As we have seen, the UK is blessed with two industry-run opt-out schemes for unaddressed junk mail: Royal Mail's Door-to-Door Opt-Out is supposed to stop unaddressed mail delivered by your postie and the Your Choice Dummy Scheme pretends to stop leaflets distributed by members of the DMA. Both schemes aren't particularly effective. If you think I am negative and biased (which, in all fairness, I am) then I would like to quote to you what Royal Mail's website has to say about its opt-out service:

Opting out of Royal Mail Door to Door deliveries will not necessarily reduce by a significant amount the number of items you'll receive.

I will admit that it is a little cheeky to not put the quote in context. What Royal Mail is trying to explain is that signing up won't stop unaddressed mail delivered by other leaflet distributors. Still, the sentence always puts a smile on my face. Telling potential customers that the service you offer is largely useless is quite a marketing strategy. It almost sounds as if they don't want you to use their opt-out service!

The statement also points to a rather large flaw in the industry's self-regulatory framework: Royal Mail and members of the DMA distribute only roughly half of all junk mail leaflets in the UK. The other half — mainly items delivered by local leaflet distribution companies — is completely unregulated. In other words, signing up to both opt-out services can stop only half of all unaddressed mail items — and that is assuming the opt-outs are effective (which they most definitely are not).

So, what to do about the other half? Your only real option is to stick an anti-junk mail sign on your letterbox. That is a purely informal measure; a polite request to junk mail distributors. Anti-junk mail signs aren't completely useless but it is up to the distributor's discretion whether or not to respect such signs. Some do, others don't. Your mileage will vary.

The problem with anti-junk mail signs

The reason why anti-junk mail stickers aren't particularly effective is twofold: the junk mail lobby refuses to even acknowledge the existence of such signs and there is no clear definition of what is meant by "junk mail". To start with the former problem, the reason why Royal Mail and members of the DMA ignore such signs (and instead run private opt-out services for unaddressed mail) is that they suffer from a severe letterbox sticker allergy. To them, giving you the option to stop all unsolicited, unaddressed mail by putting a notice on your letterbox is abhorrent. They argue that it is much better to get you to print and complete a paper opt-out form. That way, you can make an "informed choice" about whether or not you really want to miss out on all the "important information from local and central government" which apparently is distributed in the form of unsolicited leaflets. Sure, that does mean that roughly half of all unaddressed mail is unregulated but isn't that is a fair price to pay for the opportunity to make an "informed decision" about receiving unsolicited leaflets distributed by Royal Mail and DMA members? You wouldn't want to be denied that opportunity, would you? And, thinking aloud, the problem with the unregulated distributors can be resolved: perhaps each and every leaflet distributor in the UK should run its own private opt-out scheme, just like Royal Mail and the DMA!

The second problem is that most letterbox signs are ambiguous. That is particularly true for signs that read "No Junk Mail". This goes back to our discussion about the absence of definitions in the DMA's Code of Practice. You probably have a pretty clear idea of what "junk mail" is but chances are that your local leaflet distributor disagrees. And even if common sense prevails and we agree that an unsolicited take-away menu is proper "junk mail" then there are plenty of grey areas left. What about a leaflet from a political party? And what are deliverers of free local newspapers supposed to do when they come across a "No Junk Mail" sticker?

When I sold letterbox stickers on this here website, many moons ago, I initially refused to sell stickers with the text "No Junk Mail", for precisely that reason. Eventually, I got greedy and started selling "No Junk Mail" stickers (I am fallible, and I am sorry). However, I also kept promoting my original stickers, which are less ambiguous.

The term "commercial leaflets" implies that non-commercial leaflets are welcome, which alleviates the industry's concern about the mythical leaflets with "important information from local and central government". At the same time it puts to bed the argument about whether or not free newspapers are really just junk mail in disguise. My plan was to sell millions of these stickers. It would finally give people an easy way to prevent unaddressed junk mail and I would be stinking rich. Alas, that didn't happen.

How a sticker scheme should work

Anti-junk mail signs can only be effective if they cover all unaddressed advertising mail and when they are properly regulated. In other words, there would need to be a proper letterbox sticker scheme, backed up by a code of practice that is enforced by an organisation such as the Advertising Standards Authority. All distributors, including Royal Mail and members of the DMA, would need to adhere to the code — distributor-specific opt-out schemes such as the Door-to-Door Opt-Out and Your Choice would need to be abolished — and householders would need to have an option to make a complaint if a distributor or advertisers ignores anti-junk mail signs.

This is less fanciful than it might sound. The 'No/No' and 'No/Yes' stickers I presented above are based on the Dutch 'Nee/Nee' and 'Nee/Ja' stickers. The Dutch sticker scheme is run by the Reclame Code Commissie, which is a self-regulatory body (similar to the Advertising Standard Authority in the UK). The scheme is funded by the industry and the stickers are freely available. They are also part of the industry's Advertising Code, which all advertisers and distributors must comply with.

The Code has clear definitions about what does and doesn't count as "unaddressed advertising material" and "free local newspapers". For instance, it explains there is no exception for leaflets from charities and political parties (i.e. no distinction is made between a take-away menu and a leaflet from a political party) and that a "free newspapers" should contain at least 10% of "information and news" to be classed as a "newspaper" (the Code also acknowledges that this percentage is rather low). What's more, distributors are required to keep track of the number of households with a "Nee/Nee" or "Nee/Ja" sticker and reduce the amount of items they print accordingly. So, if there are 1,000 households in an area and 200 of them have letterbox sticker then they should produce only 800 leaflets.

One of the more interesting aspects of the scheme is that it benefits advertisers. At around 2018, roughly 15% of Dutch households had a 'Nee/Nee' or 'Nee/Ja' sticker on their letterbox. Those households are the junk mail haters, which advertisers are keen to avoid — even the DMA acknowledges there is no point in force-feeding advertisements to refuseniks. In other words, the sticker scheme makes unaddressed leaflets much more targeted, which is good for advertisers' return on investment and reduces junk mail's the environmental impact. It makes unaddressed mail a more attractive advertising medium for advertisers, which might explain why Dutch households without a sticker on their door receive more unaddressed mail than UK households.

The Dutch sticker scheme horrifies the likes of the Royal Mail and DMA. And perhaps rightfully so. Since 2018, more and more Dutch cities have introduced byelaws that reverse the sticker scheme. Households in places like Amsterdam, Rotterdam and The Hague nowadays need to put a "Ja" sticker on their letterbox if they want to receive leaflets and free newspapers. That truly is the stuff of nightmares for the industry — they suddenly need to convince households to actively opt in to receiving unaddressed mail. I almost feel sorry them, as they have presided over a rather successful opt-out system for many decades. If anyone deserves an opt-in scheme for unaddressed mail it would be the junk mail industry in the UK, with its Door-to-Door Opt-Out, the Your Choice Dummy Scheme, all the junk mail that is unregulated and all the leaflet distributors who routinely ignore polite anti-junk mail signs. Perhaps, justice will one day prevail.