Posted by Lending Club :: October 22, 2008 @ 11:05 amJunk mail has long been a sore subject with both consumer advocacy and environmental groups. Growing concerns over privacy and waste have caused some to call for an end to this nuisance altogether. I was surprised to learn that one of the most outspoken critics of limiting junk mail are the very ones saddled with having to deliver it: the US Postal Service.
An upcoming Newsweek article claims that Junk Mail Keeps the Post Office Alive. Direct mailing (a.k.a. junk mail) constitutes 52% of mail volume. The Post Office lost a staggering $1.1 Billion in the last quarter, so you can imagine what a reduction in their junk mail revenue would do to its finances. Those figures remove some of the glow of my praise towards the amazing low prices offered by the Post Office when I discussed economies of scale.
With 44% of direct mail being thrown out unopened, the environmental impact continues to be a concern as well. The concern is two-fold: not only are massive numbers of trees being cut down to supply the paper for direct mailing, but a significant portion of it ends up in landfills without having any consumer impact.
Significantly raising direct mail rates might allow similar revenue to be generated from a reduced volume of junk mail. Clearly, something needs to be done. It’s only a matter of time before a Do Not Mail list becomes a reality. When that day comes, the USPS’s finances are going to go from bad to much worse. In addition to jobs likely being lost, normal mailing rates will have to increase. As I mentioned when discussing why “investing” in forever stamps is a losing proposition, current legislation limits the rise in postal rates to be less than inflation. That basically means that even if rates are forced to go up, the inflation-adjusted income the Post Office receives will surely go down.
Another option would be to charge consumers to be added to the Do Not Mail list. If such a provision were in place, how much would you be willing to spend to eliminate your own junk mail? What other solutions can you come up with to solve this impending problem?
Print This Post
6 Comments
I am more worried about junk email since it costs more to the
recipient than to the sender.
[...] helping either. One side effect of a slowing economy is
a reduction in advertising. Since 52% of the USPS’s mail
volume is comprised of junk mail, it should come as no surprise
that a reduction in direct marketing mail would hit the USPS [...]
Nous ne sommes pas responsables de la manie dont nous sommes
compris, mais de celle dont nous sommes aim.
Man .. Beautiful .. Amazing ..
Very splendid information.
I'm actually currently implementing the perfect solution. That is,
any time I get post addressed to "Occupant," "Current Resident,"
"Future -insert company here' Customer," etc., I tell them that no
one by that name lives at that address and they are federally
required to not deliver any more post to the address that is
addressed to the non-name. I'm currently in an argument with them
about what "Current Resident," means. They say it means me and they
have to deliver it to me because they're paid to. I say I'm the
only one that can say whether I am current resident and they are in
violation of federal law to continue delivering it to me. I also
said someone offered me 44¢ to kill them, and considering that I'm
paid to, I must be obligated. They didn't like that analogy. That's
because it made too much sense. I will win, though. I always do. I
don't know why the governments and corporations continue fighting
with me when I always win.
Leave a Reply