Why does the U.S. Post Office have a commercial? I do not understand...

[lady narcissa]

Well that exact USPS ad playing on tv last night reminded me I needed to get to the post office ASAP to get my European packages out in time for Christmas delivery. I went to the post office today so the ad served its purpose I guess.

I mean I know Christmas is coming and all but I generally procrastinate when it comes to going to the post office and put it off till its too late to get the cheaper shipping option. This year I didn't.

[Larry of the Lawn]

I had no idea the post office was still a 'thing'. Thanks for the update, gang! I've got about 8 years of past due bills to mail out pronto (thank you Forever Stamps).

[ThinkerX]

Hmm...

As somebody who (sort of) works for USPS...

1) USPS is usually quite a bit cheaper than either Fed-Ex or UPS, and almost as fast, frequently as fast.

2) Both UPS and Fed-Ex make extensive use of USPS. For them it comes down to cost; if they find it cheaper to send something USPS than carry it themselves, they will. Without USPS both fold pretty much overnight. Neither has the interest or the capability to step into the post offices shoes.

3) USPS field hands (clerks, carriers) work their butts off and are usually fairly competent.

4) However, a frontal lobotomy appears to be a requirement for upper level USPS management, which frequently has disastrous effects for the employees and services provided.

[Kindly Old Man]

IIRC in a blind test majority will favor Pepsi but when they see the brands pick coke.

I think the taste test thing has been somewhat debunked. People prefer Pepsi in 'one sip' taste tests but when they actually have to drink a whole glass prefer Coke. Something to do with Pepsi being sweeter IIRC. I think the this type of taste test led to the whole debacle with New Coke back in the day too. I don't remember where I read this but it was somewhere on the internet so it must be true.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

If Coke and Pepsi both didn't advertise (or only advertised new products or in new markets), then they'd both probably be better off since they could save billions in marketing costs. But if one didn't advertise and the other, the the one that advertised would probably gain market share at the expense of the other. So they both have to spend billions on marketing.

Classic prisoner's dilemma.

[Shryke]

I think the taste test thing has been somewhat debunked. People prefer Pepsi in 'one sip' taste tests but when they actually have to drink a whole glass prefer Coke. Something to do with Pepsi being sweeter IIRC. I think the this type of taste test led to the whole debacle with New Coke back in the day too. I don't remember where I read this but it was somewhere on the internet so it must be true.

Yeah, taste tests can be weird with small samples.

Everyone I'm sure is familiar with things that taste good but you can't eat/drink much of.

[Shryke]

Hmm...

As somebody who (sort of) works for USPS...

1) USPS is usually quite a bit cheaper than either Fed-Ex or UPS, and almost as fast, frequently as fast.

2) Both UPS and Fed-Ex make extensive use of USPS. For them it comes down to cost; if they find it cheaper to send something USPS than carry it themselves, they will. Without USPS both fold pretty much overnight. Neither has the interest or the capability to step into the post offices shoes.

3) USPS field hands (clerks, carriers) work their butts off and are usually fairly competent.

4) However, a frontal lobotomy appears to be a requirement for upper level USPS management, which frequently has disastrous effects for the employees and services provided.

Yup.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-mail-does-the-trick-for-fedex-ups-1407182247

They also use them for the door-to-door stuff afaik since neither company can afford the infrastructure to do tha much door-to-door work.

[TerraPrime]

Hmm...

As somebody who (sort of) works for USPS...

1) USPS is usually quite a bit cheaper than either Fed-Ex or UPS, and almost as fast, frequently as fast.

2) Both UPS and Fed-Ex make extensive use of USPS. For them it comes down to cost; if they find it cheaper to send something USPS than carry it themselves, they will. Without USPS both fold pretty much overnight. Neither has the interest or the capability to step into the post offices shoes.

Yup.

This is why I use USPS as much as possible and only use FedEx or UPS when I have no choice.

[mcbigski]

Several things about this thread.

First off, the Pepsi Challenge. My entire immediate family all opted for Coke. I think it's because Coke has a more balanced flavor profile, where the vanilla and citrus notes both come out, whereas Pepsi is sickly sweet. So nuanced tastes are probably genetic.

How come no one has raised the question of whether the Post Office, being a more than quasi government entity that consistently runs at a loss should be wasting money on advertising? Kind of like advertising for foodstamps/SNAP/whatever the SJW approved term is these days.

Speaking of which, who else in favor of stopping subsidies on bulk mail? 80% of the pieces of mail I get and probably 95% by weight go directly to the dumpster across from my mailbox without my even opening them. While my car is idling the whole time. Just think of the carbon savings if all of that crap wasn't being mailed to everyone.

[Tears of Lys]

To show the various features the board offers. I mean people have been using the board for years but did they know they could use eye-stabbing font colors? It pays to advertise.

Sometimes.

:lol:

UPS and FedEx offer superior service and are killing USPS. They are desperate.

Hmm...

As somebody who (sort of) works for USPS...

1) USPS is usually quite a bit cheaper than either Fed-Ex or UPS, and almost as fast, frequently as fast.

2) Both UPS and Fed-Ex make extensive use of USPS. For them it comes down to cost; if they find it cheaper to send something USPS than carry it themselves, they will. Without USPS both fold pretty much overnight. Neither has the interest or the capability to step into the post offices shoes.

3) USPS field hands (clerks, carriers) work their butts off and are usually fairly competent.

4) However, a frontal lobotomy appears to be a requirement for upper level USPS management, which frequently has disastrous effects for the employees and services provided.

Yup.

This is why I use USPS as much as possible and only use FedEx or UPS when I have no choice.

I came to this realization fairly recently. USPS is MUCH cheaper to ship something overnight, for one thing. The ad tag line "When it absolutely, positively HAS to get there overnight" must have worked wonders for FedEx, since everyone has this idea they are the only way to go, but it's not the case.

Never fear, ThinkerX, I'll spread the word! (for a small advertising fee) :D

[ThinkerX]

Speaking of which, who else in favor of stopping subsidies on bulk mail? 80% of the pieces of mail I get and probably 95% by weight go directly to the dumpster across from my mailbox without my even opening them. While my car is idling the whole time. Just think of the carbon savings if all of that crap wasn't being mailed to everyone.

Oh, we grouse about 'bulk' or 'standard' mail as well, believe you me. There are people on my route who get two, three, four, or even five copies of every junk mail catalog. Multiply that by a dozen catalogs each day and scores of people receiving each one and that takes extra time to sort in the morning. What we find even more annoying are the 'full coverage' fliers that go in everybody's mailbox. A church on my route attempts to save souls with monthly mass mailing of religious pamphlets. A furniture store that offers a block buster sale every three weeks or so. A pizza joint sending forth menu mailings (ok, some of those look pretty tasty). But with very few exceptions nobody likes getting any of this stuff. But they pay, so we must deliver.

[TerraPrime]

How come no one has raised the question of whether the Post Office, being a more than quasi government entity that consistently runs at a loss should be wasting money on advertising? Kind of like advertising for foodstamps/SNAP/whatever the SJW approved term is these days.

Boys and girls, here we have a proper example of "begging the question," wherein our plucky provocateur assumes a conclusion (the advertisement is a waste of money) in the framing of the question (how can they afford to continue to advertise?).

[The Fallen]

Neither snow nor rain nor heat ...

The USPS is advertising because they're under attack by the Republican party. http://www.thenation.com/blog/166103/post-office-not-broke

The only reason it runs a deficit is because of this:

At the behest of the Republican-controlled Congress of the Bush-Cheney era, the USPS has been forced since 2006 to pre-fund future retiree health benefits. As the American Postal Workers Union notes, “This mandate is the primary cause of the agency’s financial crisis. No other government agency or private company bears this burden, which costs the USPS approximately $5.5 billion annually.”

Now, however, we learn that the pre-funding requirements have taken so much money from the USPS that—according to the postal service’s own inspector general—it has “significantly exceeded” the level of reserved money that the federal government or private corporations divert to meet future pension and retiree healthcare demands. “Using ratepayer funds, it has built a war chest of over $326 billion to address its future liabilities,” acknowledges Postal Service Inspector General David C. Williams.

Basically, the Republican party wants to abolish the USPS and give the service over to their buddies to be run as a private company. Don't let them take away our USPS. They also have their sights on education.

[Frances Bean Corbray]

Basically, the Republican party wants to abolish the USPS and give the service over to their buddies to be run as a private company. Don't let them take away our USPS. They also have their sights on education.

Dude, Reagan already killed that decades ago :D

That's why we're now all so dumbtarded that the USPS has to run commercials to remind us it exists. :)

[mcbigski]

For some reason, the multi quote function doesn't work on my tablet, so I should probably go back to my brick of a lap top.

TerraPrime: How about if we rephrase the question as: In what circumstances does it make sense for a public service that operates at a net cost to taxpayers to advertise? I think the OP was correct in, if I understand correctly, saying that exactly no one is going to ask the question "How could I get this prime parcel to my pleasant aunt Petunia in Peoria promptly" without the USPS occurring to them primarily?

As for the Fallen: So the problem is that the USPS must account for the present value of promised future benefits? (Spent a few years as a pension actuary so I apologize in advance if that's jargon.) Being a resident of Connecticut, I understand how that's not standard government operating procedure, but to me doing so should me the rule, not the exception.

[ThinkerX]

At the behest of the Republican-controlled Congress of the Bush-Cheney era, the USPS has been forced since 2006 to pre-fund future retiree health benefits. As the American Postal Workers Union notes, “This mandate is the primary cause of the agency’s financial crisis. No other government agency or private company bears this burden, which costs the USPS approximately $5.5 billion annually.”

Now, however, we learn that the pre-funding requirements have taken so much money from the USPS that—according to the postal service’s own inspector general—it has “significantly exceeded” the level of reserved money that the federal government or private corporations divert to meet future pension and retiree healthcare demands. “Using ratepayer funds, it has built a war chest of over $326 billion to address its future liabilities,” acknowledges Postal Service Inspector General David C. Williams.

Basically, the Republican party wants to abolish the USPS and give the service over to their buddies to be run as a private company. Don't let them take away our USPS. They also have their sights on education.

Oh yes, I get to hear about this all the time.

What the idiots trying to privatize USPS fail to grasp is that there is no viable private alternative. It is a necessary service, but not a profitable one.

[The Fallen]

As for the Fallen: So the problem is that the USPS must account for the present value of promised future benefits? (Spent a few years as a pension actuary so I apologize in advance if that's jargon.) Being a resident of Connecticut, I understand how that's not standard government operating procedure, but to me doing so should me the rule, not the exception.

That's one of their biggest problems, yes. They have to fund 75 years worth of benefits within a 10 year span. And as you stated, it's not the rule.

Dude, Reagan already killed that decades ago :D

That's why we're now all so dumbtarded that the USPS has to run commercials to remind us it exists. :)

I was referring to the abolishing of the Dept. of Education and privatizing education.

[Frances Bean Corbray]

That's one of their biggest problems, yes. They have to fund 75 years worth of benefits within a 10 year span. And as you stated, it's not the rule.

I was referring to the abolishing of the Dept. of Education and privatizing education.

Jokes are my only coping mechanism. Don't take it from me, man. :)

[Shryke]

TerraPrime: How about if we rephrase the question as: In what circumstances does it make sense for a public service that operates at a net cost to taxpayers to advertise? I think the OP was correct in, if I understand correctly, saying that exactly no one is going to ask the question "How could I get this prime parcel to my pleasant aunt Petunia in Peoria promptly" without the USPS occurring to them primarily?

When they are competing with private companies to provide that same service.

[The Fallen]

Jokes are my only coping mechanism. Don't take it from me, man. :)

Laughter is the best medicine.