| While
interactive communications continues to break new ground as
a marketing medium, many questions arise over one element direct
marketers are very familiar with: list ownership.
With recent controversy surrounding lists comprised of E-mail
addresses, the question of who actually owns the information
is a pivotal issue for both direct marketers and interactive
marketers alike. It is a situation that closely resembles
one that happened years ago.
When banks first began offering credit extensively in the
form of mortgages, consumer loans and credit cards, clearing
houses of shared customer information were established. The
names and data were clearly a proprietary marketing asset
of the banks; however, by not taking a leadership position
and claiming this collective information themselves, the banking
industry lost out on a tremendous resource. The net effect
was that service bureaus intervened, organizing and manipulating
the raw data into usable and viable databases that we are
all familiar with today.
As we teeter on the edge of a new age in interactive marketing,
we find ourselves in a similarly precarious position. With
E-mail addresses floating around in the nether-world of cyberspace,
the question arises as to ownership of this information. In
most transactions, there are three participants in these on-line
visits or communications: the user or the visitor, the advertiser
or information provider, and the actual service or network
provider.
The actual transaction exists between the visitor or user,
and the advertiser. Recognizing this fact is crucial to understanding
who owns the names, addresses, electronic addresses and other
transaction information.
For example, let’s assume an electronic cataloger has a
virtual storefront using the Internet’s World Wide Web. When
potential customers ask for more information or purchase a
product on-line, their name, mailing address (as well as E-mail
address) and other pertinent data are captured on an electronic
registration form. The question is, who owns this information?
If we have learned anything from past mistakes, we cannot
allow the rights to this transactional data to shift to the
service provider. They clearly should remain with the cataloger.
|
There is a key difference between direct mail and an interactive
medium such as the Internet. By its very nature, direct mail
constitutes a right to privacy. It’s an intimate transaction
that takes place in the privacy of someone’s home. However,
while visiting a site on the Internet or viewing a bulletin
board on a commercial on-line services leaves a clear information
trail, it does not necessarily indicate a desire to release
information about the transaction. It may be a proactive action,
but it is not necessarily a hand raiser. Of course, if the user
clicks on a button requesting additional information or actually
enters into a transaction (i.e., order products on-line) then
that person can be deemed either an inquirer or a buyer.
This prospect information should remain with the Web site
owner or information provider who is handling the actual transaction,
not the organization that is providing the connection or service.
This not only helps protect the right to privacy of the individual
visitors, but also the rights of the Web site owners who are
the rightful owners of the transaction data.
As with direct mail lists, a negative option or the ability
to opt out of any marketing database should always be available
so that consumers can choose to not allow their E-mail addresses
to be sold to a third party.
Still, despite the overwhelmingly negative reaction in the
direct marketing community and the possible legal implications,
there have been recent examples of potentially inappropriate
use of E-mail names. The direct marketing community’s reaction
to these recent events should send a clear message to both
direct and interactive marketers: sending unsolicited outbound
offers via E-mail not only poses ethical questions about whether
this information should be made available, but more importantly,
it runs the risk of possible governmental intervention from
the Federal Trade Commission, who have taken a more active
interest over the growing issue of ownership and privacy in
cyberspace.
In the mean time, direct marketers need to pay close attention
to the question of ownership. It is an opportunity for the
direct marketing community to take a leadership position in
the ethical and appropriate use of these names.
Perhaps even more significantly, not only do E-mail names
represent a potentially volatile situation for all parties
involved, they may also represent the next step in the evolution
of the direct marketing industry.
|
