In October, an EU directive on privacy in electronic communications comes into effect, stating that companies must seek permission from consumers before sending them email or text messages promoting a product or service.
How did we manage to get here? Regulation by a third party is rarely desired by an industry, especially when it seems to be introduced as a rap across the knuckles. Self-regulation is always preferable. But what did we expect? Despite the responsible campaigns of most marketers, email marketing has got itself a reputation as invasive and unwanted. Or even, in some cases, downright offensive.
Recent figures indicate that 45% of emails sent are considered to be junk mail. So, given the proportion of our industry who are using email irresponsibly, the EU directive was inevitable. And if I thought that it would help clean up the reputation of email, I might even welcome it.
But I just don't think the problem is that simple to solve. There is a difference between spam (malicious, distasteful or offensive mail) and junk mail (poorly targeted emails). Let's face it -- the senders of malicious spam will always find ways of by-passing regulations. What we should be doing in the case of spammers is encouraging consumers to report them, in the same way that we would if someone was making obscene phone calls, or putting unsolicited porn through our letterboxes.
We must educate consumers not to reply to such emails, thereby confirming their address. Companies operate in this way are likely to be those that spend money on cracking spam filters set up by portals -- with the best will in the world, they are not legitimate businesses that abide by regulations and directives.
Senders of junk mail are less of a problem and more of an irritation. I don't particularly want double glazing salesmen to call me at home in the evenings, but I don't think they should be outlawed. And yes, I shake out the inserts of the Sunday papers and throw them away, but I don't find them intrusive.
I believe that the difference with email is firstly that it's a relatively young problem -- people don't really understand how to deal with it and, secondly, it's interactive. Consumers worry about what they might be giving away.
If you open another email from another exiled Nigerian ruler, will you somehow be revealing personal details without knowing it? Could he have your address and telephone number? (Incidentally, countries outside the EU can still send emails as they wish. It could be a whole new offshore market.)
But do you think about what you're giving away when you hand over your credit card in a restaurant? Are you concerned that your local Argos can find your address and credit history with just your surname and your postcode? Of course not. You may not like it, but it's just the way it is.
If an email is badly targeted, then I delete it without a second thought. But those that are well targeted and relevant to me, I quite enjoy. Even if I don't open Lastminute.com's newsletter, or Amazon's new book recommendations, they remind me to go and have a look at the latest offers. I've requested them, I want to read them.
Opting-in to email lists isn't necessarily the answer either. All too often, consumers don't understand what it is they'e opting in to. Email marketing companies have a responsibility above and beyond providing an opt-in. What are consumers going to get if they opt in? Is it crystal clear how they can opt out? When they get emails from the opt-in, do they know that's why they've got them? Or are some of these emails those that are being classified as junk mail?
Good marketers will make all these things clear to consumers. It makes perfect sense. Why would I, as a marketer, want to send an irrelevant, badly targeted email to someone who's never going to buy my product or use my service? Presumably if it doesn't work, eventually marketers will stop doing it. Certainly their clients should stop paying for it. On the other hand, most people welcome information that's relevant, informative, interesting, or even something they want.
The greatest shame about this directive is that it punishes good marketers as well as bad. From October onwards, we can only react to what consumers want, and not suggest new ideas or prompt consumers to try new relevant to them. Direct marketing thrives by being proactive. Of course we should have regulations in place for those spammers sending obscene or offensive mail. But stopping targeted product marketing? October will be a sad month for the industry.
If you have an opinion on this or any other issue raised on Brand Republic, join the debate in the .