What will 2011 bring in terms of junk mail? I'm really not the person for making predictions about the future, but let me make one anyway. This year publishers of paper directories are going make it a bit easier for people to cancel paper directories

Hardly a prediction that requires a crystal ball, to be fair. The introduction of some sort of opt-out or opt-in system for paper directories has been in the air for a while. In February 2010 the Local Government Association put the issue on the agenda by stating that paper directories are as outdated as the Betamax video. In a press release the chair of the association's Environment Board said that Council taxpayers' money could be spent on better things than picking up phone directories, many of which are never even used. Cutting down on the number of pointless phone directories could save millions and allow councils to spend more on vital services like care for the elderly. [ Link to press release removed as it's no longer available – JB, January 2016 ] Just about any newspaper in the country picked up the story, and it gave a welcome boost to 192.com's campaign for a central opt-in system for paper directories and my very own junk mail opt-out machine.

All good stuff, but sadly the Local Government Association had no intention to continue to make the case for an opt-out or opt-in system for paper directories. Its press release came out of the blue, and since it was published they've not said another word on the issue. Maybe this will change now that local authorities are facing unprecedented budget cuts; continuing to spend Council Tax revenue on disposing of unsolicited marketing materials while cutting budgets for things such as social care may become difficult to justify indeed. I reckon it will be one the things 192.com will be banging on about this year.

Our Allies are doing it already

If budget cuts are not inspiring enough, developments abroad may be. Last year the Belgium Government introduced an opt-in system for the White Pages, and in the Netherlands a central opt-out scheme was introduced after a number of MPs put their weight behind a campaign in favour of such a scheme. More significantly, in the United States – where most people receive a couple of Yellow Pages from different publishers each year – the Yellow Pages Association has promised to improve its opt-out website [Hyperlink removed in June 2012. The the Yellow Pages Association has renamed itself 'Local Search Association' and has ditched the ypassociation.org website that was linked – JB] so that people can actually use the website to opt out of receiving directories (at the moment people can only use the website to get the contact details for those publishers that allow people to opt out).

Particularly interesting is that Seattle City Council recently voted in favour of Ordinance 123427, popularly known as the Yellow Pages Ordinance. The Bill, which will come into force today, introduces an opt-out scheme run by the Council rather than by the industry itself. The Bill does four things:

1. It requires publishers distributing more than four tonnes worth of directories to get a distributors license from the City of Seattle.
2. It creates an opt-out list system for residents of Seattle. Residents can opt-out online, via telephone, or by writing to the opt-out scheme.
3. It introduces an enforcement mechanism to make sure that opt-out requests are honoured. Residents who opt out and continue to receive paper directories they've cancelled can file a complaint with the local authorities, and "a threshold number of complaints will trigger an investigation. Penalties include fines and, in cases of "repeated and egregious violations", the possible suspension of a business licence.
4. It imposes a "recovery fee" of 14 cents (9p) per book delivered plus $148 (£95) per tonne of paper to pay for recycling paper directories and administrating the opt-out scheme.

Could this be a blueprint for local authorities in the UK? I can't see any reason why not. Self-regulation by the directory industry in the UK has achieved nothing. Although it's possible to opt out of receiving directories none of the main directory publishers in the UK advertise this fact. The words "opt out" are not mentioned on the websites of the Yellow Pages, Thomson Local and BT, nor can any information about canceling phone books be found in the directories themselves. The Data Publishers Association, the representative of the directory industry, tries hard to keep quiet on the subject. In short, it wouldn't surprise if one or two local authorities in the UK conclude that the industry is not going to do its bit to reduce the mountain of waste caused by unused directories and follow Seattle's example. Give people an easy and effective way to stop directories, and make the polluter pay. Voilà… problem solved.

Supreme Censorship and the Voice of Reason

Local authorities concluding that introducing an effective opt-out (or opt-in!) system for paper directories is one of those typical 'win-win' initiatives would of course face opposition from industry lobby groups. I doubt, though, that they'll be accused of violating the right to free speech. Believe it or not, this is what Seattle City Council is being accused of by the Yellow Pages Association. On 15 November it announced it would take the City of Seattle to court on the grounds that it "restricts publishers' fundamental right to free speech". Reading the introduction of the law suit you would think that Seattle has just introduced a Supreme Censorship Committee on the lines of the one introduced in Russia in 1826 by Admiral Shishkov (guess what I'm reading at the moment :):

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits government from licensing or exercising advance approval of the press, from directing publishers what to publish and to whom to communicate, from assessing taxes or fees for the privilege of publishing, from enforcing the desire of citizens to avoid communications, from prying into citizens' preferences regarding communications they seek to avoid, and from deciding the value of a publication's content. Plaintiffs bring this action because City of Seattle Ordinance 123427 violates these and other constitutional guarantees.

I might be wrong, but I'd hope most European judges would ask if the Plaintiff perhaps needs a glass of water. Freedom of speech would be violated if publishers would be banned from printing directories. That's not what's at stake here. We're talking about giving people an easy and effective way to cancel directories they don't want to receive; something the industry has so far been unable and/or unwilling to offer. Freedom of speech is not the same as the right to force-feed directories. Yet, it's not the first time American junk mailers assume that the First Amendment gives them the right to force-feed unsolicited marketing materials. The classic case is Rowan vs US Postal Service.

To be fair to the Yellow Pages Association, the rest of its argument is a lot more reasonable. For instance, allegation 16 reads:

Plaintiffs and other yellow pages publishers have an economic incentive to avoid distributing their hard-copy directories to those who do not want them. Each directory costs money to print and distribute. Publishers generally market and sell yellow pages advertising based on how effectively their hard-copy and online directories generate business from consumers who use their directories, rather than simply the number of hard-copy directories distributed within a market. Publishers that fail to honor consumer requests to cease deliveries of hard-copy directories risk alienating both the consumers who use their directories and, ultimately, the businesses that advertise in those directories. Plaintiffs and other yellow pages publishers thus offer websites and toll-free numbers through which consumers can select from among possible directories or opt out of deliveries completely, and YPA operates an industry website, www.yellowpagesoptout.com, to allow consumers to find the appropriate publisher's website or toll-free number for taking such action."

The argument is that self-regulation by the industry is to be preferred over Government intervention. The Yellow Pages Association is planning to make its opt-out website actually do what it says on the tin some time in the next couple of months, and once this has been done there won't be any need for such things as licensing schemes and making the polluter pay something towards the cost of disposing of unwanted books, according to the lobby group. Its press release emphasises the same argument in a slightly different way:

The industry’s consumer choice site, www.yellowpagesoptout.com, will accomplish on a nationwide basis what Seattle now is trying to build on its own – with zero investment from the city and without the free speech concerns that the law currently presents.

Whatever you make of the argument, it should be noted that the Yellow Pages Association's opt-out website would never be improved if Seattle's elected representatives wouldn't have ended self-regulation by the industry. If the Data Publishers Association this year decides that the UK should have a proper opt-out system for paper directories, just remember what it told the Daily Mail in February 2010 when questioned about the absence of a central opt-out scheme in the UK:

All UK directory publishers maintain an opt-out scheme that enables consumers to choose not to receive a printed directory. The number choosing this option is tiny.

Ever heard something so haughty?