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.

KFC’s ‘Dancing Chicken’ ad – featuring a chicken dancing to rap music — was the ad which generated the most consumer complaints in 2017, according to the Advertising Standards Authority’s Top 10 ranking of the year’s most complained about ads.

The KFC commercial triggered 755 complaints, mainly on the grounds that it was disrespectful to chickens and distressing for vegetarians, vegans and children, since it depicted a chicken who was heading for slaughter. The ASA ruled it was unlikely that the ad would cause distress or serious or widespread offence, as there were in fact no explicit references to animal slaughter.

In total, the ASA received 29,997 complaints during 2017. All the ads on 2017’s Top 10 list had one common thread – they were all challenged on the grounds of offence. The ASA points out that while the reason why most ads get complained about is that they are misleading – the issue in 73% of cases in 2017 — but misleading cases are much less likely to attract multiple complaints.

ASA Chief Executive Guy Parker says: “Tackling misleading ads continues to be the bread and butter of our work, but 2017 again showed that it is ads that have the potential to offend that attract the highest numbers of complaints. But multiple complaints don’t necessarily mean that an ad has fallen on the wrong side of the line: we look carefully at the audience, the context and prevailing societal standards informed by public research before we decide.”

The decision as to whether an ad is likely to cause offence is made by the 12 members of the ASA Council, following detailed investigation by ASA staff. The Council acts as a jury to decide whether to uphold complaints against ads on the grounds of causing ‘serious or widespread offence’. When making that judgement, the ASA considers several factors: the audience likely to see the ad, the context in which the ad appears, and prevailing societal standards. The ASA also commissions research into the public’s attitudes to, and understanding of, certain ad themes to help inform the decisions it makes and where the line should be drawn.

While many of 2017’s most complained about ad campaigns were seen across a range of media – for example social media, magazines, and companies’ own websites – television ads triggered the most complaints, demonstrating the continuing effectiveness of the medium at hitting mass audiences.

Two of the ads are from campaigns that also featured in 2016’s Top Ten list, meaning these campaigns have continued to court controversy over two years (Match.com and Maltesers). One of the campaigns has been on the list for three years in a row (Moneysupermarket.com).

In response to complaints reported in the media, two ads were quickly removed by the advertisers (Dove and McDonald’s) without the need for further ASA action. The ASA decided each of the remaining eight ads had not crossed the line on offensiveness, so the complaints were not upheld.

2017’s most complained about ads are:

1 Kentucky Fried Chicken (Great Britain) Ltd

755 Complaints – Not upheld

This year, KFC’s ad, featuring a chicken dancing to a rap soundtrack, received complaints that it was disrespectful to chickens and distressing for vegetarians, vegans and children, since it depicted a chicken who was heading for slaughter. The ASA ruled it was unlikely that the ad would cause distress or serious or widespread offence as there were no explicit references to animal slaughter.

2 Moneysupermarket.com Ltd

455 Complaints – Not upheld

This Moneysupermarket.com ad campaign also featured in the ASA’s Top Ten list for 2015 and 2016. Like many of the ads in the same campaign, 2017’s ad re-featured the two #epicsquads – the strutters and the builders – and a new female character.

Many found the ad to be offensive on the grounds that it was overtly sexual and possibly homophobic. The ASA thought the character’s movements would generally be seen as dance moves and not in a sexual context. It also thought most viewers would recognise the ad’s intended take on humour. It ruled it was unlikely to condone or encourage harmful discriminatory behaviour.

3 Unilever UK Ltd (Dove)

391 Complaints – Not investigated; ads removed         

Dove produced a series of ads that contained statistics and opinions about breastfeeding in public. The ads were featured across magazines, social media, and Dove’s own website. Many criticised the language, such as “put them away”, as it might encourage criticism of breastfeeding. Some were also concerned that the ads might encourage neglecting crying babies. After listening to the public, Dove issued an apology and subsequently pulled the ads and amended their website.

4 Match.com International Ltd

293 Complaints – Not upheld

Match.com’s ad, starring a lesbian couple kissing passionately, appears again in our list of most complained about ads. The ASA received similar complaints last year, when it was number three on our list, about whether the ad was too sexually explicit for children to see. It ruled then that the ad did not cross the line.  Over the two years, the ad has attracted almost 1,200 complaints.

5 McDonald’s Restaurants Ltd

256 Complaints – Not investigated; ads removed

McDonald’s produced a TV ad featuring a boy and his mother talking about his dead father. From the conversation, the boy became visibly upset as he found few similarities between him and the father that his mother described. Ultimately, he found comfort when she told him that both he and his father loved McDonald’s Filet-O-Fish burger. The ad attracted criticism that it was trivialising grief, was likely to cause distress to those who have experienced a close family death and was distasteful to compare an emotive theme to a fast food promotion. The fast food chain issued an apology and pulled the ads.

6 RB UK Commercial Ltd (V.I.Poo)

207 Complaints – Not upheld

A fictional Hollywood starlet shares her best kept secret on how to maintain good toilet etiquette – by using the V.I.Poo spray, an air freshener. Many people found the discussion of going to the toilet unsavoury. The ASA ruled that the ad was a light-hearted way of introducing the product and didn’t consider its reference to the “devil’s dumplings” likely to break its rules on offence.

7 DSG Retail Ltd (Currys PC World)

131 Complaints – Not upheld

This was a TV ad about spending Christmas in front of the TV. The Currys PC World ad showed a set of parents telling their children that they would like to celebrate Christmas “traditionally” this year by sitting by the fire, signing carols and having long conversations. The mother then laughed at the visibly upset children and explained it was a joke. She led the family to the next room to show them a new Oleg TV that her employer, Currys PC World, had allowed her to bring home and test. Complainants believed the ad was offensive because it promoted materialism and equated Christmas with watching TV instead of Christianity.

The ASA thought the ad was light-hearted and was meant to be humorous. It understood the allusions to consumerism might be perceived to be in bad taste by some, but considered it was unlikely to cause serious offence. The ad did not ridicule or denigrate Christians or Christianity, so was unlikely to offend on those grounds.

8 Telefonica Ltd (O2)

125 Complaints – Not upheld

O2’s ad about free screen replacements stirred complaints when it featured two men kissing and breaking one of the couple’s phone screens when he was pressed onto a table by the other man. Many felt the scene was too sexually explicit and scheduled inappropriately at times when children were likely to be watching. Some also felt the portrayal of a same-sex relationship was offensive to their religious beliefs.

The ASA noted that the scene in question was brief and did not contain any graphic or overly sexual imagery.  It ruled that it did not require a scheduling restriction and the depiction of a gay couple would not cause serious or widespread offence,

9 Macmillan Cancer Support

116 Complaints – Not upheld

A TV ad for Macmillan Cancer Support included fast-moving scenes of a father talking to his daughter, receiving chemotherapy, vomiting in a sink, sitting slumped in a bath, and crying in a car before being comforted by a nurse. People complained that the imagery was overly graphic and distressing to viewers. Though the ASA understood some of the scenes, particularly the one in which the man vomited, were distressing to some viewers, it believed they served to illustrate the reality of living with cancer. The storyline of the ad and the service that Macmillan Cancer Support was advertising provided context. The ASA believed it addressed the serious nature of the illness appropriately. Furthermore, scheduling restrictions meant it wouldn’t be shown around children’s programmes.

10 Mars Chocolate UK Ltd (Maltesers)

92 Complaints – Not upheld

And finally, Maltesers appears in ASA’s top 10 list for a second year.

Many continued to find the featured woman, who described having a spasm during a romantic encounter with her boyfriend, to be offensive and overly sexual. Some also felt it was offensive to portray the woman, who was in a wheelchair, in this manner.

The ad had already been given a post-9pm scheduling restriction, which we considered sufficient as most viewers are aware that advertising content after 9pm might include more adult themes. In instances when the ad was seen earlier in the day, the ad was seen around adult-themed programmes, such as Made in Chelsea and The Inbetweeners, and was unlikely to be considered to have been inappropriately scheduled.

The ASA ruling said it found the women’s conversation to be light-hearted and didn’t think the allusion to the woman’s romantic encounter would cause serious or widespread offence. On the matter of portraying the woman in a wheelchair in this manner, it believed the ad was championing diversity and did not think that it denigrated or degraded those with disabilities.

The ASA is the independent regulator of advertisements across all media in the UK. It does so in the public interest and with the co-operation of advertisers, agencies and media owners who are committed to observing the Advertising Codes, otherwise known as the CAP Codes. The CAP Codes are drawn up by the Committee of Advertising Practice.

The Institute of Promotional Marketing, the UK marketing trade body for promotions which owns www.promomarketing.info, is a stakeholder in CAP and an integral part of the UK’s self-regulatory system for advertising and marketing. The IPM promotes the CAP Codes in its world-renowned education and training programmes, and in its annual IPM Awards – any entry which breaks the CAP Codes is disqualified.

The post 2017’s Most Complained About Ads appeared first on IPM Bitesize.