I check several news sources daily to keep up with both local and world news. One story on the AP News caught my attention: Marketing Firm Fined $40,000 for 202 GOP Mailers in New Hampshire.

The story is interesting to me because of my background in direct mail. Before founding Seven Oaks Consulting in 2007, I had a long and happy career leading marketing and direct mail for some of the nation’s largest education companies. My master’s degree in Direct and Interactive Marketing from New York University included many courses in direct mail management, and I spent many hours over the years working with mailing houses, printers, and agencies through the New York tri-state area. I have even led workshops in direct mail for marketing agencies who need to shore up their knowledge of best practices.

The AP report was scanty and did not give background information about the case, so I searched the New Hampshire Department of Justice for the case and read through the PDF on their site that lays out the state’s case against the marketing agency, Deliver Strategies. Deliver Strategies is a marketing agency specializing in political marketing for candidates running for office. Direct mail is often used for political marketing.

According to the document found on the New Hampshire DOJ site, the case began when it was discovered that 189,000 political mailers sent to residents in New Hampshire failed to contain the appropriate disclosure language (paid for by) and return address. Investigation into the mailers led to a tangle of mistakes that began with the client and ended with the mail house.

Mistakes make throughout this case include:

  • Deliver Strategies acquiescing to the client’s request not to put the return address and disclosure on the mail piece.
  • Trusting that the client’s lawyers had reviewed the mail piece and given it a green light to proceed without the disclosures. (I wonder if they received written confirmation from the client on this).
  • The mail house, upon questioning the name to put on postal form 3602-R, taking it upon themselves to search online for the candidate’s name and address and putting it on the form. Meanwhile the candidate neither authorized nor paid for the mailer. The candidate knew nothing about it. It was paid for through a political action committee (PAC).

Reading through the DOJ document, I kept shaking my head. I understand completely how such mistakes happen. The agency wants to please the client. The agency asks for, and receives, reassurance that the legal team has blessed the mailer. Meanwhile, the mailing house tries to do what it thinks is correct and ends up screwing up everything further.

I think the moral of this story is that if a client – or an agency – sends you a creative proof that you feel is wrong, you need to question it. Dig in your heels. Do not go with the flow.

Digital Strategies questioned the client about the lack of return address or disclosure, but in the end, went along with it up on reassurance of its legalities. That’s a reasonable call to make in my opinion as an agency owner. If they did not suggest taking off the return address or omitting the disclaimer, the fault, in my opinion, lies with the client. I hope that the agency asks for the fine to be repaid, counts its blessings, and moves on