I know how to do this

There are a number of people on the direct mail scene who will tell you that there is one way of doing direct mail, and they know what it is.   People such as Paul Gorman and others.

There is, however, real reason to wonder if there is such a thing as a fixed set of answers and whether or not some of the answers given by Gorman and others are now applicable.

Take, for example, the notion of always selling via a benefit, or putting a benefit in the headline.   A lot of direct mail gurus say that you have to do this, and yet I have my doubts.   (On this site you'll see there is a whole section on there being at least four ways of selling via direct mail, of which benefits is one - and in that piece I argue it is not necessarily the best one).

Sometime in the 1960s the world started to move away from the approach which says there is one way of selling, and the fact that some "experts" suggest that it is still applicable is particularly worrying. 

The first and by far the most famous questioning of this "one solution" approach came from psychologist Abraham Maslow (1908 to 1970).

This again is worrying, because the most famous paper of Maslow (A Theory of Human Motivation) debunked the notion of treating people as a unity - and this was published in 1943.   In this paper Maslow suggested we have basic needs which we seek to satisfy.  In a break with tradition he studied what called "exemplary people" (Einstein, Addams, Roosevelt etc) instead of those with problems, saying later that "the study of crippled, stunted, immature, and unhealthy specimens can yield only a cripple psychology and a cripple philosophy" (Motivation and Personality, 1987).

Maslow's hierarchy of needs is often depicted as a pyramid consisting of five levels: the four lower levels are grouped together as deficiency needs associated with physiological needs, while the top level is termed growth needs associated with psychological needs. While our deficiency needs must be met, our being needs are continually shaping our behaviour. The basic concept is that the higher needs in this hierarchy only come into focus once all the needs that are lower down in the pyramid are mainly or entirely satisfied. 

In its simplest construction the needs from the bottom up are:

• Physiological (food, water)
• Safety (your own cave safe from wild beasts, a house safe from intruders)
• Love of family, sense of belonging
• Esteem of others, such as colleagues telling you that you have done your job well
• Actualisation or individualisation - setting yourself and your lifestyle, apart from everyone else.

So if you have enough food, you have a place to live which is secure and you are not under threat, if you are not at war with your family, and if the people at work think you are an ok person doing a good job, then there is only one thing left - you start individualising your life.

Individualisation was much harder to achieve in earlier times.  Although the catchphrase about Model T Ford cars (any colour as long as it is black) was never true, it symbolised the early age of production lines.  You only set up a production line when you knew you could sell thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands...

By the 1960s (I am talking generally here - for some the change was earlier, for others later), there were many many more people who lived in a world in which the first four needs were being met, and so they turned to individualisation - the fifth need.   

There are many stories of the shock and horror that swept through parts of industry in the west as the trend became apparent.   Parodied, the business leader was seen as saying, "how on earth can we make a profit if everyone wants something different?"

But of course, manufacturing process developed to accommodate such change.  Teenagers became the experts at self-individualisation.  The Teddy Boys, the Mods, the Rockers, the Punks, the Goths - from the 1950s onwards they have found ways to separate themselves out from the mass.

And as people who started out expressing their individuality in their youth began to set up their own homes and live lives away from their parents, so they found they could at last express themselves completely, while being economically successful.

Thus the mono-cultures of the 1950s (one TV channel in the UK, limited choice of all goods) turned into the governmental fear of choice (the refusal to allow multiple radio stations, licensing control of answering machines etc) and then ultimately to a grudging allowance that maybe some choice was ok.

But movements once started tend to take their own course.   The notion that every development was a good development and that the present is always better than the past (the essence of Modernism in fact) fell away, and Post-Modernism bought us something quite different - a willingness to indulge in and enjoy the past.   Old fashions were no longer quaint, they could be cool.   By the time digitisation had occurred the barriers were down and it was clear to everyone that the marketplace had splintered as never before.  10 TV channels became 100, and then 1000 (or at least it seems like that as I flip around my Sky system).   Virtually every radio station in the world can be found via your computer, and we have hardly started putting digital radios in cars.  You don't have to sell to the mass market to be successful.

And what does all this mean for direct mail I hear you ask - if you haven't fallen asleep yet.

It means that the notion that there is one way of writing direct mail to appeal to everyone is as outmoded as the notion that cheaply built high-rise flats are good for people in the poorer areas of our cities.

In my view, what Maslow revealed in 1943 was that people will express their individuality once they get a chance.  What we can add is that if you send people an advert which is out of phase with how they see themselves, then they simply will reject the advert.

The first step in writing adverts is not to take the rules laid down by Paul Gorman, Tony Attwood or anyone else - it is to start thinking who are these people?  What makes them tick?  What is of interest to them?  

Then you start thinking "what sort of adverts are these people seeing?"

Now this is important, and again leads me to my disagreement with Paul Gorman.  My thinking often leads me to think that one should not lead with benefits, because the people I am writing to see loads of benefits all over the place.  So instead I tried writing with interesting questions or humour (see the articles on the Four Ways of Writing Mailshots).

Put simply: there is no simple answer.   People are different, and you have to acknowledge this.  Of course you are still trying to send mailshots out to loads of people, but the aim is to group them into communities of interest and attitude.  Then the response rates really go up.

Free analysis of your mailshot

This article is written by Tony Attwood, Chairman of Hamilton House Mailings Ltd.  If you would like to discuss the writing or design of your mailing campaign, or indeed a single mailshot, with Tony, without cost or obligation, just call 01536 399 000, or email Creative@hamilton-house.com   You can also send Tony a copy of your latest advert and he will call you back with his thoughts on how your response rate could be raised - again without cost or obligation.