Every Door Direct Mail in US survey research: An anonymous census approach to mail survey sampling

Abstract

Mail surveys remain a popular method of eliciting attitudinal information, but declining response rates motivate inquiry into new, lower cost methods of contacting potential respondents. This work presents methodological findings from a medium-sized (~12,000 addresses) mail survey testing a United States Postal Service direct mail product called Every Door Direct Mail as a low-cost approach to anonymous mail survey distribution. The results suggest that under certain conditions, Every Door Direct Mail can be a useful approach for mail survey distribution, with response rates similar to those observed with analogous first-class mailing approaches but lower cost per response. As a tool for postal carrier-route saturation mailing that does not use names or addresses, Every Door Direct Mail is potentially useful for researchers who work in small, specific geographies or value or require anonymity. The results from this work suggest good performance on demographics and socially undesirable answers for Every Door Direct Mail relative to addressed mailings. The major disadvantages include an inability to conduct household-level probability sampling, an inability to customize nonresponse follow-up, and minimum mailing sizes associated with the postal carrier route saturation requirement. Every Door Direct Mail is unlikely to become a major tool for survey researchers, but it could be useful in niche applications. This study introduces Every Door Direct Mail to the survey methodology literature and presents empirical data intended to help researchers considering using Every Door Direct Mail.

Leveraging Every Door Direct Mail for remote recruitment of a rural Appalachian study Sample: Response rate and representativeness

“…Only one study has reported a comparative analysis of EDDM versus addressed mailings for recruitment of a survey study sample. ( Grubert, 2019 ) Grubert’s analysis reported an EDDM response rate of 5.2 % and demonstrated a statistically insignificant difference from the addressed mailing response rate of 6.1 %. Notable differences in Grubert’s sample include a smaller size (6,897 EDDM mailings), and a multi-state recruitment frame.…”

“…A successful tool for marketing, EDDM is relatively underexplored as a research recruitment tool, although it has been noted as suitable for studies with a geographic focus. ( Grubert, 2019 ).…”

Reaching the “Hard-to-Reach” Sexual and Gender Diverse Communities for Population-Based Research in Cancer Prevention and Control: Methods for Online Survey Data Collection and Management

“…To our knowledge, this is one of the few studies to employ EDDM to distribute flyers for an online, population-based health survey ( 54 , 55 ). This survey’s ability to reach individuals from rural areas of the state indicates that utilizing social media and USPS is likely to be an effective method for states with significant rural populations when seeking diverse engagement.…”

Results from a survey of life cycle assessment-aligned socioenvironmental priorities in US and Australian communities hosting oil, natural gas, coal, and solar thermal energy production

“…This work is part of a broader mixed methods project on socioenvironmental attitudes in energy host communities, with methodological details (Grubert 2017a(Grubert , 2017c(Grubert , 2019 and other results (Drummond and Grubert 2017, Grubert and Algee-Hewitt 2017, Grubert and Skinner 2017, Grubert 2018b) described elsewhere. The survey was conducted in communities hosting selected types of energy production (oil, natural gas, coal, and solar thermal) in the US and Australia, without explicit reference to or emphasis on specific ongoing projects.…”