Permission Please

AdVoice, Singapore, August 2003 issue

As lawmakers around the world are cutting their teeth on anti-spam legislation, some thorny issues pop up. And the thorniest of them all is: how to hit the really shady stuff, the ones that make false claims, offer dubious merchandise, hide their origins, and border on the fraudulent, without killing off respectable marketing companies?

Currently, both the US Congress and the European Commission are wrestling with this problem. Both consider two approaches: to put constraints on the way people send out unsolicited bulk email; or to forbid unsolicited bulk email altogether.

The first approach is to make it mandatory to include a properly working opt out possibility and an identifiable sender address, and to prohibit the use of false claims or misleading information, or of fake header information such as date or time stamp, ‘spoofed’ sender address or nonexistent or ‘phished’ domain names. The latter is a new danger lurking out there for unsuspecting consumers: links in the email point to a site that looks exactly like a legitimate one, complete with corporate logos and dialogue boxes that ask for your credit card number and other sensitive information.

Both US Congress and the European Commission currently consider such measures. It is a bit of a non-issue since most of these dubious practices are already punishable under traditional anti fraud legislation, but I guess politicians have to be seen doing things when the public cries out. A more serious problem with these measures is their ineffectiveness. They are perfect for catching small fish, but there are too many of those for a prosecutor to make a dent. Meanwhile, the big culprits stay well hidden behind dubious legal structures and offshore shell companies.

The second approach, forbidding unsolicited bulk email, is popularly known as the ‘opt-in’ route. It means that marketers can only mail people in bulk if they received permission to approach them in the first place. But this road too has some big bumps in it.

Firstly, it will have a crippling effect on the Direct Marketing community. Having to seek active permission before you can approach anybody makes life impossible for new entrants. If you have something new to offer, the cost of going out and asking large numbers of people for their permission before you can even try to sell them anything is nothing short of prohibitive.

Even more important is that opt-in will not address the real problem. Spam causes enormous irritation, but that results from a combination of factors, not lack of permission alone. If Mercedes or Nokia decide to mail all of Singapore with a brochure outlining their complete model ranges, I bet I will not hear a single complaint. It will be bulk, untargeted, and without permission. And people will love it.

Mercedes and Nokia make high interest products. But low interest products make the matter even more complicated. Consumers only think of them when they need them. If you ask permission at a time of need, most people will give it. But after fulfilling their need, they’ll just as soon forget about it. And if you are the one they gave permission to and someone else did the fulfilling, chances are you’ll unwittingly send them messages that will cause irritation.

So if opt-in is not the answer, then what is? The answer is: proportionality. Every type of marketing communication has two aspects: it serves the public, and it bothers them. Advertising messages, whether solicited or unsolicited, have an impact on people’s time and their spheres of privacy. It cannot be avoided. But keep it in proportion, and people will not get too irritated. Make it fun, and they’ll even enjoy it.

Proportionality is not an easy criterion. First of all, it means trying to reach only those that are potentially interested. In other words, making a serious effort to target your audience. It also means being careful with the impact of your message. Telephone calls are more intrusive than emails, emails irritate more easily than paper mail.

Thirdly, playing with opt-in vs. opt-out. If your message is part of an ongoing relationship, it only needs an opt-out possibility. But if your message is a ‘cold call’, use an opt-in for the follow up messages. In other words, only bother people again if they actively responded in the first place.

Introducing a sweeping denouncement of anything that’s not an opt-in does not solve the spam issue. Making responsible behaviour mandatory does. It’s just a matter of putting it into a few relevant and maintainable rules.