Jim Conning of Royal Mail Data Services (RMDS) provides some practical advice for how to use customer data in promotions, based on new research

Accurate, comprehensive data on customers and prospects is the essential bedrock of successful promotional marketing campaigns. But as it becomes more vital to marketers, new challenges, such as ensuring compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), are growing in importance, according to a new study from Royal Mail Data Services.

Based on research with UK brands and marketing agencies, the survey highlights four trends:

GDPR compliance is marketers’ number one concern

Nearly three in 10 (29%) of respondents listed GDPR compliance as their biggest worry, up from just 12% in the 2016 study. Breaking this down, a quarter (25%) of brands saw GDPR compliance as their greatest challenge, rising to 35% among agencies.

The study drilled down to ask brands and agencies how confident they were that their internally held customer data was GDPR compliant. The positive news is that 78% of all marketers were either “very” or “reasonably” confident that it complied with the new regulation – although worryingly, 11% were not confident, including 2% who did not know if they were compliant or not.

The barriers to using marketing data effectively

Marketers are facing churn rates that see nearly one in five (19%) customers leaving every year. Consequently, finding and acquiring replacements remained the number-one objective for marketers, with 42% citing it as their biggest challenge. However, this has fallen from 52% in 2016. Interestingly “analysing customer data”, a new option for 2017, has emerged as the top concern for just under a quarter of respondents (24%). Clearly, boosting analytics capabilities is a fast-emerging priority for brands and agencies alike.

Companies also seem to be giving up on the idea of reactivating dormant customers, rather than searching for new ones. In 2014 nearly one-quarter (24%) said this was their number-one marketing priority, but by 2017 the figure had dropped to just 6%. This could be linked to worries about poor-quality customer data or whether dormant customer data is GDPR compliant and can be used in marketing to this group.

Turning data into successful campaigns

How can marketers effectively use the huge amount of data they now hold? What is holding them back?

When asked where the gaps were that need filling, the results mirrored overall marketing challenges. The same number of respondents (24%) pointed to analysing customer data as their biggest issue, a figure that rose to 28% within brands. This demonstrates a clear need for greater analytics skills and capabilities, particularly for brands.

Perhaps reflecting that they already had analytics skills, the biggest area for improvement that agencies flagged (29%) was access to better-quality customer data. Brands also struggle to embed data cultures within their businesses. More than one in five (21%) said that a having a better understanding across the organisation of the importance of good-quality customer data would improve business performance.

When it comes to driving successful campaigns in terms of response and conversion rates, marketers agree it is all about data and how you use it. On a scale of one to five, the four top success factors reported were quality of contact data (4.6), segmentation and targeting (4.6), personalised content (4.4) and timing (4.3). In comparison, creative design scored just 4.0 out of 5. These top-four factors all rely on good-quality data and analytics in some way, and marketers reported that they had all increased in importance dramatically since last year.

Ensuring better data quality

Poor-quality customer data was cited as their biggest challenge by nearly one in five (18%) marketers. The main drivers of poor-quality data were basic errors – specifically out-of-date information and incomplete data. This was above factors such as duplicate data, spelling mistakes and data in incorrect fields.

Marketers understand that data is a living entity and quickly becomes out of date. This is leading to them focus on more formal, regular data cleansing – 22% do this daily or continuously. However, one-third (33%) still have no formal processes in place to clean customer contact data, although this has dropped from 37% in 2016. This means a sizeable minority are putting themselves at risk of data-quality issues – and potential GDPR investigations over non-compliance.

Poor-quality data hits business performance – marketers estimate that the average cost of poor-quality customer data is 6% of annual revenue. For major brands this is measured in millions of pounds – and excludes any potential fines for GDPR non-compliance, which can be as much as 4% of global turnover.

Data is the lifeblood of promotional marketing campaigns – having the best ideas in the world mean nothing if you can’t reach the right customers and prospects. However, as the Royal Mail Data Services research has found, marketers face key challenges around GDPR compliance, analytics, and quality that they need to overcome if they are to deliver successful campaigns that boost the bottom line.

A full copy of the report, “The use and management of customer data”, can be downloaded from the Royal Mail Data Services website.

Jim Conning is Managing Director of Royal Mail Data Services (RMDS), which is the specialist data business of Royal Mail Group. It provides organisations with customer contact and address data, data-quality, addressing and marketing services. It is committed to developing new ways for customers to look up, capture, validate and use contact and address data more effectively. Royal Mail Data Services helps organisations improve customer data quality, marketing performance and customer engagement.

The post Customer data and promotional marketing – four areas to focus on appeared first on IPM Bitesize.

Laura Kelly of the IPM’s Legal Advisory Service highlights some changes to the rules on putting prices in marketing communications

The Chartered Trading Standards Institute recently released the new Guidance for Traders on Pricing Practices. It replaces the 2010 BIS Pricing Practices Guide, long used by both advertisers and regulators to help establish best practice in line with consumer protection laws. But exactly how might this change impact promotional marketing?

The first point to note is that the consumer protection laws have not changed; the guidance has been updated but the principles behind it remain the same, so it’s unlikely you will need to significantly change your current practices.  Remember the guidance is not legally mandatory but will be considered by regulators where appropriate.

The guidance provides common sense advice with practical examples, and the new document is arguably more user friendly. It breaks scenarios down into practices that are less likely or more likely to comply, rather than giving definitive rules or timespans. There are two key changes that most commenters have picked up on that are relevant to our field.

One of these is that the so called “28-day rule” has been removed. The BIS PPG stated that a period of 28 consecutive days within the previous 6 months would be deemed reasonable in terms of the least amount of time a product would need to be sold at a higher price before it could be reduced and genuinely claimed to be discounted. Some have suggested this was used to artificially inflate prices; the ASA had notably already moved away from this position in recent years, focusing on overall pricing history rather than specific figures. It is therefore best to see this as a clarification of current principles rather than a change in position.

Some commentators have noted the focus on reference pricing and advised wariness when using RRPs. The new guidance contains a link to CAP guidance on the subject, which notes that even if the RRP has been given to you by the manufacturer, if you can’t demonstrate that it is actually sold at that price it’s likely to be considered misleading. Again, while some may be surprised to discover this information it has been a long-held principle.

So, if you’re already following best practice you shouldn’t need to make any changes. If any of the above is news to you however, now’s the time to brush up!

The ASA will continue using precedent to make rulings, but it’s worth keeping an eye on future cases to see whether they change direction at all. I’ll mention any significant rulings in my Legal Scoop which you can subscribe to on the IPM website, and of course they’re likely to come up as case studies in future IPM Legal Briefings.

If you’re an IPM member and have any questions you can contact Laura at laurak@theipm.org.uk

The post Guidance on Pricing Practices appeared first on IPM Bitesize.

Laura Kelly, Legal & Regulatory Advisor at the IPM, explains why changes to the CAP Code, the rules governing advertising and marketing in the UK, had to happen and the opportunities they offer to the promotions industry

The advertising and marketing industry is famed for many things; bringing to life brands, creating a huge economic impact, making us laugh or cry, making brands memorable. Marketing communications work – what we do has the power to influence people.

With great power, as always, comes great responsibility, a fact which the UK’s marketers have long realised. That’s why we have the CAP Code and the ASA to uphold it at the heart of a self-regulatory system which is recognised internationally as world class.

Our industry is constantly changing – take the way, over the past 20 years, that digital technology has completely revolutionised the way brands talk to consumers and made marketing, in some ways, far more powerful. Society changes as well – few of us do as much hard manual work as our grandparents did or get as much exercise.

As a result, our waistlines are expanding – and the particular worry is how our children are being affected. Obesity levels amongst the young are increasing.

Increased concern about obesity has led to a focus on advertising and marketing of calorie-rich food and drink, and there has been a keen interest in how we promote certain HFSS (High, Fat, Salt and Sugar) brands to children and families. We have seen accusations levelled at the marketing industry that what we do is making us fat and damaging our health.

Late in 2015, the Government launched its soft drinks taxation promise to help address the growing concern about obesity, centered on the high sugar intake of children. The Government promised the UK public that it would tackle the brands responsible.

Several months and many consultations later, the efforts of CAP, the Advertising Association and many other interested parties (including the IPM) have managed to prove that advertising does not in fact contribute in any significant way to the increase in obesity levels in children – other factors such as parental influence and the switch from physical activity to playing computer games bear far more responsibility.

However, the advertising and marketing industry recognises that there is much more it can do to help. To begin with, the industry decided to tackle at source the rules that govern the work we do.

The IPM, as part of the self-regulatory framework that governs UK broadcast and non-broadcast rules, was a key member of the consultation groups to examine the areas of critical understanding in children when looking at the effects of advertising and marketing messaging.

The outcome of this work has seen a CAP Code change that signals a huge change in the way brands can promote to under 16s and under 12s.

As a reminder:

• Ads that directly or indirectly promote an HFSS product cannot appear in children’s media;
• Ads for HFSS products cannot appear in other media where children make up over 25% of the audience;
• Ads for HFSS products will not be allowed to use promotions, licensed characters and celebrities popular with children. Advertisers may, however, now use those techniques to better promote healthier options;
• The Department of Health nutrient profiling model will be used to classify which products are HFSS.

Creating a future for responsible promotion

At the IPM, over the past two years we have seen a shift towards more responsible promotion across the board, particularly FMCG brands. Being involved in this consultation has shown that the entire industry embraces this forward thinking approach and we are delighted to support the changes at the IPM.

These changes also bring opportunity. Restrictions on using promotions, licenced characters and celebrities in food ads directed at children have been loosened. They will now be permitted in ads for all non HFSS foods, giving marketers powerful new techniques to better promote healthier options.

With such a positive change happening across the industry, we can truly say we are part of the solution and not the problem. For a time, we were at real risk of losing our right to self-regulate and the IPM supports the new rules every step of the way.

The IPM will actively promote the rule changes from now on, so that brand owners are ready and able to implement media and promotional changes in advance of the new rules coming into effect.

Laura Kelly is Legal & Regulatory Advisor at the Institute of Promotional Marketing (IPM), advising marketers at client companies, agencies and suppliers on how to ensure that their promotional marketing activities are legal and that they conform to the CAP Code, the rules which marketing and advertising in the UK must follow under the country’s self regulatory system.

The IPM is holding a special webinar on Wednedsay 15th December in partnership with the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) to explain the changes to the CAP Code on HFSS food and drink marketing. Places are free and you can book your place here.

The post Why HFSS marketing needs to change appeared first on IPM Bitesize.

Following a full public consultation, the Committee of Advertising Practice – CAP – has today announced tough new rules banning the advertising of high fat, salt or sugar (HFSS) food or soft drink products in children’s media.

The rules will apply across all non-broadcast media including print, cinema, online and in social media, and CAP has stressed that they will also apply to ‘TV-like content’ online, such as on video-sharing platforms or advergames, if they are directed at or likely to appeal particularly to children.

One key benefit for the promotions industry is a clarification of the rules on marketing communications using promotional techniques, characters or celebrities to promote healthier options to children aged 11 and under.

Changes to the rules will mean advertisers will be able to use promotions, licensed characters and celebrities in ads for non HFSS foods, allowing more creative ways for the industry to promote healthier food options to children and their families.

The new rules, which will apply in media targeted at under-16s, will come into effect on 1 July 2017.

In summary:

• Ads that directly or indirectly promote an HFSS product cannot appear in children’s media
• Ads for HFSS products cannot appear in other media where children make up over 25% of the audience
• Ads for HFSS products will not be allowed to use promotions, licensed characters and celebrities popular with children; advertisers may now use those techniques to better promote healthier options
• The Department of Health nutrient profiling model will be used to classify which products are HFSS

This significant change is designed to help protect the health and wellbeing of children.

Bringing the non-broadcast advertising rules in line with the TV rules, the new restrictions will lead to a major reduction in the number of ads for HFSS food and drinks seen by children. And it will also mean ads for HFSS products will no longer be allowed to appear around TV-like content online, such as on video-sharing platforms or advergames, if they are directed at or likely to appeal particularly to children.

CAP’s review and the new rules come in response to wider concerns in society about childhood obesity and the public health challenges it poses. The new rules also respond to shifting media habits amongst young people and evolving advertising techniques which have fundamentally changed children’s relationship with media and advertising. Research from Ofcom shows that young people aged 5-15 are spending around 15 hours each week online – overtaking time spent watching a TV set for the first time.

There are many factors that have an impact on childhood obesity, and available evidence shows that the effect of advertising on children’s food preferences is relatively small, particularly when compared to other factors like parental influences; however, CAP believes that even a very small positive impact from these new ad restrictions could play a meaningful role in reducing potential harm to children.

Chairman of CAP, James Best said: “Childhood obesity is a serious and complex issue and one that we’re determined to play our part in tackling. These restrictions will significantly reduce the number of ads for high, fat, salt or sugar products seen by children. Our tough new rules are a clear demonstration that the ad industry is willing and ready to act on its responsibilities and puts the protection of children at the heart of its work.”

The IPM’s Managing Director Carey Trevill says: “With significant changes to the CAP Code, the IPM will be part of the story that changes the way advertising and marketing communications affect children today and tomorrow. We have an important part to play in the way our consumers view marketing communcations. Helping the wider community understand the steps we have taken as an industry can only lead to improved campaigns.”

Questions on what the changes mean for your campaigns? The IPM are running a webinar with their Legal Advisor, Laura Kelly and with CAP on December 15^th. Places are free and you can book yours here.

The post CAP changes HFSS food and drink ad and promo rules appeared first on IPM Bitesize.

Groceries Code Adjudicator Christine Tacon has told Tesco to introduce significant changes to practices and systems after finding Britain’s largest supermarket seriously breached the legally-binding Groceries Supply Code of Practice (GSCoP) which is supposed to protect groceries suppliers.

During a thorough investigation covering the period from June 25 2013 to February 5 2015, the Adjudicator found that the retailer had acted unreasonably when delaying payments to suppliers, often for lengthy periods of time.

The Adjudicator was concerned about three key issues:

• Tesco making unilateral deductions from suppliers;
• The length of time taken to pay money due to suppliers;
• An intentional delay in paying suppliers in some cases.

In a number of cases looked at by the Adjudicator, Tesco had delayed repaying money owed to suppliers for promotion that never took place. She said in her report: “I find that any failure to promptly repay money a supplier has paid for a promotion which did not run to be an unreasonable delay in payment.”

She considered Tesco’s breach of the Code to be serious due to the varying and widespread nature of the delays in payment. The Adjudicator has used her powers to order the retailer to make significant changes in the way it deals with payments to suppliers.

Tesco has accepted the findings of the report. Dave Lewis, Group Chief Executive Officer, Tesco said in a statement: “In 2014 we undertook our own review into certain historic practices, which were both unsustainable and harmful to our suppliers. We shared these practices with the Adjudicator, and publicly apologised. Today, I would like to apologise again. We are sorry.”

Lewis added: “I am grateful to the Adjudicator for the professional manner in which the investigation has been conducted. We accept the report’s findings, which are consistent with our own investigation. Over the last year we have worked hard to make Tesco a very different company from the one described in the GCA report. The absolute focus on operating margin had damaging consequences for the business and our relationship with suppliers. This has now been fundamentally changed.”

Tacon’s five recommendations include stopping Tesco from making unilateral deductions from money owed for goods supplied. Suppliers will be given 30 days to challenge any proposed deduction and if challenged Tesco will not be entitled to make the deduction.

The Adjudicator also insists that the company corrects pricing errors within seven days of notification by a supplier.

Tesco has also been told to improve its invoices by providing more transparency and clarity for suppliers and to put its finance teams and buyers through training on the findings from the Adjudicator’s investigation.

Ms Tacon said: “The length of the delays, their widespread nature and the range of Tesco’s unreasonable practices and behaviours towards suppliers concerned me. I was also troubled to see Tesco at times prioritising its own finances over treating suppliers fairly. My recommendations will deal with the weaknesses in Tesco’s practices during the period under investigation.”

Tacon acknowledged that “many suppliers have reported improvements in their relationship with Tesco to me since the period under investigation. Tesco has also kept me informed of changes it is making to deal with the issues. This is a demonstration of the impact my role is making. I believe that my recommendations will lead to significant improvements at Tesco and in the sector. ”

Tacon launched the GCA’s first ever investigation into possible breaches of GSCoP in February 2015 following Tesco’s announcement of its profit over-statement and the receipt of information from the retailer and the sector.

During the investigation she found delay in payments arising from data input errors, duplicate invoicing, deductions to maintain Tesco margin and unilateral deductions resulting from forensic auditing, short deliveries and service level charges.

Ms Tacon said: “The sums were often significant and the length of time taken to repay them was too long. For example one supplier was owed a multi-million pound sum as a result of price changes being incorrectly applied to Tesco systems over a long period. This was eventually paid back by Tesco more than two years after the incorrect charging had begun.”

The GCA has set a four-week deadline for Tesco to say how it plans to implement her recommendations. She will then require regular reports from the company on progress, including information on the number and value of invoices in dispute as well as the length of time they remain unresolved.

The Adjudicator also investigated whether Tesco had required suppliers to make payments to secure better shelf positioning or an increased allocation of shelf space, in breach of the Code. She found no evidence of this.

However, she was concerned to find practices that could amount to indirect payments for better positioning. These practices included large suppliers negotiating better positioning and increased shelf space in response to requests for investment from Tesco, as well as paying for category captaincy and to participate in Tesco range reviews.

She said: “I am concerned that as a result of these practices the purpose of the Code may be circumvented to the detriment of smaller suppliers who cannot compete with payments for better positioning, category captaincy or to participate in range reviews. I have decided to launch a formal consultation with the sector, involving both retailers and suppliers, to help me reach a firm conclusion on whether these practices are acceptable.”

Ms Tacon has also written to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) asking them to consider the issue of category captaincy as well as referring evidence that Tesco may have breached CMA rules by operating without all its terms of supply agreement being in writing – a factor that may have contributed to payment disputes and delays.

The Groceries Supply Code of Conduct was created as a result of The Groceries (Supply Chain Practices) Market Investigation Order 2009 which established the office of the Groceries Code Adjudicator.

GSCoP applies to 10 designated retailers:

• Asda;
• Co-operative Group;
• Marks & Spencer;
• Wm Morrison Supermarkets;
• J Sainsbury;
• Tesco;
• Waitrose;
• Aldi;
• Iceland;
• Lidl.

Other grocery retailers may be added to the list if their turnover exceeds £1 billion.

The post Grocery Code boss slams Tesco appeared first on IPM Bitesize.