Using the bereaved for a PR-stunt

The Bereavement Register has set up a website encouraging people who have been bereaved to write a Christmas message to their deceased loved one(s). If you have been bereaved and agree with the terms and conditions of the website (only four pages long) you can type a message of no more than 140 characters (including spaces) into a web form. While doing so, you can listen to a piece of music (©) composed by an employee of the Bereavement Register which makes Bach's Goldberg Variations sound like elevator music. Every detail has been thought of; the website even advises you not to enter your bank account details - a useful piece of advise if you know someone on the other side who still owes you money.

The messages collected via the website will be sent "into an area of deep space" at precisely 1am (GMT) on Christmas Day. As a comma separated text file, in case you were wondering. And just because us Earthlings can't be sure that the intended recipients will be able to open .csv files, your message will also be published on the website and appear as a Tweet on the accompanying Twitter page (unless, of course, you tick an opt-out box).

Really, how desperate for PR can you be? Sure, people have every right to grieve as they wish and expressing your feelings is an important part of the grieving process - but this stinks of shamelessly exploiting people for whom Christmas will be a difficult time.

Let's be clear, the Bereavement Register is not some sort of charity. It's part of REaD UK (that lowercase 'a' is not a typo), a company that specialises in creating suppression files and which is the proud owner of 'lifestyle databases' containing personal information about millions of UK citizens (which are sold to junk mailers, who can then use the information to target you with yet more junk mail).

The Bereavement Register is 'just' one of eight different suppression files produced by REaD UK. It contains the names and addresses of people who have died, and is sold to bulk mailers who can use it to compare the register with their own mailing list. To the public it is sold as an effective way of stopping junk mail sent to the deceased. It is not. According to REaD UK's own figures, you can expect to be sent some 80 pieces of addressed junk mail after your death. That is despite the fact that the details of over 96% of people who die are added to the list before they have even made it to heaven (well, metaphorically speaking).

The Bereavement Register is a good idea in principle, but it has a fundamental flaw; that is, it is run as a for-profit business. As is the case with any suppression file, there are heaps of bulk mailers who either can't be bothered or can't afford to buy the Bereavement Register - how else can you explain the extraordinary amount of junk mail that is still being sent to people have died?

If the Bereavement Register is really so concerned about the "extreme upset" caused by junk mail sent to the deceased, why don't they produce a suppression file that is free? Why doesn't REaD UK urge its friends in the junk mail community to develop a system that would simply require any junk mailer to use such a free suppression file? Levy a tax of a penny on every piece of addressed junk mail and the industry would have £40m annually to spent on such a scheme.

Then, and only then, could REaD UK claim with dry eyes that this website has nothing to do with using the bereaved for a PR-stunt.

Junk mail exempt from VAT

Did you know Royal Mail does not charge junk mailers VAT? Probably not, and it isn't as outrageous as it may seem at first, if only because most bulk mailers are VAT-registered and able to reclaim the tax anyway. Still, it is rather odd to see junk mail included on HMRC's list of goods and services exempt from VAT. How can junk mail be listed amongst such items as books, newspapers, children's clothes, cycle helmets, equipment for disabled people, and funerals?

The reason for the exemption is that the prices Royal Mail charges for delivering junk mail are subject to approval from Postcomm, the regulator for postal services in the UK. As long as the postal market is not fully competitive, EU law allows an exemption from charging VAT.

Things are changing though, and the VAT exemption for junk mail is likely to be scrapped at some point. The European Commission is already looking into whether or not public postal services should be exempt from VAT at all. And they will have taken notice of a recent ruling by the European Court of Justice, in which TNT successfully argued that Royal Mail should be charging VAT when bidding for "contracts subject to a competitive tendering process". In normal English, that means that if both Royal Mail and TNT are bidding to deliver our No Junk Mail signs and other goodies, both should include a charge for VAT in their bid.

A small step, but at least it's in the right direction…

RIP ProQuo

One of the many, many, many commercial opt-out services in the States has turned out the lights. ProQuo, founded in 2006, quietly disappeared in July. So quietly that nobody seemed to have noticed its disappearance until this week.

The service ProQuo offered was free but not without a catch; the company hoped to make money by getting people to opt-in to receiving some junk mail. The opt-in requests could then be sold to junk mailers.

Americans can still register with tons of other commercial opt-out services, as well as with the free DMA Choice scheme. And of course they can support the Do Not Mail campaign for an opt-out service that would really be effective at reducing unsolicited mail.

In memory of ProQuo, here's a video advertising the service used in a promotional campaign in 2008.

Reassuring response

Just an afterthought about the Government's response to the Think Jessica petition (see Odd response). I reckon a more reassuring answer might have started by explaining that quite a lot has actually been done to stop (postal) scams in recent year. In particular, the Government could have pointed to the fact that scams nowadays are a priority for the Office of Fair Trading and that new legislation has been introduced to close loopholes which rogue traders and scam artists were previously able to exploit.

The Government could then have elaborated on whether or not its policies have led to a reduction in scams, and if more conmen are now being convicted. Or, if that data isn't available, it could have emphasized that the Government is still committed to stopping scams and that it will be reviewing how effective its policies have been.

At least such a response would attempt to address the issue at stake. It would also leave some room for a sensible discussion about how successful the Government and OFT have been at stopping criminals trying to con vulnerable people out of their life savings (something I'm not too optimistic about).

Odd response

ThinkJessica's e-petition calling for more protection against postal scams has received a rather odd response from the Government. Somehow Gordon Brown et all seem to think that registering with the Mailing Preference Service (MPS) will stop scam mailings.

The response states that the Government has "no plans to stop unsolicited direct marketing mail" and that people wanting to reduce addressed junk mail should register with the MPS. This suggests that the Government doesn't realise that that postal scams and "direct marketing mail" are unrelated phenomena. The petition asked for more protection against postal scams; why mention that the Government feels "direct marketing mail" is great and that it has no plans to stop it?

As for registering with the MPS, this will of course not stop a single scam letter. The MPS can reduce addressed junk mail but it is of no use when it comes to scams. No conman is ever going to buy the MPS suppression file to check if some of their victims may have registered with the service.

The second part of the Government's response advises scam victims to contact Consumer Direct. Although the information on the Consumer Direct website is thorough and helpful, it is again not a response to the petition. The petition called for more protection against postal scams, not for the contact details of Consumer Direct.

The text of the petition and the Government's response can be found in full below. If anyone understands the Government's position on the idea to introduce more protection against postal scams please let me know…

The Think Jessica petition:
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to introduce more protection for those suffering from mental health problems and dementia against postal scams.

Details of the petition:
Thousands of elderly and vulnerable people in the UK are being targeted by scam mail criminals from all over the world. We would like the Prime Minister to offer greater protection for those who become chronic scam mail victims and loose thousands of pounds due to mental health illness.

The Government's response:
The Government recognises that the lives of those people with mental health difficulties, or dementia, can be challenging. Although the Government has no plans to stop unsolicited direct marketing mail - as it is a legitimate way for companies to promote products, services and special offers to everyone - this type of marketing can represent a nuisance to some people and in particular to people who are vulnerable perhaps because of their state of health.

Fortunately there are steps everyone can take to limit the amount of unsolicited mail they receive. They can register with a scheme called the Mailing Preference Service (MPS) operated by the Direct Mail Association. The contact address for the MPS is:

Mailing Preference Service

Freepost 22
LONDON

W1E 7EZ

To register on line you can visit mpsonline.org.uk

If you are calling the MPS, use telephone number 0207 291 3300 (press 1 to register).
If you are a family member, friend, or carer, of a person experiencing mental health difficulties or dementia you should be able to act on their behalf to register with the MPS and lessen the amount of unsolicited mail they receive.

However, some unscrupulous companies do trade names and addresses with other scam promoters. This may mean that the name and address of the person in question continues to circulate on mailing lists that have not been amended.

In addition the Government's Consumer Direct service offers clear, practical consumer advice on areas including how to avoid being caught out by the most common marketing scams. This advice can be found on their web site - consumerdirect.gov.uk or explained by advisors on their contact number 08454 04 05 06.

Although the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) does not take action in individual cases it does consider mass marketed scams as a priority area. Their web site www.oft.gov.uk also contains a range of information and advice for people to help them recognise common scams and protect themselves and others against them.

If you have general questions about the Government's response to mental health issues and dementia you can visit the Department of Health web site www.dh.gov.uk for more information.

Sending junk mail to a death cat

I had never heard of Theo Theokitos, but according to tnd.com he made news 15 years ago as the 'junk mail cat' of Wenatchee, Washington.

The cat started receiving junk mail after his owners submitted a coupon for a rebate on cat food in 1992. They did so in the cat's name, which has turned out to be an interesting experiment. For even though Theo Theokitos never responded to any of the junk mail he received, and died in 1999, junk mailers are still sending him junk mail.

The story nicely illustrates just how impossible it is not to end up on junk mail lists and how difficult it can be to get your personal details removed from them. Only a couple of weeks ago there was the story about Cody, a nine-year-old who got inundated with junk mail after his mother bought a subscription to National Geographic's Kids Magazine in his name.

Funny? Maybe, though not to all those people - and in particularly the elderly - who get swamped with junk mail just because they failed to tick a box when giving their personal details to a 'marketeer'. This week I got a call from an 80-year-old retired monk (true!) who is getting some twenty junk mail letters a week after he ordered two catalogues. He had phoned most of the junk mailers and asked them to stop sending him advertisements, only to find that their promises were false; not a single sender took his name off the list. The only sensible advice I could give was sending the offenders Data Protection Notices. But just imagine an 80-year-old having to hand-write tens of such notices only to stop unwanted junk mail… Really, the story about the death cat is not that funny.

Junk Crunch

Mintel Comperemedia ("your trusted competitive intelligence resource") has estimated that 391 million credit card offers were sent to US citizens in the third quarter of 2009. Which really would not be worth mentioning (we already knew Americans are swamped with junk mail) if it wasn't for the fact that in the same period last year no less then 1.3 billion offers were sent. A decline of more than 70%!

Champagne please!

Who won?

The former marketing manager of UK Incentives & Promotions has been given a 12-month order not to send further scam letters after Trading Standards took him to court.

According to Trading Standards the court case was a great success, even though the judge only gave the conman a suspended sentence. To make things worse for the 136,000 people who were targeted by UK Incentives & Promotions, the man receiving the sentence isn't involved in sweepstakes anymore, as UK Incentives & Promotions went bust earlier this year.

If that is a success, what does a scam artist need to do in order to receive a real sentence?