared throughout the organization, so that all parts of the organization—sales, marketing, customer service, finance, in-store, Web, mobile, social, partners, service providers—can act in coordination.
  3. That I am respected as a customer and treated royally. Of course, this is about the products and services I buy and use. It is also about extending to me notice and choice about channel preferences, and possibly subject preferences, and that all data about me is secured.
  4. That I actually expect (and in some cases, demand) that brands actually use data about me to make brand messaging and content more relevant to me. If you collect or track information, please use it—wisely!
  5. That if I’m not yet a customer—that is, if I’m still a prospect—that points 3 and 4 still apply from a prospect’s perspective. I understand points 1 and 2 are about customers, but even here, some elements of prospecting require careful coordination to respect my time.

On a practical level, this “omnichannel” expectation requires brands to remove channel and function silos on the brand-side and walk the talk on customer relationship management, customer-centric marketing, customer experience, lead nurturing and other advertising and marketing processes that reflect today’s brand-customer dialogue.

It also requires that marketers invest in data governance, data quality, data-sharing technology platforms, analytics, preference centers, multivariate testing, employee and partner training and strategies to work toward this omnichannel vision, that is, from this consumer’s perspective.

Suffice to say, multichannel—interacting with customers in multiple channels—is a journey stop to omnichannel. Omnichannel is smart marketing, realized—and very hard work. As a communications professional, I’ll be attending several omnichannel learning venues this Spring to see how brands are trying to make this vision happen.

For those in the New York area:

On April 23: http://www.dmcny.org/event/2013-breakfast-series-3 (Direct Marketing Club of New York)

On May 22: http://www.dmixclub.com/CMS_Files/index.php (Direct Marketing Idea Xchange: This is an invitation-only event for qualified senior-level marketers. Please reach out to me if you would like to be invited.)

On June 10: http://www.imweek.org/ (Direct Marketing Association, in cooperation with eConsultancy)

3 Things You Can Do Now to Make an ‘Earthly’ Difference

Readers of my blog know my distaste for financial service companies, utilities and other brands that admonish me in my mailbox to switch to digital statements “to help save the environment,” “save trees,” “pay it green” and other marketing hyperbole with absolutely no scientific backing. I’m waiting for three things

Readers of my blog know my distaste for financial service companies, utilities and other brands that admonish me in my mailbox to switch to digital statements “to help save the environment,” “save trees,” “pay it green” and other marketing hyperbole with absolutely no scientific backing.

I’m waiting for three things.

First, I’d love some examples—and you may post them in the comments section—of brands that are more honest and forthcoming about why they want their customers to switch to digital. It saves the organizations behind these brands money—money that either gets returned to the customer in lower prices or better service (right?), or (more likely) goes to the bottom line to improve margins. (Sorry if I’m too cynical here; it must be the prolonged winter-like weather.)

Second, I look forward to the Federal Trade Commission presenting an enforcement action that helps to educate businesses (and consumers) that the “print vs. digital” positioning of “being green” is misleading, if not deceptive or untruthful. Such a case would underscore the latest version (2012) of the FTC Green Guides and its substantiation requirement for any and all environmental marketing claims.

Third, I look forward to an independent apples-to-apples, cross-channel, life-cycle analysis of your “average” mail and digital communication in the United States. It may yet happen, but until then, we are left with helpful, but limited, research on paper, print, mail and electronics life-cycle inventories and analyses. Each of them have their own sets of assumptions, scopes and qualifications.

We don’t need the third event to happen, however, to take some helpful action on the mail side of the equation … right now. Here are three steps to consider:

  1. Educate yourself and follow the DMA “Green 15.” These 15 principles and practices apply to data hygiene and management, mail design and production, paper procurement, packaging and fulfillment, and recycling collection. I understand from contacts that a “digital” version may be in the works! Stay tuned.
  2. Label mail, catalogs, inserts and paper packaging to encourage recycling collection. That “junk mail” moniker is so yesterday. Discarded mail—after the consumer has used it—should be recycled. Close to two-thirds of municipalities in the United States now offer local recycling options for “mixed paper”—a threshold that FTC allows for recycling collection labels and “recyclable” claims. By using the DMA’s “Recycle Please” logo, mail marketers can help consumers increase awareness and participate in these programs without hurting response. Visit www.recycleplease.org for more information, and to download the latest version of the logo (which is available to DMA-member agencies, brands and organizations only).
  3. Use the FTC Green Guides—2012 version anew—to guide any environmental claims you may make.
  4. Extra Credit! Enter the 2013 DMA International ECHO Awards competition and its Green Marketing Award. The campaign does not need to be about an environmental product or cause—it only needs to demonstrate adherence to the DMA Green 15 in business action! The DMA Green 15 and Green ECHO are not about Earth Day and environmentalism—they’re about everyday marketing planning and decision-making that show efficiency and effectiveness in marketing: strategy, creative and response. The deadline is May 3—and agencies and brands may enter here: http://dma-echo.org/enter.jsp.

Now, if I only knew the carbon footprint of my blog. Hopefully, some of the information conveyed here will help mitigate the impact!

Mythbusters: Digital, Mail and Green Marketing Payback

The “Mythbusters” of Discovery Channel’s hit show get to blow things up while putting myths to the tests of science. At the Direct Marketing Association’s annual marketing conference, I paid tribute to personal heroes Jamie and Adam (the real TV Mythbusters) by blowing up some green marketing myths that have infiltrated both consumer and agency attitudes toward sustainable marketing practice. If left unchecked, today’s common green myths can sacrifice campaign integrity, leave profitable sustainability solutions untapped, alienate consumers and contribute to environmental harm

In this week’s “Marketing Sustainability,” I’ve invited the newly named chair of the Direct Marketing Association Committee on the Environment and Social Responsibility—Adam Freedgood of New York-based Quadriga Art—to share with readers a “myths v. facts” discussion on sustainability and marketing, presented recently at the DMA2012 conference in Las Vegas, NV. —Chet Dalzell

The “Mythbusters” of Discovery Channel’s hit show get to blow things up while putting myths to the tests of science. At the Direct Marketing Association’s annual marketing conference, I paid tribute to personal heroes Jamie and Adam (the real TV Mythbusters) by blowing up some green marketing myths that have infiltrated both consumer and agency attitudes toward sustainable marketing practice. If left unchecked, today’s common green myths can sacrifice campaign integrity, leave profitable sustainability solutions untapped, alienate consumers and contribute to environmental harm. A 30-minute town square session called “Mythbusters: Green Marketing Edition” debunked and discussed a dozen print, digital and multichannel myths, resulting in new opportunities to drive profitability from sustainability of campaign execution.

The troubling truth about green marketing myths is that they appeal to our aspirations and can quickly become ingrained in business practice. For example, “going green costs more,” “digital is greener than print,” “you can save a tree by not printing this article,” and “storing your data in the cloud means fluffy white beams of clean energy will power your campaign data storage, forever.”

Marketing missteps can grant mythological status to simple misconceptions virtually overnight. Consider the classic “go green, go paperless.” This little beauty appeared out of nowhere and now graces billing statements everywhere. There is no quantifiable environmental benefit attached to the claim, which creates risk to brand integrity. Unsupported green claims violate the Federal Trade Commission’s “Green Guides” enacted earlier this year. The “go paperless” phrase subjugates marketing best practice, opting instead for a greedy grab at the small subset of consumers who attach singificant value to a brand’s environmental attributes. A direct response mechanism that acknowledges basic consumer preferences would do just fine.

The evolution of product stewardship regulation, rising resource costs and consumer preferences support the business case for infusing sustainability in all aspects of marketing best practice. The full myth busting presentation is a Jeopardy-style game board rendered interactively in PowerPoint, available to download here.

Here are a few green marketing myths we debunked that offer urgent, profitable insights for print, digital and multichannel marketers:

Myth 1: “Delivering products and services online, or in the cloud, represents a shift toward environmentally friendly communications, compared with print-based media.”

Reality: This myth is busted. Digital communications shift the tangible environmental impact of marketing campaigns away from the apparent resource requirements associated with paper, transport and end-of-life impacts of print campaigns. By way of fossil fuel-powered data centers that are largely out of sight and out of mind, digital carries a surprising set of environmental hazards. A September 2012 New York Times article highlights the growing connection between data centers and air pollution due to massive energy requirements and dirty fossil-based power inputs. The digital devices used to create and deliver online content to consumers contain toxic heavy metals and petroleum-based plastics. Electronic devices are too toxic for our landfills but are recycled at an abysmal rate. According to the Electronics Takeback Coalition, the U.S. generates more than 3 million tons of “e-waste” annually but recycles only 15 percent.

Myth 2: The United States Postal Service (USPS) has struggled to implement comprehensive sustainability strategies due to declining mail volume and the related shortage of revenue available to invest in green activities.

Reality: Myth busted. The USPS is a prime example of an organization that has embraced the business case for sustainability by making extensive investments in greening most aspects of the organization’s operations. USPS has applied a “triple bottom line” approach to sustainability—the perspective that investments in green business must perform on dimensions of profitability, environmental sustainability and stakeholder impacts. Through postal facility energy efficiency retrofits and attention to sustainability at all levels of operations, USPS has saved $400 million since 2007, according to its sustainability report. Through some 400 employee green teams, USPS employs a bottom-up approach to sustainability that produces substantial cost and energy savings.

Myth 3: Green initiatives have a long, three to five year payback period, placing them at odds with other organizational priorities, such as investments in fast-paced digital marketing infrastructure.

Reality: Myth busted. While some sustainability measures, such as building energy efficiency retrofits, carry a payback period of several years depending on finance and incentives, there are innovative approaches to sustainability for direct marketers that yield much faster financial gains. For example, performing a packaging design audit that identifies downsized product packages and renewable materials can produce immediate savings while dramatically reducing environmental impact. Consolidating IT infrastructure and applying best practices in data center efficiency and server virtualization produces fast financial returns for firms operating in-house data centers. Lastly, Innovative programs that engage customers and suppliers in sustainability also produce quick gains with minimal investment. Starbucks’s “beta cup” competition mobilized a global audience of packaging designers, students and inventors in search of more sustainable coffee cups. The design submissions confronted a key sustainability issue head-on, allowing the chain to engage stakeholders in the solution.

Adam Freedgood is a sustainable business strategy specialist and director of business development at global nonprofit direct marketing firm Quadriga Art in New York City. Reach him on Twitter @thegreenophobe or email adam@freedgood.com.

Don’t Get Trashed — Is Recycling Discarded Mail Profitable? — Part II

In our previous post of “Marketing Sustainably,” we introduced an expert discussion on whether or not recycling collection of discarded mail, catalogs, printed communications and paper packaging is profitable, and why this matters is an important business consideration for the direct marketing field. In this post, we continue and conclude the discussion with our two experts, Monica Garvey, director of sustainability, Verso Paper, and Meta Brophy, director of procurement operations, Consumer Reports.

In our previous post of “Marketing Sustainably,we introduced an expert discussion on whether or not recycling collection of discarded mail, catalogs, printed communications and paper packaging is profitable, and why this matters is an important business consideration for the direct marketing field.

In this post, we continue and conclude the discussion with our two experts, Monica Garvey, director of sustainability, Verso Paper, and Meta Brophy, director of procurement operations, Consumer Reports. The conversation is based on a Town Square presentation that took place at the Direct Marketing Association’s recent DMA2012 annual conference.

Chet Dalzell: If much of the recovered fiber goes overseas, what’s the benefit to my company or organization in supporting recycling in North America?

Monica Garvey: The benefit—companies can promote that they support the use of recycled paper because they believe that recovered fiber is a valuable resource that can supplement virgin fiber. Recycling extends the life of a valuable natural resource, and contributes to a company’s socially responsible positioning. While it’s true that the less fiber supply there is locally, the higher the cost for the products made from that recovered fiber domestically, it’s still important to encourage recycling collection. Because recovered fiber is a global commodity, it is subject to demand-and-supply price fluctuations. If demand should drop overseas, and prices moderate, there may be greater supply at more moderate prices here at home, helping North American manufacturers; however, this is very unlikely. RISI, the leading information provider for the global forest products industry, projects that over the next five years, world recovered paper demand will continue to grow aggressively from fiber-poor regions such as China and India. Demand will run up against limited supply of recovered paper in the U.S. and other parts of the developed world and create a growing shortage of recovered paper worldwide.

CD: Is there a way to guarantee that recovered fiber stays at home (in the United States, for example)?

Meta Brophy: Yes! Special partnerships and programs exist that collect paper at local facilities and use the fiber domestically, allocating the recovered paper for specific use. ReMag, for example, is a private firm that places kiosks at local collection points—retailers, supermarket chains—where consumers can drop their catalogs, magazines and other papers and receive discounts, coupons and retailer promotions in exchange. These collections ensure a quality supply of recovered fiber for specific manufacturing uses. It’s a win-win for all stakeholders involved.

I recommend mailers use the DMA “Recycle Please” logo and participate in programs such as ReMag to encourage more consumers to recycle, and to increase the convenience and ease of recycling.

CD: What’s the harm of landfilling discarded paper—there’s plenty of landfill space out there, right?

MG: Landfill costs vary significantly around the country—depending on hauling distances, and the costs involved in operating landfills. In addition, there are also environmental costs. By diverting usable fiber from landfills, we not only extend the useful life of a valuable raw material, but also reduce greenhouse gas emissions (methane) that result when landfilled paper products degrade over time. There are also greenhouse gases that are released from hauling post-consumer waste. While carbon emissions may not yet be assessed, taxed or regulated in the United States, many national and global brands already participate in strategies to calculate and reduce their carbon emissions, and their corporate owners may participate in carbon trading regimes.

CD: You’ve brought up regulation, Monica. I’ve heard of “Extended Producer Responsibility” (EPR) legislation. Does EPR extend to direct marketers in any way?

MG: EPR refers to policy intended to shift responsibility for the end-of-life of products and/or packaging from the municipality to the manufacturer/brand owner. It can be expressed at a state level via specific product legislation, framework legislation, governor’s directive, or a solid waste management plan. EPR has begun to appear in proposals at the state level in the United States. EPR, for better or worse, recognizes that there are costs associated with waste management on all levels—not just landfilling, but waste-to-energy, recycling collection and even reuse.

These waste management costs currently are paid for in our taxes, but governments are looking to divert such costs so that they are paid for by those who actually make and use scrutinized products. Thus EPR can result in increased costs, were states to enact such regulation on particular products such as paper, packaging and electronic and computer equipment. Greatest pressure to enact EPR most likely focuses on products where end-of-life disposition involves hazardous materials where recycling and return programs may make only a negligible difference. Many will state that the natural fibers in paper along with the extremely high recovery rate of 67 percent makes paper a poor choice for inclusion in any state EPR legislation. That is also why the more we support the efficiency and effectiveness of existing recycling collection programs, the less pressure there may be to enact EPR regulations directly. It will likely vary state to state where specific concerns and challenges may exist.

CD: Does the public really care if this material gets recycled? Do they participate in recycling programs?

MB: Yes, they do. Even a public that’s skeptical of “greenwashing”—environmental claims that are suspect, unsubstantiated or less than credible—participates in recycling collection in greater numbers. Both EPA and American Forest & Paper Association data tell us the amount of paper collected is now well more than half of total paper produced, and still growing—despite the recent recession and continued economic uncertainty. Recycling collection programs at the hometown level are politically popular, too—people like to take actions that they believe can make a difference. And as long as the costs of landfilling exceed the costs or possible revenue gain of recycling, it’s good for the taxpayer, too.

CD: At the end of the day, what’s in recycling for my brand, and the direct marketing business overall?

MB: I see at least three direct benefits—and nearly no downside. First, a brand’s image benefits when it embraces social responsibility as an objective. Second, being a responsible steward of natural resources, and promoting environmental performance in a way that avoids running afoul of the Federal Trade Commission’s new Green Guides environmental claims—positions a brand well in practice and public perception. And, third, and I see this firsthand in my own organization, both the employee base and the supply chain are more deeply engaged and motivated as a result, too. Certainly, in the direct marketing business overall, there are similar gains—and I’m excited that the DMA has embraced this goal for our marketing discipline.

Attribution and the ‘Mail Moment’ in the Multichannel Mix

At its Sept. 13 meeting, the Direct Marketing Club of New York hosted an engaging panel discussion regarding the use of direct mail in a multichannel world, and the panelists included representatives from Citigroup, Gerber Life and The Agency Inside Harte-Hanks. … Hearing from two financial service brands, and an agency that services brands in several markets, packed the house. I’m not sure if it was the topic or the brands who spoke, or both, that was the draw—but the information imparted prompted lots of audience interest and questions.

At its Sept. 13 meeting, the Direct Marketing Club of New York (DMCNY) hosted an engaging panel discussion regarding the use of direct mail in a multichannel world, and the panelists included representatives from Citigroup, Gerber Life and The Agency Inside Harte-Hanks.

The representatives included Linda Gharib, senior vice president, digital marketing, for Citi’s Global Consumer Marketing & Internet division; David Rosenbluth, vice president, marketing, Gerber Life Insurance Company; and, from the agency side, panel moderator Pam Haas, who is both vice president, sales, for agency services at Harte-Hanks (and first vice president for DMCNY), and Michele Fitzpatrick, senior vice president, strategy and insight, The Agency Inside Harte-Hanks.

Hearing from two financial service brands, and an agency that services brands in several markets (tech, consumer package goods, automotive, insurance, pharma and more), packed the house. I’m not sure if it was the topic or the brands who spoke, or both, that was the draw—but the information imparted prompted lots of audience interest and questions.

First, customer acquisition—at least in the financial services area—still appears to be very dependent on mail. At Gerber, Rosenbluth said, as many as a third of new business policies are still generated by direct mail, even as the brand is “omni-channel”—digital (including web site, search, display ads, email), direct-response television, as well as direct mail. For Citi, the brand is positioned No. 2 in the nation by Target Marketing in its “Top 50 Mailers” ranking for 2012 (which is ranked by overall revenue, not mail volume), Gharib said, solidifying its importance in both acquisition and retention.

Fitzpatrick agreed, noting that in financial services, where marketing is modeled most precisely for risk and performance, direct mail remains an acquisition workhorse, particularly on new product launches. For automotive and pharma verticals, however, where as much as 80 percent of transactions are researched anonymously beforehand online, digital media is used for hand-raising, and direct mail may be then used to deliver a brochure of other information in a highly segmented way to close the deal. “Consumer preferences [for media] are situational,” Fitzpatrick said.

Who gets credit for attribution, when a multichannel communications mix produces a desired response? At Citi, Gharib said, such discussions are a “work in progress,” where the final interaction point currently gets the credit, whether that is chat, direct mail, email or some triggered communication. Adding to the multichannel attribution discussion is the mix of advertising purposes—some are pure branding messages, while others are intended to elicit a response, but both may compel or influence customer behavior in some discernible (or indiscernible) manner. Hence, there is complexity in the attribution discussion.

Yes, indeed, says Rosenbluth, where “allowances” are given for each channel in regard to the brand’s most importance metric to manage: total costs to convert a policy. Currently, “last touch” gets the attribution on response, but the policy conversion metric is the bigger-picture measurement, where everyone gets to take some credit.

Fitzpatrick pointed to recent Forrester research where “fractional attribution”—first touch, mid-touch and last-touch on the path to purchase share credit—and “engagement” is modeled, rather than response (alone). Every brand should undertake a channel impact study to determine, as best it can, the impact of incremental sales as a result of a multichannel customer experience, while also researching receiver reaction research. Clearly, direct mail, email, chat and other channels can be both or either “conversation starters” and “conversation extenders,” but analytics is the only way to know the role of the channel for any given customer.

“There’s credibility in paper,” Gharib remarked, “that helps with both the brand and its consideration.” Where email is cluttered, direct mail largely is not.

At Gerber, Rosenbluth, there really is no brand spend, all market spending is intended to produce engagement.

Fitzpatrick sees almost all “below the line” spending getting a branding blend—branding and direct marketing have come together. All the panelists agreed: it’s really about the consumer experience across channels, and having a database that enables customer recognition and a full customer view. Having tons of data is not enough—it’s having technology and processes in place for customer data integration and analytics to create smart engagement rules.

The verdict? Direct mail is and will remain a vital part of the media mix—because it’s an anchor in the consumer’s experience and brand consideration mix. As digital gets more clutter, boy that mailbox is looking pretty.

Catalogers & Publishers Get ‘Lucky’ as Their Mail Gets a Valuable Second Life

I recently took a trip to Sonoma County, Calif. While I was there, I learned of an innovation with a firm called REMAG that would have consumers return their used, mailed catalogs and magazines to REMAG-administered kiosks and recycling collection bins in test store locations. By scanning a barcode on the label of a returned catalog or magazine at the kiosk location, the consumer can receive multiple coupons of their choice for a future purchase from a publisher or catalog, a wide variety of store items, or other kiosk marketing sponsor-partner.

I recently took a trip to Sonoma County, Calif., and while the trip involved some sight-seeing among my business goings-on, it also had its share of personal visits to the local grocer, a nearby store called Lucky.

Lucky is part of a store chain owned by a firm called SaveMart, another California-based food retailer. SaveMart operates both Lucky and SaveMart in 243 store locations throughout California.

While I was there, I learned of an innovation with a firm called REMAG that would have consumers return their used, mailed catalogs and magazines to REMAG-administered kiosks and recycling collection bins in test store locations. By scanning a barcode on the label of a returned catalog or magazine at the kiosk location, the consumer can receive multiple coupons of their choice for a future purchase from a publisher or catalog, a wide variety of store items, or other kiosk marketing sponsor-partner. It’s not that much different from returning cans and bottles to a kiosk, except catalogs and magazines don’t come with deposits to be redeemed—consumers instead are rewarded with coupons for recycling.

It struck me how much of a win/win/win this is for everyone, and made me curious as to whether or not REMAG, which is a two-year-old company, is set to take off.

Think about all the benefits that are accrued here among stakeholders:

The consumer gets a handily located recycling kiosk just as they are entering a food retail location for this highly desired grade of recovered paper—old catalogs and magazines (OMG). OMG is highly valued since its fibers are usually long, dense and strong, making it a valuable component of subsequent manufactured recycled paper products. For their efforts, the customers are awarded a discount, coupon or other incentive to purchase from the very companies and brands they frequent.

For the retailer, REMAG kiosks are a great way to attract new customers and reward customer loyalty. The retailer also generates revenue for the valuable OMG that is recovered at the kiosk, alongside the customer purchases made during the store visit. In addition, with five cents of every coupon going to a local charity, the store gets customer “good will” for siting the kiosk and is assisting the local community—always popular for retailers. Lastly, as another recycling station—in this case for OMG paper—the REMAG kiosk is easily integrated into a store’s already-existing recycling collection center (where bottles and cans are collected, and deposits redeemed).

The catalog retailer and magazine publisher also gain from good will, while extending future purchase opportunities to the consumer who is performing the recycling collection task. (Most likely these consumers are already a catalog prospect or customer, or subscriber or casual reader of the magazine.) In turn, by way of incentives, these marketers may receive a new merchandise purchase by way of the coupon, or a new, renewed or gift subscription that otherwise may have gone untapped, or pushed off to another unspecified time. As magazine newsstand sales wane, this innovation could be an important method to attract new customers and remind readers to renew, or to perhaps extend a gift subscription to another.

REMAG gains, too. Whether or not the kiosks carry the REMAG branding, or that of the host store or other marketing partner (publishers, catalogers, recyclers, paper companies, etc.), the company gets to share a percentage of the coupon redemption revenue for every new product order or subscription it generates for its partners, as well as revenue for category sponsorships.

Local recyclers or paper companies with which REMAG does business get to put the collected papers to subsequent productive use—ensuring another life for a valuable fiber and an affordable source for that fiber. Despite the uncertain economy, there is a critical shortage of recovered paper—and all indications are that this commodity will continue to grow in demand globally. Magazine publishers and catalogers have an easy way to show that they are part of the solution.

Think global, act local. I suspect most California consumers, like most Americans, love to recycle, or at least support recycling collection activity as a matter of habit. The key is to make recycling collection easy and convenient. With a financial reward for recycling, both REMAG and SaveMart are excited about the prospects for a successful trial.

According to REMAG’s sustainability consultant David Refkin, the Lucky/SaveMart kiosk placement agreement initially will involve up to 8 stores in the Bay Area and the Central Valley of California for an initial test. If all goes well, it will likely roll out to other Lucky/SaveMart locations, too. One of the pilot location stores will be in San Bruno, very close to San Francisco Airport should you happen to be in the neighborhood.

For REMAG to be successful, many moving parts will have to come together successfully. There will need to be promotion of the participating store drop-off locations, as well as accessibility and awareness to the consumer. The collected material will need to be picked up, transported or distributed to a local or regional recovered fiber user.

The host store locations will hope to see local residents participating cleanly—as they potentially grow business by attracting new customers who happen to learn of the recovery drop-off sites, and choose to use them. And catalog retailers and magazine publishers will need to participate as well, to make sure they are leveraging this new and environmentally friendly “channel” in a smart business way that engages their prospects and customers.

Let’s see what happens in California and REMAG’s test there. We all might stand to get a little bit lucky.