In the January 21, 2012, issue of The Economist, the main focus of both the feature articles and the special report was on the resurgence of “state capitalism.” The magazine’s reporters described a world in which major companies in major markets were either owned directly by national governments, or subject to control or heavy influence, even if they were privately owned or had issued shares to the public.

The stories reminded me that, for the last 21 years of my Pitney Bowes career, I dealt continuously with the encroachment of state capitalism in the postal sector.  In the late 1980’s and throughout the 1990’s, we successfully fought a series of battles with the U.S. Postal Service to keep it from becoming another entity with all the powers and privileges of the federal government, but with none of the regulatory constraints associated with federal government agencies.  Several senior postal officials aspired to create a power base similar to many government-owned entities, such as the Tennessee Valley Authority (which Marvin Runyon, the Postmaster General from 1992 to 1998, had led) or the New York-New Jersey Port Authority.

(more…)

There have many articles recently in which the U.S. Postal Service has announced that a deterioration of first-class service is an inevitable result of the cost reductions it will have to undertake.  This is unfortunate, because we need a viable Postal System to perform many vital societal functions.  UPS and FedEx do a great job as for-profit institutions serving the needs of businesses and high-density residential areas, but they are far too expensive in serving lower density geographies.

Moreover, their fee structures would kill individuals and small businesses.  For example, UPS and FedEx charge over $10 for improperly addressed letters and packages.  This is a profitable source of revenue for both organizations.  They also have residential delivery surcharges, especially for more remote residential areas.  If they are to take on the responsibility for more mail delivery currently done by the Postal Service, they cannot use their current fee structure to do so.

How can the U.S. Postal Service take costs down?

(more…)

Devin Leonard, a reporter for Bloomberg Business Week wrote a great article diagnosing the issues facing the U.S. Postal Service, entitled  “The U.S. Postal Service Nears Collapse.” He delivers a number of great insights, among them:

• The near-term insolvency of the Postal Service was created by a Congressional action in the 2006 Postal Reform legislation which required the Postal Service to prefund all its retiree benefit obligations over the first 10 years after the legislation passed.  Why?  Since the Postal Service is off-budget, and it was getting its overpayments into the federal pension system returned to it, the artificially fast prepayment was a budget-balancing gimmick.  The Congress should have made the Postal Service prefund the retiree benefit obligations the way any private sector company would do so: over the expected 30-40 year life of the obligations.
• The longer-term problems of the Postal Service are driven by rapid and deep declines in mail volumes.  The Postal Service needs to reduce its cost structure much faster.  There are many good ideas that have been proposed for years, but that have not been adopted, such as the relocation of retail postal functions into convenience stores and supermarkets.  However, the Congress and the White House have to step aside and let the Postal Service take some of these steps.
• The Postal Service wants to reduce mail deliveries from 6 to 5 days.  I am not convinced that this step can be taken without damaging the growth potential of certain categories of mail.  What the Postal Service needs to consider is whether it needs to do 6-day-a-week to every address.  Sweden has variable frequency delivery, with 5 days in urban areas, three days in remote mainland rural areas, and two days to remote islands.  The Postal Services needs to begin delineating differences between profitable urban delivery routes and unprofitable rural delivery routes.
• On the flip side, the Congress and the Postal Service need to consider whether pricing for mail originating or being delivered to remote areas should be priced the same as mail traveling a few city blocks.  Uniform pricing has always been seen as a core feature of a communication system on which Americans have depended for political discourse, educational content management, charitable purposes, and other important social causes.  The broad penetration of the Internet makes many of the needs for uniform pricing less compelling.  However, to the degree that we continue uniform pricing, it can be for certain categories of mail, with others starting to move toward distance and cost based pricing.

(more…)

I was prepared to post another blog recently, but decided that it was important to post some observations about John Wooden, the great basketball coach of UCLA who died on June 4 at age 99.  Like most people passionate about sports at all levels, I admired John Wooden as a coach, a teacher, and a leader.

Wooden won the NCAA championship with a very small, fast team in 1964 and 1965, with two dominant centers, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (then called Lew Alcindor) and Bill Walton, between 1967 and 1973, and with a team of physically strong forwards and guards in 1970 and 1975.  He made his team the center of attention rather than himself.

What were his secrets?  Every successful college coach has to be a great recruiter, a great team builder, a great teacher, and a great game coach.  However, what struck me most about Wooden was a quote about him in the June 14, 2010, issue of Sports Illustrated, in an article by Alexander Wolff entitled “Remembering the Wizard, ” as well as a quote on a sign he posted on his office wall.

The quote about him was “His great strength was a knack for knowing when and what to change, and when to leave things be. He let sands shift, but only over bedrock.”  The quote on his office wall was “It’s what you learn after you know it all that counts.”  The combination of these two statements is the essence of a great human being: someone who continuously learns and tests his or her ideas, and, through continuous learning, discovers what changes, as well as what is unchangeable.

The stakes for continuous learning have been raised by the scientific research summarized by David Shenk in his book The Genius in All of Us. The research to which Shenk refers us makes it increasingly clear that what we thought were genetically-determined traits in ourselves and our children and grandchildren may very well be changeable, based on our behaviors and attitudes. Shenk’s point is that, by our actions to learn, grow, and become healthier, we can alter the genetically-expressed traits in future generations, especially for future offspring or for children still under our environmental control.

In this stage of my life, I have transformed myself from a secure corporate executive to a person who is engaged in a number of entrepreneurial pursuits.  Although my life is at a more frantic pace than ever before, I feel more energized and healthier than ever.  I am making mistakes left and right in my new pursuits, which include investments in health care companies, charity service providers, a reality TV incubator, and even two full-length feature films, one of which is fully produced and is Fog Warning, and the other of which is at the pre-production stage through a newly-formed production company called Gyre Entertainment.

The words describing John Wooden ring true to me because virtually every transformational success that occurred in my life happened because I broke the rules and followed a path different from those who seemed to have mastered conventional paths to success that were no longer working predictably.  I am particularly finding that today in the film industry.  No one in their right mind would say that anyone in the film industry has a working formula for success.  Most films fail, andmost investors never get their money back.

The most successful film industry people with whom I have spoken are respected because they have a less poor record than others, and, perhaps, had a single blockbuster hit or a single Academy Award nomination that validates them.  There is an old (and, as expressed, politically incorrect) statement that “In the land of the blind, the one-eyed person is king.” However, I aspire to be consistently successful, not to get a hit 1 in 10 times, so I know that I need to use a radically different approach to making and distributing a movie.  Similarly, the person who is successful 10% of the time is a failure in my book.

The movie industry reminds me of the direct mail business, in which direct mailers celebrate a 1% response rate as an exceptional success in an industry in which the average response rate is .25%. To me, a 1% response rate is an abysmal failure. It means that 99% of the people threw the mail into the wastebasket without responding.

What do these two industries have in common and how is John Wooden’s wisdom relevant to both?  What they have in common are a lot of relatively successful and wealthy people who depart from Wooden’s maxim that it’s what you learn after you think you know it all that matters.  These industries are dominated by people who stop learning after they “know it all” because they achieve a certain level of success.

I am not wired that way.  I strive to succeed all of the time, although I know that is impossible, simply because I know that striving for continuous success means that I will approach a problem radically different from the mainstream people in an industry.  I also know that many of them will ridicule me, and tell me that what I am trying to do will not succeed.  Their deep skepticism often is grounded less in logic or facts, but in a deep-seated need to believe that their approach is unassailable, even if it fail 90% of the time (as it does in entertainment) or 99.75% (as it does in direct mail).

How do we distinguish between what must change and what is foundational, something John Wooden understood in the context of basketball coaching and educating?  First, anyone who tells me that they have a consistent playbook or formula for success that has worked for several decades is automatically suspect.  Similarly, anyone who tells me that all the rules that have governed the past no longer apply is also suspect.  The current and future environments will always be a mix of the new and the time-tested.

Second, I am immediately suspicious of someone who tells me that a product or service that depends for its success on the stupidity and irrationality of the public is also suspect.  As Abraham Lincoln once said: “You can fool some of the people some of the time, all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”

Third, I get suspicious of anyone who tells me success is totally random or totally formulaic and predictable.  Fourth, I get suspicious of anyone unreceptive to my ideas because I am new to a field. Someone who judges me based on my track record rather than the strength of my ideas will undervalue what I am saying or proposing. Finally, I value entrepreneurs or thinkers who continually test out their thinking and adapt, based on what they learn. Transformative thinkers are highly secure people who are not scared to admit they might have been wrong.

John Wooden has left this earth, but, fortunately, his example and his teaching will stay with us and be available to inspire and teach us forever.

Last week, we posted on the Pitney Bowes web site at www.pb.com/mailimpact a white paper detailing preliminary findings on the environmental impact of mail. Several points stand out when we look at the study:

• Mail is a relatively minor source of carbon footprint compared with common personal and household activities, such as taking a two-minute shower, which has the same carbon footprint as receiving 40 pieces of letter mail.
• Electronic communications, on the whole, have a carbon footprint similar to paper-based communications
• As noted on pages 21 and 22, the ultimate question is not whether mail or paper-based communications have an environmental impact that could be reduced. No one questions the need to reduce the carbon footprint of mail or paper-based communications, and the paper talks about sustainability initiatives. (more…)

As anyone who has read my past blogs on environmental issues knows, I believe that eliminating unsolicited direct marketing mail may help reduce the “annoyance factor” some mail recipients experience, but there’s no assurance that it will improve the environment.”

I have been concerned that if some of those individuals who stop receiving unsolicited mail get into their automobiles and buy an item at a retail store that they would ordered through a direct mail solicitation, the environment is worse off. Until I attended the recent Center for Research on Regulated Industries Conference, I did not have data to support my point. Now I do. (more…)

In many blogs, I have commented on the issue the mailing industry faces with respect to the attacks on unsolicited marketing mail by environmentalists or privacy advocates. In particular, environmentalists argue that it would be better for the environment if everyone communicated electronically, instead of doing so in paper-based communications.

I am in the process of reviewing the increasingly robust research which suggests that electronic communication has substantial environmental hazards, in some cases, greater than physical mail-based communications. But the insight I want to share in this blog is that the boundary between physical and electronic communication is not clear, and is getting more muddied as time goes on. (more…)

I recently had the opportunity to speak with Eleanor Trickett, the editor in chief of DM News, about the inaugural DM News/Pitney Bowes survey on direct mail and the environment.

The survey reveals that consumers greatly overestimate the environmental impact of direct mail. Eleanor and I discussed the implications of this survey and how the industry can implement new technology and other initiatives to reduce the environmental impact of mail. We also discussed how industry leaders can work to improve the public perception of mail, and grow the value of mail as a medium in the long-term.

Listen to the Podcast

Recently, our mailing industry has spent a lot of time thinking further about the continued strength of “Do Not Mail” legislation. Our company also sponsored a survey conducted by the respected industry publication DM News.

The findings are quite interesting:

• To the degree that “Do Not Mail” proponents have cited environmental arguments, they have successfully left with the public a number of misimpressions about mail’s environmental impact, all of which grossly exaggerates mail’s negative environmental impact:

• While mail constitutes about 2% of solid waste in landfills, the public believes it constitutes over 33%.
• Similarly, the whole issue of the cutting of trees to produce pulp and paper has been wildly misunderstood. The practice of cutting and harvesting older trees and replacing them with new plantings, usually accounts for very little negative environmental impact.
• The public correctly understands that poorly addressed and poorly targeted mail is wasteful. As a Company, Pitney Bowes has been passionate about selling solutions to reduce the production and delivery of wasteful mail, so I could not agree more with this perception. (more…)

Not surprisingly, I get asked about the future of mail. People point to the decline in personal correspondence, the tendency of large transaction statement providers like banks and insurance companies to encourage customers to receive bills and statements on the
Internet, the decline in magazines and newspapers on newsstands and through the mail, and the likelihood that catalog and direct mail recipients will find ways to stop getting mail they do not want to receive.

Every one of these parts of the mailstream has different future prospects. Paper-based consumer-originated personal correspondence has been declining for a long time. Transaction statements are a mixed bag. Some bills and statements are going electronic, such as bank and insurance statements. Others, like health care statements, are growing as we all spend more on health care. Mass circulation magazines and newspapers are declining, but a high-end publication like The Economist is growing nicely.

The Direct Marketing Association (DMA) has just launched a new mail preference service that will allow mail recipients to register to receive more of what they want and to eliminate or reduce what they do not want. The DMA has delivered a significantly enhanced service for mail recipients who want to have more control over what they receive. (more…)