Saving Newspapers With Direct Mail in a Digital Age

Yesterday, I was riding the train in to work when I saw a fellow passenger doing something a little unusual: reading the newspaper.

Yesterday, I was riding the train in to work when I saw a fellow passenger doing something a little unusual: reading the newspaper.

We are living in a smartphone world, after all. Aside from a little conversation here and there, most people spend their time looking down, quietly staring at their screens.

And I’m one of them too, mostly.

So there she was, flipping through the newspaper’s sections, and circling stories with a pen. I remembered a story I read (online of course) this week.

Billionaire investor Warren Buffett said in a CNBC interview that most newspapers will probably not survive in the long term. He picked the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times as those with a certain future. They’ve managed to figure out a digital strategy to go along with a print one, he said.

I wonder what role, if any, direct mail will play in the years ahead in driving subscriptions for these two brands, and the industry as a whole.

nyt_01The New York Times recently mailed an invitation-style envelope that included a notecard-type letter inside. The top leaf shows a cup of coffee, a pair of glasses, a phone, and sections of the paper, as well as the magazine. I liked the design because I can relate to it. But the letter itself left me a little cold.

After “Dear Reader,” it jumps right into four paragraphs with headings that seem a bit self-absorbed. “The touchstone of news,” “The most engaging storytelling,” “Discover real journalism” … I know it’s a great institution, but really?

The Wall Street Journal’s mail is better. They’ve moved away from relying on bare-bones voucher offers to also use an actual letter. The paper’s Editor-in-Chief says that it “explores the most important world of all. YOURS.” He talks about how the Journal’s “brand new features and expanded coverage” are all devoted to “your interests and passions.”

OK, so it’s not exactly like Martin Conroy’s “2 Young Men” letter, which made over $2 billion for the Journal during its run.

But it’s something.

As long as newspapers can persuade readers to pay good money for high-quality, one-of-a-kind, and relevant content, they’ll survive, and hopefully thrive. Whether it’s direct mail that gets that job done is a big question.

‘Altercasting’ and the Art of Persuasion

Successful direct response copywriters imagine and feel the persona of the prospective customers. That sixth sense — where a writer takes on the mindset of the reader — is a path to persuasive copy. So are marketers using a persuasion technique where a person is cast in a role that encourages them to behave …

Flip the brain switch.Successful direct response copywriters imagine and feel the persona of the prospective customers. That sixth sense — where a writer takes on the mindset of the reader — is a path to persuasive copy. So are marketers using a persuasion technique where a person is cast in a role that encourages them to behave in a desired manner?

Altercasting caught my attention in a recent article in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), quoting psychologists as saying “it’s widely used in the real world—by advertisers, fundraisers, parents, teachers, spouses, and therapists, among others.”

Altercasting is a theory of persuasion created by sociologists Eugene Weinstein and Paul Deutschberger in 1963. The goal is to project the identity of a role you want another person to assume to encourage them to behave in a desired manner. Altercasting supposedly targets both the social role and ego of a person.

Some examples cited by the WSJ drive this point: Want your co-worker to stay late and proofread a report you wrote? Mention that she is a good writer and really knows the subject. Hope to talk your meat-and-potatoes friend into trying the new Vietnamese restaurant? Tell him you admire his adventurous spirit. Want your husband to clean the garage? Point out what a supportive husband he is and how you know he wants you to be happy

Altercasting has two sub groups — “manded” and “tact.”

Manded altercasting is when you don’t change your behavior but openly state a role for the other person. The WSJ detailed another example to demonstrate manded altercasting specifically: “Honey, you’re such a wonderful cook. Would you mind making dinner tonight?”

Tact altercasting is passive, where you don’t state anything explicitly but change your behavior to suggest a role for the other person. If you wanted your spouse to cook, you might fumble around in the kitchen, pretending you can’t find the right ingredients, until your spouse steps in.

By definition, altercasting seems manipulative and even potentially dangerous if misused. But smart adaptation of this approach for persuasive purposes has critical applications in marketing and copywriting.

Begin with your customer’s persona by imagining what they feel. When you write to that individual, encourage self-awareness and thus engagement. This instigates persuasion and gives a customer a sense of permission from themselves to take action.

Self-awareness examples would include:

  • In fundraising, a reminder to the reader — especially past donors — that they are generous individuals, and you hope they’ll be generous again.
  • For life insurance, suggest to the reader that they are likely concerned about their loved ones’ financial future, so you help them realize they should be financially responsible.
  • For a health supplement, caution that while an individual may be an active adult and look good on the outside, inside their body a completely different scenario could be unfolding.

The key is to sense the persona of your prospective customer and place them in a certain mindset before relaying your message. Then engage, build trust and persuade so customers can allow themselves to act in response to your message.

My new book, “Crack the Customer Mind Code” details a dozen persona types I’ve observed over my career. It’s available at the DirectMarketingIQ bookstore. Or download my free seven-step guide to help you align your messaging with the persona of your prospective buyer. It’s titled “When You Need More Customers, This Is What You Do.”

The Internet Can Make You a Chump—Forever!

Trouble is, the Internet is rife with misinformation and if you get caught advertently or inadvertently propagating this nonsense in a report, memo, article, letter or book, you will look like a chump. If your careless work finds its way onto the Internet, it will follow you to the grave.

Limbaugh Taken In: The Judge Was Not Loaded for Bear

PENSACOLA, Fla. — Anyone listening to Rush Limbaugh’s radio show Tuesday could be forgiven for thinking that Judge Roger Vinson has the federal government dead in his sights … Apparently, Mr. Limbaugh had fallen prey to an Internet hoax … On Sunday night, and again Monday morning, someone identified only as “Pensacolian” edited Judge Vinson’s Wikipedia entry to include the invented material. The prankster footnoted the entry to a supposed story in
The Pensacola News Journal. The article—like its stated publication date of June 31, 2003—does not exist. The same person who posted the information removed it on Tuesday afternoon, Wikipedia logs show.
—Kevin Sack, The New York Times, Sept. 15, 2010

When I started out as a copywriter, novelist and non-fiction writer, research meant endless clipping of newspapers and magazine articles, schlepping down to a local library to spend hours chasing down leads in books, magazines and scrolling through endless reels newspapers on microfiche. Today, what took five days at the library can be accomplished in 20 minutes from any computer in the world with Internet access.

Trouble is, the Internet is rife with misinformation and if you get caught advertently or inadvertently propagating this nonsense in a report, memo, article, letter or book, you will look like a chump. If your careless work finds its way onto the Internet, it will follow you to the grave.

In the world of research, separating out the bogus from the true takes work.

Example: The Bill Munro Quote
W. Carroll (Bill) Munro was a neighbor of my father’s in upstate New York. A big, gruff, hard-drinking iconoclast, he penned three novels in the 1950s, went into advertising in the era of “Mad Men” and wound up as vice president and marketing director of Pepsico.

Once during a heated discussion in the 1960s at a Saturday night barbeque, Munro snarled a wonderful aphorism that stuck in my brain: “Imitation is the sincerest form of collective stupidity.”

In 2004, I used it for the first time in my book, “PRICELINE.COM: A Layman’s Guide to Manipulating the Media” (which sold a total of 15 copies, so not a lot of people saw it). On Aug. 31, 2006 I used it in my Business Common Sense e-zine, and have used it several times since—in my “Famous Last Words” column in Target Marketing and on Twitter.

If you put that line in quotation marks and Google it, you’ll get 12 hits. Four of the entries are mine, while the other 8 are by complete strangers to me who picked up the quote and used it with attribution to Munro. Never heard of any of them, but here they are:

I am the only person in the world who heard Munro say this. Yet, not one of the eight checked with me to see if it were real or pure fiction. One of these characters picked it up from me and the others most likely picked it up from that guy or each other.

For all anybody knows, Munro and his line could be made up out of my head—pure fiction—yet business people are quoting it to their readers as if it were fact.

When something is repeated often enough in a number of venues, it becomes the truth.

It is the same principle as a forged Picasso painting. As it is bought and sold over the years, it acquires a longer and longer pedigree—so-called provenance in the art world—and after years in the marketplace, it becomes the real thing, no questions asked, even though it’s an out-‘n’-out fake.

Rule No. 1 for the Web: Beware of Provenance
There’s this guy I know in Phoenix—a political extremist, who forwards to me the most scurrilous, inflammatory stories that validate his pet hates with comments that always say, “OMG!” or “See, I told you so!”

However, when I put a phrase from his diatribe in quotation marks and paste it into Google, I get bunch of cuckoo entries from bloggers, screamers and nut cases, who have picked up the story and repeated it verbatim from each other. The busy little Google spiders capture this fiction and add it to the vast maw of data out in the ether. A couple of Google entries, and it fogs the mirror. With six entries it grows legs. Fifteen Google entries turn it into a living, breathing monster that becomes harder and harder to disprove.

Can it be found on the website of a legitimate newspaper, broadcast station, wire service or commentator? Nah.

Eventually it may show up on the Annenberg Public Policy Center’s, honchoed by widely respected gumshoe journalist Brooks Jackson, who will do in-depth research and expose the story for what it is—a load of crap.

By then it’s too late. It will have made its way into the speeches and writings of the extreme Left or extreme Right, nobody having bothered to check it out.

The Wikipedia Trap
School and college students are constantly being nailed for turning in papers with facts (and frequently plagiarized copy) lifted verbatim from the highly-touted Wikipedia—the online source of all knowledge that describes itself thusly:

Since its creation in 2001, Wikipedia has grown rapidly into one of the largest reference websites, attracting nearly 78 million visitors monthly as of January 2010. There are more than 91,000 active contributors working on more than 16,000,000 articles in more than 270 languages. As of today, there are 3,417,066 articles in English. Every day, hundreds of thousands of visitors from around the world collectively make tens of thousands of edits and create thousands of new articles to augment the knowledge held by the Wikipedia encyclopedia.

Trouble is, many of the volunteer editors and writers have their own agendas and are dishonest propagandists. The Rush Limbaugh silliness (see “IN THE NEWS” above) is the most recent. Below are three of the entries in the dossier of Wikipedia flimflam entries in my private archive.

• Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales was caught red-handed changing his own Wikipedia biography 18 times, which included deleting his co-founder, Larry Sanger.

• “Political operatives are covertly rewriting—or defacing—candidates’ biographical entries to make the boss look good or the opponent look ridiculous.” —Shannon McCffrey, Associated Press

• “WikiScanner revealed that CIA computers were used to edit an entry on the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. A graphic on casualties was edited to add that many figures were estimated and were not broken down by class. Another entry on former CIA chief William Colby was edited by CIA computers to expand his career history and discuss the merits of a Vietnam War rural pacification program that he headed.” —Randall Mikkelsen, Reuters

The list of mis- and disinformation uncovered in Wikipedia is lengthy and embarrassing.

In 2007, the Middlebury College History Department banned the citing of Wikipedia as a research source.

Make a note to do likewise.

Otherwise, you can get caught with your pants down as Rush Limbaugh did.

Not a pretty image.

Takeaways to Consider

  • Wikipedia has enormous value as a starting point, a lead generator and perhaps a wiring diagram.
  • Never trust Wikipedia as the sole source for your research—on anything.
  • The only thing worse than no information is bad information.
  • Before hitting the “Publish” button, make sure it is not the opinion—stated as fact—of a wacko zealot or prankster that has been endlessly repeated by other wacko zealots and pranksters.
  • Go with it only if you can find it in a reputable source—AP, Reuters, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Huffington Post, TIME, The Economist, etc.
  • And go with it only if you have seen it for yourself in that original, reputable source. And preferably two of them.
  • Download it from that source—including its URL—and file it away in your private archive in case you are called on to defend it.
  • If you are caught assigning truth to a bogus story or quote by a wacko zealot, you are a chump. If you cite one or more reputable source that have repeated the story as fact—and can prove it with the URLs—you are off the hook (unless that source has printed a retraction).

Web Sites Related to This Edition
Limbaugh taken in by Wikipedia Hoax

Brooks Jackson’s

Wikipedia founder edits his own bio

Political dirty tricksters manipulate Wikipedia

CIA, FBI computers used for Wikipedia edits

Congress caught making false entries in Wikipedia

Middlebury College History Dept. bans citing Wikipedia as a research source

The New Rules For Judging ‘Quality’ In Published Content — 1

The New Rules For Judging ‘Quality’ In Published Content — 2