Richard Anderson, REaD uk’s newly appointed Business Development Director, looks at the benefits of suppression for UK marketers during the current credit crunch.
Regularly applying suppression files to clean your B2C and B2B lists of deceaseds and gone-aways (ie. people who have moved house or job), as well as preference service registrants is no longer an optional extra but is now mandatory for all UK data owners thanks to the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations (2008). With a plethora of suppression files available via bureaux and direct licence though, the question remains: How can marketers ensure that they’re getting the most accurate and cost-effective suppression possible?
In my opinion, the four most important criteria to look at when choosing suppression files are: (1) accuracy; (2) recency; (3) coverage; and (4) price. Files containing inaccurate data play havoc with client and prospect data and can make you unwittingly commit the most cardinal of data management sins – over-suppression. Purging your files of otherwise viable customer data really is sales death, so my advice is to make sure all of the suppression files you’re using contain only verified and non-assumed data.
Recency is also becoming an important selection criterion as many marketers search to identify who’s doing what with their disposable income during the current downturn. Files which take months to compile and update will hence impair your response rates if you’re after ‘warm’ prospects, so look for suppression products with refresh rates appropriate to your campaign requirements.
Even in a more targeted, multi-channel DM environment, coverage still has a prime place at the suppression table. Don’t constrain your marcoms strategy by using suppression files with anything less than the maximum coverage available – whether by market or geo-banding, for example. Otherwise you simply won’t be playing with a full data deck.
Finally, there’s that old suppression devil: price. Only after ticking the accuracy, recency and coverage boxes should price enter the equation, I believe. A suppression file which meets all of your requirements in each of these areas will, after all, represent best value for money in both the short and long term. Once again, ‘pick ‘n mix’ files which have low churn rates and/or incorporate a sizable percentage of unverified data may look cheaper and more attractive, but the additional costs you’ll incur by needlessly marketing to customers who have moved, died or simply aren’t interested in your offer (not to mention those who may have otherwise responded but have been needlessly suppressed), will cost you infinitely more in terms of brand damage and/or lost sales.
Regularly applying suppression files to clean your B2C and B2B lists of deceaseds and gone-aways (ie. people who have moved house or job), as well as preference service registrants is no longer an optional extra but is now mandatory for all UK data owners thanks to the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations (2008). With a plethora of suppression files available via bureaux and direct licence though, the question remains: How can marketers ensure that they’re getting the most accurate and cost-effective suppression possible?
In my opinion, the four most important criteria to look at when choosing suppression files are: (1) accuracy; (2) recency; (3) coverage; and (4) price. Files containing inaccurate data play havoc with client and prospect data and can make you unwittingly commit the most cardinal of data management sins – over-suppression. Purging your files of otherwise viable customer data really is sales death, so my advice is to make sure all of the suppression files you’re using contain only verified and non-assumed data.
Recency is also becoming an important selection criterion as many marketers search to identify who’s doing what with their disposable income during the current downturn. Files which take months to compile and update will hence impair your response rates if you’re after ‘warm’ prospects, so look for suppression products with refresh rates appropriate to your campaign requirements.
Even in a more targeted, multi-channel DM environment, coverage still has a prime place at the suppression table. Don’t constrain your marcoms strategy by using suppression files with anything less than the maximum coverage available – whether by market or geo-banding, for example. Otherwise you simply won’t be playing with a full data deck.
Finally, there’s that old suppression devil: price. Only after ticking the accuracy, recency and coverage boxes should price enter the equation, I believe. A suppression file which meets all of your requirements in each of these areas will, after all, represent best value for money in both the short and long term. Once again, ‘pick ‘n mix’ files which have low churn rates and/or incorporate a sizable percentage of unverified data may look cheaper and more attractive, but the additional costs you’ll incur by needlessly marketing to customers who have moved, died or simply aren’t interested in your offer (not to mention those who may have otherwise responded but have been needlessly suppressed), will cost you infinitely more in terms of brand damage and/or lost sales.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment