Special Section Mailing & Fulfillment -- Don't Blame Merlin
November 2004
|
By Robert B. Swick
Merlin, the progeny of ABE, has acquired the persona of its predecessor in its formative years. Some would say, particularly those in the original test areas, that the reputation is well earned. And yet, Merlin—or Mail Evaluation Readability and Lookup Instrument—is simply a tool that helps expedite the mail flow by assuring that consistent, readable mail enters into the automated processing system.
So why has Merlin become such a lightening rod in its early life?
The root cause of this stigma, which came early and held as Merlin rolled out nationally, was an intense desire to bring a more exacting standard of accuracy to market without adequate preparation, evaluation and dialogue. Exacerbating the situation was the inability (for whatever reasons) of the postal and industry partners to work together in the start-up period.
That's history. But like many tight knit industries, memories are long and recall tends to get exaggerated. And that's been the marketplace condition as Merlin's scrutiny expands to read ZIP code extensions for the purpose of preventing improper -0000s and -9999s from entering the mail stream.
So why have mailers and mail service providers raised such an uproar? Or have they?
It's certainly easy enough to understand the practical concern of a major mailing rejected because of a failed Merlin sample evaluation. Imagine the cost and logistics of delivering 1 million mail pieces to a business mail entry unit dock.
Now imagine having to reload all the skids of prepared mail and return them to the mail center. The alternative, of course, is to pay the difference of the next-higher postage rate—in this case perhaps an additional $60,000.
An emotional, expensive conundrum such as this often causes blame to be placed on the system rather than the source. In other words, faulting Merlin rather than the mailer. Is this example reality? Are there an abundance of mailers attempting to cheat the system? Is Merlin rejecting huge numbers of mailings?
The answer in both cases is no. Merlin, in fact, has verified the honesty that prevails in our profession.
High Scores
Specifically, as presented at the February Mailers Technical Advisory Council meeting, Merlin passed 99.9 percent of the 34,341 mailings examined since Jan. 17. Only 22 mailings were rejected for inclusion of false -0000 extensions and only 17 mailings kicked back for incorrect -9999 extensions. In other words, this was much ado about nothing. Or was it?
Merlin, the progeny of ABE, has acquired the persona of its predecessor in its formative years. Some would say, particularly those in the original test areas, that the reputation is well earned. And yet, Merlin—or Mail Evaluation Readability and Lookup Instrument—is simply a tool that helps expedite the mail flow by assuring that consistent, readable mail enters into the automated processing system.
So why has Merlin become such a lightening rod in its early life?
The root cause of this stigma, which came early and held as Merlin rolled out nationally, was an intense desire to bring a more exacting standard of accuracy to market without adequate preparation, evaluation and dialogue. Exacerbating the situation was the inability (for whatever reasons) of the postal and industry partners to work together in the start-up period.
That's history. But like many tight knit industries, memories are long and recall tends to get exaggerated. And that's been the marketplace condition as Merlin's scrutiny expands to read ZIP code extensions for the purpose of preventing improper -0000s and -9999s from entering the mail stream.
So why have mailers and mail service providers raised such an uproar? Or have they?
It's certainly easy enough to understand the practical concern of a major mailing rejected because of a failed Merlin sample evaluation. Imagine the cost and logistics of delivering 1 million mail pieces to a business mail entry unit dock.
Now imagine having to reload all the skids of prepared mail and return them to the mail center. The alternative, of course, is to pay the difference of the next-higher postage rate—in this case perhaps an additional $60,000.
An emotional, expensive conundrum such as this often causes blame to be placed on the system rather than the source. In other words, faulting Merlin rather than the mailer. Is this example reality? Are there an abundance of mailers attempting to cheat the system? Is Merlin rejecting huge numbers of mailings?
The answer in both cases is no. Merlin, in fact, has verified the honesty that prevails in our profession.
High Scores
Specifically, as presented at the February Mailers Technical Advisory Council meeting, Merlin passed 99.9 percent of the 34,341 mailings examined since Jan. 17. Only 22 mailings were rejected for inclusion of false -0000 extensions and only 17 mailings kicked back for incorrect -9999 extensions. In other words, this was much ado about nothing. Or was it?
Companies Mentioned:
 |
|
PURLs for Profit
Variable Data Printing Case Studies
