Companies behind cold calling could face fines of up to £500,000 under changes to the law being made by the government. Will the government’s move prompt an industry-wide reaction; are marketers quivering in their loafers at the news?
Companies behind cold calling could face fines of up to £500,000 under changes to the law being made by the government.
Only “substantial damage or substantial distress” will earn you a slap on the wrist at the moment – but from 6 April, that legal requirement is to be removed.
The legislation follows a steep rise in complaints – more than 175,000 complaints were made to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) last year.
A government source is reported to have told MailOnline that: “Companies have bombarded people with unwanted marketing calls and texts, but have escaped punishment because they did not cause enough harm.
“So we’re making it easier for companies to face the consequences of ignoring the law and subjecting us to calls or texts we have said we don’t want.”
Recently the ICO, who have power to take action against companies who break the existing rules on direct marketing, had levied a fine of £300,000 against the co-owner of a marketing company, Tetrus Telecoms, which sent hundreds of thousands of texts about PPI and accident claims.
Earlier we caught up with Kieran Flanagan, Marketing Director at HubSpot at this year’s TFM&A conference in London who claimed that “traditional marketing has fundamentally changed”.
“The good brands are really trying to figure out how they can actually be part of their audiences lives, and how they can be valued rather than a nuisance. The brands that aren’t are probably the ones who will be apprehended,” he said.
“There’s definitely life after the telephone, it depends on the industry whether the traditional approach will survive.”
What do you think? Will the government’s move prompt an industry-wide reaction; are marketers quivering in their loafers at the news? Get in touch!
Marketers are not quivering in their loafers. Far from it. We are welcoming these new changes and they should have come along time ago. Your article seems to forget that these changes are to only penalise companies who have no regard for the law or correct targeting – e.g. unethical and illegal marketing activity. By fining these companies, it will help everyone involved including the consumer. These calls are noise and frequently ignore opt-ins or relevant suppression services. Chief culprits include Home Improvement, PPI, Debt and Personal Injury. Should those companies who flout the rules be “removed” – it’s fantastic news for marketing as a whole.
What would be possibly more interesting is getting a comment from someone who is not a Marketing Director from an inbound marketing company. A Marketing Director of a outbound telemarketing company would have a very different view and soundbite – just would give balance.