Inserts are now an accepted part of the wider media landscape and consumers expect them to appear with the distribution of magazines and newspapers on a daily basis.
This is all good news for the clients, agencies and let's not forget the publishers. However, there are still major problems which the industry needs to address to reach the levels of response that inserts should generate.
What I am referring to is the issue of Certification of Insertion. At present when an insert is placed all that is currently required to prove it made it into the magazine or paper is a COI stating the volume of the order placed and the publication it is to appear in.
This is then delivered by the insert manager to the client to show that they have fulfilled their role; giving the client the confidence that they should shortly be receiving their desired response from the campaign. I question whether this is enough.
There is a good reason for this as I have many examples to prove that a COI is not worth the paper it is printed on. In the past we have received COI, then to find out from our client that the response level was zero. After questioning this with the insert manager, the fulfilment house owned up to finding the inserts at the back of the warehouse, even though a COI was issued.
Another example is when we booked a series for a client into the same programme. The first four months were excellent but the last resulted in a 75% drop in response.
Again a COI was presented and I would obviously challenge if the actual distribution took place at the volume confirmed. Insert managera and fulfilment houses will blame it on the market, type of creative or incorrect coding. They all seem to feel that the presentation of a COI exonerates them from any liability.
This is a very serious issue and one which has been overlooked for many years.
I have had numerous conversations with fulfilment houses who have told me "off the record" that this does happen quite a lot. Not, I should add, because of wanting to deceive the client, but usually through human error.
There is also the unsettling thought that insert managers may oversell to increase revenue for the owners of the programme. In fact, I believe that the problem is so widespread that the industry is losing hundreds of thousands of pounds a year on printing alone. I would not know where to start suggesting lost revenue to the client.
I believe the industry needs to start admitting that it does have a problem and look for ways of addressing this before clients lose faith in this medium.
Receiving a piece of paper stating that the order has gone out is all well and good, but the only way to have 100% faith is to visit the fulfilment house unannounced and check that the inserts are not hiding in a corner.
This may seem a harsh step to take, however, if instigated by the DMA and regular audits were conducted we may start to reduce the instances where this happens. Also liability should be forced on to fulfilment houses with huge fines if errors are made.
Of course, this is just one idea which needs to be discussed and researched thoroughly. I would invite an open discussion by those in the industry to suggest alternatives and would encourage everyone to take this issue seriously.
Best practice are two words that are openly used throughout the direct marketing industry, is it not high time that this was instigated in the inserts sector as well?
If you have an opinion on this or any other issue raised on Brand Republic, join the debate in the .