The comparison came to mind following a number of recent articles that have plaintively argued for the direct marketing industry to adopt best practice standards or push for a tougher legislative environment.
Their campaign has become more urgent in the light of a generally perceived fall in response rates even in traditionally fertile markets. Registration with do not call and do not mail files is rising faster than ever, both in the consumer and business sector and most damning is that public tolerance for "junk mail" continues to crumble.
This wave of negative news is countered by calls from industry bodies and the great and good for protection against poor practice, even to the extent of inviting further regulation to enable the "good guys" to show through.
Against this backdrop the Information Commissioner's Office is asking the DTI for "greater and faster" enforcement powers, Ofcom talks of fining Kitchens Direct for silent call breaches and the US jails its first spammer... which at the very least guarantees him a movie deal.
Much of the debate into best practice begins with the supplier industry, because most of the examples of blatant transgression come from the call centre or from abuse of data collection or contact practice. But there are two other key contributors, marketers and the public who seem to keep their heads just under the parapet.
Many of you will be familiar with the prisoner's dilemma, where two prisoners are held in separate cells, each with no knowledge of the other's actions. They face the decision whether to confess or not, with the choices that; if neither do, both escape punishment, if only one does he can cut a deal but his colleague carries the can, or if they both do they can cut a deal.
The best outcome is silence, but for it to work both prisoners have to trust each other not to break the pact. This is true in most partnerships or competitive environments that require an ethical position to be maintained -- someone always cracks.
As a supplier we spend thousands each year on legal fees for contracts that share liabilities with my clients. We also test our disaster recovery capability, train our people in data protection legislation and how to apply it, and ensure that we are constantly researching the market for new techniques or technologies that might improve our clients' effectiveness.
Last month we were in a pitch situation where it was clear that two of the other participants did none of these things, and consequently were competing on price alone. This puts pressure on all of the prices on the table, and you can see how this could draw you down the path of abandoning all added value activity and the most ethical route forward in favour of discounting if clients appoint by lowest price.
Marketers face the same dilemma. Many may be concerned with the volume of credit card mailings, and argue that the companies should mail less volume to achieve the same results. But this argument is only persuasive if everybody does it, because each marketer would fear that their ethical stance would result in comparatively poorer performance if others continued to mail away.
This is partly due to a lack of transparency of the production process to the recipient, Joe Six-pack. When Joe receives two mailings from the same sector on a given day, one may be the product of wonderful targeting practice, and one may be a blanket mailing based on a stolen list. Joe doesn't know which is which.
Unfortunately, for spam, silent calls or for poorly targeted repeat mail, he is likely to blame the delivery mechanism, sign up for the preference service suppressions, and be lost to us all as a future prospect.
This in reality is the modern marketing prisoner's dilemma. Do the right thing, and you may win. Do the wrong thing, and you might win, but if you don't, everybody loses, so your competition is equally affected. This is hardly a compelling reason to change.
"Best practice" sounds both optional and a little like a nanny state request to be a good boy. "Best results" seems a little more attractive. "Brand damage" is more persuasively expressed as "losing your high value customers you worked so hard to recruit by blatantly pissing them off is not conducive to any successful business model". So why is the language not stronger?
I believe all that is missing is conclusive and consistent proof that the good guys win, in the public domain. Marketers may be loath to release this information but it is desperately needed in order that the commercial case for best practice can be lucidly made.
Equally we must demonstrate that shame and financial punishment is heaped on those who flout the conventions of the industry, and make sure that the public understand that we feel this way. What would have happened to the share price of Kitchens Direct if they were publicly listed?
As suppliers we must also put the case for quality in terms of return on investment, and be able to show evidence that a premium supplier delivers a higher return on key marketing measures, and explain why this is the case.
When the missionaries first spread they tended to impose their views with extreme force in their own language. Over time they realised that this bred resentment rather than conversion. By adopting the language and way of thinking of their subjects they were able to build understanding and faith.
For the direct marketing industry the equivalent is begging for regulation, the big stick that will make people fall into line. This is short sighted. It is better to work on making a persuasive case that shows that best practice delivers best results and best value to marketers, and demonstrate to the public that transgressors will be dealt with by their own -- then let the conversion process begin.
If you have an opinion on this or any other issue raised on Brand Republic, join the debate in the .