±±¾©Èü³µpk10

No other debate has quite so vividly exposed reliance on the blunt targeting tool that the Electoral Roll represents. And no other issue has underlined so clearly the need for a new approach to data buying and selling where quality is the byword. But any transition carries with it inherent tensions.

Most list owners sell on volume because that's how they make money - yet volume flies in the face of targeted, response-generating activity.

Most buyers see data as a commodity and buy aggressively, driving down price. They are often looking for volumes, driven by pressures to grow their customer base for as low a cost as possible. And most companies which trade smaller volumes of quality, opt-in data are finding that buyers just aren't prepared to pay a premium for it.

These were just some of the issues raised at the third Royal Mail Media Forum held last month, where 12 delegates debated the changing DM model.

Among the delegates were clients and above-the-line practitioners who voiced their enthusiasm for the removal of the ER as a data source.

"I will probably be frog-marched out of here, says Sven Olsen, MD of Banks Hoggins O'Shea FCB, "But anything that undermines the flaccid carpet-bombing attitude towards communications is wonderful news. Brands will have to spend more time creating quality relationships with consumers upon which they can trade."

Alistair Welham, marketing director of Daimler Chrysler Retail, agrees. "We reduce the response rate when we pollute responsible, targeted marketing with undifferentiated noise. I don't think that taking away the ability to create undifferentiated noise is a bad thing."

But these sentiments are not alien to most in the DM community. Growth, after all, is going to come from the intelligent use of data rather than the "flaccid approach described by Olsen. The problem comes in the disparity between this new data nirvana and reality.

"We have data which is better targeted, more accurate, more consumer-friendly, more recent and permission-based, says Martin Kiersnowski, COO of IPT, the company behind OK-mail and MyOffers. "But people are reluctant to pay a premium for it. They're used to paying a certain amount and it's a hell of a job to educate them that there's more than one type of list available."

Jeff Hyams, MD of Zed Media, agrees. "Too often everything is down to quantity and no one has the time and patience to think of the value placed on profiling. It's far easier to pile it high and sell it cheap."

Logically, of course, the equation works. Better targeting leads to lower volumes, less wastage, higher response and a client who should be prepared to pay more for data that delivers. But this calls for a shift in mindset.

"Data and the other production elements within the marketing process are often treated as supply issues, says Richard Roche, director of data development at Royal Mail Media Markets. "Therefore you're looking to drive costs down as opposed to taking data and applying intelligence to it."

Opt-in data certainly qualifies as 'intelligent data' but what about the volume issue? There will always be clients who want broad penetration and this, argues EuroDirect MD John Dobson, can never be delivered through opt-in data.

"I make no apologies for our strategy to hang on to as big a consumer market as possible, says Dobson. "We're never going to get to a real level of critical mass with permission-based data collection. The only way to get close is with data sharing."

This data-share model should certainly give clients access to a significant pool of data but it doesn't play into the low volume, highly targeted approach that many in the industry are advocating. And getting clients to buy into that model will prove a much harder task. "It takes patience and investment, says Kiersnowski. "Not to mentionclients who are prepared to test, test and keep testing and half a year down the line they will see the results."