Stop Junk Mail has always been critical about the door-to-door opt-out. The service is far too obscure for our liking; it is not being actively promoted and an abysmal 0.5% of UK householders is registered with the service. The opt-out seems to be an overly complicated way of giving people control over their letterbox, in particular compared with a straightforward 'sticker system'.
Our respondents were not wholly negative about the opt-out; the majority sees it is an effective way of opting out. But the survey also confirms that there are problems with the opt-out. Of the 100 respondents, 6 to 8 did not receive the opt-out form they had requested. Nine people were concerned about the consequences of opting out and did not return the form. And the majority of people who did return the form continued to receive unaddressed mail items from their postman, although they did get less. We therefore have three recommendations for Royal Mail.
Too often opt-out requests are being ignored. We have no idea as to why this happens but, given that we have been receiving complaints about this for a long time, there seems to be a structural problem with processing opt-out requests.
A possible solution would be for Royal Mail to send a follow up letter to all householders who have not returned the opt-out form within two weeks time. Sending people a reminder can prevent that those people who never get the opt-out form feel they are being ignored. And of course it is only fair; if you request information from a company you are bound to get a follow up letter if you don't respond within a couple of weeks time. Why would people wanting to reduce unsolicited mail not be entitled to the same level of service?
In addition, it would be helpful if Royal Mail would publish independently verified data on the quality of opt-out service it provides. Royal Mail reports on all sorts of quality aspects (for instance the amount of mail that goes missing) but somehow the door-to-door opt-out is excluded from quality checks. It would be reassuring if Royal Mail could correct this.
Royal Mail's warnings about the possible consequences of opting out are unclear. That the company wants to prevent people from accidentally blocking mail items they do want to receive is fair enough. However, what Royal Mail should also consider is that as a result of the ambiguous warnings there may be many householders who are not opted out but never get a single door drop they actually want to receive.
The obvious solution is for Royal Mail to clearly explain what exactly a door-to-door item is. Giving some concrete examples could take away some common misconceptions. Many people think, for example, that the recent 'swine flu' leaflet produced the Department of Health is an example of a central government leaflet delivered via the door-to-door scheme. It is not; because the leaflet was seen as important information it was delivered to every household in the UK. Another example are election communications; party political leaflets distributed by Royal Mail during election time do not come under the door-to-door scheme. Giving such examples to householders would help prevent people choose not to opt out because of unnecessary concerns.
What would help householders even more is including opt-out information on door-to-door items. In 2007, Defra called on the DMA to include an 'MPS notification' on all addressed junk mail. The suggestion was rejected by the DMA but it is something Royal Mail should consider. It would enable people to get a clear idea of how much 'important information' is delivered via the door-to-door service and at the same time increase the take up of the opt-out.
In order to opt-out, householders have to go through quite a bit of trouble. For people who have signed up to Royal Mail's opt-out it is therefore all the more disappointing if their request not to receive unaddressed junk mail is ignored. Yet, it seems that opting out hardly ever stops unaddressed mail by the postman completely; less than 4 in 10 people told us that they no longer received door-to-door items delivered by Royal Mail.
The likely explanation for this failure is that it simply is difficult for postmen to remember which people on their round are opted out. When 'relief staff' are used the task becomes even more difficult. In fact, Royal Mail advices householders that "the occasional delivery may occur" when temps are used. This is nothing less than an acknowledgement a priory that the opt-out is not water proof.
It wouldn't be fair to blame postmen for this poor service. The problem is that the system is unworkable. The only real solution is to replace the bureaucratic opt-out with a simple 'sticker system'. Postmen would no longer need to learn by heart which households are opted out and people wanting to reduce door-to-door items would only need to put a 'no junk mail' sign on their door.
Royal Mail's main argument against a sticker system is that people may not be making an 'informed decision' about opting out and may therefore accidentally block unaddressed mail items they do want to receive. This is a controversial argument, to say the least. Not only does Royal Mail not explain very well what items are (and are not) delivered via the door-to-door scheme, there is also an easy solution. Door-to-door items can be classified as being either 'commercial' or 'non-commercial'. If only Royal Mail would make this distinction and exclude non-commercial mail items from its door-to-door service, people concerned about missing important information would no longer need to put up with take-away menus and other unwanted leaflets.
Unfortunately, both Royal Mail and the DMA regard separating commercial and non-commercial mail items as an impractical solution. The DMA, for instance, argues that it would be impossible to classify a council brochure containing advertisements. Although there will always be such gray areas, we believe it is entirely possible to make a common sense distinction based on what a leaflet's primary aim is. If a leaflet mainly provides non-commercial information it is exactly that: non-commercial. If, on the other hand, it is primarily promoting a commercial product or service then it should be seen as a commercial mail item. The council brochure containing some advertisements would normally be classified as being 'informative' rather than 'commercial'.
On first reading the sticker solution may sound complicated. The opposite is true; a sticker system would make life a lot easier for both Royal Mail and householders. Royal Mail would no longer have to administer the opt-out and postmen would no longer have to remember which households on their round have opted out. More importantly, householders would finally have an easy way of reducing unaddressed mail. At the moment there are two separate opt-out services for unaddressed mail items: the door-to-door opt-out (to stop mail items delivered by the postman) and the 'your choice' scheme (to stop unaddressed mail delivered by members of the DMA). As most leaflets that come through the door are not delivered by Royal Mail and/or the DMA, people who are serious about stopping unaddressed junk mail still need to get a letterbox sticker. In other words, householders currently have to do three separate things to stop unaddressed mail. A sticker system would reduce this to just one simple action.
Sticker systems make sense. They are common on the European mainland and in countries such as Canada and Australia. Given the fact that few people know about the existence of the door-to-door opt-out and the dissatisfaction with the way it is functioning, it is an option that should be taken more seriously.