The latest research by 1 Stop Data shows that both business and consumer buyers consider relevant email marketing to be effective, cost effective, and environmentally friendly. 82% of people prefer email over all other forms of direct marketing. So why are we demonizing it?
One of the prime motivators for this research came during a discussion with the team at 1 Stop Data when trying to identify ‘greener’ working practices. Pauline Murphy (Managing Director) asked “How can marketing go green when legislation seeks to restrict email marketing, do people really dislike receiving proper marketing emails that much?”
In October 2008, 1 Stop Research (the telesales and research division of 1 Stop Data Ltd), conducted telephone research to discover business and consumer attitudes to the different forms of direct marketing. The team needed accurate data with full profiles to enable proper analysis of the results so 1 Stop Data (B2B) and ConsumerSketch (B2C) teamed up to provide everything they needed.
The research team contacted consumers of all demographics as well as businesses, charities, organizations and government departments of all sizes. The results were surprising, with greater than 82% of all respondents favouring email marketing. See below.
The marketing communication preferences of businesses were independent of sector, industry or location and consumer preferences were not attributable to occupation, geography or age. However, 100% of the broadsheet newspaper readers we interviewed chose email as their preferred method to receive marketing compared to 78% of those who read tabloids. This fact warrants further study because if our reading habits influence our marketing preferences, marketers should use this to inform their campaign targeting.
The majority of people in the UK prefer to receive marketing communications through email than any other method, so why are policy makers in the UK and Europe so eager to legislate in this area?
Current law governing email marketing is ineffective against unwanted, illegal, and objectionable emails. On the other hand the restrictions on email marketers are far more severe than direct mail or telemarketing. Why should receiving an email be treated any differently than a phone call or letter?
Perhaps the driving force behind legislation is that so much of the email we receive is not genuine marketing messages but scams, illegal products or offensive material. Unfortunately, legislation has so far only served to hinder genuine e-marketing and has had little or no effect on spam with the majority of responders reporting an increase or no change in volume of illegal email since 2003.
Has the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations, 2003 worked? Next month will see the fifth anniversary of the regulations which came into force on 11th December 2003. Has it had a positive or negative effect on the amount and type of marketing email we receive?
The research shows that since 2003, only a small minority (20% of businesses and 5% of consumers) have seen a decrease in the overall amount of email marketing they receive. While 11% of business respondents have seen a decrease in fraudulent emails, only 1% of consumer respondents believe there has been a decrease.
The disparity between the business and consumer perception of changes in fraudulent email, may suggest any decrease for businesses is due to advanced email filters rather than legislation as consumers are afforded greater protection under the directive than businesses. Businesses are not covered by the Regulations except in so far as there is a requirement to identify the sender and to provide contact details.
Since 2003: Changes in Volume & Type of Email Marketing Received
David Marchese (Partner, Davenport Lyons) predicted in 2003 that the legislation would be ineffective against actual spammers but now finds there is also a lack of enforcement of the law:
“The Information Commissioner has not yet really made a start at dealing with problem emails…[this] may result from the fact that the Information Commissioner's Office has its hands full dealing with breaches of the Data Protection Act by Government Departments, rather than from increased compliance by companies. Perhaps the lack of official activity is due to the fact that so many companies still don't put their company details on emails, so recipients of illegal spam don't know who to complain about, or have just got used to it.”
Email marketing is a nuisance, why protect it?
The whole concept of marketing is to enable informed choice, without it there is no choice and so no buyer-power. Perhaps the most empowering form of marketing is email marketing as it is affordable for businesses of all sizes and not controlled by major players. The same cannot be said of other forms of marketing which can be costly and restricted to a handful of major channels. Even online marketing is still in development and heavily monopolised by a single player.
Unfortunately, it is the very same factors that empower consumers that can also make email marketing potentially harmful to consumer choice. The affordability and freedom of email makes it open to abuse with fraudulent and offensive communications, knocking consumer confidence in email marketing altogether.
Of course it is not just fraudsters who damage the reputation of email marketing, poorly targeted marketing can be incredibly frustrating for the recipient. With other forms of marketing poor targeting is discouraged by high costs, not so with email - many of the business respondents to our survey complained of receiving irrelevant marketing messages.
The Present
As a consumer, my name, address, marital status, income, age and the ages of my children, can be bought and sold as long as data protection is not breached. My email address, on the other hand, is protected by specific legislation (The Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations, 2003) which means I must specifically give permission for it to be used or shared unless I am an existing customer (soft opt-in).
Many consumers find this counterintuitive, as one respondent said:
“I don’t mind email, I can press delete or read it when I have time. Really don’t like calls or texts on my mobile because I might be busy . . .”
Businesses, however, do not have to opt-in. Rather they should be given the opportunity to opt-out, at which point they must be added to a suppression file to ensure they are not emailed in future. However, where the product or service being marketed is normally purchased by individuals unconnected with their business, the DMA and CAP insist that the consumer rules should be followed even though it may be sent to their work email. For example, clothes should not be marketed to an individual at a business email address unless the opt-in or soft opt-in criteria have been satisfied.
With both business and consumer marketing emails, the UK marketer should include their company name, address and company registration number. There must also be a return email address or clear optout procedure and the marketer must not conceal their identity.
The Future
Will legislation further restrict genuine marketers from using email to reach their targets? Or will advances in technology finally win the battle against fraudulent, offensive emails hitting our inboxes? Only time will tell.
Perhaps the first step is to differentiate between genuine email marketing and illegal emails. Currently a single word (spam) is used to define both types which is an injustice to genuine marketers.
Secondly, genuine marketers need to make sure they are complying with relevant guidelines so consumer confidence in the reliability of email can be restored. Scams are nothing new, they used to be through the post long before email existed and they will continue for many years yet. However, genuine marketers can help the fight by ensuring that all the relevant, verifiable information is provided in their messages and that unsubscribe requests are dealt with professionally. This way, recipients will be able to differentiate between a scam and a good deal.
Finally, people have told us they want to receive marketing through email. The UK and EU governments need to listen to this message. Technology has given us the power to make informed purchasing decisions but this is being eroded by excessive legislation of email. We need to question the current legislation which is anti-email, consumer unfriendly and unnecessarily restrictive of the right to receive relevant information.
As a consumer, I appreciate marketing through email. I am in the 30-34 age group, married, female with 2 children, car owner. My personal email address is
and I appreciate (and opt-in to) anything appropriately targeted. Please, well targeted messages only!
1 Stop Data Ltd is a specialist supplier of international business databases for 8 years. As always industry feedback from suppliers, customers and interest parties is appreciated. If you have any comments, questions or suggestions regarding the research or this article, please feel free to email
No Viagra please!
Press Room 
