Archive for November 5th, 2010

USPS PostalOne! Release 25 Update and Creating Full-Service eDoc Webinar

without comments

USPS Webinar:

Topic: PostalOne! Release 25 Update and Creating Full-Service eDoc (DNPDWR)
Date and Time: November 9, 2010 10:00 am, Eastern Time (New York)
Event number: 999 632 617
To join the online event: Click here

Please refer to RIBBS for updated information.

A recording of this webinar held on Thursday, November 4 can be listened to by accessing the following link:
PostalOne! Release 25 Update (DNPDWR)-20101104 1807-1
Thursday, November 4, 2010
1 Hour 39 Minutes

Written by Lisa.Bowes

November 5th, 2010 at 12:08 pm

Posted in USPS

MTAC Update – Full Service Assessments

without comments

I don’t usually post MTAC communications, but this one is appropriate for the blog as it addresses some concerns I have raised here.  This was sent out to MTAC participants yesterday:

Dear MTACers:
I’ve heard reports of and been asked questions about misguided theories that apparently are being voiced, and I feel it necessary to address the accusation that USPS is looking at “penalties” as a new revenue stream.
Here are the facts:
• When USPS finds mail that doesn’t meet the standards for the discount claimed when presented, the mailer must pay the price for which the mail qualifies.
• This price adjustment is not a penalty, just the payment of proper postage.

The truth is we would love to not have to collect a single penny from lost discounts. That would mean every piece of mail is in compliance, all mailings qualify for the price they claimed, USPS is not incurring costs to collect what is due, USPS and mailers are receiving full benefits of programs and services, and mailers who comply with the rules are not ultimately-and unfairly-picking up costs for those who don’t.
Actions and decisions can bring about either positive results or negative consequences. Ensuring mail qualifies for the price it pays is not a new revenue stream-instead, it’s a protection of the revenue stream and everyone involved in creating it.
I’m hopeful this sets the record straight.
Best regards,
Steve Kearney
MTAC Co-Chair
SVP, Customer Relations
U.S. Postal Service


Although I respect Mr. Kearney’s opinion and am reprinting it here verbatim so other viewpoints can be understood by my readers, there is a key point in his communication that bothers me still:
“…would mean every piece of mail is in compliance…”
Mailing is a manufacturing process.  Although mailers would love for the manufacturing process to result in perfection, and that is what we all strive for, the reality is that requiring perfection is an impossibility.  The realistic expectation should be for the highest level of quality possible, with tight but fair tolerances for imperfections.

I totally agree with, and support, that ensuring that mail qualifies for the rates claimed is imperative.  It protects both the USPS and the scrupulous mailer community, and ultimately the mail owner.  However, the complexity of the requirements, and the liability for the Mail Service providers specifically for Full Service Intelligent Mail are contributing to the result of low adoption rates for Full Service.  There is little doubt in my mind that if the requirements, obligations – and risks – were made easier to understand, implement, and relaxed a bit, the adoption rate for Full Service would increase greatly.

Written by Lisa.Bowes

November 5th, 2010 at 12:01 pm

Posted in USPS