US majority says ‘Do Not Mail’(futurity.org)
futurity.org
US majority says ‘Do Not Mail’
http://www.futurity.org/top-stories/us-majority-says-%E2%80%98do-not-mail%E2%80%99/
9 comments
When I was in the Netherlands, this is one of the uglier things about Amsterdam. Nice ancient steel doors on impressive buildings all plastered with these No-No stickers. Feels like a very poor solution.
In Canada we take a marker and write "no junk mail" on our mailboxes. I'm not sure if it has any law backing it up, but it seems to work.
Canada Post has a policy of respecting people's wish not to receive junk mail.
Somewhat different context. The Netherlands has privatized the postal service ages ago. The interest in artificially propping up what remains of this relic beyond the current monopoly license on light weight letters is minimal.
Despite having No-No sticker on my mailbox, I'm still getting a bunch of junk mail. It is frustrating.
What's even more annoying is mail sent to a previous tennant.
What's even more annoying is mail sent to a previous tennant.
How is the junk that is disguised as bills handled by that system? Or is that not a thing there?
[deleted]
In the UK we have the Mail Preference Service which allows people to opt out of most (but not all) junk mail. We also have another system which allows people to opt out of the rest. It'd be nice if it was a single page that did both, but it's better than nothing.
Personally, I'd prefer the Royal Mail to have an expensive stamp for letters that was almost guaranteed next day delivery, and a regular stamp for letters that meant "next 3 to 5 business days". I'd like them to deliver business letters before 9am, but domestic letters could be before 4pm. These steps would save the UK mail delivery a lot of money, but have been deeply unpopular when proposed before.
Personally, I'd prefer the Royal Mail to have an expensive stamp for letters that was almost guaranteed next day delivery, and a regular stamp for letters that meant "next 3 to 5 business days". I'd like them to deliver business letters before 9am, but domestic letters could be before 4pm. These steps would save the UK mail delivery a lot of money, but have been deeply unpopular when proposed before.
I remember characters in Victorian novels sending dinner invitations out with the morning mail. Not only would the guests arrive, but there'd actually be a reply accepting the invitation.
Granted, that was within London, where at that time mail was delivered 12 (!) times per day.
Granted, that was within London, where at that time mail was delivered 12 (!) times per day.
Also known as the good old days!
A similar service exists in Denmark. You can opt-out of either advertisement and/or so called 'free newspapers' (we get three of those a week at my address).
I'd like to see a hologram or something as the stamp, only accessible to people with a code key that proves they have been invited to send me mail. A company can send a request via e-mail or a social netowrk to "schedule a delivery" that I will read. If I decline, no code, and no permission to send mail. Then, every mail without a hologram can be thrown in a designated bin by the delivery guy (trash, recycle, or what not). It is a huge social cost for CCC million usa citizens (and other around world) to have to wast time with this <sorting> of junk mail everyday. Since the mail guy is sorting it out, this would let him also sort the trash from what is actually useful.
How about a bar-coded stamp that costs a couple of bucks? If the recipient agrees that the mail is valuable, he can scan it and a refund will be issued to the sender. If it's junk....
I spend two minutes a day collecting junk mail from my mail box and throwing it into the recycle bin. That's 624 minutes a year. One government employee puts trash into my mail box and another government employee takes it away. Any useful mail I receive can be either delivered by electronic methods or UPS/FedEx.
Sweeping most of the contents of my mailbox into the trash bin isn't that hard. My inner ecologist and economist is much more put off by it than my inner "consumer". When I think about all those trees, and all the net energy expended on the production and delivery of junk mail, it just makes me want to cry.
I'm personally insulted that there's a billion dollar industry telling me, "Hey Phil, YOU throw this away!"
To kill junk mail would be to kill the US Postal Service, I think. I'm not sure if it's worth the price.
Shouldn't the US Postal Service have died a long time ago?
It always amazes me how the US as self-proclaimed champions of the free market and technological progress still holds on to outdated, bureaucratic nationalized monopolies like the postal service.
In many countries this market has already been privatized a long time ago, and/or scaled down to the point where relics like post offices no longer exist.
It always amazes me how the US as self-proclaimed champions of the free market and technological progress still holds on to outdated, bureaucratic nationalized monopolies like the postal service.
In many countries this market has already been privatized a long time ago, and/or scaled down to the point where relics like post offices no longer exist.
The main reason for the USPS is coverage. The US has a whole lot of sparsely populated, but not unpopulated, land. Covering these people is part of what makes the USPS unprofitable.
The same problem exists for telephones but the main approach has been to set high minimum prices that non-rural carriers have to pay rural carriers for traffic flowing from the former to the latter. This enables the rural providers to make a profit but leads to unintended consequences like free conference call companies set up in rural areas which get a kick back from the local provider for the incoming traffic they engender.
The same problem exists for telephones but the main approach has been to set high minimum prices that non-rural carriers have to pay rural carriers for traffic flowing from the former to the latter. This enables the rural providers to make a profit but leads to unintended consequences like free conference call companies set up in rural areas which get a kick back from the local provider for the incoming traffic they engender.
It always amazes me that the "efficient", market-driven private package-delivery companies in the US... actually use the government-run postal service as an integral part of their system.
It also always amazes me that people outside the US, or people who've only looked at models of other countries, think we could have universal delivery from a profit-driven private entity (hint: the US does not have the population distribution or density of European nations).
It also always amazes me that people outside the US, or people who've only looked at models of other countries, think we could have universal delivery from a profit-driven private entity (hint: the US does not have the population distribution or density of European nations).
In a sense, it's lovely that people living in the middle of nowhere in Alaska who require bush planes to fly hundreds of miles to deliver anything to them can get a letter for only 40-something cents courtesy of the US Postal Service. The American system of government is all about enabling people's selfish choices to live in the wilderness by forcing everyone else to subsidize their infrastructure, and that's a truly wonderful thing. Can we please find a better way of doing so than stuffing trash in my mailbox every week?
Having come from a country where the postal service was privitized, I'm going to let you in on a little secret: it sucks. But hey, they're profitable...
One of the (very few) things the US does better than most countries is the USPS. It should be a point of pride, not some problem that needs to be left up to the 'free market' to ruin.
One of the (very few) things the US does better than most countries is the USPS. It should be a point of pride, not some problem that needs to be left up to the 'free market' to ruin.
Isn't this a perfect example of a service you would want to keep paid for by everyone so it does not die? To me it is a part of important infrastructure and thus should not be thrown into the profit-needing waters of private capitalism.
It won't kill the postal service. Maybe they'll have to cut back delivery to two or three per week and maybe stamps will have to go up, but it's worth it.
I would highly encourage you to talk to your local small business association, as well as your city officials, before you conclude that it's "worth it".
I'm so sorry for all the small local businesses that can't get any customers from Yelp, internet advertising, advertising on the side of a bus, putting up flyers, having an enticing enough storefront, providing a good enough product/service to get word of mouth, setting up a daily deal, advertising on the radio, or hiring someone to stand by the side of the road with a sandwich board, and have to resort to the frankly sociopathic behavior of wasting valuable time and resources mailing me trash to throw away.
Some people willingly embrace the future, some have to be nodged and a few won't come if they can't help it.
Kill mail, keep package delivery.
Kill mail, keep package delivery.
In Greece, we don't have junk mail, and the post office works just fine.
It would also kill several small businesses that rely on junk mail as their only affordable advertising medium (e.g. think Pennysavers).
If their only means of survival is to ship metric tons of trash to people, let them die.
I think we'll live.
We could jack the price of a stamp to $5, it would still be a reasonable price, and nobody but the stingiest of cheap people could possibly complain. If mailing something isn't worth the price of a hamburger to you, then you shouldn't be mailing that something.
We could jack the price of a stamp to $5, it would still be a reasonable price, and nobody but the stingiest of cheap people could possibly complain. If mailing something isn't worth the price of a hamburger to you, then you shouldn't be mailing that something.
Wouldn't that affect, for instance, eBay sellers who need to ship their goods? You'd need to bump parcel mail up in cost in order to stop people using that instead. I've got small items from fricking China for less than $5 total including shipping!
Just set a 5 dollar rate for standard envelopes and slide everything else that was previously less that 5 dollars up a bit. Things that were previously 10 dollars or more would stay the same.
People who are running businesses that involve sending legitimate mail cheaply will just have to start collecting larger shipping fees. It needn't affect anyone shipping anything but small things.
People who are running businesses that involve sending legitimate mail cheaply will just have to start collecting larger shipping fees. It needn't affect anyone shipping anything but small things.
FYI Here's the FTC advice page listing opt-out information:
http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0262-stopping-unsolicit...
As part of the Christmas present for my folks I helped them add their names to the various opt-out lists. The gift of less spam keeps giving.
As part of the Christmas present for my folks I helped them add their names to the various opt-out lists. The gift of less spam keeps giving.
That helps get banks from sending you junk, and it's worth the time to do, but you will still get junk mail from others.
I've gotten very little junk mail of any kind since opting out via the DMA choice link, but maybe they just haven't found me yet.
It's the same damn crap here in Australia and it's making me furious.
It's stupid that there's more sensitivity on the online spam issue than the physical spam.
The mail box is a part of my property, why aren't I entitled to choosing who can use it and who can't?
It's not legal to just dump a bunch of ads on someone's lawn every day, why is it legal to dump it in their mailbox?
Just imagine the waste. I get ads that are not even remotely relevant to me. Really weird specific stuff that you'd think that maybe 1 out of every 500 person would be interested in.
Here's an idea,
Build a customer base of people with their interests, then print a custom catalog with deals and ads and everything specifically for their interests and send it to them. So my neighbour gets sweet fishing deals and I get the nerdy deals and my wife gets the clothing ads. Conversions will be a lot higher.
It's stupid that there's more sensitivity on the online spam issue than the physical spam.
The mail box is a part of my property, why aren't I entitled to choosing who can use it and who can't?
It's not legal to just dump a bunch of ads on someone's lawn every day, why is it legal to dump it in their mailbox?
Just imagine the waste. I get ads that are not even remotely relevant to me. Really weird specific stuff that you'd think that maybe 1 out of every 500 person would be interested in.
Here's an idea,
Build a customer base of people with their interests, then print a custom catalog with deals and ads and everything specifically for their interests and send it to them. So my neighbour gets sweet fishing deals and I get the nerdy deals and my wife gets the clothing ads. Conversions will be a lot higher.
Because that would be a pretty severe violation of my privacy. I really don't want some big company advertising something to me that I might not want. Lets say I'm a smoker, I don't want them advertising it to me because cigarettes will kill me. Or let's say I like some weird sort of porn, I don't want them sending me that literature in case it gets opened by someone else in my family.
I note this is the Facebook model of advertising. I find it intrusive. I also worry that organisations will use their data irresponsibly. Not all uses of information are to your benefit.
I note this is the Facebook model of advertising. I find it intrusive. I also worry that organisations will use their data irresponsibly. Not all uses of information are to your benefit.
does australia not have "return to sender"? That seems to work well for the little amount of junk mail that I get.
Some junk mail (in the UK) is addressed to a real person at a real address. Some is addressed to "The Occupier". Some is just unaddressed leaflets.
You can opt out (over here) but it's not as easy as it could be.
Keeping a recycling bin by the door relieves some guilt I feel about trashing so much stuff.
I wish they'd use more eco-friendly paper - recycled, not glossy, better inks, etc.
There have been people who've collected all their junk mail over a year. Perhaps we need to see the results for some streets to be shocked at the sheer quantity. Or maybe some international comparisons?
You can opt out (over here) but it's not as easy as it could be.
Keeping a recycling bin by the door relieves some guilt I feel about trashing so much stuff.
I wish they'd use more eco-friendly paper - recycled, not glossy, better inks, etc.
There have been people who've collected all their junk mail over a year. Perhaps we need to see the results for some streets to be shocked at the sheer quantity. Or maybe some international comparisons?
How does that work?
As in, you return it to the sender, as a request for unsubscribing?
If that's the case I don't think it would work because the postman doesn't care which box he's dumping the ads in.
As in, you return it to the sender, as a request for unsubscribing?
If that's the case I don't think it would work because the postman doesn't care which box he's dumping the ads in.
you write "Return to Sender" on the outside of the envelope and stick it back in the mailbox (really). or, if you live in a complex with a separate outgoing mailbox, then put it there.
[deleted]
I had a friend who enjoyed taking all of the junk mail he received and putting into mailboxes. I don't think it made a difference.
Some people collect junk mail, and then stuff it all back into the reply-paid envelopes it sometimes comes with.
Today, the USPS is supported by Direct Mail. Kill it, and you either kill the USPS, or pay directly in taxes to support it.
http://translate.google.nl/translate?sl=nl&tl=en&js=...