Prospecting to Permission – A rethink on the value of prospect pools
A rethink on the value of prospect pools
Context – The “new” world of warm permissioned marketing
So yes, we know that the EU GDRP General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has been ratified and will enforce changes in the way data is “permissioned”. Blogs & pundits are pronouncing on this.
We can see the ICO tightening down on organisations being penalised for using data where no auditable trail of permission is present, or where the permission was collected for a different area of their business/organisation, such as in the case of charities who have had trading not fundraising relationships.
Consequently many organisations are in the process of auditing, verifying or re-establish permissions in the case of “older” historic relationships, and to support different channel led permissions. Some are linking permission centres to their SCVs, which will hold and update details from all channels, providing an audit trail.
So marketers and their technology partners will need to ensure that all their “data-silos” are linked up to their SCVs (Single Customer Views). . The technology exists and most ESPs have suitable APIs which will pass back email unsubscribes, bounces etc to update the SCV. Websites similarly can reflect collected permissions, with “My Account” and preference centre logins…mobile apps, social logins etc… All of this is obviously sensible to ensure compliance, and of course preserve good relations and build consumers confidence in an organisation.
Is this “new”? Well it shouldn’t really be for data savvy organisations. Maybe the definition of who a customer is, and how long data can be retained. Clearly this may vary by sector and organisation.
The “new” world of cold permissioned data?
We can see the industry reacting to the new legislation. Data consolidators such as CallCredit are re-establishing and reviewing their email opt-ins in light of the need for opted-in consent. It is worth noting the ICO guidance on direct marketing.
Adroit are also currently consolidating together several leading industry files to provide a new base of third party opted in email data. Volumes will of course be lower than existed previously, and shelf-life, maintenance and refreshing of permissions will need to be more scrupulously applied.
But whilst the volume may fall, the increased effort should produce higher quality and fresher data for organisations to engage with. We would argue that targeting new consumers comes from careful selection and modelling of who is “genuinely interested/target market for your product”, with those who are in market.
For many organisations there is a strong value to define who these households/individuals are and then match the appropriate mix of data, channels, propositions to get an engagement with them, and sending them the appropriate offer. So how do you get engagement in a product or service that you buy occasionally? In the automotive sector, the creation of a brand Club open to all, with content and news, linked to the brand lifestyle perhaps built around sports sponsorships etc, can be a great way to build permissioned information. Link this to market available information on car replacement, on tracked links to car comparison sites, with permissioned social logins, and you can start to build the relationship and the behavioural triggers to indicate when a consumer is “back in market” for a new car. In the world of financial services, similar date or triggered approaches exist for insurance renewals built off collected date information, but also linked to geodemographics etc, and permissioned contact to be able to contact the consumer.
The permissioned prospect pool to replace your “maybe” compliant campaign?
Many organisation can define a core or target market. Even supposedly “national” organisations in reality will have a core prospect audience that can be refined by geography determined by distribution, or in fact the type/lifestage/affluence/interests of prospective audiences. Adroit help organisations develop modelled markets containing their key prospect base.
Charities frequently rebuy the same data year after year, campaign after campaign and remail and recontact. This has led to the public backlash to the ongoing bombardment, which is poorly thought through and led to the current situation where the sector is facing the imposition of new fundraising practices and the FPS. Many nfps have not integrated their email systems to their fundraising databases, do not overlay or remove service users, and fail to recognise pre-existing relationships. It is not always easy but the sector has to find more intelligent and compliant ways to build and operate a base where the number of contacts can be regulated and engagement with causes built, earned and opted for.
Large lifestyle bases exists where core data can be licensed and then permissioned contacts built onto and engaged with through interfacing to a range of traditional and digital media. It can be a connected eco-system of tracked and inter-related channels that a consumer might reasonably be expected to engage with in relation to the product and service. So using social logins/ad/cookie tracking to pick up web and social media activity from Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin; to review sites (e.g. Reevoo), content & comparison sites with owned applications and digital media which collects permissioned interest and in turn links to 3rd party data on the individual, household, demographics, affluence etc. Whatever channel is relevant, the prospect pool needs to store and link consumer preferences and information to support permissioned contact.
This permissioned prospect universe does need to interface to the customer base to reflect customer knowledge, and in so doing will provide more detailed insight and effective media and planning. If all this sounds utopian, be assured it is all possible, and is happening for the larger data savvy organisations. It does help remove some of the risk of sporadic, throw-away, acquisition campaigns that may court falling foul of compliance, and the consequential poor customer reaction or maybe worse the reputational damage that an ICO fine incurs. Inevitably there is an infrastructure, channel integration, data and conceptual investment which is likely to be higher than single simple channel based comms, but this could be capexable for most organisations. So why not investigate, we think they have an increased value in the new compliant world.