Junk Mail Revolt - Frequently Asked Questions

Frequently asked questions.

What's unique about your approach to fighting junk mail?

Most junk mail sites and services are concerned with removing people from individual mailing lists. We support their efforts and link to some of them on our resources page.

However, we also feel that anything short of Congressional legislation is probably more bandaid than cure. Opting out of individual mailing lists may offer some relief, but it doesn't really solve anything.

A real solution to junk mail requires ordinary citizens to band together and raise their voices so loudly in protest that Congress has little choice but to act. A real solution requires people to stand up and revolt.

We aim to facilitate that revolt.

What exactly do you want Congress to do about junk mail?

We want Congress to create an opt-out Do Not Mail registry similar to the popular Do Not Call registry currently in place for telemarketers. It only affects those who choose to opt out, will be fully funded by junk mailers who rent the list, and won't harm non-profits, who will likely be exempt.

Remember, too, that even if you register, you can always add yourself to individual mailing lists as you see fit. It's far more difficult to opt out of the hundreds of items you hate than it is to sign up for the small handful you actually enjoy.

What is the greatest obstacle facing the junk mail revolt?

Junk mailers and their advocates are well-funded and well-organized. Their marketing campaigns provide them with billions of dollars in revenue every year, and as you might imagine, they're fighting desperately to keep it that way.

In the last two years, legislators have proposed Do Not Mail registries in 18 states. None of these measures have passed, due in large part to overwhelming political pressure from the Direct Marketing Association, the Postal Service, the paper and forestry industries, and others.

To make matters worse, our side is sorely lacking the support we'd like to have from privacy advocates, consumer groups, environmentalists, and others who purport to fight for individual rights and the environment. Why? Because most of them are junk mailers themselves!

Why not just opt out of individual mailing lists?

The average American receives over 800 pieces of junk mail every year. It is impractical, if not impossible, to contact every business and organization that has you on its list.

Contacting organizations one by one is costly and time-consuming. It is a Sisyphean task that is endlessly frustrating and often fruitless. For every mailing list that removes you, another one seems to add you.

Plus, organizations sometimes ignore or refuse requests, even when one takes drastic measures like filing prohibitory orders with the Postal Service. When businesses do comply, it often takes months to see results.

Services can make opting out less painful, but they typically charge an annual fee. Even if they were 100% effective, which they're not, it hardly seems right to have to pay to be left alone in your own home.

But junk mail isn't as bad as spam and telemarketing, right?

We would argue it's worse. After all, how many trees are killed to produce spam? How many landfills are stuffed with telemarketing calls? Junk mail is by far the most environmentally destructive of the three.

One could also argue it's the most intrusive. You can unplug a telephone or computer, but you can't unplug a mailbox. There is no Caller ID or spam filter for snail mail.

Junk mail is only unique in the fact that we've been conditioned to tolerate it. We've grown passively resigned in the belief that junk mail is inevitable. But there is a choice, and that choice is to revolt.

Isn't junk mail the most cost-effective way to advertise?

Marketers only think junk mail is cost-effective because they're not the ones paying the hidden costs. We are. We're the ones paying in time and energy, in peace and privacy, in tax dollars for waste removal, in environmental impact, and so on.

When you factor in the hidden costs being dumped on the general public, junk mail is anything but cost-effective. And even if it were, in what backwards universe does violating the rights of 90% of us in order to sell a product to 1% of us constitute a sane approach to marketing?

What about free speech? Don't junk mailers have rights?

We support free speech. What we do not support is free-for-all speech that infringes upon the rights of others, invades homes, violates privacy, and ravages the environment.

It is often said that one person's freedom ends where another's begins:

For instance, we would suggest that a spammer's right to email you is superseded by your right not to receive spam. Congress apparently agrees. They passed the CAN-SPAM Act in 2003.

Likewise, we would suggest that a telemarketer's right to call you is superseded by your right not to receive phone calls. Congress apparently agrees. They initiated the national Do Not Call registry in 2003.

It should follow then that a junk mailer's right to send you mail is superseded by your right not to receive it. While Congress has yet to tackle the issue, the Supreme Court ruled in Rowan v. Post Office that

"a vendor does not have a constitutional right to send unwanted material into someone's home, and a mailer's right to communicate must stop at the mailbox of an unreceptive addressee."

The ruling went on to say that failure to give people an ability to opt out of unwanted junk mailings

"would tend to license a form of trespass and would make hardly more sense than to say that a radio or television viewer may not twist the dial to cut off an offensive or boring communication and thus bar its entering his home. Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit; we see no basis for according the printed word or pictures a different or more preferred status because they are sent by mail."

We couldn't agree more.

What if I like getting junk mail?

If you like junk mail, you're in a small minority. Regardless, we respect your freedom of choice and can assure you that an opt-out registry only prevents you from receiving junk mail if you choose to opt out.

Ideally, we'd like to see junk mail classified as national, local, political, and so on. This would allow folks to continue receiving the types of mail they want, and not the types they don't want.

Remember, too, that it's very easy to sign up for individual mailings by simply contacting businesses with your request. It's far more difficult to individually opt out of all the ones you don't wish to receive.

Won't eliminating junk mail cost people their jobs?

Sure, if you believe the junk mail industry's latest talking points. "Lost jobs" is always the desperation cry of big business when they're about to lose an argument. Oil companies cry "lost jobs" when the EPA steps in to protect our clean air. Tobacco companies cry "lost jobs" when government steps in to stop tobacco advertising aimed at teenagers.

Threatening lost jobs is a classic anti-regulation scare tactic, and if history is any guide, their claims are grossly overstated. The fact is, markets grow and markets shrink. Whether we regulate junk mail or not, paper-based industries are on the decline, and exciting new economic possibilities are on the horizon in the world of electronic communication.

Should we have continued using the telegraph in order to save the telegraph operator's job? Of course not. We must not resist social, economic, and technological progress in the name of saving jobs. It is progress that created those jobs in the first place, and progress that will create new jobs in the future.

Won't eliminating junk mail cause postal rate hikes?

Maybe, maybe not. Eliminating junk mail will reduce the Postal Service's income, but it will also drastically reduce overhead costs. Moreover, it may motivate them to find less destructive and more socially responsible ways to keep rates low (like correcting their notorious inefficiencies).

If not, then perhaps it's time we unleash the magic power of free markets by opening the door to competitors who can do a better job for less, and who can do so without such a cavalier attitude towards the rights and preferences of their customers.

Another thing to bear in mind is that junk mail's hidden expenses are already costing you far more than you likely realize. Even if eliminating junk mail caused a large rate increase, you'd still come out ahead. How much is your time worth? Your privacy? Your planet?

Why send boxes to Congress? Why not letters, emails, etc?

We strongly encourage you to contact Congress using every available medium, including letters, emails, faxes, and phone calls. Heck, we'd use carrier pigeons and smoke signals if we thought they would be effective. We focus on boxes because they have the following advantages:

Boxes are hard to ignore. Especially when they're stacked to the ceiling and spilling into hallways and corridors.

Boxes raise awareness of exactly how much junk mail we receive each day. When we save our junk mail rather than throw it out, we begin to appreciate the magnitude of the problem for what it is, and we grow that much more determined to fight it.

Boxes are more likely to capture the imagination of the media and the public. Submerging Congress under thousands of boxes of junk mail is a far more compelling story than writing a letter, however eloquent and sternly-worded that letter may be.

Boxes put junk mail to positive use. One of the more frustrating aspects of junk mail is there's nothing constructive to do with it. Our aim is to employ junk mail as a weapon against itself.

Boxes are cathartic. There's something deeply satisfying about boxing up your junk mail and using it to "fight the man" alongside thousands of other like-minded individuals. It's also a bit naughty and conspiratorial. We like that.

Isn't it expensive to send boxes of junk mail to Congress?

Yes and no. Depending on the size of the box and your location, it typically costs between $10 and $20 to ship a box of junk mail to Congress. That's not cheap, but it is cheaper than marching on D.C., and in the long-run we believe it offers more impact per dollar than the alternatives.

Other approaches can cost a lot more, and never really address the root problem. For example, many people spend a small fortune individually requesting removal from mailing lists. Others spend between $30 and $60 to have a service do it for them. That's an expensive bandaid.

Of course, doing nothing may be the most costly option of all. We're all bearing the burden of environmental costs, paying for waste management, and being quietly robbed of precious time and energy. Mailing a box to Congress isn't cheap, but we think it's your best bet.

With that said, if you still don't feel you can afford it, we encourage you to find other ways to participate on event days. For instance, you can mail letters, write emails, send faxes, and make phone calls. Plus, there are plenty of other ways to support the cause.

If money isn't a concern and you'd like to subsidize the participation of others, consider making a monetary donation. Your generosity will allow us to explore new options, like providing free mailing labels and drop-off locations for those who might not otherwise participate.

What about the environmental impact of your campaign?

The Postal Service delivers 703 million pieces of mail per day, about 40% of which is junk mail. Even if our campaign had millions of participants, the amount of mail we'd generate would be infinitesimal in comparison.

Once we succeed in putting an end to junk mail, the long-term benefits of our campaign will offset billions of times over whatever negligible environmental costs we may incur.

To put it simply, we're willing to sacrifice a tree to save the forest.

What if I have question not answered here?

Please feel free to contact us with questions and comments.