Re: Permission or should I get out more?

From: John Gaskill <gm_at_info-central-usa.com>
Date: Tue 30 Oct 2001 17:04:30 -0500

MIKE PEPPER <pepper_at_w3pg.com> WROTE:

>"Traditional" junk mail, in general, is much less
>trouble and even contributes positively to society
>in general. In occasional specific cases it may
>even be useful -- like when you get a survey letter
>with a buck in it, or you've run out of custom
>transparent return address stickers with the little
>autumn leaves in the corner.

Are you putting me on??????

Anyone who seriously believes that traditional
junk mail has value to society does not have a
good grip on the meaning of the word junk.

If "junk mail" was perceived as valuable, the
moniker would not be stuck on it. People might
call it "manna," "gift mail" or "bonus letters."
Alas, only the junk mailers use those names.

>Junkmail:
> - can be sorted into recycling in seconds

Depends on how much you get. When you get
pounds of it per day it is not much fun -- even if
you have to pay people to sort through it for you...

Add to that the damage done by the thousands
of tons of CO2 dumped in the atmosphere every day as
fossil fuels are burned to move the billions of pounds of
junk mail delivered daily.

> - subsidizes a significant part of costs
> for all postal services
> -- USPS says that without it they
> would have to raise 1st class prices
> and then go bankrupt anyway

This is a bogus argument. Prior to the legislation
that lowered postal rates for "junk mailers" the
USPS had a pretty good annual surplus and
Washington bureaucrats and politicians did their
best to spend it all on vast postal complexes in
the late 1960s and 1970s. Losses result from
an excessive number of expensive letter carriers
and excessive postal infrastructure required to
deal with the vast quantities of "junk mail."
Mail moved faster too. Letters got across the
country in two or three days as a matter of
course. The USPS did not slow down regular
First Class delivery in order to promote customer
upgrades to Express and Priority Mail in those
days.

> - employs thousands of people outside of the USPS
> - indirectly supports tens of thousands in DM jobs.

Most of these same people would be employed if
direct mailers were forced to pay the same First Class
postal rates the average citizen is obligated to pay.
Even presort rates should be eliminated to make
the burden equal on all mailers.

>SPAM:
> - eats backbone bandwidth

no argument there

> - increases non-originator operating costs

same as direct mail

> - takes resources without paying for them
> (aka, "theft")

Direct mail does the same. Time is a very
scarce resource.

> - eats reader time and interest (even if the
> reader has "filter" software

The filters on my software automatically route mail
to the trash. There is no reason yours should not
be set to do the same.

> - and by doing that, it decreases the
> value/reliability of all email

Not really. How you have your filters set and
how you review your email increase or decreases
your perception of the value of the email you receive.

> - returns no value to anyone other than
> the originator

Not true, if a sender finds a recipient who wants the
message, accepts the offer and derives benefits
from accepting it -- the same goal has been
achieved as with DM.

> - reveals the sender to be less than a
> positive participant in human society.

This argument is often leveled at DMers.

I must add as a personal note that I do not like getting
junk mail any more than I like receiving spam. I ashcan
almost all of it.

However, I do believe in the power of targeted mailings,
by first class without the benefit of presort or other
available discounts. If you offer something of value to
the recipient, that message is reinforced by the fact that
you put a real stamp on the envelope. Your message is
"we are equals" and I have something to say to you.

That has always been the "real power" of direct mail
 -- not the power to level forests or employ 1,000's
but to communicate a sincere message and provide a
real value to the recipient.

Sorry for the long response.

John Gaskill
jg_at_Info-Central-USA.com
http://Info-Central-USA.com





Received on Tue Oct 30 2001 - 16:04:30 CST