Commentary: Marketing flyers still useful in a digital age, but we need better controls against waste, unsolicited mail

You must have seen them on your doorstep or in your home’s mailbox: Colourful printed flyers with eye-catching visuals and bold print, spelling out potential real estate deals, or maybe the next big supermarket sale.

But how many of us actually find such flyers useful, and act upon them?

This may depend on who you ask since some households may legitimately find the goods or services advertised in such direct mailers to be of relevance to them. 

A report commissioned by Marketreach in 2018 found that physical mail is 33 per cent more engaging than email and 35 per cent more engaging than social media advertising.

Advertisers would therefore see such a marketing channel as an integral part of an overall marketing strategy. 

However, many of us would probably agree that such methods of advertising result in wastage, considering the ink and paper used to produce them, the fuel used to transport them, and the human effort expended in depositing them at our doorsteps.

In this age of environmental awareness where we need to do our part to reduce our carbon footprint and mitigate the effects of climate change, it is vital that we review our existing practices and see if improvements can be made.

CURRENT PRACTICES IN SINGAPORE

Residents have a few options for rejecting unsolicited mail deposited in physical letter boxes.

Most Housing and Development Board letter boxes come with an anti-junk mail locking device — this allows only the postman to access the letter box. This would stop advertisers from slotting their unsolicited flyers physically into the letter box.

Despite using this locking device, many residents may still be puzzled to receive unsolicited flyers in their letter box. 

This is because not many are aware that SingPost operates a bulk mail system called Advertising Mail (Admail), where advertisers can engage SingPost to deliver their flyers through the postman. 

To avoid receiving such flyers, the resident would need to request to be taken off the Admail service, and this can be done through a rather convoluted process on SingPost’s website. 

After receiving the request, SingPost will stick an orange “No Admail” sticker to the back of the letter box, and this is supposed to prevent the postman from distributing such flyers to that letter box.

However, even with all the above measures, we may still not be free of the scourge of physical junk mail. 

Advertisers now employ gig workers to distribute flyers directly to the doorstep of each flat. 

This problem is more acute for those living in residential properties where the distributor can freely access the doorstep. Conversely, it is less of an issue for those living in private properties where access to the doorstep is strictly controlled.

But freedom from junk mail should not depend on where one lives — we need to consider measures that can be implemented effectively across the board.

DEALING WITH THE ISSUE

Unsolicited advertising messages can take many forms — electronic mail received in the inbox, physical mail received in letter boxes, physical flyers (also called leaflets) deposited on the doorstep, and unwanted telemarketing calls.

In Singapore, we have the Spam Control Act to deal with unsolicited electronic mail, and the Do-Not-Call (DNC) Registry to deal with unsolicited advertising messages communicated via phone lines — unsolicited telemarketing calls, mobile messages and fax messages.

However, there does not appear to be robust measures in place for residents to guard themselves against physical flyers and leaflets which are indiscriminately deposited at our front doors.

It is noteworthy that many of these flyers originate from real estate agents.

The Council for Estate Agencies has issued guidelines stating that flyers must be properly distributed. For instance, they should not be placed on vehicles or allowed to build up into a pile within public view when homeowners are away.

However, these guidelines do not appear to be followed in practice.

Before we consider how we may wish to collectively address this issue, it is interesting to see how other jurisdictions have dealt with it.

In the United States, there is no national prohibition on unsolicited physical mail, which is also referred to as “direct mail”. 

This may be due to the fact that their courts have held that unsolicited mailing of leaflets by commercial advertisers is speech protected by the First and 14th Amendments of their Constitution.

Nevertheless, there are ongoing citizen petitions to demand that their postal agencies offer an “opt-out” method to stop such unsolicited direct mail.

In the United Kingdom, it is also not illegal for advertisers to send unsolicited mail, unless the material is obscene or threatening. However, individuals who do not wish to receive unsolicited addressed mail can register to have their names removed from mailing lists.

Cities such as Barcelona and Vienna have taken matters a step further. Local authorities have distributed “anti-advertising” or “no junk mail” stickers for residents to affix to mail boxes, which are supposed to serve as a form of notice to delivery personnel and therefore reduce the amount of advertising materials placed in mailboxes.

A CALL FOR ACTION

As we can see from the experiences of other jurisdictions, there is no “one-size-fits-all” approach to combating the scourge of junk mail. 

Besides the consideration of public expectations and the role of the authorities, it might also be appropriate to consider whether there is some room for direct mail to be retained for those who wish to receive it. 

For example, the preferences of the resident in receiving direct mail could be recorded in an online database similar to the DNC Registry. 

Just like how sending telemarketing messages to numbers listed on the DNC Registry without consent is currently made an offence, this approach could also possibly be extended to unsolicited direct mail.

To be sure, there could be some difficulties in enforcement, given that it may be harder to trace those who leave direct mail compared to those who send telemarketing messages. 

However, adopting a permission-based approach supported by relevant laws would likely have a strong deterrent effect for would-be infringers, and significantly reduce the amount of junk mail that residents would receive.

Some research studies have found that where direct mail is targeted, well designed, and implemented in ways which are respectful of the preferences of the recipient, it can be a helpful marketing and communication channel which is well received by consumers, especially in industries such as tourism, health and wellness. 

To conclude, we are living in a time where we all need to do our part to combat climate change. 

Waste prevention, or at least waste reduction, is a good starting point, and we have already taken bold steps in this direction, with our collective efforts to phase out single-use plastics such as straws and shopping bags.

It is timely to address the wasteful practices associated with physical marketing materials.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS:

Cheng Kwang Hwee is a senior lecturer at the Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS), with research interests in contract law and business management. Joicey Wei is a senior lecturer at SUSS, with research interests in social marketing and marketing strategy. These are their own views.