Two recent news items have got me thinking this week. Firstly, the collapse of the infamous mobile telephone directory, using bought in data, and secondly the ASA rapping Virgin Media over the fingers for not using goneaway suppression. Both cases represent a certain naivety on the part of both organisations, albeit from rather different directions.
Just because data exists, it does not mean that we have a God-given right to use it. Mobile data is on the market from a variety of sources, but none of the people who own those numbers ticked a box saying they were prepared to appear in a directory. The most they did was agree to receive some unspecified third party communications as they signed up for whatever they signed up for. So, it was no particular surprise to me that many of them got rather cheesed off when the directory hit the headlines.
The trouble is, it seemed to be a surprise to the business concerned.
The Virgin case is slightly different, but it hits the same spot. They have data. Lots of it. They are one of the largest mailers in the country, and, as a customer, I recieve a lot of it. It is mostly tosh, and none of it has managed to explain to me how I can improve the service they provide, or get more out of it. In fact, the one thing I want them to tell me about, they have not even mentioned yet. As an XL customer (I believe this refers to the TV package I am on, rather than my girth) I used to receive the Seranta sports channels. I get Sky Sports through Virgin, and Setanta came 'free' out of the blue. Now it is gone. Am I going to receive the new ESPN channel free as well? Frankly, despite regular communication about my bill being ready for inspection, or other such fascinating missives, I have no idea. My son would like to know. Richard, are you listening out there?
However, I digress. Not using suppression is a cost call.You weigh the few annoyed recipients who can be bother to complain against the cost of buying the suppression, or doing the administration on your own goneaways. Naive, again. Suppression is not cheap, but annoying people is never sensible. Bad press like this is damaging. Not Gerald Ratner damaging, I will admit, but still a black mark.
But I fear this is symtomatic of an attitude to data prevelent in the industry. No one seems to care about the state of the data, as long as enough targets are reached. The objectives may be reached, within budget, but what harm is done to the brand around the edges?
1 comment(s)
All industries evolve. Things change, develop, improve. Direct Marketing is no different to any other sector, and the major change of the last ten years has been the growth of information technology. Is this a good thing?
For me, the jury is still out. The first mailshot I organised, circa 1985, involved buying some labels, writing a letter, getting it printed and putting it through a franking machine. Post was king in those days. It seemed more worthy than other direct channels, and certainly more controllable. It required thought, and took time. Nowadays, on a bais level, armed with a few email addresses, you can whack out the same thing in a matter of minutes.
B2B direct marketing is not always massive. Most businesses are small, and most mailshots are in the hundreds, not the thousands. Of course there are big mailings, but there are not many companies that do things on a large scale. The temptation to DIY, on the cheap, has resulted in a commoditisation of the market. Marketing 'departments' are expected to achieve big things from their desktops, almost instantly. A database is no longer a difficult thing to build. Email addresses can easily be collected and stored, DIY style. And using them is so easy. This ought to be a good thing, but I am afraid it is not.
You can buy email addresses for peanuts. No one seems to worry too much about what they are, or who is going to open them. My inbox is full of all sorts, from the quick and dirty to the expensive and sometimes misguided. The science of direct mail has been transformed by the technology into a hopeless free-for-all. We all talk about web sites as the shop window, and making everything interactive, but the interaction is often not very satisfying.
I saw a job being advertised this morning for a Social Media Marketer. The new holy grail, I suppose. We are leaping on the next big thing before we have really conquered the last one. We have not used the new technology well. We have managed to discredit and marginalise what we now think of as snail mail. It is almost an irrelevance today...still there, but somehow old-fashioned and comparitively expensive.
In this recession, data quality will suffer everywhere. It was not great to start with to be honest, but there will be next to no investment in it at the moment. I feel a bit like John Major. We need to get back to basics. Good data, good creative input, clear objectives and professional execution. If not, in another two years, we will all be Twittering around like lost souls, wondering how life got so complicated, when really DM is simple.
Hugh Bessant
Blogging for:
Member since: 03 Jun 2008
Last login: 18 Nov 2009
Total Posts: 323
