Monday, June 30, 2008

Heinz, you are missing a huge PR Coup

Now I know you have a large marketing department, and I know you are, mostly, highly competent. But you have missed the one jewel that is available to you from the Deli Mayo Dickie Apology fiasco.

From one marketing man to another, "Go public. Admit you misjudged the entire thing. Acknowledge diversity and apologise for upsetting a multitude of people. make a positive contribution to furthering acceptance of diversity. Make a big noise about it!"

That's it. Pure and simple.

I know you read this blog. 10 unique visits while this farrago has been going on. Now take the message home.

Search Engine Optimisation - for beginners, from Google's Mouth to Your Ears!

A major part of marketing is SEO - Search Engine Optimisation - the art of getting a high SERP - Search Engine Result Page - position for your site. Google's guru is Matt Cutts, and Matt has been interviewed by USA Today's "Talking Tech" slot.

I love Matt's enthusiasm and his knowledge of the topic, and that he gets through the trash and and comes to the point.



Other than that, content is king. If you want to be found for something, put great content on your page. And if you want to be found fast, tell the search engines that you exist.

Sunday, June 29, 2008

Heinz Deli Mayo response toes party line

I have had a reply from H J Heinz. Even after time to consider the matter properly they have sent a standard reply. Actually they have sent it to me once for each time I've written to them. This adds appalling customer service to appalling marketing.

So, the reply:

June 29, 2008

Dear Tim,

Thank you for your recent email regarding the Heinz United Kingdom commercial for Deli Mayo. Consumer feedback is very important to us, and we appreciate the opportunity to respond.

Heinz pulled the ad in the UK because our consumer research showed that the ad failed in its attempt to be humorous and offended people on all sides of the debate.

Heinz apologizes for its misplaced attempt at humor and we accept that this ad was not in accordance with our long-standing corporate policy of respecting everyone's rights and values.

Again, our sincere apology to anyone who felt offended. We appreciate you taking time to contact us to express your opinion and allowing us to address this issue

Heinz Consumer Resource Center
Heinzconsumeraffairs@us.hjheinz.com

When contacting us, please refer to the following reference number: 002852734A

HEINZ/JHARRISO
There is nothing different from the Nigel Dickie alleged apology here. I could not let it go at that, so I have replied to them. Quoting that reference number, naturally:
I fear your action has cost you dearly. I have read your official line. However you have apologised to those who might have found it offensive and thus demonstrated homophobia.

Since that time you have not listened to your buying public and have insisted on the corporate line, which is ignorant and bigoted.

Please see http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?heinz where over ELEVEN THOUSAND PEOPLE say, basically, that your decision sucks.

The advert was bad, yes, but you pulled it AFTER complaints by a small and nasty minority. And you did it in response to those complaints. Following bad marketing with imbecilic marketing is really rather stupid. Continuing the imbecility with this standard boilerplate "one size fits all reply" is beyond belief.

Have you all gone insane?
I suspect that is all I'll hear on the subject, though. It looks very much as though H J Heinz does not give a flyer about this.

Saturday, June 28, 2008

Mayogate for Heinz, or does the Deli Mayo brand triumph?

As we move into the weekend, commentators are more and more allowing the Heinz Mayogate alleged gay kiss advert sink below the horizon. An opinion piece in today's Independent, the link for which I can't be bothered to find, misses the point entirely. But so did Stonewall, in a way.

What folk on either side of the issue seem to fail to see is that this advert is not and never has been about homosexuality or homophobia.

They polarised into pro and anti gay camps very early on without thinking this through at all. Heinz executives are guilty of nailing the homophobics' flag to the Heinz corporate mast by reacting the way they did to the 202 complaints to the ASA and apologising to them.

They were sold a bum steer (is there a Brokeback Mountain pun in there anywhere? Ah no. That was about gay sheep, I think!) by the ad agency, but that should have been that.

Even so, that advert would have achieved pleasant "are they, aren't they?" notoriety after its planned run, and there would have been minor controversy - controversy which would have amounted to an ASA investigation (as they are bound to do), a robust defence from Heinz, and an outcome "Perfectly sound advert, no case to answer."

And Deli Mayo would have sold in greater quantities. I'd never heard of the stuff before this advert. I have now. So they managed to launch the brand to me, at least. I might have bought it. Well, if they use free range eggs in it at least, otherwise not.

So why am I going 0n about this?

Simply because this is the power of crowds. A huge number of unrelated folk, almost none of whom know each other, have banded loosely together to fight what is perceived to be a great injustice.

It isn't a great injustice. It's a stupid error of judgment by a corporation rooted in US Family Values, defending itself against the likes of the American Family Association (the people who wanted Spongebob Squarepants removed from their nation's screens).

But it is now high time that Heinz put that error of judgment right.

I can't see how airing the advert again is going to do that. I think it needs something different. A real grand gesture. Reinstating the advert would be a bit pathetic, now. The world needs them to be seen to do something large, useful and positive in order to clear their names, otherwise that can of beans is right.

There's scope for a real Heinz PR coup here, if they have the corporate balls to do it.

Heinz Deli Mayo - Dickie pulls cellphone number from website

With the huge controversy raging about the running and then pulling of the Heinz Deli Mayo advert, and the vast numbers of folk petitioning, writing letters to, emailing and text messaging Heinz in protest, the soup is now too hot for Heinz executives.

Their media contact page used to have the cellphone numbers for most of its media contacts. Yesterday those details were pulled from the site.

It used to say:

Nigel Dickie
Director of UK Corporate and Government Affairs
Telephone: +44 (0) 20 8848 2726
Cell: +44 (0) 773 657 2909
E-mail: Nigel.Dickie@uk.hjheinz.com
But yesterday the cellphone number vanished from Dickie's listing and all the other Heinz executives. Speculation is that the various cellphones became unusable since they were constantly receiving calls and text messages of complaint about Dickie's decision to pull the advert.

To me this is the wrong reaction. Pulling cellphone numbers may seem to be infinitely practical, but it is burying one's head in the sand regarding the problem. It can't be hard to work with a cellphone supplier to divert the number to a call centre thathandles the inbound load for a while, after all.

The whole storm in a teacup is of Heinz's own making. The advert is inoffensive and rather poor, but pulling it off the airwaves has caused such a firestorm of protest globally that Heinz has even received a letter from Nick Clegg, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, suggesting that their action is wrong.

But the publicity is so great that people are asking "Was this a cynical attempt at a viral marketing campaign?"

Whatever the truth, Dickie's cellphone must have glowed red hot over the past few days.

Friday, June 27, 2008

Heinz Deli Mayo firestorm causes UK Parliament Early Day Motion

In the continuing story of this monumental marketing cockup, Heinz not only placed itself in an untenable position, it seems to be ignoring huge public pressure. And now the UK Parliament is involved with this Early Day Motion, which says:

That this House notes that the manufacturer Heinz has withdrawn its television advertisement, which features two men kissing, on the basis of 200 complaints that it might be embarrassing for parents with children to watch; further notes that millions of children watch depictions of same-sex relationships in soap operas every day; further notes that the advertisement was not intended to be a realistic depiction of a same-sex relationship, and that the advertisement was intended to be humorous; believes that Heinz's decision was ill-considered and likely to offend millions of gay, lesbian and transgender people; and calls on Heinz to reconsider its decision.
To me this is bizarre. But the problem that Heinz has is that its only way out of this mess, this self inflicted mess, is to bow to public pressure, rerun the advert, and declare in advance a withdrawal date.

Adverts can't run for ever. Not even the Shake 'n' Vac advert ran forever, though it seemed as if it did! Heinz has to take a pragmatic view on the length of the run.

But, according to the Facebook group (you need to be a member to see it) campaigning for the advert to be reinstated, the advert is still running in Hong Kong! Facebook member Alan Morse Davies from Hong Kong has had the following reply:
Dear Mr. Davies,

We appreciate your opinion.

We didn't remove the copy you mentioned.

I don't know how often you watch TV. In fact, this copy is airing now till mid July in TVB Jade, ATV home, Cable tv etc.

Due to budget limitation, we can't support TVC each month and we have three copies and we will rotate them in different burst. When next time our TVC on air, it may not be the copy you mentioned all the time, but we just rotate not remove.

Hope you can understand and please continue to support our products.

Rgds,
Allison Lin
Business Manager, Heinz HK
But, according to Michael Mullen in his misjudged press release:
Heinz Says Its UK Ad for Deli Mayo Was Not in Accordance with Corporate Policy
Heinz has confirmed that it withdrew a UK TV commercial for Deli Mayo last week because it was not in accordance with Heinz’s long-standing corporate policy of respecting everyone’s rights and values.

"Heinz pulled the ad in the UK because our consumer research showed that it failed in its attempt to be humorous and offended people on all sides," said Michael Mullen, Director of Global Corporate Affairs for Heinz.

"Heinz apologizes for its misplaced attempt at humor and we accept that this ad was not in accordance with our long-standing corporate policy of respecting everyone’s rights and values," Mullen said.
So Heinz Hong Kong, while getting it right by not pulling the advert will doubtless upset Mullen because it ran it in the first place. Mullen appears from this to have no clue what is going in in his organisation in addition to misjudging global opinion.

And in all this farrago pretty much everyone has missed the one important fact: This advert was a cartoon storyboard, peopled with real people.

That means the allegedly 'gay' kiss was a cartoon kiss. Sure, 'mum' says "love you" at the end, but anyone with half a brain can see that this is a cartoon, a caricature, not a real figure. Which means, I suppose, that the 200 people who complained to the Advertising Standards Authority have less that 100 brains between them.

So, what made this a 'Gay Kiss'?

Well, Heinz did.

And they did it by withdrawing the advert after the complaints by the bigoted and ignorant. That action said "Yes, we acknowledge that this was a ~gasp~ homosexual kiss ~ungasp~ and we're so craven about our family values that we will withdraw this at once."

Until that point there was nothing gay about it.

And yet, even if it had been gay, what then? Why does that matter so much to so many people? Homosexuality isn't contagious. You can't become homosexual by having sex with a person of the same gender, let alone by watching a couple of weird advert characters in an improbable situation!

And yes, parents should have to explain homosexuality to their kids, and do it well in a way to ensure so far as is possible that the kids understand that homosexuality is one of the shades of normality in society, albeit a minority.

I've written to Andrew Mackay MP to ask him to sign the motion. It may be farcical, but it does pour more Deli Mayo over H J Heinz!

Thursday, June 26, 2008

Beanz Meanz Bigotz - a follow up to the Heinz Deli Mayo fiasco

H J Heinz is not coming out of this with honour. There is a US corporate response by Michael Mullen on Businesswire. I suppose they don't like to have their own press releases on their own site. Slightly bizarre, but never mind. They link to it from http://www.heinz.com/News_f.aspx at present.

It hasn't even made the radar yet on the Heinz UK site! The corporation being under attack can't be important!

Michael has missed the point.

Let's face it, the advert was a very poor advert. The agency must have been off its agency head, and the person at Heinz who signed off on it needs his bumps felt. That should never have seen the light of day. 'Gay Kiss'? Trust me, I watched Queer as Folk. That was not even a gay peck on the cheek!

It was just ill conceived.

But Mullen says in his press release:

"Heinz pulled the ad in the UK because our consumer research showed that it failed in its attempt to be humorous and offended people on all sides."
Well, no. That is not what happened. It offended closed and narrow minded bigots. This is not about gay or straight or bisexual. It never was. This is about a giant corporation giving grave offence, not by creating and issuing the advert, but by pulling it from the airwaves as a knee jerk reaction to 200 complaints.

By doing that Heinz has not only alienated the pink pound, it has alienated a large number of right minded folk whose sexuality is irrelevant to the offence Heinz has caused. Great marketing, that!

Mullen goes on:
"Heinz apologizes for its misplaced attempt at humor and we accept that this ad was not in accordance with our long-standing corporate policy of respecting everyones rights and values."
An apology for the wrong thing, Michael. No-one apart from 200 people cared about the advert. You know what? No-one cares about it now either. What folk care about is the mealy mouthed half apology that seeks to turn the whole thing to being about the advert itself.

Oh, people seem to care. 2345 folk in Facebook care enough to suggest boycotting you (so far). 6948 folk have signed the petition calling for the advert to be reinstated (so far). But I'm going to make a bet that no-one even liked the advert.

What they really dislike is being patronised by your statement of regret.

And, as a professional marketing person I really object to your seeking to blame this on a minion. I expect that minion has been fired by now for allowing the advert out. But the person who made the most serious error of judgment is the fool who pulled it. That fool has held up your corporation to ridicule.

I got the picture from Facebook. I guess it's up to Heinz to prove it ain't so

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

H J Heinz Deli Mayo UK Gay Kiss Advert Fiasco

H J Heinz has mayonnaise all over its face after running and then pulling what is a rather poor advert that ~gasp~ features the ultimate shock and horror (please note my sarcastic tone) of two men 'kissing'. Petitions have started and the Heinz phone line is receiving more than a few angry calls.

So, whats this all about?



Short, sweet and rather stupid, I missed the point for ages. No, the advert is short, sweet and rather pointless! I have a point despite being short and sweet.

In the UK, The Guardian covers the story and tells us that:

The TV advert is the first by Heinz's new ad agency AMV BBDO since it won the £10m-a-year UK business last year. AMV BBDO said that the concept behind the campaign is that the product tastes so good, "it's as if you have your own New York deli man in your kitchen".
Well, call me thick, but I never got that message from the advert until until I read that. I just thought that the British 'dad' had a weird taste in partners and was in a Civil Partnership with a guy in a hat with a bad accent!

But some 200 souls have complained to the Advertising Standards Authority, the body that controls advertising in the UK, about the advert. Apparently they failed to spot the humour and some idiots decided it was offensive because it meant that parents had to explain homosexuality to kids. As if "That's so GAY!" wasn't heard in year one playgrounds!

As The Guardian says:

"It is our policy to listen to consumers. We recognise that some consumers raised concerns over the content of the ad and this prompted our decision to withdraw it," said Nigel Dickie, director of corporate affairs for Heinz UK.

Dickie added that the campaign, which was due to run for five weeks, was meant to be humorous and that the company apologised to anyone who felt offended.

Are you listening now, Nigel?

But Heinz has the Deli Mayo on its face. What's happened so far:
  • Folks have found the H J Heinz Customer Service line and made use of it, either by using the form, or by calling 0800 528 5757 (UK only I imagine)
  • Nigel Dickie of Heinz was quoted in The Guardian. Folk have been emailing Nigel directly at Nigel.Dickie@uk.hjheinz.com but Facebook has also published his full contact details including cellphone. Not, I think, a great day for Nigel!
  • There is a petition addressed to Heinz at http://www.petitiononline.com/heinz with (as I write this) 1,101 signatures and rising (against 200 or so complaints)
  • There is a Facebook Group (you need to be a member of Facebook to see it I think) with (as I write) 498 members and rising calling for Heinz to reinstate the advert.
There are folk saying:
OK, some may think this is all an over-reaction. But, the way I see it,

either this is a cynical marketing ploy, in which a "dangerous gay" commercial was shown, anticipating a reaction from bigots and homophobes which would incite debate to get their product noticed, and they always intended to pull the advert to increase the furore

or a major international company has cravenly caved in to a very small number of bigots.

Neither of these is really acceptable, and if it takes a legion of furious fags, friends, families and fellow-travellers to show both Heinz and other multinationals that the time is long past when we'll meekly stand for this, well, that's what it takes and count me in!
One should ask "Who would spend all that money on an advert just to get any sort of publicity, however bad?"

But thsi could be an excellent use of Viral Marketing - Just look at the coverage it's getting!

One of my friends in the USA said:
I signed the complaint. I just wonder if they remember Anita Bryant and the orange juice fiasco. The gay community banded together and ruined her career.
I had to find out who Anita Bryant is. Wikipedia told me. It seems she has grown up a lot but was homophobic. According to the article there her hate campaigns caused sales of Florida Orange Juice to slump, and, according to The St Petersburg Times, caused her bankruptcy and her career to fail.

And H J Heinz, knowingly or unknowingly, has angered not only the pink pound, but a very large number of folk indeed.

But the advert was fatuous, and pretty poor. It was a very bad decision to run it at all. But, having run it, it was a very bad decision indeed to pull it from the airwaves because 200 petty minded bigoted idiots complained.

The brand damage is already significant. The power of an internet army is immense. Heinz may not be reeling yet, but it will be hurting.

And I bet Nigel Dickie's cellphone will be red hot.

Friday, June 20, 2008

eMarketing - Hurdles to Jump

"Let's run an eMarketing campaign. It's cheap to do, it's easy to send, and we can run it globally. Get me a data pull of all our records with an email address, and buy me in a whole load more from all the list sources you can find that look relevant."

Ah, would it were that simple. But find me a Chief Marketing Officer who hasn't said it, or a wet behind the ears marketer who hasn't suggested it. And then find me the very few who haven't made absolute fools of themselves.

This article is about the basics, the hurdles, the things that, if done right, prevent idiocy. And, surprisingly, all is common sense, and remarkably little has to do with the laws. But let's cover those almost at once. First a definition:

What is eMarketing
It is the sending, by electronic means, an electronic communication designed to move someone onto or along the purchasing route for your products or services.

Mechanisms include:

  • Email
  • SMS (text) messages
  • MMS (SMS's bigger brother)
  • Fax
  • Voicemail
  • Bluetooth transmission
Of these, currently, only Bluetooth transmission is not bound by the laws in the section below.

eMarketing also includes advertising designed to drive people to a web landing page or microsite, but that is outside the scope of this article, which deals with transmitted mechanisms directly to the person. That also excludes Bluetooth transmission from the article, since this is untargeted, although personally received.

Disparity in laws

The world is not a simple, cohesive whole. In some countries there are laws prohibiting unsolicited commercial electronic communication, we'll call it spam, and in others there aren't. Where laws exist neighbouring nations, even nations who are members of entities like the European Community, have different laws.

In the EC there is "Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data.." We're concerned with the totality of that one. And there's "Directive 2002/58/ec of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications)." We're concerned with Article 13 of that one.

In Europe, of course, we aren't a federation of states. We're real, individual, independently governed, sovereign states. So even in the EC we've all implemented those directives with subtle or major differences. In the rest of the world there are myriad other laws. Everyone's heard of the CAN Spam act, of course they have. Not that many know what it means, or does or how swingeing its powers are. And it's not the role of a marketing department to know precisely what these laws do. They just aren't legally trained.

For the first time in history, partnerships between legal counsel and marketing are required if the absolute letter of the law is to be adhered to in every nation. But, with common sense, even a junior marketer can avoid all the pitfalls, even in Spain where the privacy laws have enormous fines.

The first way to make sure you are lawful is to have reputable data.

Reputable data

Our own data
"We've gathered our data carefully over the years. It's of excellent quality."

I doubt that very much. I doubt both the integrity of your data and the permissions you have stored to be able to know whether you can market to it at all. And, even of you have stored permissions, at least half the data universe as a field called "Marketing" with values "0" or "1". Who really knows, now the data management team's changed personnel four times, what a "1" means. Does it mean "Yes, market to this record" or "No, don't market to it?" And worse, what if sometimes it means yes and other times, depending on the clerk who entered the data it means no.

When was the last time you validated this data? According to Gartner, in the IT world, the Chief Information Officer has an average tenure of 23 months. Figures for Chief Marketing Officers are even shorter at 14 months. It doesn't take advanced mathematics to work out the data decay rates of carefully gathered data.

If only you'd meant "carefully husbanded" instead of "carefully gathered"

Rented or bought data
"We rent lists. They have to be up to date"

A good number of lists are up to date. But some lists must not be touched with a bargepole. First, look at your contract. If it doesn't specify that you require data that is guaranteed to be suitable for marketing purposes, and if the list vendor will not guarantee this, walk away very fast indeed.

If the list vendor compiles their own email address list, ask yourself; "Has anyone ever asked me if they may have my email address in order to make money by selling it to any third party who wants to sent me spam?" If they asked, would you say "yes"?

In general, and there are exceptions, but in general, a list vendor who self compiles an email marketing list should just not be trusted. In Germany such lists are almost universally unavailable. The Germans take the laws very seriously.

There are good lists available. These tend to be:
  • Trade associations - members know the association will make money form the lists and are generally content with such use. It keeps subscriptions down
  • Commercial publications - their distribution lists are like gold dust. Generally they do not rent the list itself, but rent right to have them use the list on your behalf.
Even so, make sure your contract is explicit and that the records used have permission for you to use them for the campaign. And be careful if the list owner allows you to have the data yourself. I have one of my private email addresses on a commercial list being sold for marketing purposes and I have never, and will never, give permission for that use for that address.

Desire to receive
No-one wants to receive spam. Even those of us who are untroubled by junk mail hate spam. And we hate SMS spam more than we hate email spam. We hate fax spam less because it is sent less. We think Voicemail spam is beyond the pale.

We just don't want it.

We don't are how many hours it took to craft your unique and wonderful message. We hate you because you are a spammer. And because you are a spammer we will take steps against you. You need to understand what we can do to you. That's covered in outline in the Blacklisting / Blocklisting section.

Your job is to get our approval to have you appear in our inboxes. That means you need a persuasive reason to get that permission. You need to create, by good quality marketing, our desire to receive your material and, much more important than that, to value it, and this to value you. That's even before you ask us to respond to your call to action! Calls to action are a totally separate matter, and out of scope here.

Moral high ground
Of course, certainly in the UK, where the interpretation into law of Directive 2002/58/EC is just plain weird, you may, lawfully, send unsolicited commercial electronic communications - that's spam, remember - to anyone who is not, for example:
  • An individual subscriber
  • A partnership, except in Scotland
  • A sole trader, whether by name or by business name
That means that, in the UK, you can lawfully spam the bejasus out of loads of corporate email addresses. Of course that is not true in Germany (etc)

How do you feel about sorting your database into partnerships (except in Scotland) and partnerships (Scottish), about deciding if a hotmail address is business or private, and whether Jones & Sons, the plumber, is a sole trader?

You have no chance of doing this at all. So don't even try. Instead the moral high ground is there for the taking. "We only send marketing materials electronically to people who have said expressly that they wish us to do so."

This reduces, at a stroke, two things:
  • Risk
  • Size of your marketing database
Both of these are good things, but the second feels bad at first.

Your challenge is to refill the people who would never give you permission even if the four postmen of the apocalypse were threatening them, with people who want to hear from you. Those are the people you want - the willing, the happy. Then graphs are a little old, but were released into the public domain at a Privacy laws and Business conference by PeopleSoft to show the transition from pre permission to post permission. Comparing [Sales] Inquiries by region for 2003 and 2004 it is self evident that the number fell considerably. From these graphs alone we can start to say "This was a marketing disaster. What happened?"

What happened was the transition from shotgun eMarketing to Permission Based eMarketing:



The figures' apparent disastrous look and feel were offset at once by the graph of license revenue. The graph should also be looked at in the context of PeopleSoft being subject to rumour, speculation and a hostile takeover by Oracle. And even with all that uncertainty:



The message is abundantly clear. Take the moral high ground and not only does Return on Marketing Investment rise, overall business yield rises as well. But you have to get it right. While it isn't rocket science, it requires huge attention to detail.

Blacklisting / Blocklisting
Revenge is sweet. Spam is easily identifiable, and the source is identifiable. That source has IP addresses, and those IP addresses are used by corporations like yours for their email servers, their web servers. Those IP addresses are the telephone numbers of the internet.

Let's assume your email server has had spam reports against it. Those reports to go official businesses and unofficial vigilante groups. Different people take different actions. I'll use SPEWS (now defunct, thank heavens, but I am treating it as though it were currently operating) to illustrate what can happen.
  • Your IP address itself is blocklisted. That's "block", not "black". Blocklisting means that people using the SPEWS blocklist will not bother to receive email sent by your IP address. Your email is not going to get through, spam, real, personal, nothing.
  • Your Internet Service Provider will be told, quietly, about the block
So far so good. It's a bit draconian to block you, but it's probably fair. You have been reported as a spammer, so you probably deserve it (0.8 probability)
  • If your ISP takes no action, the IP addresses surrounding yours will be blocklisted. These may be yours or someone else's. SPEWS doesn't care.
  • SPEWS may take investigative action to find out other IP address ranges you use, and will start to block those, too.
At this point other people, people who are nothing to do with your business, but whose IP addresses are blocked because of you, may start to notice. Mostly they don't.
  • As time passes without your ISP taking action, more and more IP addresses will be blocked. Now their business is starting to suffer because of you. The only acceptable outcome for SPEWS is the prevention by the ISP of your spamming. This generally means removal of your servers from their business.
If you have adopted Permission Based Marketing then you have a defence.

How high were those hurdles?
With good, properly husbanded, properly rented data, eMarketing is not only lawful globally, it is welcomed, provided you take the moral high ground of Permission Based Marketing, and stick to it.

The hurdles to jump are those of common sense. There is nothing in the law to be afraid of provided common sense is applied at all stages of the campaign. They aren't high hurdles, but they're important hurdles, vital hurdles. No-one wins a hurdle race by knocking any hurdle flat

eMarketing campaigns are good for business, when done right. Just look how PeopleSoft prospered at the most inauspicious time in their history as an independent corporation. They did it right.

Thursday, June 19, 2008

Not Another Sales Prevention Law!

“You mean I can’t use this prospect list I used to use at Bloggins Heavy Widgets now I’ve joined you at The Great Oojit Corporation? How do you expect me to make my numbers?”

“I wish we could, Peter, but it’s illegal. We’ll get complaints. We’ll get the United Kingdom Information Commissioner trampling all over us. He could even stop us working. And even if that doesn’t happen the bad publicity could hurt us. You’re going to have to make your numbers properly, professionally and legally”

“I think I’ll use it anyway.”

You know the only thing that was unusual in that conversation was Peter’s manager telling him not to use the list. It’s still common to join a new company with your old contact list. It’s still common practice to call that list. And it never was legal. It’s just doubly illegal now.

The list belongs to Bloggins Widgets, not to Peter. So Peter’s stolen the list. Theft.

So, if The Great Oojit Corporation uses the list, even if Peter as their newest salesman uses it without their knowledge, they’re receiving stolen goods, and they’re also breaking the Data Protection Act 1998’s first principle. The one of fair and lawful processing. Apart from any serious concerns about the fairness of using the data, it was not obtained lawfully and may not be used.

“But no-one will find out” The most common misconception, that one. You see I’m on Peter’s prospect list. And when Peter calls me from his new job I’ll notice that he has a new job. You see it’s not that I think Peter’s ‘important’ enough to remember. It’s just that he stepped round me to try to make a sale. I remember stuff like that. I resent it. And I’m going to get some revenge.

**

“Thanks for the card. See you next month!” We all get business cards. We all add them to our lists. Andrew’s sales call didn’t lead to an order. It was a new business walk in. He was really happy to get to see James, the new buyer at Boothroyds. As he left he was thinking about his campaign, First of all James was going to be added to the marketing database so he could get all the newsletters and promotions.

And that’s the part Andrew got wrong. James handed Andrew his card. They swapped cards in the usual ritual exchange of pasteboard. But Andrew never asked James what he could use his data for. And James wasn’t expecting the email newsletter blast the next day. James didn’t bother with the Information Commissioner. He could have, but he didn’t. James decided it was SPAM and complained to one of the vigilante bodies that blacklist the internet addresses of people who send SPAM. His complaint, along with four or five other people’s was enough to get Andrew’s employer blacklisted for email.

The upshot? Henbane, Andrew’s employer, failed to get a major proposal through by email to their largest customer. Henbane made a loss that quarter.

What should Andrew have done? Simple. “Thanks, James. We have a regular marketing Newsletter that goes out by email on Thursdays. I may be in time to get you on the list before tomorrow’s letter. Would you like me to do that for you?”

Permission turns unsolicited emails, SPAM emails, into ones people want. And Henbane’s emailed proposal would have got through.

**

“Hi, Bob. Listen, I forgot to ask when we met: May I make sure you get newsletters and other stuff from us? They come out by email, maybe every ten days or so?”

Not hard. Actually easier even to ask than “Who else should I be talking to?” Come to that it seems to be much easier than actually asking for the order.

If Bob agrees to this, and who could refuse such a pleasant request, then our man just has to tick a couple of boxes on the database. He ticks ‘newsletters’ and he ticks ‘stuff’. Well, ok, stuff may well be broken down into smaller stuff, but you get the picture. And this professional introduction means that Scranjits Incorporated can include Bob in its closed loop marketing scheme.

Scranjits has a policy that its entire team, not just its sales team, asks questions like this when they get a business card. And that policy has kept them safe from harm, not just from the various European Data Protection Authorities, but also from the internet vigilante “SPAM Police” groups – those groups who blacklist the internet addresses that ‘support Spammers’ (I should say here, of course, that Spam is a very tasty processed canned meat from the Hormel Foods Corporation, and that SPAM is totally different. I wouldn’t want you to get confused)

**

What it comes down to is Best Practice.:

  • Use data fairly and lawfully. Never use data from a less than ethical source
  • Obey policies that bind you and your colleagues to keep to the law of the land
  • Ask permission.
  • Never override a refusal.
  • When there is a problem or a complaint turn at once to your Chief Privacy Officer, and tell the person who complains that you are doing so
Get it wrong:
  • Your customers and prospects just know their rights. Trample on them and they will never buy from you again.
  • Really upset someone, or just hit someone on a bad day, and they will complain to the authorities about you and your company. This is personal. It’s the criminal law and your neck is likely to be on the line. And be fair. You’re too pretty to go to jail!
Get this right and nothing will get in your way. Get it wrong and you will probably get your company’s name and brands crucified on the internet. And, since we all do a Google search before we meet the salesman, if we find nasty things about your company we may just not bother to meet you. Take it personally. This is your livelihood we are talking about!

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Anti SPAM: Regulation or Ridicule?

This whole farce was started by one of the “great and good” objecting to his child receiving pornospam. So, instead of being a good parent he started to legislate. Now we’re stuck with people trying to regulate the unregulatable. Legitimate business and porno barons are all lumped together. And CAN-SPAM looks like a suggestion to be made in the production department of Hormel Foods. Even the US Federal Trade Commission has weighed in.

Gartner tells us that The FTC hopes e-mail authentication will significantly reduce the volume of spam. The FTC recommended against immediate creation of a national "do not spam" registry. Europe has directive 2002/58/EC, implemented in various different stages in different states. But just how much use is this welter of regulation?

None

Pornospam continues to flourish. Male and female body parts get enhancement products waved at them more times a day than you can shake a stick at., and learned studies like the IViR Study have created pages of erudite stuff. But the Spammers, unlike responsible businesses, ignore all the rules. And will continue to do so. So, to be fair, the regulations are ridiculous.

I’ve always said that true Anti SPAM is to run self policing Permission Based Marketing. I teach it. But sometimes I despair of being heard.

Monday, June 16, 2008

Like Carrying Water in a Colander!

Marketing spent money on campaigns. Sales spent money winning the business. Everyone was happy until the Customer Service Call Centre got at the customer!

And now the customer has gone. For good. And no-one will ever know why the churn rate is so high

But what happened?

The answer is processes and procedures. How familiar is this. You call in with a problem. The call centre diligently records your details and even more diligently takes you through their procedures. But you don’t fit their procedures. You want to talk to a person who actually understands the problem, not a script jockey. And you become frustrated!

Even worse, what if the thing you’re reporting is actually urgent for the person who employs the call centre? I had occasion to call a reputable and large ISP whose email server was spam blacklisted. “We have to go through our normal escalation procedures, sir. I am completely unable to escalate this until 48 hours have elapsed, and I can’t make outbound phone calls.”

Lack of knowledge of what is important to the business (“What does ‘spam blocked mean, sir?’) in the call centre, the most important customer touch point, ruins all the effort Marketing and Sales have each put in. Worse, lack of ability to escalate outside normal procedures means the money runs away down a storm sewer. Deploy a bad call centre or even a good one with bad education and rigid procedures and it’s like carrying water in a colander.

Tuesday, June 03, 2008

Our web marketing experiment progresses

Both of the avid readers of this blog will know, because it is the post below this, that we're experimenting in web marketing with The Chocolate Cake Church.

We've done quite a bit so far. At present we're on the front Google SERP for church cake, all by good search engine optimisation, and we've ousted some sexual swinger from her place as top answer as Chocolatey Mistress, too.

Strategy has been to place talkback links to other blogs, to comment on blogs where relevant, and to make sure (eg) Digg has the articles. We've also started a Facebook group, and publicised it to a wholly irrelevant mailing list of 800+ people as a footnote to the main topic that they receive a regular mailing about.

We're measuring success by visitor count and in a different way by advertising revenue generated. I say "a different way", because we have generated $1.84 in a whole week! Visitor count is by far better. OIn the 11 days we have been running we have had 250 visits averaging 2.45 pages per visit, and 171 of those visits have been unique (according to Google Analytics).

We want unique visitors really, because that type of visitor arrives and has not yet tuned the adverts out, so sometimes leaves via an advert. Regular visitors are fine if the traffic volume is high enough, because they drive Cost per Impression (CPM) adverts as well. So far that is small beer. We have 110 impressions only of CPM versus almost 6,000 impressions of CPC adverts. And that ratio is likely to be stable over time.