I think a smarter thing for them to do would be to tailor the delivery rates a bit more efficiently with regard to the resources it takes to actually get the letter/package from point A to point B.
I mean, the cheapest possible letter that the USPS could handle would be for me to mail a letter to someone served by my local post office, as it probably never even leaves my local post office- just goes in from my letter carrier, doesn’t leave the building until some other letter carrier takes it to where its going the following day.
By contrast, if someone in some remote town in the Maine woods wants to send something to someone in the remote Arizona desert along the Mexican border, there are multiple hops for the letter to traverse between the sender and the destination.
So why not charge more for the second letter than the first? Not quite some kind of Airline-style byzantine formula, but maybe have a few price tiers- like say… 25 cents for the local ones, 35 for ones that are local/regional, like say… sending a letter from Kansas City to Wichita, or from New Orleans to Houston. 45 for ones that are further afield, and then maybe 55 for the ones that are really remote. That way, they could tailor the prices (and the revenue) a little better than having to try to figure out a “one-size-fits-all” price for everything.
They already do this for packages- I don’t see why letters have to be a fixed price.
I agree with this with one further stipulation: If it’s being funded by taxes, it isn’t being funded by spam.
That is, Federalize it, bring back postal banking, and raise the cost of bulk mailing. Stop carrying flyers altogether. Keep postage costs as a way to prevent people from abusing the infrastructure, but make it clear it isn’t subsidized by spammers and, therefore, isn’t beholden to them.
If actual, honest tax funding makes postage unimaginable or illegal or something, rate-limit senders and end bulk mailing entirely. It isn’t a First Amendment violation if it’s entirely content-neutral and done to further a compelling government interest.
The USPS is inherently competing with other package carriers, on one hand, and other information distribution mechanisms, on the other.
Therefore, it needs to make its case that it’s better than the competition, and that involves advertising. Call it what you will, it’s still advertising.
Make it totally tax payer funded. I will pay extra to get hem to STOP DELIVERING TRASH TO MY MAILBOX.
I love the USPS. For 50 cents they will take a letter from house to anywhere in the golldanged country! I just hate the bulk mail. Hate it, hate it HATE IT!
Believe it or not, that “trash” is what subsidizes the delivery of first class mail for only about 50 cents.
If bulk mail was abolished, the post office would lose about 75% of its revenue and still have to drive to almost every house in the country almost every day. Can you say $2.00 to mail a letter? And once folks and businesses alter their behavior in response to $2 per letter, the volume will half again. So now letters need to cost $4 apiece … You can see where this is going.
We are in a deal with the devil. USPS is in effect competing with the internet using trucks and manpower to go *mano-a-mano *against bits and high speed cables & satellites.
Congress shoving their ignorant boot onto USPS’ neck isn’t helping. But nuking bulk mail is not the solution.
No, it doesn’t “need” to do any such thing, any more than a public park “needs to make its case that it’s better” than a private golf course. There’s nothing lost by people choosing to use the private business, on any given day.
So you acknowledge it does need to advertise, or do you think it doesn’t need to advertise because you disagree with the reasons which obligate it to advertise?
Because, frankly, what you posted sounded like the second of those two options.
Presupposing the execs at USPS have any clue at all, the cost of advertising is less than the marginal revenue it creates. As such it contributes to profitability, not detracts from it.
If the problem is Congress’ meddling (which we both agree it is) then the solution is to fix that. Not to tie another of their several arms behind their back by requiring them to not advertise when it can be done successfully and profitably.
There is, and it’s called ‘business’. My company receives A LOT of mail - somewhere in the neighborhood of 50-60 million pieces per year. That mail has to be processed opened, scanned and set on through the process the same day it is received. Stopping Saturday delivery would mean we would have to process 17% more mail every other day of the week. Only it really doesn’t work that way, we would really get 40% more mail on Mondays, 20% more on Tue, 5% more on Wed and the current normal amount on Thur & Fri.
We’ve gone through the planning to try and figure out how we would handle it should we lose the ability to smooth the volume over 6 days, but it ain’t pretty.
I think its advertising is at best unrelated to its appropriate role in the country, and probably counterproductive.
But presumably at the expense of some American business?
No, my basic feeling is that “profitability” shouldn’t even be a consideration. As with other public entities, the bottom line should be efficiently and effectively fulfilling the mission. Nearly all the time this means a net cost to the treasury; that’s fine, that’s what taxes are for. If certain agencies sometimes break even or return a surplus, that’s great, but I don’t really want them to see that as a goal.
I don’t know of many independent companies that can borrow money directly from the US Treasury at highly subsidized interest rates, like the USPS does. This is how they fund their recurring losses year after year. Any other company would have filed for bankruptcy long ago.
Because letters are extremely cheap to transport once they’re sorted. An individual letter weighs almost nothing and takes up almost no space, so sending it 1000 miles versus 10 isn’t so much more expensive that it makes sense to do all the extra processing.