Yes, it is. And let’s not kill it, says Herschell Gordon Lewis.

Advance your time machines 100 years. Will a marketing historian — or an anthropologist — deliver a lecture on the ongoing developments in direct marketing and begin the discourse with: “Do you remember a substance called ‘paper’? Your grandmother may have told you about it.

“And those moldering chunks in — what did they call it, a ‘bookcase’? — did you know you still can find some of these at antique auctions?”

Not likely.

The end is not yet.

Our dynamic world of direct response not only is surrounded by naysayers; within our ranks we have many nouveau-experts who have dismissed any printed communication as a throwback to antediluvian times.

Inevitably, as a new medium surfaces, those who clasp that medium to their bosoms, to the exclusion of all else, predict the demise of whatever went before. In some cases — such as the broadcast human voice replacing Morse Code — we can attach considerable validity to obsolescence.

But did radio cause newspapers and magazines to fold their tents? 

Did television cause radio to tumble into the slough of despond? 

Did online media result in decaying television sets rotting away in dumpsters?

A medium becomes obsolete not when joined by a logical competitor but when replaced by a logical replacement.

The King is dead. Long live the King

Oh, yes, print media is suffering and some will fold. Direct mail isn’t the champion it was a generation ago. That is the inevitable result of media-glut.

Newspapers and magazines had their golden era and because the number of advertising dollars invested in toto has been split between new media and traditional media, slices of the pie are thinner. A marketer has a finite amount of money to spend. 

Suppose the budget is £100,000. In ancient days, the marketer might have spent half on direct mail; a quarter on space advertising; and a  quarter on a mixture of telemarketing, personal communication and whatever.

Now — thump, thump, thump — in strides the 21st century colossus, online. 

The budget is the same, but the split now includes the new kid on the block. Percentages allocated to traditional media shrink.

It’s the year 2010

Hey, who are these new intruders? ‘Social media’? What’s social about them? Will an investment in them pay off? 

There’s just one way to find out: Allocate some pounds.

It’s not that early in the game. All of us in this state-of-society industry have tested and have had results. 

Some media have shone like the sun. Some have shown a tinge of promise. Some have sunk like the Titanic, despite the urgings of their disciples whose involvement is emotional rather than rational.

Thus has it always been. 

Thus will it always be, because homo sapiens is an inventive beast.

Tell your great-grandchildren: Read the newspaper.

Survival never is universal. That noun applies only to those who manipulate, squeeze, massage, manoeuvre, maximise.

Oh, yes, we’ll lose some print media, probably including a number of the great ones. 

Oh, yes, some force-communication houses will crumble. 

But the world isn’t coming to an end.

(What started this whole thought-process was an email, asking me to co-rejoice that another of the multitude of social media has given up the ghost. My reply — and, I hope yours: So what?)

When a direct mail package doesn’t produce, look at the creative work. 

When an advert in print media flops, check that negative result against ongoing positive results for others.

Is there a point to all this? Well, maybe. If one exists, it’s . . .

Match up medium and message. That’s been a valid litmus test since the days of stone tablets. (And yes, sadly, stone tablets no longer are much of a competitive medium.)

Herschell Gordon Lewis is the principal of Lewis Enterprises, Pompano Beach, Florida, through which he is available as copywriter, consultant and speaker. Mr Lewis’ latest book is his 31st. Phone him: +1 954 782 1750, or visit his website.