U.S.P.S. ad costs may have been misreported

**FILE** In this photo from May 11, 2009, a letter is mailed from a post office in Palo Alto, Calif. (Associated Press)

Story Topics

• Business_Finance
• U.S. Postal Service
• Postal Rate Commission
• John E. Potter

Follow Us On

Facebook

Follow @washtimes

Question of the Day

Will a GOP presidential candidate have enough delegates secured before the national convention?

• Yes
• No
• Undecided
• Other

Login to Vote

View results

Made popular by the “If it fits, it ships” slogan in television ads, the Priority Mail initiative is seen as a bright spot during otherwise tough economic times for the U.S. Postal Service, where multibillion-dollar deficits and declining mail volume have officials moving to cut a day of delivery.

But questions have surfaced about whether the campaign is as profitable as it seems.

Two recent reviews by the Postal Service’s office of inspector general have raised concerns about whether postal officials understated advertising costs to promote Priority Mail. The reduced ad expenses could make Priority Mail appear more successful in reports submitted to postal regulators and, in turn, to the public.

Although no money was lost, the inspector general views the cost reporting as important to ensure the Postal Service doesn’t gain an unfair advantage over competitors and that costs for other products don’t become overpriced.

The inspector general estimated in a recent audit that about $75 million in advertising costs involving Priority Mail and other competitive products were misstated from fiscal 2008 to fiscal 2010. Overall advertising costs for the Postal Service in fiscal 2009 totaled $104.2 million.

“The Postal Service did not accurately report advertising costs to the [Postal Regulatory Commission],” the audit concluded. “Specifically, the Postal Service understated priority mail advertising costs, which made the product appear to be more profitable.”

At issue is how the Postal Service split advertising expenses. For every dollar spent to promote Priority Mail, postal managers reported spending 70 cents on Priority Mail while reporting the other 30 cents as “institutional” advertising to promote the overall postal brand, records show.

But the inspector general found that the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 required managers to allocate all ad costs directly to the product, though not all postal executives agree. Postal officials declined to comment Tuesday, but stood by a written response submitted to the inspector general.

In the response, Joseph Corbett, chief financial officer for the Postal Service, and Joyce Carrier, manager of advertising and media planning, acknowledged “some misallocation of costs” but said nothing was afoot to conceal information.

“Again, the Postal Service does not disagree that there was some misallocation of costs, and certainly we want our products to be successful, but we had no motivation to falsely allocate costs to create the appearance of success,” Mr. Corbett and Ms. Carrier wrote.

In addition, the officials took issue with the conclusion that $75 million in costs were misstated, saying auditors arrived at the figure by tallying dollars twice: adding up the understated and overstated amounts.

Postal officials also said they had written to the chairman of the Postal Regulatory Commission, Ruth Y. Goldway, to apprise her of the inspector general’s finding, which included a revised calculation of Priority Mail’s costs. The officials also said new advertising cost reporting guidelines are expected by Sept. 30.

The advertising cost issue also surfaced earlier this summer when the inspector general released a report of contracting activities involving a former marketing chief. During its investigation, the inspector general found that the Postal Service’s media, planning and advertising unit “inappropriately attributed advertising expenses and erroneously reported other expenses to the Postal Service Finance Office.”

In a private interview with the inspector general’s office, Postmaster General John E. Potter told investigators that the ad issue is “ripe for debate around the company.”

“He said that the recent flat rate box television commercials have increased profits for other products and helped the postal brand,” investigators later wrote in a memo summarizing their Feb. 6 interview with Mr. Potter, which The Washington Times obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.

Story Continues →

© Copyright 2012 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.