One to One Interactive tackles question "Is permission marketing dead?" during AIM panel discussion in Boston, MA

Michael Donnelly, EVP and Founder of One to One Interactive, spoke at the June 25, 2002 Association of Interactive Marketing's (AIM) Dinner and Deal program in Boston, MA on the topic of Permission Marketing.

The title of the series, "Is Permission Marketing Dead?", sparked engaged debate among the attendees. The consensus appeared to be that Permission Marketing had the promise to deliver great value and far from dead was in its early stages of development as an approach to marketing through electronic channels.

Below are Michael's remarks:

"Good evening. My name is Michael Donnelly and I am a founder of One to One Interactive, an Internet Marketing Services Firm.

Before I start, I have to warn you that I am a member of the Bar of Massachusetts. By that, I mean I am an attorney, not a drunk. I did graduate from BUSL, and I also am bound to tell you that what I am about to say should not be construed as legal advice. If you need legal advice, please go find yourself a competent attorney.

Well, there has been a lot going on in the permission marketing and privacy areas these past few months. While I've been following and advising my firm's marketing clients on privacy and permission marketing issues for years, the first time I really felt the bone chilling reality that there was real money at stake was back in April of this year when I read the report of a CA Law Firm (the largest Law firm in CA by the way, www.mofo.com) going after eTrack, an e-mail marketing firm, for sending spam to their employees. The complaint, under a CA Statute, alleges that eTrack sent up to 6500 offending e-mails to the firm's employees. At $25 per message, up to $25,000 PER DAY, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT REAL MONEY: $162,500 or 1 campaign.

Perhaps more important, I think this suit marks the beginning of a new age in Internet communications, one characterized by accountability and responsibility. Since the commercial birth of the Internet, we have witnessed the use of the Internet for the communication of anything to anyone. For many would-be marketers who grew up with somewhat looser expectations in physical mail and telephone, the only thing that mattered was that you had an e-mail address and e-mail transmission program.

It's hard to untangle permission and privacy completely for one another. Particularly in light of Minnesota law just passed a few weeks ago that prohibits Internet businesses from disclosing personal information (presumably including e-mail addresses) to 3rd parties for marketing purpose, unless they obtain consent. This would be known as the opt-in position. That is where you do not send communications to people who have not explicitly consented to receiving those communications. The counter approach is opt-out, where you assume that because you have an e-mail address and provide a mechanism for allowing people to unsubscribe, you assume a target has consented to receiving the communication. A dangerous position, in my opinion.

This is a real problem for large companies, and it requires careful attention to strategy, infrastructure, and marketing process. My firm and I have been involved with the development of permission marketing strategy for several Fortune 500 companies and have witnessed first hand the complexity involved in coordinating policy and practice across what are often fragmented and change resistant companies. For example, one of the consistent issues we have seen, (surprise) is how difficult it is for large companies to move with the speed necessary to take a leadership position. This often results from the fact that the companies do not, or are unwilling to, create the necessary authority structures to police e-mail marketing at the enterprise level and continue to conduct siloed marketing programs. This is exacerbated by the speed of e-mail and the fact that, in these cases, you might have multiple e-mails from the same company, albeit different divisions. One company that appears to have gotten it in this area is IBM's i-Source e-mail program, which allows for a single point of profiling and permission for those interested in IBM products and services.

But the question was, "Is permission marketing dead?" First, we must answer the question, "What is permission marketing?" And I want to answer that question clearly, succinctly, and without any ambiguity. And since you know that I am a lawyer and, of course, you know that all lawyers give succinct, clear and unambiguous answers, I think I am equipped to do. So, what is permission marketing? Well, it depends. Well, at least that was clear and succinct. From a legal point of view, it depends on the applicable legislation and regulations of physical location of the e-mail address of the actual recipient of the communication. From most e-mail users' point of view, it depends on whether, in their mind, they actually gave you permission or not.

These two perspectives on permission marketing must be considered by all e-mail marketers and will prove particularly tricky for firms like mine and others in this room, perhaps that represent national companies trying to market products and services globally. For in the former case, the risk is liability for civil law violations, and in the latter case, the risk is lost revenue from damaged customer relationships over failure to respect your customers and prospects privacy/permission. You can't ignore either; they are both are important. And it can be easy to lose sight of one at the expense of the other.

Our firm believes that all e-mail marketing should be permission based — by that, I mean opt-in. We have demonstrated over and over again the value of developing a strong permission marketing program. It just makes sense — when you communicate with people who have already expressed interest in what you have to say, you will see a higher response rate and return on your investment. We are not naive on this point, however, and we realize that to move large corporations along this continuum of opt-in vs. opt-out takes time. However, there are now real risks of legal liability with real money attached to it and the real risk of irritating your current and prospective customers, so careful and deliberate planning is required.

I hope I have framed the debate in such a way as to acknowledge the challenges associated with navigating the many often conflicting requirements of e-mail marketing. Let me say this in conclusion: As marketers, we have an opportunity and a responsibility to husband e-mail as a channel of communication with enormous potential. E-mail is a channel of communication that allows for acceleration of all kinds of processes for the betterment of all people, from sales to product development to improved health to better government. Unless we, those of us in this room and our peers, adhere to the highest standard of integrity when it comes to communicating with the e-mail public, we risk losing e-mail. It would be a shame to lose what Forrester called "The Killer App". Lest you accuse me of being Chicken Little, let me clarify. While no one is going to "take away" the e-mail channel, it is already becoming difficult to navigate the maze of regulatory and legislative structures in place, and it could become cost prohibitive to use e-mail as we use it today. Let's see if we can work together to see that this doesn't happen.

Thanks."

back to Announcements