Some people get what they deserve

All you twenty somethings must wonder what is going on. All this doom and gloom, house prices falling through the floor, redundancies, runs on banks, loans hard to find blah blah blah. It's called a recession. Back in the 70's and 80's we used to have them on a regular basis. One year we'd be running along nicely and the next, well, you get the general idea.

Obviously, recessions are new to some people. Take estate agents for instance. Buyers are desperate, sellers are few, but now is the time to put the effort in, if you still want to be an estate agent tomorrow. Is this happening? Not if my personal experience is anything to go by. In the days before Northern Rock and the portents of doom, we used to get letters at least once a week saying that Flogit, Botchit and Creep could sell our house for squillions to a number of clients. It was lazy stuff, and joined the rest of the recycling without a second thought. But now, when we are trying to sell, are they doing a good job? No, they're not. I could fill these pages with what they should be doing, but I won't, because I do have a point.

A recession is the perfect time to plan for, and work for, a bigger share of the upturn, whilst getting your hands on as many customers as possible. Of course, everyone will be under pressure to cut costs - soo, if they are not already - and marketing gets more red ink than most, but we should all be fighting our corner. Not to maintain all the budget, but to keep what we need to keep to make sure the brand survives any downturn and that revenues can be maximised.

No one can rely on their salesforce to sell them out of a recession, because it doesn't work. Just ask Flogit and his mates. Marketing can do much more, and well targeted direct marketing can be measured to justify investment. This is our reason d'etre. Lead generation with a smaller sales force is crucial. Businesses need to get as much out of every penny spent as possible, and reduce waste to a minimum.

No CEO will keep the frills and whistles, but customers need to be kept in contact with, especially when they are not spending, and prospects need to be tracked and pinpointed for when they are going to spend. PRM and CRM were invented for surviving recessions.

If this is your first time in a bust, fear not, the boom will be along in a bit. How long is anyone's guess, but if you let it drag you down you will miss the chance to make a difference. When the going get's tough...

School Catchment Area Terrorists

According to the Daily Mail (I know, I know) 1,400 permissions to snoop on us are given everyday, essentially under counter terrorism laws, but also to allow councils to catch us sneaking our children into a better school, or putting that tin of baked beans in the wrong box. 1,400 a day. I repeat 1,400 A DAY.

Either we are overun with potential terrorists, and it is hardly safe to get out of bed, let alone leave the house, or Big Brother needs a kick up the proverbial. Regular readers of this blog will be entirely surprised to find out that I subscribe to the latter.

This is serious stuff. I am actually in favour of an uber database recording phone numbers, both landline and mobile, addresses, email addresses, ISP's and basic household details. A consumer database of this magnitude would help make DM better, reducing waste etc, as well as helping many government agencies. But snooping for such minor crimes, using such major legislation, is a bit much.

Spending tax payers money catching people trying to do the best for their children by bending the rules a bit is horrendous, especially when the admissions policies are such a total shambles. Now, listen up all you liberals, all you Guardian readers, don't start flaming me about this one, because I will be quite happy to argue that point until the cows come home, but that would be getting off subject here.

We need anti-terrorism legislation. But there should be some rules that stop local authorities using the rules, and the technology, to snoop on ordinary people over minor infringements of stupid laws. Mind you, a dear friend of mine who has recently suffered at the hands of the admission nazi's would give old Osama a good beating in her current mood, I can assure you.

However, the point is common sense. Not something that is abundant in our corridors of power. Someone should be making this idiots be reasonable. Otherwise there is going to be a backlash against the government...whichever one it is at the time.

An age of cynicism

Having recently turned the ripe old age of 47, I fear I am turning into the stereotypical grumpy old man, but many would say that I was already grumpy! However, replying to a comment on my last blog here I realised that I am also an unrepentant cynic.

I remember having ideals, but they were beaten out of me by the accountants and the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune along the way.

Marketing is no place for ideals. I heard a member of our broad church defending the production of pint cans of strong lager with more than the recommended daily alcohol consumption in one can on Today this morning. And yes, I know they are not really pint cans, but I am 47 for goodness sake! The blog post was bemoaning the lack of use of suppression, and I found myself trying to explain the general lack of enthusiasm for marginal cost savings.

Of course, stopping unnecessary waste and saving a bit of money should be important, but it is not, in the great scheme of things. 90% of the effort, and the budget, in any campaign goes on creating the message and the product offering. 9% goes on targetting in one form or another, and then...usually at the last minute, someone buys a list and all the de-duping et al gets done in an unseemly rush just before the campaign is due to go out.

Yes, suppression can save time and money, but not on sufficient scale to make it a prerequisite. The person in charge of the campaign is focussed on the bigger picture. Come in just under budget, deliver on time, and meet objectives. If all that happens, no one 'upstairs' gives a damn about whether suppression was used or not. It doesn't even register.

This might sound cynical, but believe me it is realistic. Changing attitudes is going to take time. Being green is becoming incredibly fashionable, but until it really pays usage will not increase.

Marketing is a bottom line game. Prove that you are making a difference and budgets and power increase. Fail and you are reading the back pages of the trade press. That is reality, be it cynical or not.

Twisted Logic

Richard Thomas is now sticking the boot in. His logic appears to be that if you prevent DM from accessing the electoral roll, the amount of 'junk' mail will decrease. I've got news for you, Richard, it won't.

What will happen is that confetti door-2-door campaigns will increase. Targeting will die, and confetti will take over. Junk will get worse.

I am becoming more and more convinced that the answer to junk mail is for the government to give reputable suppliers in the industry MORE access to data such as the electoral roll. That way we can improve targeting. We can increase analysis and reduce waste. Besides all the jobs supported by the industry, there is the Postal service to consider. How many votes are in it for Golden Brown if he loses daily deliveries? Not many, I would imagine.

By all means target poor data soruces, and get rid of them, however you please, but let the professionals have access to as much detail as you can, because that way things will get better not worse.

Tons of waste fuss rather misses the point

Another survey, another burst of angst about misdirected or badly addressed mail. 100 million pieces of mail apparently fall into this category, and mailers are criticised for not collecting returns information (and rectifying it) or for not using suppression services.

Well, all that is fine if you have the resources to sort through returns. Most people don't, you know. And to criticise shoddy data seems rather strange, too. In all my years working as a data supplier, I have worked within DMA guidelines on accuracy, and most lists from reputable suppliers will do the same. Anything outside of that is investigated quite thoroughly, because it reflects badly on the broker and the data owner.

Suppression is not the cure, either. Although I would certainly advocate the use of suppression files, especially to avoid distressing relatives of the recently deceased as far as possible, the fact is that they are an added cost, and marketers are free to choose whether they are used or not, based on cost, quality and ROI.

We look like we are heading into a recession here. No one is going to invest heavily in data quality. Not when 100m misdirected pieces of mail out of 4b equates to 2.25%. Put that another way, and 97.75% of mail is correctly addressed, and that is not all that bad in my opinion, when you consider the rate of data decay.

If most businesses were almost 98% efficient, they would consider themselves a success story, and not suffer damaging headlines like this. Good grief, Golden Brown would love any of his departments to be 98% efficient. Could someone at the DMA please speak up and suggest that, rather than being criticised for these figures, we should be spinning it around and trumpeting a success?

That is the trouble with Direct Marketing. We are everyone's whipping boys. Maybe Max Mosely might like to get into the industry?

The Inbetweenies

Small businesses are notoriously hard to locate, identify and segment. Annoying really, because they are often just the businesses that marketers are looking for. The term SME is misleading in itself, as that usually includes businesses up to £2.5m turnover, which is not really small at all. Many suppliers claim to specialise in these small businesses, but the truth is we don't really know who they are, or how many of them there are.

It is easy to assess the size of the incorporated universe. Incorporated businesses have to register at Companies House, and that immediately identifies them on the marketing radar. Small businesses - one man band's, partnerships et all - do not, and picking them up is a matter of chance. As I said, no one knows for sure how many of these 'inbetweenies' there are - as in inbetween larger businesses and consumers - but it is safe to estimate that there are 500,000+.

These are often volatile businesses, here today, gone tomorrow, growing, changing. Data on them is scarce, but marketers selling services likely to be needed by start up businesses desire them more than anything else. For the data owner, keeping track of these businesses is nigh on impoossible. Directory information is not updated often enough to keep it clean, and the level of change is far in excess of the annual 40% churn business data normally attracts.

So buyer beware. However much you want this data, ask questions about the sourcing and the assumptions made in creating it, so that you can be sure you are not pouring your precious budget down the drain.

A nice little earner for someone

I wonder who else has received an offer to register with a European directory based in the Netherlands with a title suggesting that it is an EU initiative? I had to read it quite closely to discover that it was not, and then realised the beauty of the document.

It looked like a free directory entry, but when you read further, it was an order form, a contract to pay for an entry on some CD and online repository. I wonder how many functionaries in larger firms just filled it in and popped it back in the post never imagining that an invoice (for an undisclosed sum) would be swiftly sent back to their accounts department.

Of course, it may not be the scam I am suggesting, but it was certainly standing in the shadows. But of course an EU business directory is the next step for B2B data. It is something that should be encouraged, and probably funded by the EU, in my opinion. Marketing in Europe across language barriers and different address formats is a pain in the backside. Some, including Biznode, have tried to collect data cheaply and have produced several online offerings, but the existing pan-European directories are far from offering a business universe, and surely there should be one?

Better to spend EU money on a directory enabling easier border marketing than on the children of MEP's gap years, don't you think? Put the whole thing out to tender, and let one of the B2B data specialists run it, for a fee. Once set up costs are covered, it should benefit everyone.

Following this logic through, each individual government ought to take a more proactive approach to setting up accurate databases for directory and marketing purposes. It is the difficulty in maintaining accurate data that causes a lot of the junk mail on our doorsteps. Instead of moaning about it, they should help get it right, for the sake of the environment, if nothing else.

As dear old Golden and his crazy crew seem intent on building uber databses with all sorts of permanent data behind it, a marketing branch would help, by picking up movers, and cleansing the data by regular use. Tighter controls would be possible, and once again it could actually make money, rather than waste it. That might pay for a few things off the John Lewis list for members of the cabinet.

It is governments of all colours treating marketing data as that strange blue stuff you get in your belly button that creates a lot of problems for everyone. It would be interesting to sit down with the latest government blue sky thinkers and see what data could actually do...if managed properly...rather than decrying the endless junk.

Maybe too radical a thought for some, but it is Monday...

Another surprise, consumers still don't like junk mail!

Another survey and lo and behold, 70% of consumers loath and detest junk mail.

And so they should. Junk mail, as defined by me, is untargeted rubbish. The trouble is the consumer makes no particular distinction. Anything they don't actually like is junk, and the well targeted stuff that doesn't hit the spot is condemned as being the same as all the rest.

But it isn't, is it? All good DM practitioners, having gone to the trouble to target as best they can, should rightly feel aggrieved if they are accused of peddling junk. But it happens, because we are all tarred with the same brush. Another reason why the industry bodies should be explaining the difference between direct marketing and confetti. It is a hard argument, but someone needs to try.

As with all surveys, the devil will be in the detail. If the question asked was 'Do you hate all that crap that hits your doormat every morning?' you will get a high negative response. If you ask them to name the useful things they have received through the post unsolicited in the last month, most would find something positive to mention.

Lloyd James show confidence in the broking model

Surprise news, to me at least, that Lloyd James have invested in the Dudley Jenkins brand from DLG. It is a surprise to me on several fronts. List broking is a dying art, and has been for some time. The lack of loyalty from customers and key members of staff makes it a potential nightmare unless you can sign your clients onto long term, watertight contracts, and margins are being squeezed all the time.

Making money and adding conspicuous value, to ensure the customer sticks with you, is really hard. Then, the member of staff managing the account demands more money or skips away to start up on their own or join a competitor for big bucks. Then there are the cash flow problems, getting caught between slow paying clients and desperate suppliers. Then there is the lack of new data on the market, to provide anything new.

The role of a specialist data middleman has attractions. Agencies rely on them, especially when they cannot really afford to invest in their own data planners, and big clients like the help with the nitty gritty of data purchase, merge and purge and delivery. But the bigger you get, the more susceptible you are to all these problems, which is why I question the Lloyd James investment. I hope it works out for them, I really do, but it is a tough market about to get tougher, and the middle men always get squeezed from both sides.

How many more data scare stories?

I was reading the Daily Mail yesterday. It is my daily of choice, mostly for the sports coverage, and because it was the paper my father always brought home from work when I was younger, and it's a habit. That is my excuse and I am sticking to it. But the harum scarum stories that tend to be at the front of the paper do occaisionally make me question my allegiances.

This time it was the good old USA having access to just about everything about anyone in the UK who wants to travel. Including what sites we visit on the Internet, for goodness sake. Now this might be all tabloid tosh, but it adds to the fear of data. It all builds up in the minds of consumers and affects their attitude to data and the use of data, I am afraid.

Security is obviously important, and that is the excuse offered, but I would doubt the veracity of the data the yanks are going to get to see. Sainsburys still think our surname is Bessunt, for instance. There is no national database that is foolproof, up to date and accurate. So just pray that your name does not match you with someone up to no good, or else that trip to Disneyland may end up being a one way ticket to Guantanemo!

I am sure the government holds lots more data than we realise, but I am equally sure that it will be a pile of excrement once they try to bring it all together in one place. Data does not stand still. Thousands of people are changing today, as you rerad this, be it house, name, ISP, bank accounts or whatever. The Daily Mail would be better off asking whether the data the government is making available to our friends across the water is worth the CD it has no doubt been downloaded onto.

Enjoy the sunshine, and we still have a Brit in the singles, woohoo!