Forum: Can the DM industry improve its image? We ask the specialists

legitimate way for companies to contact them, and you have evidence that
the direct marketing 'product' is performing well.

But what about the direct marketing 'brand'? The DMA clearly thinks it
has an image problem that a PR campaign can address, and there does
appear to be enough substance to communicate. Simple things such as what
direct marketing actually is, what benefits it can bring the consumer,
what the consumer can do to control it, recycling and so on - all these
are sound propositions that could usefully be communicated.

So yes, I think the direct marketing brand image can be improved, and a
PR campaign is probably as good a way as any. But all image campaigns
work harder when they go hand-in-hand with a product improvement, and
there seems to be plenty of scope here too.

The biggest problem with direct marketing is old data, and consumers are
either not targeted or mis-targeted. So direct marketing isn't direct at
all, it's indiscriminate marketing. If this product problem could be
solved, the brand image campaign would be really effective.

NO - GRAHAM HALES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INTERBRAND

As a brand consultant I like to challenge whether a leopard can change
its spots. I'd like to believe that any brand can change.

So why is direct marketing's image a step too far for my blissful
naivety? Well, for a brand to change... it has to change.

Sounds obvious I agree, but without fund-amental and tangible evidence
of change, perceptions won't differ, whatever the budgets and the
posturing.

Perhaps I'm just too cynical, but I'm not convinced the direct marketing
industry wants to change itself. Every other marketing service with a
self-imposed code of conduct works long into the night to gauge just how
close they can sail to the wind of their self-imposed regulations. So
why would direct marketers be more saintly?

Clearly, there's good and poor direct marketing. But whenever people
talk to me about it, however well it's targeted, there's a conversion
rate. And by definition a conversion rate means there's wastage, and
this means you'll be in someone's face when they don't feel they invited
you to be there.

And that's why people don't like direct marketing. It's sad for the
business, but while people can ignore a poorly placed TV advertisement,
direct marketing just seems to hijack attention. While that may be the
root of its undoubted effectiveness as a medium, in a time-poor,
wastage-sensitive society, it can clog up your life like a bowl of
muesli with extra roughage.

MAYBE - NEIL HEDGES, CHAIRMAN, FISHBURN HEDGES

Having worked on several PR makeovers, I think the DM industry's
reputation is pretty bad. Unsolicited mail and sales calls are very
intrusive.

However, I don't believe DM is in the last chance saloon. Its image is
retrievable, but we're talking years, not months.

Action points should include a commit-ment that DMA members will ensure
only people who have opted in to all commun-ication receive them. It
needs to be that radical.

The campaign's thrust should be in media relations, and that will be the
challenge. The views of journalists will be coloured by personal
experience - particularly those who've received silent calls.

Expect a lack of receptiveness and questions about the reason for the
campaign - is the DMA doing this because it wants to flood people with
more stuff?

The proposition to journalists should be that the majority of DMA member
companies abide by the DMA Code, but that things are soured by the
activities of a small number of rogue players. And we are doing
everything we can to weed these out.

It's only then, if you get a good reception, that you have a licence to
go further to tell about the good stuff and how it should be given
credit. To do that at the outset is the wrong way around.