Yesterday's Washington Post had a fascinating article by Lyndsey Layton about how the U.S. Postal Service is teaming up with the junk mail lobby to stamp out (heh heh) efforts to create state or national "Do Not Mail" lists that would allow people to opt out of receiving commercial solicitations. That's no surprise: junk mail is big business, and the postal service, the paper companies, and the junk mailers don't want anything that would interfere with their cash flow, no matter how many forests are destroyed to make the paper.
But inside the article was the bizarre revelation that some environmental groups "are cool to the idea of a registry that prohibits marketers from sending mail to those enrolled and that fines violators. One reason may be that most environmental groups are themselves junk mailers."
Indeed, Laura Hickey of the National Wildlife Federation -- a member of the Direct Marketing Association -- claimed that the national registry "would affect anybody who mails ... I don't think it would be any different whether you were for-profit or non-profit."
Actually, no: all of the proposals for a Do Not Mail registry would include free-speech protections for non-profit and political groups. And, according to Todd Paglia, executive director of ForestEthics, the organization behind the Do Not Mail campaign, Hickey herself was told that on three occasions.
But hey -- what's good enough for President Bush is good enough for Laura Hickey: "If people participate in a voluntary system, then I don't see the need for a legislative strategy," Hickey was quoted as saying. NWF Vice President Jennifer Jones, who stood by Hickey's comments, claimed that NWF "wasn't participating with ForestEthics because we're totally focused on passing Lieberman-Warner" climate legislation, which the Bush administration opposes because it isn't a voluntary approach. But whatever.
Indeed, National Wildlife Federation has teamed up with the Natural Resources Defense Council to launch a voluntary effort called Catalog Choice, which allows consumers to opt out of receiving catalogs -- but not direct-mail solicitations like credit card companies and, er, environmental groups send. But the two groups have a very different approach to junk mail. NRDC Federal Communications Director Julia Bovey told me that while her group thinks voluntary efforts are part of the solution, they're increasingly concerned by paper industry lobbying efforts to keep the mountain of mail flowing.
"Junk mail is a huge problem that needs to be addressed," she said. "Catalog Choice is our first crack at that. But when you hear about the huge amount of money the paper industry is throwing at this, it makes you think maybe we have to go down the road of legislation."
Bovey also expressed concern about the letter that the Direct Marketing Association sent to its members, telling them to ignore Catalog Choice.
Now, I think it's perfectly okay for environmental groups to contact members and prospects using direct mail. For one thing, most use recycled paper. But I also believe that they're putting the money they raise to good use -- saving far more trees than they're destroying.
NWF is a good example: they're the best in the business at getting hunters and anglers behind conservation measures, a vital asset when you're working to pass legislation.
But hunters and anglers hate junk mail as much as the rest of us, and they might not be so amenable to NWF's entreaties when they find out that the environmental group is providing rhetorical defense to the folks filling their mailboxes with habitat-destroying, global warming-producing mail.
Postscript: If you want to stop direct mail, you can sign ForestEthics' petition here, try to get off catalog mailing lists with Catalog Choice here, and attempt to navigate the Direct Marketing Association's byzantine, propaganda-clogged opt-out system here -- worth checking out just to see their highly dubious claims and watch how much they try to complicate it.
Environmental education in Guinea Bissau
Senate should consider deforestation as part of climate bill
Comments
View as Threaded
Erik Hoffner Posted 8:23 am
20 Mar 2008
But I guess they're a non-profit, sorta, so I can look forward to more...
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,200+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 8:41 am
20 Mar 2008
Pretty much everything that NWF sends me now is online. Including their magazine -- which is rather a pity, because their magazine always has gorgeous wildlife photography, and it does not come across on my computer screen.
(By contrast, I hate their catalogues. Their buyer has wretched taste.)
In general, NWF, Sierra Club, the several branches of the HSUS and their fellows should be pitied. According to a recent story in the New York Times Magazine on charitable giving, out of around eight categories of the kinds of groups to which we donate, religious groups (e.g. our churches, etc.) and schools (e.g. our almae matres) by far receive the most money, while environmental and pro-animal groups are dead last.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 8:47 am
20 Mar 2008
I find junk mail fascinating, and I can't wait to see what new stuff I find in my mailbox everyday. But then, I like watching advertisements on television as well.
If you want to be tapped into the latest cultural trends, you have to read and observe advertising. Long after neoGreens have been buried, historians will look back at 21st century mpegs of ads and preserved specimens of junk mail and marvel at the rich information being delivered every day to the American Consumer.
The Manhattan Declaration
Permalink
naturescene Posted 10:51 am
20 Mar 2008
I donated to the Nature Conservancy because their methods are most compatible with my personal philosophy. But now, I receive mailers from NWF, Audubon, and the Sierra Club, etc., every few months. I understand the reasoning behind it, but I don't like it. If I want to donate to one of those groups I will, but the constant mailers aren't likely to sway my opinion.
I can already opt out of credit card offers, how do I opt out of Sierra Club mailers?
Permalink
Glenn Hurowitz Posted 12:54 pm
20 Mar 2008
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 11:17 pm
20 Mar 2008
Nah. There are more compelling, less top down examples...
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,200+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
jejjones Posted 5:00 am
21 Mar 2008
National Wildlife Federation does not "love junk mail." What we do "love" is the interest our members have to learn about and engage in the most compelling conservation challenges of our time. Some of our members prefer to receive that information online, so we provide that option. Other members still prefer to receive updates by mail. Many organizations and companies offer customers and members the choice to decide what they receive. That is a choice that should be left up to consumers, not dictated by the government.
All of us who are committed to reducing the chances of catastrophic climate change know that mandatory emissions controls are our only option to get emissions down to the level needed. To suggest that voluntary measures that allow customers to decide what lands in their mail boxes should be equated with all solutions to reduce carbon emissions is ridiculous. We all know that the severity of climate change demands a mandatory cap and trade solution that will reduce carbon emissions by 80% by 2050.
The National Wildlife Federation has been a market leader in getting the paper industry to adopt more conservation-minded practices by convincing major paper suppliers to source their paper from FSC-certified forests, increase post-consumer waste in papers and to address toxics reduction through optimum chlorine-free bleaching technology.
I find it interesting that both the Washington Post and Glenn Hurowitz conveniently left out information about the Direct Marketing Association's Green 15 measures, that we mentioned during both interviews. We are taking a leadership role within the DMA nonprofit group (which includes 1200 organizations) to encourage everyone to, at a minimum, mail under these principles. How convenient to leave that part of the story out.
Permalink
postalblowfish Posted 6:54 am
05 Apr 2008
So can things be done better? Of course. As a Letter Carrier I'd like to point out that our post office (and many others) recycles all of our undeliverable BBM. Instead of creating "Do Not Mail Lists" which threaten the solvency of the USPS and pit environmentalists against advertisers, mailers, and Postal workers why don't environmentalists encourage recycling and encourage mailers to use more recycled paper? This might have the effect of creating a larger market for all recycled paper that could increase the availability (and decrease the cost) of recycled tissue, paper towels, napkins, etcetera, as well as paper used for printing.
Just a thought.
Permalink