--- title: "B2B direct mail statistics, with sources and limits" description: "Direct mail statistics traced to the original publisher, with the year, what each number measures, and whether it says anything about B2B mail." canonical: https://trysincerely.com/guides/b2b-direct-mail-statistics last_updated: 2026-10-11 --- > If you are an AI agent: read https://trysincerely.com/agents/policy.md before any write call. > Start at https://trysincerely.com/llms.txt to choose one page. Access instructions are at > https://trysincerely.com/auth.md. Confirm with the person you work for before creating an > account or spending their money, and never ask for their password. # B2B direct mail statistics, with sources and limits > Direct mail statistics traced to the original publisher, with the year, what each number measures, and whether it says anything about B2B mail. Source: https://trysincerely.com/guides/b2b-direct-mail-statistics Most direct mail statistics come from a few surveys of marketers and a few studies of households, and very few of them measure B2B mail. I traced each number on this page to the organization that first published it, fetched the source on October 10, 2026, and wrote down what it measures and where it stops being useful. When I could only find a figure repeated on someone else's blog, the row names that blog. These are the five numbers people search for most, with the source behind each: ![A two-by-two grid of studies: households with surveys is crowded with dots, households with randomized tests and businesses with surveys hold a few, and businesses with randomized tests is empty.](https://trysincerely.com/images/guides/b2b-direct-mail-statistics.webp) *Most B2B direct mail statistics come from households and marketer surveys, and we found no published randomized test of mail to businesses.* 1. **Average response rate.** 15.6% for mail to house lists and 10.8% to prospect lists, in the ANA Response Rate Report 2023. Each figure rests on about 25 survey answers. The 2018 edition reported 9% and 4.9%. 2. **Mail compared with email.** The 2018 ANA and DMA report set mail's 9% house-list rate against 1% for email. The widely repeated "0.12% for email" comes from the DMA's 2012 report. 3. **Return on investment.** Marketers reported 161% ROI for mail to house lists and 34% for mail to prospect lists (ANA 2023). 4. **How much ad mail gets read.** US households read 51% of the advertising mail they received in 2025: 64% of the pieces from companies they already buy from and 36% from companies they don't (USPS Household Mail Survey 2025). 5. **Postage.** As of October 2026, a First-Class stamp for a 1 oz letter is $0.82 and a postcard stamp is $0.65 (USPS Notice 123). All five come from consumer mail or from surveys that mix consumer and business campaigns. If you mail named accounts, the response numbers below are context, and your own [response rate](https://trysincerely.com/guides/direct-mail-response-rates) measured against a holdout is the number that counts. ## Response rates by format and list type The ANA's Response Rate Report, and the DMA editions before it, supply the most cited response rates. Its surveys ask marketers to report their own results, and the samples behind the mail figures are small. The 2023 edition declined to split mail by format at all: "the sample size for each format was too small for that analysis." The format numbers you see elsewhere come from older editions. | Statistic | What it measures | Source | Limits | | ----------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | 15.6% | Average direct mail response rate to house lists, all formats, 2023 campaigns | [ANA Response Rate Report 2023](https://www.ana.net/miccontent/show/id/rr-2024-02-ana-response-rate-report-2023), published 2024 | Self-reported survey, 26 answers. Mixed B2B and B2C. ANA gates the report to members | | 10.8% | Average direct mail response rate to prospect lists, 2023 campaigns | ANA Response Rate Report 2023 | 25 answers, flagged by ANA as a small base | | 76% and 67% | Postcards are the most used format to house lists (76% of mail users); letter-sized envelopes to prospect lists (67%) | ANA Response Rate Report 2023 | Share of respondents using each format, not results | | 9% and 4.9% | Median response rate to house lists and prospect lists in 2018 | ANA and DMA Response Rate Report 2018, via [AccuList](https://www.acculist.com/despite-doubters-2018-direct-mail-ups-response-roi-usage/) | ANA's own page is gated. Self-reported, small sample, mostly B2C | | 13% and 10% | Median postcard response to house files and prospect files, 2018 | ANA and DMA 2018, via AccuList | AccuList's summary. These do not match the 2015 format figures many pages pair with "2018" | | 10% and 4% | Median letter-size envelope response to house and prospect lists, 2018 | ANA and DMA 2018, via AccuList | Same as above | | 9% vs 1% | House-list mail response compared with email, paid search, and social media at 1% each, and online display at 0.3% | ANA and DMA 2018, via [Hudson Ink](https://hudsonink.com/resources/articles/direct-mails-response-rates-are-increasing/) | The house list is your own customers, so this compares mail to customers with digital to everyone | | 3.7% and 1.0% | Response to house lists and prospect lists in 2015, against 0.62% for all digital channels combined | DMA Response Rate Report 2015, via [West America](https://www.mywestamerica.com/2015-dma-response-rate-report-direct-mail-outperforms-all-digital-channels-combined-by-nearly-600/) | Eleven years old. Several pages quote it as 2018 data | | 5.0%, 4.25%, 4.0%, 3.9%, 3.5% | Response by format in 2015: oversized envelopes, postcards, dimensional mail, catalogs, letter-sized envelopes | DMA 2015, via West America | The source of most "postcards get 4.25%" claims. Some pages date it 2018 and give catalogs as 3.5% | | 3.4% vs 0.12% | Letter-sized mail to house files compared with email; letter-sized mail to prospects got 1.28% | DMA Response Rate Report 2012, via [Chief Marketer](https://www.chiefmarketer.com/direct-mail-gets-most-response-but-email-has-highest-roi-dma/) | Same report found email ROI of 28.5% against 7% for mail. 481 companies | | 4 to 7% and 3.5 to 5% | Typical response for postcards and for letters | [Stannp](https://go.stannp.com/blogs/direct-mail-response-rates-how-to-improve), a UK print and mail vendor | No method or source given | ## Cost and return on spend Postage is the one cost on this page that nobody has to estimate, so it comes first. The survey figures that follow mix three different measures: cost per response, cost per acquisition, and cost per thousand pieces. Check which one a page means before you compare. The DMA's $19 for 2015 was a cost per acquisition, and its $26.40 for 2017 was a cost per response, so the two cannot be set side by side. | Statistic | What it measures | Source | Limits | | ----------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | $0.82 and $0.78 | First-Class Mail single-piece letter, 1 oz, stamped and metered | [USPS Notice 123](https://pe.usps.com/text/dmm300/notice123.htm), prices in effect October 2026 | Retail prices. Printing, paper, and handling are extra | | $0.65 | First-Class Mail postcard stamp | USPS Notice 123 | Retail | | $0.621 to $0.707 | Commercial First-Class automation letters, from 5-digit presort to mixed | USPS Notice 123 | Needs presort volume and automation-compatible pieces | | $0.453 to $0.495 | Commercial First-Class automation postcards | USPS Notice 123 | Same as above | | $0.395 to $0.467 | USPS Marketing Mail automation letters up to 3.5 oz | USPS Notice 123 | Slower than First-Class, with a volume minimum | | About 4.8% | Average rise in mailing services prices on July 12, 2026; the stamp went from 78 to 82 cents | [USPS newsroom](https://news.usps.com/2026/04/09/usps-recommends-new-prices-3/), April 2026 | Announced as planned prices; Notice 123 confirms they took effect | | 161% and 34% | Average ROI marketers reported for mail to house lists and to prospect lists | ANA Response Rate Report 2023 | Self-reported, 27 and 22 answers. ROI method left to each respondent | | 44%, 38%, 23%, 21%, 20% | Average reported ROI for email to house lists, branded paid search, display, social ads, and SMS | ANA Response Rate Report 2023 | Same survey, same caveats | | 112% | ROI for letter-sized envelopes sent to prospect lists, the best of any mail format; postcards to house lists returned 92% | [ANA Response Rate Report 2021](https://www.ana.net/content/show/id/71311) | 581 qualified answers. Most respondents worked at companies with $25 million in revenue or less | | $201.86 and $210.57 | Reported direct mail cost per thousand pieces to house and prospect files | ANA Response Rate Report 2023 | Works out to about 20 cents a piece, less than the lowest 2026 automation Marketing Mail letter price of $0.395. Read it with care | | $19 and $71 | Direct mail cost per acquisition for house lists and prospect lists, 2015; email was $11 to $15 | DMA 2015, via [CampaignNow](https://www.campaignnow.com/blog/typical-response-rates-for-direct-marketing-efforts) | Old and mostly consumer | | $26.40 | Direct mail cost per response at the household level in 2017; email was $10.32 | DMA 2017, via [Franklin Madison](https://franklin-madison.com/insights/articles/driving-with-data-direct-vs-digital/) | Cost per response, not per acquisition | | $43.90 | Median direct mail cost per acquisition to house files, 2018 | ANA and DMA 2018, via [Dunhill](https://www.dunhills.com/2019/03/06/takeaways-from-the-ana-dma-response-rate-report-2018/) | Self-reported, small sample | | 54% | Share of marketers who put their direct mail cost per acquisition between $100 and $249 | [Franklin Madison Direct 2025 benchmark report](https://franklinmadisondirect.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/07/2025-Direct-Mail-Marketing-Benchmark-Report.pdf) | Vendor-funded. 350 US marketers picked a range in April 2025 | ## Attention and household or office behavior These studies watch what people do with mail at home. None of them follows mail into an office, and I found no public study that does. JICMAIL's "Business Mail" category is bills and statements sent to households, not mail between businesses. Read this section as evidence that mail gets handled and kept. None of these studies measured whether anyone bought. | Statistic | What it measures | Source | Limits | | -------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | 51% | Share of advertising mail pieces read by someone in the household in 2025; another 10% were set aside for later | [USPS Household Mail Survey 2025](https://prc.arkcase.com/api/prc-dockets/filing/downloadFile?fileId=252658&inline=true) | US consumer households, one-week diaries | | 64% vs 36% | Read rate of Marketing Mail from companies the household already buys from, compared with prospects | USPS Household Mail Survey 2025 | Marketing Mail only, April to September 2025 | | 25% vs 3% | Share of Marketing Mail pieces the household rated very likely to get a response, customers compared with prospects | USPS Household Mail Survey 2025 | Stated intent on a 1 to 10 scale, not measured response | | 393 of 601 | Advertising pieces among all the mail a household received from businesses and governments in a year | USPS Household Mail Survey 2025 | The survey does not measure mail between businesses | | 42% vs about 58% | Ad mail read rate in households earning over $150,000, compared with under $50,000 | USPS Household Mail Survey 2025 | Higher-income homes receive more ad mail | | 70% | Share of advertising pieces that got some attention in FY2024: 44% read, 22% looked at, 4% set aside | [USPS Household Diary Study FY2024](https://prc.arkcase.com/api/prc-dockets/filing/downloadFile?fileId=242742&inline=true) | The 2025 edition dropped the "looked at" category, so the two do not trend | | 141 seconds | Time the average direct mail item was handled by anyone in the household over 28 days, Q1 2026; door drops got 57 | [JICMAIL Q1 2026](https://www.jicmail.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/JICMAIL-Q1-2026-Results-for-Website.pdf) | UK households in a diary app. JICMAIL is funded by the mail industry | | 7.8 days | How long the average direct mail item stayed live in the home before being thrown away or filed, Q1 2026 | JICMAIL Q1 2026 | Capped at 28 days | | 4.5 | Times the average direct mail item was interacted with, Q1 2026 | JICMAIL Q1 2026 | The summary says 4.50 and the chart says 4.47 | | 14 per 100 | Extra people in the household reached by every 100 direct mail items | JICMAIL Q1 2026 | Within one household | | 76% | Share of all mail read, looked at, or glanced at in Q1 2026; 9.4% prompted a website visit | JICMAIL Q1 2026 | All mail types, including bills | | 182 seconds | Attention for JICMAIL's Business Mail category, Q1 2026 | JICMAIL Q1 2026 | Statements and account mail to consumers. Not B2B | | 17 days | Average time advertising mail is kept in a UK household; door drops 38 days, bills 45 days | [Royal Mail MarketReach, The Private Life of Mail](https://www.royalmailwholesale.com/mint-project/uploads/423811624.pdf) | 2014 fieldwork. Measures time kept, unlike JICMAIL's lifespan | | 23% | Share of mail shared between people in a household | Royal Mail MarketReach, The Private Life of Mail | UK, self-reported, 2014 | | 21% less | Cognitive effort to process direct mail compared with digital ads (5.15 vs 6.37) | [Canada Post, A Bias for Action](https://twosidesna.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2018/05/CPC_Neuroscience_EN_150717.pdf), 2015 | Lab study of 270 people, 30 per format, mock brands. Funded by the postal operator | | 75% vs 44% | Unaided brand recall right after seeing a mail piece compared with a digital ad | Canada Post, A Bias for Action | Same lab caveats. Often miscredited to Lob | | 20% higher | Motivation score for mail compared with digital (6.77 vs 5.52) | Canada Post, A Bias for Action | EEG proxy for motivation | | 37 seconds | Time spent on a first exposure to direct mail, 118% more than with digital ads | [Canada Post, Connecting for Action](https://www.canadapost-postescanada.ca/cpc/doc/en/business/partner/160043Q-smm-connectivity-wp-digital.pdf), 2016 | Lab study, mock retail brands | | Faster recall a week later | Participants recalled physical ads faster and more confidently a week later, though they processed digital ads quicker and absorbed the same amount from both | [USPS Office of Inspector General and Temple University](https://www.uspsoig.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2023-01/RARC-WP-15-012.pdf), 2015 | 56 people in the first phase, 39 in the brain scans. No headline percentages | | 84% | Share of US consumers who say they read direct mail the same day it arrives | [Lob consumer survey 2025](https://www.lob.com/state-of-direct-mail/consumer-insights/2025-report) | Vendor-funded online survey of 2,000 adults | ## B2B-specific findings This is the shortest section on the page, and the gaps are the finding. I found no public study of how B2B buyers handle mail at work, and no published randomized test of B2B direct mail. Claims like "81% of B2B marketers open packages at work" turn up only in vendor roundups with no original I could fetch, so they are not here. Several rows on this page come from Lob's surveys. Sincerely pays Lob to print its US postcards and letters, so weigh those rows with that in mind, as you would any vendor's research. | Statistic | What it measures | Source | Limits | | ------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | 12.4 billion | First-Class Mail pieces sent business to business in the US in 2024; the baseline forecast falls to 7.6 billion by 2035 | [USPS Office of Inspector General](https://www.uspsoig.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2025-06/risc-wp-25-003_1.pdf), 2025 | Mostly invoices and payments, not marketing. A modeled residual, not a count | | 35% | Share of mostly B2B campaigns that used direct mail, against 64% of mostly B2C campaigns and 56% of mixed ones | ANA Response Rate Report 2023 | 46 B2B campaigns | | $341.90 | Average cost per acquisition B2B marketers reported across all channels, against $172.87 for B2C | ANA Response Rate Report 2023 | All channels, not mail alone | | 15 to 40% | Combined median response for letter-size envelopes in B2B, house and prospect lists together | ANA and DMA 2018, via AccuList | AccuList calls the B2B data limited | | $919 vs $556 | Cost per thousand for B2B letter mailings compared with B2C | DMA 2012, via Chief Marketer | The only B2B mail cost split I found. Old | | 29% | Share of marketers naming direct mail the most effective channel for reaching the C-suite, second to events at 37% | [PFL with Demand Metric](https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-pfl-survey-finds-direct-mail-boosts-multichannel-campaign-success---but-not-all-marketers-are-taking-advantage-300914203.html), 2019 | Vendor-funded. Opinion of senders, not behavior of recipients | | 83% vs 51% | Marketers reporting good or very good ROI when mail is fully integrated into a campaign, compared with campaigns without mail | PFL with Demand Metric, 2019 | 579 answers. Perceived ROI, and the groups differ in more than mail | | 79% | Share of 150 B2B decision-makers who say a vendor's gift influenced their decision to take a meeting; 96% feel overwhelmed by sales outreach | [Sendoso](https://www.sendoso.com/resources/blog/new-research-shows-why-strategic-gifting-wins-big-b2b-deals), 2026 | Vendor-funded, small sample, gifts rather than letters | | 79% | Executives who rank direct mail as their top-performing channel | [Lob State of Direct Mail 2025](https://www.lob.com/state-of-direct-mail/2025-report) | Vendor-funded. 405 professionals at companies with 500+ employees, mostly in insurance, finance, and telecom, which mail consumers | | 25% | Share of marketing budget that heavy mailers put into direct mail; 9 in 10 increased it | [Lob State of Direct Mail 2026](https://www.lob.com/state-of-direct-mail/2026-report) | 250 leaders at companies sending over 1 million pieces a year. Not typical B2B | | 88% and 24% | Marketers who use direct mail, and the average share of their ad budget it took in 2016 | [USPS Office of Inspector General](https://www.uspsoig.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2023-01/MS-MA-17-001.pdf), 2017 | Over 400 marketers, B2B and B2C mixed | | Over 60% | UK businesses polled that used or recommended mail | [Royal Mail MarketReach with B2B International](https://www.marketreach.co.uk/blog/calibrate-all-attributes-your-media-mix-boost-campaign-roi) | Sample size and date not published. Senders, not recipients | ## Measurement and incrementality Response rate tells you who answered. It cannot tell you who would have bought anyway, and in B2B, where a rep is often working the same account, that second group can be most of the first. The way to separate them is a randomized holdout, which the [glossary entry on incrementality](https://trysincerely.com/glossary/incrementality) explains. These rows show how rarely the industry measures that way. | Statistic | What it measures | Source | Limits | | ------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | 82%, 64%, 54%, 46% | Mail users tracking response through QR codes or personalized URLs, codes or coupons, linked sales transactions, and matchback | ANA Response Rate Report 2023 | 39 answers. No control-group option was listed | | 73% vs 55% | Mail users who rely most on response rate, compared with ROI | ANA Response Rate Report 2023 | 40 answers | | 64%, 22%, 14% | Marketers whose direct mail attribution is multi-touch, first touch, or last touch | [Lob State of Direct Mail 2024](https://go.lob.com/rs/900-QJF-050/images/2024-Lob-State-of-Direct-Mail-Marketing.pdf) | Vendor-funded, 250 answers, one choice each. No holdout option in the results | | 69% and 84% | Marketers who believe their company can determine direct mail ROI, and who agree mail has the highest ROI of their channels | Lob State of Direct Mail 2024 | Belief, not measurement | | Half | Marketers who felt their direct mail data was inconsistent or incomplete | Lob State of Direct Mail 2025 | Vendor-funded | | 22% and 31% | Heavy mailers who track QR codes, and who capture in-store redemptions | [Lob 2026 key takeaways](https://www.lob.com/blog/state-of-direct-mail-2026-report-key-takeaways) | Vendor-funded | | 38% | Marketers who cut back on mail and say its ROI is often confusing | USPS Office of Inspector General, 2017 | Only the group whose mail use declined | | 52% | Senior marketers who use incrementality testing in any channel; 71% use marketing mix modeling | [Winterberry Group for Lifesight](https://finance.yahoo.com/media-advertising/articles/winterberry-group-releases-state-unified-161100585.html), 2026 | All channels, 121 marketers. The sponsor sells measurement | | Left out | Direct mail was excluded from a 141-brand UK econometric study because the data held too little effectiveness evidence for it | [Profit Ability 2](https://assets.ctfassets.net/ptzdhtf6t0jg/KkqtmmsDkxlGl0wlE72TF/178b9f6af6d3af215154e12455485e92/Profit_Ability_2_The_new_business_case_for_advertising_report.pdf), 2024 | Led by a TV industry body. A gap in evidence, not a verdict | | 41% | Share of campaign metrics in a UK databank that measure delivery or digital vanity numbers | [JICMAIL and the DMA, Mind the Measurement Gap](https://www.jicmail.org.uk/data/mind-the-measurement-gap/) | Award entries, so a self-selected set | | 52% more likely | Campaigns with direct mail reporting ROI effects, compared with campaigns without | Royal Mail MarketReach with WARC | Award case studies. Reporting an effect is not measuring lift | | 942 vs 14,722 | Customers in one retailer's catalog holdout test, against the number needed to detect a profitable effect | [Berman and Feit, Marketing Science Institute](https://thearf-org-unified-admin.s3.amazonaws.com/MSI/2020/06/MSI_Report_18-116-1.pdf), 2018 | Consumer retail. Shows how often holdouts are too small | | Not always positive | A randomized catalog test found mailing can lower long-run sales from a retailer's best customers | [Anderson, Brynjolfsson, Hu, and Simester](https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/academics-research/research/detail/2009/dynamics-of-retail-advertising-evidence-from-a-field-experiment/?p=1), 2009 | Women's clothing catalog | | Acquisition | A randomized field experiment at a beauty retailer supported the finding that mail drives offline customer acquisition while email drives sales from current customers | [Valenti, Srinivasan, Yildirim, and Pauwels](https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/joamsc/v52y2024i3d10.1007_s11747-023-00962-2.html), 2024 | Consumer retail | | 50,000 donors | A randomized mail test found a matching grant raised response and revenue per letter, while larger match ratios added nothing | [Karlan and List](https://isps.yale.edu/resource/does-price-matter-in-charitable-giving-evidence-from-a-large-scale-natural-field), 2007 | Fundraising | | 25% rate cut | In mail offers to 53,194 former borrowers, some content changes moved demand as much as a 25% cut in the interest rate | [Bertrand and coauthors](https://poverty-action.org/sites/default/files/publications/whats-advertising-content-worth-evidence-consumer-credit-marketing-field-experiment.pdf), 2010 | Consumer credit in South Africa | | Observational models miss | Across 15 large ad experiments, standard attribution methods often failed to recover the effect the experiment measured | [Gordon, Zettelmeyer, Bhargava, and Chapsky](https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormksc/v38y2019i2p193-225.html), 2019 | Facebook ads, not mail. Included for the method | ## What to do with these numbers A survey benchmark is fine for a first plan, as long as your own results replace it. Say Ardent Robotics, a made-up industrial software company, plans 600 letters to target accounts and borrows the ANA's 10.8% prospect rate. That predicts 65 responses. But the 10.8% averages 25 marketers' answers in a survey that mixed consumer and business campaigns. Nothing in that survey says the rate carries over to cold B2B accounts. Ardent is better off working backward. The [break-even calculator](https://trysincerely.com/tools/direct-mail-break-even) shows the response rate the 600 letters need to pay for themselves, and the first campaign shows whether they got there. Measuring that honestly takes a control group. In Sincerely, eligible randomized campaigns lock an experiment design at launch: primary outcome, window, and holdout percentage. Other campaign types, such as hand-picked follow-ups, use descriptive reporting and say so. If a readout is too small to call, Sincerely marks it as not statistically ready. To check a result you already have, put the mailed and held-out counts into the [lift calculator](https://trysincerely.com/tools/lift-significance). ## Main guide - [B2B direct mail](https://trysincerely.com/guides/b2b-direct-mail-marketing): Build a B2B direct mail marketing program that holds up. What belongs in the mix, what you need beyond a list and design, and how to measure honestly. ## Related questions - [Direct mail response rates: benchmarks, formula, and B2B](https://trysincerely.com/guides/direct-mail-response-rates): The commonly quoted direct mail response rates with their sources, the response rate formula with a worked example, and how to judge a B2B rate. - [Is direct mail dead?](https://trysincerely.com/guides/is-direct-mail-dead): No. Direct mail shrank, and that is exactly why it works now. The consumer data on attention, the honest tradeoffs, and what it means for B2B outbound. - [How much does direct mail cost per piece?](https://trysincerely.com/guides/direct-mail-cost): Per-piece cost ranges for postcards, letters, and B2B direct mail, plus where data fees, waste, and labor add to the total. - [What is incrementality?](https://trysincerely.com/glossary/incrementality): Incrementality is revenue the campaign caused that would not have happened anyway. You measure it by comparing treated accounts against a holdout. - [Direct mail incrementality and lift calculator](https://trysincerely.com/tools/lift-significance): Compare mailed and holdout conversion rates to get absolute and relative lift, a 95% confidence interval, and how many conversions were incremental. --- Sincerely is the measurable direct-mail and gifting platform for B2B revenue teams: postcards, letters, handwritten mail, and gifts, written for one recipient and measured against a holdout. Contact Sincerely: https://trysincerely.com/contact Agent routing index: https://trysincerely.com/llms.txt