In the latest video I mentioned I was going to add 'return to sender stampers' to the Stop Junk Mail Shop. I'm please to say they're now on sale.

The stamper is not my own invention. It has been produced by Trodat - a name you'll recognise if you work in an office. You may actually have already come across the stamper if you're in the habit of visiting high street shops or if you get your groceries from Tescopoly; apparently they've decided to stock them.

The stamper I'm selling is somewhat different. If you buy them in the shops you get two rather useless leaflets with it (advertisements for the stamper) and three letterbox stickers that are unlikely to stop any junk mail (as I've explained in the video). I've replaced the leaflet with a paper copy of the Guide to Stamping Out Junk Mail (also available as a PDF), and with the stamper you can get a 'No Junk Mail' sticker of your choice for just 50p (normally £1).

Stop Junk Mail's stamper pack is still cheaper than the 'official' pack. From the website you can get a stamper with a sticker for £7.50. That's only 50p less than what you'd pay on the high street, but then every little helps…

It has been a busy couple of weeks, with an article in Which? magazine and the new responsibility deal between Defra and the Direct Marketing Association. Meanwhile, I also went to see the boss of SOS Children's Villages (to discuss charity junk mail), and I got a new product for the Stop Junk Mail Shop: a return to sender stamper.

As always, if you don't see a video below or if the picture is squeezed, you can view the video on YouTube.

Next month's Which? magazine (which I believe will come out on 27th October) will feature an article about junk mail, and to promote the magazine Which? sent round a press release on Wednesday. Nothing newsworthy, really. It contains a mini version of the Guide to Stamping Out Junk Mail; mentions that the average household receives an estimated 453 pieces of junk mail in 2009; and reveals that 84% of Which? members agree that reducing junk mail should be made easier. Yet, newsworthy or not, the response to the press release has been overwhelming. On Thursday I spoke with various local radio stations, and I'm still working my way through an inbox with comments and queries.

It's interesting how junk mail is always good for a bit of a media storm. In particular the Daily Mail presented the story in a rather dramatic fashion. We're drowning in junk mail, apparently.

What no-one noticed is that the figure of 453 pieces of junk mail per household represents a decrease in junk mail volumes. Since 2004, when volumes reach their peak, the amount of junk mail produced in the UK has dropped by about a quarter, or maybe even a third. There's nothing remarkable about this. 'Direct mail' nowadays has to compete with Google, Facebook and other online giants, and the ongoing recession isn't helping junk mailers either.

There's something else that is interesting about the figure of 453 pieces of junk mail: the figure is a complete guesstimate. Had any of the journalists that reported the story bothered to look at the source of the figures - the Facts page on the Stop Junk Mail website - they would have noticed that the junk mail industry refuses to publish any meaningful data about unaddressed junk mail. The real story here is that the public isn't allowed to know exactly how much junk mail is produced in the UK.

Or, maybe that's not the issue after all. Looking at the comments people have left underneath the article in the Mail the issue seems to be quite simple. There are a great many people who just don't want their letterbox stuffed with junk mail.

Building bridges

To accompany the article in Which? magazine I was invited to write a piece for the organisation's Conversation Blog. It's about my favourite topic: self-regulation by the junk mail industry, and how it has failed to cut waste and make it easier for people to reduce unwanted junk mail. Perhaps unavoidably, that article is also being reduced to a 'thumbs up' or 'thumbs down' vote on junk mail. I've come to realise that it doesn't really matter what you write about junk mail; people just have this irresistible urge to voice whatever opinion they already had about the stuff.

I don't mean to sound dismissive about the comments that have been left on the page so far. I'm just observing that none of the comments is a response to the article; it's a collection of opinions about junk mail. That's fine, although also somewhat ironic; the article is an invitation to the junk mail industry to start discussing the junk mail issue with recipients of junk mail. I guess that might be just a bridge too far.

Well, well, well. It turns out that while I was writing about the double standards applied by leaflet distributor Jog Post the company had just appeared on Dragon's Den, which, as I understand it, is some form of 'reality entertainment'. Entrepreneurs in need of an investor can make a business proposal to a bunch of successful business folk, and if they're lucky they'll get the money needed in return for a stake in the business. How entertaining.

Jog Post's owners presented themselves as ethical leaflet distributors, and sure enough the 'dragons' didn't question the use of the adjective. Before giving the money needed for Jog Post to explode into the market they did question whether or not Jog Post's junk mail deliverers were really running all the time (and not dumping leaflets in the nearest rubbish bin) but once that was out of the way they got what they wanted.

Which is fine. Good luck to them. But, let me repeat that Jog Post isn't in any way an ethical leaflet distributor. There's nothing ethical about telling the public that you have a zero tolerance policy on deliverers ignoring 'No Junk Mail' signs while in reality you have a policy of ignoring 'No Junk Mail' signs.

Junk Mail Man

When Jog Post contacted me last year I suggested that, as an ethical company, they could work with me on a project I had just started at the time. The idea was to launch an informal ombudsman for junk mail (working title 'Junk Mail Man'). Nothing came of it. Just when it all started to get shape Jog Post stopped answering phone calls and e-mails, which I have to assume was Jog Post's way of saying they had lost interest. The Junk Mail Man was shelved, and I doubt the project will ever be revived.

So, what was the plan?

The Junk Mail Man was to be a co-operation between consumer groups and junk mailers, and it's primary aim to encourage the junk mail industry to adopt 'best practice'. Ironically, this is particularly relevant when it comes to leaflet distributors. The distribution of unaddressed junk mail is almost completely unregulated. If you find you're getting Pizza Hut leaflets despite having a 'No Junk Mail' sign on your door there's nothing you can do about it.

An informal ombudsman would not magically resolve such issues, but it would be an improvement. People would have somewhere to go with complaints, and issues could be identified and discussed with the (alledged) offenders. In the process the Junk Mail Man could advise junk mailers on best practice. For instance, an issue I discussed with Jog Post at the time was whether or not leaflets from local councils and charities should be delivered to people with a 'No Junk Mail' sign. The Direct Marketing Association has nothing to say on such issues, and so distributors are making up the rules as they go along.

Not a bad idea, if I say so myself. As said, I don't think anything will ever come of it, but I've moved the Junk Mail Man to a new shelf just in case: the Google Group. Do add your thoughts if you're a junk mailer direct marketeer interested in raising standards within the industry.

A couple of months ago I nearly deleted my Facebook account. What prevented me from doing so was my Stop Junk Mail group. The group had been going for about four years and had nearly 1,000 members. More importantly, it was a genuinely nice group, with decent information, interesting links, junk mail videos, arty images and whatnot. I hated the idea that if I deleted the group some slimy marketeers pretending to run an anti-junk mail campaign would fill the gap (there are lots of junk mailers who run fake anti-junk mail services nowadays). So, instead of deleting my account I renamed myself 'Junk Buster', 'unfriended' everybody, and removed photos and other personal stuff. Life on Facebook continued, but without having to read people's 'status updates' or being informed that so-and-so is playing 'Smurfs & Co'.

And then Facebook deleted the group.

True… without warning the group has been deleted. It's not unlike the Direct Marketing Association spontaneously removing any reference to its Your Choice opt-out scheme or pulling the plug on its junk mail propaganda website; it happened out of the blue, and without apology or explanation.

A quick search on the website's help pages learned that Facebook is deleting groups left, right and centre. There are people asking if in memoriam groups for deceased loved ones could be re-instated. The answer is negative, and as per usual Facebook can't be contacted.

The issue is that Facebook doesn't like groups anymore. Instead of forming groups people should to create 'pages' which people can then 'like' by clicking on a button. It's all about marketing and trading people's personal details. By indicating what you 'like' Facebook can analyse what your interests are, and that information can then be sold to advertisers. Needless to say there won't be a Stop Junk Mail 'page'.

With the group gone I've duly deleted my Facebook account. I'm content, it's something I wanted to do anyway. Already the Stop Junk Mail website had become a Facebook / Twitter / Etc. free zone. From a marketing and 'search engine optimisation' perspective ignoring the existence of Facebook isn't wise, but then I do think it's nice to have places on the world wide web where you're not confronted with Facebook 'like' buttons. Stop Junk Mail's aim is to provide the best possible information about getting rid off unsolicited mail. Collecting 'likes' and taking part in 'hot or not' contests doesn't interest me.