The Pro-Junk Mail Lobby: Fighting to Sustain the Unsustainable?

by Anne Landman — April 9, 2008 - 4:31pm
  • Topics: Advertising, Corporate Campaigns, Front Groups, Third Party Technique, Corporations, Environment, Ethics, Marketing
    • Share/Save Share this

    Junk MailJunk mail kills trees, clogs mailboxes, packs landfills, wastes natural resources, and everyone would be glad to be rid of it. Right?

    Well, maybe not.

    Whether out of environmental concern or sheer annoyance, legislated efforts to reduce junk mail are on the rise, but companies that have vested interests in its continuance have started organizing to save it--in a big way. Of course, they don't call it junk mail. Their preferred euphemisms are "advertising mail," "direct mail" or even "standard mail."

    Industry Ramps Up Efforts to Preserve Junk Mail

    A little-noticed, April 2008 press release from an organization called the National Association of Printing Leadership (NAPL) announced that it had awarded its 2008 "Technical Leadership Award" to Benjamin Y. Cooper for his work as "a dedicated champion and eloquent spokesman for the print media." Sounds innocent enough, but who exactly is Cooper, and what did he do to merit this award?

    Cooper is a principal in the Washington, D.C.-based lobbying firm Williams & Jensen, who for almost three decades has been the chief lobbyist for the U.S. printing industry. He also heads Mail Moves America (MMA), a pro-junk mail front group that works to prevent the passage of "Do Not Mail" laws that would give consumers a way to opt out of receiving junk mail, similar to the way "Do Not Call" lists have helped people end unwanted telemarketing calls. Formed in 2007, MMA is the creation of the Direct Marketing Association (DMA), a trade association for companies and industries that profit from the creation and sending of junk mail, like printers, advertisers, paper manufacturers and paper catalogue retailers.

    On its web site, MMA says "Do Not Mail" laws would be "bad public policy." It dismisses the accusation that junk mail destroys trees as "a myth," saying simply, "Direct mail is not trees, it is printed communication." In a July 10, 2007 press release, DMA President & CEO John A. Greco, Jr. called state bills to set up "Do Not Mail" lists "misguided legislation" that is "being driven by environmental, privacy, and consumer groups who often distort the facts in their efforts to eliminate advertising mail to consumers." Greco said MMA responds aggressively to Do Not Mail list initiatives with "convincing information about the consumer benefits of advertising mail."

    U.S. Postal Service: Using Third Party Technique to Preserve Junk Mail?

    The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) is another player with a vested interest in the junk mail issue. It derives a substantial portion of its revenues from bulk mailers, so giving people the ability to opt out from receiving junk mail would threaten its budget. The Postal Service is prohibited from lobbying Congress on its own behalf, so it cannot directly oppose “Do Not Mail” legislation. According to the Washington Post, however, the USPS is "working closely with the Direct Marketing Association ... in its new campaign -- Mail Moves America -- which is designed to quash the Do Not Mail initiatives." Thus, even our trusted post office is not beyond using the third party technique to achieve a business goal.

    A related pro junk-mail effort is a new web site called IP Moves the Mail, started by the International Paper Company. International Paper is a multinational corporation with offices around the world, and as a paper manufacturer, it stands to lose business if laws are enacted that reduce the quantity of paper being dropped into mailboxes. "IP Moves the Mail" therefore facilitates pro-junk mail activism, urging visitors to contact their legislators and oppose passage of "Do Not Mail" bills.

    Most people don't like the mounting number of unsolicited ads that arrive in their mail and would be happy to have a way to be rid of them. In a world of diminishing resources, junk mail consumes tremendous amounts of dwindling resources, most of which ends up as trash. At a time when people are increasingly using electronic communication, is it right or sensible to give credence to a fight to preserve what might be an anachronistic industry whose time might be naturally winding down anyway? Would it be so bad to create a way for only those consumers who want paper junk mail to be the ones to receive it? Despite the junk mail industry's "sky-is-falling" attitude, legislation allowing consumers to block unwanted mail probably wouldn't end the world. "Do Not Mail" bills, in addition to saving increasingly precious natural resources, just might give people some peace until advertisers start finding more ingenious and less harmful ways to put their ads under our noses.

    Comments

    Comment viewing options

    Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

    Unwanted Mail

    Submitted by bill smith (not verified) on April 28, 2012 - 7:37am.

    The idea of ending "junk mail" is more complicated than one thinks. First of all, one has to define "junk mail." Are we talking about all third class mail? Secondly, perhaps you hate 99% of your third class mail, but you enjoy your Pottery Barn monthly catalog or some other catalog. Well, if you want to ban all third class mail, you may actually miss those few catalogs, or whatever, you actually like. On the other hand, if all of this massive, impersonal, not asked for mail was abolished, perhaps the senders would be forced to target their addressees better. Send people things they actually might be interested in. This is why the best solution may be the one where an addressee actually picks and chooses the bulk mail they don't want. Also, if I'm not mistaken, one can refuse any mailpiece. If one put a note on their mailbox, "First and Second Class Mail Only," the mail carrier would not deliver the third class mail and the like.

    Keeping aside emotional questions of wasting resources

    Submitted by Franking Machine (not verified) on July 29, 2010 - 2:43am.

    I can't claim my side to be completely one sided. I do agree with you that the extreme of junk mail has increased and paper including other resources are being wasted. But at the same time, we can't make rational decisions or question the legislation and organization playing hand in hand with such an issue. Keep in mind that the economy is interdependent and that businesses too dependent on each other to gross business and make money. If these junk mails weren't circulated I don't think postal services would exist and considering the mess it is in. It can only support such junk mail as businesses pay them for these circulation. Now I don't think you speak on behalf of the entire U.S population because there are people who appreciate junk mail. After all even if they are being circulated, they eventually are recycled too so where does the waste lie?

    Junk Mail/Do Not Mail List

    Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on July 16, 2009 - 4:10pm.

    The biggest culprits in the junk mail deluge are "non-profit" organizations flooding the system with innumerable tons of Seminar, Training and Continuing Education solicitations. I have had an on-going battle for over 2 years with these organizations, requesting they forward their brochures to our HR Dept. only, advising them of employees who are no longer with the company, duplication of employee names, etc. to no avail. It's quite obvious that the more junk they distribute, the more money they receive to keep their so-called non-profit organization going. There most certainly should be a law. Where do I sign up?

    JOBS JOBS JOBS

    Submitted by postalcarrier2004 on June 28, 2008 - 4:17pm.

    jobs loss with the do not mail list
    logging jobs
    trucking jobs
    printing jobs
    postal jobs
    carrier jobs
    just because you cant take your mail and put it in a recycling bin. lazy azz people. are you paying to send these ads. yeah probably with the products you get but if you don't get the ads through the mail they will find another way to get it to you. to the person who says her box was plum full. one i seriously doubt that and two if it is full then get a bigger box cause i know that wouldnt be full.

    Junk Mail

    Submitted by mountain spirit on April 16, 2008 - 3:44pm.

    If you want to stop your junk mail, do it. The corporate big wigs who are making money by making your life miserable only succeed at this because we don't stop it. Don't wait for "a bill to pass" or whatever, get on your phone and call the companies who fill your mailbox. It took almost two years but I finally stopped all incoming "junk mail". And yes, without question it was the most mindless, frustrating endeavor, but I had enough. (It was the morning I went out to my mail box and couldn't open it because of all the "junk mail" that set me on the war-path with junk mailers.

    Consumers have to know that no one is going to stop your junk mail; if you want it done, do it yourself. Each and every shred of paper that came to my house, I'd call the company and demand that they take me off their mailing list as well as any list they "rent or sell". Unfortunately this does not stop it immediately - they take your name off and continue to send mail to "or current resident". Call again. It will stop. You may have to call once or twice "to remind them", but stay on it and you will be junk free.

    I can't tell you how wonderful it is to have an empty mailbox. Not one shred of unwanted mail comes to my house or "current resident".

    People (or companies) only have the power we give them. Take the power back and send them on their way ...

    It took almost two years but

    Submitted by Rezzie Dannt on May 5, 2008 - 8:09am.

    Consumers have to know that no one is going to stop your junk mail; if you want it done, do it yourself... Take the power back and send them on their way ...

    Why must "doing it yourself" and "taking back the power" entail the laborious process of contacting junk mailers one by one? In my mind, a more efficient and meaningful way for people to take responsibility and reclaim power involves petitioning the government to defend the individual's right to be left alone.

    It took almost two years but I finally stopped all incoming "junk mail". And yes, without question it was the most mindless, frustrating endeavor, but I had enough.

    This is precisely why legislation is necessary. As you say, it took TWO YEARS of effort and frustration before you stopped receiving junk mail. Do you really believe folks should have to exert that kind of effort to stop something they never wanted in the first place? Don't you think that's an unreasonable burden to place on hundreds of millions of people?

    In addition to opting out of mailing lists, I think it's important for people to consider the big picture, to band together and petition Congress for a national Do Not Mail registry. That's why I'm organizing a synchronized protest that involves sending thousands of boxes of junk mail to Congress. I hope some of the folks here will consider participating.

    Rezzie Dannt
    [http://www.junkmailrevolt.org Junk Mail Revolt] (Launches May 12, 2008)

    Washington Post & Int Paper Letter

    Submitted by Suzy Shure on April 16, 2008 - 10:07am.

    Int Paper letter at www.itmovesthemail.com

    here's the WashPost...
    washingtonpost.com
    Correction to This Article
    Earlier versio nof the article misstated the number of people who signed an online petition created by ForestEthics. It was 28,900, not 289,000.

    Efforts to Block Junk Mail Slowed
    Postal Service Argues Against Registries to State Lawmakers

    By Lyndsey Layton
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Wednesday, March 19, 2008; A13

    Chris Pearson, a state legislator in Vermont, had a sense that the people were with him when he proposed a bill last November to allow residents to block junk mail. He got media attention, radio interview requests and e-mails from constituents eager to stop the credit card offers, furniture catalogues and store fliers that increasingly clog their mailboxes.

    Then came the pushback from the postmasters, who told Pearson and other lawmakers that "standard" mail, the post office's name for junk mail, has become the lifeblood of the U.S. Postal Service and that jobs depend on it.

    "The post office and the business groups are pretty well-organized," said Pearson, whose bill remains in a committee and has not been scheduled for a vote.

    Barred by law from lobbying, the Postal Service is nonetheless trying to make its case before a growing number of state legislatures that are weighing bills to create Do Not Mail registries, which are similar to the popular National Do Not Call Registry.

    The agency has printed 3,000 "information packets" about the economic value of standard mail, with specific data for each of the 18 states that have considered a Do Not Mail Registry. It has dispatched postmasters to testify before legislative committees around the country.

    "The Postal Service has come in and clobbered legislators," said Todd Paglia, executive director of ForestEthics, an environmental group that has collected 289,000 signatures on an online petition to Congress that calls for a National Do Not Mail Registry. "It's really a people-versus-special interest kind of battle."

    The Postal Service is working closely with the Direct Marketing Association, the trade group that represents retailers and the printing industry, in its new campaign -- Mail Moves America -- which is designed to quash the Do Not Mail initiatives.

    So far, their efforts appear effective. None of the states where Do Not Mail legislation has been introduced since 2007 has approved a law. And no similar legislation is pending in Congress.

    Sean Sheehan of the Center for a New American Dream, a progressive group based in Takoma Park, said state efforts may precede national action, just as they did with the Do Not Call Registry.

    "Federal legislators are more sensitive to the heavy lobbying of the paper industry, as well as the impact on the postal service, whereas a lot of state legislators are really more in tune with local needs," Sheehan said. "It's local governments that have to pay millions to truck that trash out to landfills."

    So far in the 2008 campaign cycle, the Direct Marketing Association has made $141,877 in contributions to federal candidates, including $6,610 to Sen. Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.), who chairs the subcommittee that oversees the Postal Service and does not face reelection until 2012.

    Perhaps surprisingly, environmental groups -- whose members say they are concerned about junk mail -- are cool to the idea of a registry that prohibits marketers from sending mail to those enrolled and that fines violators. One reason may be that most environmental groups are themselves junk mailers. They use standard mail for their solicitation letters.

    A national registry "would affect anybody who mails," said Laura Hickey, senior director of global warming education at the National Wildlife Foundation, which belongs to the Direct Marketing Association. "I don't think it would be any different whether you were for-profit or nonprofit.'' As an alternative, the National Wildlife Foundation, the Natural Resources Defense Council and other groups have created Catalogue Choice, a program that asks retailers to voluntarily stop sending catalogues to anyone who signs up for the free online service at http://www.catalogchoice.org.

    "If people participate in a voluntary system, then I don't see the need for a legislative strategy," Hickey said. When Catalogue Choice was launched in October, the foundation expected about 150,000 people to sign up in the first year. Six months into the project, more than 642,000 people have joined. "It obviously filled a void," Hickey said.

    Still, it is unclear how many marketers are voluntarily heeding requests to stop mailing.

    The Direct Marketing Association operates its own registry ( http://www.dmachoice.org) and in an e-mail sent last November, instructed its members to ignore Catalogue Choice.

    Postal officials say they are aware of the environmental concerns related to junk mail. In testimony on Capitol Hill last week, Postmaster General John E. Potter told lawmakers that the Postal Service has one answer: Recycling bins positioned beneath personal mailboxes at post offices, to catch junk mail as it tumbles out.

    © 2008 The Washington Post Company

    Fascinating to see how Pitney & co are trying to spin this.
    We WILL get a Do Not Mail Registry!!!!!

    Response

    Submitted by Anne Landman on April 10, 2008 - 1:25pm.

    I have observed that DMA's do-not-mail list is poorly promoted and difficult for consumers to find and access, particularly for people without an Internet connection. A government-sponsored "Do Not Mail" list could receive greater promotion resulting in greater awareness and use.

    I would also argue that globally, the amount of tree farming now occurring has not made up for the amount of deforestation that has already occurred, and is ongoing.

    As for the statement that mail in general has benefits, well of course that is the case. You are construing annoyance with junk mail as annoyance at mail in general. While junk mail probably constitutes the greater part of the mail in general these day (thus making mail in general fairly annoying), people still do need and like postal mail for real needs, like delivery of items (purchased on EBay!;)), staying in contact with family and friends, paying bills, etc.

    But finally, having choice is part of the freedom this country stands for (or at least that it used to stand for). For an industry to work to block people from having more choices about how to regulate their mail is onerous, to say the least. We can buy spam blockers to keep our electronic in-boxes from getting cluttered with unwanted ads. Why shouldn't we be able to choose to block unwanted mail from our snail-mailboxes?

    By the way, I asked my own mail man (who shall remain anonymous) about his feelings about junk mail in general. He told me he takes all the postage-paid cards he gets in the junk mail that he receives personally, and just mails them back to the senders blank, to cost companies money and keep himself in a job. In a time of increasing energy prices, rising costs of transportation, printing, paper, etc., this just all seems to be an endless and ridiculously embarrassing waste. I would like to think we can do better.
    Anne Landman

    Junk mail has benefits too! Really. No, we're serious.

    Submitted by junkmailgalaxy on April 11, 2008 - 2:42pm.

    Anne, if you received a 30% off coupon for your favorite restaurant or a letter offering a free stay at a fancy new hotel, would you throw that stuff away? Some solicitors are a bit behind the times, admittedly, but there are many mailers that understand the financial crisis the USA faces. Those companies are indeed cutting back on mail campaigns and are learning to actually offer something to their "target" audiences, whose pockets may be a bit more... well... roomy these days.

    The DMA UK's "Participation Media 2007" report (sponsored by Experian)revealed in their study that "responses to direct mail were almost twice as positive in reality than first perceived." 1,700 people in the UK were interviewed for this study. Okay, so that's the UK. Still, do you think you may be leaning a bit too heavily on your own perceptions of direct mail? Do the majority of people here in the USA necessarily care? Who knows. We just think there are potentially better things to legislate. A government-sponsored "Do Not Mail" list = taxes.

    Lastly, the DMA's Mail Preference Service (www.dmachoice.org/MPS/) shows up as #3 in a google search for "do not mail." Seems pretty easy to find actually.

    Mike & Nathan
    Junk Mail Galaxy
    http://junkmailgalaxy.tv
    twitter.com/junkmailgalaxy
    myspace.com/junkmailgalaxy

    if you received a 30% off

    Submitted by Rezzie Dannt on May 5, 2008 - 6:24am.

    Junk mail has benefits too! Really. No, we're serious.

    Yes, but do the benefits outweigh the costs? That's the question. For the overwhelming majority of us, the answer is a resounding "NO."

    if you received a 30% off coupon for your favorite restaurant or a letter offering a free stay at a fancy new hotel, would you throw that stuff away?

    If I received a 30% off coupon to my favorite restaurant, I might use it. However, that doesn't mean my preference is to receive coupons in the mail. Junk mailers often use the twisted logic that because people sometimes respond to a junk mail offer (e.g. use a coupon), that means they like receiving junk mail. That's simply not true. If a homeless man asks me for money, I might give him some. That doesn't mean I like being approached by panhandlers.

    The problem is that folks like me receive hundreds of pieces of junk mail that we're NOT interested in for every one piece that we are interested in. If I received a 30% off coupon to my favorite restaurant, I might use it. But it hardly compensates for the hundreds and hundreds of offers that were of no interest whatsoever.

    Do the majority of people here in the USA necessarily care? Who knows.

    The majority of people don't like junk mail. I know it and I'm pretty sure you know it, too. That's why junk mailers are fighting so hard to squash the legislation that's sprouting up all over the country. If they didn't think the masses would swarm to use a Do Not Mail registry, junk mailers wouldn't be so against it, would they?

    By the way, the polls confirm what most of us already know - junk mail is hugely unpopular. According to a 2007 Zogby poll, 89% of us dislike junk mail and would actively use an option such as a Do Not Mail registry.

    A government-sponsored "Do Not Mail" list = taxes.

    That's patently false. As with the Do Not Call registry, any legislation would be fully funded by marketers who purchase the list. If anything, a Do Not Mail registry should lower taxes because we'll be paying less in waste removal and recycling costs. (Not to mention all the other hidden expenses the junk mail industry dumps on the public.)

    Rezzie Dannt
    [http://www.junkmailrevolt.org Junk Mail Revolt] (Launches May 12, 2008)