Get Your Money’s Worth From Multibuyers

Multibuyers usually provide substantially higher response than names unique to one list. But with multiple lists containing many of the same names, especially those generated by the cooperative databases, so many multis are produced that it’s become challenging to use all the mailing rights to which you’re entitled.

During a recent consulting assignment, I observed a catalog mailer was creating more than a million multibuyers a year that were never mailed, with a value in excess of $100,000. Increasingly, we’re seeing varying degrees of such waste in most circulation plans we evaluate, particularly those from larger companies.

This particular client was a member of five cooperative databases. A merge/purge was performed for each monthly mailing, and models from all co-ops were placed into each merge/purge along with outside rented lists. The multibuyers created between each of the cooperatives, as well as between co-ops and outside lists, simply were placed in a low priority in the next monthly merge and, predictably, allowed to create new multis.

With no comprehensive strategy, close to 85 percent of the multis created in each merge were names that were needlessly paid for again for the next merge. Additionally, because more than 40 percent of all names became multis, there was no way for mailing rights to multis created to ever be exhausted.

With the advent of several co-ops, the creation of multibuyers in merges is compounded. When models are created for a mailing at more than one co-op, a substantial portion of the names from each model will indeed be duplicates. After all, most co-ops have the same members and are searching for prospects most likely to provide you with high response. The co-ops also are most likely to put the very same mailing lists into many of your models that you yourself are renting and have added to the merge. The net result: excessive multis.

How to Efficiently Create and Use Multibuyers

1. Each major merge should drive at least two to three mailings. Following a merge, two-time and three-time multis should be allocated to the second and third mailing following the merge.* Freshen the second and third mailing with hotline names and balance models.

2. Think twice about joining more than three of the present co-ops. Just like lists, test the models from each of the co-ops. If a specific co-op can’t provide superior results on a consistent basis, drop your membership. Keep in mind that the more co-ops you join, the more other catalogers will mail your own buyer file. Don’t continue membership unnecessarily.

3. Don’t introduce models from more than two co-ops into the initial merge. By limiting the number of co-ops you use, the number of excessive multis (those you will never have an opportunity to mail) will be reduced.

4. Use Balance models extensively in the second and third mailings following a merge to avoid the creation of excessive multis. Not only will Balance models provide more recent names, if the Balance model is from a co-op not used in the initial merge, the co-op will provide unique names that only it can deliver. (For more on Balance models, see “FYI,” p. 44.) If the same co-op as was used in the initial merge provides the Balance model, select a remodel of the model that’s historically delivered your best response.

5. Following each merge, create a file of multis that will remain unused in the two or three mailings resulting from the merge. Assuming that another major merge follows within two to three months, provide this file to each of the co-ops as an additional suppress file prior to the creation of models so you don’t again get those names in the new models. Place the file into the next merge, mail it to exhaust all mailing rights, and track the results. While recency will have been reduced, it’s likely these super multis will still perform.

6. If the above techniques don’t sufficiently allow you to exhaust mailing rights to multis created in the merge, negotiate with both co-ops and the owners of individual lists to pay for only those names you mail. These net-nets should not only be net of your own housefile, but net of other co-ops and prospect lists.

Conclusion

Overall, the creation of multis in a merge is fundamentally a good thing. It identifies names most likely to provide high response, even in multiple mailings. But as we all know, good things carried to excess can become negative.

Creating excessive multis that remain unmailed is a waste of your financial resources. The above techniques will allow you to not only gain the benefit of creating high-response multis, but allow you to mail every name for which you’ve paid.

FYI: Balance Models

If you work with the cooperative database Abacus, no doubt you’re familiar with the term “Balance models.” The same product is available from all of the co-ops, however.

Balance models are exactly the same basic array of models that the co-ops deliver prior to a merge/purge. But when they’re run after the merge, the entire merge output is suppressed from the universe of names that can become model output. Therefore, there are no names delivered from a Balance model that are duplicates of names that came of the merge. All of the output is comprised of unique names.

Obviously if you had more than one co-op do a Balance model for a drop, you would again recieve duplicate names. Therefore, you can do a balance with only one co-op at a time.

Some mailers will do a Balance model after the merge for the intial mail date, particularly if they’re short of names. It’s more common to do a Balance model for the second or third mail date following a merge to add to the available quantity of names needed to meet circulation objectives and to get more recent names delivered just prior to the mailing.

John Lenser is president and founder of LENSER, a San Rafael, Calif.-based catalog consultancy and list management and brokerage firm. Lenser founded the San Francisco Music Box Co. and previously was president of Hearthsong and David Kay. He can be reached at (415) 446-2500.