« Back to blog home page

Postal Regulartory Vice Chairman Nancy Langley on Catalog Choice

B to B magazine recently published an interview with the new Postal Regulatory Vice Chairman Nancy Langely titled “Addressing direct-mail deliverability and anti-marketing initiatives“.  At first, I was concerned that we were going to be labeled an anti-marketing initiative, but when I read Nancy’s comment about Catalog Choice, I was please that she described us as a solution that direct mailers should work with.  The excerpt is below:

BtoB: One of the challenges to direct marketers is various consumer efforts to restrict marketing mailing. Some of it seems intended to give consumers more control over what they receive, but other initiatives seem almost anti-marketing. What is your view?

Langley: Catalog Choice is a service that helps recipients reduce the frequency of catalog mailings, or eliminate unsolicited ones. It lets direct mailers show their customers they’re acting responsibly by eliminating duplications, and that they’re also environmentally friendly with recycled paper.

Catalog Choice is about connecting consumers and companies to stop unwanted mail.  Without willing partners on both sides of the conversation, we can not be successful.  We continue to work with direct mailers help them mail smarter by eliminating unsolicited mailings.  It is taking time, but mailers are warming to the concept of accepting mail preference requests from Catalog Choice.  Our solution makes good business sense because it provides direct mailers with the tools to customize their mail preference choices and adheres to strict security standards.  Companies can learn more about activating their free Catalog Choice account by visiting the Catalog Choice Merchant home page and contacting a Merchant Account manager.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 25th, 2008 at 4:18 pm and is filed under Catalog Choice, Featured. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

15 Responses to “Postal Regulartory Vice Chairman Nancy Langley on Catalog Choice”

  1. I very much encouraged and impressed by Vice Chairman Langley’s response on USPS’s stance. It sounds like an olive tree offering versus just the branch. Thanks!

    Yvonne Camesi on November 29th, 2008 at 3:59 pm

  2. I have registered more than 134 catelogs that I wanted stopped. The distributers just change the customer number and continue to send. It is very discouraging that they will not honor my requests to stop sending catelogs I have no pets, I do not run a machine shop but I sure do get those catelogs on a regular basis despite frequent requests to stop sending me these books. I have seen very little difference in the nu,mber of books I have received despite going on line time after time to add new customer numbers. I really wish that I could say this is working but I may take unused cell phone minutes after the holidays and just call these companies directly. We need more teeth to get his done this way. I wish that we had a national spokesperson to bring the message home to these mailer companies.

    Sheila Singer on November 30th, 2008 at 6:24 am

  3. Vice Chairman Langley’s statement simply identifies CatalogChoice and does not express any support whatsoever. What is the USPS’s position? I assume they have a huge revenue stream from catalog mailings, which they subsidize with bulk mailing rates. I second Sheila Singer’s comments–I am appalled at the number of retailers who do not participate–especially companies that are supposedly aligned with nature, like Patagonia. It is especially galling to continue to receive catalogs from companies who have agreed not to send them–and I’m talking about catalogs with the same customer number as a year ago.

    Jim Wiggin on November 30th, 2008 at 7:05 am

  4. Past USPS pamphlet printings and even advice from my postal carrier have indicated the best way to get off mailings was Direct Marketing Association (DMA). It’s a good thing that USPS now recognizes CC.org as an “earth friendly” solution vs eyeballing DMA as what was once the only way out. That’s a terrific!, because maybe some day merchants, consumers and all involved can function together.

    My count for unwanted catalogs was higher this month = 15 and mainly from the Orchard Brands familiy.(15 is peanuts compared to the 100+ per week that I used to get) I’m still in with CC.org because O/B just recently joined. I did write to both catalog and O/B to let them know I don’t want their mailings of any kind that include “Buyer Advantage plans”, insurance, loans, etc. CC.org is really helping with catalogs and I know it’s up to me as a consumer to be get removed from these other junk mailings.

    Yvonne Camesi on November 30th, 2008 at 11:09 am

  5. I have been using your service for a year since my wife passed away. Deceased has been entered as the reason for requesting catalogs not be sent. In spite of this overwhelming reason I am still bothered by catalogs being sent, especally due to the circumstances. Do these companies not have a conscience or any respect?
    Nevertheless, thank you for your service.

    Ron Harris on November 30th, 2008 at 2:30 pm

  6. Ron, Sorry for your loss. Hubby and I, in recent months have been receiving mailings for his folks and they passed on years ago. We thought we did the proper thing with USPS for his mom 3 1/2 yrs ago. Since these recent mailings, I’ve written and called. When I write to catalogs, I basically stress: “How insensitive and irreponsible you are because you failed to cross reference your listings” I also indicate that they contact the mail supplier and request they update their info as well.
    I strongly feel it’s the mail supplier not doing their job but making money on providing numbers of mail info whether it is correct or not. But we as consumers can go back and forth with finger pointing and get nowhere. I’ll continue on with CC.org for catalogs.
    Best wishes.

    Yvonne Camesi on December 1st, 2008 at 5:02 pm

  7. Junk. Let’s face it…consumer products are for the most part just plain junk not worth a third of the prices retailers want for them. We are broke as a people and as a nation because we buy junk we neither really want nor need. We are in the financial crisis now threatening and likely to bring on the deepest and longest lasting recession since the Great Depression not because we spend too little but because we spend too much. Spending on consumer junk, whether it be the crappy jewelry sold on the internet or in Tiffany’s (Yes, their’s is junk too, and they know it. They laugh behind your back just as soon as you buy it and walk out of the store), the “designer” clothes you overpay 10:1 to obtain, the $1,500 handbangs that keep retail moguls ensconced in Palm Beach and you in credit card debt at 20%, the overpriced kitchen gadgets and appliances you think you need because you think someone else will think that you should have them, the cars you buy over and over again, paying hefty sales and excise taxes to keep on the road, and much, much more. Think of the money you’ve spent on consumer electronics over the years and the tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars you’ve left in restaurants and bar rooms. If you’d invested 10 or 15 percent of that money in top quality companies such as Johnson & Johnson, AFLAC (the insurance company with the duck), Medtronic (the pacemaker company) or William Wrigley (the chewing gum manufactuer Buffett just bought) during the 1980’s, you’d be wealthy today, stockmarket decline or no. It’s not just the catalogs…it’s everything. Think of all of the money you’ve earned, maybe $1 or $2 million over the years, and how mch of it you have left. I submit 90% has gone on junk. Keep spending as you have and at age 67 you’ll have the net worth of a high school kid and you may end up working for one. Resolve today that the financial industry disaster now occurring will be the event that made you stop wasting all of your income. Stop buying consumer goods and stop useing credit cards. You have no patriotic duty to be broke.

    Richard E. Savoy on December 2nd, 2008 at 6:46 am

  8. I suppose it’s been a year since I first started with C C. Yesterday, I had the strange feeling that declining catalogs was akin to stirring up a hive of killer bees. I had twenty (20) catalogs in the mail. Today it was only ten (10). Not a day goes by without at least 10 or more.
    I may see some reduction thanks to your publishing their web addresses. I am using the link to search for their contact and I request that they cease sending catalogs. Incidentally, not all companies display a contact link. Those that I have contacted generally reply, saying that my name will be removed, but that it could take 12 weeks, blah, blah. Well, we’ll see, won’t we. Sadly, I now make two trips per week to the recycle bins at our town hall. Such a waste.
    Meanwhile, I’ll continue with C C. Thank you for your amzing effort.

    Jane Hall on December 2nd, 2008 at 10:46 am

  9. While I appreciate Catalog Choice’s effort and I don’t blame them, I too have found using CC frustrating as many catalogs do not participate or honor requests (even if they say they participate). I’ve taken to calling each company directly to request removal from mailing lists. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. I’ve also been told I can get back on a mailing list if a company purchases a new list with my name. Isn’t there any way to get them to screen new lists to cull out anyone who has requested not to be mailed to? It seems computers should be able to handle this easily.

    Carrie on December 2nd, 2008 at 1:36 pm

  10. I am surprised to hear that others are not getting good results from Catalog Choice. Although it is disappointing that Harry and David have refused to honor my request (and they are wasting their money with 7 or 8 different customer numbers being sent to me), I am sure that I receive fewer catalogs than I used to. Thanks, Catalog Choice.

    Barbara Karcher on December 3rd, 2008 at 1:30 pm

  11. Catalog Choice Folks,
    Would it be possible to put the total of canceled catalogs back on the welcome page? That number used to be very impressive and I thought it was an excellent sign of the (at least potential) impact of your hard work.

    Beth Clodfelter on December 4th, 2008 at 1:44 pm

  12. Hi Beth:
    we are approaching 15 million opt-out requests. We took it off the home page because it was a daunting number that was scarring away some merchants. In fact, since Members set their preference title-by-title, any given catalog typically has tens of thousands of requests. I will look into putting it back. Thanks for the support.

    Chuck on December 4th, 2008 at 2:26 pm

  13. Most of the catalogs that I have opted out of have indeed stopped—but I have started receiving a slew of others that I had never even heard of. I know that many of them are the result of my subscription to a particular magazine. I can tell because I never received catalogs of this genre before I started reading the magazine, which appeals to a niche group of people. I’m still plodding away at getting rid of every catalog that I can, and I appreciate any help that I get through using Catalog Choice.

    Anne on December 4th, 2008 at 4:15 pm

  14. Nancy Langley’s position is encouraging. This is going to be a long haul to get the more unfuriating companies like Patagonia and Harry and David to give in, but so far with some other stubborn ones, Catalog Choice has finally tipped the balance for me. Some companies that just refused to listen are finally realizing that some people are reallllllly unhappy with them (duh!). I will no longer shop at any company that has a red flag on the catalogchoice.org website as not willing to honor requests. That’s one important way that catalogchoice is helping me: helping me to identify companies I do not wish to patronize.

    Fred B on December 5th, 2008 at 9:45 pm

  15. [...] readers (Fred B, Jim Wiggin, and Al) have commented about the fact that Patagonia was not participating in Catalog [...]

    Catalog Choice - Paperless Blog » Blog Archive » Update on Patagonia on January 5th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
 

(required)

(required) Will not be published