For most B2B brands, the telephone has always been a vital part of the marketing mix. However, since the launch of the corporate telephone preference service (CTPS) in 2004, this highly effective communications tool has been increasingly under threat, with companies of all sizes abusing legislation designed only to protect micro-businesses from nuisance calls. Currently the number of telephone lines barred from telemarketing is almost at two million.
In December, the Direct Marketing Association (DMA) launched a new initiative aimed at finally getting this damaging legislation repealed, after many failed attempts. So why does the association believe it will be successful this time and – more importantly – why has it taken it six years to properly address this fundamental issue?
Fundamentally flawed
According to Gary Kemp, MD of Connection2 and member of the DMA’s contact and telemarketing centre council, one of the primary problems with the CTPS is how it is being used by large corporates; companies that he says the CTPS, “wasn’t designed for.”
Many large organisations are ‘block-registering’ numbers from across their organisation, effectively barring all telemarketing calls from any individuals. This ignores the fact that many B2B telemarketing calls will be part of an active discussion with decision makers regarding a prospective investment, and therefore a very positive thing. More significantly though, it also ignores the fact that the CTPS was not ever intended to be used by large organisations – it was created in the aftermath of the clean-up of B2C telemarketing with the aim of providing some protection for micro-businesses and sole-traders in the event of them being deluged by telemarketing calls. As a consequence, Kemp describes it as “a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation.”
The impact of the CTPS, says Henry Braithwaite, operations director at B2B telemarketing agency Market Makers, has been significant on B2B brands’ ability to use telemarketing. It fails to address the kind of generic and indiscriminate telemarketing that became so controversial in the early noughties, but curtailing the use of responsible activity which does not cause a problem and is most effective for brands. “If your potential market is 500,000 businesses, and 20 per cent of these become CTPS then you still have 400,000 business to prospect to. But if you only have 500 companies to prospect to, and 100 of these sign up to CTPS, then this has much more significant consequences.”
Speaking to deaf ears
If the consequences are significant – and Braithwaite isn’t the only one to think they might be, so why has the DMA been so ineffective in combating it? Given that the DMA’s central objective is to protect and promote direct marketing, surely it should have focused all its efforts on resolving such a serious threat to its members’ activities… shouldn’t it?
Cynics have suggested that the delay is because of a conflict of interest: while the DMA does want to get rid of the CTPS, it also generates significant revenue from managing the service. The CTPS is part of the wider Telephone Preference Service that manages consumer opt-outs, and regarding which there is no such debate.
Although this suggestion is controversial, the DMA does not refute it. Kemp points out that the DMA has sponsored various initiatives aimed at persuading the relevant government department (the name of which has changed twice since 2004) of the need to repeal or at least amend the act, but that these have been stymied by a total lack of interest within government. However, with the change in regime, and a new government’s apparent enthusiasm to focus on errant legislation from its predecessor, Kemp believes that there may at last be an opportunity for progress. He says the Department for Business Innovation & Skills (BIS), unlike its predecessor BERR, has a different climate and is interested in removing barriers and bureaucracy. The DMA is clearly keen to seize its chance.
Getting the evidence
The DMA’s latest offensive against the CTPS focuses around a survey, aimed at gauging the true impact of the legislation on B2B direct marketers. The survey was sent to DMA members in December, but readers can access it by going to www.b2bm.biz/dma-ctps-survey. Feedback will then be passed on to BIS, as evidence of unintended consequences of the CTPS legislation, with the aim of opening a dialogue regarding repeal or amendment. The DMA is working on this project closely with the Federation of Small Businesses, a pressure group lobbying on behalf of the small business community, who were once one of the chief proponents of the CTPS but now recognise the damage it has done.
Kemp says that responses so far show broad support for CTPS as a tool to protect the smallest businesses, but not all. Indeed Braithwaite doesn’t necessarily think the CTPS should be rescinded but more care taken over how it is regulated. “Some people would genuinely prefer not to be prospected by telephone. Having an opt-out mechanism for these individuals, such as CTPS, therefore makes sense.” He adds, “My view is that CTPS should be reformed so that telephone numbers can only be registered individually, which must be authorised by the company director.”
Cycle of abuse
Marketing techniques will always be abused by those looking to take advantage of loopholes and grey areas in legislation. And a lack of governance will inevitably result in the demise of a marketing channel. Even its most passionate supporters admit that telemarketing has seen such problems. As Braithwaite adds, “When you ask someone to recall their last telemarketing call, more often than not they will tell you about an unprepared and ill-targeted call for a product they had no interest in.”
Telemarketing has had a bad reputation, but it’s highly effective when used responsibly, and most brands would find themselves significantly impaired if the CTPS restricted its availability any further.
