I want to begin by thanking Doctor Gerberding and her team for convening and hosting this extremely important conference. I come to you as a leader of a company, Pitney Bowes that defined employee health and well-being as a core value even before I became CEO in 1996.

Our mail stream businesses have always required a high degree of subject matter expertise and relationship-building with postal services and customers that take many years to learn and master. Therefore, for several decades, we had been a generous company in delivering benefits that rewarded and encouraged employee loyalty and commitment.

In 1990, this commitment to employee health and well-being was being challenged by our inability to continue offering health plans that essentially provided medical benefits without meaningful employee contributions in terms of premiums, co-pays and deductibles. Our costs were increasing at an alarmingly high 14% per year, and we were not delivering a high degree of employee satisfaction. When I became head of human resources in 1990, I had the unenviable task of committing us to a long-term course of action that required higher employee premiums, co-pays and deductibles, but I also recognized that we had to maintain and/or increase employee satisfaction with our benefit offerings, or we were going to lose one of our key talent retention tools. (more…)

Last week, we posted on the Pitney Bowes web site at www.pb.com/mailimpact a white paper detailing preliminary findings on the environmental impact of mail. Several points stand out when we look at the study:

• Mail is a relatively minor source of carbon footprint compared with common personal and household activities, such as taking a two-minute shower, which has the same carbon footprint as receiving 40 pieces of letter mail.
• Electronic communications, on the whole, have a carbon footprint similar to paper-based communications
• As noted on pages 21 and 22, the ultimate question is not whether mail or paper-based communications have an environmental impact that could be reduced. No one questions the need to reduce the carbon footprint of mail or paper-based communications, and the paper talks about sustainability initiatives. (more…)

As anyone who has read my past blogs on environmental issues knows, I believe that eliminating unsolicited direct marketing mail may help reduce the “annoyance factor” some mail recipients experience, but there’s no assurance that it will improve the environment.”

I have been concerned that if some of those individuals who stop receiving unsolicited mail get into their automobiles and buy an item at a retail store that they would ordered through a direct mail solicitation, the environment is worse off. Until I attended the recent Center for Research on Regulated Industries Conference, I did not have data to support my point. Now I do. (more…)

In many blogs, I have commented on the issue the mailing industry faces with respect to the attacks on unsolicited marketing mail by environmentalists or privacy advocates. In particular, environmentalists argue that it would be better for the environment if everyone communicated electronically, instead of doing so in paper-based communications.

I am in the process of reviewing the increasingly robust research which suggests that electronic communication has substantial environmental hazards, in some cases, greater than physical mail-based communications. But the insight I want to share in this blog is that the boundary between physical and electronic communication is not clear, and is getting more muddied as time goes on. (more…)

As we move into May, this is junior prom season at high schools, and I have a son who is planning to attend the prom. I remember my junior prom, which took place in May, 1965. It was a wonderful evening with a wonderful date, but what I also remember is that Brother Joseph Clark, our principal at my high school, Bishop Kearney High School in Rochester, New York, decided that the prom would start at 10 pm and end at 4 am. He said that no one would be allowed to leave the prom before 4 am unless he or she was picked up by parents. His explicit reason for this decision was to keep us in the prom venue until after the bars and nightclubs around town closed.

Today, this same issue has surfaced in a different way. New York City has decided to order all bars closed at 2 am, instead of 4 am. In the Sunday, April 27, New York Post, in the Page 6 Magazine, there were actually two op-ed pieces published on this subject, one opposing the earlier closing hour, and the other favoring it. The proponent, a female freelance writer, made the great comment that nothing much good happened between 2 am and 4 am. In fact, those extra hours probably led to more behaviors that people later regretted, if they could remember them, than during any other 2-hour period during the day. (more…)

I recently had the opportunity to speak with Eleanor Trickett, the editor in chief of DM News, about the inaugural DM News/Pitney Bowes survey on direct mail and the environment.

The survey reveals that consumers greatly overestimate the environmental impact of direct mail. Eleanor and I discussed the implications of this survey and how the industry can implement new technology and other initiatives to reduce the environmental impact of mail. We also discussed how industry leaders can work to improve the public perception of mail, and grow the value of mail as a medium in the long-term.

Listen to the Podcast
Get the Flash Player to see this player.

I believe strongly that health is enhanced by healthy behaviors, such as good nutrition, exercise, and healthy lifestyles. To some degree, we can mandate healthy behaviors by law and regulation, or by centralized controls.

However, just as I noted in a blog several months ago in which I described some of the findings in the book Mindless Eating, authored by Brian Wansink, the best behavior change drivers are those of which the individual is not conscious. Steve Victor’s Fit For Life blog provides a brief summary of the book’s key takeaways.

For example, in our World Headquarters at Pitney Bowes, we have created a healthy environment by the food we serve and the way we price it. We have an on-site clinic and on-site fitness center, and we have many outreach programs for preventive screenings and immunizations. (more…)

Recently, our mailing industry has spent a lot of time thinking further about the continued strength of “Do Not Mail” legislation. Our company also sponsored a survey conducted by the respected industry publication DM News.

The findings are quite interesting:

• To the degree that “Do Not Mail” proponents have cited environmental arguments, they have successfully left with the public a number of misimpressions about mail’s environmental impact, all of which grossly exaggerates mail’s negative environmental impact:

• While mail constitutes about 2% of solid waste in landfills, the public believes it constitutes over 33%.
• Similarly, the whole issue of the cutting of trees to produce pulp and paper has been wildly misunderstood. The practice of cutting and harvesting older trees and replacing them with new plantings, usually accounts for very little negative environmental impact.
• The public correctly understands that poorly addressed and poorly targeted mail is wasteful. As a Company, Pitney Bowes has been passionate about selling solutions to reduce the production and delivery of wasteful mail, so I could not agree more with this perception. (more…)

Although I sometimes think that the focus on global warming risks focusing too much on one environmental issue, reducing carbon emissions, to the exclusion of others with an extremely high urgency, like environmental pollution that contributes to water-borne diseases in third world countries, or toxic chemicals in soils around the world, there are many opportunities to deal with both environmental pollution and global warming issues.

The biggest opportunity to address both in one strategy is the reduction of carbon from vehicle emissions into the air. Better fuel economy, reduced driving, and reduced emissions improve air quality, reduce traffic congestion, reduce asthma from bad air, and reduce the carbon footprint of driving.

That is one of the reasons we have advocated substituting remote commerce for face-to-face commerce relative to citizen interactions with government and other private sector transactional activity that reduces unnecessary vehicle trips. What are some of the “no-brainers” here?

• Why not eliminate all toll plazas and substitute either E-Z-Pass-type solutions or photos that capture a driver’s license plate number and result in a bill being sent to the driver? The highest emissions come from car engines running at low or idling speeds, as opposed to 55-mile-an-hour travel. Why do we keep toll plazas in place? For example, Ireland, which I visited this past week, is on the way to eliminating them. (more…)

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. (more…)