Being direct... AdVantage Aug 2003
'Where Should We Draw the Line?'
There is an aspect of business communication that only seems to have attracted attention quite recently - the issue of unwanted messages (so-called Spam). Somehow there is a belief that when unwanted messages are distributed via the mass media (in the form of advertising) - then it's all OK; but the moment that technology is involved and the communication is dispersed via e-mail or SMS, then it is thought of as 'invasive'.
A recent item carried in ADvantage raised this very issue, commenting on many of the negative aspects of SPAM. The piece went on to suggest an even more worrying trend: the extent to which SPAM has affected how people trust the commercial communications that target them. I think that the issue of trust has become a critical matter for marketing communication in general.
One aspect of this subject raises a vexing question for me: If a business publishes (or otherwise hands out) its postal address, email address and/or cell-phone number, and someone then uses such published information to target that business with an offer - why is this considered Spam? Are some people perhaps being a little 'holier-than-thou' when it comes to their rights NOT to receive this stuff, versus their 'right' (and those of others) to promote business via any or all communication channels?
I'd like to quote two personal examples - firstly to demonstrate the effect of badly executed communication on trust - and secondly to show the potential loss of opportunity that comes when everything is painted with the same negative Spam brush!
In June last year I traded my 3-year old Volvo S80 for a smaller S60. The dealer that did this deal shall remain nameless, but it is part of a major SA motor-retailing group. The capability of these guys to use new marketing communication tools such as text messaging to communicate personally with possible buyers is exemplary, but their inability to exclude customers who had recently purchased - is rather wasteful, not to mention damaging.
During the first six months of ownership of my new car, on two separate occasions, I got two SMS's promoting the very vehicle that I had just bought. And to use 'crappy' technology that sends two identical messages at a time - is just stupid!! It causes aggravation to the recipient, and simply destroys whatever trust might have been.
Now, the other side of the coin: Our sister company recently launched a new e-mail notification service aimed at people who need to be responsive in the business sense, but perhaps don't have a permanent connection to their e-mail server. We offer to monitor their mail boxes with some very clever software that includes the ability to 'white-list' or 'blacklist' incoming mail, and when e-mail arrives, we automatically send an SMS to a nominated cell-phone to notify the member of this fact.
The point of this example is that we targeted a number of business-related segments including Bed & Breakfast operations; built an e-mail database from existing published information, then sent out a launch e-mail notification containing the link to the service's website - once. A day or two later, we received a note from an Internet Service Provider - whom we assumed to be acting for one of the B&B's - accusing us of Spamming, and threatening us with a 'Denial of Service' attack.
Now, nobody is more aware than I that EVERYBODY is literally bombarded with communications of every shape and form these days, and that the nett effect of all of this 'communication' are potential buyers literally drowning in a sea of 'information'. It suggests to me that there could well be a backlash on the part of the great 'unwashed' public, and the result will be bad for everyone who tries to publicise or promote products and services to an increasingly unwilling and distrustful audience! Maybe it's the 'unwanted-ness' that best identifies SPAM!
BUT, how else can new and possibly beneficial services be communicated to targets? Does it have to be PAID for in order to be OK? Where do each side's 'rights' begin and end? Does the communicating party have the 'right' to distribute information about their business opportunity through ANY medium/channel that they might choose, or does the 'target' have an 'absolute right' to dictate exactly WHAT communication should be allowed to permeate their consciousness?
It seems to me that the dividing line may well be that when communication is paid for it can't really be classified as invasive, (although I'm not sure about some TV ads) however when a message 'invades' the target's personal communication channel (cell-phone or e-mail) then it may well be a problem?
But - evidence shows that many people seem to be paying less and less attention to mass-marketing communication, so perhaps the game is moving from the 'public' to the 'private' space…… …maybe this is the real Catch-22??