B2B 101

Brokers Done to a T

Hugh Bessant — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:22:00 GMT

Shock, horror...someone has been selling mobile contract data, allegedly owned by T Mobile, onto other network providers. Brokers, those despicable middle-men working in the dark shadows of the marketing world, are implicated in the scandal. Poor T Mobile customers have been 'cold-called' (a phrase spoken with unmitigated disdain by the news reporter I listened too) around the time that their contracts came up for renewal.

The implied 'crime' was that this data is private, and that the people cold-called did not give their permission for marketing calls. This is of course possibly true, but I doubt it. If T Mobile have not covered themselves in the small print somewhere, I would be most surprised, because data is an asset, and everyone should give themselves the scope to leverage that asset if they feel the need. I would imagine the brokers concerned, whoever they may be, would have made some sort of check, because otherwise they are cretins of the first order.

Every broker I have ever worked with, when faced with data such as this, would have asked several questions.

1) Who owns the data?

2) Is it opt-in data or opt-out?

3) What restrictions are imposed on selling it?

The third question is probably the interesting one. If this data belongs to T Mobile, why would they want to sell it to their competitors? Either they are so desperate for cash that they have to give customers away to get it, or the person offering the data is pulling a fast one. In my experience, when data like this becomes available, the data owner is very careful to make sure their competitors don't get it. They want to sweat their data asset a bit, to complimentary businesses, but they are not looking to shoot themselves in the foot.

An unscrupulous broker may not have questioned the golden egg falling in his lap. Make no mistake about it, this sort of data is like winning the lottery. Call centres are desperate for warm data. Big money would have changed hands for this data. I have not seen any comments from T Mobile yet, so we cannot know whether this was an officially sanctioned data sale, or a CD walking out the door in someone's pocket, but my concern is that, yet again, the data industry looks like a bunch of cowboys.

When this story hit the fan, I would have hoped for a response from the data owner pointing out that they had every right to sell it, because they did the opt-in/opt-out process properly, taking the wind out of the press furore over unsolicited calling. They might have had some uncomfortable questions to answer about why yhey sold their own customer database, but it would have been chip paper tomorrow...sorry, recycling.

This is a good chance for the DMA to make the case for using professional brokers. I suspect such a person was not involved in this instance. I certainly hope not.

Data Virgins

Hugh Bessant — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 13:44:00 GMT

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?

Technology is the Fox that will kill the Golden Goose

Hugh Bessant — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 10:44:00 GMT

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.

List Broking in the News

Hugh Bessant — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:02:00 GMT

Since the kerfuffle about the mobile telephone directory, list broking is in the news. In the Daily Mail, the term is used with obvious distaste, as if the lists of numbers supplied to the company launching the directory were somehow unclean. The tone suggests dodgy deals done in shady corners, with reams of soiled paper appearing from under raincoats, and changing hands for bundles of used twenties.

I have my own concerns about the directory itself, but it is unfair to paint the list broking profession as the evil conduit in this project. Brokers simply put buyers and sellers together. The good list broker will understand the clients requirements, and suggest the best possible data, earning a cut out of the deal from the data supplier. I just hope the brokers concerned in this bit of business did their homework and thought about the possible consequences. Ditto the data suppliers.

Mobile numbers are required on all sorts of forms and applications these days. Usuually, if you look close enough, there is an opt out from direct marketing activity. But...is this direct marketing activity? As a directory owner, you could make a case for providing a service. The landline telephone directories operate on an opt-out basis - the only way to keep yourself out of them is to go ex-directory (and I am not sure that is much use anymore). So, is this any different?

Personally, I believe it is. As a list broker, you should look beyond the quick sale, and think of the consequences for the data supplier, and the industry beyond. The legality of the directory is being questioned, and consumer reaction to it is not positive. This may make mobile data harder to collect in the future.

This industry cannot help shooting itself in the foot

Hugh Bessant — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:20:00 GMT

Good grief, when are we ever going to learn? Your starter for ten, why is the direct marketing industry hated by the consumer? Because we have allowed their data to be treated with disdain and disrespect, that's why.

Spam, junk, confetti tactics, poor targeting...you name it, and someone calling themselves a DM professional has done it. So, in the middle of this wasteland of a recession, why not have a go at winding them up all over again?

Creating a mobile telephone directory is such a bad idea. No one, as far as I am aware, wants to be in it, so the company concerned has bought them. Some mysterious broker had one good sales month, and can now say goodbye to his database forever, I suspect.

Mobiles are personal. We take them everywhere, and as more and more nifty new handsets come out, with zillions of new apps (See, I am partially with it, chaps), we are taking out contracts and tying ourselves to our numbers more than ever before. The last thing we want is to feel that our numbers are going to be targeted willy-nilly by people we have not given our number too. Email spam is annoying but quickly deleteable. The mobile going off with unwanted calls or texts in the middle of a film, or in a restaurant, or whilst we are asleep, is going to really annoy people.

No one wants this directory. I doubt many people will use it. But with the headlines back in the Daily Mail, data and the use of data is back in the spotlight. Nice going people.

This industry does not need policing...it needs culling...badly.

Thinking outside the (Mail)box

Hugh Bessant — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 17:38:00 GMT

Quite a hullabaloo about our Postal Service, isn't there? Mandy wants to sell bits off to fund a huge pension gap, and maintain current service levels, and the Tories support him...unlike a sizeable number of Labour MoP! But why isn't anyone asking (and then answering) the important questions?

Firstly, why are we trying to protect something we don't need anymore? A daily postal service to every nook and cranny of the country is an anachronism these days. Around a third of our post is direct marketing...at the very least. Not necessarily time sensitive. Then there are all the bills, another sizeable chunk. As long as they are sent out in good time, no time sensitivity there. Birthday and Christmas cards take up the next big chunk, and if people knew it might take, say, a week to arrive, they could post it earlier. We do not need daily postal deliveries, just a reliable, regular service. How about three times a week in built-up areas, and twice a week in rural ones? Can anyone honestly tell me it would matter one jot?

Secondly, think about email. It is called electronic mail, because that is what it was intended to be...mail. The trouble is we have let it grow into something else, and something not necessarily desirable. Sometime you have to sit back and start with a blank piece of paper, and ask yourself what do we want email to be? My answer is secure, to the individual and the receiver. Because it is given away free, more or less, we treat it as almost unimportant, and suffer spam, phishing and all other sorts of missuse. For goodness sake, that x you just sent your partner by text on Valentines Day costs what? 10p? We put up with that, in fact we lap it up. So here is my bright idea to save the Royal Mail.

Having reduced snail mail deliveries and saved millions, reinvest in a server farm and offer each citizen of these British Isles a secure, personalised electronic mail address, tied to their postal address. RM should take the responsibility of linking the two, and providing secure access, possibly by NI number coupled with a personal password. The idea would be to make this good enough to be legally binding as an electronic signature. Anyone moving house would update RM in the same way as they do now, and their email address would move with them. And...here's the good bit, Mandy, if you are reading this...RM charges a penny, or even a fraction of a penny, for delivery...an electronic stamp. Bingo, a profitable mail service (without even going into the data sales aspect to a hungry marketing industry).

Obviously, we would all have to treat these addresses differently. No more wacking it on Facebook and then being surprised when you are invited to enter into a Nigerian lottery, or buy your weight in penis enhancing drugs...but that would be a good thing. It would become grown up email, for communicating with your bank, or receiving electronic bills (Yes Mandy, it's green too!).

Why should we pay for what we currently get for 'free'? Well, because nothing is free. Facebook, Google and the rest have tremendous power, and earning potential, because they are sucking up data and selling it to the highest bidders. I would rather RM did that, on balance, despite the fear that someone might *** it up.

Anyway, thoughts please?

Direct Disasters

Hugh Bessant — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 12:18:00 GMT

I have always believed in the direct approach, and that public relations face to face is one of the most powerful tools DM in building a brand. For a football club, desperate to sell merchandise as well as tickets, the chance to meet 120 football mad kids in a secure environment, when it would cost little more than fifteen minutes of anyone's time, ought to be too good to miss.

So my trip to take my son to a Chelsea Elite Training Centre tournament at the Chelsea training ground in Cobham ought to have been a treat and a pleasure. The Chelsea In the Community team are brilliant with the boys. Despite being a passionate Arsenal fan, my son has benefitted from excellent training and treatment from the Chelsea coaches since he was four, and they have played a big part in making him a promising nine year old.

On Friday morning, the tournament happened to coincide with the Chelsea first team training session in preparation for their Saturday clash with the mighty Southend. Precisely 200 yards from the kids tournament. Whilst waiting to begin, we watched all the Bentleys arrive. Then the boys went to warm up, and the parents were given a welcoming speech that amounted to instructions not to look, wave, shout or generally breathe in the vicinity of the first team Gods. Not that we were about to rush over the ten foot fence, dodge the burly security men, and strip the clothes off of Frank Lampard for souvenirs...

Personally, from a marketing point of view, would it have killed a couple of players to walk a few yards just to say hello to the boys? They are all football mad. Half of them actually support Chelsea. My son was thrilled just to be able to see them in the distance, over the top of the fence, doing some light jogging...so a chance to see one up close would have thrilled him. Unfortunately, that did not seem to occur to Chelsea. In awe to the ego's of their young millionaire's, they would rather insult the intelligence and maturity of a few parents.

Obviously, we all had a good laugh about it, but it seemed rather sad. Football clubs, like any business, cannot afford to miss any chance to drum up support and goodwill. That is why the sales force and the call centre of any company are so important - they directly affect the way a customer feels about a brand.

Generally, so many people seem to have forgotten this. I had an amazing run-in with Virgin Media before Christmas, when they had overcharged me and told me it would take weeks to raise a cheque, even though they have my direct debit details and could easily transfer it straight back to me. It made me so angry I nearly switched to Sky on the spot. I am sure everyone reading this could recount a similar tale.

One of the first lessons I learned in business is that it is more expensive to get new customers than it is to keep existing ones. DM plays a huge role in this. Direct communication of any kind influences people. Chelsea struggle to sell out Stamford Bridge. Mr Abramovich is one of the hardest hit by the credit crunch, and he needs his highly paid employee's to help bring in the cash. This attitude that the great unwashed are beneath contempt will see many a football club struggle in the coming months if they don't wise up.

So, the lesson for today is look after your existing customers and take every opportunity to make them feel good about your brand. Because right now, you cannot be sure when a new one is coming along.

Hallelujah You can teach an old dog new tricks

Hugh Bessant — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 17:14:00 GMT

Happy New Year, one and all.

On New Years eve, just before the witching hour, I downloaded my first song. Previous to this momentous moment, I had stuck to the old ways, in other words, buying CD's...although I still call them albums of course. I do not own an iPod. And I was quite happy letting all this stuff pass me buy.

Then, enraged by Simon Cowell's treatment of Leonard Cohen's masterpiece, I had an urge to show my son that there is an alternative to X Factor manufactured pop schmalz, and I downloaded Jeff Buckely's rather excellent version of Hallelujah - the album version, of course, for the princely sum of 79p.

My son still prefers Alexandra, of course. Teaching new dogs commonsense is almost impossible, but it did get me thinking. One thing that recessions always bring is a new broom. So much dead wood is thrown out, that there almost always has to be a new way of doing things. So, for direct marketing, maybe there has to be a different way.

One inevitable consequence of this downturn is that a lot of businesses will disappear. Some consolidation will take place. Then, out of the ashes, new entities will emerge, hopefully learning some lessons from the past. It is essential that the industry focusses on good data, and on protecting and improving that data. If DM is to have a bright future, we have to win back to confidence of the end user, as well as our clients, and let's face it, there is a lot of rubbish out there.

To a great extent we have tolerated it, because it is hard to do anything about it. When clients have demanded cost savings, we have all even indulged ourselves, sometimes, in the old game of selling rubbish straight to the landfill. No more, please. Clients, whose money it is we are spending, should be encouraged to look at the quality of the data they are buying, to make sure it is right for them. We need strong data, that is well maintained, so that we can target effectively, giving us an argument against the accusations of junk mail.

We all need to think about what we are doing. Something went wrong in the last few years. It all got lost in the jargin somewhere. Hopefully, when we put the roof back on, things will be a lot different.

I'm Mandy, Fly Me, Flog Me, Buy Me (or let me loan you bundles of cash on the never-never)

Hugh Bessant — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:30:00 GMT

His Lordship, his Mandyness of somewhere near Hull, is a busy little business secretary, isn't he? Not content with telling Gordon which side to put his parting, he is also contemplating bailing out Jaguar and Land Rover (but not Woolies), whilst musing that it would be a fine idea to sell off 49% of Royal Mail.

I expected to read howls of derision from the Brand Republic community but no. Come on team, this is the future of our industry we are talking about here. The ability to reach every house in the land for the same price is crucial to direct marketing. Direct marketing is equally crucial to our postal service. Can you see a private, commercial business trotting up the drive in Truro, or Aberdeen, for the pruice of a first class stamp?

Okay, deep breath, but I actually agree with Tony Wedgewood Benn. This is a public service we are talking about here, not a commercial enterprise. Sure, lots of people would like to run the big metropolitan areas, but no one is going to want all the green bits around them. Obviously it could be run better. For goodness sake, Adam Crozier is in charge. Remember his time at the FA? Unfortunately, he did not do FA. Allegedly he screwed the place up. Now, walking at a steady four miles per hour, he is doing the same thing to the RM. With the help of the unions, of course.

He can't make it pay. OF COURSE HE BLOODY CAN'T. Bits of the business will never make money, and you can bet your bottom dollar that Mandy won't be selling those. He will try to sell off the good bits, for a one-off windfall that we can all say Tata too (Geddit?) when he gives it to some poor, undeserving Indian businesman, or another failing bank.

As a nation, we have to accept a few facts about our post. There is less of it. No one writes letters anymore. Well, obviously some people do, but not as many as they once did, and it is a dying art. The younger generations email, and the older generation who do still put pen to paper are slowly dying out. Businesses still send bills, but this will get less too. More and more correspondence will happen electronically. However, there will always be some mail, and we might have to accept that it won't get there every day.

But so what? Is that such a problem? DM helps to subsidise it, and the government should do so to. Rationalise it, make it as cost efficient as possible, but don't privatise it...if you still want a national service.

Where would I be without surveys?

Hugh Bessant — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 17:32:00 GMT

Just when the muse has left me, and I am wondering where the next blog will come from, another survey hits the streets. This one, from Experian, has some shocking statistics about duplicate mailings. Apparently, some scandalous B2B marketers are still de-duping by hand! Others - now sit down, because this may come as a bit of a shock - don't do it at all.

The big mailers have no excuse for this of course, but we have to realise that the vast majority of B2B mailings are relatively small, and cost is an important factor. In a world where the data is a third of the cost of the stamp, and the list seller tells you that their data is so good even Santa is going to use it, de-duplication is not going to be high on the priority list.

When using their own customer or prospect lists, things nearly always get worse. Let's face it chaps, most people are not very good at dealing with data. Even some data companies I have worked for have had some appalling in-house data.

I know this may come as a shock to my friends at Experian, but no one really cares. Of course, it doesn't do anyone any good to send out duplicate mailings, but quite a few clients would secretly admit that all they care about is hitting desktops. If de-duping is going to cost them, the answer is no thanks.

We should care. Then, naturally, we would all pay £250 per thousand for our data and rightly hold the supplier responsible if it turned out to contain more repeats than BBC1. But, we don't.

The Nature of Business Data

Hugh Bessant — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:02:00 GMT

Following several recent conversations, I feel inspired to remind everyone of the facts behind business data. This is not a criticism, but it is a realistic view, because I sometimes think that with all the smoke and mirrors we use, we can forget what we are working with here. Data quality is relative. If you build a shelf with a warped piece of wood it was always be warped, even if the shelf itself does its job perfectly well.

Business data is sourced from two major feeds. Firstly, Companies House data, which comprises all the things limited companies have to register, and secondly, directory data. The major players in the industry match and merge these two sources, for the following major reasons.

1) Neither source is a fully mailable list. CH data has registered office addresses, not trading addresses, for instance, and no usable telephone numbers. Directory data does not have a list of company directors, or any idea of ownership.

2) Not every company is limited, therefore the CH list is by no means complete. Directory data picks up a lot of sole traders, partnerships etc.

3) Not every company registered at CH is trading.

4) Directory data is enhanced by adding some idea of turnover, SIC codes, lists of directors and ownership details.

There is more, but I want to stick to top line stuff here.

Once this match and merge is done, you will have a business universe of about 1.8m. There are more businesses out there, and many suppliers will claim to have them, but there are several problems with them. The data in excess of 1.8m is often on very small businesses, nearly always out of date, and this is the section of the universe with the most churn. I would also argue that it contains the businesses of least interest to DM...very small businesses, one man bands etc.

Having got to this point, industry players start to 'add value'. This can be done in the following ways:

1) Match universes with each other to create a mega-verse. In my experience, this always throws up a few hundred thousand names that are not common between any two datasets...you then have to decide whether these names are valuable or not. Mostly not, I fear, as they represent the old, the gone and the never were.

2) Add other data sets. Such as credit data. This can work well, and add some interesting information.

3) Tele-marketing to enhance data. Good tele-marketing adds names, responsibilities and key bits of information that can be used to predict buying activity, which end up being selections on databases. Expensive to research upwards of 2m, so no one does...unless you know different! In practise, sections of the universe are well researched by some, but watch out for recency. Anything approaching a year can be 40% inaccurate, especially in an economic climate like this one!

4) Modelling and analysis. Modelling involves taking a cross section of businesses and modelling them against certain criteria, then applying the results to the entire universe. Thus it works like an opinion poll. If you believe them, buy on a model. If you don't, don't! Analysis is the appliance of brain power. I know and have worked with some very clever people who can do wonderful things, but I point you back to the shelf example. If you analyse dog poo, it will still stink to high heaven, no matter how hard you think about it.

I am going to stop here for now. I hope this prompts some sort of debate about data quality.

Government backs opt-out, for your organs.

Hugh Bessant — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 10:59:00 GMT

Just a snippet on the Today programme this morning, but it made me sit up and take notice. Apparently old Golden and his crew have suggested that the organs of us all should be available for doner transplants, unless we opt out. Presumably before we die. It had all the interest groups up in arms, and is unlikely to get through, but it is another example of political double standards.

The theory was that it would solve the lack of suitable organs available for life-saving transplants - undoubtedly a laudable objective, but...

The same government would like all marketing to be opt-in, but when it suits them they are happy to impose opt-out.

It must be quite hard trying to face both ways at once!

Data MOT challenge

Hugh Bessant — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 18:17:00 GMT

Now here is a thought. Andy from Infouk replied to my last blog in defence of his new website and data quality. Good for him. Nice to see someone who is prepared to stand up and be counted. So why not challenge everyone to face a data MOT, to drive the systematic failures out of our B2B dataset.

Obviously for some, that would be like turkeys voting for Christmas, but one can dream. Anyhoo, here is a few simple tests we could apply to see that each dataset at least comes up to basic scratch. I'll also add a dodge I know has happened to show you how easy it is.

1) How big is your universe? Most people will claim +2m, but in reality most of the big datasets are really around 1.8m. The rest is old, suspect and unconfirmed for a considerable period of time, and will never appear in counts.

2) How do you verify your database and how often do you reverify? In practise, very little proactive verification goes on. Companies House data is matched against directory data to provide trading addresses, then maybe credit data is added. Sometimes this happens the other way around, starting with credit data. Telephone research is commonly only done on a cross-section of that...and sometimes this research is an internal sales team, with another purpose entirely, using the database and just confirming that contacts and numbers are still alive by default.

3) What do you do with goneaways? Nothing is quite often the answer. One major supplier had, up until the first quarter of 2008, not done a deep cleanse of their universe in FIVE years.

4) When you reverify your date, do you speak to each individual or do you just confirm with the person who answers the phone? The latter is by far the most practical solution, and therefore the most common. Therefore the individual concerned has rarely opted-in to anything at all.

5) How do you confirm job titles and responsibilities on the contacts you have? On small businesses, it is nearly always the same person! Try asking them to de-duplicate their total contacts universe, and watch it shrink before your eyes!

6) How big is your telephone research team? Then do the maths yourself. In my experience, a good researcher, chasing not only company details but multiple contacts as well, will speak to between 6 and 8 people an hour...and they might need to ring back to get the full information, because these calls can drag on. A database of 2m, fully verified, would need 3m+ phone calls a year.

That's enoough to be going on with for now...I wonder who would pass?

By the way, a personal aside. Did you see the future of English footnall last night? Go Gunners, go!

Moreofthesame.com

Hugh Bessant — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 21:17:00 GMT

Infouk.com was not a disappointment...I am sure it works just fine. However, it is more of the same. Golly, an online counting tool...why didn't someone else think of that? Actually they did...they built it, put it out there, and discovered that hardly anyone used it.

Maybe it is intended as a shop window, but if that is all it is, why bother?

Using a search engine of any kind takes some skill. Using a search engine on a fairly limited universe, where it is very easy to be way too specific, usually means that punters end up with a mailing list of three...and two of them will probably be the same business. That is why the likes of marketfile invest in a telephone team to track website users, and call them if they think they need help. Very few people place an order without assistance off line.

Even list brokers, God bless the few of them that are left, need help and advice to get the right data. InfoUK would have been better off investing in some experienced sales people to offer the right advice. I am sure they have them, but they should be up front, not hidden behind the technology.

InfoUK is an interesting exercise, with bad timing. Not a great time to enter the market. Their universe is not complete yet, and as I predicted when they announced their arrival on the scene, there is no differentiation. It is also interesting to read on their website that the DMA somehow back their email lists. That is news to me. And if they really have 1,200,000 email addresses double opted in, from their own sources rather than licensed from someone else...

Somke and mirrors...once again, we cannot see the wood from the tree's.

Hunker down, it's going to be a bumpy ride

Hugh Bessant — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 21:53:00 GMT

By heck, this is bad. I know we don't want to admit it, but for the time being marketing is about as dead as an estate agents inbox. It is one of business life's true truisms, that when recession bites marketers are driven out of the city. If one in ten of people are going to lose their jobs in the next year, as some portions of the media are predicting, then about half of them will be from the sales and marketing departments.

You can tell already. The news bulletins feel a little filled to me. One data supplier taking on six new people having recently got rid of three times that is fairly desperate PR. Lots of clients moving around, slicing a few percentages off the price every time.

No big surprise. It happens every time, but to me, this feels different. A lot of the names being destroyed...and let's face it, they are...are big DM spenders. If consumer spending really does stop...if small businesses do start to fail at record levels...are we really all screwed?

Well, the answer for many of us is yes. Because there are a lot of me too companies out there, and not all of them will survive. In the end...true romantic that I am...I believe that only the strong will survive. Not the good, but the strong. They are two different things. Consolidation will happen, but with little money slopping around it will be painful, unwelcome consolidation.

Big is not always better. No, be honest Hugh, big is hardly ever better. Data driven marketing is about innovation and insight, and that rarely comes from big organisations.

I give it until Christmas. Come January the blood will be all over the walls. Good luck to each and every one of you.