Discussion

By Michael Josefowicz on Mar 11, 2008

The printing industry has to go on the offensive. What exactly is the carbon footprint for the google computer farms and the laptops being carried around by the road warriors? And what about the digital divide? And what about the importance of literacy in a knowledge economy? Gutenberg started the explosion of knowledge. While the internet is no doubt the best place to search and buy/sell stuff, gamble and find porn, print is still has the highest "info per carbon" footprint, especially for those at the bottom of the pyramid. Fighting the "sustainable battle" from a defensive position or with press releases is a loser. If Spitzer can be taken down in NY becuase of immature decisions and Clinton can not spin without John Stewart and SNL taking her down, it is silly to think that this fight can be fought by spin or better branding. To get it right, it has be fought on the basis of evidence, sustainability and the public good.

By Bryan Yeager on Mar 11, 2008

I agree with the overall premise of having a better way to control what type of mail you receive and how frequently. Therefore, the idea of a "Do Not Mail" list seems enticing. However, I think it's ultimately being handled wrong by this group. First, there's a vast difference between the telemarketing that was so persistent in the 1990s and mailing pieces in general. Telemarketing was an interruption of life at usually inopportune times like in the middle of dinner. It was targeted sometimes, but in a bad way. Lots of telemarketers preyed on the elderly and swindled them out of large sums of money, and it was hard to get off of the call lists. Not to say that there aren't deceptive mailings that still go on; there definitely are. However, there's always (or at least there should be) the fine print, and a much lower level of intrusiveness. While telemarketing was deceptive and intrusive, it also provided thousands of Americans with jobs. So when the calls stopped, those Americans no longer had jobs. In an election year where one of the main points is the economy (specifically, job creation), something tells me that any list that has "Do Not" in front of it isn't going to get very far. Also, there are already services that exist to remove yourself from a number of different mailing lists, including pre-screen credit card offers (https://www.optoutprescreen.com) and direct marketing lists (https://www.dmachoice.org/MPS/mps_consumer_description.php). There are also commercial services that will assist you in getting rid of your junk mail (http://www.41pounds.org/). These services have been featured on numerous mainstream media outlets, and can be found with a simple Google search of "stop junk mail". I think the "Do Not Mail" idea stems from the general laziness of most Americans, as well the superficial feeling of saving the environment that you'll get when you put your name on the list. Maybe the current services that are offered from the credit bureaus, the DMA, and 41pounds aren't effective enough. Unfortunately, the only way to take it out of government hands is to create a service that's even simpler, more intuitive, and more effective than existing services are, or than the "Do Not Mail" service could be. Who's up for the challenge?

By Mario Benvenuti on Mar 12, 2008

EnviroManiacs will ruin all business's

By Dr. Joe Webb on Mar 12, 2008

I reduced my mail incredibly by a few steps spread over a couple of months. Anyone can do it. The mechanism is already there.

I wrote about it almost a year ago this week:
http://members.whattheythink.com/drjoewebb/drjoe179.cfm

The use of the mail is an aspect of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. Just wait 'til one of these groups has to do serious fundraising, and finds out that the easiest way to do it is through... the mail!

By Will on Mar 12, 2008

drjoewebb wrote: "The use of the mail is an aspect of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly." Everyone in America is awarded the right to free speech, but there is no requirement to listen to or to welcome unwanted advertising into your home. Just as Americans have the right to sign onto the Do Not Call Registry or hang a “no solicitors” sign on the door, those who want to opt-out of junk mail deserve a simple way to do so. The 1970 Supreme Court case Rowan vs. Postal Service ruled that “a mailer’s right to communicate must stop at the mailbox of an unreceptive addressee.” In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Burger said that a person’s desire for privacy within his or her own home is paramount: The Court has traditionally respected the right of a householder to bar, by order or notice, solicitors, hawkers, and peddlers from his property…[W]e see no basis for according the printed word or pictures a different or more preferred status because they are sent by mail. The ancient concept that “a man’s home is his castle” into which “not even the king may enter” has lost none of its vitality. You can read the full opinion at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=us/397/728.html Consumers don't want junk mail for a number of reasons. And they won't accept the imperfect tools currently available that won't protect them from the increasing amount of mail which arrives at their doors addressed to "Smart Shopper" or "Current Resident". Just taking a look at the petition at donotmail.org shows just how in need of reinvention the USPS and Direct Marketing industry are.

By Michael Josefowicz on Mar 12, 2008

Dr. Joe, I agree that mailing is an aspect of freedom of speech and assembly But if and only if one considers corporations as individuals. I wouldn't be surprised if sooner or later some politicians and public interest groups are going to look again at the idea of freedom of speech for corporations. Consider that the tobacco ads were banished from TV. Consider also the unsustainable expense of pharma ads and political campaigns. The legal definiton of a business as an "individual" was useful in earlier times, but so were craft guilds and other forms of royal monopilies. But now with LLC's, individuals can easily protect themselves from business risk. And global businesses take whatever legal forms they need to take to do business wherever they have to do business. Other western democracies seem to do ok with limiting TV commercials to the breaks between shows or banning political ads and replacing them with a certain amount of public access. In an internet driven global communication ecology, "we the people..." might be able finallly to be taken at face value. Corporations are clearly not people. They are profti making enterprises. To be clear, I am totally in favor of profit making enterprises. They can be a force for rational distribution of resources to create common wealth. That's behind my thinking that the printing industry has to fight this fight on the basis of sustainability informed by real evidence and considered thought.

By K. Guadagni on Mar 13, 2008

From a Printer and Mailer’s point of view the Do Not Mail list would certainly impact our business. However, this may an opportunity to re-educate people about the benefits of Direct Mail and the changes that are happening in the industry.

People may be signing a petition as a knee-jerk reaction to what they feel is an assault on their mailboxes without thinking of the times that they actually availed themselves of a service as a direct result of ‘junk mail’. Direct Mail works; otherwise millions of dollars would not be spent on it every month. With the new focus on super-targeted mailings as a result of more sophisticated data collection and usage, to block all direct mail would cause people to miss out on products and services they actually want.

On another note, I registered my elderly parents with the DMA’s ‘do not mail’ list and with the credit reporting companies as well. Their mail has been only marginally reduced. I’m guessing it was the reputable mailers – mailers that are actually members of the DMA – that respected their wishes and those of others that do not wish their mailboxes to be full everyday. Unfortunately they still receive tons of mail from disreputable ‘companies’ like bogus sweepstakes offers, get-rich-quick schemes and ‘magazine subscriptions’. I suppose these organizations wouldn’t respect any Do Not Mail list, no matter the source.

By Timothy Freeman on Mar 13, 2008

One of the relatively undiscussed aspects of this issue is the effect to the economic viability of the postal service if a significant volume of mail is deleted from the mail stream. Commercial mail supports a large percentage of the cost structure of the USPS. Any decrease in this volume shifts cost pressures onto First Class mail. The USPS is a vital communication link for most of the citizens in this country, many of whom,the elderly and poor primarily, do not have access to electronic communication technologies and will not be able to afford the cost of postage if you take out the revenue generated by commercial mail from the system. Yes, for those of us in the industry the companies that are supported and the jobs that are created by direct mail are of extreme importance but the continued availability af an efficient and relatively inexpensive postal service should be of extreme importance to all Americans. To me, unfettered access to mailboxes across the country seems to be a small price to pay for that.

By Tom Menard on Mar 13, 2008

I am a printer from Canada. And don't think that a monumental piece of US legislation like "Do Not Mail" won't affect us here in Canada just as much as it will you there in the US. I have been in the printing business for many, many years. I have been a mail-receiving, participating member of society even longer. I have been environmentally "sensitive" for longer than I can remember. Always with that printing mantra of "don't complain about the junk mail, it pays the bills." Here's the point... Our industry has been supported for a very long time by a false demand. Sure, some people want all the unaddressed admail they can get. But I would say that the majority of people do not. I've seen the polls that would suggest otherwise. I don't believe them. If we had a recycling bin at the mail superbox, it would be filled daily (rather than stuffed back in the mail, or strewn on the ground). For now... I take it home and recycle it there. We print tons and tons and tons of material, every single day, that people just don't want. We talk about "carbon footprints", cradle-to-grave life-cycles for products, recycling efforts, forest management and environmental and ecological responsibility, and even freedom-of-speech vs. other societal rights. But the fact remains, we cut down trees every day, stain them with oil-based products (vegetable or not), ship them to satisfy a demand that does not come close to the supply - and then get ready to do it again tomorrow. I am not anti-printing. I love printing. I truly respect it's ability to bring a message to people in a way no other medium can. I don't like garbage. I can no longer get comfortable with the idea that such a large part of our industry has degraded itself to a position that demands things stay the way they are because we don't know what else to do - and even if we did we don't really want to change anyways. Are the opt-out lists mentioned legally mandatory for all companies to follow? Or are they voluntary for companies to follow if it suits them? How do you police the adherence to an opt-out list? What are the legal fines and punishments? Why is it so awful to enshrine your rights to "no unsolicited mail" any different than any of the other non-life-threatening rights already covered by legislation? We all need to wake up. To find new ways to make our printing relevant. To find ways to make our industry relevant. To find a way to dramatically improve not only our ecological footprint - but our footprint on our history... and the future of our industry.

By drjoewebb on Mar 13, 2008

It is essential to note the comments written in my previously cited column. Mail volume is already down, and is still going down. Unlike e-mail spam, "junk mail" is too expensive to send to people who do not already meet some kind of defineable criteria. The amount of "occupant" or "resident" mail has dropped significantly over the years, and, of all things, is almost virtually limited to political mailings. Try this as well: paper 6%, ink 7%, postage 4% (more in certain categories). These are the price increases over the last year for critical components of mail campaigns. How are communicators dealing with it? By sending less and smaller items in the mail. By using more digital media. By sponsoring events. By a host of media that avoid the growing cost of print. This means that print costs more, and that claimed abuse already have a greater economic penalty than before. There is another practical barrier to using print for "junk" mail to recipients who display no predefined characteristics that make them good candidates for interest. This has been part of marketing theory and practice for decades. You tend to annoy people who are not likely to buy your products. The other aspect of this is the value of data bases to marketers. Magazines, organizations, and retailers have been able to re-sell their lists to others. These are assets to these organizations, and are often more valuable in a merger or acqusition than the actual magazine titles. Lists of customers are of course critical to retailers. If for example, the Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton campaign would want to rent the list of The Nation or Mother Jones magazines, or John McCain would want to rent the list of National Review, do not mail legislation would prohibit them from doing so. This would represent a significant burden to political candidates, especially candidates that are not well known, not just in raising money, but in competitively attracting voters. A Do Not Mail law applied to political discourse would be an incumbent protection act. Print has always been part of political discourse, especially in times prior to broadcast media. In the end, denying citizens and businesses the ability to prospect for new users of their services, or to generally announce their availability, is something that should be carefully thought out. This is more serious than I think the discussion so far appreciates. The hindering of new businesses will reduce market competition, limit the range of goods sold, and raise prices of those goods. The market entry costs for new businesses, especially small businesses, would be raised, protecting existing and well-known businesses from competition. This is a free speech issue. The worst junk mail I was getting was credit card solicitations. We do not get them any more. We do not get unsolicited catalogs. It's amazing. The current opt-out system actually works as described. The effort took me less time than it did to write this blog post. Virtually all magazine subscription forms have for years allowed subscribers to "opt out" from these sales of lists. I always avail myself of this option. Well, I always did, since I no longer subscribe to magazines except for three titles that do not have particularly good web sites or e-newsletters. ###

By Will on Mar 13, 2008

drjoewebb: Read my post above to see why this isn't a free speech issue. Americans are guaranteed the right to free speech, but that doesn't mean that I have the right to enter someone's home to say something. Again, the Supreme Court has interpreted our constitutional rights thus: “a mailer’s right to communicate must stop at the mailbox of an unreceptive addressee... The ancient concept that 'a man’s home is his castle' into which 'not even the king may enter' has lost none of its vitality." Regarding what you wrote here: "If for example, the Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton campaign would want to rent the list of The Nation or Mother Jones magazines, or John McCain would want to rent the list of National Review, do not mail legislation would prohibit them from doing so." No registry has yet been written, so I'm not sure why you're assuming that a Do Not Mail registry would restrict political speech. For better and for worse, Do Not Call does not appear to restrict political calls. The FAQ on DoNotMail.org says that ForestEthics supports exemptions for political speech. Direct Mail industry fears of a Do Not Mail list merely underscore that they know that Americans do not want junk mail. Our economy organizes itself according to supply and demand, so junk mail's runaway supply in the face of shrinking and resentful demand is a perfect example of market failure. If there is demand for junk mail, those people do not have to sign the registry. But it's clear that large swaths of the population at the very least want the choice to completely opt-out of a wasteful and unnecessary cycle.

By Michael Josefowicz on Mar 13, 2008

"Direct Mail works; otherwise millions of dollars would not be spent on it every month". True. But just because a business moves cash and makes someone profits, it doesn't imply sustainability. Consider the American automotive industry, or the steel industry before that. "One of the relatively undiscussed aspects of this issue is the effect to the economic viability of the postal service if a significant volume of mail is deleted from the mail stream." Given the efficiency or lack of it at USPS, the need for public monies to be diverted to support it, this may turn out to be a feature not a bug. "Here’s the point… Our industry has been supported for a very long time by a false demand." I agree that is exactly the point. We've been serving advertising since the industrial revolution. Maybe it's time to take what's left on the table and move on? "A Do Not Mail law applied to political discourse would be an incumbent protection act." Yup. But I'm pretty sure politicians would have pretty mild objections to making an exception for political mailings. I agree that the market is slowly weeding out the more silly uses of direct mail. But natural process, without legislation might now have become just a little too slow. In any case, if the issue is managing a print company going forward, the speed is less important than the direction. Resources wasted in some PR campaign fighting Do Not Mail could probably be much better invested in R&D that benefits commercial printers on the ground that can't invest the time or resources to stay on top of the tidal wave.

By Tom Stodola on Mar 14, 2008

Dr. Joe:
I have never had a direct mail piece interrupt my dinner. While I am mildy amused at some pieces that come to me printed in a language I do not speak, I just put it in my recycle bin and move on with my evening.

By drjoewebb on Mar 14, 2008

Tom: Some people are obviously offended by mail. I am not. Some mail I really like. Those envelopes include checks. :) There seems to be a desire to extend the interruption by phone and mail the equivalent. They are quite different. Congratulations about recycling. We have a two-step process: we shred any part that has an address, the rest heads to the recycle bin and does not pass go.

By Michael Josefowicz on Mar 17, 2008

I too enjoy spam mail. But that's probably because I like to see what folks are doing. And of course, looking for the check is great fun. But if the trade associations and print salepeople try to fight this wave, instead of surfing, it's not going to work, in my humbel opinion.

By Jeff on Mar 20, 2008

Either the cost of USPS first class postage would soar - or mail delivery would dramatically decline - if sweeping restrictions were placed on the direct mail indistry. I wonder if the USPS could survive without junk mail...? Here's an interesting article: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/nation/epaper/2008/03/20/m1a_postal_0320.html

By Mr Curmudgeon on Apr 02, 2008

It's the latest trendy cause (fad) for all the Hollywood types to latch their names to. I wrote a letter to the HBO star that has taken up the cause. I told him I cancelled my HBO subscription because I will not be able to afford it after the whole industry incurs the expense of dealing with this ridiculous legislation. And that is beside the fact that I refuse to put money in the pocket of an ignorant individual trying to kill my industry. (He's been receiving evil direct mail tainted money from me for years!)

In my opinion, there would be less people signing up for a Do Not Mail list, but the cost of implementing it and abiding by it will cause the most financial strain. At a time when our industry is suffering from runaway costs, we do not need additional legislated grief. Without morphing into a political discussion, I think our legislators should instead be focusing hard on some other pretty big problems we have in this country.

By Robert Price on Apr 18, 2008

This is an interesting discussion, especially given that I am not a member of the print or paper industry. I am the CEO of a world-wide carbon footprint reduction and sustainability education company. I am also a pragmatist and a businessman as well as a consumer in the open market. In that spirit, I will share this perspective with the readership: not all environmentalists are tree hugger fanatics or movie stars looking for a social flag to carry; sustainability is not just a fad, it is a responsible guardianship of our resources important to everyone; eliminating waste in the context within “green” is synonymous with the same waste elimination of “lean practices,” which incidentally means cost reductions and a direct positive impact to an organization’s bottom line.

There is always emotion embedded in discussions like these. There is also opportunity for the right observer. I think that considering alternate material strategies, e.g. inks, improving manufacturing energy consumption, adopting 100% recycled paper etc. would be viewed as positive moves in your sector. I also think that trying to connect consumers’ attitudes toward unsolicited mail with the cross-industry recognition for social responsibility could be mixing apples with oranges. Maybe considering a more narrow approach to direct mailing whereby the overall volume is less but improved targeting yields a higher return? I realize that may contradict the revenue model the industry is accustomed to but some times less is more. Over 80% of consumers in a study stated that if cost and quality were null, they would change brands to buy from a company supporting a social cause. That’s a powerful differentiator. At the end of 2007, over 30% of consumers were buying “green.”

By Robert Price on Apr 18, 2008

I apologize to the moderator for consuming space for back-to-back posts. Hopefully it will be allowed.

I should have included in my original note that I came across this forum while conducting research for a client that has asked us for a project quote. I think the readership in voicing frustrations toward consumers’ opinion of unsolicited direct mailings, or government agencies wishing to regulate freedom of speech, or environmentalists attempting to bring attention to waste, I would suggest that your industry consider strategic issues about the nature of your business. The client I mentioned isn’t within the populations noted above. The potential client is a large emarketing clearing house with proprietary software that conducts online campaigns. They are seeking data as a comparison/contrast carbon footprint analysis of their medium versus the direct print distribution approach. Implying of course that the paperless approach is more environmentally friendly.

The client is soliciting our services, which we have not committed to - hence I feel no obligation toward non-disclosure, especially given that we most likely decline. However, the print and direct mail industry can either fight/resist the “nature” of changes driven by numerous groups, or adapt. I see it much like the music industry. LPs were hard to let go of...8 tracks were a step in music evolution...cassettes brought the need for portable music to market...CDs improved sound quality...and MP3s make portable/ downloadable music available anytime/anywhere. A number of companies lobbyists fought these changes along the way. The companies that endured and adapted, grew and remained profitable. The record labels prevented free music downloads...iTunes created a whole new market through innovation.

Thank you. A layperson’s uneducated perspective.