A Multifactor Experiment on the Generalizability of Direct Mail Advertising Response Techniques to Mail Survey Design

Effects of personalization and envelope color on response rate, speed and quality among a business population

“…Consistent with other studies by, for example, Byrom and Bennison (2000), Cycyota and Harrison (2002) and Dennis (2003), we found no evidence of the efficacy of personalizing mail surveys in increasing response rate in a business context. In addition, the inability of personalization to produce significant differences in relation to response speed and response quality has also been evidenced by Childers et al (1980) and Little and Pressley (1980). However, the results of the present study are in contrast to Larson and Chow's (2003) Canadian experiment where response rates were significantly increased to 29.2% with a personalized mailing compared to 25.3% for nonpersonalized.…”

“…", no envelope color effects were found. The non-significant results with regard to the effects of envelope color are of particular importance since they contradict the findings of Little and Pressley (1980). Their study concluded that, although envelope color did not significantly influence response rate or quality, it did affect response speed in that the use of blue or yellow return envelopes over manila resulted in significantly faster replies.…”

“…An extensive literature search by the authors found only one article that experimentally tested the effect of the return envelope color on response rates. Over 25 years ago, Little and Pressley's (1980) study found that while the return envelope color had no significant effect on response rate or response quality, it was a significant factor in response speed with yellow, blue and buff color envelopes resulting in mean response speeds of 8.5, 9.09 and 9.8 days, respectively. Moreover, they also found significant interaction effects between envelope color and personalization in regard to response speed.…”

“…Further evidence of the lack of significant differences was provided by Wunder and Wynn's (1988) experiment exploring the effect of handwritten versus computer-printed addressed envelopes on response rate, speed and quality. In contrast, Little and Pressley (1980) tested the effect of a personalized, nonpersonalized or no business card treatment on response rate, respond speed and response quality and while Table 1 Summary of definitions and effects of personalization among business populations a…”

“…Definition of personalization Dependent variable Result Forsythe (1977) Letters addressed by name vs. letters addressed to 'Chief Officer' Response rate Significant decrease Pressley (1978) Handwritten postscript on cover letter vs. no postscript Response rate Not significant Little and Pressley (1980) Inclusion of card with handwritten phrase vs. non-personalized card vs. no card Response rate Not significant Response speed Not significant Response quality Not significant Childers et al (1980) Handwritten postscript on cover letter vs. typed postscript Response rate Not significant Response completeness Not significant Response bias Not significant Yu and Cooper (1983) a NA Response rate Significant increase Wunder and Wynn (1988) Hand addressed envelope vs. envelope with computer generated address label Response rate Not significant Response speed Not significant Response quality Not significant Neider and Sugrue (1983) Hand addressed envelope vs. typed envelope vs. computer generated mailing label Response rate Significant decrease Clark and Kaminski (1990) Handwritten cover letter and signature and individual salutation vs. typed cover letter, facsimile signature and 'Dear AMAColleague' salutation finding no significant main effects, they discovered a significant interaction effect between the business card treatment and envelope color in regard to response speed. Given that the empirical findings relating to the ability of personalization to stimulate response rate in mail surveys are mixed, there is indeed room for additional testing.…”