Talk:Direct marketing/Archives/2012

Connect this page to search term "direct sales"

There is a 31-page comprehensive discussion of the history of direct marketing (from the first catalogs in 1450 to Lester Wunderman coining "Direct Marketing" in 1961 -- and beyond) that can be found by typing in "direct marketing history" in Google. In actual present-day practice, direct marketing can be used in any medium where a response is the objective. I don't believe in the current practice of marketing that there is any distinction between "Direct Marketing" or "Direct Response". SMAresource 03:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed . I also do not believe in the accuracy of having different terms like direct sales, or direct response Sanjiv swarup (talk) 02:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Term Direct-Sales and Direct-Response can be taken as the practice to understand direct-marketing. Direct-Response comes after Direct-Sale is done; and when both looked together it is Direct Marketing. Ritesh Raghuvanshi (talk)

There is another interesting history of Direct Marketing at http://directmag.com/history/ with historical examples dated back to the 1800s(registration required after certain number of views). javascript:insertTags('Nyc10025 (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)',,) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyc10025 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The front page indicates that someone suggested merging this article with the leaflet distribution wiki page. Leaflet distribution is not direct marketing; direct marketing implies that you are marketing directly toward one target. Leaflet distribution is an example of indirect marketing. Thus, they should not be merged. Thanks! Bcrawford (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Remove and create standalone Direct Response article

Direct response marketing does not really fit into this article and really deserves its own. Thoughts?

I agree. Both articles should mention the other however, because people tend to get the two terms confused. mydogategodshat

Direct Marketing is a sub disipline of marketing that can be used as a stand alone marketing strategy (Dell computers), an integrated part of marketing (a loyalty club) or as a peripheral part of marketing, simply at a tactical level.

Spam and junk mail are not true forms of Direct Marketing as these mediums are not targeted. At the very least recipients of Direct Marketing are "prospects" who are likely to be interested in the product.

Direct Marketing is a strategic dispicline. Direct Response advertising is a form of media.

This article does not truely describe what Direct Marketing is. This is understandable considering Direct Marketing is only just coming into the mainstream marketing world. I would help write the article but think someone else could do it better.

DM relates heavily to Database Marketing and Relationship Marketing.

I agree that they do not overlap enough to merge.--SarekOfVulcan 18:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Both articles should mention the other.

But let us hae a para here to explain the distinction. Should I go ahead and do it ? Sanjiv swarup (talk) 08:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with the statement "Spam and junk mail are not true forms of Direct Marketing as these mediums are not targeted." "Targeted" is merely a buzzword used within the junk mail / spamming profession. When junkmail/spammer professionals try to use the term "targeted email and mail" and attempt to pretend that's not part of the junkmail/spam spectrum, it's the equivalent of your neighbor saying "No, that's not my dog chewing on your leg...that's my pitbull." Sethnessatwikipedia (talk) 09:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Italic text== This article is worthless and not written by experts in the field ==

If you're reading this article, please seek other sources for information on direct marketing. This article was penned by relatively uninformed writers so please do not rely on it too much. It needs to be entirely rewritten by an expert in the field.

Guys, there is no real world distinction between direct marketing and direct response. I'm a university professor of marketing and a former DM agency chief creative officer. Direct marketing, done properly, is ALWAYS an interactive effort -- an attempt to get a RESPONSE back, not just an outgoing contact. There are people who do send things without asking for a response. The proper term for that is NOT direct marketing; it is general advertising that just happens to use the media of mail. The distinction drawn in this article between direct marketing and direct response is rubbish. "Junk mail" aka direct mail is always direct marketing if it seeks a response. Targeting can be a matter of degree but even untargeted mailings that seek a response are direct marketing to the extent they are delivered to a single customer or prospect in an attempt to start a relationship.

Maybe one day when I have time, I can set this article straight. But for now, if you're using this article for research, please don't rely on it too heavily. You'll be better off starting with a textbook. I recommend the latest edition of Direct Marketing by Ed Nash if you can find it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Yepperdoo (talk • contribs) on 5th August 2006

That's a perspective from an insider in the industry, not an expert. Ralph Nader would be an expert. Ken 01:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this article is rough. The Direct Mail sections should be merged together without the B2B section in the middle, the current article doesn't flow, there are POV rambles, and it would be good to have a history of direct marketing. This section and this section are well-written. It could definitely use more attention from people well-versed in direct marketing. --Ac246 10:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I Totally agree that this article is rubbish. It equates unsolicited mail with direct marketing, which is very inaccurate. Direct marketing is about creating relationships with clients (existing and potential). It leaves out some v important direct marketing channels: telemarketing and online marketing to name two. I think it couyld do with a complete rewrite And as the first commentator said, it should come with a warning that the content is tripe and should not be used as research material. --Kirst68 06:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is a very brief and superficial glance at the subject. While Lester Wunderman is an important figure in the business, he was a latecomer. The ground had already been broken by such men as Victor O. Schwab and Frank Collier. More research is needed on this topic. Fortunately, there now exists a growing literature that is readily available. To cite one dated book (Nash), is wrong. There are several other more objective books available, including Direct Marketing Management by Mary Lou Roberts and Paul D. Berger (Prentice Hall), and the earlier (not the current) editions of Stone & Jacobs' Successful Direct Marketing Methods.

Direct Market

The article Direct Market deals with a distinct subject which is not the same as "direct marketing" (i.e. it isn't even an example of that concept), so I've removed the MERGE tag from here. Tverbeek 18:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

i agree Lksajeev 05:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

yes! your view is correctAnoopnair2050 (talk) 12:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

JunkMail equals DM, or not / pro-DM bias

The article Direct Market deals with a distinct subject which is not the same as "direct marketing" (i.e. it isn't even an example of that concept), so I've removed the MERGE tag from here. Tverbeek 18:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The search-term "junk mail" currently feeds directly into this article, "direct mail", yet the Direct Mail article goes to great lengths to divest itself of any association with "junk mail". Further, the use of "targeting" to separate DM from Junkmail is invalid, because it is not in line with the widely used definition of junkmails (as verified by almost all online dictionaries). Wikipedia is dedicated to portraying reality, not altering public opinion. Therefore, this monority view/advertising push should be altered to more correctly represent the popular view (that unsolicited mass-mailed ads = junkmail, whether the ads are "targeted" or not).

The minor distinction of targeted versus untargeted is a distinction used ONLY by the small minority of DM professionals, not by the overwhelming public majority who actually decides what is or is not "junkmail".

Worse, the article-- although written by DM professionals-- reads less like a description of junkmail/DM as it is truly seen in the public eye, and more like an attempt by DM professionals to free their profession --and junkmail/direct-mail-- of any negative connotations.

This article should either be separated from the term "junkmail" (in which a more balanced, accurate picture of the public's view of junkmail could appear), or the article should be carefully rewritten with the pro-DM bias removed. Wikipedia is in the business of describing reality, not molding public opinion. Let advertisers pay for commercial time, if they wish to modify public opinion. Sethnessatwikipedia 07:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I thought it was very confusing when I figured out that when you search for "junk mail" you get directed to this article. I think it would be better to have a separate "junk mail"/"direct mail" article that could include a tracing of the history of this phenomenon. It could include a link to the "direct marketing" article. And the "direct marketing" article could include a shortened version of the "junk mail" article, with a link saying that the full article on junk mail is the junk mail article.

It seems like "direct marketing" is a much broader concept and practice than junk/direct mail. It includes a lot more in terms of practices than direct mail, and it also has a theoretical aspect to it.The "direct marketing" article could trace the history and nature of direct marketing within the context of marketing in general. And maybe could have short descriptions of several practices/examples, including direct/junk mail. Whereas the "junk mail" article could focus in specifically on junk mail and look at it more in the context of society at large.

What do you think?

Mspandana 06:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Someone should now add the public opinion of junk mail to the junk mail article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.152.115.183 (talk) 23:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the section to remove the PoV judgement as to what is and is not junk mail, as according to Webster's and the OED junk mail simply refers to advertising mail, not "untargeted" advertising mail. It's a drop in the bucket of changes that the article needs, though, as the article still reads like a marketing textbook.--Trystan (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Separate article for junk mail. I agree Sanjiv swarup (talk) 04:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that junk mail is used for advertising mails. Rupesh86 (talk) 11:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

i agree.There should be seperate article for junk mail since most junk mails are used for advertising. it's more or less a term from the jargon of the marketing field Anoopnair2050 (talk) 13:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. There should be one article, and it should be titled "junk mail", not "direct marketing". Junk mail is a broad concept that encompasses spam, posted mail, and so on. If we split direct mail and junk mail into two separate categories, we are allowing the DM article (and its professional DM contributors) to once again divest itself of the inherent negative connotation that it has earned in the general public's minds.

"Junk mail" is how the public best knows it. Labeling it "Direct Marketing" is too far down the road toward non-neutral POV and whitewashing. We must work toward presenting a description of how things are, not present a how-to guide or a narrow POV whitewashing.Sethnessatwikipedia (talk) 09:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Junk mail was a term created by print media at a time when it seemed that direct mail was becming the medium of choice by many advertisers. Its earliest use can be found in hysterical newspaper editorials. It was only later that environmentalists seized upon this clever term and made it their own. To dignify it with a Wiki page of its own without discussing its origins is giving respectability to what is basically a propaganda phrase. And to associate it with direct mail without an objective discussion is a case of blatant smear tactics. (Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReithBBC (talk • contribs) 00:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that "junk mail" would be more accurately defined as an abuse by a direct marketer. Responsible direct mailing of any kind should be welcomed by it's recipients because they knowingly opted-in for it. Responsible direct marketers will send their customers only valuable content that they requested specifically, while also providing an convenient option to opt-out. Not all direct marketing is "junk mail". 162.39.20.82 (talk) 14:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

history of direct marketing

• 1498 - First book catalogue (Italy)
• 1667 - First gardening catalogue (Eng)
• 1727 - Mail order library (USA)
• 1833 - Customer buying clubs (Eng)
• 1872 - Montgomery Ward founded (USA)
• 1874 - Sears Roebuck (USA)
• 1905 - UK modern mail order catalogue
• 1926 - Modern book club (USA)
• 1950 – Diners Club (charge card)
• 1958 – American Express (charge card)
• 1958 – Bank Americard (first Visa card)
• 1966 – Barclaycard (first UK Visa)
• 1972 – Access (first UK Mastercard)
• 1970 – Storecards (House of Fraser)
• 1991 – Homebase Spend and Save (first mag-stripe loyalty id card)
• 1995 - Tesco Clubcard (first 10 mill user card)

Brief, not complete

Any direct marketing pre-1498? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.39.100.177 (talk • contribs) .

Catalogues are not the same as direct marketing -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

RE: Zzuuzz - Direct selling is the predecessor of direct marketing, and therefore is acknowledge above. Also, on the article for this topic, catalogues are acknowledge as a form of direct marketing —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.39.97.83 (talk • contribs) .

Introduction too long

The several paragraph introduction is way too long and fails to get to the point. It should be one paragraph, since this topic is actually pretty simple. Like, "Direct marketing is an industry term for unsolicited commercial communication with consumers or businesses." Ken 01:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

With respect, "unsolicited commercial communication with consumers" is using unnecessarily clinical words in place of commonplace, well-understood terms. It avoids using the words that the public knows best: "junk mail" and "spam". Let's use "junk mail, spam, and other forms of mass-distributed unsolicited commercial communication". Sethnessatwikipedia (talk) 09:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

agreed will you do the needful ? Sanjiv swarup 16:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Made the corrections: Please edit 59.183.41.204 (talk) 11:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

History addition

I believe that direct marketing was pioneered by Julius Seligsoehn Netter at BIA based in Moorgate, London (British International Addressing) in the 1940s. A German Jew new to the UK he set up the company to hold paper-based databases of Doctors and other professionals who companies could then target and send out direct mail to. I believe their largest client was Shell Oil who was interested in marketing to certain types of individuals. If anyone has more info on this maybe we can update the main page on Direct Marketing to include this information. Pete Nelson 20:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

the external links section : DMNews.com

Do you mean external links section? As a reference it seems inappropriate to link to the main page of a changing website, especially when it's not clear which assertions it's supposed to back up.

If you do mean the external links section - I think a link to one industry magazine could be good. Do most editors think this is the best one? -- Siobhan Hansa 13:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

be bold and go ahead Sanjiv swarup (talk) 03:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

there should be some external links to suppliers of mailing lists

What do the editors think about this idea ? post by Ramesh debata 10:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be better to link to Wikipedia articles about companies which supply mailing lists, assuming such articles exist.. or to a dmoz listing of such companies. --Versageek 10:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the dmoz url: dmoz.org directory of mailing list vendors --Versageek 11:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I really don't like the idea of us linking to even a directory of list suppliers - it would be like the article on writing linking to a list of book shops - This article isn't about the lists it's about the subject of direct marketing, lists are just one tool. Linking to list providers not only fails to provide any encyclopedic information, it's somewhat tangentially related to the article subject. It fails our external links guidelines and what Wikipedia is not policy. -- Siobhan Hansa 14:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph above explains quite clearly the reasoning against external links in this case.. Upon further consideration, I have to agree with Siobhan here. --Versageek 15:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

I have to concur with Versageek's original thought.

Considering that mailing is a major activity of DM, an external link to a dmoz listing should be apt. Looking at it from a user perspective of what an encyclopedia is, I would give him the choice to go to a list. Sanjiv swarup 14:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure which encyclopedias you've been reading that generally list commercial suppliers of related services - but I've never used them, and I'd be unlikely to think they gave an objective view of the subjects they covered.

If we have a link to a directory of mailing lists there are a bunch of other directories that are as or more appropriate. For instance, lists of Direct marketing firms, telemarketers, and customer relationship management software are all as relevant as sellers of lists. we are not here to facilitate direct marketing by individuals (or to hinder it), but to provide information about the concept of direct marketicing, it's history and how it impacts the world in which we live. -- Siobhan Hansa 18:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Please review the foll link for inclusion : http://dmoz.org/Business/Marketing_and_Advertising/Direct_Marketing/Mailing_Lists/ Ramesh debata 14:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

yes _ good idea Sanjiv swarup 02:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

So why is a list of direct mail list providers more relevant than, for instance, a list of direct marketing companies? Or a list of telemarketing firms? -- Siobhan Hansa 02:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

...or a list of their home addresses, so protestors can fling shredded junkmail at their houses, mailboxes, and housepets? I agree with Siobhan. Wikipedia is not a tutorial nor a "Yellow Pages". Would you expect the article on oil painting to include lessons and links to art stores? Should the article on deer hunting include a link to Joe and Martha's Kwality Hunting Lodge in Kaboose, Montana? Of course not. I cringe to think what sort of suppliers we'd have to list on the pages abotu prostitution, the Inquisition, and Anthrax! Worse, by definition we'd be annoying far more people than we'd please, if we started facilitating junk mailing and spamming: spammer list companies B, C, and D would feel Wikipedia's unfairly helping company A, and there'd be long lines of junkmail recipients who simply do not want to make junk mailing and spamming easier or more commonplace. In an extreme case, would you want to be responsible for increasing spam or helping an angry spam recipent to send a box of dogpoop to a mailing-list dealer?Sethnessatwikipedia (talk) 09:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Valpak "blue envelopes" are sent to millions of addresses in the USA. Their stated policy is that you can be removed from their list for two years if you write to them in Florida. This kind of perpetual anonymous mailing should not be legal. Are there any tree-loving class action lawyers out there?

Please elborate upon the relevance of this post Sanjiv swarup 02:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The article isn't a call to arms, nor a rallying point for a hoped-for anti-junkmail class action suit. However, I think it would be very worthwhile to describe the controversies: point to articles or research about any existent or historical class-action suits, OBJECTIVE polls of how people feel about companies that use junkmail and spam, and so on. For example, I recall an interesting news story about a British mailman who was fired because he'd been giving customers on his route advice about how to avoid/reject junkmail. (Post offices LIKE junkmail, because it helps pay their salaries and they don't factor in the recipent's lost man-hours nor the waste disposal man-hours.)

In short: future/hopes/cries for new revolution are NOT what Wikipedia's about. Describe the history and the present, quote people about the future, but don't use this article to try to change the world or public opinion. Let's describe junkmail protests in the article's "controversy" section, and back up the statements with links. For example, http://donotmail.org/article.php?list=type&type=3 reports that

Since 1991, national polls have consistently shown that between 80 and 90% of respondents dislike junk mail and would take some action to reduce it if they could.

In the Zogby International poll, 93% of respondents were aware of the Do Not Call Registry and 89% of them supported a Do Not Mail Registry to make it easier to opt out of unsolicited ad mail.

A response rate of less than 0.25% is considered acceptable for the 500 million U.S. credit card solicitations that are mailed monthly.

State and local governments and their citizens spend hundreds of millions of dollars per year to collect and dispose of all the bulk mail that does not get recycled.

6.5 million tons of discounted junk mail entered the U.S. municipal solid waste stream in 2006.

It takes more than 100 million trees to produce the total volume of junk mail that arrives in American mailboxes each year—that's the equivalent of clearcutting the entire Rocky Mountain National Park every 4 months.

All of these are facts (with cited sources, listed at DoNotMail.org) describing the world of junkmail as it truly, objectively is (provided the research cited is sound). That makes'em appropriate for a WIkipedia article. Sethnessatwikipedia (talk) 09:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Some of that may be useful - but I was unable to confirm a single claim above from the sources provided by donotmail.org - A couple may be possible to confirm with more effort but some were just internet links to dead pages. I'm also concerned by the US centric focus of the claims. This is an International article about direct marketing in general - using figures for one country for one form of marketing can bias the overall message. Not saying we shouldn't include some of this - just that we need to be careful. It may also be more appropriate in the direct mail article - though the caveats about the sources and US specific focus still apply. -- SiobhanHansa 13:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The content seems region specific (US). More general content on how direct marketing is done around the world could be added. Unsigned by Vinush2000 09:44, 26 June 2007

"done", and also regulated, outlawed, and so on: no-call lists with hefty fines, for example.Sethnessatwikipedia (talk) 09:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The article is tagged as needing a cleanup, that is non-general content should be removed or replaced. Erik Warmelink 18:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's Get This Right

I'm very interested in helping everyone get this page right. I think that while the industry does not have deep roots in academia this site can work with the leading academic programs that do exist to refine the listing and keep it current without relying too heavily on a purely commercial POV (although accurate information about commercial innovations is inseparable from a useful discussion of direct marketing).

Right now the leading programs are:

Mercy College http://www.mercy.edu/acadivisions/busacctg/grad/directmarketing/ NYU http://www.scps.nyu.edu/areas-of-study/marketing/graduate-programs/ms-direct-int-marketing/index.html Baruch http://zicklin.baruch.cuny.edu/centers/dmc/ FIT http://www.fitnyc.edu/aspx/Content.aspx?menu=Future:SchoolsAndPrograms:BusinessAndTechnology:DirectMarketing

One of the key issues this page needs to address is the quickly-developing relationship between direct marketing and the whole basket of web-based marketing tools (SEO, email etc.). The Direct Marketing Association (DMA) has a done a good job of trying to claim the mantle of industry trade group for the web. In fact "Direct Marketing" is quickly becoming an accepted catchall term for mail + phone + DRTV + web marketing (all of the programs listed above list their programs as "Direct & Interactive Marketing"). This places a heavy burnen on this page to clearly describe the main subdesiplines and point readers to pages that can explore them in detail. It should emphatically not be too skewed too much towards direct mail which should have its own page (and the term Junk Mail can be explored on that page).

- Peter Milburn (Direct Marketing Club Board Member) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.185.130 (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Milburn would like the page to be written by academics TEACHING HOW to do direct marketing, and by professionals in the junkmail/spam industry. Where's the NPOV in that? This article needs some serious rewriting with attention given to the majority viewpoint, that junk mail is unwanted. We can't take seriously a request for external links to mailing list providers, unless we also provide links (and watchdogs for this article) from anti-spam, anti-junkmail organizations. Let's get them involved. Sethnessatwikipedia (talk) 09:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sethnessatwikipedia remark needs a positive spin. Let all of us put the links in place Sanjiv swarup (talk) 03:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sethnessatwikipedia, I don't mind striving for NPOV, but I don't think an emphasis on anti-spam, anti-junkmail orgs is NPOV either. Whatever someone's view of "Direct Marketing" they should find accurate info here about it's origins, history and some current trends (such as it's share of overall ad spending versus broadcast and other marketing channels). While I work in the industry I'm not a shill for it. I don't yet know a great deal about wiki standards but am willing to learn and contribute as best I can. I do have a good sense of industry history, trends, key developments, innovators, published sources etc. that can be valuable. There are state laws being considered to expand can-spam, do not call, do not mail, and other registries as well as industry responses to those initiatives. This page does not have to be bleeding edge in terms of developments that are changing rapidly. A section on industry criticism (of sweepsteaks, paper usage, privacy concerns related to consumer information being stored/lost and also used in regression and predictive response models when targeting vulnerable groups etc.) at the end with links to the largest opt-out or watchdog groups as appropriate should suffice. And for the top sections, a good solid history would be a nice start. [Milburn now > Nyc10025] Nyc10025 (talk) 21:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Direct Response Television Marketing

This section was added a few days ago, but just with two sentences and no citations. It seems to contradict the basic definition of direct marketing provided in the article, which specificies forms of marketing which don't use mass media.--Trystan (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Elaboration has now been done . Now maybe a link leading to a list of DRTV firms would be useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjiv swarup (talk • contribs) 03:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

references

^ Origin of the term "spam" to mean net abuse, Bad Templeton's website. Retrieved 2008 February 19.

should a link to Bad Templeton be maintained ? Sanjiv swarup (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I assume you're question this because the article was red linked - that was due to a typo of mine. It should be Brad Templeton, who does have an article. I've fixed this on the article page. -- SiobhanHansa 15:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Now how do we consign this discussion para to the archives. Could you please do it ? Sanjiv swarup (talk) 04:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Legislation

Suggest moving the mail aspects to the direct mail article Sanjiv swarup (talk) 10:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

As no feedback: have acted Sanjiv swarup (talk) 06:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

March 15th revert

I just reverted most of this edit. A link to a home page of an advocacy organization was used as a reference - the page does not provide appropriate verification of the claim that 41 pounds of junk mail are received by Americans and gives us no way to judge due weight - unless the claim is - "the organization 41pounds claims Americans receive...." in which case - that's really not a significant enough opinion to put in like that. Using the studies on which that organization bases its claim may be appropriate depending on what those studies are though any claim that applies to just one country needs to be put in context (it's a good country to do it with but still). The second source used was to a flyer from the EPA that included third class mail among many other constituents of solid waste. It did not say that third class mail was a significant contributor. And the juxtaposition of these to studies is improper inference. To make a claim that junk mail is a significant contributor the source itself needs to say that junk mail is a significant contributor. We can't go synthesizing assertions like that.

Because of the mix of sources I'm not entirely certain of the point the editor was trying to make - is it that there are many organizations that are working against junk mail on environmental grounds? Or is it that environmental scientists pinpoint junk mail as a significant contributor to global warming? Those are different things and would likely require different sources (and we may be able to find them - but we ought to actually find them not mix things together that don't really do it).

Also it's probably more fitting to put into the main direct mail article than in this summary. Depending on the significance of the content there it might be appropriate to summarize here. -- SiobhanHansa 13:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Your approach is correct Sanjiv swarup (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Direct selling article into "Direct selling" section

The "Direct selling" section is a single sentence. The Direct selling article desperately needs cleanup, but would probably end up as a decent paragraph or two. Since the two discuss the same topic, I propose merging the article here. Comments? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest leaving direct selling article as it is : it is a sub set of selling . Here in this direct marketing , article, the titling shuold read as Network marketing

Sanjiv swarup (talk) 10:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It would probably be more appropriate to merge direct selling with multi-level marketing than with direct marketing (direct selling is a very misleading euphemism for a sales method rarely used outside of MLM-companies). 86.56.41.142 (talk) 05:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Direct selling is direct selling. Direct marketing is direct marketing. Direct advertising is direct advertising. Let's not confuse the three.

They are however being strategically used simultaneously--nonetheless they are three different things. 98.14.114.233 (talk) 06:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC) Denmark Francisco ~ DenmarkFrancisco@gmail.com

I agree with the previous contributor - Direct Selling (or Personal Selling) is one of the five components of the Marketing Communications Mix and should not therefore be merged with another one of those five components. There is clear crossover between all five components, but this does not mean that any of them should be merged together. ~ nidge13@hotmail.com ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.159.128.39 (talk) 11:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There are significant difference between direct selling, direct marketing and network marketing. Network marketing is regulated by the direct selling association (DSA), but it is only one form of direct selling. Others forms of direct selling include party plan and door to door (eg home order catalogues). Therefore I propose that all of these articles should have separate entries, where "direct selling" would then link to it subsidiaries network marketing, party plan and door to door.

In regards to direct marketing this is a different industry altogether and includes areas such as telemarketing, email marketing, direct mailing etc. There is a big difference between direct selling and direct marketing and these 2 should not be confused or used interchangeably.

About 12 months ago I rewrote the network marketing article to properly define it as that what is stated by the regulatory body (DSA). I also included links to the DSA and Network Marketing Business School website a widely excepted and free training resource for people working in the industry (both websites are non-company specific, provide good industry education and do not sell anything). Go figure these links removed within a day and now have been replaced with websites that either sell a product or service, go figure! If these links were still included this discussion would not need to happen as all of the answers you will find in these 2 links. Direct selling Association Network Marketing Business School - network amrketing information and training.

You might also consider World Federation of Direct Selling Associations

I’m happy to update direct selling and direct marketing should you wish me to, such that it reflects this above discussion

As above, the Direct selling article should be left separate, however it does need considerable work. --Insider201283 (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

proposing an archive page

proposing an archive page Sanjiv swarup (talk) 03:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Direct sales is an industry of it's own. Direct marketing is different. In the 21st century there are numerous direct sales companies some of which are home party plan companies. These are all companies that allow families to maintain quality of life while creating additional income in the home. It is not the same as direct marketing.Deb Bixler (talk) 01:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion : Merger with "Leaflet distribution"

It has been suggested that this article be merged with "Leaflet distribution".

Disagree because leaflet distribution can encompass non-commercial activities, such as related to art or politics.-The Gnome (talk) 10:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The term marketing is not limited to commercial activities itself; not sure I understand your logic. I do think there is plenty of room for specific direct marketing vehicles such as leaflets to have their own article where there is plenty of history on the topic. I'd probably suggest merging into Flyer (pamphlet) instead of here, though, if a merge was even necessary. Kuru (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure you do not share my position (not to merge)? I also believe that "there is plenty of room for specific direct marketing vehicles such as leaflets to have their own article where there is plenty of history on the topic." Apologies if my vote was not clear enough.-The Gnome (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Opposition

I notice under channels that each section has considerable material about public opposition to these forms of advertising. People often don't like to be disturbed by a ringing phone at dinner, or by "junk mail" in their mailbox, or a "junk fax".

Can we consolidate the opposition? How about saying that a lot of people don't like to be distrubed, or have their business phones and fax machines and email cluttered up with unsolicited ads. We can then mention laws, registries, spam filtering, etc. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

drawing the stupid

In a recent column Ken Magill calls the authors of this article "stupid", yet refuses to contribute to improving it. He says "I believe that the reason Wikipedia’s entry on direct marketing is such a hack job is because the people truly qualified to fix it either don’t have the spare time or don’t have the inclination to spend their spare time doing something involving their craft that doesn’t profit them."

Is he right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdfalk (talk • contribs) 22:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)