The Economist recently sent me a promotion that flies in the face of conventional wisdom for what works in direct mail selling magazine subscriptions:

1. It’s a self-mailer.

2. The whole thing is white type on red paper stock.

3. Even though it’s an oversize mailer, it’s mainly blank space with just a headline and one short paragraph of copy.

4. It’s a pun. The headline says “Passionately Red” — and remember, the whole mailer is bright red.

Yet, I suspect it may be working, since I THINK I got this — or something close to it — once before from The Economist.

Anyone out there get the Economist’s “red” mailing and have any thoughts on whether and why it works?

Anyone out there associated with the Economist who can tell us the results on this piece?

I’ve been raked over the coals by blogging evangelists and branding consultants all over the Internet.

They call me a “dinosaur” because I am a direct mail guy — derisively referring to direct marketing as “intrusion marketing,” implying it is old hat and ineffective, and stating that blogging, branding, and the like are what’s in and what’s working in B2B marketing today.

Not so, according to an article in BtoB (5/7/07, p. 3.), which notes that 42.9% of B2B marketers’ total budgets go to direct marketing — while only 16.1% is allocated to brand advertising.

Within direct response, direct mail receives the largest budget share — 27.5%.

The smallest share of total budget, a mere 1.5%, goes to “new media — RSS, blogs, and the like.”

Does this mean that branding and blogging don’t really work for B2B … or that they DO work, but B2B marcom managers haven’t gotten up to speed in these areas yet?

Are you surprised that B2B marketers spend more on good old-fashioned paper DM than they do on online marketing?

Could it be that B2B prospects are so bombarded online with blogs, e-mails, ads, and other Internet content, that a piece of paper in the mail breaks through the clutter?

Tempur-Pedic, a direct marketer of mattresses and beds, does great direct mail.

But the offer in a Tempur-Pedic letter I got today has me a bit confused:

“Pay nothing for an entire year — absolutely NO PAYMENTS, and NO INTEREST if you pay for your items in full within 12 months of the date of purchase.”

When I edit out the middle part, it reads:

“Pay nothing for an entire year if you pay in full within 12 months.”

Am I missing something, or is “pay nothing for an entire year” the total opposite of “pay in full within 12 months”?

I can’t imagine that other recipients of this mailing aren’t also confused.

Am I dense? Do you get what the offer is?

Or does Tempur-Pedic’s copywriter need an editor?

Just got a direct mail package selling subscriptions to Out magazine, which seems to be for gays.

One of the headlines reads: “Is the Pope Gay?”

My first reaction: this is really inappropriate and offensive.

I mean, unless they have an investigative report proving that the Pope is gay, it’s totally speculation … and maybe libel.

Even if they do have such a report (the mailing wasn’t clear about this issue) … why do this to a beloved religious leader?

It’s just sensationalism.

But on the other hand: there are gay priests who are coming out.

There is nothing wrong with being gay.

If the Pope is gay, then he’s gay … right? Why hide it?

So after my initial disgust, now I’m not sure whether Out should be using this headline to sell subscriptions.

What’s your opinion?

In today’s issue of AWAI’s e-newsletter, The Golden Thread, my friend Will Newman wrote an article on how to be a better copywriter.

One of Will’s pieces of advice was to read the National Enquirer.

This is old advice for copywriters: Milt Pierce, from whom I took a copywriting class in 1983, told us: “Read the National Enquirer.”

The idea is that, to be a good copywriter, you have to understand how the “common man” thinks … and that’s who reads the Enquirer.

But … and here’s a confession … I don’t spend a lot of time reading the National Enquirer — even though they once did a 2-page feature article about me (but that’s another story).

I mean, one of my specialties is writing DM copy to sell enterprise software … and I don’t think many of my readers (IT professionals) are reading the Enquirer.

I also write a lot of copy to sell high-end trading services, courses, and systems … and I am not sure how many traders turn to the Enquirer. So instead I read the Wall Street Journal.

How about you?

Do you read the National Enquirer to get a good feel for your market?

Or do you think that’s aiming a little too low?

When you write copy for a product, do you do a better job if you are a true believer in the product … or a cynical skeptic?

It’s been said that the copywriter must be enthusiastic, because enthusiasm for a product — or its lack — is transmitted in the writing.

On the other hand, if the copywriter is NOT sold on the product, he will have to sell himself on it before he can sell others.

That means he is more likely than the rapidly enthusiastic copywriter to come up with objections, which anticipate the objections prospects will have, and work out powerful, logical arguments to overcome them.

Therefore, the copy he writes will in theory be stronger than the copywriter who is a “cheerleader” for the product — enthusiastic, yes, not not really questioning its claims.

So when you write copy … or hire a copywriter … which are you looking for?

Enthusiasm?

Or a hard-nosed “show me” attitude?

In his latest column in Target Marketing (1/07, p. 58), Denny Hatch repeats the old advice that in direct marketing, ugly sells.

He quotes Bob Hacker, who states “ugly works,” and Lew Smith, who says, “Neatness rejects involvement.”

But is the idea that “ugly sells” still on target?

Or is today’s more sophisticated consumer … in an age where branding is much revered … likely to reject a poorly designed mailing as amateurish and unprofessional?

What about you?

When you create a direct mail package, do you hire a top-flight graphic designer to make it look as clean, neat, colorful, and glossy as an annual report?

Or do you too believe that “ugly sells”?

Nutrition & Healing, a consumer health newsletter, sent a mailing, which I received today, to sell subscriptions.

The headline: “Cure Cancer With Eggplant?!”

If you think they’re joking, the subhead sets you straight: “That’s C-U-R-E, not just improve–one of today’s most common and scariest cancers … usually in under 3 months!”

I had an immediate reaction upon reading the headline, and I bet you did, too.

Which of the following best describes your reaction to the eggplant headline, and why?

A. Curious and fascinated — I want to learn more. I’ll keep reading.
B. What utter B.S. — snake oil being sold here! Mailing goes into the round file.
C. Skeptical but interested enough to read further.
D. Gotta have it! Where do I order?
E. Other (please describe):_________________