All existing opt-out schemes for junk mail and paper directories can be improved (see opt-out schemes). However, there are two opt-out schemes that really just stand in the way of making reducing unsolicited junk mail easier; the Door-to-Door Opt-Out and Your Choice should be abolished and replaced by a sticker scheme.

There are two things you need to do to stop unaddressed junk mail:

1. Registering with the Door-to-Door Opt-Out will stop unaddressed mail items distributed by Royal Mail; and
2. Putting a 'No Junk Mail' sign on your door will stop any other unaddressed junk mail.

For the sake of completion I should mention the Your Choice Preference Scheme for Unaddressed Mail; the opt-out scheme that can prevent unaddressed mail items distributed by members of the Direct Marketing Association. However, this scheme is largely redundant as the Direct Marketing Association's code of practice already demands that members of the association respect “requests not to receive unaddressed items” (DM Code of Practice, 4th Edition, point 13.23). If you put a 'No Junk Mail' sign on your door there's little point in signing up to yet another opt-out scheme.

Why have opt-out schemes for unaddressed junk mail?

Unaddressed junk mail can be delivered by Royal Mail, local leaflet distribution companies, or organisations / individuals themselves. This makes opt-out schemes for unaddressed junk mail unviable. There's no way that, say, local take-away outlets and sole traders are going to check if your address appears on a central opt-out register. Opt-out schemes for unaddressed junk mail necessarily cover only a portion of all unaddressed junk mail.

If you put the possible distributors and existing opt-out schemes in a table it becomes clear that a lot of unaddressed junk mail isn't covered by any of the junk mail industry's opt-out schemes - even though the industry has set up two seperate opt-out services for unaddressed junk mail:

What the table shows is that opt-out schemes for unaddressed junk mail make reducing unwanted advertisements hopelessly complicated and time-consuming. These opt-out schemes have been set up because the Direct Marketing Association and Royal Mail are wary of 'No Junk Mail' signs. Yet, the Door-to-Door Opt-Out and Your Choice are not a very helpful alternative. The schemes give you the right not to receive unaddressed mail distributed by Royal Mail or distribution companies that are members of the Direct Marketing Assocation, but you have no rights whatsoever when it comes to all other unaddressed junk mail, including free newspapers. That's more than half of all unaddressed junk mail that isn't covered by any opt-out regime!

If we would abolish the opt-out schemes for unaddressed junk mail and replace it with a 'sticker scheme' (more about that in a moment) the above table would look like so:

One opt-out regime for all unaddressed junk mail… what a brilliant idea!

Show some respect

So, I've made my case. The Door-to-Door Opt-Out and Your Choice can be abolished. Hardly anyone is registered with the schemes anyway, and they only make reducing unwanted mail more difficult. Once these 'services' have been abolished all unaddressed junk mail could come under a 'sticker scheme'.

A sticker scheme has to be properly introduced. It's important, for instance, that stickers are available for free and readily available. Equally important, the industry should, in co-operation with consumer representatives, agree on what items 'No Junk Mail' signs should an should not stop. That a 'No Junk Mail' sign should stop items such as pizza leaflets and taxi cards is obvious, but what to do with for instance leaflets from charitable organisations and political parties is less clear.

A sticker scheme would ideally be based on 'No/No' and 'No/Yes' stickers. They make a distinction between commercial and non-commercial leaflets and give people a straight choice as to whether or not they want to receive free newspapers. Compared to stickers that just read 'No Junk Mail' they're very specific indeed (and they can even be colour-coded!). A system like this would be vastly superiour to what we got at the moment. It's nonsense that people not interested in unsolicited leaflets have to familiarise themself with three different opt-out regimes.

However, for a sticker scheme to be really effective one element needs to be added…

Ombudsman

At the moment you're buggered if your 'No Junk Mail' sign is being ignored (unless the junk mail was distributed by Royal Mail or a distribution company that's a member of the Direct Marketing Association). A sticker scheme therefore needs some backup; people need to be able to complain to someone about organisations that insist on dumping litter in their letterbox. This could be achieved by introducing an ombudsman for junk mail.

The industry doesn't need to fear an Ombudsman. The industry would still be regulating itself in a laissez-faire way, as it prefers. An Ombudsman doesn't have the power to hand out fines, for instance. However, people would have someone to complain to, and an Ombudsman would be able to adjudicate and clarify the rules when problem occur. In the process it could also 'name and shame' companies adopting worst practice, and for the first time ever we could get some idea of how many dodgy leaflet distributors there are - something which is not measures as part of the existing opt-out schemes for unaddressed mail.

Easy and effective

A properly set up sticker scheme would make stopping unaddressed junk mail a lot easier. All unaddressed mail items would come under a single set of rules, enforced by the same institution (the Ombudsman). And, a sticker scheme could make the sensible distinction between commercial and non-commercial leaflets - something which the opt-out schemes for unaddressed junk mail are struggling with.

To illustrate the difference between the opt-out regime created by the junk mail industry and a sticker scheme we can expand the table introduced above. The table below shows how leaflets distributed by different sources can (or, cannot) be stopped, and how the system is enforced.

It looks a mess, and it is. If you want to make a complaint about unaddressed junk mail you need to first figure out which opt-out regime it comes under. As we've already seen, roughly half of all unaddressed junk mail is outside of the scope of this framework - in effect the junk mail industry doesn't allow you to say 'no' to unaddressed junk mail that's not delivered by either Royal Mail or distribution companies that are members of the Direct Marketing Association. This also means that you can only enforce your (assumed) right not to receive leaflets if you know what opt-out regime a particular leaflet should come under; the system only works if you know which company distributed the leaflet. Meanwhile, the scheme doesn't make a distinction between commercial and non-commercial mail items - registering with the opt-out schemes will simply stop all unaddressed mail items covered by the schemes.

Compare this with a sticker scheme:

According to the Direct Marketing Association sticker schemes are too complicated. I beg to differ!