| Client Smartools | QwikLinks | Employee Login | Français | |||
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
RECENT POSTS 9/1/2010 - Not Making the Case for Exigency 7/24/2010 - Worksharing - USPS OIG Releases Its Assessment 5/15/2010 - USPS ... Price Your Way to Prosperity 4/12/2010 - Postal Update: Summer Sale, Exigent Price Increase and More more > RSS |
Joe's Blog ... Monday 8/31/2009 There have always been some specific postal regulations regarding the flexibility and/or rigidity of flat mail pieces known as deflection standards. Why you ask? Well, it’s because of the machinability requirements for USPS flat sorting equipment.
The Postal Service has 3 different types of flat sorters:
AFSM100 FSM1000 FSS (Flats Sequencing System)
Each of the flat sorters was designed to process a different type of flat mail (different characteristics). The differences can be identified by trim size (dimensions), thickness, piece weight and the flexibility and/or rigidity of the mailpiece.
In March, the Postal Service proposed changes to the way they measure the flexibility or deflection standards of ALL flats regardless of the machine that it would be processed on. It was done to eliminate the more “flimsy or droopy” flats from automated processing because they apparently cause jams in the sorters, which negatively impacts production and also causes damage to the mail. The original intent was to implement the new requirements in May, but after comments from mailers the USPS delayed implementation until September 8. That was a welcome relief, but it did not address the real issue.
The real issue/concern/problem with the change in the requirements for measuring flexibility is related to what the impact will be for any mailer of flats that has a mailpiece that currently qualifies as an automated and machinable flat, but after September 8 would be classified as Not-Flat-Machinable (NFM). Without making changes to the characteristics of the flat, postage could increase by as much as 40%.
Changing the characteristics of the mailpiece to continue meeting the flexibility requirements could involve adding pages, using heavier basis weight paper (cover and/or body pages), adding an insert or card, or any number of other ideas. In other words, there are so many variables in the design and production of a catalog or publication that it’s very difficult to determine how to become compliant. But it is very obvious that whatever approach you take, it will involve additional cost.
These concerns were made clear by the mailing industry in comments to the Federal Register Notice containing the proposed changes in March. Paying more in postage or paying more in production costs is not a viable option and should not be the position that the Postal Service puts their customers in at a time when mail volumes continue to decline.
I applaud the Postal Service for once again delaying the implementation of the proposed changes to deflection standards at the request of mailers. This time it was announced that the new date will be January 4, 2010. We can all use that time to do whatever possible to meet the requirements. However, I think we should also use that time to further discuss the situation with the Postal Service. Is there something that can be done to alleviate the problem for the USPS without disrupting the mailing plans and budgets of catalogers and publishers? It’s worth talking about.
|
|
|||
| ©2010 Quad/Graphics, Inc. | | | Site Map | | | Supplier Information | | | Paper Marketplace | Client Smartools | | | QwikLinks | | | Employee Login | | | Contact Quad/Graphics | | | 888.782.3226 | |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
1 Comment
With the ever increasing postage rates to content with the last thing needed is for mailers to face paying more to produce our publication to satisfy USPS requirements.In todays digital society where we are continually moving away from printed matter this is just another example of the USPS being their own worst enemy.