City Publications

City Publications Columbus immediately removed the address from our mailing list upon the request We have had subsequent mailings since the complaint and have confirmed the address has not received future mailngs as they requested.City Publications Columbus is a franchisee and obtains the list from its Franchisor which considers the list proprietary City Publications Columbus has no specific knowledge as to the derivation of names and addresses on the list City Publications Columbus did refer the complainant on to our Franchisor that provides us with the mailing list Any information as to the derivation of the address on the list would be better requested from the Franchisor.City Publication Columbus regrets any delay and frustration this matter has caused the complainant, but City Publications Columbus has no ability to assist the complainant pursuant to their request.I am heading away on vacation for the next few weeks and will be unavailable until early July I would be happy to answer any additional questions or concerns then

City Publications Columbus immediately removed the address from our mailing list upon the request.  We have had subsequent mailings since the complaint and have confirmed the address has not received future mailngs as they requested.City Publications Columbus is a franchisee and obtains the...

list from its Franchisor which considers the list proprietary.  City Publications Columbus has no specific knowledge as to the derivation of names and addresses on the list.  City Publications Columbus did refer the complainant on to our Franchisor that provides us with the mailing list.  Any information as to the derivation of the address on the list would be better requested from the Franchisor.City Publication Columbus regrets any delay and frustration this matter has caused the complainant, but City Publications Columbus has no ability to assist the complainant pursuant to their request.I am heading away on vacation for the next few weeks and will be unavailable until early July.  I would be happy to answer any additional questions or concerns then.

lTheir feeling of "proprietary" or not is irrelevant. The source of the list is a necessary thing to share with anyone who seeks to understand how to manage their contact points. This concept is the basic tenant in the DNC and CAN-SPAM and other regulatory frameworks. Further communications directly from the "franchisor" confirmed that they compile the list from public records which -- by definition -- makes the source of the list NOT "proprietary" by definition. Lastly, the list itself can be considered "proprietary" however, the source is not "proprietary" in any fashion.Next, the company made this direct recommendation (verbatim quoted from [redacted]): "The [redacted] may want to register their address with the DMA for removal from all prospect mailing. The web address is www.dmachoice.org then click on “learn more about direct mail”.I provided clear and concise evidence that the address in question WAS (and has been since nearly inception of DMA Choice) -- on the DNC list -- and it has NOT expired as I am halfway through a five-year window -- as proven in documentation to the company. Therefore, had the company used the exact program to which it referred me, the address would never have appeared in the mailing list in the first place. This means that the company wished to misdirect me into a program in which I already participate to attempt to alleviate itself from it's own obligation (as an inferred participate in the DMA Choice program) -- instead of evaluating their failure to comply, or their inference to participation is complete fantasy, or they feel that their use of personally identifiable information is by some means inviolate. Which, we all know to not be the case.Upon further communications after the misguided, errant, or flat wrong misdirection of sending me to DMA Choice -- [redacted] did express that they build lists from public documentation (in which the address would appear as I own property and have a driver's license in the State of Ohio). However, it does not excuse their insistence on sending me to DMA Choice which would have prevented this incident in the first place had they actually used the tools available from the program.For these reasons, I reject their assertions in this update and request that the company reformulate their response to be more truthful and direct without the improper use of the word "proprietary". My assumption is that they would say they do or do not actually participate in DMA Choice. If they do -- their admission of failure to comply with the DMA Choice program and therefore attempting to assign blame there. If they do not participate -- their admission that their quote above was a wholly misdirection to attempt to shut me up without actually addressing the underlying issues of the matter.Only with this truthful set of admissions (or those which I did not consider but could properly explain their error or misdirection) will I consider the matter closed.