Privacy and the environment

By the turn of the 21st century the junk mail debate had changed. Concerns about whether or not unsolicited mail was "decent" had largely disappeared. Instead, people were worried about the environmental impact of junk mail and, to a lesser extent, the use of their personal data.

The privacy issue was tackled first. As we have seen, Section 11 of the Data Protection Act 1998 gave individuals the right to prevent their personal data was used for "direct marketing" purposes. It was a bit of a pain to enforce that right — you had to send rather formal notices to individual junk mailers — but it was an important milestone. It established that recipients of advertising mail have rights. And, as we will see, in the same year a Home Office Working Party on Electoral Procedures recommended that voters should be allowed to opt out of the use of their personal data for non-electoral purposes. The opt-out was introduced in 2002.

Both developments were relatively minor but they signify the mood music was changing. Section 11 of the Data Protection Act 1998 was completely uncontroversial — even Conservatives agreed it was a valid attempt to stem the flow of useless junk mail — and the debate about the commercial use of the electoral register was about junk mail as much as it was about data protection principles.

Complaints about junk mail only became stronger over the next couple of years. Advertising mail volumes were on the rise while at the same time people became more aware of the destruction of the environment. Plus, all that junk mail was simply bloody annoying! As far as I am aware there is no research into attitudes towards junk mail, other than the usual industry-commissioned studies which invariable show people love junk mail and want more of it. However, "junk mail" had clearly become an issue. This is perhaps best exemplified by the fact that "junk mail" was voted the topic viewers of Brassed Off Britain were most annoyed about (spam calls made the top three as well).

The voluntary producer responsibility agreement

Eventually, politicians had to act. In 2003, Defra agreed a so-called voluntary producer responsibility agreement with the junk mail industry aimed at cutting waste. The New Labour government had quite a few of these voluntary agreements with different industry bodies; they were an example of co-regulation and right up New Labour's alley. They allowed industries to continue to regulate themselves but there was some government oversight, as well as the possibility that statutory legislation would be introduced should an industry fail to clean up its act.

The first agreement with the junk mail industry had rather modest aims: the industry had to make sure that 30% of junk mail was recycled by the end of 2005, and that target increased to 55% for 2009 and 70% for 2013. These targets were easily met, if only because recycling rates for paper increased significantly during these years. The main achievement of the agreement was that it put the waste issue firmly on the agenda. The DMA launched a Green Matters newsletter to encourage its members to "go green" and introduced a PAS 2020 standard that set various environmental objectives for producers of junk mail. Essentially, junk mailers wanting to comply with the (voluntary) standard had to make sure mail-outs were produced more sustainably, properly targeted (i.e. no carpet-bombing) and recyclable.

The second agreement was more ambitious. Among others, the DMA's first progress report on the voluntary agreement, dated May 2006, mentions the launch of an opt-out scheme for unaddressed mail as one of the next steps:

Action
3.2 Work with other stakeholders (free newspapers and Advertisers) to set up and implement a Preference scheme for unaddressed mail. Launch the scheme on Preference Service websites and to Local Authorities

Who
DMA, Newspaper Society, Incorporated Society of British Advertisers (ISBA)

When
Launch scheme in Q1 2007

The idea for such an opt-out scheme wasn't completely new — it was first mentioned on the DMA's MyDM propaganda website in late 2005. The page with frequently asked questions told readers that there wasn't a single opt-out service for unaddressed mail but that the DMA were looking into developing such a scheme.

It appears Defra and the junk mail lobby had been talking about an opt-out scheme for unaddressed mail for some time. And, I strongly suspect the DMA wasn't at all enthusiastic. Its friends at Royal Mail, for instance, had been running a private opt-out scheme for unaddressed mail for decades without ever advertising the existence of the opt-out service — the opt-out would become public knowledge in 2006, when the company suspended a postman for the crime of telling people on his round about opting out. Regardless, the New Labour government pressed ahead. Particularly promising was the Waste Strategy for 2007. In the words of David Miliband, the then Secretary of State for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, the government aimed to not only recycle and reuse waste but to prevent it in the first place. And in the parliamentary debate about the waste strategy he also said this:

"To achieve that, we are establishing voluntary agreements with the industries concerned to reduce and recycle waste. For example, there are more than 350 million pieces of unaddressed direct mail every year, so we have agreed with the Direct Marketing Association to develop an opt-out service for mail of that sort and will consider an approach where people get direct mail – addressed or unaddressed – only if they choose to receive it."

And this is how the Waste Strategy document summarises what had been agreed with the DMA (emphasis by Defra):

Since the DMA agreement was signed in 2003 there has been a drop of around 5% in the amount of addressed direct mail, partly through the promotion of the Mailing Preference Service (MPS). However, volumes of unaddressed mail (including inserts in magazines and newspapers) appear to be increasing at a rate of 1–2% per year. Registration with the MPS does not prevent delivery of unaddressed mail and the DMA has agreed to develop an opt-out service for unaddressed mail along the lines of the MPS to improve the targeting of this marketing material. This will be developed on a voluntary basis in the context of the existing agreement. Government will also be exploring with the DMA whether an opt-in system would be an appropriate mechanism to further reduce unnecessary direct mail.

The language used in the Waste Strategy obviously worried the DMA. In response, they put out a statement that said that a significant number of jobs depend on the direct mail industry and that without the revenue generated by direct mail, the ability of Royal Mail to maintain a universal service at a competitive price to the consumer would be severely under threat. They also pulled the some-unsolicited-mail-isn't-advertising card by noting that they were keen to understand whether political and Government communications would be incorporated in such a scheme. This was followed up in July 2007 with a study, commissioned by the DMA, which revealed true impact of the direct marketing industry on the UK economy. Obviously, the report found that "direct marketing" has a hugely positive impact. The company that was paid for the research (the Future Foundation, which is an Experian-owned "think tank") helpfully put out this statement:

"It is interesting that despite the challenges faced by direct marketing as a fast moving and rapidly evolving industry, it always seems to be able to adapt accordingly and ultimately continues to grow. This demonstrates direct marketing’s maturity as a marketing discipline, showing that it is ready and willing to change in response to new circumstances whether regulatory, technological, or consumer driven."

Asking questions

I don't think an opt-in regime was ever seriously considered. Perhaps the government used it as a threat, or maybe they just wanted to look tough and on the side of the people. Regardless, its preferred solution was an opt-out service for unaddressed mail, along the lines of the MPS. The opt-out scheme that was launched (in early 2008) is the Your Choice Dummy Scheme. The "service" doesn't in any way comply with the letter of the agreement, let alone the spirit. Unlike the MPS it doesn't have its own website and you can't register online. It just makes a mockery of the whole thing.

The DMA took a bit of a gamble by launching what can only be described as a parody on an opt-out service and, as late as 2010, the DMA's Governance Committee was worried Defra might push for a change in legislation because so few households had registered with the opt-out scheme. In retrospect, they had nothing to worry about. As happens so often with government policies, Defra's announcement wasn't followed by action. The Waste Strategy Annual Progress Report 2007/08, for instance, mentioned that Defra would review the success of the new opt-out scheme in late 2008. It was never reviewed.

The government had lost interest in the issue as well. A debate about junk mail in the House of Lords, in October 2008, speaks volumes. This was the answer of Lord Brett in response to a question about what steps were being taken to reduce the amount of unsolicited mail delivered to residential addresses:

My Lords, the Government have a voluntary agreement with the Direct Marketing Association which covers the promotion of the Mailing Preference Service. The Mailing Preference Service allows householders to opt out of receiving addressed direct mail. We have also encouraged the DMA to develop the Your Choice Preference Service which was launched earlier this year. Your Choice allows householders to opt out of receiving unaddressed mail from DMA members. The Royal Mail also operates an opt-out service to stop the door-to-door unaddressed mail that it carries. The preference services that are in place allow people to choose, and cover approximately 90 per cent of addressed and unaddressed mail.

The statement that the three opt-out schemes stop roughly 90% of all addressed and unaddressed mail is complete and utter rubbish. If any of the noble Lords and Ladies present at the debate had read up on the subject they could have asked some rather embarrassing questions. Could the minister perhaps provide details about his claim that the opt-out services stop 90% of unwanted mail? How many household are aware of the existence of the opt-out services for unaddressed mail, and what are the sign-up rates? Are households who register with the opt-out services happy with how they work? Alas, no MP ever asked those type of questions.

More importantly, Defra didn't ask such questions either. At the time the DMA's Governance Committee was worried Defra might push for a change in legislation I spoke with the person in charge of the responsibility deal on behalf of Defra. He confirmed that a detailed review of the Your Choice scheme has not taken place and he was unaware that only 1,600 households had registered with the service, even though that information was published in a Waste Prevention Report the DMA and Royal Mail had produced for Defra.

I of course asked the policy advisor what he made of the opt-out rate, and whether or not he felt Your Choice was the sort of opt-out service Defra had in mind when it published the Waste Strategy. I didn't get any answers. He simply kept referring me to the DMA, even though my questions were about how Defra was getting on with the targets set out in its own Waste Strategy.

The Door-Drop Preference Service

Perhaps my awkward questions did have some effect, as Defra would make one more attempt to reduce waste caused by unaddressed mail. In November 2011, the department announced the third voluntary agreement and the centrepiece was a new opt-out scheme for unaddressed mail. The new service would replace the separate opt-out schemes for unaddressed mail run by Royal Mail and the DMA and — you are going to like this — householders would be able to register online. Marketers always like to talk about how they are at the forefront of the digital revolution, so perhaps it shouldn't come as a surprise that they were considering making it possible to fill out a form using a web browser as early as 2011.

The new service was going to be the Door-Drop Preference Service and the website was supposed to be launched in April 2012. But, it never happened. April came and went, and there was no opt-out website. I asked Defra and the DMA why the website hadn't been launched yet but they were again very reluctant to talk to me.

It took a Freedom of Information request to find out what had gone wrong. The issue was that Defra and the DMA disagreed about what they had agreed, and the DMA therefore refused to launch the service. Both parties insisted the issue would be resolved and that the whole thing hadn't been scrapped. Alas, scheme was quietly scrapped in 2012. And so it is 2025, and we still have two separate opt-out schemes for unaddressed mail — and to register you still need to print opt-out forms and return them via snail mail.

The death of the voluntary agreement

The death of the Door-Drop Preference Service also killed off the voluntary agreement between Defra and DMA. I submitted several more Freedom of Information requests to Defra and other public bodies that were involved in the agreement to find out what was happening after 2012. Every response I got stated that they had no records of either the opt-out scheme or the voluntary agreement. I asked the DMA if the responsibility deal still existed and, as per usual, was met with a wall of silence.

In 2015 I wrote to my MP with a number of questions about the responsibility deal and I got a reply from the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Environment and Rural Affairs (Rory Stewart, nowadays of The Rest is Politics fame). He didn't answer any of my questions directly but did hint there was still some life in the agreement:

As I am sure you will appreciate, public funding is under extreme pressure and the Government must make sure that the limited funding available for Defra's waste management activities is focused on the key priorities that only the Government can and must do. This recognises that the Government's role should reduce as businesses increasingly realise the economic and commercial opportunities that arise from resource efficiencies and tackling environmental challenges. We do not consider there to be a clear market failure in this area and believe that business is best placed to act. While we continue to monitor delivery against the remaining parts of the voluntary agreement, Defra is taking no further proactive action in this area.

In reality, the voluntary agreement had already died. Defra was monitoring the remaining parts of the voluntary agreement exactly how they monitored the success of the Your Choice scheme in 2008 (that is, they did absolutely nothing).

The Etherington review

We don't know to what extent the government seriously tried to improve how unaddressed junk mail is regulated. My guess is that, ultimately, the issue wasn't enough of a vote winner. What we do know is that governments can intervene, and that they can even impose opt-out schemes. In 2015, the Tory government ordered a review into charity fundraising, after newspapers had started reporting on the aggressive marketing techniques deployed by many charities. The existing regulators were replaced by a new regulatory body — the Fundraising Regulator — and a brand new opt-out scheme was invented: the Fundraising Preference Service.

The Fundraising Regulator is still a self-regulatory body — the review into charity marketing that resulted in the overhaul noted that there was little appetite for state regulation of fundraising, either from charities or government.. Instead, the new regime is a hybrid model. The Fundraising Regulator's scope is largely limited to overseeing and enforcing the industry's code of practice and the body is ultimately accountable to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.