Green scheme ‘smoke and mirrors’

The industry has given a muted response to the launch of an environmental suppression file, the Green Preference Service, amid claims it is simply using “smoke and mirrors” to get consumers to hand over their email addresses.
Under the scheme, launched this week, consumers can sign up to get their direct mail changed to email, and thereby cut the industry’s CO2 emissions.
Consumers can register online at www.greenpreferenceservice.com and decide which pieces of direct mail they would like to continue receiving by post and which they prefer to receive by email, delivered to a personal “WebBox” allocated through the service. Businesses are able to contact the service to find out which consumers have opted to receive their direct mail electronically, and adjust their services.
It aims to get 2 million people signed up within two years, with a target of transferring 1.5 billion pieces of direct mail into digital mail. The company claims this would reduce CO2 emissions by more than 6,000 tonnes a year.
Co-founder Paul Anderson, chief executive of GPS and a former strategy director at Emailvision, said: “It’s kind of atoning for our sins because we have sent a lot of direct mail in our time.”
But one industry source said: “With data-centres having an enviromental output that is worse than the airline industry, there appears to be a touch of smoke and mirrors about this scheme. Also, what exactly are they going to do with the names they gather? Flog them to brands as the ‘green consumer list’?”
Meanwhile, another insider added: “It does make you wonder why companies would want to pay them to see who has opted out of direct mail, when we already have the non-profit Mailing Preference Service.”
A mailing industry insider was equally dismissive: “How exactly can you convert a direct mailpack into an email? They are two distinct media, both have strengths and weaknesses but no-one can dispute the power of a physical mailing in achieving stand-out. The same, however, cannot be said of email.
“Also, to claim this is better for the environment is a nonsense. To me, this smacks of a classic commercial opportunity to exploit consumers’ environmental concerns.”