Mother Jones, Call HQ
As the Direct Marketing Association mulls hiring its next president, it should consider retaining a fanatic. By that I mean a leader who is willing to make an unpopular case because it’s right for the industry, and then stick with it through all levels of court battles, legislative machinations and public relations fronts.
For instance, consider the consumer benefit argument. The DMA has not made the disadvantages consumers experience as a result of restrictions a large enough part of the public debate. Where is the mass, consumer-focused campaign that details the higher prices, or missed opportunities, consumers face due to data and channel limitations?
And where’s the sense of creative compromise? Why have the absolute positions the industry is facing been accepted, rather than being viewed as starting points for negotiation?
Publicly, the DMA has conducted itself like an organization of gentlefolk, and perhaps, through backroom dealings in Washington, it has mitigated what would have been even more draconian restrictions than are currently in place on channel and data use. If this is the case, it would have been heartening to see the DMA’s hand come to the forefront. But to my eye, what few breaks the industry has gotten do not seem to be its handiwork.
For instance, the most damning condemnation of the do-not-e-mail list came not from the DMA, but rather from Timothy J. Muris, chairman of the Federal Trade Commission. Last August, Muris flat-out declared that consumers shouldn’t waste their time signing up, should such a registry ever come to be, as it would be impossible to enforce.
The do-not-call list is another example: Why was this enacted as a straight receive-calls-or-not law, rather than allowing people to opt out by industry, a change that would have preserved prospects for various businesses?
Furthermore, industry research reveals that consumers want more control over their lives, and the direct response channels that touch them. Why wasn’t this point forcefully reiterated to both consumers and legislators?
Why has the full economic (and assumedly, through corporate political action committees, legislative) power of its combined members not been brought to bear through collective action? When politicians restrict DM channels, and then exempt themselves from these restrictions, why is there no industry refusal to provide politicians these services?
In short, why does the industry’s response to legislation and restriction seem to be reactive, instead of proactive?
Current president H. Robert Wientzen has led the DMA through a time that’s seen the rise of a new channel along with new restrictions on both channels and information. Yet at the same time, the industry’s contribution to the American economy has topped $1.7 billion. When Wientzen steps down, he’ll be deservedly lauded for his stewardship. But in looking toward the future
