Print Yellow Pages Aren’t Junk Mail

Back in 2007 (http://www.yptalk.com/archive.cfm?ID=303&CatID=14) I wrote about how the perception that print yellow pages are the root cause of congested landfills and increased government trash waste doesn’t match the reality of what the typical household receives, and then needs to discard (99% of which is not recycled) in the way of junk mail.  To prove my point I compare one year of directories received to just three months of junk mail that arrived.  Over the course of a year, the pile of junk mail will far exceed the pile of print yellow pages.

I am happy to report that some recent tests have yielded similar findings.  Most recently, I received a note from Jeremy Snyder, the General Sales Manager at the Tarheel Pages.  I have cut down some of his analysis to get to the results of the similar test he did:

January 1, 2011 I started collecting every piece of unsolicited junk snail mail that came into my mailbox at my aforementioned house.  I kept a box in the corner of the kitchen and instructed my wife to throw any piece of advertising material into the box.  Any piece of mail that was not a bill, something she had a subscription for, or personal mail was to be thrown in that “junk mail” box.  We have it in our emails to weed out junk in our cyber life, I decided to make one for our physical life.  This is a true to life comparison, and anyone who wants to come and check the actual data is more than welcome, as it still sits in a big box (my wife WOULD NOT let me keep it lying on the floor!) I can’t say I was surprised by the outcome (which I concluded on December 31, 2011), but I was astounded when you compare it to a Phone Book.  I did a side by side comparison to the Phone Books delivered to the RTP Area of North Carolina including Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill’s Phone book.  It’s amazing, and like Judge Korman mentioned, a form of discrimination, to realize that this unsolicited junk mail comes every single day into our mail boxes or post office boxes.  Whether it’s one or two or three pieces a day, you can see just how it adds up over 365 days!! Yet a phone directory that is delivered ONCE every year garners all the negative news about usage (or lack thereof) and wastefulness.

Philadelphia Flyers goalie, Ilya Bryzgalov recently stated,  “The solar system is sooo humongous big, right?! But if you see our solar system and our galaxy on the side, it was so small.”  It’s all about perspective!  I try to get my sales reps to encourage customers to look at the big picture in everything we do.  What we need to ask ourselves, or better yet, what all the naysayers need to ask themselves is, “Do we really think that taking away phone books and destroying thousands of jobs in its wake is, right now, something that is best for what’s happening in our Country (or World)???”

But I’ve come to find out that Jeremy’s fine effort hasn’t been the only test.  Thanks to Bob Tacey, Jr. the Founder/President of Modern Creative Seminars (Tacy Speaks) who also reminded me about a similar finding from Ron Mintle at Yellow Magic.  Ron ran a similar test just a couple of years ago and posted the actual weights of the two different media it on their  company blog (http://www.yellowmagicblog.blogspot.com/).  Here it is:

What I was interested in finding out was what would weigh more, the four Yellow Pages Directories I’ve got in my home, or all the junkmail I collect over the period of 12 months?

I didn’t have to wait very long to find out. Just four months after I’d started with my little experiment, I’ve got some interesting numbers for you. Now of course these may not be valid for everyone, but I couldn’t find anyone else that was crazy enough to have kept their junk mail for four months, which already tells you something…

So, here are the numbers. The junk mail weighed in at 12 pounds & all four of my Yellow Pages Directories together amounted to 9.4 pounds!
It means I collected 3 pounds of junk mail per month. If you do the math & extrapolate, that amounts to 36 pounds of junk mail per year! I’m pretty confident that after a year, those Yellow Pages Directories would still be 9.4 pounds & unlike the junk mail, each of those Yellow Pages are still useful.

Where’s my Yellow Pages? Next to my phone

So there you have it – three different tests in three different parts of the country and the results are identical.

Note to municipal governments:  Print yellow pages directories are not your biggest problem in your waste streams.  You can save a heck of a lot more if you would just focus on the main culprits driving up your costs – cardboard, newspapers, and JUNK MAIL.

Let me close with some final words from Jeremy Snyder‘s note, words the industry should embrace:

As many of you in and out of the industry know, we are being inundated with negative perceptions.  These perceptions (and they ARE perceptions) of our extinction have increasingly grown over the last few years.  It makes our jobs harder and harder to convince the small business owner (and mainstream media) that for over 150 years Yellow Pages helped literally millions of small businesses around the world reach the consumer at a point when they are ready to BUY!  In 2008 the Wall Street Journal published an article about the “Extinction of Yellow Pages”. It was full of misstatements of facts, but yet no one ever responded when the Yellow Page Associations tried to contact and defend ourselves.  Now, 3 years later, the blogosphere and online marketing companies (who have a vested interest in YP death) create this “virus” (Irony?).  A virus of the mind which infects the business owners, the general consumer, and even local governments.  Starting in the urban areas that are more technologically savvy and slowly but surely making its way to Small Business America and the everyday consumers.

Folks, isn’t it time to start fighting back on all these misconceptions, lies, and complete mistruths??

Still Lost in Seattle — How NOT to Lower Your Municpal Waste Stream

The Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) anti-phonebook mongers were thumping their chests last week that “…more than 67,000 households and businesses signed up to stop phone books in 2011, and you’ve already stopped nearly 300 tons of paper from being used…”  (Source)

So let’s do the math.  The supposed indisputable source of knowledge on the always-correct Internet – Wikipedia, says that there were 258,499 households in the city of Seattle as of the 2000 census. Note:  this is only the city area, and doesn’t include the surrounding areas that may also receive a print phonebook called “Seattle”.  But let’s just use the Wikipedia number so industry critics can’t claim we stacked the results.  Some quick calculations say that’s assuming a 1-to-1 relationship of books to SPU “households”, that only comes to 26% of households that opted out.  However, that really is a slanted, incorrect calculation as we know many homes may receive more than one book, and businesses are not included in that total household count.  The interesting side bar on this is that industry research indicates that 75% of adults use the print books at least once a year.  The SPU numbers, if believable, support that industry research then.  By a 3 to 1 margin, people still like and use the phonebooks.  And this is the media that has been replaced, no one uses, etc., etc. etc., etc.

But wait, we’re not done yet.  You need to further evaluate the “success” of those 300 tons supposedly saved by what it took to achieve it.  As we noted in an August post, during July yellow post cards (ironic choice of color for the card don’t you think) were sent to 280,000 residence and business addresses by the SPU so that Seattleites who “….don’t have Internet access can select their phone book delivery preferences by mail.”  That little direct mail “spam” effort (where are you now Eddie Kohler) used over 4 TONS OF PAPER .   How many of those 280K post cards, or 4 TONS OF PAPER do you think will be recycled??   Wonder why the SPU isn’t reporting on that???

Not only that, now the phonebook police are out for more blood (as in revenue for the city):

Did you receive a yellow pages phone book after opting out? If so, you can file a complaint online through your City of Seattle stop phone books account. If you submitted your opt-out request by phone or mail, call our automated phone line at (206) 504-3066 to submit a complaint. Yellow pages publishers will be held accountable, and even fined, if they fail to honor timely opt-out requests from Seattle residents and businesses.

Wow.  Such a “success”.  That’s’ something to be really proud of Seattle.  Instead, SPU and the elected leadership of the city should be embarrassed.

After all this noise and unfair targeting of the Yellow Pages industry, you’ve made virtually no dent in the one thing that accounts for less than one percent of your overall municipal waste stream.  Perhaps now you can focus on the other 99% that is the real problem.

And now they want your phonebooks…

A lot of discussion is going on over at Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government site on a topic near and dear to those of us in the industry – this fanatical
urge to want ban phonebooks.

Finally, someone presented all of the factors:

:… But is banning the phone book really the best way to save trees? A quick rundown of some key statistics puts two very key holes in the “ban the phone book” theory of  environmental reclamation. First, as it turns out, the Yellow Pages aren’t actually made from five million fresh trees, cut down in their peak to bring the phone book to your door. They’re actually made from mostly recycled material or the byproducts of other paper manufacturing, non-toxic dyes, and inks, and unused directories are “upcycled” into other things. You know that coffee cup that your non-fat soy latte with non-dairy whip comes in every morning, that says it comes from “90% recycled materials?” It’s likely made out of your old phone books.

And although city councils and environmental groups like to pretend  that just because elementary school students and hipsters practically see their laptops as a fifth limb, not everyone uses Google search and Yelp to locate local resources. The Baby Boomer generation, which makes up a huge chunk of American disposable income (and holds nearly 50% of American wealth) uses the Yellow Pages at a staggering rate.  Almost 85% of Boomers picked one up last year to search for a name, address or local resource. And as for that “perpetually connected” generation, Gen Y? Nearly 66% of them used Yellow Pages last year. Nearly 50% of all consumers turn to the Yellow Pages first to get information on businesses in their area. And, of course, that’s leaving out specific statistics on the population that liberals most often forget to consider–lower-income populations. Lower-income populations without continued access to the Internet are the most in need of a resource for directory
assistance…”

In a related item, the Valley Yellow Pages people have also posted a great little YouTube video to further address the many myths that surround the entire green/yellow pages/recycling discussion:  click here.  Every publisher should consider doing a similar clip and making sure their local government officials see it (can we make it required viewing??).

YP Talk has advocated for some time that it is time for this industry to start pushing back, to respond to these egregious accusations/mistruths/flat
out lies, and set the record straight.   Glad to see some progress is finally being made.  But the battle is far from over.  Keep educating your local community on the value that our industry products bring to them.   At the end of day, I doubt you will see any of these environmental zealots looking to help a small business market themselves.  They are too busy looking for the next target to blame.

Seattle Green Efforts Come Up Way Short

You have to be one tough hombre to live in Seattle.  It can be one of the most depressing places to live and work.  The city averages 226 cloudy days and 155 days of rain a year.   That maybe one reason why the city needs some 9,000+ coffee shops just to help you make it through the day.  It’s also not a cheap place to live:  compared to the rest of the country, Seattle’s cost of living is 42.60% HIGHER than the U.S. average.  I think it may even have some green envy since Portland, not Seattle, was named as one of the top 10 most eco-oriented cities in the world, mostly because of a comprehensive plan to reduce CO2 emissions and aggressive green building initiatives.  And since I found all of these depressing stats on the Internet, of course they must be true.

So can we really blame the city for wanting to be first at something?  Why not try to pick on print yellow pages.  Their unique but ultimately illegal attempts
to force a city run opt-out program and recycling fees on yellow page publishers
have been well documented here:

• Lost in Seattle: Hello. Print Yellow Pages Aren’t Your Problem
• Yellow Page Publishers Vow to Continue Fight Against Seattle Required Opt-Out Law
• Local Search Association Responds to Seattle Ordnance

To show you how misguided its civic leaders are, consider this recent stroke of genius:  to try to get Seattle residents and businesses to follow their opt-out jihad on phone books, residents have been urged by mail through a yellow postcard from Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) on how to stop receiving “unwanted phone books”.

During July, yellow post cards (ironic choice of color for the card don’t
you think) were sent to 280,000 residence and business addresses so that
Seattleites who “….don’t have Internet access can select their phone book
delivery preferences by mail.”  In the ultimate in hypocrisy, the program coordinator:

“….acknowledged the irony of sending out mail to encourage people to stop junk mail but he pointed out that the mailer, which will use four tons of paper, is expected to help 28,000 more households and businesses stop 168,000 phone book deliveries, saving 150 tons of paper….”

How many of those 280K post cards, or 4 TONS OF PAPER do you think will be recycled?? And the outcry from all of those “green” champions who despise Yellow Pages?  Haven’t heard a peep out of them yet.  Zip, zilch, nanda, zero.  So junk mail is ok now in Seattle??

But wait.  It gets better.   King County has initiated a new online service to help eliminate junk mail for those live outside the City of Seattle.  As King County
Executive Dow Constantine acknowledged, “…recycling is great, but reducing
waste at the source is even better…”    Perhaps the city of Seattle should take note.

Or even just do a little research before they plunged headlong into this ridiculous effort.  For example, if they had just bothered to look at the recent research from Market Authority which conducted 185,000 interviews on how American’s search for a local business.

They would have found irrefutable data, analysis and reporting on how
people look for a local business when making a local buying decision. The
research fully dispels the prevalent “urban myth” that the Internet has taken
over the local search arena:

“The Internet is gaining ground but surprisingly, overall it is a long way from dominating print Yellow Pages as America’s primary search option,” says Deanna S. Helsten, Director of Research Market Authority, Inc. “We
determine and prove print versus Internet sage…actuality and perception, smart phone ownership and usage, Internet connectivity, etc., market by market, all organized by today’s ever growing imperative – age groups,” states Steve Sitton, CEO Market Authority, Inc.

The research detailed the often remarkable difference between metropolitan,
suburban and rural markets. In nearly every market in America, print yellow pages is still very strong.

But Seattle is clearly intent on going in a different direction.  I assume they missed this annoucement since it didn’t come in their junk mail……

It’s all about being “green”, especially when it’s for a profit

We’re all for entrepreneurial efforts here at YP Talk.  Heck, that’s how YP Talk got started.  But have you noticed how some new efforts have been started under the banner of supposedly being eco-friendly, environment saving efforts, all for the good of mankind and the planet, but then on a second look, are really just leveraging the “green” wave to make a “green” buck?

Case in point –Yellow Pages Directory, Inc. which owns the “Yellow Pages Goes Green” website on which it says it “…has been doing its part by providing consumers with an earth-friendly alternative to bulky, wasteful, landfill-clogging yellow pages books.”  The company has now taken another bold leap
forward for the environment to “…fulfilling its mission to eliminate the unsolicited delivery of yellow and white pages books” by acquiring the PaperlessPetition.org site.  So let me see if I have this right — they
want to rid the world of printed phonebooks so people will be forced to use
their online product.  Hmmm.  Sounds like a gallant environmental
effort.  Or is it?

For those not familiar with PaperlessPetition.org here is what we reported in
August of 2009 about this effort:

…in 2006 a new effort called the “Paperless Petition“, was started to supposedly provide consumers with an opt-out option for printed Yellow Pages products. Sounds like a very noble effort doesn’t it?

But here is the rub:

•  I’ve tried several times to contact its creator and have yet to get a single response back.
•  The comments on the site are more than a little dated (2006 dates on quotes)
•  And here’s the best  — I have yet to find a single publisher or industry association that has ever received any communication from this group/site/person. No one. Nada.
  Zilch. Zero.

Yet despite these discrepancies, other bloggers/sites continue to suggest this site if you don’t want a print product delivered to your doorstep. So what has its owner been doing with all the information that people have provided when they sign up for
the petition??

Well now know what they are doing with that data – the new owner, Yellow Pages Directory, has built an IYP site that has nearly 28 million
business listings (supposedly) and I’m not really sure what that has to do with being more eco-friendly.

But the hypocrisy doesn’t just stop there.  Now they have issued this press
release:

“….joining forces with the Green Chamber of Commerce in spearheading a Call to Action to promote conservation and eliminate the unnecessary waste inherent in the production and distribution of printed yellow pages books. Yellow Pages Goes Green urges governmental leaders in villages, towns, counties and cities across the United States to join us in furthering the Green movement and preserving our environment by sponsoring local legislation requiring that publishers of printed yellow directories be subject to opt-in or, at the very least, opt-out requirements…”

I don’t know about you but I’m going to sleep much better tonight knowing we have another group out there crusading to rid the world of print yellow pages books which we recently reported are being used by 7 out of 10 adults each year.  To help preserve the world against the impact of print yellow pages, the supposed solution from Yellow Pages Directory, the Internet, is what’s actually killing the planet – link to the full article.

Maybe the “green” effort they are talking about is the green color of money….

Are we surprised San Francisco Board of Supervisors Passes Jobs-Killing Ban on Yellow Pages??

It’s official – BIA/Kelsey reports that the mayor of San Francisco has signed the jobs-killing, opt-in legislation which uniquely targeted print Yellow Pages products.  Ok, time for the industry to spring into action.

Step 1 – get the lawyers working and let’s see a bunch of lawsuits that go after
this thing.  As Local Search Association (formerly Yellow Pages Association) President Neg Norton, said in a press release “From day one, we committed to addressing the city’s waste reduction goals, but neither the Supervisors nor the Mayor would let us be part of the process.  What’s most frustrating is that, behind closed doors, many in the city government admit that the arguments and statistics used to support this ban were questionable at best, but for political reasons, did not feel they could oppose it. This leaves us little choice but to pursue legal remedies to this harmful ordinance.”  City of San Francisco – see you in court.

Step 2 – join a boycott of the city.  In this recent post about the decision coming out of San Francisco, I called for a boycott of the city of San Francisco and here’s why:

In the effort to fight this an interesting coalition formed which included groups such as Valley Yellow Pages, AT&T, Seccion Amarilla, the IBEW labor union, The Utility Reform Network, San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, ADP association, Chinese Yellow Pages, Rainbow Pages, and other local consumer advocate and business groups. All of them had the same message – IF YOU PASS THIS LAW IT WILL COST JOBS AND HURT SMALL BUSINESSES, HINDERING THEIR EFFORTS TO COST EFFECTIVELY PROMOTE THEIR BUSINESSES. Can all of these groups be wrong?? Not likely.

So other than lawsuits (which are unavoidable), what else can the industry do?? I suggest an all-out boycott of the city of San Francisco. In effect let’s opt-out of city. That means no conventions there (LSA, Kelsey Group, and ADP can you hear us), no personal travel there, no doing business with anyone in the city area, etc. – and then letting the 10 city Board of Supervisors who voted for this legislation know we’re not coming to their city to spend money.

The San Francisco Convention and Visitors Bureau says that in 2010, San Francisco hosted 15.9 million visitors who spent $8.3 billion during their stay – that’s more than $22.8 million a day. That makes tourism one of our most important industries for the city. As a result, visitor dollars generated over $485 million in taxes and fees that support The City’s “…general budget, health and safety, arts and cultural organizations, recreational facilities and low-income housing.” This also means that visitor dollars supported about 67,122 jobs in the hospitality and tourism industries, or put another way, about $1.88 billion in local payroll (excluding tips).

An industry wide boycott including family and friends should put a little dent in all that don’t you think??

Ironic that just this week  I received this email from a young entrepreneurial
gentleman in San Francisco:

It’s with great enthusiasm (hi-fives) and passion that I am launching Daily Secret, San Francisco – your daily dose of inside scoop secret stuff happening in the awesome city of San Francisco. You are receiving this first secret because I believe you have a love of SF whether you live here or just visit on occasion.

Here is what I sent him back:

Not interested thank you.  Please remove my name from your distribution list immediately .

Given that the city politicians have decided to pass job killing legislation requiring opt-in print Yellow Pages, while not addressing any of the other 99.7% of the other products that are in the typical  municipal waste stream, I and other industry professionals will be boycotting the city and anything to do with it.
That means no conventions there, no meetings there, and no personal travel to
the city.   If the city wants to allow one small group to drive its agenda for purely political reasons, fine.  If that’s what you and the other residents want, ok.  But it also means I don’t have any use for your  city either.…

Now normally one would assume that this is just unusual behavior
by the city and some rouge local government officails.  But maybe not.  I’ve had several people suggest to me that this was already a city that appears to be located somewhere on the other side of the twilight zone.  How can  I say that?
Just check this current news out:

Tales of the Red Tape #11: Circumcising Principle in San Francisco
Heritage.org (blog)

From the city that has already banned military recruiting, plastic bags, cat
declawing, new billboards, ATM fees, citywide phone book delivery,
Styrofoam takeout boxes, officials’ travel to Arizona, and fast-food toys,
there now comes a ballot measure to outlaw the circumcision of minors. Should the initiative prevail in November, the subject snip would become a crime punishable by a year in jail or a $1,000 fine. …

Circumcision?  Seriously?  Is this the most important the Board of Supervisors needs to worry about??

Let’s just boycott the whole scene and let them know it’s a two way street here.  We will get you additional information on how to contact the council and Mayor in a follow-up comment.

In the interim, are you with me??

Local Search Association Responds to Seattle Ordnance

If this post had a subtitle it would read:  “While Seattle City Council Wastes Taxpayer Money, Local Search Association Sets the Record Straight“

The local media in Seattle, lead by the Seattle Times have announced the start of a new print phone directory opt-out ordnance and further reported grossly inaccurate facts (hello Times — Dex, Yellowbook and Superpages are NOT owned by the Association, they are members).  Fortunately, the Local Search Association (formerly Yellow Page Association) has released the following statement to set the record straight:

Duplication and waste, inefficiency, lack of privacy guarantees and an array of other concerns characterize Seattle’s Yellow Pages opt-out website according to the Local Search Association, which manages a nationwide, industry-sponsored telephone directory opt-out program already available to Seattle residents through the www.yellowpagesoptout.com program.

 “Seattle residents who believe that the city’s site will protect their privacy when removing themselves from yellow page delivery lists will be sadly mistaken,” said Neg Norton, president, Local Search Association. “We believe that the city’s redundant site is not necessary and is unfairly leading residents to believe it has spent the government’s time and the taxpayer’s money on something new, when this option has been available to residents all along via www.yellowpagesoptout.com.”

The official site, www.yellowpagesoptout.com, offers consumers a number of advantages including privacy protections that Seattle’s site does not provide, an easy to use interface, and the ability to stop delivery of both Yellow Pages and white pages phone books.

Comments on various blogs from supposed local residents have criticized the Association opt-out site because it asks for a phone number so publishers can verify future opt-out requests.  The comments show a puzzling trend from a select group of people who believe the publishers/Association are going to share that information with telemarketers.  Such comments are ridiculous as the industry already works with millions of telephone numbers each day with no privacy issues.  And why would it further irate a small group of people who choose not to receive their print products?  However, one cannot make the same claim about the city of Seattle.  Since they are obviously in a revenue grab by taxing publishers, the next logical step in their efforts to balance their budget would be to market the data they collect.

The press release from LSA goes on to question the overblown calculations of the ordinances chief cheerleader:

Councilmember Mike O’Brien and Seattle Public Utilities have also released statistics that greatly exaggerate the environmental impact of print directories, falsely implying that phone books create 100 pounds of unwanted paper each year per household. According to the city’s own estimates, the city annually recycles approximately 1,500 tons of phone books or less than 2 percent of total recyclables – not 17,500 tons as claimed.

“We are deeply concerned with the way the City of Seattle has exaggerated in its media effort the number of directories distributed within the city limits, suggesting a per/household pound estimate that is 1,200 percent above what their own research shows,” Norton said.

Gee, a government group using inflated numbers to further their cause.  Have we heard this before somewhere?  LSA continues in the release to explain why this new government site makes little sense:

Directory publishers remain committed to offering Seattle residents and consumers nationwide the ability to choose which directories they receive at www.yellowpagesoptout.com . Through proactive industry efforts, the amount of directory paper in the market has declined by nearly 35 percent since 2007.

Even as the City of Seattle has worked to reduce its environmental footprint, it has selected a model that only encourages waste by duplicating work that the industry has already done. The sustainable approach is a national one, where there is one standard website for consumers across the United States to stop delivery of directories. The benefits of the industry’s site include:

• No burden to cities, taxpayers, or city government staff: Industry assumes all costs and staffing associated with development, maintenance and promotion of http://www.yellowpagesoptout.com .
• Greater awareness: One official industry site will result in greater awareness for consumers across the country, amplifying the positive impact of the initiative.
• Integration with publishers’ technology systems: The website will work seamlessly with the publishers’ systems; no third-party vendor has the same level of existing knowledge.
• Library of directory covers provide better clarity of choice for the user: The website will include visuals that will make it easier for residents to identify the directories they wish to keep or stop.
• Protected personal information: Residents using www.yellowpagesoptout.com can be confident that their personal information will only be shared with publishers for the purpose of customizing their directory delivery choices and not sold to third parties or used by city governments or their website vendors for marketing purposes. The city has made no such assurances for its opt-out program or website.

Wake up Seattle.  Your self-serving Council is spending your money on an ego ride it doesn’t have to be on.  You can do better, much better….

EPA: Phone book recycling increases to 36.9%

The Local Search Association (formerly the Yellow Pages Association), released its second annual sustainability report.  One key finding according to the Environmental Production Agency (EPA) – recovery/recycling of books increased to 36.9% (up from 21.4% the previous year).

The result is an affirmation of the industry’s efforts to be good environmental stewards in the local communities they serve, and the proactive efforts they have taken to help improve recylcing rates.

The results were included in the newest 2011 sustainability report – titled “We’re All in This Together”.  Other key findings:

• Telephone directories continue to only represent 0.3% of the solid waste stream, significantly less than newspapers (3.2%) and office paper (2.2%).
• The upgraded consumer website (www.yellowpagesoptout.com) that makes it easier for consumers to choose to reduce or stop directory delivery.
• Directory paper demand decreased an additional 8.1% in 2010.  Since 2007 the total paper demand is down nearly 35%.
• The Association continues to build an array of strategic partnerships focused on environmental, economic and social performance.

In the press release, Neg Norton, president of the Local Search Association noted that “..we understand that the environment, the local economy and the communities we serve are intrinsically linked.  This year, we’re launching our Sustainability Committee to continue to develop sustainable business practices that make sense for our stakeholders, as well as to establish new benchmarks for our industry.”

While the release has been picked up but most news organizations, the silence from industry critics has been deafening.   I guess when an industry achieves the kind of results it has compared with other industries who have done little to nothing to deal with their waste contribution, it makes criticism of the Yellow Page industry seem a bit silly.

The full report is available at the Association’s website (www.localsearchassociation.org).

A Win In Round 1 in San Francisco

Efforts by a wide coalition of publishers, small business owners, and even labor unions representing directory employees have succeeded in getting the San Francisco board of supervisors to delay a vote on efforts to institute an opt-in ordinance for Yellow Pages. 

The opt-in ordinance has been championed by Board of Supervisors president David Chiu, who has already announced plans to run for mayor along with his new found interest in environmental issues (where have you been Joe DiMaggio?).  We have consistently been suspicious of local politicians like Chiu who have found that attacking phone book distribution can be an easy way to get your pro-environment ticket punched. As a result the Yellow Pages industry had to organize the coalition, many of whom have competing interests, to press Board members to oppose the bill since:

• Publisher and Association opt-out options are available for San Francisco residents. 
• It will cost jobs in a state where unemployment has been running well above the already levels nationwide.
• Would hurt small businesses who know that print Yellow Pages are an effective advertising mechanisms with high ROI’s.

Now Board members will wait for a study from the city economist to determine if the objections about job loss and hardship it will cause for small businesses are valid. The report is due May 10^th. Clearly efforts by the coalition got the Board’s attention as comments from some of the Board members about jobs at risk came up.

In an email this morning, Yellow Pages Association President Neg Norton indicated that the industry is continuing to work to get small businesses more involved in the effort:

“We’ve begun a merchant outreach program this week in the key districts that will produce letters, videos and petitions as well as a phone bank program where concerned citizens can be patched through to their supervisor to express their opinions. We’ll also begin to gather data on the issues they’re likely to raise with us. It’s been an amazing effort by the coalition we’ve established and we’re making progress.”

While the war is far from over, the industry has clearly won the first battle.  The industry needs to continue to rally behind the associations to combat this effort and send a message to local officials like Chiu that there are other areas their environmental efforts could be better focused than phone books to gain an even bigger impact and cost reduction without hurting small businesses and jobs. 

Keep fighting the fight…

The Paper Lifecycle

In a recent article, we took an in-depth look into how e-waste is really complicating claims from paper atheists that eliminating print phone books alone will significantly reduce the impact on the environment (“Dirty Little Environmental Secrets Print Haters Don’t Like to Talk About”). The comparison between the environmental impact of print and digital was quite frankly startling, despite what the initial perception maybe.

The fact is virtually every medium has some impact on the environment. While the obvious quick response from anti-phonebook supporter is that the print products are big environmental violators, and hence, everyone should go digital.  But one truly needs to look beyond the knee-jerk response to compare the very real issues of sources, manufacturing, transportation, use, and recycling for each medium before drawing such environmental conclusions.

For example, were you aware that Swedish researchers found that reading a newspaper for just 30 minutes online actually produces more CO2 per year per reader (35 KG) than reading a printed newspaper (28 KG)?? In printed news, the production of the paper itself is the greatest factor contributing to CO2 production. In online media, the energy used to power the computer while reading it, never mind the oversized impact of manufacturing the device itself, is the biggest contributors.

Since the prior article took a detailed look at the serious damage that e-waste causes, several industry critics challenged me to reveal the same for the paper used in producing a printed directory. No problem.  Here it is.

Overview:  The basic papermaking process has changed very little since it was first developed. However, over the last two centuries, major improvements and refinements have transformed modern papermaking into a highly sustainable, high tech industry with a significantly reduced environmental footprint.

Let’s go through the same basic steps as the e-waste article, from raw material to production to recycling, for paper products in general (not specific to the paper used in phone books unless otherwise noted).

Raw materials:  Paper can be made for nearly any type of tree, from hardwoods such as Oak, to softer woods, like pine.  To supply most papers primary ingredient (not print phone book paper), pulp trees specific for this use are grown, cut down, and replanted for future use. The trees are sustainably harvested and cut into logs for transportation to a mill for processing.

Trees are a fully renewable natural energy source.  According to the Environmental Defense Fund paper calculator, the typical pulp wood tree is 40 feet tall and 6 to 8 inches in diameter. The AF&PA (American Forest and Paper Association) and USDA Forest Service indicate that about 4 million trees are planted each day.  1.7 million of those come from the wood and paper industries.  This doesn’t include the millions that grow from seeds naturally.  With 13.2 million acres of US “old growth forest”, we can all breathe a lot easier. In total there are 12 million more acres of US forest land today, more now than 20 years ago.

To ensure that paper comes from sustainable sources, most printers will look for paper that is certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SSI), or the Program for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC). All three organizations track the chain of custody of raw materials, process materials and products from the forest to the customer, to certify that they are harvested manufactured using fiber from responsibly managed forests. Certified products are available for use in a wide range of applications including office papers, books, newspapers, magazines, annual reports, and even coffee cups.

Processing: Overall, the environmental cost of paper goes beyond the trees used to make it. Paper production has the single biggest environmental impact of any step in the paper making process, mainly because converting logs into paper requires large amounts of energy. Often, that energy comes from coal-fired power plants – one reason why the paper industry emits the fourth highest level of CO2 amongst all manufacturers. However, some paper manufacturers also use hydroelectric power and large amounts of biofuels (bark, harvest residuals, and other byproducts of the manufacturing process) to significantly improve overall environmental performance.

Specific to the paper used in phone books, it is considered a lightweight newsprint and the mills that manufacture these products have a significantly lower carbon footprint than those that make other grades of paper. For example, the carbon footprint of the Catalyst Paper mills making Yellow Pages paper is amongst the lowest in North America with 87% of the energy for their Canadian mills coming from renewable sources like hydro power and biomass fuel.

In a simplified description, the logs arrive at a factory to be debarked, chipped into small pieces, and then turned into pulp in one of two ways. To create chemical pulp, the woodchips or heated with chemicals to dissolve the lignin, an organic polymer found in plant material, and release the individual wood fibers. The second process, mechanical pulping (which is the predominant process used for phone book paper), grinds the wood with water. Pulp created mechanically retains its lignin, which is why papers made from these type’s of pulp yellow over time. The EPA estimates that more than half of the general papermaking sectors energy needs are met with renewable biomass fuels that are byproducts of the manufacturing process.

Papermaking:.  After bleaching it to make it white, the pulp is washed to improve brightness. From here, the pulp is mixed with other ingredients, formed into a sheet on a rotating screen, and fed through heated rollers that press it flat and dry. After this step, some papers received an additional top coating for improved smoothness and print ability. One 4′ x 4′ x 8′ cord of wood can be converted into about 90,000 sheets of letterhead paper.

Of note is that in the papermaking process virtually every part of the tree is used, including the bark, which is a renewable resource that can be burned to generate power for the mill. Approximately 99% of the chemicals used in the pulping process are recovered through internal recycling then burned to produce steam energy. Overall about 38% of the fiber used in the US for paper production comes from recovered sources.

One of the most significant changes has been the elimination of elemental chlorine from the bleaching process, referred to as elemental chlorine free (ECF). Findings show that elemental chlorine reacted with organic compounds in the wood which in turn lead to trace dioxins in the mills influent. Today virtually all modern paper mills produced pulp that is ECF or EECF. In addition some mills have elected to illuminate all chlorine containing compounds from the bleaching process for going totally chlorine free and using other chemicals such as oxygen, peroxide, or ozone. Since 1988, total North American paper industry dioxins emissions have been cut by 92%.

Specific to phone book paper, while the popular myth is that this industry is responsible for the neutering of forests, the reality is the Yellow Pages industry doesn’t knock down any trees for its paper!!! Let me repeat that – they don’t need to cut any trees for their paper supply.

Currently, on average, most publishers try to use about 40% recycled material (from the newspapers and magazines you are recycling curbside), and the other 60% comes from wood chips and waste products of the lumber industry mentioned above. If you take a round tree and make square or rectangular lumber from it, you get plenty of chips and other waste. Those by-products make up the other 60% of the raw material needed. Note that these waste products created in lumber milling would normally end up in landfills. Not only that, as wood chips decompose, they emit methane, a greenhouse gas closely associated with global warming. For a more detailed view of how phone book paper is made, go to http://www.yptalk.com/archive.cfm?ID=390&CatID=3

Packaging: after the paper is made, it is wound onto a giant role, then cut into different sheet and roll sizes and packaged.  Phone book paper is wound on jumbo roles which are then cut into 50” diameter rolls.

Transport: finish paper products are then packaged for shipping and transported to their ultimate destination. Printers and publishers alike want a paper source as close as possible to their plants to reduce the cost of shipping.  While fossil fuels are used to power the cargo ships and airplanes that transport most digital products/PC’s/mobile phones to their ultimate distribution site, about 56% of all new page paper actually travels via truck and 40% by rail.  About 90% of phone book paper is transported via rail.

Use: There is no question that paper in general, is one the most versatile materials on earth. Whether it’s newsprint, printing, and writing papers, packaging, household and toilet tissues, or industrial and special purpose papers, paper is a key part of our everyday life.  And once we have that paper available, it’s use doesn’t require electrical power, special communications connections, or an expensive device to make it work.

End-of-life:  Recycling is costly for all collected materials but is a key part of a sustainable society that recognizes items at the end of their useful life can contribute to the creation of new products.  After use, unlike electronic products, most paper of any type can be 100% recycled and utilized in the manufacturing of new paper. Paper can be recycled an average of five times. The AF&PA reports that 50% percent of all paper products are recycled, higher rate than metal, glass, or plastic.

The recycling of phone book paper represents a huge opportunity – upwards of some seven million pounds of clean, recyclable fiber could be available.  Many Asian countries such as China, which do not have the sustainable forest infrastructure that is in North America, are acquiring used paper to be shipped home for recycling to meet their paper needs.  When combined with the significant reduction in print newspapers, there is a growing shortfall in the availability of quality recycled paper in the U.S. Prices for this recycled paper are continuing to rise rapidly.

A footnote on the impact of paper vs. digital:

Eliminating all paper products such as phone books, and requiring everyone to move to the Internet doesn’t eliminate sustainability concerns – very few people are telling you that the Internet creates a massive, unseen carbon footprint. Based on a 2010 Dell study,

• The manufacturing carbon footprint of a U.S. laptop is about 330 pounds CO2.  A typical phone book, produced at a Catalyst Paper mill has a footprint of about 1 pound CO2.
• Distribution of the laptop is 110 pounds CO2 while the phone book is about 0.5 pounds CO2.
• One year of a laptop’s life has a carbon footprint of about 90 pounds CO2 while a phone book has zero usage carbon footprint (and arguably more effective).
• Disposal of the laptop creates another 70 pounds of CO2 while the phone book creates 0.5 pounds CO2.

Summary:

My favorite critics will all read this as a suggestion that we go back to the stone age and only use print.  Nonsense.  Electronic products such as PC’s, smart phone, Blackberry’s, tablets, etc. have become as integral a part of our lives and economy as paper has been.  But in what has become a throw away culture, specifically targeting phone books in an effort to offset a local governments recycling and landfill costs is first off unfair, and more importantly, ineffective as they represent such a minimum percentage of all the collection costs for all municipal waste.  It also isn’t the “green” move it would be seem to be when you look at the facts.

The publishers and the industry associations have established opt-out programs for their print products.  Give them a chance to work.  Perhaps government officials should be spending their time more wisely looking at those industries that are generating a much larger percentage of the content in a typical waste stream than phone books are, and asking why those industries have not stepped forward to participate in helping to recycle their products as the yellow page industry has…..