Charles Oppenheim wrote:
>
> Yaman wrote:
>
> > UK bosses also seem oblivious to the implications of a possible
> > ban
> >on the commercial use of the Electoral Roll. Three quarters of
> >companies reckon a ban would have no cost implications at all on their
> >business - in reality, the Electoral Roll is worth 55 million overall
> >to UK companies per annum.
> > Thousands of companies throughout the UK rely on the Electoral
> > Roll
> >for targeting customers, credit screenings and call centre technology.
> >The direct marketing industry believes a ban on usage of the Electoral
> >Roll will adversely affect businesses, charities, government agencies
> >and consumers who will see an increase in mis-targeted mail.
> >
> I am not sure where this suggestion comes from. Also not sure where the
> figure of 55million comes from. Grateful if anyone could quote a source
> for this suggestion or the figure. Such a ban would either require a
> change to the 1984 Act, which I can hardly see being introduced, or else an
> amendment to the 1998 Act, which is unlikely in the short term. In any
> case, I am not aware of any proposal to ban such use. What *is* true is
> that the DP Registrar has commmissioned me and a colleague to undertake
> research on the scale of, and issues raised by, people (not just commercial
> organisations) using publicly available lists (of which the electoral
> register is just one).
>
> Professor Charles Oppenheim
> Dept of Information Science
> Loughborough University
> Loughborough
> Leics LE11 3TU
>
> Tel 01509-223065
> Fax 01509-223053
The figure was probably issued out of the Direct Marketing Association,
which has a responsible research arm. They can be reached in London. The
figure seems quite low to me, and might just be simple "rental numbers.
In your research, you might also consider that both "individual" and
"commercial" use of public register information, such as the electoral
roll, is very often "second hand" in that individuals and companies
access information through commercial providers, rather than directly at
the public offices. This is true because of the greater ease of access
in this manner, and the other services these companies provide.
Commercial aggregators, for example, have longer office hours, more
convenient offices and trained customer service departments. Also, they
will deliver information in a variety of formats and in often tighter
timeframes than government. Also, information aggregators provide other
valuable services, such as data aggregation and enhancement. Without
the electoral roll, for example, it might be impossible for pension fund
operators to find where their beneficiaries have moved to, as I
understand they are required to do. (This is not to criticize
government on these points, by the way. Doing many of these things is
beyond their mandate.) It should be kept in mind that there are many
extremely valuable services provided for the public benefit by business
because of access to information such as this. I suspect putting a
value on it will be very difficult. You will need to contact commercial
"primary" users to determine who their customers are in order to
evaluate the losses those two levels of the information chain might
suffer, and what the collateral consequences for employment and tax
revenue might be, as well as the public benefit lost through the denial
of the services now provided.
When the State of Maryland decided not to rent its drivers' license
list anymore, it lost $12 million in revenue and had to raise income
taxes. I suspect also that jobs were lost, although I have no data.
The Direct Marketing Association could give you contacts at Experion
and Acxiom who might be helpful to you.
Regards,
--
Charles A. Prescott
Vice President, International Business Development
and Government Affairs
Direct Marketing Association
1120 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
U.S.A.
Tel. (1) 212-790-1552
Fax. (1) 212-790-1499
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
website: www.the-dma.org
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
