Like many Americans, I contribute to certain charities of my choice and I don’t mind their periodic reminders by mail or phone. However, I really take exception to those organizations that appeal for funds by sending me address labels. I am not exaggerating when I say that I receive address labels at least once a week!

In this day of e-mails and text-messages, I find that I seldom write letters or even pay bills by mail. No way am I ever going to use this avalanche of address labels – even if they print my name and address in colorful font arrangements with designs of flowers and hearts, moon and stars, or cute and cuddly animals.

But the worst offense of all: the labels are gummed, so I cannot put them in the Recycle Paper Bin! They have to go into the regular trash, thus contributing to more and more garbage for our landfills.

I wonder what rate of return the organizations get for these address labels? I took an informal survey of friends and colleagues – the average amount that they contribute for the labels is $20 – perhaps sufficient to cover the administrative and printing costs?

How much then, is really left for the charity?

And, as to actually using the address labels, the responses in my survey ranged from “Rarely” to “Only at Christmas-card time.” Oh, one friend did find something practical for her address labels: wallpapering a room in her daughter’s doll-house!

Recently, the US Postal Service announced that it was in the red (again!) and would be cutting back services and raising postage prices. I think they should look at the law allowing “discount for charity organizations” and limit their number of mailings. That would certainly lessen the loads that mailpersons carry on their routes, not to mention the gas savings.

So, why are these organizations employing the same marketing tool to ask for money? Why are they using valuable resources for address labels that are mostly thrown away?

Why don’t they just do away with this gimmick? I am sure I am not the only one asking these questions. A creative change from this wasteful way of fund-raising would be most welcome and may even result in more positive responses.

Marge Wang lives in Bellevue