Open market intelligence
Direct Mail Opportunity Atlas
Choose an audience. Compare where it is concentrated. Build a mailing test around your service area and budget, with transparent sources and assumptions at every step.
243 markets
Comparable Census places, with audience estimates and uncertainty.
5 audience views
Compare reach with concentration, against state and national estimates.
A plan you can share
Model cost, repeat mailings and the sales needed to break even.
Explore the data
Find the markets that fit your audience. Shortlist up to three, compare their local evidence, and carry a market into your plan.
01 / Choose an audience
Exterior maintenance, remodeling and home-service research. Compare total audience size with its share of owner-occupied homes. Separate audiences overlap and cannot be added or multiplied into a combined segment.
243 markets · 0/3 selected for comparison
| Compare | Market | Audience estimate | Audience share | State share | Plan |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| New York, NY | 896,334±7,975 MOE | 82.0% | 74.2% | ||
| Chicago, IL | 420,432±5,289 MOE | 78.7% | 61.9% | ||
| Los Angeles, CA | 407,386±4,406 MOE | 78.6% | 55.3% | ||
| Philadelphia, PA | 312,819±5,106 MOE | 88.9% | 65.2% | ||
| Houston, TX | 218,312±3,957 MOE | 55.8% | 32.3% | ||
| Phoenix, AZ | 156,438±3,033 MOE | 44.7% | 27.9% | ||
| Dallas, TX | 144,652±3,097 MOE | 63.8% | 32.3% | ||
| San Diego, CA | 142,611±2,710 MOE | 56.8% | 55.3% | ||
| San Antonio, TX | 135,804±3,015 MOE | 46.9% | 32.3% | ||
| San Jose, CA | 124,510±2,157 MOE | 67.9% | 55.3% | ||
| Detroit, MI | 122,726±2,737 MOE | 94.5% | 61.1% | ||
| Indianapolis, IN | 121,111±2,741 MOE | 59.6% | 53.9% | ||
| San Francisco, CA | 110,816±2,236 MOE | 79.7% | 55.3% | ||
| Portland, OR | 110,044±2,452 MOE | 73.0% | 50.1% | ||
| Washington, DC | 108,967±2,519 MOE | 80.9% | 80.9% | ||
| Seattle, WA | 106,525±2,277 MOE | 67.0% | 44.3% | ||
| Baltimore, MD | 106,424±2,416 MOE | 87.6% | 49.2% | ||
| Denver, CO | 104,631±2,361 MOE | 64.0% | 38.9% | ||
| Louisville, KY | 99,396±2,511 MOE | 61.9% | 45.1% | ||
| Columbus, OH | 90,813±2,192 MOE | 52.7% | 61.9% | ||
| Milwaukee, WI | 87,587±2,103 MOE | 90.1% | 57.3% | ||
| Jacksonville, FL | 85,833±2,372 MOE | 37.8% | 32.2% | ||
| Memphis, TN | 80,901±2,319 MOE | 71.2% | 38.2% | ||
| Boston, MA | 79,171±2,313 MOE | 78.3% | 66.0% | ||
| Kansas City, MO | 78,759±2,157 MOE | 64.1% | 50.2% |
2024 ACS five-year estimates (2020–2024); 90% margins of error. Shares use owner-occupied homes. Survey estimates describe Census places, not deliverable addresses or response forecasts.
02 / Understand the market
A closer look at Cincinnati
Home services / Cincinnati
49,994
Estimated owner-occupied homes built before 1980
90% margin of error ±1,684 · ACS 2020–2024
Share of owner-occupied homes. Local margin ±3.9 percentage points. Local estimate is 25.1 points above the state estimate. Differences are descriptive, not tests of statistical significance.
Source and variable table: B25036A practical test to consider
Compare an addressed owner/property list with complete-route coverage. Verify property age and ownership on the actual list before printing.
Useful for researching: Exterior maintenance, remodeling and home-service research.
Cincinnati is #26 of 243 Atlas places by this audience’s share. A high concentration and a large total audience are different planning choices.
What the data cannot tell you
Built before 1980 does not establish condition, a repair need or intent to buy.
03 / Build a test
What would your first mailing look like?
Plan a mailing for Cincinnati, OH. Compare formats, decide how often to mail, and work backward from your economics. Save the plan or send it with a quote request.
Eligible flats up to 3.3 oz; complete USPS routes, at least 200 pieces or 50 lb, up to 5,000 pieces per ZIP per day. No annual Marketing Mail permit fee. Postal rates effective July 12, 2026. View the rate source.
Costs and business assumptions
Print and list defaults are examples. Replace them with quotes. Add design, transport and permit fees where applicable. List costs here apply to every mailed piece, including repeat waves.
Contribution is revenue after the costs of fulfilling a sale, before mailing cost. The lead-to-sale percentage is your assumption. Repeat waves are repeated exposures, not additional unique households.
Your planning scenario
$510.00
1,000 pieces × 1 wave
Owners of older homes
The audience above is your research hypothesis. EDDM covers complete routes; it cannot isolate owners of older homes within a route. Verify route-level fit or compare an addressed list.
- Postage
- $260.00
- Print / production
- $200.00
- List / address hygiene
- $0.00
- Preparation / fulfillment
- $0.00
- One-time + per-wave costs
- $50.00
Break-even sales
6
0.60% of mailed pieces
Qualified leads required
24
At 25% lead-to-sale
Required results to cover this scenario’s cost; these are not predicted response rates. Confirm actual route or list counts and postal eligibility.
Compare all three formats
EDDM Retail flat
$510.00 · 1,000 pieces per wave · 6 break-even sales
Uses $0.20 production and $0.00 list cost per mailed piece; same waves and other costs. Eligibility differs.
Addressed card
$757.00 · 1,000 pieces per wave · 8 break-even sales
Uses $0.16 production and $0.08 list cost per mailed piece; same waves and other costs. Eligibility differs.
Addressed letter
$1,047.00 · 1,000 pieces per wave · 11 break-even sales
Uses $0.45 production and $0.08 list cost per mailed piece; same waves and other costs. Eligibility differs.
How to measure the test
Choose a campaign URL, phone extension or offer code. Record mailed quantity, qualified leads, attributed sales and contribution over a defined window. Compare against a similar unmailed area or group where practical; a scan or visit alone is not a sale.
Download the full research dataset
One geography
Comparable by design
Every row uses a Census place. Metro, county, ZIP, and city values are never blended, so comparisons describe the same kind of area.
State and national comparisons come from their own published ACS estimates. Audience size describes potential reach; concentration describes its share of a stated universe. Neither predicts response.