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

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
Junk Mail Revolt (Launches May 12, 2008)

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

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
Junk Mail Revolt (Launches May 12, 2008)

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.

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 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." (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. (2) National Geographic refers to the current rate of deforestation as a "Forest Holocaust." (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.(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." (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
Junk Mail Revolt (Launches May 12, 2008)

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

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
Junk Mail Revolt (Launches May 12, 2008)

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."(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 $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."(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
Junk Mail Revolt (Launches May 12, 2008)

"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)."

Nice, but it applies to goods the recipients have ordered through those remote transactions, not to the junk mail. Nobody says mail delivery of desired goods doesn't have environmental benefits. That paragraph belongs in the spin section.

Since you mention pharmaceuticals, I'd much rather plan to combine that trip to the drug store with other necessary errands and have the pharmacist hand me the drugs directly. Where I live I'm always returning misdelivered mail to the post office, including someone else's prescription drugs at least once.

I have to agree with Mr. Broder. Far too often we have individuals or organizations pushing their agendas without presenting all of the facts. First, Ms. Landman is wrong about "Most people don't like the mounting number of unsolicited ads..." except maybe most of her friends. In fact 74% of Americans prefer their advertisements through the mail than any other medium. Now let's talk about the numerous ads that are in newspapers. Add up the weight of newpapers and the ads in them and one will see that the average weight of newspapers exceeds the average weight of ads through the US Mail. How about those unwanted ads in the magazines as well? We should prohibit those because of the same arguments that Ms. Landman is using. What about those political fliers that are left on the door knob. I don't know about you but I hate that because they come off the door knob and then become trash blowing in the wind. Heck let's ban advertisement on TV. That is almost as annoying as those phone solicitors. Same for radio.

The bottom line is that there are alternatives out there like Mr. Broder stated (unlike the aforementioned). In addition, individuals have control of the ads. They can peruse them at their leisure or simply discard them in their recycle bin. Shopping by mail (or phone) is also better on the environment than shopping at the mall. It lessens traffic congestion and pollution.

Finally, Article 8 of the US Constitution grants the US Congress sole authority "To establish post offices and post roads. To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers...". Maybe these state legislators need to brush up on the US Constitution.

First, Ms. Landman is wrong about "Most people don't like the mounting number of unsolicited ads..." except maybe most of her friends. In fact 74% of Americans prefer their advertisements through the mail than any other medium.

I'm sure most Americans prefer losing a limb to losing their life, but that doesn't mean most Americans LIKE losing a limb. Similarly, folks may prefer receiving solicitations in the mail to receiving them by phone, but that doesn't mean they LIKE receiving solicitations in the mail. It just means they hate junk mail less than the other mediums.

The fact is, polls consistently show that 80 to 90% of the public dislikes junk mail. (See the 2007 Zogby poll I cited above.) Direct marketers may play dumb to this fact, but they know it's true. Otherwise they wouldn't be so intent on denying consumers an easy, comprehensive way to exercise their right to be left alone.

Now let's talk about the numerous ads that are in newspapers... How about those unwanted ads in the magazines as well? ...That is almost as annoying as those phone solicitors. Same for radio.

This is what's called a false analogy. Direct mail is different from other mediums like magazines, newspapers, radio, and television in three very important ways:

1) The other mediums provide value / content in exchange for viewing ads. It's a give-and-take relationship, whereas junk mail is all take and no give. If junk mail were TV, it would be all commercials and no programming. If junk mail were a magazine, it would be all ads and no articles.

2) The other mediums are opt-in. Consumers must specifically request (and often pay) to receive them. Conversely, consumers must request (and often pay) to NOT receive junk mail. If junk mail were TV, it would turn itself on at will and have no off switch. If magazines were junk mail, we'd all be getting Good Housekeeping and Hustler whether we wanted them or not.

3) The other mediums are easy to opt out of. I can cancel cable service or a magazine subscription with a single phone call. I can turn off the radio with a flick of the wrist. There is no easy and comprehensive way to stem the flood of junk mail. Not with a thousand phone calls and a thousand dollars can I guarantee myself a completely junk-free existence.

Junk mail is more analagous with telemarketing and spam, and we all know what happened there. Congress created the Do Not Call registry and passed the CAN-SPAM Act. In fact, one could argue that junk mail is more intrusive and destructive than either telemarketing or spam. After all, spam doesn't kill trees, telemarketing doesn't consume landfill space, and of course, there's no caller ID or spam filter for your mailbox.

Finally, Article 8 of the US Constitution grants the US Congress sole authority "To establish post offices and post roads. To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers...".

Not so fast. Article 8 may grant Congress the authority to establish a post office, but that's a far cry from granting junk mailers the authority to invade our homes with communication that we don't wish to receive. You would be far wiser to argue that junk mailers have a First Amendment freedom of speech. Even then, you would still lose the argument. The Supreme Court ruled in Rowan v. Post Office that a junk mailer's right to send junk mail is superceded by one's right not to receive it:

"[A] vendor does not have a constitutional right to send unwanted material into someone's home, and a mailer's right to communicate must stop at the mailbox of an unreceptive addressee."

Furthermore, failure to give people an ability to opt out of unwanted mailings "would tend to license a form of trespass and would make hardly more sense than to say that a radio or television viewer may not twist the dial to cut off an offensive or boring communication and thus bar its entering his home. Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit; we see no basis for according the printed word or pictures a different or more preferred status because they are sent by mail."

Maybe these state legislators need to brush up on the US Constitution.

I couldn't agree more. However, I don't think it would result in the outcome you seem to expect. I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't favor invasive commercial speech over the fundamental right of individuals to peacably enjoy their privacy and property.

Rezzie Dannt
Junk Mail Revolt (Launches May 12, 2008)

"Add up the weight of newpapers and the ads in them and one will see that the average weight of newspapers exceeds the average weight of ads through the US Mail. How about those unwanted ads in the magazines as well?"

This about those unwanted ads in magazines and newspapers: people chose -- I think "opted in" is the modern term, isn't it? -- to subscribe to the magazines and newspapers. Which chosen subscribing, by the way, is getting more problematic:

http://www.mediabistro.com/unbeige/magazines/secondclass_postage_and_the...

Given my druthers, I'd hike junkmail rates and keep second class rates low to help magazines and papers that people actually want to read stay in business.

"The senders of the mail are the ones bearing the costs to send them the ads."

Perhaps not entirely. See above. Also,

"...Individuals have control of the ads. They can peruse them at their leisure or simply discard them in their recycle bin."

Newsflash: recycling doesn't happen by magic. It costs money, whether you have to buy authorized recycling bags from your city or just have it included in your tax bill. You pay for it one way or another.

That's one thing about living in a very small town -- you're less insulated from the knowledge of what things like transporting trash to recycling centers is costing municipalities as fuel prices keep going up. And in some places there's simply no way to dispose of your trash that results in its being recycled. "Just toss it in the recycling bin" is simply the junkmailers' denial of how they externalize (i.e., socialize) the cost of disposal. YOU should quit arguing nonsense.

"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."

May I suggest Firefox? It's free and it's pretty darn good at blocking unwanted popups. :-)

This may be a very good place to follow the money. Who benefits most if junk mail were to disappear? Might it be newspapers? Traditionally, newspapers have editorialized against junk mail.

There are all sorts of reasons why junk mail is an annoyance and certainly the way it is used could be improved. The vitriol and ridicule along with the fraudulent "evidence" used by professional lobbyists on both sides of all sorts of issues, that is seeping into this dialog is disturbing, though.

may i make a few points?

the countless banking and insurance ads in junk mail are annoying. They are also annoying in the paper, in the magazines, on the radio, on billboards and in TV. Those ads have annoyances specific to the medium but it is not the medium that makes them annoying.

contrary to vague statement above that the DMA's Do not mail list was difficult to use, in fact, it takes only a phone call or a letter to use.

junk mail is effective. Were it not, people would spend their ad dollars elsewhere. some more effective, some less. Mailers would love to send less and targetting skills are growing. You will see more and more smaller, more effective mailings.

junk mail works for some industries and campaigns and is weak or bad for others. The ad agency for the post office doesn't get that. The post office campaigns to promote junk mail are in the bad category.

in my opinion the post office should fill a need not create a need to fill. Ads and PR that create awareness are good, ones that promote the use of mail, not so hot. (However ditto with airline subsidies that hurt rail, junk food subsidies that profit fast food's rapid employee turn-over, etc.

it is worse, though. The new rates in periodicals favor large mailers like Time-Warner at the expense of small mailers like your state's magazine or small newsletters. Not so good but TW wrote the law, basically, so what should we expect.

Recycling: the communities that don't recycle should with or without junk mail. All sorts of household and office paper are carried to the recycling center. Mail is just a part of it. a lot of the tax dollars used to recycle come rromo business who get their business from junk mail.

it would be nice to be able to stop getting certain pieces of mail. Try the Do Not Mail registrar. It'll stop some after a couple of months. Want to stop a whole class of mail?like Standard (what used to be known as third class for the most part)? Ready to stop getting certain information from your city, county and state? Ready to see your favorite charity take a huge hit? Ditto for your church.

it is a complex issue. The solutions are available but take thought. Remember the law of unintended consequences. Everything we do, along with maybe solving our problem, has a consequence we never intended.

junk mail is effective. Were it not, people would spend their ad dollars elsewhere. some more effective, some less.

Junk mail advocates often praise the cost-effectiveness of direct mail. Of course, it only appears cost-effective when you ignore the hidden costs that are being dumped on the general public. We're the ones paying the price in terms of peace and privacy, time and energy, waste removal, environmental destruction, and so on. Besides, can you really argue that a method is effective in any sense of the word when it violates the rights and wishes of 80 to 90% of us in order to reach 1 or 2%? I don't think so.

Furthermore, even if I were to concede that junk mail is effective, its effectiveness is ultimately besides the point. If I were to steal apples off my neighbors' trees and sell them without their consent, that's a pretty darn cost-effective business model. Unfortunately, it's not within my rights. Likewise, it is not within the rights of junk mailers to fill my mailbox with stuff I don't wish to receive, no matter how cost-effective their business model may or may not be.

Ready to stop getting certain information from your city, county and state? Ready to see your favorite charity take a huge hit? Ditto for your church.

In addition to the point made by Mutternich that charities will likely be exempt from a Do Not Mail registry, I'd also like to suggest that it's possible to build a certain amount of flexibility into the system. There's no reason we can't have a registry that categorizes junk mail as national, local, political, charitable, and so on. This would allow people to opt out of certain kinds of mailings, and not others.

Finally, folks can always opt in to individual mail lists. It's far easier to contact organizations one by one and ask to be added to their mailing list than it is to opt out of all the mailings you don't wish to receive.

Rezzie Dannt
Junk Mail Revolt (Launches May 12, 2008)

"The countless banking and insurance ads in junk mail are annoying. They are also annoying in the paper, in the magazines, on the radio, on billboards and in TV."

Yes, but people CHOOSE to buy the newspapers, magazines and the TV sets. What's so complex about that point?

"Ready to stop getting certain information from your city, county and state? Ready to see your favorite charity take a huge hit? Ditto for your church."

Charities and political candidates are exempt from the national do-not-call registry. Life is so much nicer now that we have that law, even with those exemptions.

I get the feeling you're a professional complexifier.