[an error occurred while processing this directive]

LATEST SUBMISSIONS

Junk mail: Let the people decide

Saturday, February 24 at 12:01 AM

By Steven Krieger and Linda Rubright

Recently, Rep. Sara Gagliardi introduced House Bill 1303, which would create an opt-out registry for direct mail much like the wildly popular Do Not Call registry. There has been much discussion about this bill in the media — including an opposition editorial in the Rocky Mountain News on Feb. 16 (“Is junk mail so bad?”).

The newspaper’s editorial board opposed the Do Not Call registry, which turned out to be one of the most popular consumer laws in recent history. Is direct mail more or less annoying than telemarketers? Does it really matter? Many citizens find direct mail to be annoying and would like to reclaim their constitutional right to privacy by ending unwanted solicitations from entering their home.

Additionally, many citizens believe the practice of direct-mail advertising wastes their time, tax dollars and natural resources. It’s not physically difficult to recycle direct mail, but it’s not difficult to ignore a ringing phone call either — several calls were ignored while writing this piece. Citizens should decide whether or not they’d appreciate an easy and simple Do Not Junk opt-out registry to stop unwanted solicitations.

The concern for small businesses is thoughtful but unnecessary as the registry would not end the practice of direct mail. Savvy businessowners do not want to spend money printing and mailing advertisements to an unreceptive audience. A junk mail opt-out registry would provide a more accessible marketing tool for all businesses — a refined list of potential and interested customers. Such a tool would create a higher rate of return from direct mail and lead to increased business. Plus, small businesses could easily afford to maximize and expand their marketing efforts to receptive customers — again, leading to more business.

The civil penalty for violating the registry is unlikely to remain in the bill since the attorney general can prosecute repeat offenders and the bill outlines special considerations to limit violations by allowing exemptions for honest mistakes.

Additionally, the fee to obtain the list is based on a sliding scale (capped at $500 annually) and businesses with fewer than five employees pay nothing — what a great marketing tool for small, start-up businesses!

Coloradans receive more than 340 million pounds of direct mail each year —more than 70 pounds per person. While many view dealing with direct mail as merely annoying, it’s also quite expensive. Disposal costs drain taxpayers of more than $4 million a year — surely there is a better use for this money.

The citizens should decide whether or not a Do Not Junk opt-out registry would be useful.

Those interested can send their comments to state legislators by visiting www.nomorejunkmail.org.

Steven Krieger is the grass-roots coordinator and community liaison for the Center for a New American Dream (www.newdream.org). Linda Rubright is a Denver resident and the spouse of the owner of a small marketing company.

READER COMMENTS

US Postal Service won’t let you refuse mail.

If the US Postal Service would abide by its own rule, each homeowner could easily stop junk mail from getting into their mailbox by putting a written notice on their mailbox expressing their preference.

The US Postal Services practices are supposed to be according to the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM). The DMM contains provision 508.1.1.2 that says, “Refusal at Delivery: The addressee may refuse to accept a mailpiece when it is offered for delivery.” I interpret this rule to mean that if a homeowner wants to refuse an unwanted mailpiece (i.e. junk mail), the homeowner can do so when the mailpiece is offered for delivery. More to the point – refuse it before it is put into the mailbox!

In practical application, since the postal carrier comes to homes at different times each day, the homeowner cannot be waiting at the mailbox to dialogue with the mail carrier about each mailpiece. The only realistic way to interpret 508.1.1.2 therefore is that the homeowner should post a notice on the mailbox telling the postal carrier about the homeowner’s preference. The notice to the postal service must be specific and unambiguous. For instance, a homeowner should certainly be able to write, “No mail that is not addressed to the Jones” because that does not require the postal carrier to make a subjective judgment. On the other hand, it would not be acceptable to write “no junk mail” because the definition of “junk mail” is subjective and the mail carrier cannot decide.

Unfortunately, the US Postal Service has written to me that they will NOT honor a notice refusing mail, not matter how specifically it is worded, because the postal carrier does not have time to sort through the mail at my mailbox to pick out the pieces that are not addressed to me. Therefore, the US Postal Service is passing their sorting and disposing task onto me by putting all the mail they want into my mailbox, even though this seemingly violates 508.1.1.2.

Since the U.S. Postal Service will not abide by 508.1.1.2, homeowners need to stop unwanted mail at the source (i.e. by blocking the sender from sending it). We need a nationwide “Do Not Mail” law to create a one-stop, convenient place for homeowners to give senders notice that we do not want certain kinds of mail sent to our homes.

http://www.newdream.org/emails/ta19.html

Signed,
Ramsey A Fahel

Posted by Ramsey Fahel on March 16, 2007 07:12 PM

The U.S. Mail is the only way to get into all homes if your an advitiser. Many people would sign up to NOT receive bulk mail and ultimately miss out on advertisements that they were interested in.

Posted by Walt on February 24, 2007 08:07 PM

Do Not Mail Opt-Out Law would be fair to everyone.

The proposed Colorado "Do not mail" is an Opt-Out law. Only those not desiring advertising mail need opt-out. Anyone desiring advertising mail can do nothing - and continue to receive it. Why deny those wishing to avoid advertising mail the power to do so?

I do not consider handling unwanted advertising placed against my will on my personal property to be a civic obligation!

The US Supreme Court said in the Rowan case in 1970, ““In today's [1970] complex society we are inescapably captive audiences for many purposes, but a sufficient measure of individual autonomy must survive to permit every householder to exercise control over unwanted mail. To make the householder the exclusive and final judge of what will cross his threshold undoubtedly has the effect of impeding the flow of ideas, information, and arguments that, ideally, he should receive and consider. Today's merchandising methods, the plethora of mass mailings subsidized by low postal rates, and the growth of the sale of large mailing lists as an industry in itself have changed the mailman from a carrier of primarily private communications, as he was in a more leisurely day, and have made him an adjunct of the mass mailer who sends unsolicited and often unwanted mail into every home. It places no strain on the doctrine of judicial notice to observe that whether measured by pieces or pounds, Everyman's mail today is made up overwhelmingly of material he did not seek from persons he does not know. And all too often it is matter he finds offensive.”

Furthermore, the Supreme Court said, “the mailer's right to communicate is circumscribed only by an affirmative act of the addressee giving notice that he wishes no further mailings from that mailer.

To hold less would tend to license a form of trespass and would make hardly more sense than to say that a radio or television viewer may not twist the dial to cut off an offensive or boring communication and thus bar its entering his home. Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit; we see no basis for according the printed word or pictures a different or more preferred status because they are sent by mail.”

We need a Colorado “Do Not Mail” law to create a one-stop, convenient place for homeowners to give senders the aforementioned affirmative notice that we do not want certain kinds of mail sent to our homes.

Signed,
Ramsey A Fahel
Arvada, CO

Posted by Ramsey Fahel on February 24, 2007 07:46 AM