Never confuse being lawful with good marketing

Just because it's legal to spam the heck out of a business prospect, never, ever think that it is good marketing.

How many pieces of junk email and snail mail did you ignore today? How many junk telesales calls were screened away from you?

Do you seriously think that your message is any different from that load of trash?

Oh lord. You do, don't you?

Look, be reasonable, why on earth do you think your message is going to get through? Why are you special? Is it a message from a major deity? Are you foretelling the end of the world? Are you one of the four postmen of the apocalypse?

It's lawful, and it's a waste of your money.

If you could see how to get more response for less money, would you do that? Spend half the cash and get the same response? That's pretty good, isn't it?

So, how come, when your boss presses the "more button" you don't respond by doing less and getting more? How come you just go out and buy another list and send more expensive rubbish to it? How come you just don't understand ROI?

Emailing my long dead father is unlikely to get me to buy anything

I just received the most amazing piece of email marketing I've had for ages. It asks me to part with £49.

"Join the B2B Marketing Online community for only 49 pounds"

That's what it says.

Well, no, I will not join, for many reasons:

1. The email was addressed to my father, who died in 1982 without ever experiencing the internet, though it was sent to my email address.
2. The domain is a ".biz" domain - b2bm.biz. I absolutely do not trust .biz domains; very few people do trust them. I have no reason to suppose that they are ether reputable or disreputable, but what a poor choice of domain!
3. the phone number in the email goes to a voicemail message that has not been updated since April 13th. As a call to action it has obviously not been tested and just plain sucks.
   
4. There is no data about the registered office of the company - the law says there must be.
   
5. There is no data about the VAT number of the company - the law says there must be.

So, for all I know this is anything ranging from a real organisation to an ID Theft scam. I just can't tell. More important I have never been on their mailing lists, have never used my father's name on any list anywhere, do not recognise them, and thus perceive them as spammers.

Good job well done, the more so since this is, presumably, an expert publication about business to business marketing! Ah the irony!

First the DWP, now the Dept of Health. Time for the UK Information Commissioner to prosecute

Not content with creating a website for the UK's junior doctors to apply via a system consultants are quoted as stating to be unfair, the NHS has now allowed personal details of those applicants to have been on public display via this website.

The Guardian has the article I'm quoting from. Let's get to the nub of the matter and place bets on whether it will or will not happen:

'Andrew Lansley, the shadow health secretary, last night called for an urgent investigation by the information commissioner into the confidentiality breach. "There should be redress against anybody who is responsible for such a serious breach of people's data confidentiality," he said.'

My bet is on "They have stopped the security breach so no offence is being committed, so we will not take further action." That's the usual reaction from the UKIC when a stable door has been shut after the horse has bolted.

But it wasn't ordinary data being leaked, oh no

'The Department of Health has apologised after a security lapse on the junior doctors recruitment website enabled confidential information on thousands of applicants, including their sexual orientation and previous convictions, to be accessed by the public yesterday.'

It was sensitive personal data, which is meant to be handled ever so securely. Richard Thomas can't afford to get this one wrong, can he?

So, place your bets now: Is this one going to be glossed over and forgotten about as well as all the others? It's harder to ignore, because it's a public body that's leaked data, but my bet is that it's going to go the way of all the other leaks that have been sealed after the damage was done. And, if that proves to be the case, it's time for a new broom in the UK Information Commissioner's office, and a clean sweep.

It isn't just the exciting news that's important

The almost total lack of enterprise-wide encryption in the UK almost doesn't make it onto the radar. A sample paragraph from the article is really tedious:

"The Ponemon Institute's "2007 Annual Study: U.K. Enterprise Encryption Trends" shows U.K. businesses believe protecting their brand and reputation is the most significant factor in their decision to deploy encryption technology. The survey also reveals that only 9 percent of U.K. companies have an enterprise-wide encryption strategy."

But there is a huge marketing message in here. Nationwide wishes it had learnt from it, so does TJK (Parent of TK Maxx).

Imagine being able to say "We may have had a data breach (47.5 million credit card records in one case, loss of a laptop in the other), but we are 100% confident that the data stolen is useless, because we encrypt at source."

There are huge positive messages here for brand protection and for positive marketing of the moral high ground.

As it stands today I will not enter a TK Maxx store just because they make me feel vulnerable to ID Theft. They will never, ever, have permission to market to me. And I don't much want to be a Nationwide customer in case they lose my data, too.

But, if they'd been in a strong position, they could have made their losses public aggressively and before anyone tried to censure them. I would have trusted them. Today I can't, just because of their recent history.

Really nasty spam scam

I picked this up from the newsfeeds on the front page of Compliance and Privacy. It's from Techworld:

"Spammer threatens users with death

Spam that threatens recipients with death if they do not pay thousands of dollars to the sender is circulating on the internet, according to SecureWorks.

The emails are sent to victims from valid email accounts instead of the usual spam relays and bot proxies - an apparent attempt to make them seem authentic. The accounts are set up by scammers purporting to be assassins hired by third parties to harm the recipients. The sender offers to spare the recipient in return for thousands of dollars.

About 1,000 of the emails have been spotted over the past few days, and they appear to be targeted largely at higher-income professionals such as doctors, lawyers and business owners, according to Don Jackson, a researcher at SecureWorks. 'The numbers could be higher because many people may not report the emails,' he said."

Ordinary people are falling for it because ordinary people are also scared by things like this.

I think you probably know, if you've read this blog regularly, that I think "off the wall" at times - an attribute and an asset, people tell me - so here is an off the wall extension of this:

Take a laptop computer, a Bluetooth transmitter, and a car. And go and sit in a car park, or a crowded public place. And then BlueSpam the style of message that Techworld describes to anyone who can receive it. A percentage will pay. It feels a little like the plot of the movie, Phone Booth. "I have you in my sights now. Use yout phone to callyour bank and transfer £10,000 now to my account"

Far fetched? I wouldn't mind betting "The Real Hustle" (TV Show) would have a go at it - it looks just their thing.

After all, if it works by one spam technology, why wouldn't it work with another?

Slippery data breach reveals Astroglide's free sample base

It's ~gasp~ about a sexual lubricant, used by millions of ordinary people worldwide. Why people get hung up over the fact that they do actually have sex is beyond me. What do they think caused them in the first place?

Anyway, Astroglide blew it. A goodly selection of people who asked for free samples got a little more than they bargained for because the very professional Astroglide people had (presumably?) never heard that search engines have a habit of using robots to spider and index websites. And Google indexed the files of customers and put them into plain view online.

I think we can say "Oh good grief!" loudly and conclusively here.

In Europe it is likely to fall under the category of "Sensitive Data", though, and there are more stringent safeguards required than for ordinary personal data.

Search Engine Optimisation drives visitors which, in turn, drives permissioning

I've just come back from a meeting discussing search engine optimisation for one of the business I work with.

A very few years ago people talked about all sorts of tricks for SEO. I was persuaded for a time when I acted as a consultant to Compliance and Privacy to allow an alleged expert create all sorts of fake blogs and press releases and other weird stuff in order to generate links to it.

That expert was old school, a dinosaur, and way out of date. Search engine algorithms are wise to that sort of thing and tend to penalise it.

Today's business is BuyGuide Online, the business that supplies not just sales leads, but that supplies motivated, part qualified buyers to organisations who can meet their needs. We've pitched it very much as a matching service.

We match those ready, willing, and able to buy with those who have relevant products and services to sell.

The only way I know to do SEO is to create top quality content. Good content attracts people who want to read it. Our objective is to market to them now, today. We're happy with one of two outcomes:

1. That they ask for a quotation from our panel of suppliers
2. That they agree to receive electronic marketing materials from us.

We prefer the first, because that rings our till, but the second is wholly acceptable because we anticipate that they'll ask for a quotation in the future. In each case the permission is the important thing.

SEO is vital because the business is finely calculated for a mixture of organic search engine visitors and those received from cost per click advertising. An organic visitor is "free" and a CPC one costs real money. Of course nothing is actually free. I will be spending substantial time on content and placement of content web-wide, but it feels free!

SMS - Text Message - Marketing is scary for permissions

Not just scary for permissions, but SMS Marketing is one of the most intrusive methods of marketing currently known to mankind. BlueSpam is more intrusive but currently less common. And it is not prevented by simply registering your phone number (in the UK) with the Telephone Preference Service, because the TPS simply has no power over text messages.

Directive 2002/58/EC is very clear on SMS Marketing, and the UK Privacy and Electronic Communication Regulations (PECR) are as clear as that slightly bewildering piece of legislation can be. SMS is equivalent to email.

This means that, in the UK, SMS marketing may only be sent to those who are lawfully able to receive it. That means not to Individual Subscribers without their prior consent.

"Ah, that's easy. If someone gives me their business card with a mobile number on it, then that's a corporate subscriber."

Look deeper. I have a mobile phone out of necessity. I work for myself, and I am that subscriber. Like so many consultants I work in a group of associates, or I work alone. I have business cards for each situation. Additionally, my number is one I have used since 1998, and I took it with me when I left Gartner and started to work for me. You simply have no idea if my number is "Individual" or "Corporate".

Since you have no idea, texting me with marketing messages is not a great idea. You are definitely going to commit an illegal act if you do, and I also hate that act anyway. And I am not the only person who hates it.

Back in August 2003, The Register carried this article on SMS spam. To quote from it: "When an unsolicited text message is received a Vodafone customer can forward it, free of charge, directly to 87726 or VSPAM on their mobile keypad. Vodafone will then collate a consolidated report of all the unsolicited text messages reported by its customers, which it plans to send directly to mobile messaging regulators."

Vodafone had become increasingly irritated with people who texted their customers with messages asking them to call premium rate numbers. They felt that their customers were being ripped off, and, instead of just saying "Contact ICSTIS", they did something. They gave their customers an easy way to report this sharp practice and they went two steps further.

They take steps to prevent, along with other cellular service providers, the insertion of messages from known spammy neighbourhoods, and they withhold any premium rate revenue that would have been paid to the spammer. Itls apparently too complex to return to the customer, so they put it to good, non commercial use, outside Vodafone.

"But I'm a genuine marketing manager, and I have a genuine, valuable, non scam, non spam campaign to run."

Get permission.

You already know that I hate spam, and I hate invasion of my cellphone. But I promise I will let you in if you can give me a good reason to permit it.

What I will not permit is a generic marketing campaign like "Buy Washo, it won't etch your glassware" (Ok, I couldn't resist that one, sorry).

What I will permit is something that is of genuine use to me.

So, what would, be useful?

Well, on May 14th I have a friend coming to visit me from Omaha, Nebraska. He'll be here for two weeks. We joke about my showing him trees because Omaha is reputed not to have any. But what I could be interested in are details of London theatre shows with short term sudden availability tickets. I'd want that to start on the 14th and end on about the 23rd. Note the subjunctive. This blog absolutely does not give anyone permission to do this!

He is wanting to visit either Edinburgh or Dublin. He will want low cost airfare details during his visit.

SMS Marketing is for short term, short acting, informational campaigns that offer added value. Shove anything at me and I'll not only VSPAM you, I'll raise a complaint under the PECR to the UKIC. Get my consent by letting me know by other routes that you have a service I want and I'm in.

I view your marketing campaign as customer service then, you see. You view it as a campaign to gain extra revenue.

I have one very simple rule for campaigns that get as up close and personal as my phone: "No Permission, No Campaign". That's pretty black and white. Put simply, if you do not have my permission then you're a spammer, and I am by no means alone in dealing with you and your spam efficiently and formally. Some people will sue you, too.

Use of the term"Bluespam"

Because of the apparently sudden raising of awareness of the term "BlueSpam", and the sudden implementation of Bluespam by HSBC, Nissan, Avenue Q, and Manchester Airport, I've been doing a small amount of research.

Technorati has a charting tool for blog mentions, so I'm using it to present, dynamically and uncommented upon statistically, the trends:

Posts that contain Bluespam per day for the last 90 days.


When looked at as a proportion of "Spam" it's mercifully small:

Posts that contain Spam per day for the last 90 days.


When looked at as a proportion of "Bluetooth" it's also mercifully small:

Posts that contain Bluetooth per day for the last 90 days.


At least it is a small proportion today. It also looks either like an isolated spike that we have not yet come to the end of, or perhaps the start of a trend. Nothing analyses whether the posts are hostile or friendly towards BlueSpam, but the term itself is pejorative, so I suspect they are, in the main, anti. But these charts are dynamic, and may be very much more informative as time passes

Bad Customer Service undoes Good Marketing in an instant

I, like so many men, am lousy at washing dishes. Like so many men I bought a dishwasher and the rows diminished. And I used good quality detergent in it from well known and respected brand names.

I live in a hard water area and I installed a water softener. The dishwasher, unsurprisingly, both contains an integral softener and also runs on the water softener's output.

I made a serious error in the supermarket. I fell for a different brand. Extra Super Duper Washo, with New Washo Suds. You know the stuff.

75% of the way through the box my glassware started, suddenly to show the evil milky white marks of glass etching. Washo was obviously not up to the job, so I dialled 0800 Washo and they asked me to send the detergent back for analysis, though they did deride me for not having the very latest Washo with Magic Extra Double Washo.

"Sir, you shoudl be using our latest product, not this old one"

Wonder why they are still selling the old one, then, since it must be less good by their own definition.

Today I had a letter from them.

Unsurprisingly it is all my fault, so they tell me. Either my water is too hard, or it is too soft. I should absolutely have softer water, but I should now neither add salt to my dishwasher nor connect it to the water softener, because Washo and soft water (or hard water) are incompatible. Of course the packet just says that Washo is a great detergent.

They sent me a free(!) packet of Extra Wonder Magic Washo, With Triple Action Washoness and thanked me very much for bringing this to their attention, but they had analysed the detergent I'd returned to them and it was fine, thank you.

The challenge is that I was speaking to an outsourced call centre, fortunately in the UK, not to the Washo Corporation, and call centre service level agreements only allow just so much flexibility of action. I have had to write them a letter (I have chosen a 14 day letter) which they, the call centre, will pass on the the Washo Corporation.

After 14 days I will be happy to bypass them by finding the registered address of the Washo Corporation in the UK and issuing a summons against them in the county court for reinstatement of my damaged glassware.

Will I win? No idea. Will they defend the action? Probably not. It will cost more to defend than it's worth.

They refuse to admit liability, naturally. I happen not to care about liability. I fell for their marketing and I simply want my glassware replaced. I'm not stupid enough to put the good stuff in the dishwasher, and it'll only cost them £50 or so to replace it with an ex gratia payment without admitting liability.

But the use of outsourced customer service has ensured that all the good that the marketing team has done is undone at a stroke.

Oh, the free packet? That was misguided. Why would I ever trust Washo again? That was a seriously bad move.

There is one excellent thing about Bluespam

Because it is proximity based, the spammer is within 30 feet of my complaint. Now you can't say that for SMS or email spam!

I predict fun discussions at the transmission point.

Why is BlueSpam dangerous?

Spam? Dangerous? Is Trent off his trolley?

Let's use a bit of logic and see if I am.

Currently Bluetooth Spam - BlueSpam - is at a trivial level. We are not in the realms of Minority Report yet! Driving down the high street we receive precisely no BlueSpam. Walking down the high street we receive just as little. The first message will be a novelty and the unloved, those who never get calls or messages, will rejoice. Their spots will clear up, they will gain friends, fall in love, have 2.4 children and wonder where to get a Ford Cortina, which, as those of us who are old enough know, ensures eternal happiness.

Tomorrow we will get the same level of BlueSpam - almost nil. But, though the technology is self limiting because people will become mightily upset at BlueSpam, by the end of the early adopter period we will be deluged with unspeakable volumes of "stuff" from every shop we pass.

"Come in to my store and buy my wonderful tatty rubbish!" every few yards is not my idea of fun. That's what shop windows are for, and what the poor, cold, wet guys with the signs that say "Massive Golf Sale" are for. If I want it I'll go look at it.

Now, drive down that high street again. Every store beams the trash out at you, and there are stores on each side of the street. That's two new adverts every 10 yards, pretty much.

You're a good citizen. Your batphone is happily snuggled into your car kit. And every 10 yards it receives two new messages. This thing is now beeping like there is no tomorrow. Do you take your eyes off the road?

You bet you do.

Do they get back on the traffic before you hit the car in front (Hmm, wonder if it will be a Ford Cortina?)? Well, maybe. Or maybe not.

Or walk down the high street. Every time your pocket beeps a mugger knows you have a phone. Nuff said?

Or, send your minor child out shopping.

They've passed the "Mega Sex Emporium" with its darkened windows often enough not to notice it any more. But today it has a special offer on personal requisites and those are being beamed out to your child's phone.

"Daddy, what's a vibrator for?"

Fancy answering that?

Ok, we can argue that the ASA will catch that last one. CAP Codes will probably get it, but you see where my fears run?

BlueSpam is more than just a pain. It has dangers that have not yet been thought about properly. Apart from nipping this pernicious trend in the bud right now unless you have opted in (Terimobile et al), I'm moving to the concept of modes other than "Visible" and "Invisible" for Bluetooth devices. I suspect we need a "Spam me" mode, too. But we also need to protect our kids. So surely it needs age sensitive permissions, too?

What do you think?

And when Bluetooth marketing is not spam it is worth rejoicing

I've been emailing with Azamat Ulbashev at Terimobile, a provider of Bluetooth marketing services, and they have mentioned me on their blog. It took me a while to understand their offering, and how it was permission based, not spam based. That was my issue because the HSBC and Nissan items had biased me against the entire concept emotionally.

In our dialogue we determined the following activity flow:

1) See the advertising on some form of static display or tv screen, but NOT my phone

2) Switch my bluetooth on

3) search for your own device and pair with it

4) After pairing, I must also accept the invitation

5) then select my preferences (for example you want to receive information about Sport and Health only)

6) select the regularity of the sending information: 5 min or 2 hours

7) and regularly receive information on Bluetooth

8) if I want to OPT-OUT I have a couple of ways to do it
- to send text message OFF or any photo
- on your web/wap profile check the box: OFF

This looks good, and is what good marketing is about. They don't use a shotgun, they use a rifle. And the initial marketing message must be compelling enough to make you want to receive the information from the Bluetooth base station. It means more work for the creative team, because that initial advertising message's call to action must be compelling, but the probability of response afterwards to "bluetoothed" calls to action is substantially higher because of the willingness to receive the messages in the first place.

There is still my emotional bias against the (so far unseen) HSBC and Nissan schemes, and yes, I have written to the very nice Hypertag people and so far received no reply about how they are lawful, but I do like the Terimobile system as it has been described to me. It took a lot to get me to see the wood from the trees after the emotional block, but I understand it now. And I applaud the system that has been described to me.

More UK Data Protection Act 1998 teeth pulled

The UK Courts are turning into bad dentists:

"The selection and collation of information from several files held on a person does not necessarily count as processing of personal data, according to the Court of Appeal. The activity can escape the remit of the Data Protection Act."

Ok, what happened to "Personal data is data capable of identifying a living individual, either by itself, or along with data in the possession of or likely to come into the possession of...."?

It seems to me that the law is being turned into a joke.

Sometimes the simplest marketing works well

If you are expecting an erudite treatise on marketing, stop now! This is about two hedgehogs.

Last autumn we had a three legged hedgehog in our back garden. It chomped snails and slugs and was generally happy. With a particularly mild autumn and early winter it was snuffling about well into December. The day before we were to go away for Christmas I found it in its side, on the lawn, in the frost.

I knew it was dead, but brought it inside to show my wife.

Except it wasn't dead. Very slowly, as it warmed up, it stretched and breathed and came back to life. We took it to WildLife Aid, in Leatherhead, and left it there with a donation. We imagine it survived the winter.

Afterwards my wife said "We need a hedgehog box". I was sceptical. Winter was here and no other hedgehogs would be around, but I made one, filled it with dry leaves and set it in a cosy (!) corner behind our oak tree, and we ignored it for the winter.

That's the marketing part.

Four days ago I was tidying, and I decided to empty out the box and put it into storage. I put my hand into the leaves and got spiked on a hedgehog. A large, sleepy hedgehog had found the box and was happily snoozing the day away inside it.

Nothing much disturbs a hedgehog, and it's still there today. I'm putting a few hedgehog nibbles out to encourage it to stay and it seems to like us.

Sometimes the simplest marketing works perfectly

"But it's legal!" But is it wise, is it ethical?

The European Commission created directive 2002/58/EC in order to regulate, among other things, unsolicited electronic communications (UCE). Rumour has it that it all started with a naive member of the European Parliament whose daughter received porno-spam. He thought this would cure it. Ah well. That aside, the UK drafted the Privacy and Electronic Communication Regulations to interpret it into UK law.

And what a job we did! We created a law that speaks of "Individual Subscribers" and is couched in telecommunications law terminology when we really needed on that was couched in Data Protection Act 1998 terms.

Just to be clear, an "Individual Subscriber" is the person who controls the service and pays the bill.

Ok, so that's clear.

Or rather it isn't.

An individual subscriber includes:

• A real individual (me, with my home internet service)
• A sole trader, whether using a business name or not
• A partnership, except in Scotland

That is all perfectly clear. But sorting your email marketing list to classify these is hard. How do you know that Trotter's Independent Trading is a company or just Del Boy? Is Smith and Associates a partnership or a corporation? Is McTavish and Partners a Scottish partnership? The office address is in Cumbria, but where was the partnership formed?

Get this wrong and you risk sending UCE (that is Spam, to most people) to someone where you absolutely may not, not without prior permission.

Why, then, do people keep arguing that "We can send business to business emails, whether solicited or not, because it is lawful to do so", without considering the huge challenges of segmenting the email list into those where you may and those where you may not? And why do they think that, just because it's lawful, it is desirable to do it?

When I am at home I have the right not to receive this spam. I do not feel any different when I'm in the office.

That's the point. In the office you may, lawfully, spam the bejasus out of me. You may fill my email with everything from male and female body part enlargement voodoo to serious and sensible business propositions.

You may. But I will ignore you precisely because you are, in my view "a spamming bastard" and your company is "a bunch of spamming bastards". And that is, of course, just the reputation you want. It enhances your professional reputation no end, especially because I am not unique and I'll tell my friends, some of whom will tell their friends. And I'll also tell (eg) SpamCop who will assemble my report with others and may blacklist your IP address.

So, it's legal, but it's unwise. How about ethical?

Well, if what you are about to do to me is not something you would do to your mother, then it isn't ethical.

If it isn't ethical then do realise that I don't trust you with my money because I can't trust you with my email address. That will be another piece of bad reputation you don't want.

I had this very conversation about three years ago at an event I ran on permission based marketing. My questioner was in the audience and I was on my hind legs at the front. He said "I am legally allowed to send you UCE."

"Yes," I replied. "Of course you are. But I will hate you as soon as you do and I'll hate you and your company for ever. You want me to do business with you and I will do everything in my power to waste your time, money and effort after such an approach."

He got the point. To be fair he was playing devil's advocate (or so he said later!).

The only way to market ethically to me and countless thousands of others is to get our permission. It's easy to do. You ask me (but not by email - that's spam!). Once you have it you will find that I am not only happy to receive your messages, but that I read them when they arrive, provided they arrive approximately weekly.

Bluetooth broadcast IS BlueSpam

I have it officially from the UK Information Commissioner's website. The document is a pdf, so it takes a moment or two to load. Search it for "Bluetooth" and you find the following paragraph:

"In other words, both email and text, picture and video marketing messages are considered to be ‘electronic mail’. Marketing messages transmitted using ‘Bluetooth’ technology, for example, messages sent to all ‘Bluetooth’ enabled handsets within a given radius, are also considered to be ‘electronic mail’, as are WAP messages. WAP Push allows a sender to send a specially formatted SMS message to a handset which, when received, allows a recipient through a single click to access and view content stored online, through the browser on the handset."

That looks pretty cut and dried to me. I have not yet had an official reply from the UKIC, but I will let you know what his department says in answer to my specific question. The challenge now is that someone has to complain after having their handset personally invaded before the UKIC is able to act.

Updated 13 June 2007

How fast must "unsubscribe" work?

The answer is both constrained by law, and by common sense. the UK Data protection Act 1998 specifies 21 days (not working days, just "days") to respond to a "Section 10 Notice" which is a written demand for the data controller to cease processing this record in this manner.

All marketing messages sent to a list need the "Opt Out" in plain sight and unequivocal. It is often termed "unsubscribe".

The PECR speaks of the need to provide an opt-out, but does not specify a timetable. Here we defer to the DPA's 21 calendar days for the timescale. However, no process should take long at all. Unsubscrption should be immediate. I would argue that 21 days is far to long in this case, and would seriously consider anti-spam action against anyone who persisted in emailing me after I had unsubscribed. I advise all my clients that the process should be immediate.

Equally one is allowed to present the "unsubscriber" with a set of choices.
When people see what they may miss they may choose to remain or may subscribe to a different interest channel. From the marketer's perspective, since "no means no", we need to strive to attract people back while making it easy for them to leave.

We may send a "We'll miss you" message to the unsubscriber when confirming their unsubscription, but we may not abuse this with a heavy message (intellectual point, not a legal one).

I truly want those with no interest in my wares to unsubscribe. There is a cost to maintaining a database, not least in compliance.

Under PECR one "may" market B2B lawfully without initial permission.
Frankly I dislike that. I prefer to make sure that all records are permissioned, whatever their source. Arguing that one is allowed to send stuff may win the battle, but you lose the war and are labelled a spammer.

Nissan enters Drive By Bluetooth marketing. For me they may drive on by.

Others jumping on the bandwagon were inevitable

Proximity marketing technology company Hypertag and specialist media firm Boomerang Media have been chosen by Nissan to undertake a major campaign to promote the car maker’s new Qashqai model.

The campaign will see 80 Bluetooth Hypertags in the Boomerang Bluetooth network of style bars and cinemas in sending out video clips of the car to consumer’s mobile phones.

Hypertags are short-range wireless devices which send information to mobile phones via the Bluetooth short-range wireless technology.

This item courtesy again of Computer Weekly

So far the ASA says "not unlawful unless the content is offensive", and the DMA has replied, but does not yet understand the importance of question. The Information Commissioner will take longer to reply, but my bet is "Not unlawful because no personal data is used."

However, that does not prevent this from being intrusive. Now what was that film where the advertising hoardings altered as individuals walked past?

I think it was Minority Report, but I could be mistaken. Any movie buffs out thre who care to confirm it or correct me?

And now we have guidance from the UKIC

More on Bluetooth for drive-by marketing

I decided to check with the Advertising Standards Authority in the UK. A very reasonable answer:

Bluetooth broadcasts are not covered by our code per se. Any ads sent by Bluetooth should, however, make clear that they are advertisements and meet all other clauses in the code. They should not for example, misleading, harm or offend.

They suggest I pursue with the UK Information Commissioner and the Direct Marketing Association. More when each replies.

And it develops further with Nissan

HSBC uses Bluetooth for drive-by marketing. Did I give permission for that? I did not!

Computer Weekly dropped this one into my inbox today. Walk past their building with Bluetooth set on my phone, which I need for my car kit, and they will beam "stuff" onto my phone.

The Mail on Sunday reported that the bank is using a Bluetooth server at both its Canary Wharf and Regent Street branches to send the messages.

If passers by have the Bluetooth mode of their mobile phone switched on, they can be "discovered" by the bank’s server.

They can then be sent a message asking them if they want further information to be sent on an offer.

I do not expect to be treated like a radio when I pass their bank. My phone is mine and I consider it to be private. Bad move, HSBC, bad move.

More on this

Email Addresses - are they "Personal Data"? And why is this important?

Let's start with the law in the UK. This law is the implementation here of the EC directive, so it's good enough for the purpose. The law says that data is personal data if it is uniquely capable of identifying a living individual, or, together with information in, or likely to come into, the possession of the person viewing the data, uniquely identifies that individual.

Immediately we can see that "sales@..." "info@..." are not personal data in any way

If there were an address "chief.executive@bt.com", how is that different?

The answer is that, since there is only one chief executive, it "together with information in, or likely to come into, the possession of the person viewing the data, uniquely identifies that individual." It's a special case of a seemingly anonymous address and identifies the current holder of that unique post.

Since we are marketing to people, and since we want to market to named individuals rather than to the amorphous blob "info@..." because we get the best response from individuals, we need to know what is and what is not personal data. Additionally, holding and using (processing) personal data requires that correct legal safeguards are applied under the law.

It was surprising, therefore, to see the UK's premier Data Protection Discussion Group have differing views on personal data with some very different answers to three very simple questions:

1. Do you think that personal e-mail addresses are personal data under EC Directives?



2. Do you think that personal e-mail addresses are personal data under UK law?



3. Do you think that personal e-mail addresses should be treated as personal data regardless of what UK law actually says?



The point is that the questions are not rocket science, but, and this is the important part, each person interprets them differently and thus answers in their own way.

My view is that an email address, unless genuinely impersonal, identifies you as a unique living individual whether you are using it in a private or an employment capacity. Tim Trent is Tim Trent. And Google me and you will find me, with sundry email addresses, plus a couple of pastors and a US singing act.

Market to me without my permission at any of my email addresses and you will get a different reaction depending on which you use and whether I remember (or even know) who you are. That reaction will range form a polite enquiry about the source of data if I don't recognise you and you use a business address to a formal complaint under the PECR if you've used a private one.

And there are many people like me: Nigel Roberts, Gordon Dick and a whole "silent army" just waiting to bite your ankles.

Now, if you don't want to risk it by sending marketing materials to me, whether legally entitled to or not, do you fancy doing it to that silent army?

From my perspective, treat the email address as Personal Data, and abuse it at your peril. Remember, when you email me, I have the proof, and that goes with my complaint.