Permission-based Marketing

As a consultant who provides strategic email marketing solutions for marketers, I understand both sides of the proposed Ontario privacy legislation. Privacy is a key concern for everyone from consumers to businesses. At the same time, a sizeable part of our "buy economy" is driven by the advertising and marketing sector that has established a reliance on using personal information in the execution of advertising and direct marketing campaigns.

Today, leading email marketers are taking the high road on the privacy issue by ensuring that both they and their clients have explicit permission before sending even a single marketing email to an individual. Anything else is SPAM - unsolicited, commercial email. Sure, there are those email marketers who shun their responsibilities and codes of ethics to fill our inboxes with unwanted email communications offering a myriad of solutions from eliminating debt problems to enhancing sexual performance. But these people are not likely to be working with reputable, high profile companies such as the members of the American Marketing Association, the Canadian Marketing Association and other similar groups.

Companies using SPAM as a marketing tool do so because it works for them. Even if response rates are small, the cost of email is relatively low compared to all other forms of marketing and the return on investment can be high. Furthermore, there are very few laws against SPAM. Most are self-imposed rules or come from organizations with ethical codes of conduct. Even where laws do exist (some US states such as Washington have enacted true anti-spam legislation), the authorities don't really have the time or resources to properly police them. Even SPAM monitoring agencies such as MAPS (http://mail-abuse.org) are struggling with issues surrounding what is acceptable and what is not, and how to deal with organizations and individuals that flagrantly abuse email servers and recipients.

Recently, the Personalization Consortium, (an advocacy group of companies formed to promote the responsible and beneficial use of technology for personalizing consumer and business relationships), conducted research on consumer attitudes toward providing personal information to marketers (permission). Essentially, the results showed that consumers wanted some control over their personal information. The research also indicated that they would share information under certain conditions. The determining factor in this process was how marketers communicated with them. If marketers provided communication that was personalized, offered a value proposition and contained relevant, timely information, consumers said they were more likely to share their personal information.

I have learned a great deal through my association with the Personalization Consortium and its collaboration with the Canadian Government and the U.S.-based FTC regarding consumer privacy issues. In the final analysis, I concluded that "enlightened" legislation should be enacted. What I mean by "enlightened" is legislation that may seem harsh in the short term, but in the long-term is really designed to help the industry succeed. However, if one province (Ontario) takes a different or tougher stance than the federal government's existing legislation, issues are sure to arise and further complicate matters. From an advertising and marketing perspective, Ontario's proposed legislation, which also includes additional areas such as privacy in healthcare, makes it necessary for any marketer to acquire explicit permission (opt-in) prior to collecting and using personal information and data in their marketing efforts. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Again, ethical email marketers have been following these guidelines for years.

My experience has shown that when email recipients provide explicit permission, and enter into a two-way reciprocal relationship with a marketer, they are much more likely to provide that marketer with more and better personal information and data than previously available. For instance, if a marketer offers a tailored email communication piece to the recipient - containing relevant and informative data that they want -- the recipient will provide more detailed demographic, psychographic and even behavioral information to the marketer.

The question arises -- how do we balance the wants and needs of the consumer with those of business? On the consumer-marketing front, if we can agree that "the customer is always right" and that we are here to make our case that consumers do business with us, does it not make sense to give the customer what they want? Getting permission upfront is not a bad or difficult concept. Those companies that choose to get "marketing permission" (as opposed to "email permission") stand to build a compelling competitive advantage. Emarketing, especially email marketing, in my experience, is the best tool for doing this quickly and cost effectively. The reason for its effectiveness is in the convenience to the consumer to quickly reply with their preferences and permission. Mailing a return "snail mail" is simply more effort required by the consumer. So, ultimately successful Direct Marketers will utilize Emarketing to augment their direct mail efforts in getting customers' permission.

Today, it is hard to imagine a marketer who has not considered or integrated email as part of their organization's marketing mix. In the end, if it becomes necessary to get full marketing permission from consumers, email makes sense as a highly efficient, yet cost-effective, solution that provides quick results. To create a business case for accelerating email-marketing plans, those not yet involved should look at the idea of "permission" as a powerful and valuable marketing tool. For starters, this permission equates to segmenting out your most valuable or loyal customers! Those who already use email as a marketing tool will have no problem requesting, and receiving, full marketing permission that covers all marketing forms, not just email.

Ultimately, as more and more marketers look at obtaining end-user marketing permission, whether or not they are required to do so by law, the value of this permission far outweighs the "cost". It will help focus marketers on delivering relevant messages and effective offers while optimizing the use of personal information and data. Aren't these the basic goals of data-driven and direct marketing anyway?

Whichever side of the argument you find yourself on, the privacy issue is not going away. If a marketer chooses to not hear the call of consumers, you can bet their competition will. Even without a law, when given the option of dealing with a company that has greater respect for the collection and use of your personal information, a consumer will most like choose to co-operate with an organization that takes their personal wants and needs into greater consideration.

My advice to marketers is to get permission now before "permission fatigue" sets in. Soon it will be a question of who has permission versus who has to get permission!