Will we ever clear our doormats of junk mail?

I’m not sure that I understand what you do; perhaps you could explain further? Is this something that individuals can do?

I don’t understand either, please elaborate.

I will be doing the same but I will be following this up with the Royal Mail. I hope to get them to court eventually and get this stopped

I have been thinking of doing the same with CALL CENTRES.Also stress of doing it needs compensation too .There is a petition site where you can set them up .I think it is connected to my society who havebarred me from their whatdoyouknow site for asking too many questions.

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.

It’s a bit of a catch-22 situation.

Since Royal Mail was privatised, junk mail has increased tremendously. It is how they make their money. If you stop junk mail, postage costs will rise even more.

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.

Thank you for your long and considered response. I apologise if my tone sounded wrong; it was not meant to be an attack on you.

One thing that the industry should do is to make people aware of the opt-out schemes. Yes, there should be constructive debate with everyone affected.

You make some good points.

I would like to add that advertisers use inserts in newspapers and magazines that you buy. These inserts cannot possibly be targeted, unlike the ones in subscription publications.

Yes, advertisers would find other means. How many leaflet distributors take heed of a ‘No Junk Mail’ sign, I wonder?

How do you know that you have not missed out on something important? This year alone I’ve had two important unaddressed communications.

As to the addressed unsolicited mail, why don’t you complain to a customer services manager, for example? You have a right to stop this mail.

Charities are actually worse than paper advertisers. At least, paper can be recycled, but not the clothing collection bags that I frequently receive.

In reply to two of my points, it’s worth following the ‘opt-out scheme’ link near the beginning of the article. It leads to an excellent web page.

Greg,

You have put wonderfully one of the points that I tried to make in my first post on this forum: the fact that direct marketing mail creates jobs (I mentioned leaflet distributors, but you added another aspect to employment creation).

I suspect that some people hate ‘junk’ mail, because they are frustrated at the amount of stuff coming through their letterbox. There have been days when I have felt like this, when several leaflet distributors have come to my door in one day, especially when they are so careless as to bang the letterbox loudly or leave the mail hanging out of the letterbox. But then, I also realise the value of such mail. I occasionally follow some ads up, one I received today being a good example. It takes little effort to recycle unwanted mail.

However, unsolicited mail also has environmentally damaging effects, in the natural resources that are used in production and recycling, not to mention the cost.

What you do with your firm is targeted advertising, which is acceptable, as these people have dealt with you before. What is unacceptable, perhaps, is blanket advertising that is not targeted and that therefore causes irritation.

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 🙂

Local businesses / organisations may deliver as many leafets as they want. As long as they leave alone those households with a ‘No Junk Mail’ sign. An easy way to keep everybody happy.

When we get a proper ‘No Junk Mail’ sticker scheme in the UK (and finally abolish those ineffective opt-out schemes for leaflets) it would be possible to also make a distinction between commercial and non-commercial leaflets. That way leaflets with information (from the local council, say) would still be delivered, but all those pesky take-away menus and estate agent junk would be blocked.

Yep… junk mail sending has resumed with a ferocity by Royal Mail that I thought I had stopped ages ago that I’d written to them about in a complaint.

Like I’ve alluded to before, any further sending shall be made a term of an enforceable contract
with adverse repercussions on ignoring, on giving RM adequate notice of course.

Yes, offending parties of whichever kind do takenotice once you threaten to go legal… my
Inbox is relatively clutter-free of nauseous or is it obnoxious advertising stuff.

That’s correct; Royal Mail has a legal obligation to deliver all addressed mail. You can opt out of receiving any unaddressed junk mail distributed by Royal Mail but you can’t opt out of receiving addressed junk mail distributed by the company.

With ‘To the Occupier’ junk mail this is somewhat confusing as it can be either addressed or unaddressed. Whether or not an item with a generic addressee (i.e. ‘To the Occupier’) is addressed or unaddressed depends on whether or not it includes a ‘delivery point’ (that is, a postal address). To illustrate the point, an item addressed like so would be stopped by signing up to the Royal Mail Door-to-Door Opt-Out:

> To the Occupier

But any items with a delivery point are addressed and won’t be prevented by the Door-to-Door Opt-Out:

> To the Occupier
> 10 Downing Street
> LONDON
> SW1A 2AA

Interestingly, the junk mail’s industry opt-out scheme for addressed junk mail, the Mailing Preference Service, will not stop items addressed to ‘The Occupier’. For reasons nobody understands the Direct Marketing Association assumes that people not interested in personally addressed junk mail are interested in junk mail with a generic addressee. It’s one of the many reasons why I argued in my article that opt out schemes should not be run exclusively by junk mailers.

For more details about the evils of ‘To the Occupier’ junk mail, see:
– http://www.stopjunkmail.org.uk/guide/doctor/consults.php?consult=22
– http://www.blogs.stopjunkmail.org.uk/diary/index.php?/archives/26-How-to-stop-To-the-Occupier-junk-mail-from-Virgin.html

Brilliant suggestion!! Find out for sure that it’s costing the company money and the Post Office the effort and money…..then you too can make sure you punish those awful businesses for trying to make profits and preserve jobs.
And you can dish out this punishment just because they have had the temerity to irritate you so dreadfully by dropping a piece of paper on your doormat.

A sender doesn’t pay the postage for junk mail that’s returned to them. Indirectly, there are some costs. For instance, the sender will need to pay staff to deal with returned junk mail, and if lots of people start returning unwanted junk mail Royal Mail would need to reduce the discount bulk mailers receive.

Interestingly, you can argue that sending back unwanted junk mail saves the sender money. When you return junk mail you’re telling the sender that you’re not interested in its literature. By taking your details off its mailing list the sender saves money and resources.

Thanks Robert. Occasionally I have used the Freepost envelopes in junk mail to return some or all of the junk they have sent me, to ensure that they do have to pay postage. I have done this with companies that offeri large loans or credit cards with high interest rates, encouraging people to get further into debt.

Wavechange, your reply is decent and reasonable.
However, I would love you to be able to come and see what would happen if we simply sat back and waited for people to come to us. Trying to make a profit in a business involves a certain amount of wastage. I and my salesmen make two free visits to potential buyers for every one order that we take. That is a “waste” of resources, petrol, time etc. But it produces enough money to sustain my family and several others.
Direct marketing leaflets inevitably involve “wastage” but the positive effects outweigh the negative on most occasions.

I am not trying to put you out of business Greg but I have signed up not to receive mail by post, so anything I do receive will at best be recycled and may put me off using that company in future.

I am not bothered by the leaflets that are hand-delivered and at the moment I am studying each one to try to find local printers that I could use to produce information leaflets for a charity.

I do try to support small businesses and these are often recommended by friends.

Your company is inefficient if you cannot survive without spamming the local population, just the same as the people complaining that if minimum wage rises that they can’t afford to pay their staff…then I’m sorry but you can’t afford staff and if I ou Canterbury survive on the customers you get without wasting the planet’s resources to spam letterboxes then your business model is inefficient.

I’m not sure if this is the place to advertise a particular commercial opt-out service, nor would I recommend this particular company.

It’s important to realise that companies such as the Green Preference Service (there are plenty of others) make money by trading people’s personal details. When you register you’ll be encouraged to indicate what types of ‘communications’ you might be interested in, which is valuable information for the junk mail industry (see the November issue of Which?). As a result, you may find you’ll actually get more unsolicited mail as a result of signing up. This is a rather worrying trend; the (not-for-profit but industry-run) Mailing Preference Service will start doing the same from next April.

It’s worth noting it’s not a very effective solution either. The Green Preference Service only covers personally addressed junk mail send by organisations that are members of the Direct Marketing Association and who have joined the Green Preference Service. Really, it’s not going to do much to reduce unsolicited mail. A much more effective approach is to routinely send unsolicited advertisements back to the sender and to send data protection notices to those companies that just won’t leave you alone.

In my article I argued the junk mail industry has failed to make it easier for people to reduce unwanted mail. I’d like to add that companies such as the Green Preference Service illustrate the point perfectly. Rather than allowing people to simply stop unsolicited mail (which would justify the use of the adjective ‘Green’) the industry wants something in return: your personal details. For that reason alone I wouldn’t encourage anyone to join websites like these.

Interestingly, businesses have few rights when it comes to preventing unsolicited mail. You can’t register your company with the Mailing Preference Service or send the sender a Data Protection Notice, for instance.

I’d suggesting returning all the unwanted mail back to the senders. Cross out the address(*), write something along the lines of ‘Junk mail – please remove from mailing list’ on the envelope and pop it back in the post. If enough people / companies would do this the problem would solve itself pretty quickly!

You may also want to contact Defra. I raised the issue of ‘business-to-business’ junk mail with them a while ago and they said they have no intention to make it easier for businesses to prevent unwanted advertising mail because nobody appears to be complaining about it. I’m sure they’ll be interesting to hear your story. The e-mail address to contact is defra.helpline@defra.gsi.gov.uk.

—
(*) Expert tip: also cross out any of those red/orange sorting stripes you may find on junk mail envelopes. Those barcodes (not sure what the correct name is) are used by Royal Mail’s sorting machines to sort mail items. If you don’t put a cross through the barcodes the item you returned to the sender may be redirected to again!

Unfortunately, many people find Royal Mail will ignore a registration with the Door-to-Door Opt-Out unless you keep hassling them and/or make a formal complaint. Information about how best to hassle / complaint about Royal Mail can be found on the Stop Junk Mail website:

http://www.stopjunkmail.org.uk/guide/door_to_door_opt_out.php#complaints

If you’re a radical who prefers taking legal action then contract law is your friend – people have had considerable success claiming money from junk mail offenders (including Virgin Media!). The first thing you’d need to do is send the offender a notice/contract demanding that they cease delivering unaddressed mail to your address within 28 days. The notice/contract needs to state that you will charge the offender £25 (or whatever amount you think is reasonable) for every breach of the contract. Once the contract is breached you make a claim via Money Claim Online (www.moneyclaim.gov). My understanding is that offenders usually fail to respond, in which case they have effectively pleaded guilty. Other offenders will simply pay up because disputing you claim would probably be unsuccessfull and/or not cost-effective.

I expect it’s the case that the bumf included with the mags pays for the reduced price for a subscription compared with buying them over the counter. The charities and companies that pay to have their stuff delivered this way must think it’s worth while; I don’t give it a second glance as it goes straight in the recycling bin. I’d rather not have it in the first place but I wouldn’t want to pay more for the magazines just to exclude it.

Hi!

I can’t find templates for Notice of Demand For Administration Costs
Notice of Fault and Opportunity To Cure
Notice of Default

Any pointers would be appreciated!

Cheers : >