The Direct Marketing Association has conducted yet another survey, and once again the outcome of the study is exactly what they'd hoped for. The report highlights eco myths of marketing, according to the industry lobby group's press release [Hyperlink to dma.org.uk removed in June 2012 as the press release has been removed from its website – JB]. Pure science of course; there's really no need for the Direct Marketing Association to publish the raw data of the research so that people are able to look beyond the headline.

Not that any of the findings are in any way shocking. Here's what respondents told the 'researchers' (or rather, how the Direct Marketing Association has interpreted what respondents said):

• over a third of respondents think that unaddressed leaflets are more harmful to the environment than newspapers
• nearly 70% of respondents consider e-mail to have the least environmental impact
• over half of respondents see companies that print a recycle logo on junk mail as environmentally friendly
• about 40% of respondents see companies that wrap junk mail in plastic as not very environmentally friendly
• A third of respondents feel negatively about window envelopes

Research as a marketing tool

Anyone familiar with the basics of methodology will immediately note that the 'researchers' had to make plenty of assumptions. Take the first 'conclusion', for instance, about the relative harmfulness of leaflets and newspapers. Some people might have told the researchers that newspapers are more harmful than leaflets because they use more paper. Others, though, might have taken into account that newspapers are wanted – you have to make an effort and spend money to get one – and that leaflets are unsolicited, and therefore more wasteful. Without knowing the respondents' arguments we really don't know anything at all about their perceptions.

Or, what to make of the junk e-mail vs paper junk mail debate? The Direct Marketing Association feels that people who reckon that junk e-mails have less of an environmental impact are misguided and need brainwashing. E-mail uses electricity, and the carbon footprint of junk e-mails could be as large as the carbon footprint of the aviation industry, according to the Direct Marketing Association. You don't have to be a skeptic to suspect that some bias has entered the lobby group's research… Yet, it's impossible to refute such seemingly outlandish claims. The methodology used is secret and so there isn't any room for debate. I could claim to have done research that shows that the aviation industry is carbon positive; as long as I don't tell you how I arrived at that conclusion you wouldn't be able to proof that my research is wrong.

In short, this type of junk mail research can't be taken seriously. Research by industry lobby groups that isn't verifiable should be dismissed as a cheap and nasty marketing exercise.

The Important Message

It's worth looking at how the Direct Marketing Association abuses science for marketing and lobbying purposes. One of the conclusions in its press release is that paper may be the only truly sustainable communication medium. They really know no shame. How biased can 'science' get? Don't these people realise that making it easy for people to prevent unwanted and unsolicited junk mail communication mediums in the first place will always be more sustainable? Unsurprisingly, reducing junk mail is not an option as far as the Direct Marketing Association is concerned. It's outside of the scope of the 'research'. People shouldn't have sinful thoughts about stopping unwanted junk mail.

What does the Direct Marketing Association want you to think? The research has an Important Message for the junk mail industry:

As an industry, we certainly need to be doing more to explain why paper isn't the environmental bad guy and change consumer perception.

There you go… the problem is not that you're being bombarded with junk mail, the problem is that there's something wrong with your perception. Luckily, the Direct Marketing Association is here to help.

One prominent marketer has already suggested that the industry should organise a high-profile campaign to spell out the environmental actions and achievement of the industry. What they want to tell you is that recycling rates for junk mail are now in line with recycling rates for paper in general and that the industry has launched a voluntary code for 'green' junk mail. Would such a campaign also tell people how they can reduce junk mail? Will marketers finally start advertising the Mailing Preference Service on addressed junk mail? Would Royal Mail and the Direct Marketing Association organise a door-drop campaign to increase the number of households registered with its respective opt-out schemes for unaddressed mail, the Door-to-Door Opt-Out and Your Choice? Will the industry follow Junk Buster's example and set up a one-point-stop for signing up to opt-out schemes?

Well, no. The problem, after all, is that all those people moaning about junk mail have something wrong with them.