Our science is under enough pressure and scrutiny these days–more than ever before–for true marketers to let this kind of nonsense slide by without it being challenged.

As you say, there’s still lots of ways to make money for our clients and companies. They’re just a bit harder to do, but will yield sustainable, long-term businesses.

I agree. I think it was Denny Hatch that pointed out a publisher ditching their longer copy direct mail control for a pre-printed postcard because the post-card out pulled the letter.

A year down the road they found the post card people didn’t renew their subscriptions so ROI from the direct mail letter was much better.

A great example of how not looking at all the numbers can cause serious mistakes.

I’ve always thought the long vs. short debate is a bit funny. Because as you say, it’s about what works.

Glad you stopped by, Mark.

-John

Hence the results at AOL. The offer was always the hero of the mailing and the product (internet access) was fairly easy easy to understand, at least by the late ’90s.

I’ve seen, however, that longer copy tends to (not always an absolute, though) produce a somewhat better customer on the backend, which you’ll see in the form of higher take or lower writeoff percentages. It’s important to test, though, as you’ll sometimes see a slight depression in upfront response. It’s all in the P&L.

I’ve also known Pat for a bit via AOL and he is, as you say, one of the very best DR people out there.