I’m pleasantly surprised how much feedback the USPS figures got from my last post. Just to elaborate a bit on what I recall from the article:

1. Forecasting: The postal service is counting on bulk mail taking up a higher percentage of mail in the future than it has (even) in the past. The author makes the point that this forecast is very unlikely to end up being accurate. Internet advertising is cheaper and more targeted, and so the postal service should focus on delivering mail that actually is wanted. Since fuel costs over time will rise, and since advertising doesn’t rely on paper as a medium (and therefore isn’t guaranteed to require the postal service in the long run) the postal services strategy of promoting bulk mail is flawed.
2. Number of deliveries/week: There’s no reason the postal service needs to visit every house 6 days a week. I find this to be a pretty compelling argument to begin with – mail is a variably high latency medium – but consider how much more this would be true if no one got any bulk mail. What percentage of mail is actually worth receiving, and how frequently does one actually need to receive it? Consider what would happen if mail only got delivered on demand. The savings in fuel costs alone would be impressive. The author pointed out that this is one of the primary ways UPS and Fed-Ex save money; they only deliver mail people actually are paying for, so they don’t have to drive around to every house every day, wasting time and fuel.
3. Medium vs. Message: Of the first class mail that one receives, how much of it actually needs to exist in physical form? The author makes the point that much of the mail we receive starts out in a digital format, is printed on paper, sent out physically, and then opened, just to be thrown into the trash. This is certainly true for bulk mail, but even true for a lot of first class mail. There’s really no reason we need to receive much of it in a physical format. The trend clearly is moving in the direction of digital media — think e-bills, statements in PDF, automatic billing, netflix on demand, etc. — and the postal service should align itself with this shift. Over time there’s no compelling reason why we will have more paper mail than we have in the past.
4. Hybrid digtial mail systems: The author mentioned some systems in place (Switzerland, perhaps?) that involved a secure online service for citizens to view their mail. Basically letters are opened and scanned automatically for viewing. If they are needed, they can be delivered physically. If not, they can be securely discarded.

I have to admit that I find the current system fairly depressing and frustrating. It seems like such an obvious waste of resources that doesn’t even primarily meet the needs of the public good for which it was originally intended. I suspect that over time other countries will appropriately price the delivery of mail and will leapfrog our system. Much of the media that gets delivered via the postal service doesn’t actually need to be printed on physical medium. Most of the mail I receive goes directly into the recycling, and of the few pieces of mail I receive that are important, most of those could easily be emailed to me. It reminds me of trying to apply for an apartment in Seattle and needing to mail a letter overnight because a fax machine / email attempt didn’t work. It amazes me that this transition isn’t happening faster.

This entry was posted on Monday, March 8th, 2010 at 9:34 pm and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.