How to get rid of junk mail (It’s harder than you think)

Source: Wooties!'s photostream

No one likes junk mail. It’s a waste of resources, a hassle to deal with, and an invasion of your privacy. Imagine a world where companies no longer pester you with paper advertisements that you don’t need. A fantasy, you say, that can never happen! But it doesn’t have to be, and I’ll show you how to make it a reality.

Once I upgraded my diet, the weekly restaurant and grocery ads for fried, roasted, and grilled body parts were no longer relevant to me. I got tired of my recycling bin filling up with junk that I never asked for but was expected to tolerate simply for living in an addressed home. I remembered years ago that I had signed up for the national “Do Not Call” service for my phone and thought there’d be something similar for a mailing address. That was rather optimistic of me to say the least. I’m still trying to excise myself from this steely marketing matrix, but I have made some progress. Below are the steps I took (and a few I should have taken) to stop getting junk mail.

Be forewarned that this is a process and requires some persistence and dedication (and note taking) on your part, but with time and effort, you can drastically reduce the junk in the mailbox. I’m an optimist, so my goal is to get zero junk (only relevant advertising that I condone should/will come to my address).

1. Visit Do Not Mail

There isn’t a US national registry like “Do Not Call” for junk mail, but DoNotMail.org has a place where you can request a cessation from some of the largest offenders.

Make sure to sign the petition asking for a national Do Not Mail Registry to be created.

2. Contact the folks of your weekly circulars

Those weekly ads are usually bundled by one spam marketing group; the ads will actually be held together by a PennySaver or another sheet comparable advertisement. I’m officially not on their distribution list anymore, but since the mail carrier is used to chucking a bundle of that crap in every mailbox, I keep getting my neighbor’s stuff. Next, I have to educate my mail carrier about my discontinuation.

3. Suppress your information when donating

If you donate to different charitable or non-profit organizations, be sure to read the fine print about their privacy policy. Usually non-profits sell their member/donor information to other organizations. If you don’t wish for your information to be used in this way, make note of it during the donation process, or contact the organization afterwards.

4. Contact local businesses directly

In addition to the weekly mail, I also get stuff from Bed Bath and Beyond, Leslie’s Pool, and a bunch of other random, irrelevant businesses. When I BBB called asking to be removed, the woman I spoke with said I was the first person who had contacted her about the issue. I guess most people either really want the ads or simply put up with it.

5. Magazines, credit cards, and the like

Whenever you sign up for a subscription to a magazine or open a new credit card, you may be opening yourself to unwanted mail. These companies will buy and sell your information; legit companies will explicitly say so in their privacy policy, and typically will offer ways to opt-out. I know they’re long and not particularly enjoyable, but always read the Terms of Service or whatever 50-page form they ask you agree to. If you’re not actually reading it but sign saying you did, you’re a liar and deserve hell’s worth of spam. (Just kidding—but you really should read those contracts, or at least, skim for important headers like “Privacy Policy” or “Liability” and then read those sections).

While on the subject of credit cards, if you have one, be sure to visit OptOutPreScreen.com. It’s the official Consumer Credit Reporting Industry website for opting in (ha ha) or opting out of credit and insurance solicitation.

Also, when you order things online, you may automatically be added to a catalog mailing list. If you get one in the mail, don’t just throw it away—check for the contact info first and call/write the company asking to be removed—then chuck the catalog in the recycling bin.

6. Let them know you want this to end

This was in the first point, but it bears repeating: sign this petition asking that a proper registry be created to stop junk mail.

7.1 Keep track of who you’ve contacted

This part is very important. After you’ve requested a company to stop spamming you, make note of when you put in the request, who you spoke to, and how long it will take to be put into effect. This will be useful if you need to follow up or count down the days until the junk mail is history.

7.2 Wait 2–3 months before you actually see less junk

This is a subsection of the above point. You know how a company will charge you 4000% in late fees, ruin your credit score, and send bill collectors to your home if you’re a second late in paying a bill, but will drag their feet for 6–8 weeks (as they collect interest on their ill-gotten cash) if they owe you money? The same corporate-centricism applies to solicitation lists. Supposedly, it takes them about 2 months after you’ve requested them to stop to actually stop, sometimes up to 3 months! The reason (I’ve been told) is because mailings are created in batches for each quarter (i.e., 3 months). I suppose they won’t excise a name from the batch when it’s been requested, even though I never gave them permission to use my information in the first place.

That’s all I could think of. If you have any additional ideas that I missed, or tricks that have worked for you, post them in your comments.

Update: I found a few other great resources for stopping junk mail. This Do-it-yourself guide covers junk mail, email, and phone solicitation. Privacy Rights Clearinghouse also has a great Fact Sheet/Q&A section dedicated to helping you stop junk mail. Eco-cycle is a service that lets you control (and opt-out of) the catalogs, coupons, credit offers, phone books and other unsolicited mail you receive. They also provide an Unlisting Service that’s free for Boulder, CO residents (for everyone else it’s a donation of $20 or more) that will automatically remove your name from marketing lists. I haven’t tried this service, but if it feels like it would be a hassle to do the calling/emailing yourself, it may be worth it.

12 thoughts on “How to get rid of junk mail (It’s harder than you think)

Add yours

  1. Rumor has it that if you write “REFUSED” on the junk mail and put it in a mailbox, it goes back to the mailer, who in turn has to pay the postage again. I haven’t tried it yet, but this reminds me to give it a shot.

    Like

    1. I found the following on http://www.fightidentitytheft.com/junkmail.html

      “Mail that displays the message “address-correction requested” or “return postage guaranteed” can be returned unopened to the sender by writing “Refused – Return to Sender” on the envelope. However, writing “Return to Sender” on mail without this message will not work as the post office will not return it to the sender.”

      Like

  2. I respectuflly disagree with the notion that using paper is wasteful. There are environmental tradeoffs on everything we do. I would argue that switching to the latest TV or phone or computer yearly is far more wasteful/harmful than the typical amount of junk mail received at an average American home, since mining for metals and turning petroleum into plastic casing is not at alls ustainable (one day we’ll run out of petroleum and untapped/unmined metal – we’ll never run out of trees – see below), not to mention that the components in our electronic gadgets are not fully recyclable or biodegradable thet way that paper is.

    Trees, like wheat and soybeans and cotton, are a crop. They grow back. The forest products industry has been practicing sustainable harvesting for longer than anyone with a computer has been alive. According to the USDA, we have more trees in the US now than we had a century ago. As the link from your post notes, so much paper is used that we’d run out of forest land in short order if the industry didn’t practice sustainability.

    Looking at it from another perspective, marketing experts will tell you that direct mail is more efffective than ony other means of selling, including e-mail (which by the way also is rather unsustainabile since so much of the energy used to power the servers that hold all that data comes from fossil fuels).

    Bottom line for me is that if dirct mail is a nuisance, you absolutely have a right to put a stop to it. Claiming an environmental savings as a result of it is somewhat misleading.

    Like

    1. I’m not sure how you can disagree that when paper goes into a landfill, it is wasteful. 28% of all US waste is paper products (http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/paper/index.htm). Whether people buy the latest electronic devices every 3 weeks or use them until the plastic casings disintegrate in their hands doesn’t change that fact. As far as I know, the production and purchasing of electronics (as unsustainable as they are) is not directly impacted by companies choosing to advertise through them. The production of paper, on the other hand, is impacted by advertising medium choices.

      Trees by themselves are a renewable resource, but the life cycle of paper ads—from the forest to the landfill—uses plenty of non-renewable resources: plastics (such as laminated cardstock), petroleum-based ink (http://www.paperrep.com/content/printing-ink.aspx), and fossil fuels for shipping and mailing. Converting trees into paper creates incurs water and air pollution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_pollution), and recycling paper, while less polluting than making virgin paper, has its own share of negative environmental effects.

      I don’t see a source for your USDA claim, so I can’t comment on that directly, but having more trees (I assume in the form of monoculture tree plantations) isn’t necessarily sustainable if it’s at the expense of natural forests; even if the US has more trees than it did 100 years ago, the biodiversity lost in species extinction can’t be grown back.

      As you’ve pointed out, electronics and electronic advertisements (like lovely spam) have plenty of environmental issues of their own, and switching from paper to email isn’t going to solve all of our waste problems. I haven’t done an exhaustive, comparative analysis between electronic and paper advertisments to determine which is “less bad” for the environment—to be honest, I didn’t write this to encourage any form of solicitation. If less junk mail is produced and leads to less paper waste, that is an savings.

      Yes, there are environmental trade-offs to everything we do, but only because our society is designed to be wasteful. There is no such thing as “waste” in naturally-occurring systems: dead twigs are construction materials for nesting birds; excrement is food for worms and microorganisms that live in the soil—you get the idea. A system that is truly sustainable is closed loop, and ultimately, that is where we as a society need to be.

      I thank you for your thoughts and introducing some of the unseen environmental problems associated with the information age to the conversation. If you care to share your sources for some of you claims, please post them.

      Like

  3. I have trip point #4 and write to the company each time and have called customer service the hardest to remove are credit cards, but they tell me to wait about 30 days and it will be removed, so far this has been a great strategy as well!

    Like

    1. I’ve found that sometimes those 800 numbers reroute to a one-man show that’s impossible to get a hold of. What really burns me is when I do get to speak to a person, I’m told I have to wait before the junk stops. Basically, I have to take their crap until they’re ready to stop. Methinks I have to get a cease and desist order!

      Like

  4. This is a wonderful and practical list for us. Now that junk mail has gone digital maybe this paper plague will vanish.

    Like

  5. Thanks for the comments. Let’s be clear about my comments -I’m not saying that all paper usage is without waste. Clearly there is some waste as there is with any/every industry. With 28% of all waste being paper based, should we point that back on the paper industry or on our society? I mean, how many different ways can the government, the forest products industry and many other organizations encourage people to recycle. Paper is one of the most recycled products that we have.

    I would LOVE, LOVE lOVE to see a full on life cycle assessment of paper versus other means of communication. Let’s take them one at a time. Laminated card stock is a personal choice. You can certainly buy paper without adding a plastic film to it. You will find an awful lot of commercial printing ink is soy based. So much so that the Soy Ink group that influenced this movement actually shut their doors and called it a day because they met with so much success (http://www.soyink.com/). Fossil fuels for shipping and mailing are universal for any type of comunication medium. With many electronic devices being made in Asia, paper is a considerably wiser choice when it comes to fuel usage for shipping. Making electronic devices takes a lot of energy and often times they aren’t readily recyclable (http://dbda.wordpress.com/2011/08/17/dealing-with-e-waste/). Not to mention that the metals in those electronic devices are often times hazardous.

    My mistake on the number of trees: it was the FAO (http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/more-trees-than-there-were-100-years-ago-its-true) that reported those findings. While I would agree that far too many acres have been converted to plantations, that is a practice that the industry has stopped (as the FSC and other sustainable forestry certfications have condemned such practices). You can’t unring a bell – so plantations remain plantations.

    I will finish with a quote: “When you go into a lumber yard, you’re given the impression that by buying wood you’re causing the forest to be lost, when in fact what you’re doing is sending a signal into the market to plant more trees. That’s why there’s just about the same area of forest in the United States today as there was a hundred years ago. And that’s why there’s no more land being used for agriculture today than there was a hundred years ago. It’s because of high-yield agriculture.” – Greenpeace cofounder and former director Patrick Moore, April 30, 2002, available at http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=1585

    Like

  6. Hey there, Just a notice that when I come to the homepage I am send straight to this comment page, I’m not sure why but thought you may like to know Especially on the home page) Regards

    Like

    1. When you say you “come to the homepage”, what link are you using to get here? I can’t recreate the problem you’re experiencing by using the “Crunchy and Chic” logo, or using the first link from a internet search.

      Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑