Gidday Tanya,
You have some great information in your post, and you are so darn right about "Picking up the phone" and "keeping at it". I would like to add that, if you do it yourself, there are 2 more things you should know. Make sure you tell each company not to "RENT, SELL or SHARE" your personal information and keep a record of all the companies you call or mail to. I would like to refer you to a blog entry I wrote about Stopping Junk Mail, What is your time worth? If I may I will do a track back.
Cheerio, Margot at stopthejunkmail.com

Reply

I have been using the DMA method only for years (I didn't even realize they charged now). We receive almost no junk mail, no credit card offers and no telemarketing calls. It does work.

Reply

On a similar note - I saw from a group that I work with that consumers also pick up the tab for all of those credit card offers you get too - check it out here http://www.unfaircreditcardfees.com/site/press/consumers_picking_up_tab Its kind of amazing that we pay billions of dollars every year in these hidden interchange fees the credit card company tack onto all of our purchases and then they use the money to try to sell us on more credit cards which results in so much junk mail. They have a lot more info on that site too on how the credit card industry is hurting consumers. Thanks for sharing this post - I really can't stand all the junk mail - and especially all the credit card offers I get. Hopefully both of these campaigns will have some success in stopping all of this waste.

Reply

As an executive at a leading mailstream company, I agree with some of your comments, but there are others that need a response:

• As a general matter, I agree with the notion that people who do not want to receive particular marketing mail should have a way of opting out. You are performing a valuable service by directing recipients of unwanted mail to the various registries available to them to screen out unwanted mail.
• You also make a good point about paying attention to the processes by which you inadvertently give your permission to have your name and personal data used in ways that you might not have wanted them used.

At the same time, you made two other points that demand a response:

• You have incorrectly conveyed the impression that unwanted marketing mail follows people when they move. Most marketing mail is a standard mail postal product that, by postal guidelines, is not forwarded when a person has moved. On the other hand, we provide the fulfillment service for the U.S. Postal Service for movers. We offer a catalog preference service by which a mover can elect what is or not to be forwarded. The catalog list is not complete, but it does help the mover screen out some catalogs he or she no longer wants to receive, as well as those he or she wants to start receiving.
• The whole argument about preserving trees is flawed. Forest product companies plant 4-5 trees for every one that is cut down. The U.S. has more forested land today than it did a few decades ago. Moreover, much of the paper used in catalogs today is recycled.

The most fundamental issue I have with your line of argument is that individuals should stop receiving catalogs and direct mail pieces in total. The better alternative, toward which the Direct Marketing Association registry is moving, is a selective registry that allows recipients to receive some catalogs, but to stop receiving others.

Every piece of marketing mail that is “junk” to one user is welcomed by others. No one knows in advance what they might want to buy through the mail or not buy. If standard marketing mail did not work for a sufficient number of users, no one would be sending it in the first place. It gets sent because many people respond favorably to it.

If an individual makes a decision to get off all mailing lists, what is the environmental impact of the alternative they will select for shopping for the items they would have bought from the catalog? If even a small portion of these individuals get into a car and go to a retail store, the environmental impact from the air pollutants emitted from the automobile they are most likely using is far more damaging. There needs to be a study of what people do when they get off mailing lists, relative to the items they used to buy from catalogs or direct mail pieces. Only then will we know with a high degree of certainty whether unwanted direct mail is worse for the environment than stopping that direct mail and encouraging other kinds of commerce.

Reply

As an executive at a leading mailstream company, I agree with some of your comments, but there are others that need a response:

• As a general matter, I agree with the notion that people who do not want to receive particular marketing mail should have a way of opting out. You are performing a valuable service by directing recipients of unwanted mail to the various registries available to them to screen out unwanted mail.
• You also make a good point about paying attention to the processes by which you inadvertently give your permission to have your name and personal data used in ways that you might not have wanted them used.

At the same time, you made two other points that demand a response:

• You have incorrectly conveyed the impression that unwanted marketing mail follows people when they move. Most marketing mail is a standard mail postal product that, by postal guidelines, is not forwarded when a person has moved. On the other hand, we provide the fulfillment service for the U.S. Postal Service for movers. We offer a catalog preference service by which a mover can elect what is or not to be forwarded. The catalog list is not complete, but it does help the mover screen out some catalogs he or she no longer wants to receive, as well as those he or she wants to start receiving.
• The whole argument about preserving trees is flawed. Forest product companies plant 4-5 trees for every one that is cut down. The U.S. has more forested land today than it did a few decades ago. Moreover, much of the paper used in catalogs today is recycled.

The most fundamental issue I have with your line of argument is that individuals should stop receiving catalogs and direct mail pieces in total. The better alternative, toward which the Direct Marketing Association registry is moving, is a selective registry that allows recipients to receive some catalogs, but to stop receiving others.

Every piece of marketing mail that is “junk” to one user is welcomed by others. No one knows in advance what they might want to buy through the mail or not buy. If standard marketing mail did not work for a sufficient number of users, no one would be sending it in the first place. It gets sent because many people respond favorably to it.

If an individual makes a decision to get off all mailing lists, what is the environmental impact of the alternative they will select for shopping for the items they would have bought from the catalog? If even a small portion of these individuals get into a car and go to a retail store, the environmental impact from the air pollutants emitted from the automobile they are most likely using is far more damaging. There needs to be a study of what people do when they get off mailing lists, relative to the items they used to buy from catalogs or direct mail pieces. Only then will we know with a high degree of certainty whether unwanted direct mail is worse for the environment than stopping that direct mail and encouraging other kinds of commerce.

Reply

I disagree with the suggestion that an individual who stops receiving all marketing mailings is then going to damage the environment by hopping in the car and polluting all the way to the mall. Most folks who don't want marketing mail are probably conscientious enough to shop online.

Also, the argument that we have more forested land than we used to is so obsolete. Maybe we do have more forested lands, but are those lands covered with the same old-growth forests we started with? Do the newly planted trees represent the natural diversity of flora and fauna we started with? No! Cutting trees to make paper is wastefully destructive when there are many many alternative pulp sources that are more environmentally sustainable. Using recycled paper is best, but there's also hemp, kenaf, cotton, dryer lint, linen, synthetics like Tyvek, and even excrement!
(http://www.poopoopaper.com/)

Reply

The lead to this story is really a stretch -- but you see it repeated so many times, that you almost think its true.

** "kills 100 million trees a year"
Almost all of the trees "killed" for paper are from tree farms, raised exclusively for paper. The clear-cut days for paper are over. The industry plants far more trees than they use.

How many corn stalks do we 'kill?" How many hemp plants are 'destroyed'. A farm is -- a farm. THings die, but we can replant and replenish.

** "28 billion gallons of water." This is a really interesting stat. But, I cannot disprove it.

** "And weighs about 70 pounds" -- The average piece of bulk mail is about 1.5 ounces. That means all 300 million citizens would have to EACH receive about a 1,000 pieces of mail a year to get to this total.

We should each be careful about our consumption, but honest about how we get to our conclusions.

Reply

"hemp, kenaf, cotton, dryer lint, linen, synthetics like Tyvek, and even excrement!"

Kari -- Something tells me your love letters don't have the intended affect, do they?

But seriously, how much labor and energy is expended creating alternative papers. The industry is very efficient.

Reply