New Jersey isn’t content with going after unsolicited junk mail checks and credit card offers–it appears to be aiming for Least Friendly Junk Marketing State in the Union. The latest target: marketers who send out unsolicited text messages.
New Jersey politicians appear to be engaged in some sort of contest to see who can get the most stringent anti-junk mail law passed. First an Assembleyman introduced a bill a few weeks back that would ban companies from mailing unsolocited checks to consumers. Now the Assembley’s Consumer Affairs committee has proposed starting a “Do Not Solicit” list, which would block credit card companies from offering new cards to consumers who aren’t interested.
Thanks to e-mail and online bill payments, mailboxes are a lot less personal than they used to be. According to WalletPop, each week, the average American receives 1.5 pieces of mail they might actually be interested in (yes, including bills), but 16 pieces of junk mail. Evidently, “OCCUPANT” is a pretty popular guy. But when unwanted solicitations are 90% of what’s in our mailboxes, why do they keep on coming? How can you make them stop?
What does the United States Postal Service do for you that UPS doesn’t? Deliver junk mail, you say? Not anymore! Next week, UPS will test market delivering solicitations along with your packages in a few lucky, lucky markets.
I’m pleased to announce that the credit crunch is officially over. I’m basing this on a credit card solicitation sent to a Mr. Lazarus H. of Iowa. Lazarus, pictured at left, is seven years old.
We’ll give Unilever points for offering an exhaustive opt-out page that covers every conceivable form of communication you may be receiving from them. We’ll take all those points away, however, and award them a fail badge for creating the world’s longest, most labor intensive opt-out page you’ve ever seen.
Sometimes”‘free” means “wow what a great bargain,” and sometimes it just mean worthless. CareerBuilder offers a free resume review on their site—enter your email address, upload your resume, and “we’ll email you the results of your free evaluation, including tips on writing a resume that will help you land the interview.” All it really does is collect your address so it can send you unsolicited email (we got spammed 30 minutes later), and your “review” is just a boilerplate page of generic advice.
We’ve seen some misleading advertising before, but this one is a doozy. A company called “Property Tax Reassessment” is sending homeowners in California a fake tax document that looks official, and that attempts to con recipients into paying $179 before February 26th so that the company can file some paperwork on their behalf. There’s even a late fee threat for missing the deadline! It’s some of the most convincing looking junk mail we’ve ever seen, and it’s a total scam.
“Mailman Steve,” as he’s known to the children on his route, got 3 years probation yesterday for failing to deliver years worth of junk mail that was found stacked in his garage and buried in his backyard. He’ll also have to pay a $3,000 fine and serve 500 hours of community service.
The phone number in this Verizon mailer connects to “an exciting new way to go live with hot horny girls.” Can you hear me now, big boy?
UPDATE: Comcast has now removed Brad from its mailing lists for really reals.
Last week, we wrote about a roofing company that had sent out a “Defective Roof Notice” to potential customers. The blogger who received the junk mail thought it was deceptive, and so did we. To make matters worse, he wrote a complaint to the company and was ignored—but a few weeks later a fake “customer review” appeared on his site that was traced back to Feazel. Now the owner of Feazel Roofing has responded and apologized for the junk mail:
Update: The owner of Feazel Roofing has responded and apologized for the misleading nature of the junk mail.
Blogger HolyJuan was annoyed with a piece of junk mail he received from Feazel Roofing, because it was written in such a way that it could (intentionally) mislead homeowners into thinking the roof inspection being offered was somehow official, required, or necessary. In fact, it was simply an attempt to drum up new business for the company—but when you lead off with “DEFECTIVE ROOF NOTICE” and then mention class action lawsuits in the first paragraph, it’s hard to claim marketing innocence. HolyJuan complained about the letter on his blog, and a few weeks later an anonymous “customer” posted a rebuttal full of praise for Feazel Roofing—from the IP address of the company, naturally.