Thursday, January 13, 2011

The Junk Mail Battle Continues...

"Better Business Bureau:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID XXXXXXX, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

I am still disappointed that my name has been entered into the RedPlum system. I filed this complaint out of refusal to be listed in their database when I did not request their junk mail in the first place. I find it reprehensible that they "require" me to provide my name to get my address removed (when the mailings, if I may charitably refer to the material they require me to carry out to the recycling bin on a weekly basis) from their system. I have just checked, and their website still requires someone to enter their name to remove their address from the RedPlum mailing list, even when the mailings themselves are addressed to "Resident". I might not hesitate to use a false name, which might also help me track down anyone they sell my name/address to other trash peddlers. However, on the website, it says the user needs to enter their name to act as their legal signiture. This seems simply absurd and over-stepping their bounds. To register for the national Do Not Call registry, for example, it simply requires the phone numbers and a (potentially temporary) e-mail address for verification.

I require that RedPlum removes my name and any reference to my address from their system, except for what references to my address are required to keep it on their "do not mail" list. Once they can provide that specific assurance, I can accept their response to my complaint.


Alexander Belton

PS. I would like to take this opportunity to register my opposition to the unsolicited junk-mail business model from an ecological viewpoint. I do not think they consider any of the ramifications on the environment relating to either the energy requirement to process and print the ads themselves (I will be kind and assume the paper is already entirely recycled pulp) as well as the transportation cost of bringing the packet from the printers to the unwilling recipients (including the increased load on the US Postal Service in manpower and fuel costs) and then the cost and inconvenience forced upon the recipients to dispose of the mailings in either the recycling or refuse streams, and then the energy required to transport the waste to either the landfill or to the recycling facility and then sorted and reused. By mailing their junk to everyone regardless of interest, they are forcing these costs upon the planet and society. Both would be better served if Red Plum, and others like them, would adopt an opt-in rather than an obfuscated opt-out system."

No comments: