I have signed up to a whole host of email databases and registered with a myriad of websites.  As a consequence I receive a lot of promotional email communications where on the whole the media owner used is clear.  Given that I work in a business dependent on the planning and buying of email for client campaigns, as well as delivering and managing client media for CRM activity, my radar for solicited communication is finely tuned.  Conversely when I receive an email from an unknown source my suspicions are immediately aroused.  What relationship do I have with this brand?  Why are they contacting me?  Where did I give them the permission to send me email?

There already exists a simple way of ensuring email communications resonate, particularly those facilitating third party promotional offers.  As long as the sender does not conceal their identity and uses clear from lines and branded email templates, there should little to confuse a communication with spam sends.  Couple that with targeted and relevant activity and you would hope that such simple steps are helping to preserve the integrity of the channel. 

Unfortunately, a number of data providers renting their bases steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that the treatment of their media in this manner is worth doing.  Some will pass their media from pillar to post, even contributing to pooled media offerings where there is a trend to hide the source of the original permission or opt in.  These anonymous pools of email data only serve to add to a recipient’s view they are being spammed.

It appears there is a real need to up the ante in terms of how responsible data collection and its usage are reflected to the consumer.  Perhaps a data collection ‘kite mark’ could be introduced on websites as a means to offer the appropriate assurances?  This standard could be displayed at the point an individual submits their details alongside a brief description of what exactly PECR compliancy actually means.  For media owners collecting and using email correctly this would merely endorse and reinforce the responsible application of any media moving forward.  Where future communications might already resonate with the recipient as the sender’s identity is made clear, a quality standard mark contained within the body of an email will further serve to offer an additional level of integrity.

This could be another small step towards a better delivery environment running in tandem with existing technical authentication protocols.  In a marketplace where data standards easily slip and reputation is key, it could enable at the very least a more transparent and auditable means of ensuring media quality is at its highest.  There already exists a List Warranty scheme with a focus on offline media; perhaps it’s time to introduce an online equivalent?

Simon Jeffs
Head of Data
www.tmnmedia.com