In the past week, I read a New York Times article which favorably reported on the initiative of a for-profit company, which has a business based on getting people to pay for being taken off mailing lists and for having a tree planted on their behalf. I also attended the premier trade show for the production print and mail industry, Graph Expo, which showcased the best-in-class solutions for direct mailers and chaired a meeting of our Mailing Industry CEO Council to discuss strategies for improving the value of the mailstream.

I was struck by the contrast between the absolutely arrogant and uninformed view of direct marketing mail reflected in the article and the sophistication and thoughtfulness of the people who provide the print and mail services to direct mail marketers. I was also struck by the fact that, as I have learned more about the many for-profit organizations that are peddling services to get people off mailing lists, their motivation is to make money by playing upon the fears of identity theft or the apparent environmental benefit of reducing mail-related waste to make money. The most startling learning is that they have essentially rejected the fundamental principle of the Direct Marketing Association’s Mail Preference Service, informed consumer choice, to get people to do something detrimental to them if it costs them as little money as possible and if they can increase their profit margins.

Most of us receive unsolicited and unwanted marketing mail in annoying quantities every year, and the direct mailing industry can do a great deal more to reduce the volume and annoyance factor of that mail. But banning 80-90% of all unsolicited marketing mail, as the company referred to in the New York Times article wants to do, is wildly off the mark and would be horrible for the American economy and the environment. Most Americans don’t realize the mail supports $900 billion in economic activity and nine million jobs.

Let’s get a few facts on the table. Paper used in the mail does not result in the reduction of the tree population. Forest products companies routinely plant more trees than they cut for paper pulp, and they work with sustainable forestry organizations to make sure that they are managing forests in environmentally sound fashion.

An increasing volume of mail is using recyclable paper and ink, and mail production processes are increasingly sensitive to carbon footprint. All mail tossed into the wastebasket consumes about 2.5% of landfill space and is biodegradable and non-toxic, unlike the metal and plastic component, waste from the electronic devices that would be used in place of the mail.

Regarding the issue of identify theft, a Presidential Commission looking at identify theft found that only 3.5% of all cases were related to the mail. Considering all communication channels, mail is an extremely safe medium. More identity theft occurs from people who are tricked into giving up their credit card and social security data on the internet than from mail-related transactions.

There is a legitimate annoyance factor from unsolicited, unwanted mail, but let’s look at these annoyance factors one at a time:

• Improperly addressed mail: To some degree, direct mailers are at fault for not using the best available tools for updating addresses on their mailing lists. But overly-broad privacy laws handicap people from getting complete and up-to-date addresses on everyone on their lists.

• Poorly targeted mail (getting mail marketing products and services in which we have no interest): This is a solvable problem. Marketers could collect a sufficient amount of information to have an intimate knowledge of our preferences, but many of us would not want anyone to have that level of detailed information about us.

• Poorly timed mail: Getting catalogs we want, but getting them more often than we want them. Again, this is a solvable problem if consumers are willing to share more detailed preferences with marketers.

• Mail that arrives too late: Getting an announcement on a sale that has already happened. Intelligently using mail scheduling technologies can eliminate this problem.

• Mail that is offensive to us because of its content, because it is sent to children, adults who need guardians or conservators, or people that have passed away, or because it misrepresents its intent. Some of this mail, particularly the fraudulent content mail, can be suppressed by the Postal Service, and the Postal Service actually has an enforcement agency, the Postal Inspection Service, that diligently shuts down mail with fraudulent content.

• Having an unsatisfactory experience with what we bought, because it was not as represented: More accurately representing what marketers are trying to sell would solve much of this problem.

For many causes of unwanted mail, getting what we do not want is a result of a marketer having imperfect knowledge about our preferences and sending us something inconsistent with those unknown preferences. Much of the remaining mail can be stopped in other ways.

So what’s wrong with a legally-mandated “Do Not Mail” registry? The fundamental problem is that it is a massive, costly overreaction to a relatively minor problem. People who want to get off mailing lists can do so today without the intervention of legislators or regulators. In fact, there is even a business that is trying to offer a viable and valuable service to help mail recipients identify what they want and do not want. That company, Earth Class Mail, is trying to be an intermediary for your mail and learn about your precise preferences.

Furthermore, it is our state governments that are considering these measures, but mail is integral to interstate and global commerce, and has been carefully policed by the Postal Inspection Service relative to offensive content. Does it make sense in a global economy to have different states adopting different standards for products and services regulated in Washington?

In terms of more specifics regarding why this approach is unwise, consider the following. With a broad-based “Do Not Mail” registry, many businesses would not survive. Mail is the most cost-efficient way to communicate with customers, and many businesses throughout the US depend on the mail because they can’t afford radio or TV spots. Others utilize it in conjunction with other communication mediums, such as the internet, TV, newspaper advertisements and radio.

If a registry stopped American companies from finding new customers, besides damaging those businesses, many jobs would be lost from significantly reduced mail volumes, which would lead to much higher postage prices on the rest of the mail.

The environmental consequences of less marketing mail might be a significantly greater carbon footprint. Some of those people who shop from catalogs to buy holiday or special occasion gifts would almost certainly get into their cars and pollute the environment. Reputable groups are trying to get consumers to make informed choices to take control of what they receive, but the one profiled in the New York Times is not getting sufficient revenue per customer to make that happen.

At Graph Expo, vendors offered technologies to improve address quality, enable better targeting, quicker responses in sending a marketing piece to interested prospects, and more precise representation of what is being sold by the printed material and graphics. They are trying to offer solutions that will preserve the mail medium, but reduce its annoyance factor.

Our Emtex software helps customers with large printers produce precise colors consistent with the marketer’s desire to represent accurately the color and appearance of the actual item being sold. Our friends at MCS Incorporated actually work with marketers to make sure that the same quality and precision is obtained whether the marketer is printing an image on a glossy postcard or a recycled envelope, no easy feat to accomplish, when the marketer is printing at very high speeds.

If you run a business, you need to make mail recipients and your marketers aware of the Direct Marketing Association Mail Preference Service. It is selective, broadly followed, highly effective, and being continuously improved.

There are some problems with the volume and types of mail some consumers are receiving, but the problem is addressable without legislative or regulatory intervention.

This entry was posted on Saturday, September 15th, 2007 at 12:03 pm and is filed under Direct Mail, Environment. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.