Proactive Surveys and Calculations for Meeting Declining Mail Volumes

  • Kari ElkeläEmail author
  • Heikki Nikali
  • Päivi Rokkanen
Part of the Topics in Regulatory Economics and Policy book series (TREP, volume 50)


During this decade, postal organizations have faced with the fastest ever decrease in mail volumes and this is likely to continue. This situation will demand a well-planned adaptation. It will not be possible to continue 5- or 6-day delivery, not at least in all areas. This will also mean that Universal Service Obligations (USOs) should be redefined proactively before operators begin to encounter major problems. This paper will examine the anticipated decline in mail volumes from three perspectives: (1) measuring customer needs with surveys, (2) new calculation methods for necessary cost savings, and (3) pressure for reform of legislation and regulation. The surveys and calculations are tools both for determining possibilities for change and outlining the needs in reforming legislation.


Social Medium Populated Area Delivery Cost Postal Service Delivery Point 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Canada Post. (2014). Press release 6 May 2014. 22 July 2014.
  2. Dieke, A., et al. (2013). Main developments in the postal sector (2010–2013). Bad Honnef: WIK-Consult, August 2013.Google Scholar
  3. Elkelä, K. (2013). Posti 2020. Kuluttajien suhtautuminen uusiin jakeluvaihtoehtoihin paperiviestinnän vähentyessä [Post 2020. Consumers’ attitudes to new mail delivery alternatives when paper communication decreases]. Itella Corporation, Helsinki. Research series 26/2013.Google Scholar
  4. Elkelä, K. (2014a). Posti kuluttajien viestintäbrändinä 2014 [Posti as the consumers’ communication brand 2014]. Itella Corporation, Helsinki. Research series 3/2014.Google Scholar
  5. Elkelä, K. (2014b). Kuluttajien postinjakelu 2020 [Mail delivery for consumers 2020]. Itella Corporation, Helsinki. Research series 8/2014.Google Scholar
  6. Elkelä, K. (2014c). PK-yritysten postinjakelu 2020 [Mail delivery for SMEs 2020]. Itella Corporation, Helsinki. Research series 9/2014.Google Scholar
  7. Elkelä, K., & Nikali, H. (2013). Social media challenges the entire postal industry. In M. A. Crew & P. R. Kleindorfer (Eds.), Reforming the postal sector in the face of electronic competition (pp. 393–406). Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar, Helsinki.Google Scholar
  8. Ficora. (2014). FicoraStat, Helsinki.Google Scholar
  9. Haller, A., et al. (2014). Calculating the net cost of home delivery. In M. A. Crew & T. J. Brennan (Eds.), The role of the postal and delivery sector in a digital age. Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  10. Itella. (2014). News release 29 Jan 2014. 22 July 2014, Helsinki.
  11. Itella’s Year 2013. (2014). Annual and corporate responsibility report 2013. Itella Corporation. Helsinki.Google Scholar
  12. Kuusisto, O., & Marketta, N. (2010). Jakelu 2.0 postinjakelukokeilu Porvoon Anttilassa, kokemukset ja palaute lomakekyselyn pohjalta [Delivery 2.0, mail delivery experiment in Anttila of Porvoo, experiences and feedback based on a survey]. Helsinki, Espoo: VTT.Google Scholar
  13. Nikali, H., Elkelä, K., Leskinen, P., Rokkanen, P., & Karlsson, P. (2012). Allocating costs between universal services and services outside the scope of universal service. In M. A. Crew & P. R. Kleindorfer (Eds.), Multi-modal competition and the future of mail (pp. 180–194). Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  14. Statistics Finland. (2013). Väestön tieto- ja viestintätekniikan käyttö 2013 [Use of the information and communication technique of the population 2013]. Helsinki: Statistics Finland.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Itella CorporationHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations