Sounds to me like it will work. You might be able to build a couple of
queries to help with the categorization. For example, you might be able to
identify the presidents or other titles and mark those. The rest will need
to be marked by hand. It's tedious but only needs to be done once and 6000
isn't too many rows to handle this way.
"Krodge" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:BD6EFCF5-1FBF-4F59-9FAE-(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hello,
>
> So I am a new user of access, and I'm trying to figure out how to make a
> mailing list table of 6,000 + records a little more sophisticated. The
> way
> it is basically set up right now is that all 6,000 people have fields for
> name, title, company, address, email, phone, etc. All the basic info you
> would want. Plus there is a field for "mailing id" Now, the way a mailing
> list is CURRENTLY being generated is as follows:
> Lets say you want to do a mailing of your 1,000 most important people.
> Someone has to go through by hand and add in a "mailer id" to those 1,000
> people and then run a query using your new "mailer id". Now, correct me
> if
> i'm wrong, but this seems crazy.
>
> The thing is, it's not like we sort through these names by state or
> anything
> like that. It's more like we decide about how many people we want to mail
> to, and then decide who those people will be based on how important they
> are
> (if they're a president of a company, if they're a big client, etc.).
>
> So, here's what I'm thinking. I'd like to know if this makes sense to all
> you access pros out there and welcome suggestions on how this type of
> mailing
> list should be set up. What I'd do is create a system where each person
> in
> the database gets a number from 1-4. Lets call it a field "importance".
> A 1
> is the most important people, and will receive all of our mailings. A 2
> is
> the next level and may or may not receive a mailing. A 3 rarely receives
> a
> mailing, but once in a blue moon we may want to send to them. A 4 pretty
> much never receives a mailing. From that point on, every time a new
> record
> is inserted they must be accompanied with a level of importance. Now, all
> we
> would have to do is run a query for our 1's, our 1's and 2's, etc etc.
>
> Please let me know if you have any suggestions, or comments on why or why
> not this is a good game plan.
>
> Thank you in advance for your help.
|