Spokane7
35°
April 17, 2010 in Opinion
Mail cull: Debating a proposal for limiting unsolicited direct mail
Pro: Reducing unwanted mail would save money, cut pollution and help businesses
The Do Not Mail resolution before the Spokane County commissioners, and soon to be before the Spokane City Council, makes good sense whether you’re concerned about the environment or just tired of “junk mail.” And when you think through the few objections to it, it makes even better sense.
More than 100 billion pieces of junk mail are delivered each year in the United States – an average of 848 pieces per household. The production, distribution and disposal creates 51 million metric tons of greenhouse gases – equal to the emissions of almost 10 million cars and more than the combined emissions of seven U.S. states. Climate change or no, that’s a lot of pollution.
Garbage disposal takes place at sites that taxpayers build and maintain, using equipment and facilities that are replaced at public expense as they wear out. At least 34 percent of Americans (about 100 million people) don’t have access to curbside recycling and much of the direct mail that becomes refuse isn’t shredded – or even opened – creating privacy issues and the potential for identity theft.
Finally, the environmental issue is especially crucial here in Spokane where more than 400,000 people depend on the Spokane Valley/Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer for drinking water and irrigation.
Now, to consider the objections.
Postal workers are concerned about the loss of jobs. However, the postal service is already laying off employees and talking of eliminating Saturday delivery, so the failing postal service business model can’t be blamed on a registry that doesn’t even exist yet.
Consumers have a right to choose how to spend their money, even if their decisions result in lost jobs or the demise of whole corporations. They don’t make DeSotos any longer, but we still have plenty of cars. The postal service needs a new business model and we need an effective way to stop the delivery of mail we don’t wish to receive.
A recent survey by Microsoft Advertising concludes that print advertising is twice as effective as other forms for large stores, though Editor and Publisher magazine reports that only 12 percent of adults surveyed turn to direct mail for the best bargains. By giving those of us who throw it away or recycle it the opportunity to opt out, a Do Not Mail registry would remove the wasteful bloat from distribution lists. It would make direct mail more effective and, thus, a better bargain for businesses that advertise through print media. In other words, it would be good for businesses!
A national Do Not Mail registry doesn’t ban unsolicited direct mail. Similar to the Do Not Call list, which was one of the most popular pieces of legislation in history, those who want to continue receiving direct mail simply don’t sign the registry. Those of us who are tired of the waste of resources and the time spent sorting it, dragging it to the garbage can and paying to have it hauled away would sign up and opt out.
For further information and the sources of quoted statistics, please visit Open Wing Leadership.
Con: Proposal would hurt businesses, cost jobs, and blocking is already possible
In times of economic hardship, our government should be looking for ways to help small businesses and their employees, not hurt them and kill jobs. Yet that is what is at stake as the Spokane County commissioners consider endorsing a statewide Do Not Mail proposal.
A Do Not Mail registry would pose significant consequences for businesses across our state. While some critics call it “junk mail,” advertising mail carries enormous benefits for small, local businesses, for communities and for our economy.
I am the director of the Pitney Bowes Call Center, employing nearly 400 people in Spokane. We have been a good corporate citizen here for 18 years, including significant leadership in our state’s Commute Trip Reduction programs and other important environmental efforts. However, Do Not Mail proposals put these jobs and 67,000 others statewide at risk. Printers, paper suppliers, warehouse workers, postal employees and manufacturers are all involved in the advertising mail supply chain, along with an additional 9,400 jobs in direct mail marketing itself.
With Washington’s unemployment rate at 9.5 percent, does this sound like a good idea?
Do Not Mail also hurts small businesses, the job-creating engines that most of us say we want to support.
Unlike large companies, these businesses cannot afford pricey television or radio ad campaigns. Instead, they rely on the mail to reach customers in the neighborhoods close to their businesses. Denying them access to consumers’ mailboxes effectively denies them the ability to advertise, depleting their sales revenues and ability to survive.
Advertising mail is a great source of coupons, special offers and sales notifications. According to a recent U.S. Postal Service study, more than 8 out of 10 households read or scan the advertising mail they receive. A recent Pitney Bowes/DMNews survey found that 78 percent of respondents prefer to receive coupons through the mail.
Implementing this program would also put Washington businesses at a tremendous disadvantage relative to other states. In 2009, advertising mail generated more than $14.4 billion in sales for the Washington economy. Without this type of influence and access to customers, business in the state would generate fewer sales, further hurting their bottom lines.
Advertising mail is environmentally responsible. Trees are a renewable resource (and a major Washington export product), and mail is recyclable and represents only 2 percent of total municipal waste nationwide.
Consumers already have options to reduce the amount of advertising mail they receive. For instance, the Direct Marketing Association runs DMAchoice ( www.dmachoice.org), a free online service that empowers consumers to control the advertising mail they receive. Individuals wanting to cut down on pre-screened credit and insurance offers can visit www.optoutprescreen.com or call 1-888-5OPT-OUT. People also have the option of directly contacting companies if they wish to be taken off a mailing list, or use online services like www.catalogchoice.org.
A Do Not Mail program would be a job-killer for our region and our state, while providing no material benefit to the environment. In the midst of this economic turmoil, Spokane County should take a stand against this unwarranted and unnecessary proposal.
Donna McKereghan, a member of the Washington state Legislative Ethics Board, has encouraged the Board of Spokane County Commissioners and the Spokane City Council to support a statewide Do Not Mail registry.
Paul M. Keil is director of the Pitney Bowes Call Center in Spokane.
Vote yes for the levy 
EWU Text-to-Win Contest 
Enter to win tickets to see Adam Carolla at the Knitting Factory 
WSU Text-to-Win Contest 
cryssT on April 17 at 12:00 p.m.
YES, YES, a thousand time YES.
i have yet to use a piece of junk mail advertising.
toddb on April 19 at 2:40 p.m.
First, I question your carbon foot print calculations. I believe either you or your source has inflated the numbers. People that hate direct mail always inflate… the numbers.
With the energy bill passed by congress carbon credits and carbon set asides are in vogue. Direct mail haters NEVER offset their inflated carbon calculations with carbon credits resulting from the millions of trees planted by the paper industry yearly. Trees for US paper comes from tree farms and is a renewable resource. So many trees have been planted by the paper industry over the last 50 years that the USA has more trees now than it had in 1900!
As for land fills, this activity (as with health care) should be handled by private companies not by government. Private land fills are regulated by the EPA (state and federal) and are constructed so no affluent can escape the land fill into an aquifer. If your government run land fill isn’t state of the art then you have a practical reason not just a philosophical reason to privatize.
Your concern about inert paper going in to a land fill appears to be a just reason for shutting down a multi billion dollar industry. This industry not only employs postal workers but also people in logging, paper making, advertising, printing, and transportation that are associated with the production and delivery of direct mail.
A fact haters of direct mail always fail to mention is that direct mail makes up less than 2% of our garbage stream. Why not go after something a little more toxic that consumes a whole lot more volume? Why haven’t you gone after other industries and jobs that are more dangerous to the environment? What is your real agenda?
Funny how putting people that are associated with direct mail out of work is a worth while endeavor and yet the electronic medium (and its environmental damage) you used to write this hit piece is of so little concern to ecological elites like yourself. Are you willing to give up your game boy, laptop, blackberry, or iPad to keep the toxins contained in them out of land fills. Or do you recycle, sending these pieces to third world countries that use child slaves to reclaim and dispose of your toxic toys?
Finally a simple fact that haters of direct mail (generally people that work for news papers and compete directly with direct mail) always forget to mention to their readers is that with out advertising mail there would be no Postal Service. Direct mail makes up 50% of the volume handled by the USPS. In ten years direct mail is projected to make up 60% of mail volume.
Congress does not fund the Postal Service! Your readers have two choices, occasionally receive and dispose of mail they do not want or be willing to pay higher taxes to fund mail delivery. Actually there is a third choice, eliminate the USPS but who would deliver mail to Alaska.
Some facts. Do not mail registries will make it unprofitable for advertisers to stay in the mail stream. There has never been an article written about the negative effects of advertising delivered by news papers. Direct mail volume has a negligible effect on land fill volume and releases no toxins into the ground water beneath the land fills. The USPS is solely funded by the people that use their services to deliver mail to recipients (at no cost to the recipients). By the way, birthday cards don’t cover their delivery costs.
I can get behind a do not mail registry as long as the communities that pass these bills and the politicians that support these measures are ready to fund the postal infrastructure that is necessary to continue the services they are now receiving for free.
The USPS has a $70 billion budget and is projected to lose $7 billion this year.
vworkman on April 20 at 12:56 p.m.
The direct mail industry manages an effective national registry that has been used by DM professionals for years. There is no need, and frankly no resources, to fund another redundant layer of state government to manage and enforce such a registry. The authors arguments are biased and unfairly lumps all direct mail to support her position. This is a national campaign, Spokane is just one of several governments that have been asked to get behind this special interest campaign.
Wisely, most recognize the implications, and have tabled or rejected the concept. Seattle, being the exception, merely passed it along to Olympia to reject.
Politicians, perhaps, produce and send out more unsolicited, unread and unwanted campaign mail than most any other category. If they only would mail to the people who requested their campaign mail, what would be the use?
I have been producing direct mail for small businesses for over 30 years in Spokane. I currently mail nearly 300,000 pieces a month just for local businesses. These businesses depend on direct mail to support their businesses, families and the community. All my mail is earth friendly, recycled papers, organic inks and triple certified by the leading environmental
agencies.
I encourage Spokane city and county government to reject the registry proposal as another redundant expansion of government, and detrimental to small business owners, their families and the community.