These days we don’t have a great deal of personal space, especially in digital worlds. For example, many of us now just accept spam. It’s a part of life.
Many of us also however probably have spaces that are “ours” and which we don’t like invaded. For me, maybe surprisingly it’s my mobile phone.
So I was surprised when last week I got a message that said "HireQuip 3 days for 1 day price. Hire after 3pm Fri or B4 1pm Sat & retrn by 9am Tues. For equip 1.5 ton & below. Call 0800 727727. Reply no to unsubscribe.”
Despite the good deal, I was surprised because a. I have never heard from HireQup before and b. they interrupted some very personal space of mine, without my permission I believed.
I then did two things. I txted back a back to indicate my disapproval and I emailed HireQuip to see if they were complying with the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Act (UEMA).
Basically HireQuips position was that I had signed an equipment hire agreement months, if not years ago, had provided a mobile phone number and therefore had consented to messages. “The Hirer agrees that its personal information may be used by the Owner to advise the Hirer of the Owner’s other goods and services” I was told.
Note that this is not a voluntary agreement, it’s mandatory if you want to hire any equipment. Do you read a 1 – 2 page agreement when you hire a $20 post hole borer. No. Personally I often put my cell phone as it’s the easiest way to reach me. (Not now though)
Now, feeling a little disaffected by this “spam” from HireQuip, I decided to ask the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA - the Spam watchdogs) on their position. For me there were two key issues:
- I never opted in, I simply signed an agreement to hire
- I did however provide a mobile phone number, but I would not have consented to this being used for “marketing purposes”
The DIA’s response was interesting ... Under section 6 of the Act relating to consent, 6(b)(iv) gives permission for organisations like say banks, ISP's, power companies etc, where you sign an agreement for their goods and services, to receive information relevant to that good or service.
Furthermore , there was suggestion in a tourism context that “if it (the agreement) said that by providing your email address you will receive future emails, that would be ok, as long as the emails you received had the unsubscribe so you could unsubscribe at the first opportunity. By providing an email address, when it explains that they will email you, you are opting in.”
The person replying suggested “I often don’t provide an email address unless I really need to, or give them one I don’t use often so as not to block up my main email addresses then I unsubscribe straight away.“ Add to that in the case of HireQuip, your cell phone number.
So basically it appears, and this is very surprising to me, if in the “fine print” of your terms and conditions (T&Cs) you say that by providing their mobile phone and/or email, then you have their permission to market directly to them.
But here’s where I have a problem. The Act clearly discusses “opt in” and I find that a great concept. “I am willing and interested in receiving your marketing message.”
A businesses challenge is to provide information, deals and offers that meets that particular persons interests. Increasingly we’re seeing email marketing that is specifically targeted at me as an “individual“ and that’s great thing. It’s relevant and meaningful to me, and adds value. As a result I am likely to become an advocate and convert into a sale.
By contrast HireQuip elected to TXT me out of the blue, literally “some years” later. A few issues here:
- I don’t believe I consented, despite any agreement I signed
- It was the first time ever, several years probably since I hired, that I had heard from them. Therefore their offer had NO relevancy
- They interrupted my personal space (which is why I reacted so poorly)
- In my communication with them, they did unsubscribe me, but defended their position “I signed the agreement”.
- This was in no way a relationship, it was an old school marketing effort. That’s an “F” for FAIL in my books.
- I personally don’t believe a mandatory contract is an “opt in” mechanism. I’d like to see DIA correct that.
Clearly that’s not the way to do business now. So what can we learn from this?
- Ensure you do gain the express permission of people, not just for the legal sake, but to ensure they really do want to hear from you.
- If you do ask for customers email and/or mobile phone number make it VERY clear you may use this for marketing purposes i.e opt in
- I don’t necessarily need a “relationship” but what I need is belief and relevancy in what in what you are providing me. A generic marketing message is simply unacceptable if you send it to my phone. Make sure you provide value.
- Clearly the DIA have signed up to the “inferred” consent concept, so you’re now fully able to contact past customers. It appears there is a window of 6 months, but who knows ...
- If an email address or phone is required for a contract and there is no opt out, provide a false one – maybe of the provider e.g 0 800 HIRE QUIP ;-)
- At the end of the day it doesn’t matter what the law says, it’s what works for the customer. And this kind of marketing is old school. In fact it’s worse, it’s alienating.
- If people do complain, engage with them, call them, find out truly why they are annoyed. HQ might have been able to mitigate the complaint if they had been able to handle my issue. Of course they couldn’t. They appear to be marketers from last century, not relationship builders from this one.
Finally, the Act clearly isn’t as draconian as what we all thought in 2007 so we can breathe a sigh of relief. It would appear as if opt in is now as simple enough as providing your email and/or phone number if your contract is worded appropriately.
But as usual, Act aside, market trends are ahead of the law. Spam me, and I will take offense and tell my social network about you. Then that really might start affecting your business. But the good news is that it won’t “cost you a penny” as far as the law is concerned.
Phew ;-)
(BTW, this article about customers influencing brands might have helped HireQuip)