Making direct mail green: The debate continues

Direct marketing's environmental credentials have been the subject of much debate on MyCustomer.com in recent weeks. First the sector came under attack for its environmental stance, then its actions were defended. Now Robert Rijkhoff enters the fray.

By Robert Rijkhoff, Stop Junk Mail

Chris Roxburgh of LinkDirect recently explained how marketeers are trying to make direct marketing ‘green’.

Although it is surely encouraging that some new initiatives have been taken by marketeers to reduce the industry’s impact on the environment, it is unfortunate that Mr Roxburgh claims that it is mainly because of ‘misconceptions’ that the direct marketing industry is being critisised by both environmentalists and politicians.

Anyone interested in environmental issues will acknowledge that all too often there is a huge discrepancy between rhetoric (i.e. setting targets) and actual practices (i.e. reducing carbon emissions). The worry of environmentalists is of course that the industry lacks the will to really make an impact.

And there are good reasons for this. Years of self-regulation by the direct marketing industry has not led to a decrease in the amount of unsolicited mail pushed through British letterboxes and too often marketeers have failed to give consumers a real choice.

Take, for example, the tick boxes asking consumers whether or not they are happy to receive ‘further information’. Although it is only fair that organisations try to keep in touch with customers, the problem with the tick boxes is that they are usually difficult to find and always too small. As a result many people consent to having their personal details added to junk mail lists without realising it.

The solution is simple: the opt-out box needs to be replaced by an opt-in box. At the moment it is assumed that you want to receive ‘further information’ every time you sign a warranty card, register with an online service or donate money to a charity. The only way to opt out is by searching the small print for the opt-out box. This is an aggressive form of marketing that undermines what could be a good system.

Another example of the industry’s failure to give consumers a real choice is Royal Mail’s door-to-door opt-out. According to its own figures, Royal Mail delivers roughly 25% of all unaddressed mail in the UK. Yet, shockingly, less than 0.5% of UK households is presently opted out of leaflets delivered by the postman. This does not, of course, reflect the popularity of Royal Mail door drops. Rather, it is a direct result of the company’s refusal to offer a decent service to the many people who are not interested in unaddressed mail.

Going Dutch

Compare this ‘service’ with the situation in the Netherlands where, in the 1990s, environmental groups and the marketing industry set up a successful and populair system for opting out of unwanted mail. To stop junk mail, the Dutch only need to do two simple things: to stop addressed advertisements people can register with a Mailing Preference Service and to stop unaddressed junk mail people can put a free and readily available ‘no junk mail’ sticker on their letterbox.

Giving people the option to say ‘no’ can really be that easy. The Dutch system is good for consumers, good for the environment and good for bulk mailers.

The Dutch example also shows that it is possible for consumers, environmentalists and marketeers to find common ground. I am pleased, therefore, with Mr Roxburgh's acknowledgement that consumers should have an easy way of opting out of receiving junk mail. As he rightly points out, why would marketeers want to deliver leaflets to householders who have no interest in receiving unaddressed information through the letterbox?

Whether or not the new ‘Your Choice’ scheme will be part of the solution remains to be seen though. We already have the Mailing Preference Service and Royal Mail’s door-to-door opt-out. To effectively reduce unwanted mail people should also get their name off the edited electoral register and get a ‘no junk mail’ sign. Launching yet another opt-out scheme does not necessarily make things easier for the consumer.

Instead, would it not be better to make some simple improvements to the existing systems? If Royal Mail would simply respect ‘no junk mail’ signs there would be no need anymore for its failing door-to-door opt-out. The edited electoral register could be scrapped as well, given that there is no advantage for the consumer to be on this list. Opt-out boxes could be replaced by opt-in boxes. And, finally, the MPS could be strengthened by not making an exemption anymore for items addressed ‘To the Occupier’.

If marketeers would then continue their efforts to make their mailings carbon neutral and to increase the amount of junk mail being recycled, the industry could really play a part in reducing greenhouse gasses.

Robert Rijkhoff is co-ordinator of Stop Junk Mail campaign (www.stopjunkmail.org.uk).

Related articles