NEW YORK, NY - Along with the blog comments, I got a bunch of email from yesterday's "Death to Catalog Marketing!!!" post. Guess I touched a nerve. Just to clarify, I'm not anti-catalog -- nor am I pro-catalog. I am staunchly channel agnostic.
Obviously, whether or not a catalog is "good" boils down to relevance.
Take the newspaper: Every day I get the WSJ, and every day I read it cover to cover. And I pay for it, too. On the other hand, every week my community paper throws their free rag into my bushes, and every week it goes straight to the trash with extreme prejudice. On top of that, I'm pissed that they spammed me -- even though they view this as a "service."
The difference? Relevance. And that's what CatalogChoice.org is about: Consumers choosing what's relevant to them. Naturally, making sure that I keep all catalogers dialed into my preferences is an idea that could save catalogers real dollars over time. Multiplied by millions of homes, we're talking serious money. A win/win for the environment and for catalogers. But mostly for catalogers.
Imagine that you're in a bar and you keep sending drinks to a pretty lady who keeps throwing them in the trash. Clearly she has no interest in you -- yet you keep sending her drinks hoping vainly that eventually she'll change her mind. After all, she fits your profile.
This is what catalogers would call "prospecting." This is what most people would call "nuts." Now, thanks to CatalogChoice.org, there's someone who knows the lady and can tell you to stop wasting your money.
Note to DMA members: The newspaper example says a lot about how catalogs might want to view their publications in the future. Their publications will need an editorial platform as much as anyone else -- if not more.
