Will we ever clear our doormats of junk mail?

The Yellow Pages, BT Phone Book (and Thomson Local Directory) are another fine example of failing industry self-regulation. There’s no need to deliver 75 million unsolicted directories per year anymore. Distributing these books on an opt-in basis would save mountains of paper and make sure that people who still use phone books will continue to receive them.

Directory publishers know their books are an environmental hazard, yet they’re doing everything they can to keep quiet about opting out – and if people do ask to be opted out they’ll try to ignore the request (see for instance this saga).

If you want to have a go at opting out of receiving paper directories, here are the contact details for Yell, BT and Thomson Local:

Yell – Phone 0800 671 444 or send an e-mail via this contact form
Thomson Local – Send an e-mail to distribution@thomsonlocal.com or phone 01252 555 555
BT – Phone 0800 833 400 and choose option 2

An easier option is to contact all three companies in one go via Junk Buster

It’s possible to get the opt-out form in the post by phoning Royal Mail on 01865 796 964 or 01865 796 988 – either number will get you straight to the team administering the opt-out scheme.

You’re right in saying Royal Mail actively discourages people from reducing unsolicited leaflets. Until a couple of years ago the company insisted on sending a paper opt-out form to people’s home address via snail mail. This was necessary, Royal Mail claimed, to verify your address (they were worried people might stop their neighbours’ junk mail). Royal Mail no longer feels the need to verify people’s address and so they could now finally add a page to their website where people can register online. A simple online opt-out form would make life easier for everybody. That’s of course exactly what Royal Mail wants to prevent.

It are simple things like this that make the opt-out scheme so customer-unfriendly.

You’re raising a lot of points! I try to keep my reply brief…

I define “junk mail” as “commercial and unsolicited advertising mail”. That definition includes addressed advertising mail that has not been requested as well as leaflets that try to sell me something; but it excludes non-commercial items such as political newsletters. Other definitions of junk mail are more narrow (i.e. don’t make a distinction between commercial and non-commercial items).

Is there bias in the use of the term “junk mail”? Maybe, but then there’s bias in so many nouns. I feel the term “direct mail”, as used by my friends at the Direct Marketing Association, is biased. I don’t think the use of either term is much of an issue, in particular when expressing an opinion (it would be an issue had the article been an entry for the Encyclopaedia Britannica).

I don’t think it’s controversial to state that there are many people who want less junk mail. It’s called “junk mail” for a reason – even the industry openly admits it needs to rid itself of its “junk mail image”. And, the reason the industry has set up so many opt-out schemes is of course that there are so many people who don’t want their letterbox stuffed with advertisements. Had I claimed something like “the majority of people hate junk mail” it would be fair to ask for clarification, but my innocent observation that “many people want less junk mail” really doesn’t need to be verified.

The point I’m making in the article is that the industry’s attempts to cut waste (to which it has committed itself in an ongoing agreement with Defra) are failing. I demonstrate this by presenting facts: opt-out schemes achieve extremely low opt-out rates (0.8% and 0.006% is extremely low by any standard) and despite all the industry’s talk about “targeting” over 70% of advertising mail is still unaddressed, and therefore not targeted – and the figure of 70% excludes inserts in papers and magazines!.

The article concludes that the only way to get a system that works for both advertisers and recipients is to work together. This is something that’s not happening at all at the moment – recipients of junk mail have no say whatsoever in how the industry regulates itself. This is, in my opinion, why junk mail is much more of an issue in Britain than it is in most other (European) countries. In fact, I don’t think other (European) countries have such a derogatory term for advertising mail.

In other words, the article is an invitation to the industry to start working with recipients to solve the junk mail issue once and for all. It contains some sensible ideas that would help people not interested in unsolicited mail and increase the profitability of advertising mail. Is that biased?

Finally, I should clarify that the poll at the bottom of the article has been added by Which?. I agree this doesn’t add anything to the article. Neither do all those ‘thumbs up’ and ‘thumbs down’ buttons. I guess such ‘Web 2.0’ elements are just as unavoidable as junk mail…

That’s a long reply after all.

Hi Louis, there’s two links in the Conversation and you can find a link to the website’s homepage at the bottom of the article under ‘Useful Links’. Thanks!

Greg, my article is about self-regulation by the ‘direct mail’ industry. It argues that the industry has failed to reduce waste and that it has failed to come up with ways that make it easy for people to control what mail comes through the letterbox. The article also makes some suggestions for improvements, and invites the industry to have a debate about how we can get to a system that works for both advertisers and its ‘targets’. That’s not an “overreaction”, it’s a perfectly valid and nuanced argument.

To be frank, your comment reads as a slight overreaction. You suggest that anyone who, for whatever reason, would like to cut back on unsolicited mail should just “look beyond their nose”. It’s worth noting that your view isn’t supported by the Direct Marketing Association and the Royal Mail. It may come as a surprise, but within the industry there’s general agreement that forcing advertising mail upon the unwilling is a waste of money and resources, and reflects poorly on advertsers and the industry as a whole.

That said, there is a debate to be had about ‘direct mail’ and the economy. We need a system that works for everybody: advertisers, people, and the environment. Unfortunately, the direct mail industry is avoiding that debate. The Direct Marketing Association does indeed routinely come up with the claim that ‘direct mail’ contributes £16bn to the UK economy, thereby implying that we shouldn’t care too much about people who don’t enjoy unsolicited mail and the environment. This is rather unconstructive, as the Direct Marketing Association also refuses to reveal how its research has been conducted. All we know is that the research was funded by the Direct Marketing Association and that it’s used to lobby, amongst others, Defra.

A proper debate about junk mail and the economy would be about to what extend making it easier for people to reduce unwanted mail would affect the economy. There are reasons to assume that giving more power to people would benefit both the direct mail industry and the economy: by leaving alone the unwilling the industry’s ‘targeting’ would improve, and so would the ‘return on investment’ of the average mail-out. It can also be argued that a move away from ‘direct mail’ to other (less annoying and wasteful) forms of advertising would benefit the economy as a whole and create more jobs than there would be lost.

At the moment it’s difficult to have such a debate, as any research that’s being done is paid for by the industry and used for lobbying purposes. Again, this is why the article invites the industry not to be afraid of the consumer, and to instead start a sensible debate.

Interesting point. Earlier this year I met with Defra, which has an ongoing voluntary producer responsibility agreement with the industry aimed at reducing waste caused by junk mail. I made the case for a proper public debate about direct mail, the economy, and the environment – that is, a debate based on facts rather than unverifiable industry claims. Although I got the distinct feeling Defra agrees such a debate is needed there’s currently no political will to address the issue. The junk mail industry is self-regulating, and without political support Defra can only make suggestions to the industry. Unsurprisingly, these get routinely rejected (behind closed doors and with no minutes taken).

I’d support and promote any petition calling for a real, unbiased debate on the junk mail issue. Not sure if it would get the required 100,000 signatures though – it wouldn’t be a very sexy petition.

What would probably do the trick is if one or more large consumer / environmental groups would be willing to campaign on the issue. Organisations such as Which? and Consumer Focus could for instance invite the public to report any junk mail issues to them. These could be then be brought to the attention of our political representatives. I could see such a campaign working, in particular as its demand would be incredible modest: to have an open debate, based on facts.

Maybe someone from Which? wants to comment on that 🙂