In some municipalities in the Netherlands, residents must explicitly indicate that they want to receive advertising mail by placing a ’yes’ sticker on their mailbox. Without this sticker, the delivery person is not allowed to deliver any advertising materials. New research from Tilburg University shows that while the number of leaflets has decreased by half as a result, it has not significantly influenced how people shop.
The new system is primarily aimed at reducing the environmental impact of printed materials. For some households, the offers in these leaflets are essential to make it to the end of the month, but in many households, these leaflets end up unread in the trash. However, not everyone supports the opt-in system. Opponents believe that stores rely heavily on sales through offers in the leaflets and that it could lead to job losses among the delivery people distributing these leaflets.
Effects of the ’Yes’ sticker
What do people really do with those leaflets? The research, conducted by marketing researchers Arjen van Lin, Jonne Guyt, and Kristopher Keller, examined the impact of this measure on 900 households in seven municipalities. The researchers looked at factors such as how much people shop and how many offers they purchase. They then compared the behavior of these households with that of households in municipalities where the rules have not changed.
No impact on purchasing behavior
The results show that the number of households receiving leaflets decreased by about 50 percent due to the new opt-in rule, but this had little effect on purchasing behavior. For nearly all’examined aspects of shopping, such as total spending and the number of visits to stores, there were no significant changes. The only notable decline was in the number of products purchased on offer among those who no longer received leaflets, dropping by less than one percent. Older and price-sensitive households showed a slight shift, but the impact was limited.
The research explored three possible explanations for the lack of significant changes in purchasing behavior: adjustments in stores’ marketing strategies, a shift to digital leaflets, or an overestimation of the dependence on printed leaflets. The first two explanations were found to be invalid. Households that no longer received leaflets were hardly influenced by these marketing expressions.
This research contributes to the understanding of the effects of a ban on unsolicited leaflets. It is useful for both retailers and policymakers who want to know if fewer leaflets impact sales or the environment.
