Will "Do Not Call" Lead to "Do Not Mail"?
by K. Jon Runstrom
The following article originally appeared in the October 2003
and December 2003 issues of the BCC Bulletin.
The short answer: I don’t think so.
Throughout my 25 years in this
business, advocacy groups have tried
to place restrictions on “junk mail,” and
none have succeeded. But new factors increase the odds of onerous
legislation aimed at our industry being
triumphant in the future. Although
the perceived risk may be low, the repercussions,
were such legislation to become law, would be devastating.
Consider the impact on your operations
if you were required to purge addresses
of individuals who indicated they do not wish to
receive unsolicited advertising mail from each mailing
campaign. Worse, what would happen to your cost of
doing business if you were subject to thousands of dollars
in fines for mailing to individuals on that list? What
if we weren’t talking about just one national registry,
but
rather if individual states maintained their own registries?
Unlikely? Perhaps — but possible. At least two states,
Massachusetts and New York, are currently contemplating
such legislation, and California’s Financial Information
Privacy Act, restricting financial institutions from
sharing information (including selling or sharing names
and addresses) with third parties, will take effect next
summer. The state press release carries the headline “New
California Law Should Reduce Junk Mail.”
Three
fundamental factors may improve the chances of anti-mail legislation
being enacted.
Environmental: Environmental groups call advertising
mail a major ecological menace. The Center for a
New American Dream claims each postal carrier delivers the equivalent weight of four elephants of “junk mail” every
year.
Obviously, we all should do our part to preserve the
environment. But the direct marketing industry generates
20 million jobs and revenues of $1.86 trillion (8.6 percent
of our nation’s economy), while advertising mail
amounts to only .4 percent of the solid waste produced in
the U.S. By any measure, that’s a highly favorable ROI—
and, to me, a pretty good use of trees.
Privacy: The problem of identity theft has
made personal privacy a hot topic. Some groups make the leap
to
associate selling and sharing mailing lists with the problem;
hence, the aforementioned California law.
After receiving a direct mail solicitation, even I sometimes
wonder how on Earth the sender got my name. But
sharing lists allows marketers to target their messages to specific groups who are more likely to be interested in
the marketer’s offerings, thus reducing the waste that
is
the concern of environmentalists. It’s a stretch to suggest
that sharing or selling names and addresses for a marketing
campaign contributes to identity theft.
Legislation: Regulators, motivated by these
factors (and a few loud voices), are increasingly impeding the
ability of business to communicate with customers.
“
Do Not Call,” “Do Not E-mail,” “Do Not
Mail,” take
down your billboards: all have a certain populist appeal.
Legislators always respond predictably to what they think
will make us happy — but strangely, all proposed legislation
in this area exempts political mailings. Also, their
proposed regulations are unfunded mandates: the laws
would be funded by the industry itself, through penalties
and user fees for access to the Do Not Mail files.
Would this
be a new American Dream, or a nightmare? Imagine a day when businesses
can only communicate
with existing, recent customers. You think the economy
is slow now? Under that worst-case scenario, it would
surely crumble.
Our industry has lobbied against “Do Not
Mail” legislation for decades. To forestall such
measures, a voluntary program called the Mail
Preference Service (MPS) was created. Managed
by the Direct Marketing Association (DMA), it
lists some 15 million people who have explicitly
stated that they do not wish to receive any advertising
mail.
For a small fee, anyone can use the MPS to
purge the file’s names from their mailings. The
DMA’s online Smartclean service will purge MPS
names from lists you submit electronically, and
other sources also provide processing against that
list. (When purchasing marketing lists, always ask
if they have been processed with MPS.)
Why not develop your own list, while you’re at it?
Maggie Morgan of Denver’s Ross PrintMarketing uses
Mail Manager 2010 to maintain a list of those who do
not want to receive mailings; 2010 purges those records
from her other mailing lists. “It works great and keeps
our customers happy,” she says.
Some may argue that time and budgets are too tight to
bother with MPS processing. To this, I reply: that’s precisely
the reason to do it. Consider: those listed in the MPS are also the most liable to eventually pressure their
legislators into making this voluntary mechanism a legal
requirement. The more marketing mail they receive, the
stronger their argument: I’ve told these people I don’t
want their “junk mail” — but they keep sending
it. Make
them stop!
Besides, mailing to these folks is unlikely
to prompt any response besides irritation. Omitting them from
mailings
makes sense — and saves printing, production and
postage costs at the same time.
Another tip: be on the lookout for articles and reports
that attack the mailing industry. “Every single, solitary
[anti-mail] incident must be challenged,” says Gene Del
Polito, executive director of PostCom, a mailing association.
Should you come across such anti-mail sentiments,
bring them to the attention of PostCom, the DMA, or the Mailing & Fulfillment Service Association — and
if possible, take the time to respond personally, as well.
Advertising mail is an easy target — even people who
actually buy something consider much of it “junk” — but
it remains a relatively non-intrusive and highly effective
way for businesses to communicate with consumers. Without
it, our economy would be in dire straits.
Some groups make it particularly easy to send antimail
messages to lawmakers. The Center for the New
American Dream Web site identifies your Representatives
and Senators based on a ZIP Code; a single mouse
click sends a letter urging Congress to enact a “Do Not
Mail” registry.
I’ve encouraged mailing-industry groups to make it
that easy for our side of the story to be heard. And in the
meantime, I used the New American Dream site to send my own counter-argument. I hope they don’t mind.
Comments? Write to kjrcorner@bccsoftware.com.
Related Links
Download a printer friendly version of this article here.
(For a free copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader, click here.)
