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.

    Do the majority of people

    Submitted by Mutternich on April 11, 2008 - 3:50pm.

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

    Your fellow flack "openminded" claims to know. S/he stated with godlike omniscience and no reference: "In fact 74% of Americans prefer their advertisements through the mail than any other medium."

    Junk mail with cents-off coupons for junk food? No, thank you. Is that fancy hotel offering the "free" stay near anyplace I'd want to go? How much would it cost me to get there?

    Taxes to run a government no-junkmail registry? I can think of far worse ways a lot more of my tax dollars are being spent right now.

    A couple of points to consider

    Submitted by Matt Broder on April 10, 2008 - 2:07pm.

    Ms. Landman --

    I guess we have a different interpretation of the word "choice." I argue that consumers already have choice -- the DMA website is one place to exercise mail preferences, but there are others if you don't find that one to your liking, including companies that will get you off mailing lists for a fee.

    On the forest question, the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations noted, in its 2007 State of the World's Forests report (ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/009/a0773e/a0773e00.pdf) that the world lost a total of 3% of its forest cover from 1990-2005, or an average of 0.2% per year. If you read the report, you will see that deforestation is a complex issue with many, many causes, and it is hard to draw a link between direct mail in the United States and this global phenomenon. The same UN report notes, by the way, that forest coverage in the US and Canada is stable.

    Does the mailing industry have environmental issues? Absolutely -- just like all other industries. We can and must do all we can to reduce our environmental footprint, and responsible companies across the sector are already engaged in that process for sound business reasons.

    Matt Broder
    Vice President, External Communications
    Pitney Bowes Inc.

    I argue that consumers

    Submitted by Rezzie Dannt on May 3, 2008 - 11:09am.

    I argue that consumers already have choice -- the DMA website is one place to exercise mail preferences

    Mr. Broder,

    It's time we stop pretending that the DMA's mail preference service is a comprehensive cure-all for unwanted junk mail. There are millions of junk mailers in the United States, and only about 3,600 of them have access to the DMA's registry. That means a large number of junk mailers must be contacted individually, which is a time-consuming, costly, and often frustrating task. Junk mailers often ignore or refuse repeated requests for removal from their mailing lists, even when consumers take drastic measures like filing Prohibitory Orders with the Postal Service. When junk mailers do comply, it often takes months to be removed from their lists. See the story above about the guy who spent two years trying to eliminate junk mail.

    In short, the DMA registry is grossly inadequate. It does nothing to stop local junk mail. It does nothing to stop rogue mailers and scammers who prey on the elderly and the mentally ill. It does nothing to stem the flood of junk mail that inundates small business owners, who the DMA prohibits from ever signing up. It offers no legal recourse for the consumer. And although the registry is about 40 years old, polls show that nearly 90% of us are still unhappy with the amount of junk mail we receive. The DMA registry's primary function, I believe, is to foster the illusion of self-regulation in order to thwart legislation.

    Furthermore, let me ask you this. If consumers already have a multitude of options, then why is the junk mail industry so desperate to prevent us from having one more to choose from? If what you say is true, that consumers already have sufficient choice, then a new registry would only be one more option among many, and few of us would want to sign up. In reality, the junk mail industry knows that consumers don't have adequate choice, which is why it feels so threatened by the prospect of government intervention. The fury with which your industry fights against legislation demonstrates the degree to which it doesn't believe its own talking points.

    Which brings me to my next point. Why should consumers trust the DMA, whose track record is abysmal at best? These are the same people who fought alongside telemarketers to prevent the Do Not Call registry. These are the same people who fought to perpetuate spam. These are the same people who right now are actively fighting legislation that would offer consumers control over their mailboxes. These are the same people who promote junk mail with the kind of sleazy spin that's better suited for a sweepstakes offer. With all due respect, sir, allowing the DMA to regulate junk mail is like letting the fox guard the proverbial hen house. The DMA is not the solution to junk mail, it's the problem.

    On the forest question, the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations noted, in its 2007 State of the World's Forests report (ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/009/a0773e/a0773e00.pdf) that the world lost a total of 3% of its forest cover from 1990-2005, or an average of 0.2% per year... The same UN report notes, by the way, that forest coverage in the US and Canada is stable.

    On the issue of forests, you neglect to mention a few vitally important facts:

    1. Three percent deforestation in 15 years is not as insignificant as your industry would like to make it sound. That seemingly small percentage represents tens of millions of acres of forest destroyed every year. According to some estimates, "That destruction amounts to 50 million acres - or an area the size of England, Wales and Scotland felled annually... [O]ne days' deforestation is equivalent to the carbon footprint of eight million people flying to New York." [http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/deforestation-the-hidden-cause-of-global-warming-448734.html (1)]

    2. A deforestation rate of 0.2% a year might not sound like much, but in reality that's an alarming figure. In just 150 years, a 0.2% annual deforestation rate obliterates a whopping 30% of the earth's forest cover. (0.2% x 150 = 30%) According to the World Resources Institute, 80 percent of the earth's post-glacial forest cover has already been destroyed or seriously degraded. [http://www.geic.or.jp/jerry/cvs/Summary.doc (2)] National Geographic refers to the current rate of deforestation as a "Forest Holocaust." [http://www.nationalgeographic.com/eye/deforestation/effect.html (3)]

    3. According to some organizations, like the World Resources Institute, deforestation rates may actually be higher than the FAO numbers you cite. Furthermore, it appears they may be accelerating.[http://archive.wri.org/item_detail.cfm?id=51&section=newsroom&page=newsrelease_text&z=? (4)]

    4. If you count "forest degradation" along with "forest deforestation" (as you should), then the 3% figure you cite more than doubles. It's important to realize that the FAO defines the term "deforestation" in a highly specific and idiosyncratic manner. For example, if a forest's tree density falls below 10%, then the FAO calls that deforestation and includes it in their statistics. However, if a forest's density falls to, let's say 11 or 12%, then the FAO does NOT count that as deforestation. Instead, they call it "forest degradation." When you cite deforestation statistics and ignore degradation, you're essentially committing a fallacy of omission.

    5. You state that "forest coverage in the US and Canada is stable." However, you neglect to mention that it's only stable in terms of deforestation. It's far from stable in terms of forest degradation. Furthermore, you neglect to mention that our junk mail industry isn't just destroying trees here in North America, but in places around the world where deforestation rates are anything but stable (e.g. endangered Indonesian rainforests).

    6. You overlook the issue of quality versus quantity. Chopping down an old-growth forest and replacing it with a newfangled tree plantation diminishes it qualitatively if not quantitatively. In other words, "The state of the world's forests is not simply a matter of their extent... [but also] the health, genetic diversity, and age profile of forests, collectively known as forest quality. Measures of total forest area do not reveal the degraded nature of much regrowth forest. For example... logging often... degrade[s] forest quality, inducing soil and nutrient losses and reducing the forest's value as habitat." [http://archive.wri.org/item_detail.cfm?id=1368&section=pubs&page=pubs_content_text&z=? (5)]

    7. The paper industry's notion of sustainability does not account for the fact that killing trees carries a double jeopardy. It's not just the absence of trees that's harmful, but the physical act of killing them, which releases huge amounts of stored carbon into the atmosphere. In other words, we're penalized for the end result of deforestation, as well as for the process of deforestation itself. Even if you plant a new tree for every one that's destroyed, you're still only accounting for half the equation.

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

    Uh-huh. Coming and going, as the saying goes.

    Submitted by Mutternich on April 10, 2008 - 3:58pm.

    "...including companies that will get you off mailing lists for a fee."

    do not mail

    Submitted by openminded on April 10, 2008 - 11:02am.

    what precious natural resources are you refering? Trees live and die. Trees are farmed like a crop. Trees are also cut down for lumber with the byproducts also being used to make paper or "engineered wood". Ad mail DOES NOT consume tremendous amounts of dwindling resources. In consumes one renewable resource - trees. In people don't want ad mail then they should be the ones to do the work to stop it. The senders of the mail are the ones bearing the costs to send them the ads. The recipients just spend their time going through the mail. Quit arguing nonsense and start using common sense. I like ad mail much better than e-mail ads or ads blurring the webpages. When I am on the internet, I don't want to be bothered with ads or popups. Those are far more annoying that ad mail.

    what precious natural

    Submitted by Rezzie Dannt on May 5, 2008 - 7:49pm.

    what precious natural resources are you refering? Trees live and die. Trees are farmed like a crop.

    At least you and I can agree that junk mail is, in fact, trees. As Ms. Landman notes, the DMA claims that "Direct mail is not trees, it is printed communication." (Right. And these are the people we're supposed to trust with our personal information?)

    A few points about trees: 1) Most junk mail does not come from sustainable tree farms. According to ForestEthics, much of it comes from endangered forests like Canada's Boreal Forest and rainforests in Indonesia. 2) We are not regrowing as many trees as we are killing. 3) Even if we plant one tree for each one that's destroyed, we're still not accounting for the HUGE amount of carbon that's released when forests are cut down. 4) Tree farms are qualitatively inferior to old-growth forests. (For more detail, see my post above to Mr. Broder.)

    Also, contrary to what you seem to believe, trees are not the only environmental issue at hand. An estimated 28 billion gallons of water a year are wasted on producing junk mail. And what about our landfill space? Is that not a limited resource? Only 1/3 of junk mail is recycled, which means that millions of tons end up in our landfills every year. In addition, there are the environmental costs associated with production, transportation, and elimination of junk mail. What about those?

    Remember, too, that there are other considerations besides environmental ones. Tax dollars spent on waste removal. Increased risk of identity theft and scams. Mistaking important correspondence for junk mail, and vice versa. The psychological distress caused by folks receiving junk mail for deceased friends and relatives. Countless hours of productivity imperceptibly stolen from hundreds of millions of people. (It's like a leaky faucet. Doesn't seem like much, but it adds up quickly.)

    Finally, and most importantly (in my opinion), there's the issue of my right to be left alone. Take a look at Rowan v. Post Office, where the Supreme Court ruled that folks have the right to choose what does and does not enter our mailboxes. If you set aside all the concerns I mentioned above, the issue of privacy alone is enough to justify anti-junk mail legislation.

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

    Your blog post re: Mail Moves America

    Submitted by Matt Broder on April 10, 2008 - 8:09am.

    Ms. Landman --

    It is regrettable that you dismiss as "spin" the mailing industry's efforts to bring to light what you could more generously describe as "underreported facts." In the marketplace of ideas, what do you find objectionable about a balanced, two-way debate that lets individuals make truly informed decisions on their own?

    In this case, here are the relevant facts, which certainly did not get reported in your comments above:

    * Consumers do not need legislation to end unwanted mail. They already have the option to get themselves off mailing lists they do not wish to be on. Among others, the Direct Marketing Association offers a Mail Preference Service that anyone can access at www.dmachoice.org.

    * Trees are a renewable resource, not a dwindling resource. Every year, paper and forest products companies plant more than one billion trees so they have a sustainable business model.

    * On the margin, mail has environmental benefits. These include reducing carbon emissions by replacing individual car trips with remote transactions. Examples include pharmaceuticals by mail (fewer trips to the drug store), DVD rental by mail (fewer trips to the video store), and catalog shopping (fewer trips to the mall).

    Those are facts. Now, here comes the spin --

    What actually happens if Do Not Mail bills become law? Remember, the US Postal Service must deliver to every address in America, six days a week. To the extent that direct mail volumes decline, the US Postal Service would have to raise the cost of all other forms of postage in order to maintain the infrastructure needed to fulfill its delivery mandate. Who gets hurt by that? Big business, for sure, but what about the nonprofit sector, which uses the mail to raise money? What about small businesses that are trying to grow? There is a profound social and economic cost to Do Not Mail that its supporters simply refuse to deal with.

    As a supporter of the "front group" Mail Moves America (you could also just call us a plain old "coalition"), I don't expect to persuade you, but thank you for offering this opportunity to comment and contribute to the debate.

    Matt Broder
    Vice President, External Communications
    Pitney Bowes Inc.

    junk mail

    Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on August 23, 2010 - 11:51am.

    Sorry, Mr. Broder, you are ill-informed about how harmful junk mail can be. Junk mail is used to manipulate seniors, many of them have Alzheimer's and go through tens of thousands of dollars, giving money to "charities" & politicians
    which DMA does not restrict.

    Junk mail is not just a haven for scam artists, it is also a form of harassment, just like cyber bullying. Much of it is based on fear & paranoia (& we know Alzheimer's patients suffer from these) & much of it is hate mail, targeting religious minorities, gays, immigrants, etc. It is also mislabelled "official"
    when it isn't. This, I think, could be considered FRAUD.

    We should be given an "opt out" to stop these so-called charities & crooked politicians from bilking seniors. Instead, this stuff is forced on us & families have to find out & deal with it, often after seniors have already bankrupted themselves & their families.

    Exceptions should be made

    Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on July 25, 2010 - 8:48am.

    Your view points are valid but shortsighted.
    As a child of an aging parent with Alzheimer's I am forced to intercept my mothers mail on a daily basis to curtail the overwhelming onslaught of solicitations arriving in her mailbox every day. She is responsible for attracting many of the lobbyists and non-profit groups that hound her daily. Having been brought to tears by their sob stories and tales of doom checks have been written, some however have even gone so far as to take a small donation check she has written and turn it into an automatic monthly withdrawal from her account without her consent. Through her bank we have stopped the withdrawals but unfortunately we have been unsuccessful in making them stop the mailings. I have even gone so far as to mail them notification of her passing and demanded that she be removed from their mailing lists but to no avail, the deluge continues. This in my opinion falls under Elder Abuse and should be punishable by law. I have no facts at hand but I suspect that the vast majority of the success from all direct marketing mailings comes from this group of citizens, the elderly, the ones who should have our protection from such scams but access to any kind of 'cease and desist' policy does not exist. If we continue to protect the interest of the 'Corporate Individual' over the protection of the Individual Citizen without exception we as a society are in for a very dark future.

    Every year, paper and forest

    Submitted by Rezzie Dannt on May 5, 2008 - 6:44am.

    Every year, paper and forest products companies plant more than one billion trees so they have a sustainable business model.

    Mr. Broder,

    Sustainability is not just about replanting a tree for each one that's killed (something I don't believe the industries are doing anyway). As I say in my previous posts, there are externalities (i.e. public costs) that you fail to include in your accounting. Many folks within your own industry concede that junk mail is unsustainable.

    On the margin, mail has environmental benefits. These include reducing carbon emissions by replacing individual car trips with remote transactions.

    Tell you what. Give me $100 and in exchange I'll give you a nice, crisp $5 bill. On the margin, it's a great deal for you because you end up with a $5 bill you didn't have before. Heck, while we're on the margin, let's argue that strawberry milkshakes are health food because they have fruit in them.

    Let's not talk about benefits "on the margin." Let's talk about net effects. Total benefits minus total costs. The bottom line is that when you do the math, the environmental benefits of junk mail (if there are any) are nowhere near significant enough to offset the costs.

    Furthermore, I reject the premise that junk mail reduces automobile traffic "by replacing individual car trips with remote transactions." It's a clever hypothesis, but not one that's grounded in reality. Here are a few of the holes in your theory:

    1. You assume that people make separate trips for every item they purchase. In fact, people often don't go to the store until they need multiple items. What they don't buy through the mail, folks might buy as part of a shopping trip they would have made anyway.

    2. You ignore the distinct possibility that people never would have purchased the item in the first place if it weren't for junk mail manufacturing a desire for it.

    3. You assume that people will jump in the car, when in fact they might jump online instead.

    4. A lot of junk mail isn't for stuff that requires driving. (e.g. Financial offers, insurance, internet / phone service, sweepstakes, etc.)

    5. When you factor in junk mail's lousy 1 or 2% response rate, the reduction in delivery trucks and garbage trucks may very well offset any increase in indivdual car trips.

    To the extent that direct mail volumes decline, the US Postal Service would have to raise the cost of all other forms of postage in order to maintain the infrastructure needed to fulfill its delivery mandate.

    If you're implying that junk mail subsidizes regular mail, it isn't true. The Postal Service requires every mail class to carry its own financial weight. If anything, regular mail has at times subsidized junk mail. A few years ago, the American Postal Workers Union (APWU) argued that:

    "The current USPS financial crisis is directly attributable to the $12 billion in postage discounts it gives annually to major mailers and direct mail firms for pre-sorting their mail. The discounts equal significantly more than the costs the Postal Service avoids when it receives presorted mail."([http://epic.org/privacy/postal 1])

    Moreover, there are numerous alternatives to raising rates. The Postal Service could start by correcting their notorious inefficiencies, wasteful spending habits, and bloated infastructure. (These are the same folks who recently ran up a [http://www.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment/dining/orl-gao1008apr10,0,726845.story $13,500 tab] at a steakhouse.) Or they could offer services that are actually relevant in the Information Age. Or they could (and should) consider downsizing and privatizing.

    What about small businesses that are trying to grow?

    I love how junk mail advocates claim to care about small businesses. If they truly cared, they'd offer small business owners the option to opt out of receiving junk mail. (The DMA only permits residential opt-outs.) The American Small Business Alliance has called junk mail "a drain on the time and resources of any business."([http://www.metrokc.gov/dnrp/swd/nwpc/bizjunkmail.htm 2]) And as a former small business owner myself, I can confirm that fact.

    There is a profound social and economic cost to Do Not Mail that its supporters simply refuse to deal with.

    Pot, meet kettle.

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