Stamp of Approval
There is a great hullabaloo in the world of philately these days about the postal service’s newer stamps, which are self-adhesive and non-soakable. That means that collectors who pursue postally used stamps for their collections can’t immerse these stamps in water (or other liquids) to remove them from envelopes. The practice is called “soaking” and it appears that some people aren’t so much stamp collectors as “soakers.”
Still with me? While you reach for a shot of vodka, I will further digress. If you don’t drink and are starting to worry about your ability to operate heavy machinery, skip the parenthetical stuff immediately following.
(The US Postal Service is not really what it seems, viz.: a conveyer of mail. It is a stamp revenue business. Most commemorative stamps [and many definitives] are never used for mail, but simply go into collections, unused. This means that the postal service derives revenue for services never performed and the only offsetting cost is the printing and sale of the stamp. Think of Fedex or DHL sending you a monthly bill but never having to pick up or deliver a package on your behalf. Would you like to own stock in that company?
(This has been going on for a while—since 1847 to be exact. The current demographic of collectors is well past 50, overwhelmingly male, and not just a wee bit rabid about how to collect these items. Franklin Roosevelt was probably the most famous philatelist, but Albert Einstein, no less, had one of the greatest philatelic lines, when comparing the sciences. I paraphrase: “Physicists are scientists,” he famously observed, “all the others are merely stamp collectors.” The more you consider this, the more profound the insight.)
However, there are significant numbers of collectors who save only stamps which have escorted mail through the postal system. Thus, there are vituperative letters in the philatelic press about the government’s insensitivity and clumsiness in not providing stamps that can be easily soaked off envelopes. For those of you wondering whether the newer stamps can simply be cut carefully off envelopes while retaining the backing, the answer is “yes.” If you’re wondering whether those that are unsoakable could simple not be collected, you don’t really understand anal-retentiveness.
The government, naturally, doesn’t care. It’s producing stamps which ostensibly affix to envelopes better in an era where most people buying stamps aren’t putting them on envelopes because they are using postage meters and computer postage, but many collectors are putting them in albums. Except, of course, for those collecting the “used” varieties. (Many stamps are incredibly hard to find “used” since they were meant solely for collecting in “mint” condition, and never really intended for franking [postage] purposes, and can’t even be purchased in post offices.)
In any case, I have a point here, somewhere. Ah, yes:
We need to keep focused on the result of what we’re trying to accomplish. Riling oneself up (dangerous at philatelists’ average ages) about how a stamp can be placed in an album is like arguing about what hardware you use to hang great art. Get it on the wall and enjoy it, and stop fussing about whether the hook is in the wall or hung from the ceiling.
Similarly, our clients’ outcomes (e.g., higher retention or greater margins) are the only point. The number of people in the focus groups doesn’t matter, nor do the number of focus groups, nor even if you USE focus groups. There are a lot of good ways to get to the objective, the easiest usually being the best, and it’s just crazy to argue about means once you agree on the ends.
Cut the stamp off the envelope and save it with the backing, or don’t collect those stamps that give you trouble. But stop whining, the postal system is going to change only slightly after the sun runs out of hydrogen.
Stop arguing and debating methodologies. Agree on the destination and choose your own course. You’re the consultant. I’ll trust your judgment unless you begin petitioning the government for change.
© Alan Weiss 2008. All rights reserved.
Disclaimer: Lest this stir up a similar firestorm to my quaint observations that most blogs are unreadable (Here’s a hoot, someone said in a “blambush” that I was “not a contrarian” since I question the validity of all social media, but isn’t that the VERY definition of a contrarian today?!) I have an outstanding United States stamp collection by any definition. And in case you’re wondering, I collect them unused, and don’t soak, rinse, blot, or otherwise cleanse. And I have that 1847 stamp, though I did not personally purchase it at the time of sale, as the social media crowd would have you believe.
