A Proposal for Carefirst BCBS

Dear Carefirst Blue Cross Blue Shield,

I have a money-saving tip for you.

I’ve gotten 11 allergy shots in the past month and you’ve sent me 11 two-page Explanation of Benefits statements by mail. I’m sure my mailman is tired of delivering them and it annoys me that I now have 22 sheets of paper to file. And considering my insurance premium went up 14% this year, it really annoys me that you spent $4.62 in postage to mail all these individual statements. Why don’t you just send monthly monthy statements like everyone else in the world?

Let’s see, if you could have condensed those 11 individual statements into 6 sheets of paper–you could have cut paper costs by 73% and saved at least $3.78 in postage.

Even in the months I just get weekly shots (which is most of the time), you could save 50% on paper and spend 42 cents instead of $1.68 on postage.

I know it doesn’t sound like much, but given that you have 3.1 million members, if even 10% of those get weekly allergy shots like I do you could save $5.2 million a month on postage alone and save thousands of trees.

In fact, maybe you’d save enough to lower my premium or at least increase my prescription drug limit–which hasn’t increased at all in the past 3 years although prescription drug prices have risen more than 20%.

I’m just saying it’s something you should think about.

Share on Twitter

If You Liked This, You May Like:

  • No Related Posts

WSJ & Forbes’ Pathetic Attempts at Marketing to Women

Here we go again. B2B magazine reported recently that both the Wall Street Journal and Forbes have started separate content sites/publications for women. WSJ’s is just a section of its online site called Journal Women but Forbes is launching a quarterly ForbesLife Executive Women (FLEW) magazine and online section.

I have to say, I find this kind of offensive. It’s almost like a “separate but equal” thing–we’ll give you your own little section since women execs and women’s “issues” so rarely make news worthy of our “regular” publication.

Issues like balance, of course. But isn’t that perpetuating the stereotype that “juggling” work and home should be a woman’s issue?  Instead of one for both parents?

Or clothing. On the current FLEW page, five of the features are about fashion. Please. The only reason Forbes launched this magazine is to attract high-end luxury advertisers they weren’t getting in the flagship magazine, which only has a 30% female subscriber rate. And everyone knows the high-end advertising market is less affected by a slow economy.

Don’t get me wrong–I have nothing against creating a magazine aimed at women (or men). Aside from the horrible name, I’m a big fan of Pink magazine. It’s the approach here of segregating out women’s sections like they’re just trying to throw us a bone or something.

I guess we should be thankful that at least they aren’t charging us more (yet) like the dry cleaners do?

Share on Twitter

If You Liked This, You May Like:

When Will Email Marketing Get with the Times?

  • 64% of key decision makers are viewing your carefully crafted email on their BlackBerrys and other mobile devices, according to new data.
  • 39% of handheld email users are less likely to read commercial email such as newsletters and promotions on a mobile device. That’s about 2.3 out of five users.
  • 69% of at-work email users usually view emails in their preview panes (which does not download images).

Several email marketing experts I’ve seen lately are standing by their claim that that html emails are still the way to go (versus text). They say forget the mobile users–they’re just a small percentage of readers. And many programs let the subscriber choose html or text anyway. So what’s the point?

The point is the number of mobile users in your target market may not be so small (see above). Also, you usually have to actually go into subscriber settings to choose text because html is the default. Plus I admit, I prefer html when I’m on my desktop even without the images. But then I end up with an html version I can’t read on my crackberry. [Read more...]

Share on Twitter

If You Liked This, You May Like:

Bogus “Scientific Advances” That Will Cost You

If there is one industry I hate, it’s pharmaceuticals. I know, its an expensive business–developing drugs that may or may not actually ever see the light of pharmacist’s shelves. And the drugs themselves can sometimes do a lot of good. But I have trouble feeling sympathy for pharma management crying over declining earnings when the industry consistently ranks among the most profitable, thanks to their various shenanigans that keep raising the cost of health care for everyone.

This time its Glaxo in the news, for trying do an end-run around expiring patent protection by modifying the drugs slightly and launching new branded versions. According to today’s WSJ article “Glaxo Becomes a Master at Reinventing Drugs,” Glaxo says these modified drugs, aka product-line extensions, “represent real scientific advances and offer new benefits to patients.” CEO Jean-Pierre Garnier tells the paper “‘If you have a line extension that can significantly aim to improve the quality of treatment for patients, you should do it.’”

So what’s the big quality-of-life advancement for the new drug being discussed? [Read more...]

Share on Twitter

If You Liked This, You May Like:

  • No Related Posts

Marketing Means Nothing

When you tick off your customers. I was all prepared to write another post this morning before I ran over to the vet. While there, a woman came in cradling a trembling border collie. She said she had found the dog loose without a collar while out walking and was trying to find her owner. Someone had recently shaved one of the dog’s paws, so she was contacting all the vets in the area.

[Read more...]

Share on Twitter

If You Liked This, You May Like:

They’re Bringing Sexy Back

Our first Get a Clue! posting goes to Victoria’s Secret, who made news this week when a stock analyst asked CEO Sharon Jester Turney whether the company will be hurt by Abercrombie & Fitch’s new, more wholesole lingerie store since VS has gained more of a “tawdry image and a somewhat bordello feeling in store.” Turney essentially replied that their parent company (Limited Brands) has taken notice and wants to return VS to “a higher taste level.” She also said that she feels restoring some of the feminity and “sophistication” would help them become “more relevant to their customers” and bolster falling sales.

You think? What took them so long? I’ll admit I’ve never been a big VS fan because a few purchases I made back in college didn’t seem to be well made and certainly weren’t comfortable to wear. But I knew plenty of people who shopped there. [Read more...]

Share on Twitter

If You Liked This, You May Like:

  • No Related Posts