If you live in the States, have a smartphone, and agree that unsolicited mail is a pest then this may be for you.

A company called Readabl has come up with an app that may help reduce junk mail. The concept behind PaperKarma is simple enough: after downloading the app and submitting your personal details (name, address, e-mail address, and phone number) you can start taking photos of junk mail you want to stop. Uploaded images are run against a database, and if the sender can be identified the app will send the offender an e-mail asking to take your details off its mailing list.

There are some obvious practical issues (is the database being kept up to date, do senders respect the requests, etc.) but it's a nice idea, and something that's bound to be introduced in the UK.

Or is it?

Personally, I'm not overly impressed. What's wrong with spending a couple of minutes reading up on how to stop junk mail yourself? Call me old-fashioned, but I find it somewhat ironic that people downloading the app in an attempt to reduce junk mail are at the same time handing over their personal details to a company that doesn't even have a proper website. Unsolicited mail is usually the result of exposing your personal details to potential junk mailers. Wouldn't it better to encourage people to be a bit more vigilant with their personal data?

Whether or not Readabl / PaperKarma can be trusted with your personal details I don't know. What seems clear, though, it that Readabl / PaperKarma is hoping to make money. The app's page on the iTunes site states that it will be free for a limited period only, and the page with privacy information on the PaperKarma website talks about a paper to digital conversion program. This concept has already been introduced in the UK by the Green Preference Service - a company presenting itself as being 'anti-junk mail' (though primarily interested in selling people's personal details).

What doesn't convince me either is that the presentation of the PaperKarma product is far from professional. The two paragraphs of text on the PaperKarma home page, for instance, are riddled with errors:

PaperKarma allows you to take photos of the junk mail you wish to stop [Do I really need PaperKarma for that?]. Snap a photo, and you're done [No you're not].

We automatically contact the Mailer [proper noun?] and remove you from their [its!] distribution list [No you're not - you put in a request for someone to be removed]. PaperKarma can stop most junk mail that is addressed directly [as opposed to indirectly?] to you.

Or, take this promotional image from the above-mentioned iTunes page:

Anyway, our junk mail hating friends at the other side of the Pond can download the app for their iPhones, Androids, and Windows phones.

In case you were wondering… the Stop Junk Mail campaign still exists. Working full time (mostly six days a week) is taking its toll but I'm still spending a fair amount of my spare time battling unsolicited dung. What's more, a couple of people have recently offered to help with the campaign. This is needed more than ever, and it has already achieved something: Royal Mail has today confirmed that its claim that the company distributes 'only' 25% of all unaddressed mail is complete nonsense.

For the uninitiated, I'm talking about the Door-to-Door Opt-Out, Royal Mail's opt-out scheme for unaddressed mail items delivered by the postman. Royal Mail distributes a fair amount of leaflets, and there are heaps of people that are not interested in all that crap. However, rather than simply not delivering leaflets to households with a 'No Junk Mail' sign Royal Mail has decided that people not interested in unsolicited leaflets should sign up to an opt-out scheme.

One of the many issues with the opt-out scheme is that Royal Mail discourages people from registering. When you request an opt-out form (phone 01865 796 964 or use Junk Buster) the company will warn you that you may miss all sorts of important information if you opt out. On top of that they used to advise that registering won't do much to reduce junk mail because Royal Mail only delivers about 25% of the total volume of unaddressed mail in the UK. In other words, you may as well not bother.

I've always maintained that the figure of 25% is misleading and probably (and wrongly) includes inserts in free newspapers. In response to a Freedom of Information request - made by one of the people kindly helping out with the campaign - Royal Mail has now confirmed the figure was indeed misleading.

Commercially sensitive!?

Getting an honest response from Royal Mail was, let's say, a challenge. The request was submitted on 2 December last year and asked for the following:

1. The year to which the statistic of 25% relates.
2. The total volume of unaddressed mail used in the calculation.
3. The total volume of unaddressed mail distributed by Royal Mail used in the calculation.
4. The source of the data used in the calculation (in particular the source of the data used to estimate the volume of unaddressed mail distributed by other distributors).
5. The definition of 'unaddressed mail' used in the calculation (i.e. does the definition include items such as inserts, unsolicited directories, and free newspapers).

In its response Royal Mail stated that data about the total volume of unaddressed mail is available on the world wide web and that statistics about how much unaddressed mail is distributed by the company is too commercially sensitive to be revealed. The two statements are, of course, irreconcilable. If data about the total volume of unaddressed mail is publicly available then any idiot can figure out how much unaddressed mail is distributed by Royal Mail: 25% of the total volume.

Royal Mail is very sorry

The appeal was successful. Royal Mail has confirmed that the data about the total volume of unaddressed mail came from the Direct Marketing Association - and they've also acknowledged that this information is only available to members of the junk mail lobby group. At the same time Royal Mail has recognised that data about how much unaddressed mail is distributed by Royal Mail is not all commercially sensitive. So here we have it; finally the British public is allowed to know how much leaflets are distributed in the UK, and how many of them are pushed through the door by the Royal Mail.

Interestingly, Royal Mail states in its response that the total volumes are based solely on surveys amongst members of the Direct Marketing Association. In other words, the data comes from a biased source and doesn't include all the leaflets distributed by companies that are not a member of the Association (as far as the Direct Marketing Association is concerned take-away menus don't exist).

Another problem with the figures for the total volume of unaddressed junk mail is that they do indeed include inserts in free newspapers. It's for this reason that I suspect Royal Mail's share of the leaflet business is likely to be around 50%. In 2008, Royal Mail distributed roughly 2.2 leaflets to the average household* per week. It's probably fair to say the average (weekly) free newspaper comes with three or four inserts. What we're looking at, then, is a simple accounting trick aimed at persuading you that your postie really doesn't deliver that much junk mail (and that you might as well not sign up to the Door-to-Door Opt-Out.

Finally, the Freedom of Information request has achieved something else. The claim that Royal Mail distributes 'only' 25% of all unaddressed mail has been removed from its website. So you see… the campaign is still very much alive.

* Calculated as (2,989,000,000 leaflets / 25,800,000 households) / 52.

Here's an e-mail I received in response to an article about stopping doorstep sellers:

Please stop being so degrading about direct selling. Your article unfortunately comes across as rather ignorant considering cold calling is absolutely essential for any business to ever go anywhere. all you are doing is provoking slander and hate against very honest, open and happy people who are trying to make a living using the skills God gave them. Without selling of this nature the world would grind to a stand still.

After writing the junk mail annual for 2011 it seems appropriate to say something about the year ahead.

The main thing to note is that I'll have considerable less time to spend on Stop Junk Mail. For the next couple of months I'll be working full time rather than part time in my 'proper' job (the one that helps pay the bills). It's rather unfortunate, as there are likely to be a number of interesting developments in the world of junk mail and as I got enough on the 'to do' list as it is. I'm hoping to keep the website going but have no idea how things will work out.

In a way having less time may be a good thing. If anything, it forces you to just get on with things. For instance, while writing the above-mentioned junk mail annual I decided I should pick up on two issues that have long since annoyed me: the Government's failure to respond to its own consultation about the future of the edited electoral register (which junk mailers still use as a cheap and convenient junk mail list) and the website of the All-Party Group on Junk Mail (which is used to promote a particular junk mail company, despite the fact that the Group no longer exists). And so I've done my first good deed this year; I fired off an e-mail to my local MP:

Dear Mr Wright,

I am writing to you concerning two junk mail related issues; the public consultation on the future of the edited electoral register and the website of the (no longer existing) All-Party Group on Junk Mail.

In February 2010 I responded to a public consultation on the future of the edited version of the electoral register. As you will know, the consultation was organised after the Information Commissioner had recommended abolishing the register in July 2008. It took the Government of the day more than a year to announce the consultation, and it is now more than 18 months since Government was supposed to respond to the consultation.

It seems clear Government is trying to kick the issue in the long grass. I find this an insult to all the people who took part in the consultation. I spent about three days on my own contribution. To not even receive an apology for Government's failure to respond to its own consultation comes across as highly arrogant.

I am not sure if there is any point in passing my comments to the relevant minister / department - looking at the page listing closed consultations that are awaiting a response on the website of the Ministry of Justice it seems it is quite common for Government to organise consultations only to ignore all the people who responded. However, it might be an idea for Government to look at how it communicates with the public in these cases. For instance, sending a letter clarifying why no response is forthcoming seems a polite thing to do. Ignoring people who take part in public consultations is just rude.

The second issue I wish to raise is the website of the former All-Party Group on Junk Mail. In 2009 I had sent a couple of e-mails to the Group about the information in its so-called 'Junk Mail Toolkit'. I never received a response, and learned in January 2010 that the Group was no longer listed on the Register of All-Party Groups.

My concern about the 'Toolkit' is that the information it contains is factually incorrect, incomplete and biased. In particular, it refers people to four opt-out schemes for junk mail, two of which are commercial opt-out schemes run by the Read Group Plc - which happens to be the company that also provided the secretariat of the Group.

I doubt it is correct for an All-Party Group to promote particular commercial interests. What concerns me more, though, is that the Read Group has decided to keep the Group's website (apg-junkmail.org.uk) online. To the average visitor it is not at all clear that the Group has ceased to exist, yet no MP or Lord has control over the content of the website. The fact that I did not get a response after contacting the Group reflects poorly not only on the MPs and Lords that are (were) members of the Group, but on Parliament as a whole. Yet, it was in fact the Read Group that failed to respond to my e-mails. Apparently, the company not only provided the secretariat of the Group but also acted as censor.

I am not sure what the rules for All-Party Groups are, but it seems appropriate that the Read Group is asked to take the website down.

I look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,
Etc.

My guess is the e-mail will be forwarded to the relevant Government departments, which in turn will politely ignore the issues raised. Even so, at least it gave me the opportunity to talk about them on this blog. Maybe it's now up to others to do something with it…

The last day of 2011 - time to reflect on another year of campaigning. Instead of giving the usual chronological overview I'll this time pick out a number of 'Hot Junk Mail Topics'.

Industry propaganda

I'm never sure if the way the junk mail industry runs its opt-out schemes for junk mail is a hilarious insult to people's intelligence or simply shameless propaganda. In any case, thanks to Stop Junk Mail the schemes became a little more customer-friendly in 2011.

Royal Mail made a couple of improvements to the way it's operating and advertising the Door-to-Door Opt-Out. Not only has the company given up its attempt to keep the phone number for the opt-out scheme secret (the number to call is 01865 796964), it has also set up an e-mail address which people can use if they have queries about their registration. It's a very long e-mail address:

• door_to_door_ops_admin@royalmail.com

To request an opt-out form you can still send an e-mail to optout@royalmail.com.

Royal Mail's web page with information about the opt-out scheme can finally be found via its online Shepherd's Wife, and just a couple of days ago the company removed the claim that it 'only' distributes 25% of all unaddressed mail from the same page (which I'll have more to say about in the new year). The first was the result of regularly ridiculing the company's PR strategy, the second of a Freedom of Information request.

The Mailing Preference Service also removed a misleading and unsubstantiated claim from its website in 2011. For years the Direct Marketing Association told the public that signing up the scheme reduces personally addressed advertising mail by "up to 95%". After making a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority the junk mailers finally agreed to be more realistic about how much junk mail the scheme can prevent.

Paper directories

My prediction for 2011 was that publishers of paper directories would make it easier for people to cancel unwanted phone books. I was wrong, although some progress has been made.

The Yellow Pages for the first time published information about opting out in its directory and changed its greenwash strategy; in April the company killed the woodland mini beast Kirk.

Thomson Local stopped the production of the rather silly 'No Thomson Local' door sticker but, to its credit, remains the only directory publisher to send a confirmation letter to people opt out of receiving its directory.

BT seemed to be on the right track. The company followed Yell's lead by mentioning its opt-out scheme in the latest edition of the phone book. However, BT then made a fresh attempt at preventing people from cancelling the delivery of the phone book by retrospectively demanding that people give the company their phone number. The Information Commissioner's Office agreed this was a breach of the Data Protection Act and asked BT to review its policy.

Stickers and other goodies

After I reluctantly introduced 'No Junk Mail' stickers to the shop in 2010, I decided to redesign the good old 'No/No' and 'No/Yes' stickers. Equally nice is the 'Addressed Mail Only' sticker I introduced in November.

Also new in the shop is the return to sender stamper. I'm not that enthusiastic about the original product, as I've explained in a vlog, but combined with a (short) paper copy of the Guide to Stamping Out Junk Mail and one of the above-mentioned stickers it's another nice product.

Since July, Stop Junk Mail is donating 10% of the sales to good causes. The first cause was Adblock Plus, the second SOS Children's Villages. The cause for the next three months will be announced shortly.

Junk mail in the media

For no apparent reason junk mail got much more media coverage than it normally gets. It started with a story in the Daily Fascist. According to the tabloid Royal Mail is seeking to deliver 15 leaflets per week to the average household. As you would expect from a tabloid, the figure is wide off the mark.

In February, the Independent picked up on the (old) story that the Mailing Preference Service / Direct Marketing Association refuses to send people registration forms in the post because they want to save paper. "One of the finest pot/kettle examples of our time" indeed.

BBC Panorama covered both junk mail and scam mail in July. In my opinion the programme was rather poor. Much more informative was That's Britain's take on junk mail, in November.

Which? Magazine also covered junk mail in November. I was given the honour to act as junk mail expert, and wrote an article for the Which? 'convo blog' about self-regulation by the junk mail industry.

Website

New in 2011 was the Royal Junk Mail Catablog. The aim of the blog is to investigate how much "important information" is distributed via Royal Mail's door-to-door scheme. A year on, I can now tell you that of the (exactly) 100 pieces of unaddressed junk mail I received from the postman in 2011 only five could be classified as 'information'. As an aside, the fact that I got 'only' 100 leaflets from the postman this year is quite interesting in itself, given that Royal Mail aims to increase the amount of unaddressed mail it distributes (apparently the target is six leaflets per household per week - and not 15 as suggested by the Fascist).

More importantly, the Stop Junk Mail website has been redesigned. Most of the issues I talked about on this blog still need to be addressed. In particular, having only a small number of items in the main navigation bar isn't ideal. Still, I reckon it's an improvement over the old website (which you can still view in the UK Web Archive).

Politics

Once again Government didn't bother to respond to its own public consultation about the future of the Edited Electoral Register. The consultation closed on 23 February 2010, and a response was due on 18 May 2010. That's politics for you…

Sometimes the inertia of MPs is a good thing. I was pleased to find that the All-Party Group on Junk Mail has ceased to exist. As you'd expect, the members of group didn't bother telling the public why the decision to abolish the group was taken, and they've allowed the junk mail company that provided the secretariat of the group to continue to use the website as a propaganda tool. Still, it's good to see the junk mail industry can no longer dictate MPs what to think and say.

Another sign that politicians have become less willing to do as they're told by the junk mail industry is the latest 'responsibility deal' between Defra and the junk mail industry. Although the deal is by no means as good as suggested by the mainstream media it certainly looks more promising than previous agreements. And, I'm pleased to say a number of things I had suggested to Defra have been included in the agreement. In particular, from April 2012 the two opt-out schemes for unaddressed junk mail will be merged and from the same month you should finally be able to register online with the new-style opt-out scheme (via the website of the Mailing Preference Service). As always, the devil is in the detail - only last week I found that there will be separate registration processes for the opt-out schemes, for instance. Still, compared with the previous deal (which introduced the Your Choice Dummy Scheme) it's a lot more ambitious.