Comcast: Sending the same Failed Mail – it’s Comcastic!

This letter from Comcast arrived today. If it looks familiar, it is because it is almost exactly the same failed mail I covered earlier this month. The outer envelope is exactly the same as the first mailing – e.g. semi-blind outer envelope addressed to me “or Current Resident” – so I did not bother scanning it. The letter shown here has the same offer, layout, and body copy as the original letter. The only changes are the respond-by date and response phone number.

This suggests that the original letter was deceptive. The original letter stated “… this special offer is only available until March 31, 2010.” However, it now appears to be widely available for at least another half month. There is nothing wrong with creating urgency by including a specific respond-by date, but stating that an offer expires by that date when in fact it does not is misleading when you plan a second mailing of the same offer. It erodes trust with your customer. An appropriate approach in the original letter would be “Please respond to this special offer by March 31, 2010.” or “To take advantage of this special offer, call 1-xxx-xxx-xxxx by March 31, 2010”.

It is generally not misleading to have a grace period after a respond-by date. For example, if want people to respond by March 31, you could accept responses until say, April 7, because some people read their mail late, don’t get around to calling, or delivery is delayed. What is misleading is when your urgency level suggests the offer is final but you send the same offer with a later offer expiration date.

Let’s assume for the moment that the offer in fact expires April 16 and assume that the rest of the letter is final. Even if the offer is available only for existing customers, including the word “customer” in the close is superfluous. The limitation of “only” does not apply to the availability but to the timeframe. An improved means of closing the letter would be “Hurry! This special offer is available only until April 16, 2010. Call 1-xxx-xxx-xxxx today.” If your manager or legal reviewer is directing you to emphasize that the offer is available only to customers despite having a disclosure, then replace “special” with “exclusive”.

Another Fail for Creative applies for the extra space in the closer between “until” and “April 16, 2010.” Someone did not check the spacing.

Of course, a basic Fail applies for repeating use of the same envelope and letter without material modifications. As explained here, if a recipient does not open or respond to the first letter, there should not be an expectation that the recipient responds to the second one using the exact same approach.

On a positive note, Comcast intelligently used a different phone number in the second mailing. This will enable adequate tracking of raw call counts for each of the two letters.

Learnings:  While it is productive to maintain a sense of urgency, do not mislead customers about when an offer expires. Proofread your grammar and every line in your communication. When resending the same offer, modify the creative from the original version. Track distinctly responses from each sales communication.

AT&T & Comcast: Two Bundles, One Impersonal Fail

Fail: Creative
These two solo mail cross-sell packages recently arrived at the same home a couple days apart from each other. The recipient has Comcast for cable service and AT&T for landline phone service and internet. This person has a different company for mobile phone service.

The letter from AT&T is stamped. The return address on the back includes the company name and logo. The letter inside also includes the logo and is addressed personally to the recipient.

I reviewed fails of a similar creative package from AT&T -- selling multiple products in one letter and other creative missteps -- but what AT&T does right with their mail is they recognize the value of their brand, leveraging their customer relationship, and addressing the relationship. Since my review of AT&T's second fail, AT&T improved the letter creatively by personalizing the signature and reinforcing a call to action in the postscript. Overall, the letter feels personal.

The strong aspects of AT&T’s letter highlight the Fails from Comcast:

• The envelope return address does not include the company name. This is often referred to as a “blind envelope”, because the recipient is blind to the identity of the sender until the mail is opened. It is a common and sometimes sensible tactic in an acquisitions mailing. However, the postage indicia includes the company name. If Comcast truly intended to have a blind mailing, then the postage indicia could have used a permit number -- or better yet, use a stamp. The result of an incomplete use of this tactic is that the outer envelope is a double-fail: one for not including Comcast in the return address when mailing to a current customer (he would have opened it anyway), and a second fail to including it in the indicia. This suggests that Comcast believes it’s brand equity is negative but is not willing to take a couple extra steps in production to completely cover up it’s brand name.

• The envelope is addressed to the recipient “or current resident”. This suggests that Comcast lacks confidence in the qualify of it’s customer list, Comcast was not concerned about production quality, or this was a mass mailing without considering who might already be actual customers.

• The letter is impersonal. It is not addressed to the customer, it is addressed to “Dear Customer”. It does not recognize what services the customer has with Comcast. In this case, the recipient believes he already has Digital Preferred Cable but after reviewing his Comcast bill, he is not sure.

• The offer is incomplete and potentially misleading. For example the bundle of Digital Preferred Cable & High-Speed Internet is $79.99 for 6 months. What is the price after 6 months? Based on the text in the disclosure, my guess is somewhere in the neighborhood of $135 - $150. That does not appear to be a way to “Cut down on your household bills!”

• The tone of the letter is promotional but with needless self-bluster. Phrases such as “we are pleased to offer you” do not add value to the communication. To my knowledge, only the Queen of England has the privilege to refer to herself in the first person plural. Also, being pleased to offer something has no benefit to the customer. (Given the long-term price for the bundled services, perhaps Comcast is pleased because they are offering a potentially bait and switch price.) The letter is signed by “Comcast Houston”, an inhuman corporate entity.

Lesson: You cannot build a personal relationship by being impersonal. It is important not only to know your customers, but to address them personally as customers. Communicate to them as people and persuade them that you want to address their needs.