Spam or Ham? Assessing the Value of Direct Mail

  • Henrik B. Okholm
  • Anna M. BoivieEmail author
  • Signe Rølmer
Part of the Topics in Regulatory Economics and Policy book series (TREP, volume 50)


While letter volumes are declining overall (primarily driven by e-substitution), direct mail tells a slightly different story. The provision of direct mail is instead threatened by policy initiatives, notably: opt-out schemes, opt-in schemes, tax on direct mail, and data protection regulation. Regardless of which policy initiative we consider, its introduction has been primarily motivated by the cost of direct mail to society in terms of a negative environmental impact or unwanted nuisance to consumers. The positive value of direct mail to society has often been neglected. This paper makes a first attempt to analyze the socioeconomic value that direct mail bring to consumers and businesses. The results indicate that direct mail is likely to have a positive real value to businesses and consumers that should not be ignored when assessing and evaluating initiatives that will reduce direct mail volumes.


Policy Initiative Creative Industry Marketing Channel Direct Mail Marketing Message 
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. Abernethy, A., & Franke, G. (1996). The information content of advertising: A meta-analysis. Journal of Advertising, 25, 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Autorité de régulation des communications électroniques et des postes. (2012). ARCEP’s Annual Report. Accessed 14 July 2014.
  3. Bagwell, K. (2007). Chapter 28: The economic analysis of advertising. In M. Armstrong & R. H. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of industrial organization (Vol. 3). Amsterdam/North Holland: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  4. Beasley, L. (2013). Why direct mail still yields the lowest cost-per-lead and highest conversion rate. Online Marketing Institute. Accessed 14 July 2014.
  5. Bemmaor, A., & Mouchoux, D. (1991). Measuring the short-term effect of in-store promotion and retail advertising on brand sales: A factorial experiment. Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 202–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bolton, R. (1989). The relationship between market characteristics and promotional price elasticities’. Marketing Science, 8, 153–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Central Mailing Services Ltd. (2014). Direct mail effectiveness – Statistics. Accessed 14 July 2014.
  8. Chamberlin, E. (1933). Theory of monopolistic competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Referred in Bagwell (2007), 1708.Google Scholar
  9. Copenhagen Economics. (2011a). Husstandsomdelte reklamer: Mest til gavn (in Danish) (pp. 6–20). Copenhagen: Copenhagen Economics.Google Scholar
  10. Copenhagen Economics. (2011b). Afgifter på husstandsomdelte reklamer betyder højere fødevarepriser (in Danish) (p. 6). Copenhagen: Copenhagen Economics.Google Scholar
  11. Danish Competition Authority (Konkurrencestyrelsen). (2002). Reklame i medier (in Danish). pp. 32, 34, 36. Accessed 14 July 2014.
  12. Danish Ministry of Taxation. (2012). Proposal for a law regarding a tax on advertising to households (‘Lov om afgift af husstandsomdelte reklamer’). Accessed 14 July 2014.
  13. Deloitte. (2013). Advertising pays: How advertising fuels the UK economy. Prepared for Advertising Association, p. 18. Accessed 14 July 2014.
  14. European Commission. (2014). Decision SA.35683 Tax for advertising to households. Accessed 14 July 2014.
  15. Johnson, Justin, & David Myatt (2006). On the simple economics of advertising, marketing, and product design. American Economic Review, 96 . doi:10.1257/aer.96.3.756.Google Scholar
  16. MarketingCharts staff. (2012). B2C marketers say direct mail delivers best ROI. MarketingCharts. Accessed 14 July 2014.
  17. Marshall, A. (1919). Industry and trade: A study of industrial technique and business organization; and of their influence on the conditions of various classes and nations. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  18. McNeish, J. (2006). Measuring the impact of direct mail on the brand. In M. A. Crew & P. R. Kleindorfer (Eds.), Progress toward liberalization of the postal and delivery sector. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Moldvay, C. (2012). Printing in the US’ (32311), 22, IBISWorld Industry Report. Accessed 14 July 2014
  20. Moriarty, M. (1983). Feature advertising-price interaction effects in the retail environment’. Journal of Retailing, 59, 80–98.Google Scholar
  21. Nelson, P. (1974). Advertising as Information. Journal of Political Economy, 82, 729–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ofcom. (2012). Chapter 6: Post. The communications market 2012, p. 371. Accessed 14 July 2014.
  23. Osterland, A. (2014). What the proposed ad tax could mean for you: Proposal not likely to affect major marketers, but could hurt small companies, startups. Advertising Age. Accessed 14 July 2014.
  24. Popkowski-Leszczyc, P. T. L., & Rao, R. C. (1989). An empirical analysis of national and local advertising effects on price elasticity. Marketing Letters, 1, 149–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York: Free Press. ISBN 0-684-84148-7.Google Scholar
  26. Rauch, F. (2011). Advertising expenditure and consumer prices (CEP Discussion Paper No 1073). Centre for Economic Performance, ISSN 2042–2695.Google Scholar
  27. Royal Mail. (2013). Direct mail effectiveness. Market research. Accessed 14 July 2014.
  28. Smithers Pira. (2007). The future of direct mail. Accessed 14 July 2014.
  29. Schroeter, J. R., Smith, S. L., & Cox, S. R. (1987). Advertising and competition in routine legal service markets: An empirical investigation. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 36, 49–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tirole, J. (1986). Hierarchies and bureaucracies: On the role of collusion in organizations. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 2(2), 181–214.Google Scholar
  31. Union des Annonceurs and World Federation of Advertisers. (2006). Advertising and economic growth. Accessed 14 July 2014.
  32. WIK-Consult. (2013). Main developments in the postal sector 2010–2013. Study for the European Commission, Directorate General for Internal Market and Services, ix, p. 170.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Henrik B. Okholm
    • 1
  • Anna M. Boivie
    • 1
    Email author
  • Signe Rølmer
    • 1
  1. 1.Copenhagen Economics A/SCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations