DMC

How companies can improve their email unsubscribe process

dmceditor — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 10:14:34 +0000

Healthy direct marketing depends on our willingness to respect the public’s preferences. If we do not want to find ourselves in an opt-in world the opt-out approach has to work and work well. Hanging on to those who have decided not to stay engaged – and who have said so is not about being resolute but about being irresponsible. We believe it should be as easy to unsubscribe from an e-mail relationship as it was to subscribe in the first place.

We have summarised our expectations of the industry we support through regulation saying they should be responsible, respectful and reliable. When it comes to e-mail marketing this means ensuring unsubscribe links are easy to find, simple to use and without technical barriers, and fast and effective in stopping the unwanted messages. Responding in this way to consumer wishes is to meet the fair and reasonable standard in the DMA Code of Practice.

We recognise there are situations where people may want to stop e-mails to a particular address rather than opt-out totally from information and offers they value. Markets are totally in their rights testing this and dealing with situations as seems fit. This is not the same as seeking to hang on to prospects that have said clearly that they want to stop receiving e-mails. (George Kidd, DMC Chief Commissioner)

Eight ways to improve your email unsubscribe process (by Guy Hanson, Return Path)

1. Make sure that the unsubscribe link works
A broken unsubscribe process is an instant guarantee for upping the red mist quotient. It also contravenes email marketing law. Make sure that this forms part of the testing process for each and every campaign that you send out.

2. Make the unsubscribe link highly visible
It’s no good burying it in the email footer in a 6 point font in the hope that your disengaged subscribers won’t see it. People want to see it, and if they can’t, they are going to hit their spam complaint button instead. Put the unsubscribe link in the email header instead. This may sound counter-intuitive, but my personal experience is that if the opt out mechanism is more visible spam complaints reduce materially as a direct consequence.

3. Don’t set up your unsubscribe link as an image
The recipient that wants to unsubscribe has typically got to a point where they are disengaged with your email programme. That means that they are not that likely to be enabling the images that have been disabled by default. They are therefore not that likely to find the unsubscribe link, if it has been set up as an image! Make it a text-based link, so that it will always be seen.

4. Don’t assume disengagement – ask the question
In fairness, there is also a flip-side to the disengagement coin. It may be that the reason that I am going through the process is simply that I have a new email address. I don’t necessarily want to leave the programme, but I do want to stop it sending emails to my old address. Make this easy for me by asking the question – “Are you unsubscribing because you have a new email address? If so, would you like to tell us what it is so that you can continue receiving our great offers?”

5. Make the unsubscribe process simple
However, don’t try to cover all the bases and then end up with a process that is unnecessarily difficult to use. I don’t want to have to go and update my preferences. I definitely don’t want to have to log in to an account that I have in all likelihood forgotten the login details for. In fact, in the US Can-Spam specifically legislates against requiring a user name and password to unsubscribe, so it becomes a matter of law – not just best practice. If the process is going to be that hard, then it’s going to be much simpler for me to junk you instead. Rather make the unsubscribe process as simple as possible – ideally one click should do the trick.

6. Action the unsubscribe immediately
Once I’ve actually hit the button, don’t go and sour the mood by telling me that it may take up to 28 days for my request to be actioned. Most email broadcasting platforms are capable of applying an unsubscribe request in real time, and there’s certainly no excuse for not being able to achieve this within 24 hours. Consumers know this – if they are still receiving emails seven days later from a programme that they’ve already unsubscribed from, they’re going to resort to the nuclear option instead!

7. Pre-empt unsubscribe problems
It is also a good idea to explain to your subscribers that there may be valid reasons to explain why unsubscribing from the email won’t work.
For example, that you originally registered using a different address, but which your exchange server is still auto-forwarding to you. Or that the registration was made using a generic email address (“sales@”, “info@”, etc) for which you form part of a distribution list.

8. Avoid follow-up emails
Finally, I’ve seen several programmes which have sent a follow-up email to confirm the unsubscribe request. Some might argue that this is a nice CRM touch.
However, to me it smells more like an attempt to second-guess the subscriber – along the lines of “we know that you’ve told us that you want to leave our email programme, but we’re sure that you didn’t really mean it!” While confirmation emails are generally regarded as a good thing in email marketing, I’d argue that this case represents a valid exception to the rule!

Rocket Marketing Group – complaints about direct marketing

dmceditor — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 10:47:21 +0000

This case related to complaints from consumers who had made an order over the telephone for a product advertised on a television shopping channel. At the time of order they had been additionally sold a free trial for one of Rocket’s annual membership discount schemes. Concerns had been raised about the vulnerability of the consumers, the processes employed to sell an additional product or service when taking an order which had led to confusion in terms of the agreement, and the resulting wish of the consumers to cancel. The Commissioners concluded that based on the evidence presented, the member was not in breach of the Direct Marketing Code, and the complaints were not upheld. They were concerned, however, that Rocket should have sound arrangements in place when relying on partners or suppliers to tele-market and take orders.

The company was reminded of its obligations under the Direct Marketing Code of Practice, clauses 3.13 which asks that members must be normally responsible for any action taken on their behalf by their suppliers, and 3.26 which asks members to take all reasonable steps to protect vulnerable consumers.

DMA expels marketing data list seller

dmceditor — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 10:17:51 +0000

The Direct Marketing Association (DMA) has expelled from its membership a marketing data list seller trading in the UK as Data Providers UK and B2B Data Lists Group (Data Providers UK), both trading names of Infomonitor Global LLC, a US corporation.

The sanction by the DMA Board follows the Direct Marketing Commission (DMC) upholding four complaints of breaches of the Direct Marketing Code of Practice (4th edition) (DM Code), the self-regulatory code of practice that DMA members must abide by.

See here for further details.

Annual Report 2010-2011

dmceditor — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 10:49:37 +0000

The DMC Annual Report shows the generally high levels of compliance with standards and laws reflected in the low level of complaints received during 2010/11 and the fact that most of those relating to DMA members were resolved informally through action by members and undertakings given over future compliance. The recurring issue in our case-work is reflected in the commentary in the Annual Report where we flag the problems that arise when inaccurate, out of date or ill-targeted data is used and when businesses do not respect people’s wishes to opt-out of some forms of marketing. We expect these issues of data management and privacy to be key in the coming year in both traditional and digital marketing. We believe the DMC is an example of where an industry is investing in setting and maintaining standards, building the trust and confidence that supports innovation and investment, and reduces the burden on the state to intervene.

DMC Annual Report 2010 – 2011

B2B Data Lists Group/Data Providers UK – complaints about direct marketing

dmceditor — Thu, 11 Aug 2011 23:00:50 +0000

The complaints brought to attention of the Direct Marketing Commission in relation to B2B Data Lists Group/Data Providers UK involved breaches of fundamental Code provisions, and the Commission concluded that the appropriate sanction would be to recommend to the DMA, that the company were removed from DMA membership. In the period from October 2010 the Direct Marketing Commission received ten complaints over data supplied by the company. Each complaint related to a different contract of supply with the company, ranging across a variety of data sectors. In two cases matters were closed informally. The member was given reminders of its obligations under the DMA Direct Marketing Code of Practice clauses 9.26 (dealing promptly, efficiently and courteously) and 5.74 (supply of accurate information on data).

With the arrival of four subsequent and separate complaints the Commission initiated formal procedures. The first of these complaints related to an order of a list of IT Training Managers and the claim from B2B Data Lists Group/Data Providers UK that they had a list which corresponded with the exact requirements. The second complaint concerned a consumer who had received an unwanted email and had requested further information as to the origins of the list used so he could ascertain how his data was sourced. The third complaint related to an order of data which the complainant claimed was incorrect and the fourth complaint related to a claim that B2B Data Lists Group/Data Providers UK did not meet their specifications for a list of 35,000 decision makers in private equity owned companies.

Following investigation including contact with B2B Data Lists the Commission reached a conclusion that 1) the company had breached key provisions of the Code on a repeated basis; 2) data was sold without proper regard for whether it met client requirements, and that the company then sought through unacceptable terms and conditions to absolve itself of responsibility for this data; 3) refunds were being refused or offered as a last resort and 4) clients and complainants were treated poorly. All four complaints raised were upheld and related to clauses 5.74 which asks that information supplied about data is accurate and not misleading or incorrect; 9.33 which asks that members should settle complaints quickly, effectively and courteously; 3.13 which asks that members must accept that they are normally responsible for any action taken on behalf by their staff, their sales agents, their agencies, their direct marketing suppliers and others; and finally clause 3.19 which asks that members act decently, fairly and reasonable fulfilling their contractual obligations at all times.

In addition to the formal cases and the earlier cases that were resolved informally the Commission has received recently some other complaints over B2B Data Lists Group/Data Providers UK. While no assumptions can be made about these complaints it was a particular concern to the Commission that the issues described were clearly happening with regularity. The Commission was of the view that the complaints involved breaches of fundamental code provisions on fair and reasonable behaviour, the accuracy of information about data and the responsibility members must take for data they source elsewhere and the requirement to provide proper customer service. The Commission decided that the appropriate sanction would be to recommend to the DMA, that the company were removed from DMA membership. This proposal has now been implemented by the DMA – please see here for a link to details of the expulsion on the DMA website.

If you believe a DMA member is in breach of the Direct Marketing Code of Practice then contact the Direct Marketing Commission – you can alert us to an issue you see here.

Intelligent Data Services – complaints about direct marketing

dmceditor — Sun, 12 Jun 2011 23:00:42 +0000

This complaint from a business related to an order of data for 10,000 records. The data had been used to send out a letter to recipients asking if they wished to give up smoking. There had been a large number of letters returned as ‘not based at this address’ and many complaints from people who had received the letter addressed to deceased individuals. The Commission concluded that the member’s terms which stated that with third party lists it would replace all records with an inaccuracy above 10%, appeared to be in direct conflict with the provisions of the Code (clause 5.73) because if data suppliers anticipate that the percentage of goneaways exceeds 3% for a responder list or 6% for a compiled list, the data user must be informed, and if the percentage exceeds the limit without prior notification then members should have in place a policy of reimbursement. The Commission concluded that the personal data held was not accurate and up to date (clause 5.37). Under the terms of the Code, the member was responsible for any failure of their supplier to comply with this clause. Overall, the Commission thought that the sensitive issues relating to health should have prompted the member to take particular care to ensure its supplier had acted with care in relation to the deceased being included in the data provided. It had been noted, however, that the member had now been offered a full refund.

There had also been a secondary complaint which related to a purchase of 2,000 records of hairdressers with websites. The complainant claimed that out of 140 samples taken from the initial delivery of 500 records, only 24.6% of the data was usable as websites either did not work or did not have any association with the record it connected to. Additionally, the complainant claimed that the data was delivered late. The Commission upheld a breach of clause 3.19 which asks that members act fairly and reasonably because of the delay in delivery and an initial refusal to consider reimbursement. In general however, the Commission was grateful for the way in which the member responded to its investigation and to the issues identified. The company arranged for the necessary reimbursements and has undertaken to review its customer service arrangements, its contractual terms and conditions and their compliance with the Code and the robustness of its arrangements for sourcing data from third parties. The Commission has requested a report of the reviews and actions taken.

If you believe a DMA member is in breach of the Direct Marketing Code of Practice then contact the Direct Marketing Commission – you can alert us to an issue you see here.

New EU law on cookies

dmceditor — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 10:36:47 +0000

The EU’s new Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive law came into force on 26 May 2011. It requires websites to gain consent from computer users before using tracking technologies (or cookies). A cookie is a small file of letters and numbers downloaded on to a device when the user accesses certain websites. Cookies allow a website to recognise a user’s machine.

Cookies might be used, for example, to remember your preferences on a website, to record what you have put in your shopping basket before you check out, to count the number of people looking at a website or to look at how users navigate the site. The Regulations also apply to similar technologies for storing information. This could include, for example, Locally Stored Objects (commonly referred to as “Flash Cookies”).

The ICO will use the information it gets from consumer complaints to obtain business intelligence about how well organisations are moving towards compliance with the regulations. Website owners have up to 12 months to comply with the new cookies legislation. Any enforcement action will be in line with the existing ICO enforcement strategy, which means that action will be focused on areas where there is harm or risk to individual’s privacy. The ICO is therefore likely to be more concerned about the intrusive use of personal information collected through the use of a cookie as opposed to the actual use of a cookie.

DMC welcomes the DMA and industry’s continued focus on data security

dmceditor — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 11:25:43 +0000

Speaking following the February meeting of the Commission, George Kidd, Chief Commissioner, strongly welcomed the major DMA conference planned in March on data protection. He said:

“Direct marketing, by definition, relies on the data needed to target marketing and other messages – and also to respect the preferences of those who do not want to receive various forms of marketing. But data is not just an asset of value to businesses. It is the accumulation of information about individuals, businesses and other bodies. The sensitivity of much of the personal information stored is obvious, and this is as true of some information held by companies as it is of information held by Government.

With or without the law that covers this, and the strong new sanctions the ICO now has, it is clear that all involved have a duty to take proper care of the data they have, ensuring it is secure as well as accurate. The small number of complaints we have seen recently mostly relate to the accuracy of data and mechanisms for refreshing it and making revisions. But we have also been involved in cases where there has been a worry that information was being delivered in an unencrypted form in which it could have been read, used or sold on by anyone.

A recent case at the DMC involved a concern that unencrypted lists had been sent by e-mail. It is clear that the ease and economy with which huge volumes of data can be mailed in an instant or carried on a tiny key, smart-phone or notebook raises new challenges over how we protect this data. There is not a lot of point in elaborate on-site physical, electronic and staff security if a huge volume of highly sensitive data can fall out of pocket or get left in a train or cab or e-mailed to the wrong person or even a total stranger with a single click.

In the cases seen so far we have been satisfied that no harm has resulted, and we know the industry is alert to this risk. Alongside Code rules, compliance advice and guidance material, the DMA DataSeal scheme and events such as the March Data Conference exist to keep standards high and data secure. We warmly welcome the attention given to this by the direct marketing industry and the DMA. As the body responsible for dealing with public complaints over these and other direct marketing matters we too have data security as a top priority.”

Phruit Ltd – complaint about direct marketing

admin — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 09:50:48 +0000

This case related to telemarketing activity undertaken by Phruit. The Commission investigated following a complaint from an individual consumer who was registered with the Telephone Preference Service (TPS). The consumer had been contacted with the offer of will-writing services having previously been contacted by Phruit in what seemed to be a lead-generation exercise carried out in the guise of research. The investigation involved contact with the original complainant, a review of TPS and other web-based complaints and an attempt to validate compliance with TPS cleansing. Over 100 complaints involving people who had registered with TPS were attributable to Phruit directly or to companies using their data. The Commission had access to over two years of dialogue between the DMA’s compliance team and Phruit that was anchored in ongoing concerns over TPS compliance and the misrepresentation of research.

Based on the evidence presented – including a number of admissions by the company – the Commission reached a view that the company had been misrepresenting itself as a researcher when making calls that were really designed to sell goods or services. The practice was found to be the cause of the considerable number of public complaints over what was seen to be Phruit’s cold-call marketing. This, in turn generated subsequent complaints when UK firms used Phruit data and called TPS subscribers in the possibly misplaced understanding these people had opted-in to receiving marketing calls. While Phruit responded in part to some questions the company failed to provide key data and information over its TPS practices and its commercial arrangements.

The Commission found Phruit in breach of the following provisions of the Code – 21.18 and 21.20 on TPS compliance and data cleansing, 3.11 under which Phruit has a responsibility for compliance by suppliers and 3.18 on “sugging”: marketing in the guise of research. The Commission decided this was a very serious case involving fundamental code provisions on TPS compliance, misrepresentation and the failure to ensure contractors were code-compliant. The Commission proposed membership of the DMA be suspended for a period of at least one year and that the lifting of this suspension thereafter be conditional on evidence from Phruit of action taken to ensure compliance with the Code of Practice. This proposal has now been implemented by the DMA – please see here for a link to details of the suspension on the DMA website.

If you believe a DMA member is in breach of the Direct Marketing Code of Practice then contact the Direct Marketing Commission – you can alert us to an issue you see here.

LinkDirect – complaint about direct marketing

admin — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 09:49:10 +0000

This door to door complaint related to a claim by a business that their leaflet to 16302 properties was not delivered satisfactorily. All parties had undertaken back-checking and it was clear that some evidence had been provided to show delivery had taken place, though there were differences in the data and in the timeframes over which this was collected. The Commission recognised that 100% delivery cannot be guaranteed and a number of factors can affect recall of an item. These include who is interviewed and the timing and performance of the checking and the nature of item, and its design and impact.

Based on the materials available, the Commission did not feel it could uphold a breach of the Code relating to conduct and contract fulfilment. The Commission did however, note the critical importance of advice given to the client at the outset about back-checking practice and were assured that this was an area which would be reviewed by the member company to ensure client expectations were effectively managed.

If you believe a DMA member is in breach of the Direct Marketing Code of Practice then contact the Direct Marketing Commission – you can alert us to an issue you see here.

Tracesmart – complaint about direct marketing

admin — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 09:48:06 +0000

This complaint related to a claim from a business that information online lacked an element of specificity and detail. The company in question had amended their website once the complaint was raised, and in addition, offered a full refund. In conclusion, the Commission did not consider that there was a deliberate attempt to mislead clients, and did not uphold the complaint under clause 3.17 which asks that members act decently, fairly and reasonably. A full refund had been offered and there had been no further complaints. However, there were claims from the complainant that the revised edition of the website was still not sufficiently clear, and as this aspect of the case fell more appropriately under the auspices of the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), the complainant was advised to take his complaint further with the ASA if required. Complaint not upheld.

If you believe a DMA member is in breach of the Direct Marketing Code of Practice then contact the Direct Marketing Commission – you can alert us to an issue you see here.

Intelligent Data Services – complaint about direct marketing

admin — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 09:47:23 +0000

This complaint from a business related to an order of email records for which there had been a high hard bounce rate. Following discussion, the Commission concluded that Intelligent Data’s measures for managing and cleansing data overall appeared generally satisfactory. The company had now offered a refund to the complainant at his request, and the case was considered resolved and closed.

If you believe a DMA member is in breach of the Direct Marketing Code of Practice then contact the Direct Marketing Commission – you can alert us to an issue you see here.

BT – complaint about direct marketing

admin — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 09:46:07 +0000

This complaint from a consumer related to unwanted marketing mailings received. BT had suppressed the consumer’s details when she first complained. However, the consumer then received a second unwanted mailing due to a timing issue in that the direct marketing received was the output made two days previously to her being added to the suppression list. A third mailing had then been received which was the result of an external data mismatch. The Board noted that BT had agreed to review their external data process and make improvements to ensure this type of issue did not occur. Should this type of complaint against BT become more prevalent we would further investigate their procedures. BT were, however, formally reminded of their obligations under the Code to suppress, as soon as possible, a recipient’s data from their marketing database should that customer request not to receive any further commercial communications. Reminder of obligations under the Code.

If you believe a DMA member is in breach of the Direct Marketing Code of Practice then contact the Direct Marketing Commission – you can alert us to an issue you see here.

Intelligent Data Services Ltd – complaint about direct marketing

admin — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 09:45:54 +0000

This complaint from a business related to an order for 4,700 email marketing contacts. The complainant claimed that it had been agreed that the mailing lists would be for decision makers in those companies. However, only 3,128 records were received and the complainant had been advised he had 1,572 credits on his account though he claimed he had never agreed to a credit. Additionally, having analysed the data, he also had several concerns about the quality of that data, particularly in relation to the percentage of ‘generic’ emails. The Board of the Commission examined the materials from both parties and concluded that there was no evidence to show that the order had not been carried out reasonably, and that no documentation from either party provided evidence of a breach of the Code of Practice. Complaint not upheld.

If you believe a DMA member is in breach of the Direct Marketing Code of Practice then contact the Direct Marketing Commission – you can alert us to an issue you see here.

Yell Ltd – complaint about direct marketing

admin — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 11:01:40 +0000

This complaint from a number of advertisers related to a door-drop delivery of a Your Town Lichfield. It was based on the concerns of a number of businesses who had taken advertising space in the directory that there was a failure in terms of the delivery. The Commission concluded on the balance of probability that there had been a breach of Clauses 3.17 and 3.21 of the DMA Code of Practice and reminded Yell of the obligations on members of the DMA . The Commission welcomed the actions taken by Yell to address the concerns of all those advertising in the directory in question.

If you believe a DMA member is in breach of the Direct Marketing Code of Practice then contact the Direct Marketing Commission – you can alert us to an issue you see here.

BT Customer Street – complaint about direct marketing

admin — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 11:00:33 +0000

This related to a sales call during which a consumer agreed to sign up to a three month trial period. The consumer did not wish to proceed beyond the trial period, but claims monies have been taken from his account without his consent. This complaint was upheld as it is a breach of direct marketing standards not to address consumer and business complaints. Complaint upheld.

If you believe a DMA member is in breach of the Direct Marketing Code of Practice then contact the Direct Marketing Commission – you can alert us to an issue you see here.

Tudor Distribution – complaint about direct marketing

admin — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 11:00:16 +0000

This complaint related to a door-drop delivery of 4,500 leaflets. Whilst the company who made the complaint understood that their leaflets would be distributed with the leaflets of two other companies, they alleged there were a number of different leaflets which they claimed the distributor inserted inside a magazine. The Commission concluded that Tudor’s documentation did not show a limitation or guarantee for the number or types of items to be delivered at the same time, and no evidence was found that they had deviated from their standard contract by accepting other items to be delivered at the same time. However, their services document clearly stated that items would not be tucked inside something else, and it was felt that this would have raised a reasonable expectation that the leaflet would not be tucked inside another item. The Board therefore upheld this aspect of the complaint under clause 3.17 of the Direct Marketing Code of Practice which relates to fair behaviour. Complaint upheld.

If you believe a DMA member is in breach of the Direct Marketing Code of Practice then contact the Direct Marketing Commission – you can alert us to an issue you see here.

Cornhill Direct – complaint about direct marketing

admin — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 11:00:00 +0000

This complaint related to the receipt of unwanted marketing emails despite the consumer having opted-out. Following investigation, the Commission were informed that this was due to a data mapping error with a maximum of 310,000 records potentially affected. This complaint was upheld under Section 3, Clause 3.10 on compliance with relevant legislation and under Section 14, Clauses 14.4-14.5 on consent and passing email to third parties. Cornhill Direct have been asked to provide written assurance that they will in future comply with the Code. Complaint upheld.

If you believe a DMA member is in breach of the Direct Marketing Code of Practice then contact the Direct Marketing Commission – you can alert us to an issue you see here.

BT Customer Street – complaint about direct marketing

admin — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 11:00:43 +0000

This complaint related to an unsolicited sales call which the complainant claimed to be deceptive and misleading. The Commission acknowledged the consumer’s claim that the operative who had made the call had been discourteous and BT were reminded of their obligations under the Code to be at all times courteous and efficient during sales calls. However, the Board concluded that the telephone script used for the putposes of these calls was satisfactory and the complaint was therefore not upheld. Complaint not upheld.

If you believe a DMA member is in breach of the Direct Marketing Code of Practice then contact the Direct Marketing Commission – you can alert us to an issue you see here.

Direct Marketing Commission acts to increase transparency and performance

dmceditor — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 13:42:20 +0000

Chief Commissioner George Kidd believes that transparency and accountability, two of the key Better Regulation principles, must be clearly reflected in the way the Commission works. In addition to early publication of minutes of Commission meetings the Commission has produced a series of key performance indicators which look at its aims and expectations in relation to customer responsiveness, customer satisfaction, case-handling and key complaints data. Future reports to industry, public and other stakeholders on the work of the Commission will include information on performance against these indicators.

Please click here for further information about our key perormance indicators and to view published minutes of DMC Board meetings.

Details on our adjudications can be found here.