Dare to Scare: What If ‘They’ Closed the Internet?

But what if “they” — starting with policymakers in this country — took the extreme step of mimicking Europe, eschewing third-party data collection and use, destroying all of the free content such data transfers pay for, and effectively put today’s open Web behind pay walls and data walls?

The fragmentation of the Internet is marching along.

Europe went all “opt-in” — effectively halting a significant part of the Internet’s financing mechanism all in the name of privacy, without fairly considering the social and economic ramifications on competition, diversity, and democracy. (Or worse, they considered these aspects — and shut it down, anyway.)

China (and most despotic countries) bar access to much Western content. Will Hong Kong be next? Meanwhile, many of these “closed” countries are active players in using digital channels to stoke up social division and to meddle in free nations’ democratic processes.

And then there’s the rest of the global Internet — and the organic, disruptive, and innovative way it is built, maintained, and paid for. Simply allowing data to flow to responsible uses, and enable such exchanges to finance news, apps, games, email, social platforms, video, niche content, and so many other content and conveniences it would be impossible to list them all.

But what if “they” — starting with policymakers in this country — took the extreme step of mimicking Europe, eschewing third-party data collection and use, destroying all of the free content such data transfers pay for, and effectively put today’s open Web behind pay walls and data walls?

Sound very elitist? It is. Sound anti-progressive? It’s that, too. Anti-commercial? You bet. Anti-competitive? Very much so. Anti-consumer? Oh yes, it’s that, too. The deleterious effects may be already underway.

And if we’re not careful, it may just happen in the country that is most responsible for building the Global Information Economy as we know it. What a travesty it would be to throw such leadership away.

A recent study — just looking at the app world — gives a glimpse of what’s at stake. Looking at just nine top-used mobile apps, consumers state they would value access to such content at approximately $173 billion per year — content that is free to them today, thanks to ad financing. Wow! Further, current ad revenue for these apps is a tiny fraction of these assigned values. So, net, there is a huge economic dividend to consumers (and the economy) because these funds stay in consumer pockets, or are spent elsewhere.

As we march forth on privacy-first, we must consider what could happen if such responsible data uses were shut down by short-sighted public policy. What if the result were a “dumb” Internet? There’s still time for U.S. leadership, pragmatism, and a sensible way forward.

What’s the Price on ‘My Data’? Let the Marketplace Set the Rate

A bipartisan bill in Congress would assign the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission with the task of determining what consumer data is worth; at least when it comes to Big Digital giants. So what’s my data worth?

A bipartisan bill in Congress would assign the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission with the task of determining what consumer data is worth; at least when it comes to Big Digital giants. So what’s my data worth?

On the face of it, having the government mirror the private sector, and recognize that consumer data is a valuable asset, is actually quite wise. Data is worth something — and accounting rules, risk management, capitalism, and a reverence for asset protection — all point to a need to understand data’s worth and secure it accordingly. But should the government come up with the arithmetic? Really? And why limit this to Big Digital … data drives all economy sectors!

If this is about commerce and productivity, and facilitating next-generation accounting and capitalism, then I’d be all gung-ho. If it’s about setting the stage for just being punitive, then perhaps we can and must do better.

Take privacy. I’m already getting click fatigue — with permission notices on every site I want to visit, as well as the apps I use, it’s no wonder people are questioning if laws like GDPR and CCPA really afford any meaningful privacy protection at all, as well-intended as they may be. Privacy is personally defined — though universal principles need apply. Again, I think we can and must do better.

Recognizing data’s value — as the fuel for today’s economy — means recognizing data’s limitless beneficial uses (and encouraging such uses and further innovation), while putting a no-go ring around unreasonable uses (like throwing elections).

Business Efforts to Calculate Data’s Worth

“My data” is a misnomer. On the data valuation front, we from the direct marketing world — purveyors of personally identifiable information (PII) — have been putting a price on data for years … and understand data’s value, intrinsically. Big reveal: It’s not about me. (Sorry, Taylor Swift.)

Worldata, for example, has been tracking list prices for decades, and dutifully reporting on this. In the world of direct response, there’s “sweat equity” in both response and compiled lists. For response lists, some enterprise built a list of customers (or donors). The value of that list is derived from the shared attribute those customers have – and not, as some privacy advocates would have it, with the sum of one individual after another appearing on that list. With compiled lists, observable data is harnessed and staged also for marketing use – providing a more complete view of prospects and customers. Again, the value is derived from the attributes that data subjects share.

Even in digital data driving today’s media placement for advertising (more accurately, audience placement) — the algorithms deployed in search, social, and display — the values of these formulae are derived from affinities in these proprietary calculations, much of it anonymized from a traditional PII perspective. Yes, there are lots of data — nearly $21.2 billion in U.S. trade alone — but it’s not hoarding; it’s being put to productive use — in effect, 1:1 at mass scale.

With any innovations, there are bound to be mistakes by good companies, and some bad players, too. But it’s amazing to see how the marketplace weeds these out, over time. The marketplace, in time, weeds out the wheat from the chaff. The industry comes up with brand safety, privacy, security, chain-of-trust, and other initiatives to help facilitate more transparency and control. And testing shows which data sources are timely and reliable — and which ones where data quality is in question.

Predict This: Data Unleashed for Responsible Use Unleashes Consumer Benefits

Recently, I heard a current federal official say that data may be fuel — but it’s not like oil. Oil is finite. Data, on the other hand, is a limitless resource — like fusion. And it can be replicated. In fact, he went on to say, the more it is shared for responsible data use, the more consumers, citizens, commerce, and the economy benefit. This is correct. The commercialization of the Internet, indeed, gave us today’s global Digital Economy — giving billions access to information where they are able to derive limitless benefits.

That’s why potential breaches of data do need to be risk-assessed, prevented, understood for a likelihood of harm — with data governance and employee training thoroughly implemented. That’s also why government should investigate significant breaches to detect lax practices, and to instruct enterprises how to better protect themselves from bad actors. Here, I can see a viable SEC role, where all publicly held companies, and privately held too, are called into question – not just one type of company.

Where privacy is concerned … don’t just divide Big Digital revenue by the number of users with social accounts — and start menacing on what data about me online may be worth. That immediately starts off with a false assumption, fails to recognize information’s exponential value in the economy, and denies the incredible social benefits afforded by the digitization of information.

The Digital Advertising Alliance (a client) conducted a study in 2016, and found that consumers assign a value of nearly $1,200 a year to the “free” ad-financed content they access and rely upon via digital and mobile. However, if they were forced to pay that amount – most would not be willing (or able) to pay such a premium.

This research shows why we need to protect and facilitate ad-financed content. But it’s part of a larger discussion. It’s about why the commercialization of the Internet has been a 25-year success (happy birthday, October 24) and we must keep that moving forward. As consumers, we all have prospered! Let’s start our discussion on data valuation here.

 

7 Privacy UX Tips From a Privacy and Marketing Expert

There are all kinds of marketing awards, but how about one for privacy UX? How do you make your customers comfortable with your privacy user experience? It’s not just agencies — but ad tech and martech companies, data providers, analytics firms and even management consulting firms that are in the data-driven mix.

Do we need to have an award for a better Privacy UX?

With the Association of National Advertisers’ acquisition of the Data & Marketing Association last year came new ownership, too, of the International ECHO Awards. As a lover of data-driven marketing (and an ECHO Governor), it’s very exciting to see brands recognize the strategic role of data in driving more relevant consumer (and business) engagement, and the myriad ad and data partners that brands rely on to make this engagement happen.

It’s not just agencies — but ad tech and martech companies, data providers, analytics firms and even management consulting firms that are in the data-driven mix. These are the facilitators of today’s consumer intelligence that forms the basis for smarter and more efficient brand communication. Some folks even eschew the term “advertising” as we move into a world where branded and even non-branded content underlie data-inspired storytelling that are hallmarks of today’s forward-thinking campaigns.

By the way, the call for entries for this year’s ECHO Awards (to be presented March 2020 as ANA moves what was the DMA conference from this Fall to next Spring) is happening soon — though the entry portal is now open. Let me know if you’d like an invite to the launch party in New York (Wednesday, May 22, in the afternoon).

An Important Part of Brand-Consumer Dialogue — Privacy Notices

One category that won’t be part of this year’s ECHOs is related to privacy-specific communication from brands.

You’ve seen it. I’ve seen it. Again and again — all over our smartphone and laptops … communications asking for our consent for cookies, for newsletters, for device recognition, for terms and conditions — all in an effort to help enable data collection to serve the brand-consumer value exchange and subsequent dialogue.

Some of this is mandated from Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation, with halo impact in other nations and markets. Others are anticipating such notice requirements from California’s forthcoming privacy and advertising law. Still others are simply adopting heightened transparency (and choice) as part of self-regulatory and best practices regimes, where no laws may yet exist.

All of this devoted to one objective: getting a consumer (or business individual) to say “yes” to data collection about them, their devices and digital behaviors, in an effort to serve them better.

This week, during the International Association of Privacy Professionals’ Global Privacy Summit 2019 in Washington, DC, one expert — Darren Guarnaccia, Chief Product Officer, Crownpeak — offered some research insights from some 17 million preference experiences that Crownpeak has helped to facilitate on behalf of its brands. These experiences are focused on Europe in light of GDPR, but the findings offer good counsel to any brand that is thinking through its privacy UX.

Some Privacy Communications Concepts to Test

Here are just a few of the tips Guarnaccia reported:

  • Privacy Notices are Not Just a Matter of Compliance: Yes, they may be legally required in some jurisdictions – but more vitally, they should be treated with the same discipline and care of any other branded communication. Because the ultimate goal is to earn trust — going beyond compliance and permission. As a result, the whens, wheres and hows of such notices are vital to test and perfect.
  • Avoiding Legal Penalty Is Table Stakes — We Ought to Design Such Notices for Higher Purpose: To extend the previous point on consumer trust, there’s a higher price to pay if a privacy notice simply meets a legal expectation, and nothing more. Many consumers have gone “stealth” — using ad blockers and going incognito on browsers. We must remind, convince or persuade consumers of the value a brand seeks to offer in exchange for permissions and consents for data collection, analysis and application. Are we extending such notice in plain language at the right time?
  • Brand’ the Privacy Communication: This may seem obvious — but it’s often overlooked. Does the privacy notice look like it’s coming from the brand — or from somewhere else (such as a browser or ad tech partner)? In gaining consent, it’s always superior for the notice to be owned, cared and looked after by the brand itself — even if a third-party (such as an ad tech provider) is facilitating the notice. Does the creative of the notice match the colors, fonts and point sizes of the brand content behind it? By extending brand requirements to such communication, a brand is taking “ownership” of the data collection, consent and trust-building directly — as it should, in the eyes of the user.
  • Earn Before You Ask: Oftentimes, the consumer is presented with a cookie or related privacy notice upon entering a brand’s digital property — first page, upon entry. Test giving consumers a more anonymized experience for the few page visits, and then present a notice — “Are You Enjoying What You’re Seeing?” where a data collection permission is then sought. This allows the consumer to indeed value what’s on offer in information on the site.
  • Give Consumers Both an ‘Accept’ and a ‘Decline’ Choice or Button: Many sites offer only an “accept” button, leaving the consumer with an impression that they can “take it or leave it,” with no sense of real control. Test offering both an accept or decline offer — just seeing the word “decline” reminds consumers they are in control — and the actual decision to “decline” becomes more apparent for those consumers who indeed wish to be stealth.
  • Test Progressive Consent: Not every Website (or app) may need immediate access to user data for all purposes of consumer engagement. For data minimization purposes, perhaps ask visitors permission to collect only basic information (say, for contact, site optimization or customer recognition purposes) first. Then, only when necessary for utility, ask permissions for location data or other data categories, alongside the rationale for such collection and consent, as those needs arise. Asking for everything, upfront, all at once, can be a real turnoff — especially if a user is “new” to a brand. Consumers love — and frankly, need to know — the context for the permissions they give (or deny).
  • Test Privacy Notices by Market: Did you know users in the United Kingdom, for example, are 1.4 times more likely to give consent than those in France and Germany? How notices are worded and rationales explained — how transparency is conveyed — can have a big impact between markets, so it’s best to test notices by individual market (and language) to optimize consent rates. In short, national cultures and language nuance matter, too, in privacy communication.

Conclusion

In summary, there’s more payback than just permission. Consent rates in Europe can go as high as 60 to 70 percent — and hurtling over cookie walls at 80 to 90 percent — when privacy communications are optimized. Crownpeak offered far more tips (and real-market examples) in its session — about search engine optimization, personalization, analytics disclosures and other related topics. But there’s also lifetime value, and indeed consumer trust in the balance. We have an entirely new area for many marketers to test, working with their counsel and technology colleagues.

Who knows? Maybe the best such privacy-focused campaigns could still win a 2020 ECHO — based on compelling strategy, creative and results toward an earn-their-trust purpose. Is there a courageous brand ready to show us how? After all, this is one area where we all benefit from ways to raise consumer trust in advertising by sharing successful case studies. We shall see.

Marketers Doing the Data Privacy Balancing Act Ask What ‘I Want My Privacy’ Means

It’s not just policymakers who are trying to figure out how to act on consumer sentiments toward data privacy. We all, overwhelmingly, want it — business and consumer.

data privacy
Credit: Pexels.com

It’s not just policymakers who are trying to figure out how to act on consumer sentiments toward data privacy. We all, overwhelmingly, want it — business and consumer.

We are all seeking a U.S. federal privacy law to “repair” what may be broken in Europe (hey, the toaster needs fixing), and to correct any perceived privacy shortcomings in California’s new law (scheduled to take effect in January). Will such a federal law pass this year?

One of the ongoing challenges for policy in this area is what’s been called the privacy paradox. The paradox? Privacy in the form of consumer attitudes, and privacy in the form of consumer demands and behaviors, rarely are in sync. Sometimes, they are polar opposites, simultaneously!

  • Should law be enacted on how we feel, or respectful of what we actually do?
  • How do we define privacy harms and focus regulation only what is harmful and to go light, very light, or even foster wholly beneficial uses?
  • Should private sector controls and public sector controls be differentiated?
  • Do existing laws and ethical codes of conduct apply, and how might they be modified for the digital age?

On top of this, consumer expectations with data and technology are not fixed. Their comfort levels with how information is used at least in the advertising sector change over time. In fact, some marketers can’t keep pace with consumer demands to be identified, recognized and rewarded across channels. Generations, too, have differences in attitudes and behaviors.

What’s creepy today may in fact be tomorrow’s consumer-demanded convenience.

Case in point: It used to be people complained about remarketing the ad following them around on the Net as they browsed. (All the same, remarketing works that’s why it was so pervasive.) Today, in role reversal, consumers sound off when the product they purchased is the same product they still see in the display ad. The consumer has little patience when brand data is locked in data silos: the transaction database doesn’t inform the programmatic media buy, in this scenario.

The marketing and advertising business have been trying to solve for the privacy paradox since the Direct Marketing Association assembled its first code of ethics in the 1960s and introduced the Mail Preference Service in 1971. (Today, the Mail Preference Service is now known as dmaChoice, and DMA is now part of the Data Marketing & Analytics division of the Association of National Advertisers.) During the 1970s, consumers could use MPS to both add their names to marketing lists, and to remove their names from marketing lists for direct mail. At that time, far more consumers sought to add their names. Later, MPS strictly devoted itself to offering consumers an industry-wide opt-out for national direct mail, with add-ons for sweepstakes and halting mail to the deceased.

During the ’70s, DMA also required its member mailers (and later telemarketers and emailers) to maintain their own in-house suppression lists. These ethics behaviors were codified, to some extent, when the U.S. government enabled the Do-Not-Call registry and enacted the CAN-SPAM Act to complement these efforts.

Fair Information Practice Principles A Framework That Still Works Wonders

So here we are in the digital age, where digital display and mobile advertising are among addressable media’s growing family. Again, the marketing community rose to the challenge enacting the Digital Advertising Alliance YourAdChoices program (disclaimer, a client) and offering consumers an opt-out program for data collection used for interest-based advertising for Web browsing (desktop and mobile) and mobile applications.

Over and over again, the pattern is the same: Give consumers notice, give consumers control, prevent unauthorized uses of marketing data, protect sensitive areas recognize advertising’s undeniable social and economic power, enable brands to connect to consumers through relevance and trust and act to prevent real harms, rather than micromanage minor annoyances. Allow marketing innovations that create diversity in content, competition and democratization of information. Let the private sector invest in data where no harms exist.

‘I own my data!’

Data ownership is a dicey concept. Isn’t there sweat equity when a business builds a physical or virtual storefront and you choose to interact with it? Is there not some expectation of data being contributed in fair exchange for the digital content we freely consume and the apps we download and enjoy? And once we elect to become a customer, isn’t it better for the brand to know you better, to serve you better? Shouldn’t loyalty over time be rewarded? That’s an intelligent data exchange, and the economy grows with it.

The demand for access to everything free, without ads, and without data exchange, without payment to creators is a demand for intellectual property theft. Sooner than later, the availability and diversity of that content would be gone. And so would democracy. If you put everything behind an ad-free paywall, then only the elites would have access.

‘But I pay for my Internet service. I pay for my phone service!’

Sure you do and that pays for the cell towers, and tech and Web infrastructure, union labor with some profit for the provider. But unless you’re also paying for subscriptions and content it’s advertising that is footing the bill for the music you listen to, the news you read, the apps you use, and so on. All the better when ads are relevant.

At the end of the day, the consumer is always right and privacy is personally defined.

I’m all for limits on what governments can do with data when it comes to surveillance, and how it goes about maintaining our safety and security (a paradox of its own).

On the private sector side, policymakers might best act to give a privacy floor (do no harm) and where economic benefits accrue (to serve consumers without harms) allow consumers freely accessible tools to set their own privacy walls, using browser settings, industry opt-outs, brand preference centers and other widely available no-cost filters. It’s a wise society that can encourage responsible data flows, while blocking altogether irresponsible data flows. Get it right, and we all participate in a thriving 21st Century Information Economy. Get it wrong, and Europe and China will set the global rules. With some luck and deliberation, we’ll get this right.

Warning: Marketing Data Policy-Making Ahead in the U.S.

U.S. data policy-making efforts make certain assumptions about marketing. It’s as if there’s a sign coming, saying: “Data Is a Weapon.” But what if lawmakers instead assumed data was a force for good?

U.S. data policy-making efforts make certain assumptions about marketing. It’s as if there’s a sign coming, saying: “Data Is a Weapon.” But what if lawmakers instead assumed data was a force for good?

Certainly, when dealing with the European data protection community — who may seek 4 percent of your global profits — it is wise to be deferential, even praiseworthy.

Apple CEO Tim Cook, in his speech last week to European data commissioners that hearkens back to President Eisenhower’s warning in 1961 about the “military-industrial complex,” identified commercial data collection interests as a “data-industrial complex” that has “weaponized” the collection and monetization of data with great efficiency.

Reading of this, one might extrapolate that all data collection is worrisome, and that this so-called trade in data amounts to “surveillance” that is inherently harmful.

To some, this might be 1961 all over again — or 1984, for that matter.

https://youtu.be/axSnW-ygU5g

In reality, some may be singing from the choir book brought to us by European Parliamentarians. Every time I see a cookie notice on my U.S. website visits, I’m reminded, perhaps gently, that our sovereignty is being visited upon by foreign lawmakers. Europe’s leaders are trying to remake the Internet in its image — while China’s leaders do the same — and the world may be a lot less friendly toward each other as a result.

Considerations of a Healthful Policy Debate

As consumers, we may welcome privacy and security in our nation’s Internet public policy debate. All is not the same, however. We must handle our own policy-making with utmost care. Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is one model — but is this European law really the right fit for the United States or, for that matter, other regions of the world?

In the private sector:

  • Consider the role that ad-financing (read, digital data) plays in ensuring quality journalism necessary for a healthy democracy.
  • Consider what consent restrictions (read, opt-in) would play in diminishing the ability of start-ups and mid-sized companies to compete with established companies — competition in the digital economy.
  • Consider an appreciation of the long-tail of the Internet — and the diversity of content and niche interests that meet consumer demands, made available through small publishers.
  • Focus on who is at the center of privacy restrictions — the citizen, digital user and the consumer. In every aspect, what are the trade-offs that individuals would experience when responsible data flows are effectively shut down?
  • Appreciate that all data are not the same. Are there data collection scenarios where there is a greater likelihood for harm? Are there categories of personal and user data that are more harmful than others — to the interests of that individual? In the United States, we already highly and wisely regulate such data as credit, health, children’s data, government identification numbers and more.
  • And importantly, understand how private sector use of data — and public sector use of data — differ. How should the two exchange, and not exchange, data between them?

Globally and certainly here in the United States, data enables commerce, consumer choice and diversity of content. Truly, the commercialization of data drives incredibly powerfully beneficial social aims. Such aims deserve recognition as policymakers weigh measured regulation.

Some global business leaders, for whatever motivations, heap praise on GDPR, but there’s danger in assigning “one size fits all”-type regulation. “Surveillance,” too, is a very loaded word — especially where responsible data collection and use represent an unparalleled force in the private sector for good: jobs, economy, competition, ad-financed content and services, and much more. Even governments package public records for beneficial use in the private sector. Remember the only reasons businesses exist is to create and serve a customer.

Where Surveillance Is a Material Concern

On the other hand, where surveillance truly is not a loaded word is where the public sector gathers and uses digital and mobile information to monitor citizens. Or where a government, foreign or domestic, demands the handover or censorship of such information from and of the private sector.

Here, I applaud close – very close – attention to what our government, or any other government, does with digital data, including that which exists in the private sector. Within the U.S., warrants, court orders and subpoenas should be demanded before private sector entities satisfy any government requests for information (and/or deletion of information). As government indeed has honest objectives — combatting fraud, terrorism and other crimes, or advancing public safety or health, for example – then it is wise to provide for independent judicial overview as a necessary check and balance to validate such laudable goals.

Data is a weapon only when it’s perversely used to disserve a consumer, a voter or a democracy. Let the private sector freely use information responsibly for all else, for it unleashes forces for good that serve consumers, the economy and robust discussion.

A Marketer’s Skills Can Make Advocacy Better

Healthcare marketing professionals often focus on reaching potential patients as well as the upstream employer, broker, health plan and physician audiences that have an impact on where patients go for care. Less often they participate in government relations efforts. Is this a missed opportunity?

Healthcare marketing professionals often focus on reaching potential patients as well as the upstream employer, broker, health plan and physician audiences that have an impact on where patients go for care. Less often they participate in government relations efforts and advocacy. Is this a missed opportunity?

Decisions by state and federal government have a significant impact on access to care and can cause big swings in the bottom lines of practices, hospitals and health systems. Some high-profile issues spark intense debate, such as suspending individual mandate penalties, which other decisions, such as supplemental funding for Disproportionate Share Hospitals, tend to attract interest only in legislative committees.

It’s worth remembering that legislators and staff aides are people and like all people, can only respond to issues based on what they know, who’s talking to them and how many people they think might be affected. This is where a marketing communicator’s ability to craft succinct messages and organize campaign outreach can help in unexpected ways.

If you work in marketing, consider reaching out to whomever in your organization manages government relations activities to find out the issues that are of concern. Your value proposition is simple. You can help them communicate the pros or cons of a pending issue through supporting materials used in meetings, developing talking points or creating a mechanism for affected audiences to contact decision-makers. By doing so, you are helping the management team see the skills within marketing as broader than advertising, sales or events.

Once you connect with your government relations leader to learn about legislative concerns, you’ll want to get up to speed on those issues. Spend time researching the original legislation, find white papers that assess its effectiveness, subscribe to newsletters that follow the topic, and learn about what’s driving this issue to the forefront now. Be sure to consult your government relations executive about any restrictions on sources of funding for advocacy efforts.

As you learn about the issue, work with the information as you would any other campaign. What makes this important? What’s the potential impact? Who is likely to care about this? If legislation may have a material impact to your organization’s bottom line, you may be able to convey how it could limit your ability to support underserved populations or cause a loss of jobs. How can you share the story behind the numbers so an arcane policy change becomes relatable because of its impact on people? How can you find them and empower them to take action?

If you can help advance your organization’s perspective as legislation is taking shape, your contribution can make a huge difference to patient care, jobs and your community. And isn’t that why you were originally drawn to the field?

Don’t Get Trashed — Is Recycling Discarded Mail Profitable? — Part II

In our previous post of “Marketing Sustainably,” we introduced an expert discussion on whether or not recycling collection of discarded mail, catalogs, printed communications and paper packaging is profitable, and why this matters is an important business consideration for the direct marketing field. In this post, we continue and conclude the discussion with our two experts, Monica Garvey, director of sustainability, Verso Paper, and Meta Brophy, director of procurement operations, Consumer Reports.

In our previous post of “Marketing Sustainably,we introduced an expert discussion on whether or not recycling collection of discarded mail, catalogs, printed communications and paper packaging is profitable, and why this matters is an important business consideration for the direct marketing field.

In this post, we continue and conclude the discussion with our two experts, Monica Garvey, director of sustainability, Verso Paper, and Meta Brophy, director of procurement operations, Consumer Reports. The conversation is based on a Town Square presentation that took place at the Direct Marketing Association’s recent DMA2012 annual conference.

Chet Dalzell: If much of the recovered fiber goes overseas, what’s the benefit to my company or organization in supporting recycling in North America?

Monica Garvey: The benefit—companies can promote that they support the use of recycled paper because they believe that recovered fiber is a valuable resource that can supplement virgin fiber. Recycling extends the life of a valuable natural resource, and contributes to a company’s socially responsible positioning. While it’s true that the less fiber supply there is locally, the higher the cost for the products made from that recovered fiber domestically, it’s still important to encourage recycling collection. Because recovered fiber is a global commodity, it is subject to demand-and-supply price fluctuations. If demand should drop overseas, and prices moderate, there may be greater supply at more moderate prices here at home, helping North American manufacturers; however, this is very unlikely. RISI, the leading information provider for the global forest products industry, projects that over the next five years, world recovered paper demand will continue to grow aggressively from fiber-poor regions such as China and India. Demand will run up against limited supply of recovered paper in the U.S. and other parts of the developed world and create a growing shortage of recovered paper worldwide.

CD: Is there a way to guarantee that recovered fiber stays at home (in the United States, for example)?

Meta Brophy: Yes! Special partnerships and programs exist that collect paper at local facilities and use the fiber domestically, allocating the recovered paper for specific use. ReMag, for example, is a private firm that places kiosks at local collection points—retailers, supermarket chains—where consumers can drop their catalogs, magazines and other papers and receive discounts, coupons and retailer promotions in exchange. These collections ensure a quality supply of recovered fiber for specific manufacturing uses. It’s a win-win for all stakeholders involved.

I recommend mailers use the DMA “Recycle Please” logo and participate in programs such as ReMag to encourage more consumers to recycle, and to increase the convenience and ease of recycling.

CD: What’s the harm of landfilling discarded paper—there’s plenty of landfill space out there, right?

MG: Landfill costs vary significantly around the country—depending on hauling distances, and the costs involved in operating landfills. In addition, there are also environmental costs. By diverting usable fiber from landfills, we not only extend the useful life of a valuable raw material, but also reduce greenhouse gas emissions (methane) that result when landfilled paper products degrade over time. There are also greenhouse gases that are released from hauling post-consumer waste. While carbon emissions may not yet be assessed, taxed or regulated in the United States, many national and global brands already participate in strategies to calculate and reduce their carbon emissions, and their corporate owners may participate in carbon trading regimes.

CD: You’ve brought up regulation, Monica. I’ve heard of “Extended Producer Responsibility” (EPR) legislation. Does EPR extend to direct marketers in any way?

MG: EPR refers to policy intended to shift responsibility for the end-of-life of products and/or packaging from the municipality to the manufacturer/brand owner. It can be expressed at a state level via specific product legislation, framework legislation, governor’s directive, or a solid waste management plan. EPR has begun to appear in proposals at the state level in the United States. EPR, for better or worse, recognizes that there are costs associated with waste management on all levels—not just landfilling, but waste-to-energy, recycling collection and even reuse.

These waste management costs currently are paid for in our taxes, but governments are looking to divert such costs so that they are paid for by those who actually make and use scrutinized products. Thus EPR can result in increased costs, were states to enact such regulation on particular products such as paper, packaging and electronic and computer equipment. Greatest pressure to enact EPR most likely focuses on products where end-of-life disposition involves hazardous materials where recycling and return programs may make only a negligible difference. Many will state that the natural fibers in paper along with the extremely high recovery rate of 67 percent makes paper a poor choice for inclusion in any state EPR legislation. That is also why the more we support the efficiency and effectiveness of existing recycling collection programs, the less pressure there may be to enact EPR regulations directly. It will likely vary state to state where specific concerns and challenges may exist.

CD: Does the public really care if this material gets recycled? Do they participate in recycling programs?

MB: Yes, they do. Even a public that’s skeptical of “greenwashing”—environmental claims that are suspect, unsubstantiated or less than credible—participates in recycling collection in greater numbers. Both EPA and American Forest & Paper Association data tell us the amount of paper collected is now well more than half of total paper produced, and still growing—despite the recent recession and continued economic uncertainty. Recycling collection programs at the hometown level are politically popular, too—people like to take actions that they believe can make a difference. And as long as the costs of landfilling exceed the costs or possible revenue gain of recycling, it’s good for the taxpayer, too.

CD: At the end of the day, what’s in recycling for my brand, and the direct marketing business overall?

MB: I see at least three direct benefits—and nearly no downside. First, a brand’s image benefits when it embraces social responsibility as an objective. Second, being a responsible steward of natural resources, and promoting environmental performance in a way that avoids running afoul of the Federal Trade Commission’s new Green Guides environmental claims—positions a brand well in practice and public perception. And, third, and I see this firsthand in my own organization, both the employee base and the supply chain are more deeply engaged and motivated as a result, too. Certainly, in the direct marketing business overall, there are similar gains—and I’m excited that the DMA has embraced this goal for our marketing discipline.

DMA International E-mail Guide Available

Did you know that “forward-to-a-friend” or “member-get-member” marketing techniques in e-mail are currently permitted in Argentina, Hong Kong and Israel, but not in Hungary or Poland? Or that while Canada does not have legislation specifically addressing the issue of e-mail marketing, key legislation for e-mail marketers is the federal privacy law, or PIPEDA. Or that in China there is no legal definition or best practice that specifically defines “opt-in?”

Did you know that “forward-to-a-friend” or “member-get-member” marketing techniques in e-mail are currently permitted in Argentina, Hong Kong and Israel, but not in Hungary or Poland? Or that while Canada does not have legislation specifically addressing the issue of e-mail marketing, key legislation for e-mail marketers is the federal privacy law, or PIPEDA. Or that in China there is no legal definition or best practice that specifically defines “opt-in?”

These were just a few of the facts I learned thumbing through the Direct Marketing Association’s very useful International Email Compliance Resource Guide. The book is a compendium of e-mail marketing regulations and practices for individual countries.

The report is valuable for two reasons:

  • International e-mail marketing is growing. Many companies today are looking for new opportunities to market their products and services abroad while the economy here is in the doldrums.
  • To my knowledge, there really isn’t easily accessible information of this nature available on the subject of international e-mail laws.

Here are some of the topics the DMA touches on in the guide:

  • affirmative consent;
  • legal definition of opt-in;
  • forward-to-a-friend;
  • privacy policy in e-mails; and
  • other best practices.

For the guide, the DMA developed a questionnaire targeting key areas of legislation regarding e-mail regulations and data protection. The questionnaire was then administered to preselected respondents who were knowledgeable about their country’s e-mail laws.

Responses varied from country to country based on the questions they answered. In cases where no questionnaire was submitted, a link to the relevant law is provided as well as contact information for local DMAs and/or departments of data protection.

I strongly suggest you check it out. To do so, click here.

Online Privacy Legislation: What Do You Think?

The fact that Congress is in the throes of those lazy, hazy days of summer is not stopping its desire to delve into the issue of online privacy legislation.

The fact that Congress is in the throes of those lazy, hazy days of summer is not stopping its desire to delve into the issue of online privacy legislation.

According to a July 17 article in Broadcasting & Cable titled “Markey Pushes for Online-Privacy Legislation,” House Telecommunications & Internet Subcommittee chairman Ed Markey (D-Mass.) signaled Thursday that Congress must pass comprehensive online-privacy legislation and that consumers should have to affirmatively agree before companies can collect surfing data for various purposes, including targeted advertising.

His thoughts were articulated during a hearing of the House Telecommunications & Internet Subcommittee. In short, he believes customers should have the option to be tracked or not, since technology for tracking can reveal a great amount of personal information.

Robert Dykes, the chairman of behavioral targeting firm NebuAd, was also at the hearing. He defended his company’s practices by pointing out that the concept behind the NebuAd network and its tracking ability benefits customers by giving them ads they want while keeping their personal information secure.

For more information about this, check out Rob Yoegel’s blog post titled “The Sites You Visit May Know More About You Than You Think,” on his blog, Pub Talk, which appears on PubExec.com.

What do you think? Is it time for online privacy to be regulated? Let us know your thoughts by responding to this blog. We’d love to have an open dialogue with our readers about important subjects like this.