Recent comments

Ms. Landman, Thank you very much for covering this issue. Please excuse my lengthy replies in this thread and the one before. <blockquote>Since a Do Not Mail database would by its nature be extremely fluid, who would maintain that database, and how would that maintenance be funded?</blockquote> Like the Do Not Call Registry, it could be maintained by the FTC and funded by the direct marketers themselves, who pay an annual fee to access the data. If need be, we could apply some of the millions of dollars in taxes that are currently being spent on waste removal. <blockquote>But it isn't hard to imagine that such a list could also have unintended consequences.</blockquote> I think the key word here is "imagine." Before the Do Not Call list was implemented, telemarketers had the public "imagining" all kinds of gloom and doom scenarios that [http://www.usatoday.com/money/advertising/2004-10-13-do-not-call-fallout_x.htm never came to pass]. <blockquote>DMA's "Mail Preference Service," and other services, just don't seem like adequate solutions to the problem.</blockquote> I agree that the DMA's registry is inadequate. In addition to the flaws you mention, there are numerous other shortcomings. The biggest issue is that only about 3,600 of the millions of junk mailers in the U.S. have access to the DMA's registry. Furthermore, to quote myself from [https://www.prwatch.org/node/7192#comment-2983 the previous thread], "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 has had four decades to work. It's time for something new. As I also point out, there's an issue of trust. Consumers have good reason to distrust the DMA. After all, these are the same folks who fought alongside telemarketers to stop the Do Not Call registry. These are the same folks who at one point fought to perpetuate spam. And these are the same folks who are right now fighting against legislation that would offer consumers control over their mailboxes. Furthermore, the DMA's actions and statements in the past would suggest that the registry's primary function is to create the illusion of self-regulation in order to thwart legislation. And let's not forget that the DMA registry has been abused in the past by telemarketers who used it as a mailing list. Who knows what they do with your data once your five year registration expires. No, letting the DMA regulate junk mail is like letting the fox guard the proverbial hen house. <blockquote>It would seem that all that is left under Rowan is for the Post Office to create a mechanism through which citizens can refuse unsolicited advertising in the mail.</blockquote> Technically, such a mechanism does exist. It's called a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibitory_Order Prohibitory Order]. Unfortunately, the Postal Service seems to do everything it can to discourage its use. We can't expect the Postal Service to offer any real solutions to junk mail; it's not in their interests to do so. <blockquote>By some estimates, the Post Office derives 80% of its revenue from junk mail, leading some to argue that a Do Not Mail list will put the Post Office out of business.</blockquote> I think this estimate is a bit high. It's more likely in the 33% to 50% range. Regardless, I don't buy the argument that a Do Not Mail registry is going to destroy the Postal Service or send rates skyrocketing. While eliminating unwanted junk mail may decrease their revenue, it will also radically decrease their expenses. Furthermore, the Postal Service requires every mail class to pay its own way. Junk mail is NOT subsidizing first class mail service. If anything, the consumer rates have at times subsidized junk mail. A few years back, 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]) The Postal Service's main problem is that they refuse to scale back, as a normal business would, in the face of decreasing demand for their products and services. They have numerous alternatives to raising rates. For one, they can start to address their notorious inefficiencies 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.) <blockquote>So how can we promote serious consideration of a variety of options to solve this problem in a way that will really make a difference?</blockquote> Writing Congress (and possibly the FTC and FCC) might be effective. I think the Postal Regulatory Commission is more likely to sympathize with the Postal Service than the consumer. In addition to the petition at [http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/281/t/5980/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=941 ForestEthics], please consider signing the ones at [http://tinyurl.com/3spc39 Green Dimes] and [http://www.newdream.org/cnad/user/user_petition_detail.php?config%5Bcom_region_global119%5D%5Binstance_uid%5D=7 New American Dream]. <blockquote>Sooner or later, one way or another, the people will achieve their goal.</blockquote> I wholeheartedly agree. Thanks again for your efforts to bring this issue to the light, or perhaps I should say, bring light to this issue. Rezzie Dannt [http://www.junkmailrevolt.org Junk Mail Revolt] (Launches May 12, 2008)

Dear Ms. Landman -- and with apologies to Mutternich, because I am a "pro-junkmail flack." :+) I am encouraged by your latest posting, since you have at least moved away from the specious environmental arguments that ForestEthics and others have made in their attempts to enact bad legislation. Thank you for that. Bashing the Postal Service is an intellectual exercise that I suppose is just about as old as the Postal Service itself, and I regret your slide into this really pointless debate. <blockquote>Let's also not forget the fact that the Post Office has been losing money even without a Do Not Mail list, as evidenced by rapidly increasing postal rates in recent years.</blockquote> Not true! Stamp prices have paralleled the overall CPI for almost forty years now. If you want to have a go at some group about inflation, please stick to health care and higher education, not the USPS. And this point is also interesting: <blockquote>If nothing else, efforts to enact a Do Not Mail list are drawing badly needed attention to the widespread desire of consumers "take back" their mail boxes from marketers and advertisers, and reduce the damaging amount of waste generated by junk mail. Sooner or later, one way or another, the people will achieve their goal.</blockquote> I get suspicious when individuals claim to speak for "the people." How about the 56% of people who say opening their mail everyday is a "real pleasure."? Or the 55% who say they look forward to discovering what is in their mail every day? You can learn more about this in the USPS's "Mail Moment" study at <a href="http://">http://www.usps.com/directmail/_pdf/05MailMoment.pdf</a>, and please don't bash the survey simply because it is from the USPS. All companies study their customers' behavior, and the data show what the data show. Ultimately, we both want the same thing -- for consumers to receive the mail they want. All the tools they need to assert control over the mailbox already exist, and individuals need only make their choices known to mailers. Matt Broder Vice President, External Communications Pitney Bowes Inc.