To What Extent Has E-Substitution Impacted the Demand for Letters and Which Factors Are Constraining Its Advance

  • Catherine Cazals
  • Thierry Magnac
  • Frank Rodriguez
  • Soterios SoteriEmail author
Part of the Topics in Regulatory Economics and Policy book series (TREP)


The demand for letters is in decline because of electronic (e)-substitution. However, there is limited published information on the detail and extent to which the cumulative impact of e-substitution has reduced letter volumes. This chapter provides estimates of the degree to which e-substitution has reduced the demand for B2C business letters in the UK overall and by content type, sender group and age group of recipients. Volumes for such traffic in 2016 are estimated to have been about 40% of the level they would have reached if there had been no e-substitution and the extent to which it has taken place has been highly uneven across different segments of business mail. ANOVA estimates suggest that of the factors examined to account for differences in e-substitution the age of recipients was by far the most important and in a distant second place was the interaction of content-sender factors.


  1. Andersson, P., Bengtsson, S., & Eriksson, J. (2018). The Danish problem—Soon everybody’s? An analysis of different effects of digitalization on postal services in Denmark and Sweden. In P. L. Parcu, T. J. Brennan, & V. Glass (Eds.), New business and regulatory strategies in the postal sector. Basel: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2010). Microeconometrics using stata (Vol. 2). College Station, TX: Stata Press.Google Scholar
  3. Cigno, M. M., Clendenin, K. K., & Pearsall, E. S. (2014). Are US postal price elasticities changing? In M. A. Crew & T. J. Brennan (Eds.), The role of the postal and delivery sector in a digital age. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  4. Gourieroux, C., Monfort, A., & Trognon, A. (1985). Moindres Carres Asymptotiques. Annales de l’INSEE, 58, 91–121.Google Scholar
  5. Jarosik, M., Nankervis, J., Pope, J., Soteri, S., & Veruete-McKay, L. (2013). Letter traffic demand in the UK: Some new evidence and review of econometric analysis over the past decade. In M. A. Crew & P. R. Kleindorfer (Eds.), Reforming the postal sector in the face of electronic competition. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  6. Nikali, H. (2008). Substitution of letter mail for different sender-receiver segments. In M. A. Crew & P. R. Kleindorfer (Eds.), Competition and regulation in the postal and delivery sector. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  7. Nikali, H. (2014). Character of substitution and its significance for letter demand, case Finland. In M. Finger, B. Bukovc, & M. Burham (Eds.), Postal services in a digital age. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Ios Press.Google Scholar
  8. Office of Inspector General, United States Postal Service. (2018a). A new reality: Correspondence mail in the digital age. Report Number RARC-WP-18-004, March 5, 2018.Google Scholar
  9. Office of Inspector General, United States Postal Service. (2018b). Transactional mail: Implications for the postal service. Report Number RARC-WP-18-007, April 16 2018.Google Scholar
  10. Rodriguez, F., & Soteri, S. (2018). Some further results from the UK on the impact of e-substitution on the demand for mail. Retrieved from
  11. Rodriguez, F., Soteri, S., & Tobias, S. (2016). The impact of e-substitution on the demand for mail: Some results from the UK. Retrieved from
  12. Rodriguez, F., Soteri, S., & Tobias, S. (2017). E-substitution and the demand for business mail in the UK: Trends and prospects. In M. A. Crew, P. L. Parcu, & T. J. Brennan (Eds.), The changing postal and delivery sector. Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Veruete-McKay, L., Soteri, S., Nankervis, J., & Rodriguez, F. (2011). Letter traffic demand in the UK: An analysis by product and envelope content type. Review of Network Economics, 10(3), 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Catherine Cazals
    • 1
  • Thierry Magnac
    • 1
  • Frank Rodriguez
    • 2
  • Soterios Soteri
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Toulouse School of Economics, University of ToulouseToulouseFrance
  2. 2.Oxera Consulting LLPOxfordUK
  3. 3.Royal Mail GroupLondonUK

Personalised recommendations