With the sole exception of Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) swinging for the United States Postal Service ratepayer (you and me), January 2014 was a dismal month for those who advocate direct mail in the marketing mix … and in February, I’m definitely looking for some love. Will we find it?
First, there was January 26 … the day new postal rates took effect, full-on. “The 6.0 percent postage increase—three times the rate of inflation—will not help the Postal Service shore up its financial base,” said Peggy Hudson, senior vice president, government affairs, Direct Marketing Association, part of a coalition which filed a court appeal to halt the exigency portion of the rate hike, 4.3 percent. “It will simply drive mail from the system, which harms the financial viability of both the Postal Service and its business customers. It is a lose-lose proposition.”
Then, there is an unpalatable compromise brewing in the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. (Compromise always deals with some distaste, or else it wouldn’t be a compromise.) On our behalf, Sen. Baldwin was attempting to strip “offensive” Section 301 from the legislation, which would have abandoned the inflation consumer-price-index peg for annual postal rate increases, and replace it with a new CPI+1 percent index—adding potentially 10-percent higher rates over a decade than would happen under existing law.
Last week, one of the primary sponsors of the current postal reform bill—Committee Chairman Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE)—offered a deal: Essentially, Carper would keep the CPI index mailers crave in place but, in return, the exigency (4.3 percent hike) would be included in the baseline for future annual hikes—thereby removing the 2-year limit on the exigency imposed by the Postal Regulatory Commission in its oversight of the rate hike and making the exigency permanent. Further, the PRC’s oversight role on postal rate changes would be kept intact—something the current language of the bill is attempting to strip. Sen. Baldwin asked for a mark-up delay, no doubt to consider the offer with her constituents.
What a farce: An exigency made permanent? Now that’s a paradox—and an audacious one at that. We can see the Postal Service getting much of the would-be CPI+1 back over the next 10 years, assuming there’s no more crises forcing USPS management, the mailing community or both clamoring for another postal reform bill within 10 years’ time.
Is keeping the CPI index so important to us now that we’ll hold our noses on this compromise? A mark-up on the bill—a Committee vote—has been moved to February 6 As of January 31, DMA is still asking its members to weigh in here to get Section 301 tossed.
There is a disturbing pattern here. The Postal Service is our business partner, for sure—and there’s nearly universal support for that partnership across the board. But if it (USPS management, USPS labor, and the both of them) keeps fighting its customers with higher postal rates, and running to Congress with mock exigencies or new rate-setting formulae that undermine fiscal discipline, then the financial reality of that partnership gets sadder by the day. Lose-lose ignites a dying cycle.
Mailers have suffered through recession. Marketers deal with digital migration. They have had to endure cost-cutting, price-cutting and layoffs to make it to 2014—and they’ve relied on invention to survive and thrive. What they have not been able to do is take their customers for granted, by passing along hardships in higher prices.
“Business-like” USPS policy and operations remain marred in politics—exigency is another sadly perfect example.