What Does The Plan Look Like When Proper Organic Percentages Are Applied?

If I have to hear one more professional lament the fact that Orvis doesn't mail catalogs anymore but Amazon does ... then suggesting that "Amazon is smarter" ... my goodness.

None of that matters. The only thing that matters is your customers, your marketing efforts, and the incremental effectiveness of your marketing efforts. That's it.

Here's what proper application of the "Organic Percentage" looks like. Below is a typical circulation plan (simplified by deciles instead of segments for illustrative purposes) via matchback analytics. Looks good on the surface (only look at the top portion of the table for now).

Every segment is profitable - you could absorb a 10% increase in ad costs and still be profitable. It's all good! Catalogs work.

Except they don't work for most customers.

You're one of the smart ones ... you execute mail/holdout tests. For you, 75% of the demand will happen anyway, 25% is "caused" by catalog marketing. Which leaves you with the bottom half of the table.

Look at that. There are ten deciles/segments there. How many are profitable? One (1). One!! Just the most loyal customers. Every other segment represents a marketing abomination.

In case you are wondering, this is where the arguments begin.

There is the group of professionals who simply do not believe the results. They are true believers in the craft. You cannot convince this audience of anything, even though 80% of the catalog pages circulated 20 years ago no longer exist (because they were terribly ineffective). You have to let these people marinate in their delusion.

There is a group of professionals who have to test 50 times ... they believe that the test results "are not representative". These people are stalling. They know the change that these results will lead to, and they don't want to deal with change. So they delay the inevitable.

There are a small group of professionals who believe the results, but realize their organization is unwilling to change. This audience largely left catalog marketing in the past twenty years, and are now thriving in ecommerce.

There are a small group of professionals who work in paper / printing / agencies. They CANNOT believe these results, because as I was told by a paper rep ... "it will take food off my dinner table, and I cannot allow that to happen". They lie to benefit their craft. They are not fundamentally different than politicians who lie to protect their congressional seat.

There are a small group of professionals who work at agencies AND they believe in the results and they try to do what is best for their clients. If the agency you work with is willing to execute mail/holdout tests and evaluate results via the bottom half of the table (above), hold on to that agency like your life depends upon it.

Then there are the companies who change. Like Nordstrom did back in 2005 when I worked there (they kept mailing branding-centric catalogs throughout, but the classic list-based catalog business model was discountinued). Like Orvis. Like several of my clients. Why are they changing? Because they run a p&l that looks like this.

These companies make a choice. They take the 17% demand hit, but save $360,000 in ad cost and increase profit by $213,000 (in this example). With the ad cost savings, they typically reinvest in digital marketing channels ... or they just become a smaller brand that is more profitable. Either way, they outperform those who don't evaluate their businesses in this manner.

Did you see what happened in the bottom half of the table, when you evaluate your circulation plan via mail/holdout tests?

• Only the most loyal customers are profitable.

This is why you'll see brands with the GDP of Australia be able to mail catalogs ... they have hyper-loyal customers that can afford to be mailed even if little of the demand generated by the catalog is actually incremental.

This is why I argue that catalog marketing will still be a craft that can be applied to loyal customers or hyper-productive customers. The math will continue to work for a period of time.

But for everybody else?

• It's over.
• It's been over for a long time.
• There's no reason to badger Orvis because they made what is in reality an easy, fact-based, profitable decision.