Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Alerts | Electronic edition | Advertise | Subscribe to the paper | Today's Extras
Subscribe

Is junk mail so bad?

Misguided plan would hurt local businesses

Published February 16, 2007 at midnight

Text size  

First-term Rep. Sara Gagliardi, D-Arvada, has introduced a measure, House Bill 1303, that would establish a do-not-mail registry much like the no-call list that took effect statewide in 2002.

We opposed the do-not-call list at that time because of its inconsistent treatment of solicitors - non-profits and politicians were exempted - but consider any proposal to limit some "junk" mail through civil penalties as arguably worse.

To begin with, there's the issue of intrusiveness. Receiving unwanted phone calls that interrupt dinner or a TV show is much more disruptive and invasive than opening your mailbox once a day and finding an envelope full of coupons from local merchants.

If you don't want the coupons, toss them. Is that really so hard?

Direct-mail promotions have been part of the nation's commercial fabric since Aaron Montgomery Ward mailed his first catalog in 1872.

Gagliardi's registry would let residents state that they wish to no longer receive commercial solicitations by mail. Marketers who ignored such requests would be subject to $500 civil penalties. That's a hefty burden on businesses distributing four-color brochures to their neighbors.

Taking punitive measures against such a well-established form of communication is not only questionable policy; it would also make a practice that some people find annoying but others truly appreciate into a civil offense.

It would boost the costs of sending bulk mail (addressed to "current resident" or "occupant") to neighborhoods. The restaurants, car washes and hardware stores that once blanketed local customers would now have to scrub those on the no-mail list from their records, raising their costs. It's possible that some would stop sending mailers entirely. As a result, consumers who appreciate these ads (and coupons) would no longer receive them.

The bill would not allow Coloradans to dodge all "junk mail," however. Only commercial solicitations would be affected, because the courts provide precious little protection, unfortunately, to commercial speech. Political flyers would still come through. Nor would fund-raising appeals from nonprofits face the scrutiny of the law.

As a result, many of the most obnoxious plugs would continue to clog mailboxes.

And who knows how easy it would be for a resident who moved into a house that was occupied by someone on the no-mail list to remove that address from the registry and start receiving promotional materials.

Coloradans who want to minimize unsolicited mail pitches at least to some extent can already seek relief through the Direct Marketing Association. It offers several ways to reduce the volume of ads you receive, including options that allow you to keep getting some types of mail, such as catalogs. (Visit dmaconsumers.org.)

Even if this alternative did not exist, we see no need for a law that would hassle and fine businesses that are using a time-tested method for attracting new customers when the inconvenience even to homeowners who object is so minimal.

Post your comment

Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.




(Forgotten your password?)




News Tip

Know about something we should be reporting? Tell us about it.


Reprints