Mass marketers are beginning to talk like direct marketers. A case in point is Procter & Gamble. Jim Stengel, marketing chief at P&G, told the advertising industry in February that a sweeping replacement of existing forms of mass marketing by permission-based marketing was imperative, and the sooner the better. In a speech at the American Association of Advertising Agencies Media Conference, Stengel noted that P&G's former CEO Edwin Artzt had called for this shift a decade ago. But little has changed, which is why Stengel graded mass marketing today as no better than a C-minus.
Old Hat to DMers
While new to mass marketers, permission marketing, or opt-in as it's sometimes called, is old hat to DMers. Yet, despite a convergence of viewpoints between mass and direct marketers — and with it the recognition among all marketers that a new marketing paradigm is overdue — more than permission is needed. Because mere permission is not enough.
Permission marketing is about one thing — getting the OK from individuals to market to them. The rationale is that marketing is inherently intrusive and invasive, hence marketers should be required to get permission first. Consumers are pricklier than ever about intrusions and privacy, so securing permission is in the marketers' best interest too. Still, for all the talk, there is virtually nothing about permission marketing that's different from traditional marketing.
Just like traditional marketing, opt-in marketing presumes that all power rests with marketers and that all interactions are one-way. Permission is just a gate that consumers can choose to open or not open, but once opened, marketing is the same old hard sell, the same old saturation, the same old intrusiveness, just now with permission. The emotional resonance is no better because the character of marketing is no different. The overall relationship is no better because marketers still have all the control. The form of the interaction is unchanged because the one-way flow remains in place.
Opt-in is said to be different from opt-out because marketers have to ask for permission instead of consumers having to ask for relief. But in fact, opt-in is nothing but a Trojan horse for opt-out. Because once consumers opt in, opt-out reappears.
Having opted in, the only way consumers can get away from marketing is to opt out. For consumers opting in, the new marketplace looks just like the old opt-out marketplace. In other words, once permission is granted, consumers find that their situation in the marketplace is no different in any way whatsoever from what it was before.
For several years, direct marketers have given lip service to the idea that permission marketing is essential and necessary — indeed, the wave of the future. But real change has been slow in coming.
Even among DMers who have adopted some form of opt-in, most have failed to provide the benefits that consumers thought they were getting when they gave permission. The marketing is no better and no more relevant — direct marketers still send an identical message and offer to all prospects. It's no surprise, then, that response rates and marketing productivity continue to decline.
If Nothing Changes…
Certainly, consumers who have opted in are more receptive, at least at first, and some research has shown that permission marketing produces higher response. But this doesn't settle the issue. Opt-in alone is just the start to reversing the ongoing decline in response rates. If the character of the marketing experience remains the same, opt-in alone won't be enough because the power of permission marketing diminishes as soon as consumers realize that nothing has changed.
Consumer disaffection goes much deeper than not being asked first. Once more consumers realize that giving permission has changed very little about their overall shopping experience, they will feel betrayed and resistance will be a far bigger problem than it is today.
Permission is not enough. Empowerment and reciprocity are required, too. Empowerment means ceding control to consumers. Reciprocity means compensating consumers for paying attention.
Consumers want to be empowered throughout — not just at the start — and want to share in the creation of meaning, not just choose among what's offered, no matter how well customized. Not that consumers want to take on more work, but consumers do want options that give them the ability to exercise control, especially for the brands or categories that matter to them.
Quid Pro Quo
Consumers want instant rewards in exchange for the time they spend with marketing. For its part, marketing must provide value, not simply promote the value of something to be bought and enjoyed later.
Permission alone doesn't make marketing more empowering or more reciprocal. The shift that's long overdue is not to permission marketing but to a two-way model that allows consumers to dictate terms and in which marketers must earn the right to be heard.
J. WALKER SMITH (l) is president of Yankelovich Inc., Atlanta.
CRAIG WOOD is president of Yankelovich's Monitor MindBase division in Chapel Hill, NC.
