±±¾©Èü³µpk10

YES

Ellie Woolston, deputy chairman, BHWG Proximity

The current system of having to apply to each preference service

individually is far too involved for people who run increasingly busy

lives and haven't the time to fill in one form, let alone five or

six.

Much as I would hope consumers wouldn't tick 'no' to receiving all forms

of marketing communication if offered the choice all in one place, the

growth in the number of preference services means that bringing all of

these under one roof has to be the most sensible option for the

industry.

In an ideal world, I would love to see everyone be receptive to as much

direct activity as possible. To allow marketing to be effective though,

we need to enable people to have freedom of choice.

We have to remember that while many consumers will passionately seek out

the MPS and TPS, many will not know about the soon-to-come door-drop,

email and SMS preference services, but they arguably have a right

to.

Although we as an industry may not like it, we have to respect those

people who do not wish to receive all types of marketing. Having all the

choices in front of them in one simple document is not only more

centralised and cost effective for the DMA, but it saves businesses from

having to go to separate sources of information to run their data

against.

Such a set up would make it abundantly clear what people want to receive

and what they do not want to receive.

Having all the preference service choices under one roof is a

one-stop-shop for all concerned. It will save both consumers and

marketers heartache.

But, in the same way that the DMA struggles with how publicly it

promotes each of the non-mandatory preference services, I too am not

altogether sure how sensible it is to push this collective option

widely.

I'm quite sure, however, that most people would apply common sense in

returning the information. They would simply tick 'no' to some forms of

direct marketing - similar to the MPS - and be far more relaxed about

others - for example, door-drop material, which is non-addressed and to

which people generally take less offence.

Even if a minority of people will not fill it in this way, my opinion

remains that the combined preference service umbrella should exist

rather than not be there at all.

NO

Marcus Hadfield, marketing director, Ignite-Mail

As the direct marketing industry continues to grow, and with the

increase in the number of communication channels available, it is

inevitable that the existing preference service system will come under

the spotlight.

There's a strong case for updating the current structure and management

of these services. As email and door-drop preference services are

imminent, it makes no sense that an individual has to contact different

governing bodies to opt-out of the various channels. But if you're

suggesting one preference service to cover direct mail, fax, door-drop,

telephone and email, not to mention SMS and wireless, that makes no

sense either.

Giving consumers an 'all or nothing' alternative isn't treating them

with much respect and ignores the fundamental marketing rule - customer

choice. Attitudes to the different channels vary greatly; for some

people, the very notion of being a statistic on a database is extremely

intrusive, whereas others will happily receive targeted emails but

object strongly to the impersonal junk that falls on their doormat each

morning.

Why assume that individuals consider all direct marketing to be a

nuisance?

If they did, we wouldn't be seeing the response rates we do. What's

more, a number of unsolicited door-drops are from charities, and for

many people this offers a chance to 'do their bit'. It doesn't seem

appropriate to deny a person the chance to read the local free rag

simply because they are fed up with phone calls for a new kitchen they

don't need.

Of course, it needn't get to the point of opting out. As marketers, we

should adopt responsibility to ask consumers how they would like to

contacted in future. Ignite-Mail recently ran a campaign for a client,

whereby the data-capture form asked for the preferred communication

method, with significant responses for telephone, mail and email

contact. By adhering to these, the client achieved higher response rates

and less churn than similar campaigns.

It's clear that a single preference service would not reflect

'preference' in the true sense of the word. But we agree that there is

need for change.

Give one governing body the responsibility of managing a truly flexible

preference service, where an individual can easily choose (and change)

exactly how they are contacted, and we empower the consumer by giving

them exactly what they want - choice.