B2B 101 - All Comments

re: Data Virgins

gotnoteef — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:45:10 GMT

The ASA slapping Virgin's hand is at least a start - more of this needs to happen - publicly berating companies for poor data practices may actually start to shake the short term view of suppression as a cost to the business, rather than a benefit.

re: Technolgy is the Fox that will kill the Golden Goose

Mark Cadbury — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:11:27 GMT

As a Marketing Director, perhaps of the old school like yourself, I absolutely see your point. However, my company is employing a school-leaver (son of one of our employees) to clean up our data. The creative execution of our emailers is professional and very good - perhaps not great, but then direct mail was usually a poor cousin of advertising - certainly to the creative department of the ad agencies. All emailers are part of integrated digital campaigns - with website, blogs, social media and free content easily available etc.

It's a digital world, there is change, but the fundementals remain.

Mark

re: Marketing must be measurable but it is still an all round game

Mark Hook — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 19:57:53 GMT

Great article. Marketing can be heavily underestimated by companies, and considered a luxury that is expendable - especially in a recession. I think this comes from a misunderstanding or even a suspiciousness of marketing.

In our research we have found that marketing is the subject most SMEs want to know about, so we have launched a free website that offers a wealth of practical marketing advice. It’s our hope that SMEs will realise that marketing is not a secret art and while it may be a flashy player, it’s still vital to the team’s chances of success in the long-term.

Check out the Marketing Donut website - www.marketingdonut.co.uk

re: Thinking outside the (Mail)box

gotnoteef — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 10:08:57 GMT

sounds like a plan - invite Mandy round for tea and biccies to discuss and if he doesn't buy it... ring his scrawny neck for being a complete nerk

re: Thinking outside the (Mail)box

Hugh Bessant — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 17:03:04 GMT

Hey Nick, great minds think alike! I've touched on it before, but I think we need a new secure email system, and if it saves the RM as well, so be it.

re: Thinking outside the (Mail)box

Nick Myers — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:03:31 GMT

Hugh, I feel slightly cheated. I had exactly the same idea this morning, then discovered this afternoon that you wrote a blog about it on the same day. Anyway, a sign of a good idea.

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

Hugh Bessant — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:51:47 GMT

Ben, be a humbug pedant as much as you like, but it is unlikely to improve my grammar I am afraid. Hmm, was I being homophobic? I think not. I was using his media nickname and linking it to a rather fine song by 10cc. Nothing hompphobic there as far as I can see.

As for mediocre analysis, I was trying to say that this is not a commercial argument. It is a postal service, and we still need one. Selling it off will be bad for everyone, from the little old lady in a rural location to our industry. I would rather subsidise post for all than Jaguar.

Thanks for reading and please continue to criticise my grammar. It makes my old English teacher very happy, no doubt.

And if you can point out where you think I was being homophobic, please elucidate. I don't want to get myself into a Russell Brand moment...

Online Advertising Live » Blog Archive » I'm Mandy, Fly Me, Flog Me, Buy Me (or let me loan you bundles of …

Fri, 19 Dec 2008 15:02:26 GMT

Pingback from Online Advertising Live » Blog Archive » I'm Mandy, Fly Me, Flog Me, Buy Me (or let me loan you bundles of …

Big Marketing For You » Blog Archive » I'm Mandy, Fly Me, Flog Me, Buy Me (or let me loan you bundles of …

Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:25:42 GMT

Pingback from Big Marketing For You » Blog Archive » I'm Mandy, Fly Me, Flog Me, Buy Me (or let me loan you bundles of …

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

Ben Gaff — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 12:13:12 GMT

Can't quite work out what's more annoying about this article. How to choose from the not-so-subtle homophobia at the start of it or the mediocre analysis that follows? From a commercial standpoint, what you seem to be saying is that it's a good idea to pay more to subsidise delivery to areas where there are fewer people that are more expensive to reach. Frankly (and purely from a commercial point of view), I would rather have differential pricing based on true cost to deliver and make optimised ROI decisions based on that. You might go so far as to say that I could, ahem, target my activity.

Of course, with my work hat off I still want a nationalised postal service in order not to discriminate against (generally less affluent) people based on where they live. But I really can't see any basis upon which to defend this from a commercial/DM standpoint.

Finally, and sorry for being a humbug pedant, but would it be to much trouble too not mix up your prepositions and your adverbs?

Merry Christmas!

Best Virtual Advertising » Blog Archive » I'm Mandy, Fly Me, Flog Me, Buy Me (or let me loan you bundles of …

Fri, 19 Dec 2008 10:05:13 GMT

Pingback from Best Virtual Advertising » Blog Archive » I'm Mandy, Fly Me, Flog Me, Buy Me (or let me loan you bundles of …

Your Publicity To You » Blog Archive » Where would I be without surveys? - B2B 101 - Blogs - Brand Republic

Sun, 14 Dec 2008 23:06:03 GMT

Pingback from Your Publicity To You » Blog Archive » Where would I be without surveys? - B2B 101 - Blogs - Brand Republic

re: Where would I be without surveys?

adam herbert — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 09:43:08 GMT

De-duping is a very cost effective way of making sure that your mailshots are only being sent once to a recipient.

I do how ever feel sorry for companies who not see that spending a little can save a lot.

re: Data MOT challenge

Hugh Bessant — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 17:55:21 GMT

Well put Andrew.

I like the sound of your data, but you will forgive me for being skeptical.

If you are marketing a complete, verified business universe, with multi contacts per business, you must be making between 4-6 MILLION telephone calls per annum - especially if you are getting opt-in from the individuals concerned.

Therefore, I will make an assumption. You have a verified database with under twelve months recency, but that is the premium content within your universe, which is of lower quality, but would generally be considered fit for purpose.

If I am wrong, speak in numbers, please.

The debate should be about clarity. Every supplier should let the customer feel the quality whilst enjoying the width. There are many customers who want to confetti drop every business in the UK, and are quite happy to hit a few empty premises. Such as catalogue firms, for instance. So quantity is important, but we should fit the quality to the client.

As much as I want to see a totally verified B2B database with reasonable recency, I do not think it is possible on anything like 2m businesses. But I fully appreciate that segments of the market are well researched, and I would like to see these segments attract the price they deserve, rather than being devalued by poorer quality data sold by smoke and mirrors and considered equal.

Andy, we should turn this into an interview!

re: Data MOT challenge

Andrew Taylor — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 08:26:04 GMT

Excuse me as I'm attempting to cover off some of the issues you've raised in your most recent posts here, and having a bit of a data quality rant too.

You're absolutely right on data quality - there needs to be more action not just debate – although a debate would be a start. I've been out on the road at various small business exhibitions meeting face-to-face with future data users. These are mainly small businesses and owner-managed businesses that are scared to use business data in case they get into trouble, they contact the wrong person or the direct mail is just a waste of time because it ends up in the bin. These are the real knock-on effects of poor data quality and a lack of transparency in the industry - it's putting SMEs off direct marketing - they are too scared to use it.

At the same time, some data suppliers are making this problem even worse by still advertising their ‘quality’ data as compliant with (a now

defunct) DMA Business List Audit – showing a complete disregard for the

buying public. It is essential that both future and existing data users

are confident that they are getting safe and accurate data.

We are making a stand for data quality. Our data universe is new and all our verified records are currently less than a year old. We are investing in research, research and more research with a dedicated telephone research team (separate from our sales team) in our call centre in Manchester. Their job is to call all of our records and qualify them, and to validate contact information and opt-in status (this opt in is conducted with individuals within a business, not generically).

Each of our researchers receives in-depth training and is monitored by an independent QA function that not only ensures the information is captured correctly, but also monitors the performance of each individual caller.

Yes there are lots of smoke and mirrors and with everyone claiming the "most accurate", "most comprehensive data", "unrivalled data", "largest", "biggest", "best", how can the customer get to the bottom of what exactly data quality is and who's delivering it? We can all be guilty of this lack of transparency but we are taking action. A real focus on data quality is a competitive advantage in itself.

Look at goneaways, for example. You wouldn't buy a TV that didn't work 5% of the time yet the B2B data industry (and we're not including infoUK

here) seems to think it is right that their customers accept a 3-5% goneaway rate. Whilst the truth about data is that there is always going to be some level of inaccuracy, the key is to minimise this inaccuracy and its impact. Also, make use of the goneaway information and research and correct the data, provide a money-back guarantee on goneaways returned.

We do. You need to take into account that much public record information used by some data suppliers, as you rightly mentioned, doesn't actually get verified before it is used. Some data suppliers are also still not taking advantage of more effective sources of data to improve their quality levels. They need to stick to the simple analogy that verified data equals less wastage. Data needs to be fit for purpose.

There is a choice when it comes to data quality there are those that can deliver it or those that can't. It will be interesting to see what a future data MOT will uncover. Let the debate begin.