Real Simple: Zip Barcodes just dont work

[curt]

I have searched help system, the "knowledge" base, this Group.

I have a standard, off-the-shelf HP Desktop with pre-installed
OFFFICE-2003 (Basic Edition Office).

I have vanilla XP 2002 (SP2) (pre installed)

I can get zipcode delivery Point barcode work fine when I print one
envelope. (TOOLS/LETTERS/ENVELOPES etc.

But with Mail Merge - I have found it IMPOSSIBLE.

- I select a list of CONTACTS from OUTLOOK.,

- I select Mail Merge (WORD)

- I insert Address Block into my Envelope "template"

- The option to include Delivery Point Barcode is grayed out - not
available.


----------------------
Yes. my locale is set to USA English (default... I checked but did not
change anything)

I tried about a dozen variants of inserting the barcode field from the
Posts on this Group

Closest thing I got is "ZIP Code is Invalid" - but that is using techie
stuff that no normal user would ever try.

Is there some way to use Delivery Point Barcodes on the world's
simplest mail-merge to Envelopes or Labels. Why doesn't the d___ menu
work ! ?

T H A N K S for any help.
curt

 

[Peter Jamieson]

You've probably seen this stuff already it's in messages in this group,
but...

1. If you didn't read the following article already you should read it
before using USPS barcodes:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/897290/en-us

If that does not put you off using them...

In my experience, the DP Barcode option is now always disabled in the
Mailmerge envelope setup dialog in Word 2003, as you have noticed.

Yes, ensure that your locale is set to U.S. English in Regional options,
otherwise the barcode field will not work whatever you do. (If you are in
the U.S. this would typically be the default setting).

US POSTNET barcodes are constructed from two pieces of information which you
will need in your data source:
a. a number in a street address
b. a 9-digit ZIP code

The BARCODE field requires that the 9-digit ZIP is in 5-4 format (with the
hyphen).

In your label you typically need a BARCODE field that looks like:

{ BARCODE "{ MERGEFIELD "street address" }¶
{ MERGEFIELD Postcodefield }" \u }

The ¶ is just a normal paragraph mark that you will see if you press Enter
after { MERGEFIELD "street address" }
and click the ¶ symbol in Word's toolbar).

All the {} must be the special field code braces you can enter using
ctrl-F9.

The "street addrss" merge field should just contain the street address, not
the whole address with city, state, zip. Trying to use an ADDRESSBLOCK
instead of this mergefield almost certainly will not work. if you're merging
from Outlook Contacts, there should be a field with just this data (but find
and use the correct name).

The Postcodefield should just contain the ZIP code, nothing else. Find and
use the correct field name.

I just tried it again here to make sure it still works, and it does.

Peter Jamieson

 

[Doug Robbins - Word MVP]

One other thing when merging to labels. If the label is not big enough to
contain the barcode, Word will not even try.

--
Hope this helps.

Please reply to the newsgroup unless you wish to avail yourself of my
services on a paid consulting basis.

Doug Robbins - Word MVP

 

[curt]

Peter,

I am grateful for your help on this. But, I tried (and tried and
tried) the suggested solution. Just does not work. Best result I
could get was a consistent "Zip Code is Invalid"

---------------
But I stumbled on to this "solution"

1- I inserted an <<ADDRESS BLOCK>> merge field into my Envelope
document. (from Outlook Contacts)

2- I marked that Address Block and inserted a BOOKMARK, with a name.

3- I added a BARCODE field (using WORD's Insert/Field) like this:
BARCODE Addr \b
where Addr is the name I gave the bookmark.

4- I tried the MERGE TO DOCUMENT. Does not work - every envelope
instance comes up with "Zip Code is Invalid"

5-BUT... I tried MERGE TO PRINTER with exactly the same document --
that works ! ! ! ! ! ! (Yes thats right- merge to document fails,
merge to printer works)

None of this makes sense of course... yet another symptom of Microsoft
buggy software.

But it works !

It does 5 and 5+4 digit zip codes

----------------
I read through the USPS documents in your link. They say that Bulk
Discounts are available for "Delivery Point barcodes OR Zip+4
barcodes". The method above does Zip+4


Even without bulk discounts, It seems to me that including the ZIP+4
barcode reduces the chance of processing errors in the Post Office.

 

[Peter Jamieson]

Yes, pretty weird.

Even without bulk discounts, It seems to me that including the ZIP+4
barcode reduces the chance of processing errors in the Post Office.

I wondered about that, but without knowing the details of how the USPS
actually delivers mail, it's difficult to tell. For example, suppose as a
result of an incorrect barcoding your letter ends up being handled
automatically all the way to the destination because (for example) that
destination is a large organisation that receives a lot of mail. If that
could happen, would your mail ever be redirected properly?

Peter Jamieson

 

[curt]

I wondered about that, but without knowing the details of how the USPS
actually delivers mail, it's difficult to tell. For example, suppose as a
result of an incorrect barcoding your letter ends up being handled
automatically all the way to the destination because (for example) that
destination is a large organisation that receives a lot of mail. If that
could happen, would your mail ever be redirected properly?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The USPS Documentation seems to say that ZIP+4 barcodes (in addition to
"delivery point barcodes") are acceptable. That implies to me that
they are used if present.

A barcode that I apply has to be correct (if the zip is right). A USPS
machine operator reading addresses and manually adding barcodes to
envelopes has to be an error-prone process. I have received mail that
appears to have gone to the wrong place then finally re-routed back to
me -- and the barcode had been blacked-out as though it was wrong.

Anyway, I'm glad I found a solution even though its kinda ugly.

Thanks for your help -- even though I couldn't use your method, your
Posts are what pointed me in a direction that worked.

-curt