1998 Pitney Bowes Mail Openability Study
Executive Summery
Pitney Bowes is the sole owner of this study information, and has kindly
allowed us to share this with other mailers interested in it's findings.

I. Respondents/Methodology
This study was conducted by NFO Research, Inc. (National Family Opinion) to
determine: What is the likelihood a consumer will open an envelope given certain
envelope characteristics? A total of 420 consumers, representative of the U.S. adult
population, rated 21 envelopes. Data was collected from consumers by mail from mid-
December 1997 through January 1998.

Each respondent was asked to provide a rating for each envelope on a 5-point scale
ranging from "definitely would open" to "definitely would not open" Each envelope had
a different configuration of six features.
II. Envelope Dynamics


1) Recipient Title
  • Specific name, correct spelling
  • Generic person
  • Specific name, misspelling
 2) Postage Payment
  • 1st class stamp
  • 1st class meter
  • 3rd class meter
  • 1st class permit
  • 3rd class permit
3) Address Technique
  • Handwritten
  • Label
  • Window (glassine)
  • Direct impression printing
 4) Return Address
  • No return address or sender name
  • Only return address, no sender name
  • Return address and sender name (black)
  • Return address and sender name (2-color)
5) Enticers
  • Present (black)
  • Not present
  •  Present (red)
 6) Envelope Size
  •  Standard #10
  •  Remittance #9
  •  Invite/Announcement
  •  6" X 9"

Pitney Bowes is the sole owner of this study information, and has kindly
allowed us to share this other mailers interested in it's findings

III. Results

Note that consideration needed to be given to business mail (advertising, checks and
bills) versus personal mail (correspondence from family and friends), and the overall
weight given to (real) handwritten envelopes in openability was significant: a second
model, without handwriting as a level of addressing techniques, was developed.

FACTORS DETERMINING MAIL OPENABILITY

With Handwriting

Without Handwriting

Important Findings to Note:
  • Mail addressed to a specific, correctly spelled name was the most important factor in 

    • determining if the envelope would be opened.

  • Type of postage (i.e., whether a meter imprint, postage stamp, or permit mail) was the

    • second most important factor.

  • The presence of a return address was ranked as the third most important factor (as

    • seen when handwriting is removed from the model)

  • Envelope size and the presence or absence of enticers are the least important
    features
    • consumers use in determining whether or not they will open an envelope
Pitney Bowes is the sole owner of this study information, and has kindly
allowed us to share this with other mailers interested in it's findings.

IV. Specific Factors Determining Mail Openability

 
 
Personal Mail Model with
Handwriting
Highest Utilities
(Positively Affect Openability)
Specific name, correct spelling
1st class stamp
Handwritten
Return address and sender name (black)
1st class meter		 0.38
0.26
0.20
0.12
0.06
Lowest utilities
(Negatively Affect Openability)
Generic person
3rd class permit
Label
Specific name, misspelling
No return address or sender name		 -0.24
-0.21
-0.16
-0.14
-0.10

 
Business Mail Model without
Handwriting
Highest utilities
(Positively Affect Openability)
Specific name, correct spelling
1st class stamp
1st class meter
Standard #10 envelope
Return address and sender name (black)		 0.37
0.19
0.15
0.10
0.10
Lowest utilities
(Negatively Affect Openability)
Generic Person
3rd class permit
No return address or sender name
Specific name, misspelling
Invite/Announcement		 -0.29
-0.24
-0.17
-0.08
-0.08

Important Findings to Note:
  • A respondent will typically have an increased likelihood of opening an envelope if it contains one or any combination of the features listed under highest utilities

  • A respondent will typically have a decreased likelihood of opening an envelope if it contains a feature in lowest utilities

  • In the business mail scenario (the model without handwriting), a 1st class stamp and a 1st class meter indicia are the second and third most important elements driving openability-and the lift gained by a 1st class stamp is significantly less without the element of handwriting

  • Incorrectly addressing an envelope to a specific person is better than addressing an envelope to a generic person, such as "Occupant" or "Office Manager", although both are deterrents to openability

  • First class and 3rd class permits deter openability
Pitney Bowes is the sole owner of this study information, and has kindly
allowed us to share this with other mailers interested in it's findings.

V. The 21 Test Envelope Combinations
(Presented to Study Respondents)

Consumer "Openability" Ranking of Mail Appearance

 
Ranking Postage
Payment		 Addressing
Technique		 Envelope Size Return Address Recipient title Enticers
1 1st class stamp Glassine window Standard #10 Return address & name (2 color) Specific name, correct spelling in red
2 1st class meter Glassine window Remittance #9 Return address & name (black) Specific name, correct spelling Not present
3 1st class meter Direct Impression Standard #10 Return address & name (2 color) Specific name, correct spelling in red
4 1st class permit Handwritten 6" x 9" Return address & name (2 color) Specific name, correct spelling in black
5 1st class meter Direct impression 6" x 9" No return address or sender name Specific name, correct spelling in red
6 1st class stamp Handwritten Invite/Announce No return address or sender name Specific name, correct spelling Not present
7 3rd class meter Direct impression Invite/Announce Return address, no sender name Generic name, correct spelling in black
8 1st class meter Handwritten Standard #10 Return address, no sender name Specific name, correct spelling in red
9 1st class permit Label Standard #10 Return address, no sender name Specific name, misspelling Not present
10 3rd class meter Label Invite/Announce Return address, no sender name Specific name, correct spelling in red
11 1st class stamp Label Remittance #9 Return address & name (black) Specific name, correct spelling In black
12 3rd class permit Glassine window Standard #10 Return address & name (2 color) Specific name, misspelling Not present
13 1st class permit Direct impression Invite/Announce Return address & name (black) Specific name, misspelling In red
14 1st class stamp Direct impression 6" x 9" Return address, no sender name Generic name, correct spelling Not present
15 1st class permit Glassine window Remittance #9 Return address, no sender name Generic name, correct spelling In red
16 3rd class meter Label 6" x 9" Return address & name (black) Generic name, correct spelling In red
17 1st class meter Label Invite/Announce Return address & name (2 color) Generic name, correct spelling In black
18 3rd class permit Direct Impression Remittance #9 Return address & name (2 color) Specific name, misspelling Not present
19 3rd class meter Direct Impression Remittance #9 No return address or sender name Generic name, correct spelling In red
20 3rd class permit Direct Impression Standard #10 Return address & name (black) Generic name, correct spelling In black
21 3rd class permit Glassine window 6" x 9" No return address or sender name Specific name, misspelling In black

 
 
 

 
1998 Pitney Bowes Mail Openability Study