A new Website has been launched to target junk and promote “Do Not Mail” legislation by “sending over 10,000 boxes of junk mail to congress.” The new site Junk Mail Revolt is attempting to build a grassroots effort:
Of course most of us within the printing industry know that marketers are taking steps to address these concerns and offer tools to help consumers manage their mail. Maybe it's time for the direct marketers to use their marketing prowess and launch a competing site. Junk Mail Retort anyone?Voice your support for an opt-out Do Not Mail registry by participating in one of our synchronized mail revolts, in which people from around the country come together to send thousands of boxes of junk mail to Congress. We won't quit until our representatives on Capitol Hill get the message.
And the message is simply this. We've had enough. We're done having our homes invaded, our privacy violated, our time wasted, our trees decimated, and our landfill space consumed by unwanted (and often unread) junk mail. Listen up, Congress. We're reclaiming our mailboxes.
Discussion
By Michael Josefowicz on May 13, 2008
I'm not sure a competing site is going to work, unless it takes on the No Junk Mail slogan.
Once this mime starts moving through the internet, it's plausible to think that the DMA could win the battles in the legislatures, but lose the war on the ground with customers.
I still remember the noise that started with recycled paper in the pre internet era. Lots of it was hocum from the point of view of recylcing, but today every CEO wants receycled paper.
So... suppose the DMA also said No More Junk Mail. And vigorously rolled out an opt-in mailing functionality through the web and on the ground.
By Dr Joe Webb on May 13, 2008
Let's send each member of congress a box that says "10 lb" on the outside. The box will be empty, signifying the 10 lbs less of total mail each household no longer gets every year.
We can have a uniformed quasi-government agent deliver them.
Based on the decline in postal volume of 3% just this past quarter (7% for periodicals alone), the donotmail advocates could pack up and go home declaring victory already.
All categories were down, including post cards, the only category that has been growing. The postal service blamed it on the economy, but we know better just by looking at their own weight and pieces data for the past seven years that it's a lot more than some temporary macroeconomic issue.
Consumers may latch on to the concept, but just try to close a local post office, especially in small towns, as the USPS attempts to cope with already declining volumes.
By Michael Josefowicz on May 14, 2008
Dr. Joe,
Thanks for your usual reality check.
I remember the buzz about recylced paper years ago. Lots of talk and energy that was only marginally informed by the reality at the time.
But brand damage and reality often live in two different worlds.
Consider this excerpt from the Junk Mail Revolt website,
"...powerful interest groups have actively conspired to subvert (our) freedom (to not invade our mailboxes.)"
Does the DMA want to get into a discussion about being seen as a "powerful interest group (etc.,etc.,etc.) on the radar of corporate buyers, retail brand managers and the next generation of workers in our industry?
The irony is that printers, mailers and their customers would love to eliminate "junk mail" by getting response rates as close to 100% as possible.
Maybe VDP is one path to get there. Maybe concentrating on loyalty programs instead of prospecting is another.
I'm convinced that the best minds of the direct mail industry would have a lot more to add, if they were less focused on protecting something that is probably not going to grow and may not be sustainable anyway.
No doubt, the USPS has a business problem. But that's their problem. The industry has enough problems of its own.
Couldn't DMA get in front of this one?
By Dr Joe Webb on May 14, 2008
DMA has been in front of this one for a long time with its opt-out program. It's been covered for years, if not decades, in all consumer publications and consumer reported broadcast efforts.
What's really funny is that even the joint opt-out service from the major credit companies works really well.
Ultimately, the fact that a "junk mailer" has to pay for something that has no economic return to it is the best deterrent to abuse. Postal costs alone limit the ability of anyone to send huge mailings with dubious return.
One of the ways we know this is the amount of spam that exists: spam has virtually no cost to send, and we see the abuse that occurs, even with the "CAN-SPAM" legislation.
There is a 14 point differential in communications technology costs occurring right now: postal rates will go up next year by at least 4% because they are now tied to the Consumer Price Index, and computer and communications costs are declining by 10% per year. That spread will persist for some time.
The adoption of electronic bill payment is also reducing the volume of mail, but so is the automatic charging of monthly payments to credit cards that consolidate payment notices to one monthly bill.
I've written about how in our own household our volume of mail has dropped dramatically just by taking a very few steps using existing and established methods. It's not hard at all.
By Michael Josefowicz on May 14, 2008
Fair enough.
I was not aware of that effort by the DMA. Even if it has "been covered for years, if not decades, in all consumer publications and consumer reported broadcast efforts".
The issue is not the existence of the program, it is making that program the centerpiece of the response campaign to "Do Not Mail".
The discussions I've seen are all about the threat of the legislatures and lobbying congress people.
By Sheri on May 14, 2008
I've seen a creative way to reduce at least some junk mail. Tear up the offer inside (credit card, for example), put it into the prepaid business-reply envelope, and send it back to the company. This seems to reduce some of the unsolicited mail.
Unfortunately, the biggest flood of mail comes from causes which I do strongly support. As soon as I send one contribution, I receive monthly (even weekly) requests for more donations. A mail opt-in choice would be very welcome.
As things stand today, one must contact each sender individually and request to be removed from their mailing list. I guess that would keep the USPS open, anyway!
By Michael Josefowicz on May 15, 2008
So...suppose the DMA, or more likely some forward looking direct mailer, put an opt-out postcard in each mailing. Perhaps even better a choice as to how they would like to receive further info. or Perhaps a link to the Opt out web address.
For the mailer and brand manager, that cleans the list.
For the consumer, they get to choose what they want to get. Mail that is chosen is by definition not "junk."
For the non profit, it will save them the money of mailing.
For the politician who might want to latch onto a "environmental" issue, it gives them the cover to say no.
For the DMA it builds their brand, in that members of their organization adhere to these self imposed standards.
By Christine J. Erna MCQS, AQS on May 15, 2008
The DMA has, with combined efforts of the MFSA- Mailing & Fulfillment Service Association a program for Direct Marketers to self regulate themselves with exactly the "Opt Out" messaging in their direct mail pieces. The program that has been developed is the Consumers Committment to Choice - www.the-dma.org/guidelines/CCCAnnouncementbooklet.pdf - 2007-10-04.
This will allow a DMA member to become a "Trusted Marketer". Self regulation and education is much more receptive than another law that is impossible and costly to regulate.
Database management and Address Quality are huge areas that every business should put emphasis on to improve their ROI - The US Postal Service has close to 9 BILLION pieces of direct mail that are UAA - Undeliverable as Addressed - resulting in costs close to 2 BILLION dollars not only to the US Postal Service, but everyone who buys postage.
By Rezzie Dannt on May 16, 2008
@Dr. Joe: "Based on the decline in postal volume of 3% just this past quarter... the donotmail advocates could pack up and go home declaring victory already."
100 billion minus 3% still leaves about 97 billion pieces of direct mail a year. I think declaring victory would be a bit premature.
"Postal costs alone limit the ability of anyone to send huge mailings with dubious return."
Are you sure? From what I understand, the industry makes 1200% ROI on an average 2% return rate. Seems to me that dubious return rates can be very profitable indeed.
@Michael Josefowicz: "The irony is that printers, mailers and their customers would love to eliminate “junk mail” by getting response rates as close to 100% as possible."
Yes, but the industry is about 98 percentage points shy of that goal.
"The issue is not the existence of the program, it is making that program the centerpiece of the response campaign..."
For 40 years, the DMA has used its registry as a weapon against legislation. In fact, I would argue that its primary function is to thwart regulation. Unfortunately for the DMA, its registry has a lot of shortcomings that are about to become publicly highlighted. Too many flaws to post, but I recently discussed a few here:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/7224#comment-3001
"...put an opt-out postcard in each mailing"
When you consider that the average person gets over 800 pieces a year, (and isn't interested in 98% of them), I'd say this is still too much of a burden to place on consumers.
Warm regards,
Rezzie Dannt
Junk Mail Revolt
By Dr Joe Webb on May 16, 2008
We receive 5 pieces of "junk mail" today. We were interested in 4 of them because they were from stores that we do business with. One was from a company we used to do business with until 2 months ago.
The DMA uses its registry service AND it actually works. It's not a fake thing to thwart legislative action. It is a proper response to a need in the marketplace.
As far as "millions" of junk mailers, there are only about 14 or 15 million businesses in the U.S. Where does the concept of "millions" come from?
I would like to see a 1200% ROI from any activity. If that was true, wouldn't the volume of mail be increasing as every company tries to join that "gold rush"?
Most "junk mail" is sent by businesses someone already does business with. The kind of fishing for prospects that used to be done decades ago is economically implausible: it costs too much.
I suggest that those opposed to "junk mail" actually cost out a campaign to raise money themselves via "junk mail" and get a sense of the costs of design, production, list rental, printing, mailing, and all of the risks of it, and then attempt to fund raise in that very way.
As far as "opt-out" I have always been able to take any response card and write "please remove me from your mailing list" in big block letters with a marker, and it has never failed to be effective.
By Rezzie Dannt on May 16, 2008
"We receive 5 pieces of “junk mail” today."
Multiply that out over the course of a year. That's a LOT of mail. (5 x 320 = 1600)
"We were interested in 4 of them because they were from stores that we do business with."
That's a nice personal anecdote, but are you suggesting you're somehow representative of the general public? You're in a distinct minority if you're interested in 4 out of 5 offers. Most folks throw away 98% of the offers, with almost half of them unopened. And I suspect the amount of unopened mail would be a lot higher if people weren't paranoid about throwing out something important.
"The DMA uses its registry service AND it actually works."
I'm signed up for it. It works to *reduce* direct mail, it does not work to *eliminate* it. When you consider that the DMA's registry has been around for 40 years, and that 89% of the public still favors a national Do Not Mail registry, that's pretty solid evidence that something's not working. (By the way, most of the public is aware of the DMA registry, so it's not simply a matter of them not knowing about it.)
"It’s not a fake thing to thwart legislative action."
I never said the DMA registry doesn't serve a function. What I suggested is that its *primary* function is not to provide consumers with choice. The DMA has all but admitted this. A former president of the DMA once said, "The goal of the DMA is to discover and to thwart possible government regulation, and we have done it." I think that's a pretty clear statement of intent.
"As far as “millions” of junk mailers, there are only about 14 or 15 million businesses in the U.S. Where does the concept of “millions” come from?"
I don't have the exact figures handy, but a large percentage of those businesses have used direct mail. Even if it's only 25%, that still amounts to a few million. (i.e. "millions")
"I would like to see a 1200% ROI from any activity."
I'm not pulling these numbers out of thin air, you know. The DMA publishes this information every year. Take a look:
http://www.dmafscannual.org/aboutdma/whatisthedma.shtml
As of September 2007, "the DMA currently estimates that in order to generate $700 billion in sales, marketers will spend $56 billion on direct mail and catalogs this year." That's $12.50 earned for every $1 spent. (i.e. 1250% ROI)
"If that was true, wouldn’t the volume of mail be increasing as every company tries to join that “gold rush”?"
The volume of direct mail has grown tremendously in recent years (even if it is suffering slightly in the short term).
"I suggest that those opposed to “junk mail” actually cost out a campaign to raise money themselves via “junk mail” "
As a former small business owner, I have coordinated direct mail campaigns (this was before I saw the light). In one instance, I covered the costs of my entire campaign with a single sale. I'm not sure why folks in the industry always seem to assume that anti-junk mailers are anti-capitalist hippies. Many of us are business owners.
And by the way, junk mail is often a huge burden for small business owners. (They are prohibited from signing up for the DMA's registry - one of its many shortcomings.)
"I have always been able to take any response card and write “please remove me from your mailing list”"
You're a very lucky man. Can't say I've had the same kind of success. But even if I had, I'd still say it's an unreasonable burden to place on the consumer. Especially when you consider that some, like you, may be receiving over 1500 pieces of direct mail a year.
By Rezzie Dannt on May 16, 2008
"I have always been able to take any response card and write “please remove me from your mailing list”"
One more thing. How many direct mailers include a business reply card? In my experience, it's a small minority.
Furthermore, I don't find direct mailers to be very responsive at all. I sometimes contact them multiple times and in multiple ways. I'll call, send an email, and send a post card. Then I'll do it again. And again. Months later, I'm often still on their mailing list.
I've been trying to get off Audubon's list since early January. Just got another solicitation this week.
By Adam Dewitz on May 16, 2008
Rezzie,
Most of the "Do Not Mail" legislation I've looked at provides exemption for companies an individual does business with and nonprofits.
This creates a large loophole that large corporation will be able to take advantage of. Many nonprofits, including environmental and social justice organizations take advantage of direct mail because of its effectiveness, and would continue to if a "Do Not Mail" was enacted due to their exemption. Some the biggest "junk mail offenders" I have experience with are environmental and social justice organizations.
If "Do Not Mail" laws are past, the biggest losers will be the local small businesses that want to utilize an effective way to let those in the community know about them, and their products and services.
By Michael Josefowicz on May 17, 2008
Adam-
The problem is that most legislation is passed because of politics, not beause it is the best solution to a common problem.
That may be the opportunity for the industry. Once it recognizes that "junk mail" has to go, they are best placed to figure out how to make a real difference.
Problem is it's hard to fix something, if you don't focus on the real nature of the problem.
Re: the developing discussion.
It is less important if Rezzie's experience is typical, than if that is the common expectation. That expectation is the operational definition of an "untrusted brand."
Is the brand damage for the industry worth it?
As for small business using direct mail, any stats? My experience is that the small businesses in my neighborhood hire people to distribute in the area. At 42 cents and rising, how sustainable, really, is direct mail to the growth of small business?
As for non profits, I agree 100% with Adam's observation that "Some the biggest “junk mail offenders” I have experience with are environmental and social justice organizations".
I would disagree that it's becuase of it's effectiveness. My experience is that non profits usually don't consider ROI, or as Dr Joe says, ROT(return on time) to measure their efforts.
By Dr Joe Webb on May 17, 2008
Now I see where the ROI data are taken out of context from the DMA. From their press release:
------------
In 2007, marketers - commercial and nonprofit - spent $173.2 billion on direct marketing in the United States. Measured against total US sales, these advertising expenditures generated $2.025 trillion in incremental sales. In 2007, direct marketing accounted for 10.2 percent of total US GDP. There are 1.6 million direct marketing employees today in the US alone, and their collective sales efforts directly support 8.9 million jobs.
Each dollar spent on direct marketing yields, on average, a return on investment of $11.69, versus ROI of $5.24 from non-direct marketing expenditures. That's the Power of Direct.
-----------
It's not the first time a trade association was guilty of puffery.
If the ROI of direct marketing (note that they did NOT say direct mail) was that high for everyone, there would be no other form of advertising. Advertising strategy is always a function of audience media preference weighed by cost and return. Not all goods and services can be sold via direct marketing, but communications for virtually all goods can be supplemented by direct marketing. Over the years, this has led to frequent purchaser programs, such as airline miles or other benefit incentives, or discounts.
Direct marketing is a very broad term that the DMA has used to expand its market coverage beyond the simple direct mail that started the industy in the 1930s.
But it's clear that the better ROI of direct marketing does not work for everyone in every situation, other than direct marketers.
As far as $12.50 earned for every $1 spent, that is actually a rather poor return. Advertising is on average, depending on the year, 1% of GDP, which for the economy produces, therefore a 100:1 return. Some industries rarely advertise, others advertise a lot. The biggest return in the economy from marketing expenditures is personal selling, which is mainly used in business-to-business marketing, which appears on company payrolls, not on advertising budgets.
The volume of direct mail is NOT growing, but has been on a steady decline in overall pieces and weight. The costs of direct mail are much higher than e-commerce where it can be developed. Not all markets can use e-commerce well. The non-profit sector has lagged in adoption for e-commerce and is only now making progress in that area.
I have made minimal effort to reduce the amount of mail I get with excellent results. It works. And I have 40+ years of being on mailing lists and business relationships to unravel, and it was still easy.
Instead of aiming to deprive businesses and their customers from potentially mutually profitable exchanges, if anyone is really concerned about decreasing direct mail use, every effort should be made to raise the rates of USPS beyond the inflation rate to create disincentives for use of the mail, and to place a tax on mailing list rentals on the state and national levels. The taxes and increased costs could even be directed to sustainability initiatives, which might actually be more politically successful, with possibly better success. I would oppose both suggestions, but they would make more sense to me. The decline in direct mail is already baked in. The culprits are called broadband and new media.
By Michael Josefowicz on May 17, 2008
@ Rezzie
what do you think of
"if anyone is really concerned about decreasing direct mail use, every effort should be made to raise the rates of USPS beyond the inflation rate to create disincentives for use of the mail, and to place a tax on mailing list rentals on the state and national levels"
@DMA
My sense is that the most effective use of direct mail is in customer loyalty and opt in.
Isn't the promise of VDP and personalization to send mail only to people who welcome it?
@Rezzie
Yes it's a long way to go. But legislation that sometimes sounds right has unanticipated consequences that should be considered.
@Rezzie (thanks for the @ typographic solution to a problem of keeping a blog discussion straight)
By Rezzie Dannt on May 17, 2008
@Adam Dewitz:
Yes. Just like the Do Not Call registry, there will likely be exemptions for nonprofits, politicians, and prior business relationships.
Even so, I can give you a dozen reasons why regulation would still be better than the DMA's registry. Let's start with the fact that the DMA's list only applies to about 3,600 businesses (a very, very small percentage of those that use direct mail.)
Another benefit of regulation is that it would compel organizations - including exempt ones - to be more diligent in quickly complying with opt-out requests. As it stands now, consumers have little recourse.
"the biggest “junk mail offenders” I have experience with are environmental and social justice organizations"
I agree, and I think it's hypocritical.
"the biggest losers will be the local small businesses"
I don't think so.
For one thing, the limiting factor for most small businesses is budget, not the number of potential prospects. Most small businesses can't afford to send mail to EVERY potential prospect in a geographical area. By allowing folks to opt out, we might actually be helping the small business' budget go further by eliminating non-receptive households from their mailing lists.
In other words, if a small business sends out 100,000 postcards before Do Not Mail, they'll still be able to send out 100,000 postcards afterwards - only to a more receptive list. Does that make sense?
Furtherrmore, when you claim that an opt-out registry would be bad for small businesses, you're talking as if a Do Not Mail registry is some extreme, draconian measure. It's not. It's a moderate solution. We're not asking for an all-out ban on direct mail. We're not even asking for an opt-in law, which I think is actually fairer to the consumer. We're simply asking for a registry that does what the DMA claims its service already does (but fails to do).
Direct mailers need to meet us halfway on this. Do Not Mail is a generous compromise, and the industry needs to accept the public's offer while it's still on the table. If the DMA and its allies continue to battle against consumer-friendly legislation, then folks like myself are going to get a whole lot less agreeable and start pushing for more extreme forms of regulation.
By Rezzie Dannt on May 17, 2008
@Dr Joe Webb: "Now I see where the ROI data are taken out of context from the DMA."
No, the ROI data wasn't taken out of context, but I did give you the wrong link, which may have caused some confusion.
According to the DMA's Fact Book, which it publishes annually, the ROI for direct marketing in general is $11.69 (1169%). The ROI for direct mail specifically is $12.50 (1250%), which as you acknowledged earlier, is an unbelievable figure.
As you know, a 1250% ROI has nothing to do with GDP or other economic indicators. It simply means that marketers earn $12.50 for every $1 they spend on a direct mail campaign. Like you say, this figure is an industry average. It will be higher for financial institutions, for example, and significantly lower for small businesses (which is another reason why Adam Dewitz's claim is incorrect that "the biggest losers will be the local small businesses").
Let me remind you why I mentioned ROI in the first place. You claimed that "Postal costs alone limit the ability of anyone to send huge mailings with dubious return.” Clearly this isn't the case. The direct mail industry as a whole makes $700 billion dollars annually and earns a 1200% ROI - all on an average return rate of just 2%! Like I said before, even with dubious return rates, direct mail is extremely profitable *for the industry as a whole*, which is why consumers continue to be inundated with poorly targeted mail.
"The volume of direct mail is NOT growing, but has been on a steady decline in overall pieces and weight."
Where are you getting this information? I'd like to see your sources. Yes, the volume of mail in general is decreasing. And yes, the volume of first class mail is decreasing. And yes, the *growth rate* of direct mail volume (which is probably what you're talking about) may be decreasing. HOWEVER, the overall volume of direct mail has been trending steadily upwards ever since the 1950s. I don't have the data at my fingertips, but I do know that, "Standard Mail volumes... (primarily advertising)... grew by almost 14 percent from fiscal year 2001 to 2006."
From GAO report (top of page 10):
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07684t.pdf
"I have made minimal effort to reduce the amount of mail I get with excellent results."
Really? You said earlier you got 5 pieces of direct mail the other day. If that's a typical day, then you're getting twice the national average. I think we may have differing opinions on what constitutes "excellent results." But even if you reduced your direct mail to zero, you're still not a typical case. You can keep sharing your personal experience all you want, but I'm afraid it's not as compelling as the collective experience of the vast majority of Americans, as reflected in the poll data.
Yes, you can reduce junk mail to some extent, but it's literally impossible to reduce it to the extent that I want. In fact, even if I spent thousands of hours and thousands of dollars individually contacting organizations, I would still be unable to reduce it to the extent that I want. I believe this is a legalized form of trespass, a public nuisance, and a violation of my right to peacably enjoy my privacy and property. Furthermore, I believe it's tantamount to theft. It steals my time, which, although it may not seem like much, amounts to months over the course of a lifetime. It steals my tax dollars for waste removal. And it inflicts environmental costs, including forest degradation, carbon emissions, 28 billion gallons of wasted water every year, and all the various forms of air, water, and soil pollution associated with paper mills.
"Instead of aiming to deprive businesses and their customers from potentially mutually profitable exchanges"
Hold on a second. Would you say that the DMA's registry "deprives businesses and their customers from potentially mutually profitable exchanges?" If not, please explain to me how a national Do Not Mail registry would do so while the DMA's registry does not. What's the difference? As far as I can tell, Do Not Mail's stated purpose and basic methodology is NO DIFFERENT than that of the DMA's service (it would simply be more effective). The direct mail industry pays lip service to the philosophy underlying an opt-out registry, does it not? You know, all that stuff about "consumer choice" that the DMA waxes poetical about on its website?
Nobody's looking to "deprive" businesses of communicating with willing recipients. We simply want businesses to stop invading the homes and violating the privacy of the unwilling. Do Not Mail is win-win for everyone. It allows businesses to continue soliciting receptive consumers, and it allows consumers to be excluded from solicitations when they're not interested. I fail to see how Do Not Mail deprives anyone of anything.
In reality, the only deprivation going on is that individuals are being deprived of the right to peacably enjoy their privacy and property; individuals are being deprived of the right not to bear the countless hidden costs of a medium they despise and never asked for in the first place; and individuals are being deprived of the right to be left alone, which the renowned Justice Brandeis famously called "the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men."
You say businesses will be deprived? Yes, please tell us about how the poor direct mail industry, which earns a paltry 1200% ROI while dumping countless hidden costs on the unsuspecting public, will be deprived when consumers are finally granted the opportunity to exercise their most fundamental rights. I'll be sure to have a box of tissues handy, and my tiny violin.
By Rezzie Dannt on May 17, 2008
@Michael Josefowicz: "what do you think of...."
What I want is an easy way to opt out of ALL direct mail. I'll support whatever solution (within reason) that gets me closest to that goal.
"But legislation that sometimes sounds right has unanticipated consequences that should be considered."
Absolutely. But the direct marketing industry has a long history of conjuring up all kinds of nightmarish, "unanticipated consequences" that never come to pass. Listening to the DMA a few years ago, one would have thought that Do Not Call was going to torture kittens and summons Satan himself. Instead, Do Not Call was one of the most successful pieces of legislation in recent memory.
An interesting story about Do Not Call's scary "unanticipated consequences" (or lack thereof):
http://www.usatoday.com/money/advertising/2004-10-13-do-not-call-fallout_x.htm
By Michael Josefowicz on May 17, 2008
@Rezzie
You say "Yes, please tell us about how the poor direct mail industry, which earns a paltry 1200% ROI while dumping countless hidden costs on the unsuspecting public"
If you follow the discussions in the Print world, you will find that this is an industry in the midst of a major transition. Since I don't know how the stats you quote were derived, I can't say anything useful about them.
But I do know from personal experience, that the notion that printers, mailers and designers are getting 1200% ROI does not pass the giggle test.
Like another widely used term, THE ECONOMY, the "direct mail industry" is an abstraction that does not capture true life. What we are really talking about are real people, in different situations, with different pressures. They are printers, mailers and designers trying to do the right thing and make a living for their families.
A better approach might be not to lump everybody into an abstraction - the direct mail industry- but consider how hard it is for everyone in our industry to adapt to a world of the Internet and $4/gal energy costs, that may go to $5 or $6 pretty soon.
I don't know if you are aware of the massive investments and reorganizations dedicated to sending only mail that people want to get. That's what we want. That's what consumers want.
From my point of view, the problem with legislation as THE SOLUTION is that while it is an easy sounding fix, the most destructive effect is that it crowds out the useful dialogue that can get this right.
I'm guessing that when you say "What I want is an easy way to opt out of ALL direct mail" it is your most passionately felt issue. Fair enough. You get to do what you think best. That is the American way.
But there is a much larger issue - sustainability and long term economic growth. You don't have to be concerned about that issue, but it is there anyway. Frankly, that is the issue that this industry is grappling with every day.
Re: "Listening to the DMA a few years ago." A few years ago is not today. In the world of print,our business changes every three months.
We are on the front lines of the "Internet Revolution." Our livelihoods depend on it.
Meanwhile, DMA is an organization of people, it is NOT a person. Circumstances change. People change.
You are raising an important issue, but demonizing the folks who see it differently just cuts off the ability to work together to get to a solution that works for everyone.
When I mention "unanticipated consequences," I specifically do not mean the end of the world or anything about kittens or Satan. I truly mean consequences that are unanticipated. As in I cannot anticipate them.
Sometimes things look very clear from the 30,000 foot view of Congress. Unfortunately, the world on the ground is messy and very complicated.
We've seen again and again that "one size fits all" rules, often adopted for political reasons, can lead to very dumb things on the ground.
Based on my experience,sometimes legislation helps. Sometimes setting the incentives of the system helps more.
But, in any case, a frank, spirited, honest and respectful discussion usually helps the most.
By Rezzie Dannt on May 17, 2008
@Michael Josefowicz:
"the notion that printers, mailers and designers are getting 1200% ROI does not pass the giggle test."
I never suggested that printers, mailers and designers are getting 1200% return on investment. ROI refers to how much direct mail campaigns make, not how much those who implement the campaigns earn. See the difference? ROI refers to the profit a business makes on direct mail after it pays the printers, mailers, designers, etc.
When I say "Direct Mail industry," I'm typically referring to organizations such as the DMA, the Postal Service, and corporations like Paper International and Pitney Bowes. In their campaign against Do Not Mail legislation, they work in close association with one another, pool their resources, and share the same talking points, so I don't feel it's unfair to refer to "them" in the abstract.
When I say "Direct Mail industry," I'm typically not referring to the low-level employees within these organizations. Nor am I referring to printers, mailers, designers, paper mill workers, or the lumberjacks who cut down trees. I'll try to be more clear, but I also recommend that you try to look more closely at context. I get the distinct impression that you hear things I don't actually say.
"A better approach might be not to lump everybody into an abstraction"
While I appreciate the dangers of abstraction, I hope your understand that one cannot use language at all without some degree of abstraction. Imagine how impossible it would be to say anything at all if instead of using an abstract term like "Congress," I had to refer to all 435 members by name. Do you see my point? Abstraction is imperfect, but we can't communicate without it.
"Meanwhile, DMA is an organization of people, it is NOT a person."
Never said it was.
Just because an organization is not a person, that doesn't mean I can't speak of it as a single entity. Under the law, organizations are granted a sort of corporate personhood, are they not? They can enter legal contracts like a person and can even claim rights like a person. And just like a person, organizations will be judged by their actions, and over time, their character.
The DMA is an organization with a long history of using sleazy tactics to thwart legislation. My saying so does not mean I've confused it for a person. Nor does it mean I'm demonizing it. Perhaps it just means I'm speaking truth to power. Sometimes the truth isn't warm and fuzzy.
"demonizing the folks who see it differently just cuts off the ability to work together to get to a solution that works for everyone."
Demonizing is when you *unfairly* attribute negative characteristics to someone. That's not what I'm doing. I'm attributing negative characteristics to an organization, but with just cause. There's a world of difference. For example, it's not demonizing someone to say they lied when they did, in fact, lie.
I'm sure the DMA's workforce is made up of nice people trying to feed their families. I can appreciate that. But the fact remains that, as an organization, these folks are running an extremely dishonest campaign that involves disseminating inaccuracies, lies, and propaganda. It's not "being disrespectful" or "lumping people together" or "demonizing people" to hold to account an organization (or industry) that acts in an unethical or dishonest way.
It's called telling the truth.
By Michael Josefowicz on May 18, 2008
@Rezzie
Fair enough. But this is not a blog for the DMA.
It's a place that for folks in the print industry to discuss issues that are important to them.
By Michael Josefowicz on May 18, 2008
Oops. I clicked too fast. I don't really consider what you said fair, but that's a discussion for a different place.
By Michael Josefowicz on May 18, 2008
There are a couple of other groups who are talking about Do Not Mail in the context of sustainability.
"The Responsible Purchasing Network (RPN) is an international network of procurement stakeholders dedicated to socially responsible and environmentally sustainable purchasing."
http://www.responsiblepurchasing.org/
The New American Dream
http://www.newdream.org/
From their website:
"We've got simple steps that will allow you to get yourself off some of the major junk mail lists, ask Congress to create a national Do Not Junk registry modeled after the wildly sucessful Do Not Call registry, and even more tips to help you prevent the flood of unsolicited mail".
http://www.newdream.org/junkmail/index.php
By Michael Josefowicz on May 18, 2008
There are other groups who are looking at "Do Not Mail" in the context of sustainability.
One is the New American Dream
http://www.newdream.org/junkmail/index.php
By Michael Josefowicz on May 18, 2008
This is an entreprenerial, as opposed to a legislative solution:
http://www.41pounds.org/about/default.asp
from their website:
When you sign up with us, we contact 20 to 30 direct mail companies on your behalf to stop the majority of bulk mail that comes to your home every day. All you have to do is type in your contact info — then leave the rest to us. We contact the direct mail companies and get you off their lists! We also send you some stamped, pre-addressed postcards for you to send to the companies that require a signature from you. The service lasts for five years and costs just $41.
By Rezzie Dannt on May 18, 2008
"Fair enough. But this is not a blog for the DMA."
One can hardly discuss Do Not Mail without discussing the DMA. It's the most prominent voice in the debate.
"I don’t really consider what you said fair"
Perhaps I have been unfair at moments, and if so, I apologize.
I do have a heart for people whose livelihoods depend on direct mail. I just wish they would have as much heart for me, and the other 200 million Americans, who wish to be left alone.
In Buddhism, there's a concept known as "Right Livelihood." It involves doing work that doesn't cause harm to others. Something to think about.
By Michael Josefowicz on May 18, 2008
"Do no harm" is something that many folks in the printing and marketing industries think about alot. In fact, many are also concerned with doing something good.
And the issue is not just "heart." It is solving the problems of quickly moving to sustainable communications that support sustainable economic growth.
By Dr Joe Webb on May 19, 2008
Kiplinger.com has a short article on stopping "junk" mail
http://www.kiplinger.com/features/archives/2008/04/how-to-stop-junk-mail.html
One thing that I realized this morning is that my citing of statistics is incorrect, as is everyone elses. People are taking the postal volume and dividing it by the number of adults. Since the post office does not report how much of the mail goes to businesses, so that calculation does distort things a bit as households are being counted as receiving what is actually business correspondence and promotional materials. It struck me today as I went through the mail sorting my business and personal stuff. Again, no mail from anyone, business or personal, with whom I did not engage in a past business transaction.
After a while, I'm sure I'll get tired about reporting what's in my mail, and everyone else will get tired of hearing about it.
By Michael Josefowicz on May 19, 2008
I found this at GraphicsArtsOnLine this morning:
"Bloomingdale’s says it will stop mailing catalogs by the end of 2009, hoping to focus on Web-based direct sales.
Avis Rent A Car says it will discontinue printing and distribution of scores of customer brochures and other collateral marketing materials".
http://www.graphicartsonline.com/article/CA6562218.html?nid=3470&rid=219616614
These are serious players who seem to have joined the Do Not Mail "movement." Not to save the world, but because they think they see a better, faster cheaper way to sell stuff.
As is often the case, market forces move a lot faster than legislation.
It brings into focus the question of DMA'S investment of time and resources on lobbying State Legislatures and Congress.
Maybe they could better serve their print consituents by helping to move the industry, as quickly as possible. into Print that is better, faster and cheaper than the web.
The manufacturing tools are on line. The software is good enough. The power of print to leverage face to face interaction is well understood. And recommendation engines can be found with a quick Google search.
It seems to me that all that is left, is to do it.
By Rezzie Dannt on May 19, 2008
@Dr Joe Webb:
Assuming I understand you correctly, I don't really think it's inappropriate to include business-to-business direct mail in our volume statistics. Personally, when I talk about third class mail volume, I don't think that only includes business-to-residence mail.
Or do I misunderstand your point?
I also think it's important to think about business-to-business mail, because too often folks overlook direct mail's detrimental effects on businesses.
"At one office mailroom in the Seattle area, a six-week study showed that the mailroom staff was spending 25 percent of its time sorting Standard Class (formerly Third Class) advertising mail.
At the Minneapolis office of a major financial services corporation, they receive more than 40,000 pieces of advertising mail every month, and discard almost 88 percent of that mail. They dispose of more than 68 tons of unwanted mail every year. The company estimates that it costs them more than $75,000 a year to deal with this unwanted mail."
http://www.metrokc.gov/dnrp/swd/nwpc/bizjunkmail.htm
@Michael Josefowicz:
Thanks for the interesting story.
I'm having trouble following your position regarding sustainability's role in the Do Not Mail debate. You seem to think that the environment is the only issue driving the Do Not Mail movement, when, in fact, it's only one issue among many.
When you say that the DMA should focus on sustainability instead of fighting Do Not Mail legislation, are you suggesting that a more sustainable industry will be less likely to face regulation? Because I'm not really sure that's the case. Again, there are other big issues driving Do Not Mail.
Excuse me if I tortured your argument. I'm just trying to understand.
By Michael Josefowicz on May 20, 2008
@Rezzie
There are many issues involved in Do Not Mail. Like every public issue, each stakeholder naturally sees it from their point of view.
Most of the people who check this blog are concerned with the continuing health of the printing industry and the professionals who work in.(PrintCEO blog).
I think if you try to see it from that point of view, the conversation might make more sense.
By Michael Josefowicz on May 20, 2008
@Rezzie
There are a number of "big issues" involved in Do Not Mail. Like every public issue, each stakeholder naturally sees it from their point of view.
Most of the people who check this blog are concerned with the continuing health of the printing industry and the professionals who work in.(PrintCEO blog).
I think if you try to see it from that point of view, it will be easier to understand the conversation.
By Rezzie Dannt on May 20, 2008
@Michael Josefowicz:
Michael, you're missing the point entirely.
Do you not get the fact that if the DMA shifts its attention from fighting legislation to pursuing sustainability, as you suggest, then they're going to lose the Do Not Mail battle?
The reason they're going to lose is because people like myself, who are pushing for Do Not Mail, are not just doing so for environmental reasons. Even if your industry is 150% green, we're still going to push for Do Not Mail.
In light of that, how can you possibly think it benefits the health of your industry for the DMA to focus on sustainability instead of fighting Do Not Mail? That's what I'm trying to understand.
By Michael Josefowicz on May 20, 2008
@Rezzie
Last one for this thread.
If you would like to continue the conversation in another venue, please feel free to email me or send me a link where it is more appropriate.
The printing industries AND marketers make the most money by sending only mail that people want to receive. Once people want to receive mail, it is no longer junk. It magically turns into useful information. Legislation, activists and the market are all moving in the same direction.
Again. This is NOT a site for the DMA. It is for printing industry.
By Rezzie Dannt on May 20, 2008
"The printing industries AND marketers make the most money by sending only mail that people want to receive."
Right, and until you develop mindreading powers, (database profiling doesn't count), the ONLY way you can know what the public wants to receive is by using a revolutionary technology called ASKING US. That's all a registry does - it asks us what we want.
"It magically turns into useful information"
Yes, "magically" is the key word. Because it will take nothing less than supernatural powers for you to get response rates anywhere near 100%. C'mon, you're at 2%! This is like a 900 lbs guy saying he's going to run a marathon, he just needs to lose a few more pounds. (As he guzzles cheetos and chicken wings.) The public isn't going to wait around for miracle response rates that will NEVER, EVER, EVER happen. But believe whatever you need to believe.
"Again. This is NOT a site for the DMA. It is for printing industry."
Again. I'm baffled that you say I'm off-topic. After all, this is a thread specifically about MY website. It's not like we're discussing issues that aren't relevant to your entire industry. And what's with this nonsense about the DMA being off-topic? You mentioned the DMA TWICE in your very first post! I understand why this discussion makes you uncomfortable, but let's not try to silence people with phony accusations of being off-topic.
I'm just trying to give you insight into the consumer mindset and movement that's about to bring regulation to your industry. But if you'd rather keep your fingers in your ears doing the "lalala" thing, that's cool, too. When folks are losing their jobs in a couple years, remember - it was its inability to listen that got your industry into trouble in the first place.
"If you would like to continue the conversation in another venue"
No thanks.
By Rezzie Dannt on May 20, 2008
P.S.
I notice you mentioned the DMA in all four of the comments you posted prior to my arrival. Then, when I try to respond, you accuse me of going off topic. Kind of an underhanded way to avoid debating the issues, wouldn't you say?
By Dr Joe Webb on May 20, 2008
This is getting a bit silly and nasty, and is becoming much less of a discussion and more of a rant. It is extremely disappointing, especially in light of the fact of the number of people who have a vested interest in terms of their jobs and the welfare of their families, and their future economic well-being. The postings are not being taken seriously and attempts to engage in rational conversation and questions are not being appropriately responded to. Mike J is an educator who has made significant contributions to the adoption of technologies that reduce the amount of "wasted" printing, provide more compelling and appropriate information to their intended audience, and offer alternatives to the current ways of doing business. Yet his politeness, good cheer, and seriously inquisitive nature is being tested and impugned.
Companies can know what people want to get because they are customers and because they engage in series of transactions, they can deepen those relationships. The personalization that amazon.com does is nothing new in a conceptual sense, though it is in a technological sense. All of those techniques have origins in the old direct marketing business, especially once computers were used in the 1960s and 1970s to analyze sales of catalogers and retailers.
Response rates vary considerably from situation to situation. Over 90% return rates were received by a company who printed their proxy questions on the back of the dividend checks they sent to stockholders (which I imagine would no longer be accepted with today's check processing standards).
Coupons in Sunday newspaper sections have notoriously low response rates of less than 1%. Upon further study, the market research literature is very clear that those inserts also serve a general advertising function in building brand awareness, even among consumers who are not coupon-clippers. This is why inserts with coupons are still used.
Of course, the best response rates occur when there is that grand combination of graphics, the right offer, and the right timing, sent to the right list. Those attributes do not align often enough, and hence the constant efforts of marketers to regularly test new offers and methods.
Today, it is clear that promotions that combine media are performing better. This is often a function of consumer preference driven by age, education, and income. For reasons of cost, print is getting a smaller part of that overall pie as more low cost, and actually low response rate, methods are being used (lower cost outweighs the lower response on a total basis).
Many lists are rented on the basis of psyhographic profiling, which sounds nefarious, but is not. One knows that certain products directed toward women will do better advertised in Oprah, rather than in Field & Stream, which has a predominantly male audience. One of the problems marketers have is that the online properties of these publishers often are comprised of different audiences, so the cannot choose one or the other.
All of the prospect profiling has an economic risk of no response or unprofitable response, which is what keeps hard copy direct mail more and more limited today to pieces of smaller size and to persons and businesses for which there is a history of previous relationship. This is a real problem in the catalog industry, where for years, unsolicited consumer catalogs are virtually gone because of costs, and smaller and more targeted direct mail efforts have replaced them.
Again, hard copy direct mail is already declining because of its own costs. The postal data show it clearly.
By Rezzie Dannt on May 20, 2008
@Dr. Joe Webb:
If I'm frustrated, it's because of statements like this:
"hard copy direct mail is already declining because of its own costs. The postal data show it clearly."
You keep repeating statements like this that are demonstrably false, even after I've presented *factual evidence* to prove otherwise. I don't get it.
I showed you a report from the GAO, a Congressional agency that helps oversee the Postal Service, which shows that bulk mail volumes (mostly direct mail) increased from 2001 to 2006. I asked you to provide sources, if you had any, to support YOUR claim. You ignored my request. Instead, you simply repeated the falsehood and said "The postal data clearly doesn't show it."
If you have postal data, where is it? Repeating a statement over and over again doesn't make it true. So again I ask you, if you have evidence, put it on the table (and I'm not talking about the short-term decline in volume over the last quarter). Otherwise, what you're doing here is committing a fallacy known as "appeal to authority." (i.e. "It's true because I said it.")
"Response rates vary considerably from situation to situation. Over 90% return rates were received by a company..."
You're very fond of cherry-picking. You'll say something like "one company received over a 90% return rate" or "My wife and I only get mail we're interested in." This is what's known as an anecdotal fallacy. Anecdotes like these are worthless, because I can come up with 10 of my own that show exactly the opposite. What about all the companies that had a 0% return rate? I know I can find instances where a company didn't get a single reply out of 20,000 solicitations.
That's why we use averages. And according to the DMA, the average response rate in the industry is around 2%. If you have evidence to the contrary, again, I invite you to show it.
"Companies can know what people want to get because they are customers and because they engage in series of transactions"
WRONG. Again, you're making a claim without any evidence whatsoever. Just because I give my business to a company, or engage in transactions with them, they have no way of knowing whether I want to be solicited through direct mail unless they've explicitly asked me.
You talk about advances in technology that allow for "psychographic profiling" and so on, but despite all the advances in technology, here are multiple pieces of evidence which *prove* that companies are still horrible at predicting whether their customers want direct mail:
1) The fact that Do Not Mail legislation has been introduced in 18 states. This kind of legislation doesn't get started unless lots of people are complaining.
2) The fact that the DMA is desperately fighting Do Not Mail and claiming it would devastate business. If the DMA didn't think people would swarm to opt-out, they wouldn't be so desperate to prevent it from passing. After all, if people were really happy with direct mail, nobody would opt out! And if nobody's unhappy enough to opt out, then how can a registry devastate business? See my point? There's a glaring contradiction here.
3) Poll data. As I've already pointed out, poll data (even from your own industry), consistently shows that upwards of 90% of Americans don't like direct mail, want less of it, and would support a Do Not Mail registry. (Let me know if you want sources - I have a Zogby Poll, a Louis-Harris Poll, and a poll from Direct magazine.)
4) Response rate. As I've already pointed out, the average response rate in the industry is around 2%. About half of all direct mail never even gets opened.
5) People call it "junk mail." There's a reason for that.
You say that companies can know what people want. NO, they can't. Even with today's high-tech database profiling, the evidence suggests that people don't want the overwhelming majority of direct mail they get. Again, if you have factual evidence to the contrary, I invite you to present it.
"The postings are not being taken seriously and attempts to engage in rational conversation and questions are not being appropriately responded to."
Unless you're referring to yourself, I think you have a lot of nerve to say this. ONE of us is making false claims based on logical fallacies and zero factual evidence. The other one is systematically refuting those claims with actual data. ONE of us has conveniently ignored or evaded questions (e.g. requests for sources). The other has answered every question asked of him. I think it's pretty clear who's who.
By Rezzie Dannt on May 20, 2008
Okay, everyone, last post for me.
Thanks for the spirited discussion.
By Dr Joe Webb on May 21, 2008
The postal data are downloadable from the USPS site
I discussed some of the data in commentary on my website a few months ago, and it has been part of my webinars and other presentations, all available online at whattheythink.com for free, to all.
http://members.whattheythink.com/erc/charts/djwchart080317.gif
Postal shipments are lagging household and population growth, and the total weight shipped is down 10% on that basis. The most recent postal quarter data was even stronger on the downside, with periodicals weight shipped down 7%, about the same percentage that consumer magazine ad pages were down.
"Anecdotal"? I was showing how the range of things can go in my experience, and I cited something that I knew was the highest response rate from a mailing I had ever heard. The problem with anecdotal evidence is that people often make decisions based on it, and it was not cited as evidence at all.
Polling data is not evidence in the same way that data that measures the results of actual behavior is. Postal shipment data is evidence because it is measurable. Polling data are opinions, and those can be shaped by various means, of which advertising and public relations are two methods. Getting people to change behavior is something else, and it is the tracking of actual behavior that is the best evidence.
As a researcher, I also know that questionnaire construction and question wording play a big role in securing certain answers in polls. This is one reason why the USPS can roll out their own data showing that people like getting mail.
Postal data are available at
http://www.usps.com/financials/
Here is the brochure with the USPS data about the "mail moment." People love the mail, and the USPS tells us so. Of course, we should be just as skeptical about their opinion data as we are about data showing otherwise.
https://www.uspssales.com/deliver/pdf/Mail%20Moment%20Study.pdf
In a 2007 column I wrote about the 2006 data compared to 2000; since that time, the declines are steeper:
* Since 2000, the number of first class pieces is down -13.4% and -8.5% in weight per household in a year.
* For periodicals, it's down -20% and -21.4%, respectively.
* And for standard mail, pieces are up 4.5%, but weight is down by -3%. This is not surprising because more sophisticated databases and postal incentives for pre-sorting entice some mailers away from first class.
* Overall, the number of pieces of mail that are not packages is down -5.8% and the weight of the mail is down -8.5% per household.
These data would not be showing declines unless there were a media change taking place, which there is, which has affected the comparative economic returns of the use of mail for promotional efforts. Printing volume, mailed or otherwise, is down $24 billion compared to 2000. Our is almost 40% smaller comparatively, than what it "should have been" had the trends of 1999 been extended to now.
Yes, I do have a lot of nerve. When I see online how someone I know is working diligently to change industry tradition and inertia to drive things for the better, and is attempting to engage in inquisitive conversation and is instead getting flamed, I am pleased to speak my mind.
It's not just the DMA that is concerned about do not mail legislation. So are the postal workers unions, and numerous business and small business organizations... and especially the printing industry and its associations, whose workers and business owners are in a growing transition to implementing technologies and sustainability methods that raise the print medium to higher standards. They do this every day, putting their sweat equity and capital in the marketplace, often taking significant financial risks in the purchasing of equipment in the process.
By Rezzie Dannt on May 21, 2008
"Postal shipments are lagging household and population growth, and the total weight shipped is down 10% on that basis."
Right. I conceded earlier that overall postal volume is down. But that's not what we were talking about. We were talking about Direct Mail volume specifically.
"The most recent postal quarter data was even stronger on the downside, with periodicals weight shipped down 7%, about the same percentage that consumer magazine ad pages were down."
Again, we weren't talking about periodicals like Sports Illustrated. We were talking about Direct Mail. e.g. third-class mail, bulk mail, standard mail.
"http://members.whattheythink.com/erc/charts/djwchart080317.gif"
Your own chart disproves your point about Direct Mail volumes. Look at the turquoise blue line. That's Standard Mail (e.g. Direct Mail). Notice how it trends upwards. That's what we're talking about.
"Printing volume, mailed or otherwise, is down $24 billion compared to 2000."
The key words here are "mailed or otherwise." This tells us nothing about direct mail volume.
"I also know that questionnaire construction and question wording play a big role in securing certain answers in polls."
You're right. Just like any research, polls can be done poorly or they can be done well, they can be done scientifically or they can be done pseudo-scientifically, they can be done honestly or they can be done dishonestly.
"Here is the brochure with the USPS data about the “mail moment.”"
In the case of this USPS poll, notice how it says nothing about "direct mail." It simply asks about mail in general. When you look at other polls that ask specifically about direct mail, you get a very different picture.
When the Direct Mail industry takes this poll out of context to support their argument that people like direct mail, it only proves how exceedingly dishonest their campaign against the public really is.
I challenge anyone to find a reputable poll, taken in context, which shows that people like "direct mail." I have yet to see one. Again, even polls taken in your own industry support my argument.
I also challenge anyone in the industry to answer one question, which I keep asking, but nobody answers. If people truly like direct mail, then why is the industry fighting so fiercely against a Do Not Mail registry and claiming it will wreak economic havoc? If people truly liked direct mail, there would be nothing to fear from an opt-out registry, because nobody would opt out.
Dr. Joe Webb, would you care to tackle this one? Tread carefully.
"Polling data is not evidence in the same way that data that measures the results of actual behavior is."
Polling data can be very solid evidence of consumer sentiment when done scientifically and honestly.
In terms of evidence of behavior, we have that as well. A 2% response rate is evidence of behavior. The public's cry for regulation is evidence of behavior. The recent sprouting up and success of "junk mail" services such as Catalog Choice is evidence of behavior.
"attempting to engage in inquisitive conversation and is instead getting flamed"
No, what he was attempting to do is exert control and/or shut down the conversation. It's a very common practice, when someone's overmatched in a debate, to try and railroad the dialogue.
It's always very subtle and under the guise of "niceness". For instance, if you disagree with something, they'll say, "Let's not argue. Can't we all just get along?"
Or, if you makes a fair critcism, they'll say, "Let's not demonize people."
Or they'll say something like, "This isn't the time or place for this discussion." (Or claim you're off-topic.)
Or they'll try to short-circuit rational discussion by employing the fallacy known as Appealing to Emotion. "Think of the children" or "think about the people who will lose their jobs."
Michael is very polite and friendly, but he wasn't using a fair communication style. My tone, while perhaps not justified, was in response to these manipulative rhetorical techniques (of which he himself was probably not aware).
At this point, you'll likely say, "He wasn't being manipulative, he was just calling for civility. And you're over-reacting." Which is precisely why these tactics are so effective and infuriating. They're subtle, "polite", difficult to pinpoint, and easy to deny.
By Michael Josefowicz on May 24, 2008
@Rezzie Just a couple of points, then I really have to get back to my day job....
1. You say,
"If people truly liked direct mail, there would be nothing to fear from an opt-out registry, because nobody would opt out."
I guess you are not hearing the point that everyone in the industry understands that people don't like junk mail, but people welcome mail they welcome. It is a hard problem, but we're working on it.
As for the DMA, as far as I can tell, I never defended the DMA. They are just one player amongst many in the print/communication industry. FYI, my own position is that they should take the lead in opt out. Less junk is better for everyone and is a little step towards sustainable communication.
As a for "civility" as "effective" and "infuriating." Yes, I agree. That's why it's such a useful standard to solve real problems.
Have a nice day.