Comparing Email Marketing to Print Marketing

Just in case you don’t read comments on this page, I wanted to point out a very important conversation going on about the future of email marketing – and comparing it to print direct mail.

At a recent post I made – I started a conversation about the end of free email.

Someone agreed and made an interesting observation:

“While I have no problem doing (print) mail outs, with the rising cost of postage and materials plus the clutter, the US mail has never looked worse. Email will still likely be cheaper… I just don’t like the idea of having another channel that is pressuring the ROI based on the whims of the gatekeepers. RSS looks like a nice alternative based on price AND control.”

A very interesting point that many people assume is correct- email marketing is cheaper. The problem is that, in many cases, it is a very dangerous (and wrong) assumption.

I definitely agree with the above point that email will always be cheaper than direct (print) mail. But, it depends on how you look at it – I see email as being much more expensive than direct mail in many cases.

How could email cost more than a physical stamp?

Results.

Both my own results and those of many other marketers who I know that test both email and print marketing.

For example:

Let’s say you have a list of 1,000 people to market to – and lets also assume you have both email contacts and offline info as well.

To email those 1,000 people will cost you nothing right now (well – the cost of the email service you use)

The average open rate is 20% (some lower some higher – for the purpose of this let’s say that is accurate)

Let’s say the item you sell is worth $100 and you sell 1% of those who open it.

200 people opened it and you made 2 sales (1%) for total sales (and profit) of $200

Now, send those same 1,000 the exact same sale letter in print for a total cost of approx $600 (stamps, paper, printing, stuffing)

Even if we stay at the 1% conversion (in print it is typically higher) you still make MORE money…

1,000 people x 1% conversion = 10 sales x $100 = $1,000

Your profit is $400 ($1,000 minus the mailing costs)

DOUBLE the profits from the same list.

And that doesn’t factor in that every new paying client is now twice as likely to buy again. So the email list got 2 new paying customers – the offline campaign got 10 – 5 times as many clients who are now twice as likely to buy again.

So, up front, email does look like it’s cheaper – but in the end it costs you more in lost sales – and in lost paying clients.

Simplified explanations but ask those who do both on and offline marketing to see if they have similar results… I’d be willing to bet they do.

Great topic though!

The reason this is very important to any, and every, business that does effective marketing – is that you have to look at results – not perceptions.
There is a big difference – up front, it looks like email is free and direct mail costs you a fortune. When you look at bottom line results (key word: results) – many times direct mail ends up making substantially more money. So the “savings” you make by sending email only actually is taking raw profits out of your pockets.

The facts:

1) Most people who do both on and offline marketing to the same list see substantially higher returns from their offline efforts

2) Direct mail investments are going up

3) Direct mail is working as good – many cases better – than ever. Why? Because most people fall for this belief that email is cheaper. It may cost next to nothing up front – but it is costing you pure cash every time you ignore the facts.

My thoughts on the best marketing? Both on and offline mixed. Offline is still preferred by people – they like to hold paper in hand. Proof? E-books vs. print – print is still the preferred choice. E-books have a place – but the best way to sell a book is both e-book and print book. So print mail gives you better conversions and sales – but email gives you the flexibility to build a stronger relationship with your client at a very low price.

Do both online AND offline marketing to see the biggest “bang for your buck”.

The results tell the true tale.

Direct Sales vs. Network Marketing

A direct sales company is very similar to a network marketing company in that you are still working as an “Independent Associate” for a larger company. With direct sales however, you are not required to develop a “downline” or recruit other members. All you really have to do to make any money is sell whatever the product or service is that the company offers. It’s really no different that being one of those Avon ladies. Or selling cars. Or selling real estate.

Yes, the company will likely encourage you to recruit other associates and there are two reasons for this. One, it provides the comapny with more sales people, giving them greater exposure and making more money. Two, they will pay you better if you recruit other associates and YOU will make more money.

Once again, like network marketing, there is a system already in place for you to duplicate. This is why direct sales organizations and network marketing companies are so appealing. You don’t have to do any of the trial and error stuff to get your business going. It’s already been done for you. All you have to do is follow the system in place and you are on your way to making money.

A legitimate direct sales organization will tell you up front that you might not even make any money whatsoever. Should that put you off? No. It shows integrity in their business. They understand that some people will not follow the system, try to change the system, or simply quit the system. They also understand that some people will make money faster than others because some people will have a shorter learning curve than others.

There are numerous other reasons direct sales is more appealing than direct marekting, but we’ll get into that in more deatil later. But there are numerous other similarities and understanding them will assist you in figuring out which is better for you. Or if you should look for another opportunity altogether.

Different types of GP practice in Australia

Private GP Practice

Private GP practices are owned and operated by a single doctor. These practices offer patients the benefit of personalised care, as the doctor is able to get to know their patients on a one-on-one basis, which is very important for this type of practice to survive, according to GP consulting firms. Private GPs typically have smaller patient loads, which allows for more time with each patient. This can be especially beneficial for those who need additional support or have complex medical needs. However, private GP visits can be quite expensive, so they may not be suitable for everyone.

Corporate GP Practice

Corporate GP clinics are owned and operated by a group of doctors. These clinics offer patients the convenience of multiple locations and appointments that fit into their busy schedules. Corporate GPs typically have larger patient loads, which means shorter wait times for appointments.

Public GP Practice

Finally, there are public GP clinics, which are run by the government. These clinics offer free or low-cost appointments and cater to those who may not have access to private healthcare. However, public clinics typically have long wait times and patients often see a different doctor each time they visit.

So, what is the best type of GP practice for you? It really depends on your needs and budget. If you are looking for convenience and don’t mind spending a bit more money, then a corporate clinic might be right for you. If you are on a tight budget or need more support from your GP, then an independent practice would be a better choice, and if cost is an issue and you don’t mind waiting a bit longer for appointments, then a public clinic is the way to go.

Whatever your needs, there is definitely a GP practice out there that is right for you! So don’t hesitate to ask around and do some research before making your final decision.