3 ms·

>The post office getting upset about ways to prevent junk mail from being delivered is just like a website complaining about Adblock. That's the thing, though;

by lsc 13y ago

>The post office getting upset about ways to prevent junk mail from being delivered is just like a website complaining about Adblock. That's the thing, though; some websites will let me pay them directly for an ad-free experience. The post office won't. I would be happy to pay the post office $5 a month just to say "resident doesn't live here" I'm always afraid a check or bill or something will get tangled up in the 'penny saver' - hell, you could probably get me to pay more for more sophisticated filters, but even $5/month has got to be a hell of a lot more than what the bulk mailers are paying to get into my inbox. And it's probably an even bigger win; I'm not the sort of person who reads the penny saver; the post office is making more money /and/ saving the penny saver people money if they let me pay them not to deliver said periodical. The fremium "Pay me money, or watch ads and the advertisers will pay me, your choice" model is an old one in internet terms, and one that most people seem to be pretty happy with.

FollowSteph3 13y ago
The problem is if too many people opt out then the junk mail business model fails because advertisers won't advertise. It's not the loss revenue from a few houses they case about its the number of addresses the junk mailers can ship to.
- angersock 13y ago
  This is a problem why? Fuck'em.
- lsc 13y ago
  Then let the post office charge enough to replace the advertising revenue. I also suspect your wrong in saying that advertisers will completely give up if the number of deliverable boxes shrink. I mean, sure, they will want to pay proportionally less, but I suspect post office revenue from advertisers would decline smoothly with the rise in revenue from the paid opt-outs, assuming you got the price right. My understanding is that fourth-class "to resident" mail is usually targeted at the most price sensitive customers; people for whom clipping coupons is often a good use of time. Exactly the people who are unlikely to pay money to sort their mailbox. Most of the higher-end mail, like those goddamn pre-approval notices from AmEx, are lovingly personalized, and ship out 'pre-sorted first class' or something. I'm only talking about opting out of the fourth class "penny saver" type junk.
  - FollowSteph3 13y ago
    You might be surprised to learn this but third class mail (junk mail) generates more revenue than first class mail. Not only that but first class mail is decreasing revenues each year. That being said, the problem is that third class mail is a lot more revenue than most people realize. For example $5/mth is not enough to cover the loss revenues. In fact I would suspect that $20-$50/mth is not enough. Think how much mail you get on a daily basis, multiplied by x amount times 30 days. You're probably looking at closer to $100/mth...
    - lsc 13y ago
      >That being said, the problem is that third class mail is a lot more revenue than most people realize. For example $5/mth is not enough to cover the loss revenues. In fact I would suspect that $20-$50/mth is not enough. Think how much mail you get on a daily basis, multiplied by x amount times 30 days. You're probably looking at closer to $100/mth... I find that hard to believe. Think about it for a moment. How much do you think the coupon vendors actually make per customer? Even (or maybe even especially) the type of person who clips coupons isn't going to spend that kind of money on discount toilet paper and 'invest in mail-order gold' scams or whatever is being flogged. The people targeted by that garbage don't have a lot of money to begin with. $1,200 per year per postal customer would indicate that postal spam results in nearly an order of magnitude more revenue per user than google, who makes on the order of $130/user/year. Yeah, I doubt very much that the post office is getting $1,200 per year in advertising revenue per user. references: http://www.businessinsider.com/googles-ad-revenue-per-user-2013-12#!HSpZC http://www.businessinsider.com/googles-ad-revenue-per-user-2...

by lsc 13y ago

FollowSteph3 13y ago

The problem is if too many people opt out then the junk mail business model fails because advertisers won't advertise. It's not the loss revenue from a few houses they case about its the number of addresses the junk mailers can ship to.

angersock 13y ago
This is a problem why? Fuck'em.
lsc 13y ago
Then let the post office charge enough to replace the advertising revenue. I also suspect your wrong in saying that advertisers will completely give up if the number of deliverable boxes shrink. I mean, sure, they will want to pay proportionally less, but I suspect post office revenue from advertisers would decline smoothly with the rise in revenue from the paid opt-outs, assuming you got the price right. My understanding is that fourth-class "to resident" mail is usually targeted at the most price sensitive customers; people for whom clipping coupons is often a good use of time. Exactly the people who are unlikely to pay money to sort their mailbox. Most of the higher-end mail, like those goddamn pre-approval notices from AmEx, are lovingly personalized, and ship out 'pre-sorted first class' or something. I'm only talking about opting out of the fourth class "penny saver" type junk.
- FollowSteph3 13y ago
  You might be surprised to learn this but third class mail (junk mail) generates more revenue than first class mail. Not only that but first class mail is decreasing revenues each year. That being said, the problem is that third class mail is a lot more revenue than most people realize. For example $5/mth is not enough to cover the loss revenues. In fact I would suspect that $20-$50/mth is not enough. Think how much mail you get on a daily basis, multiplied by x amount times 30 days. You're probably looking at closer to $100/mth...
  - lsc 13y ago
    >That being said, the problem is that third class mail is a lot more revenue than most people realize. For example $5/mth is not enough to cover the loss revenues. In fact I would suspect that $20-$50/mth is not enough. Think how much mail you get on a daily basis, multiplied by x amount times 30 days. You're probably looking at closer to $100/mth... I find that hard to believe. Think about it for a moment. How much do you think the coupon vendors actually make per customer? Even (or maybe even especially) the type of person who clips coupons isn't going to spend that kind of money on discount toilet paper and 'invest in mail-order gold' scams or whatever is being flogged. The people targeted by that garbage don't have a lot of money to begin with. $1,200 per year per postal customer would indicate that postal spam results in nearly an order of magnitude more revenue per user than google, who makes on the order of $130/user/year. Yeah, I doubt very much that the post office is getting $1,200 per year in advertising revenue per user. references: http://www.businessinsider.com/googles-ad-revenue-per-user-2013-12#!HSpZC http://www.businessinsider.com/googles-ad-revenue-per-user-2...