Being direct... AdVantage Nov 2002
Between The Devil
and the Deep Blue Sea …
One of the most intriguing yet virtually ignored sides of the communication process is the issue of the 'rights' of the communicator vs those of their intended audience - the guy with the mouth versus the guys with the ears!. Almost from the beginnings of the business of commercial communication: the town crier with his bell shouting: '….oyez….oyez….oyez…!' - the audience have had to stop what ever it was that they were doing, and 'listen-up!'.
Over many hundreds of years, the principle of 'interruption for attention' has been the cornerstone of the process of commercial information dissemination, and still we blissfully soldier on, not paying too much attention to the possibility that many in the targeted audiences may not even enjoy being on the receiving end of the constant bombardment of commercial content.
Well, some very interesting information recently came to light, that again suggests that the 'targets' may finally be spoiling for a fight. Interestingly enough, the evidence for the extent of the 'problem' has come from a most unusual source. It was a completely unrelated observation carried on a website called www.silicon.com, which raises the even bigger issue that I want to discuss:
Will Spam kill email? is the title of their article and it goes like this:
'One of the blights on the 'killer' Internet application, email - is Spam. Eric Allman, who wrote the first Internet mail application, believes that Spam could eventually kill off email altogether. Already, the time and money spent on filtering out Spam is astronomical, and some groups, for example universities - are particularly plagued by it. This is not to mention the effort that goes into protecting privacy because of the anticipation of Spam.'
Whilst the article says that the single biggest 'cause' of Spam is the fact that the sender does not have to pay for the communication, it also suggests that even if the sender did have to pay, Spam is often sent from a different address to the one that actually appears on the e-mail - and this, in turn, implies that the motives of the sender aren't always as altruistic as many of those who instigate these kinds of 'advertising' efforts, would have us believe. The article continues:
'The first hurdle to overcome is defining Spam in the first place. After all, someone may initially have asked for information, but if they are bombarded too often or with too much material, they may well perceive it as Spam. Spam can be as much perception as reality. Sometimes, valid material that is subscribed to can be perceived as Spam by filtering systems, simply because it addresses many recipients. The problem will not go away quickly. While it seems inconceivable that email could die, even to suggest that IT MIGHT, is a sign of the magnitude of the Spam problem.'
Whilst the possibility always exists that Spam could indeed choke email to death, I prefer to believe that it is the cumulative effect of a lack of sensitivity on the part of the message disseminators - that is at the root of this issue. With the possible exception of the 'get rich quick' merchants whose sole objective is to move high volumes at low margins (at the lowest cost, naturally) most marketing companies understand that there should be a balance between their need for sales and the consumer's need for satisfaction. (not to mention freedom from harassment.) And this applies to all forms of commercial communication.
The moment the consumer starts to feel hit-upon, then any/all communication efforts will rub salt into the wounds of their dissatisfaction - and not only won't they buy, they will react negatively to subsequent messages; and in extreme circumstances, even start to bad-mouth the offending brand to their peers - as well as anyone else who'll listen. No brand can afford to take those kinds of continuous knocks.
When considering these issues, I am always reminded of the Readers Digest in the heyday of their highly successful, not to mention very lucrative, mail-order business. The Digest worked out that not only did they want as many sales as they could get from their various direct marketing efforts, but that there was also room for the 'negative response'. Up until that time, they only gave their potential customers the choice of saying 'yes'. When they introduced the option of saying 'no' to their prospects, they were able to clarify that even if some people did not wish to say yes 'right now', they weren't negative to the offer (as suggested by the lack of response), instead they could were able to indicate that they liked the offer - but for some future date. By being more sensitive to the communication needs of the customer, the Digest was able to save themselves a fortune in misunderstood communications.
The e-mail story is but another example of how, when self-interest is the primary driving force, and communicators see the distribution of high numbers of opportunities-to-see as being 'the only' road to success, the recipient 'victims' of the process can become aggravated by it, and the 'communication' process itself becomes a self-defeating strategy. Wouldn't it be beneficial to be more sensitive to both the needs and sensibilities of the audience, as well as to the long-term interests of the channel or medium - so that everybody can share in the benefits?
I fear that despite all today's rhetoric around 'relationships' and especially around CRM - it is not very PC to talk in terms of 'sharing' and of 'mutual benefit'. Spend any time on any of the specialist CRM websites and you will soon become aware that CRM is promoted as a 'solution' to most - if not all marketing ills, and especially if you install …………………'s…(fill-in the blanks) latest and greatest customer-oriented software package.
It seems that unless one behaves as a total self-focused, self-driven, selfish member of the human race who takes pleasure in walking all over tree- and bunny-huggers, and is against all forms of self-control - then you can't consider yourself 'entrepreneurial' or 'a success'. God forbid that any of us should care about the fact that responses actually come from the real people who carry the wallets that facilitate the sales, which drive our businesses.
Maybe I am just one of the many who is feeling the need to verbalise his unhappiness with the way that pure unadulterated self-interest is in the process of destroying our world. I, for one, hope that we find a better way of putting an end to Spam, and anything else that is disrespectful of the other person's right NOT to get unwanted communications.