<blockquote>what precious natural resources are you refering? Trees live and die. Trees are farmed like a crop.</blockquote>
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)
<blockquote>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 ...</blockquote>
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.
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>
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)
<blockquote>junk mail is effective. Were it not, people would spend their ad dollars elsewhere. some more effective, some less.</blockquote>
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.
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>
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
[http://www.junkmailrevolt.org Junk Mail Revolt] (Launches May 12, 2008)
<blockquote>Every year, paper and forest products companies plant more than one billion trees so they have a sustainable business model.</blockquote>
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.
<blockquote>On the margin, mail has environmental benefits. These include reducing carbon emissions by replacing individual car trips with remote transactions.</blockquote>
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.
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>
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.
<blockquote>What about small businesses that are trying to grow?</blockquote>
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.
<blockquote>There is a profound social and economic cost to Do Not Mail that its supporters simply refuse to deal with.</blockquote>
Pot, meet kettle.
Rezzie Dannt
[http://www.junkmailrevolt.org Junk Mail Revolt] (Launches May 12, 2008)
<blockquote>Junk mail has benefits too! Really. No, we're serious.</blockquote>
Yes, but do the benefits outweigh the costs? That's the question. For the overwhelming majority of us, the answer is a resounding "NO."
<blockquote>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?</blockquote>
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.
<blockquote>Do the majority of people here in the USA necessarily care? Who knows.</blockquote>
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.
<blockquote>A government-sponsored "Do Not Mail" list = taxes.</blockquote>
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)
Pages