Paula
If the "mail out" was electronic you will soon be bound by the new
Regulations which come into force on 11th December.
If it was postal then you might consider the Advertising Standards
Authority Code of Practice as being a good guide and strong defence
against allegations of impropriety. The relevant paragraph is:
==========================
43.2 Marketers should take all necessary steps to ensure that:
a) marketing communications are suitable for those targeted
b) marketing communications are not sent unsolicited to consumers if
explicit consent is required (see 43.4)
c) marketing communications are not sent to consumers who have asked not
to receive them (see 43.9) or who have not had the opportunity to object
to receiving them, if appropriate (see 43.3c). Those consumers should be
identifiable
d) databases are accurate and up-to-date and, if rented, bought, etc,
have been run against the most relevant suppression file operated by the
relevant Preference Service. Reasonable requests for corrections to
personal information should be acted upon within 60 days
e) anyone who has been notified as dead is not mailed again and the
notifier is referred to the relevant Preference Service
f) if asked in writing, consumers or the ASA (with consumers' consent)
are given any information available on the nature and source of their
personal details
Responsibility for complying with the above sub-clauses may not rest
directly with marketers but with other data controllers. Those responsible
will be expected to comply.
========================
which is taken from their website at: http://www.asa.org.uk/index.asp
under "The CAP code: Direct Marketing Rules".
I would look at getting the suppliers of lists (if you must go down this
route, which will always be likely to have imperfections) to satisfy you
contractually that c and d above are warranted as having been complied
with. Also you should have sufficient information to be able to reply to
requests under f.
To go a step further, you might wish to consider treating postal marketing
under the same rules as electronic. I.E. opt-in only except where there
is a continuing relationship (to summarise!)
Alternatively, if you were cynical, I guess that you might say that 0.001%
was good enough considering the actual harm done and the likely nature of
any legal remedy. (But, personally speaking, as a subscriber to the
Mailing Preference Service I would be on your case if you still mailed me!)
Regards
Jim Whitaker
==========================================
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 09:39:25 +0100, Paula Owen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
<snip>
> - my other question is regarding bought in lists. I was not consulted by
>the marketing team before they did this, for which there will be words,
but
>it's done now and we must face the consequences. What assurances can you
>get from your contractors and suppliers of these lists that they
>are 'clean' and up to date (as other complaints have been about deceased
>recipients of our letters).
>
>We bought in 1 million names so approx 10 complaints so far isn't too bad
I
>assume, but as we try to be as 'best practice' as possible, this really is
>disappointing.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
All archives of messages are stored permanently and are
available to the world wide web community at large at
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/data-protection.html
If you wish to leave this list please send the command
leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
All user commands can be found at : -
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/commandref.htm
(all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|