Hi again Rezzie...
Sounds like you have a plan. And looking forward to the Monday Revolt.
Re. the "blanket" coverage, although I don't know the text of all state laws written on Do-Not-Mail, some of them do rule out all mail, except for political and charities. But we probably both agree that the state route is too cumbersome, and legislation should be at the federal level.
The FTC's Do-Not-Call list has been a huge success, but it came at a time when consumers were so exasperated by telemarketers that they would have done anything to stop them. I am not sure you can correlate interrupted dinners and the general nusiance of unwanted telephone calls with unwanted mail that can just be thrown away. However, you should be encouraged by ForestEthics success in their DNM campaign: 40,321 signups as of today.
I am anxious to hear more about the specifics of your campaign, but it sounds like you are definitely moving in the right direction.
In my case, I just want to take it to the top by giving the consumer control. By the way, this idea has been floating for over ten years; I first introduced it to my junk mail colleagues over ten years ago as a way to help eliminate waste, and actually give junk mailers a way to better target customers who want their offers. (The concept includes an opt-in only for mail, and can differentiate interest categories) Pretty soon I was becoming an outcast, and eventually left the business.
Consumer Reports has advocated consumer control over financial data, and I even got Proctor & Gamble to say they felt their customers should have control over their names and private information.
But we are all on the right track by attempting to take back our rightful control from the junk mail companies who think they own our names and personal data.
Good luck launching Junk Mail Revolt!
Jack
<blockquote>I'd like to see your Junk Mail Revolt, but authorization is required so I couldn't get through</blockquote>
Hi Jack,
The website launches on Monday, so stay tuned.
<blockquote>That said, I am not sure a blanket Do-Not-Mail law, covering everything and everybody, is the right approach.</blockquote>
Nobody here is advocating a blanket Do Not Mail law. We're pushing for an opt-out solution, similar to the Do Not Call registry that's currently regulating telemarketers. It's a very moderate and reasonable compromise that only affects those who sign up for it.
<blockquote>First, not likely this stringent of legislation will pass in states or on the federal level; second, there are those who want junk mail; and three, a lot of the non-profits use it.</blockquote>
An opt-out registry would only restrict mail for those who choose to opt out. It would likely pass in Congress, and be upheld by the Supreme Court, on the same legal grounds as the Do Not Call registry. Also, non-profits are likely to be exempt.
<blockquote>So that is the reason I came up with my concept over three years ago to pass federal legislation to grant consumers control over their names and private information, and compensate them when it is sold as incentive to assume this new responsibility.</blockquote>
I think it's a great idea. Have you checked out the literature on the subject? Others have proposed similar things in the past. For instance, I recently read an article called "Marketing Without Consent" by Ross D. Petty (2000). I'll email it to you if you'd like.
I don't think our two projects are mutually exclusive. Your idea has a much broader scope in terms of privacy rights and ownership of personal information, whereas my focus, for the moment, is simply on direct mail solicitations.
<blockquote>However, only a grass-roots consumer movement can get the job done</blockquote>
I completely agree.
Rezzie Dannt
[http://www.junkmailrevolt.org Junk Mail Revolt] (Launches May 12, 2008)
Hi Mutternich...
Thanks for hanging in there. Sometimes I am technologically impaired, and apparently that was one incident. Hope you found what you wanted.
Jack
Jack E. Dunning
The Dunning Letter
Cave Creek, AZ
Hi Rezzie...
Appreciate your looking at my stuff, and I'd like to see your Junk Mail Revolt, but authorization is required so I couldn't get through. My e-mail address is jack.dundiv@cox.net if you want to contact me. Always interested when someone realizes the dangers of uncontrolled communication, especially when it involves so much sensitive data.
That said, I am not sure a blanket Do-Not-Mail law, covering everything and everybody, is the right approach. First, not likely this stringent of legislation will pass in states or on the federal level; second, there are those who want junk mail; and three, a lot of the non-profits use it.
Perhaps none of these reasons will seem justification to some for the avalanche of junk mail we receive, and nothing is justification for the way junk mailers collect, manipulate, and lose our personal data. So that is the reason I came up with my concept over three years ago to pass federal legislation to grant consumers control over their names and private information, and compensate them when it is sold as incentive to assume this new responsibility.
However, only a grass-roots consumer movement can get the job done, and currently apathy over this issue (it could never happen to me) is still prevalent. But you and others are making a difference, so keep up the good work!
Jack
Jack E. Dunning
The Dunning Letter
Cave CREEK, AZ
<blockquote>My reference to a "pointless debate" was specific to Ms. Landman's comments about the US Postal Service, and it is pointless</blockquote>
Mr. Broder,
Thank you for the clarification. While I agree that the Postal Service in many ways does an admirable job under difficult circumstances, I find it troubling that you would disregard a consumer's constructive criticism as "pointless."
This sort of dismissive attitude towards consumer sentiment is precisely why the industry is in jeopardy. Your comment only bolsters Ms. Landman's argument, which is that the industry continues to ignore consumer preference at its own peril.
<strong>Good business model:</strong> giving consumers what they want
<strong>Bad business model:</strong> forcing upon consumers what they despise
Unfortunately, the Postal Service's ever-growing reliance on junk mail violates these basic principles of Business 101. They would be wise to take heed. The axe of consumer wrath is about to fall, and it won't be nearly so kind as Ms. Landman's gentle commentary.
<blockquote>I won't bore PR Watch readers by trying to argue with you until we are both out of breath</blockquote>
I accept your admission of defeat.
All kidding aside, I'm disappointed that you refuse to address even one of the issues I've raised. I would remind you that our purpose here is not to persuade each other, but to engage in what you previously described as "a balanced, two-way debate that lets individuals make truly informed decisions on their own." It's not a debate if you merely state your talking points, then turn tail and run at the first threat of substantive dialogue.
At the very least, it would be nice if you would answer this one question: If the industry honestly believes that people like junk mail, then why is it engaged in such an aggressive campaign against Do Not Mail? As I've pointed out before, an opt-out registry is only a threat to you if consumers dislike junk mail enough to opt out. I'm sure the folks here at PR Watch are as eager as I am for an answer.
Rezzie Dannt
[http://www.junkmailrevolt.org Junk Mail Revolt] (Launches May 12, 2008)
Pages