Blog

Addressable media updates

NextMark's Blog

Recommendations, updates, and thoughts from the NextMark executive team.

Preparing for recession

November 17th, 2008

Just like many businesses, we are preparing for the possibility of an extended economic recession.  However, it's good to know that we are headquartered in a place that Forbes just identified as the #2 least vulnerable to recession in the U.S. The Forbes story does not provide much detail, but a story by The Dartmouth provides more detail on why Lebanon, NH and the Upper Valley is recession-resistant (I won't say "recession-proof" like some other articles).

This provides some solace, but not much since most of our business is elsewhere. What are you doing to prepare for a slump?

Am I wrong about SRDS sale to WPP?

November 14th, 2008

Earlier this week, I expressed concern about the SRDS sale to WPP as it relates to the list industry. I thought it would give WPP an unfair advantage. However, Direct Magazine published a story yesterday "WPP Acquisition of SRDS Leaves List Executives Underwhelmed" that expresses the industry sentiment that there is nothing to be concerned about.

This story's conclusion is based on three assumptions:

  1. SRDS and their mailing list services division are such an inconsequential "blip" (his word) in the huge WPP organization that they will not pay attention to nor capitalize on this rich source of data.
  2. Advertising agencies don't want to get involved with mailing list selections. They'd rather outsource this task to list brokers.
  3. Even if they did focus on it, advertising agencies don't know enough about lists and the list business to take away business from list brokers.

According to Geoff Batrouney at Estee List Marketing,

"I don’t think there’s anything unfair or threatening about it. If I was worried about WPP acquiring SRDS that would presuppose that agencies knew something about the list business, but they don’t."

Maybe I was wrong in thinking the SRDS sale gives WPP an unfair advantage. Do you think that lack of attention and expertise eliminates this risk?

Act One Lists unveils new mailing list search tool

November 14th, 2008

Act One Lists mailing list search tool

Yesterday, Act One Lists unveiled their new list search tool. It allows you to search through their portfolio of ~250 mailing lists under management to find the list that best suits your needs. The website is powered by NextMark's MarketMax Pro service.

McKinsey: Don’t cut IT in tough times!

November 14th, 2008

Managing IT in a downturn: beyond cost cutting The economy is in terrible shape. Most companies are looking to all departments to cut costs to stay viable. McKinsey & Company recently published a somewhat counter-intuitive study, Managing IT in a downturn: beyond cost cutting, that says you may want to spare the IT budget. In fact, it illustrates how targeted IT investments can increase profits in the short term and set the stage for long-term growth. In this article, McKinsey says:

“Except in the most dire circumstances, turning off technology investments during a downturn is counterproductive. When business picks up, you may lack critical capabilities. Besides, many technology investments can improve profitability in the short to medium term.”

One of the concrete examples they provide is in improving employee productivity:

“Another critical goal during a downturn is getting more ‘bang for the buck’ from employees — for example, by increasing a company’s operating scale, making processes more efficient to reduce rework, and stepping up efforts to automate manual procedures. IT is essential to all these efforts.”

See the full article here.


But what if there’s no cash to make an investment? You will want to keep your up-front capital expenditures to a minimum and retain maximum flexibility. Let someone else make the capital expenditures for you (hardware, software, software development, data center, etc.). Then buy this software as a service. Or, better yet, get it for free.


NextMark is committed to helping you get through these tough times and to come out of it stronger than ever. Despite the rough economy, we are ramping up our research and development investments on your behalf. How can we help you?

SRDS sale gives WPP an unfair advantage

November 13th, 2008

On Tuesday, Nielsen announced its intention to sell SRDS to WPP Group as part of a big asset swap agreement. Like many in the direct marketing industry, I am concerned about how this deal changes the competitive landscape.

This affects the direct marketing industry because SRDS provides a research system that is used for making mailing list purchasing decisions and formulating media plans. List managers use SRDS to promote their lists. List brokers and mailers use SRDS to make list selections.

WPP Group is a huge advertising agency holding company with an estimated 100,000 employees and £6.18 billion revenue in 2007. A big part of WPP's revenue is commissions from media purchases done by their stable of advertising agencies. It's a good strategy for WPP to buy SRDS because it will give them better insight into media purchases that happen outside of WPP. They can use SRDS' database to better calculate their market share and to develop laser-focused strategies to acquire the share they don't already own.

If I were a list broker, I'd be really nervous about this.

After all, list brokers compete with WPP agencies for their commissions (i.e. their livelihood). If WPP owns their list research system, it would provide WPP with powerful insights that enable them to steal the business away from list brokers and move those commissions to WPP agencies.

Imagine if your competitor could see all your research and proposals before you publish them. They would eat your lunch!

That's why we at NextMark fundamentally believe that anyone who owns such a system needs to be industry neutral. Our business model is predicated on independence and neutrality. In order for the industry to work efficiently, the industry's technology infrastructure must provide a level playing field. No competitor should own the "marketplace" or any part of it.

Don't you agree?

Direct Media activates website with MarketMax Pro

November 13th, 2008

Direct Media mailing list search tool

Direct Media just relaunched the managed lists section of their website using NextMark's MarketMax Pro data card publishing service. Direct Media supplied the graphic design. NextMark supplied the technology to manage the content. Their ~1,300 data cards are now automatically updated, indexed, and searchable. Direct Media has one of the biggest portfolios of lists available — maybe there's a perfect list for you? Take a look.

The cost of DMA*08

November 6th, 2008

As I promised in my previous post about DMA*08, here is a tally of our costs for six of us from NextMark to exhibit at the DMA*08 conference:

Item Cost
10×10 booth space $3,995
Booth furniture $1,490
Booth shipping $502
Phone $282
Plants $66
Registrations $450
Hotels $3,085
Airfare $2,218
Food $879
Banner Stand $560
Taxi $388
Personal Car $343
Parking $231
Total $14,489

Ours is a modest setup… 10×10 popup booth. We do our best to keep the expenses down, but a it's hard to do because the prices at the conference are a rip-off

We worked hard in advance of the conference to get the most from it.  As a result, we had 60 scheduled meetings at the show.  Those meetings and other unscheduled conversations led to 41 sales opportunities.  Not bad.

Doing the math… $2,415/person, $241/meeting, and $353/opportunity.

Now our challenge is to turn those opportunities into sales.  That will be the subject of a future posting once we've let these have a chance to come to fruition.

Count on NextMark – from 48 hours to 5 seconds

October 27th, 2008

Medieval counting

Running counts is an intrinsic part of the mailing list rental process. In most cases, you don't want to order all the names on a mailing list. Instead, you only want to order a targeted subset of a list (e.g. "only those with the job title of CIO with an address in New England and employee size greater than 100"). This naturally leads to the question "how many names meet my criteria?" This is what's known as a count request.

Servicing these count requests should be quick and easy, right? Unfortunately, that's not the case today.

I've been interviewing list companies to explore the process of servicing these counts requests. I have found that the industry standard is to turn around count requests within 48 hours.  This means that the requester (usually a list broker) has to wait up to 48 hours before they get their answer back.  This process is repeated until a suitable quantity is selected.

Why does it take 48 hours to get a count?

48 hours seems like an extraordinarily long time for a relatively quick and easy task.  After all, in many cases, it takes less than 5 seconds to run a count query.  But delays are introduced by the process through which these requests are handled.  Nobody gets paid for running a count and, as a result, servicing real orders takes priority over servicing count requests. The count requests and associated responses get queued up at the list manager and service bureau.  It only takes a few minutes to service the request, but each step may take hours due to the delay in getting to the request in the queue.

The price you pay for slow counts

Ask any list broker and they'll unload their frustration in getting answers to count requests.  Many brokers agree, "it would be wonderful just to get an answer the same day!"  Getting the count is a barrier to a sale. To make matters worse, their client doesn't understand why it takes "so darn long to get an answer to a simple question." So, the list broker appears incompetent and makes no money waiting on counts.

Every list company employs people who spend part of their time or all of their time chasing down counts.  One list company executive told me "85% of my people get involved with servicing count requests."  This is very expensive when you consider the full cost of your employees' time (salary, benefits, office space, etc.).  But it's even more expensive when you consider the opportunity cost of taking time away from selling and providing value added services to your clients (by the way, no client sees running a count as a value added service).

The other less tangible problem — but perhaps more economically significant – is the impact on marketing effectiveness caused by slow counts.  With the current process, it's virtually impossible to perform "what if" analysis on list segments. To meet deadlines, you place your order when you get "in the ballpark" of your desired target audience.  This attitude certainly reduces response rates and return on marketing investments.

Why existing online counts systems don't work

Some enterprising service bureaus have built interfaces that enable list managers to run their own counts online.  This is a great idea for the service bureaus because it eliminates their cost and delays in this process.

However, these online systems provided by service bureaus do not solve the problem because they do not address the root of the problem — efficient request handling.  List brokers cannot configure and submit counts requests efficiently and the requests still get queued up at the list manager. So, the process is still slow.  In fact, the 48 hours turnaround standard actually assumes that the list manager has access to online counts systems for a significant portion of their count requests.

List managers don't want to use all these different counts systems.  In addition to their own data card and order entry systems, they have to log into all these other systems to run their counts – a different one for every service bureau they work with.  Some list companies work with 20 service bureaus or more! Not only is it a hassle to learn and use all these different systems, the chances of making a mistake are almost a sure thing.

Connecting data cards to the data

List brokers and list managers rely on data cards as the standard way of exchanging information about a mailing list. Many data cards contain static counts of key segments. However, today's data cards are disconnected from the underlying data.

Connecting data cards to the data through a universal counts interface could be the "silver bullet" that solves this problem:

Imagine… your data cards now have a "get count" button on them.  You press this button and your system brings up a simple interface for running counts. This button works the same way for all of your lists — regardless of where the data is located.

Imagine… the answers to your count requests are returned quickly and automatically included in your list recommendations and orders.

Imagine… all your count requests are tracked automatically for you.

How great would that be? It would virtually eliminate all the hassles associated with the counts process and make you a better (and more profitable) service provider.

How NextMark is addressing this problem

Solving this problem is looking like the next "big thing" for NextMark.  Providing fast counts is a high-profile project in our research and development department.  Here are some of the main design principles:

  • Easy. The counts interface will be "so easy even a caveman could use it"
  • Quick. Asking for a list count will only take a couple of button clicks. Running the list count should be quick.  Integrating the result with your reco/order will be automatic. Sending the result to your client will be a click away.
  • Free. You won't have to pay for running counts. After all, nobody makes money on counts. And, even better than free, you'll eliminate all the costs associated with running counts the old way.
  • Open. You don't have to move your data. The mailing list data can reside anywhere. The data can be in any format. Any service bureau can participate.
  • In Control. You will will have more control over access to counts than you do today. Quick counts does not mean everyone has unfettered access to instant counts. You will continue to control the flow of information and will have new tools to manage these requests efficiently.

Stay tuned!

Is that an order entry system in your pocket?

October 21st, 2008

NextMark on your Pocket PC

We just got a nice note from a customer, Jim Hall of All That Marketing, that illustrates the flexibility that NextMark’s list brokerage and list order entry systems give to list professionals:

"The thing I like about the NextMark system is the versatility it provides.  It allows me to do my job anywhere in the world.  Last week I was at the Fall DMA Conference in Las Vegas, by logging on to the system via my Pocket PC phone I was able to send out an order, right from the conference hall!  The technology today is amazing and I’m glad my order entry / data card service allows me to provide cutting edge service to my clients. Thanks NextMark!"

And I am glad we were able to help you get that order, Jim!

$250,000 FDIC deposit insurance – who’s paying for it?

October 21st, 2008

140pxusfdicseal_svgAn unexpected piece (to me, anyway) of the recent bailout plan was raising the amount of FDIC insured deposits from $100,000 to $250,000.  This is the amount that is safe in the event the bank fails.

This is a good thing, right?

But then I go to wondering… who asked for this? And who is paying for this? I don’t yet have an answer for the first question, but yesterday I got the answer to the second question along with a fees change notice from Bank of America:

"FDIC Assessment: The FDIC has reinstated the deposit insurance fund premium which applies to all member banks. This is a reminder that we base our FDIC assessment on deposit insurance costs which may include federal deposit insurance corporation (FDIC), financing corporation (FICO) assessments and other charges provided by law.  Out FDIC assessment has increased.  The charge can be offset with an earnings credit on eligible collected balances.  The assessment is subject to change from time to time without additional notification."

So, in other words, you and I are paying for this extra benefit we did not ask for.  The $100,000 limit was working just fine for me with deposits well below that number.  This new change only benefits a minority of the population – rich people (partnerships and corporations were already covered up to $250k prior to this change).  But all of us are paying for it. 

So this got me back to my first question, "who asked for this increase?" The cynical side of me tells me the banks/FDIC have been looking for an excuse to raise this limit and the bad economy provides a convenient reason.  It’s a great way for the FDIC to increase their revenues dramatically overnight and for the banks to get extra security overnight.  How does this change help to "jump start" the economy anyway? 

Businesses have been using the economy as the reason for making all sorts of decisions that would be difficult otherwise, such as layoffs to clean out the "deadwood."  Is this change to the FDIC limits another example of a convenient excuse?  Or is this prudent financial policy?

This FDIC increase is supposed to be temporary until the end of 2009, but I will bet it will be extended indefinitely.

Your thoughts?