artegic presents its new solution for legally compliant email targeting

The abili­ty to mea­su­re the user beha­viour of each indi­vi­dual email mar­ke­ting sub­scri­ber is an import­ant tool for rele­vant and tar­get-spe­ci­fic com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on. Cli­ck pro­files, for exam­ple, help to iden­ti­fy inte­rests and ser­ve the­se bet­ter. In prac­tice, howe­ver, com­pa­nies face a dilem­ma when it comes to the legal­ly com­p­li­ant collec­tion and pro­ces­sing of per­so­nal res­pon­se data. With its cur­rent ver­si­on of the ELAI­NE FIVE Online Dia­log CRM, tech­no­lo­gy pro­vi­der artegic is pre­sen­ting a new solu­ti­on for legal­ly com­p­li­ant mar­ke­ting based on beha­viour pro­files: Pri­va­cy Admis­si­on Con­trol.

Suc­cess­ful dia­lo­gue mar­ke­ting now requi­res tar­ge­ted and rele­vant com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on. The con­tent of cam­pai­gns as well as the selec­tion of tar­get groups must be based on the spe­ci­fic inte­rests and requi­re­ments of each indi­vi­dual addres­see. In this con­text, email mar­ke­ting has always stood out with its mea­sura­bi­li­ty of all actions. It is the­re­fo­re pos­si­ble to deter­mi­ne, with accu­ra­cy, whe­ther emails have been opened or links have been cli­cked on. Apart from pure­ly sta­ti­s­ti­cal ana­ly­sis, this also makes it pos­si­ble, in par­ti­cu­lar, to collect, store and ana­ly­se the user beha­viour of the indi­vi­dual con­tacts.

Marketing practice requires suitable technical solutions

Howe­ver, the temp­t­ing tech­no­lo­gi­cal pos­si­bi­li­ties of crea­ting user pro­files from res­pon­se data are sub­jec­ted to legal restric­tions in many coun­tries. Often, the fol­lo­wing app­lies: when data from user beha­viour ana­ly­sis is lin­ked with per­so­nal data such as an email address, the expli­cit con­s­ent of the per­son in ques­ti­on is requi­red.

In mar­ke­ting prac­tice, the requi­red sepa­ra­ti­on bet­ween per­sons who have given their con­s­ent to pro­filing and tho­se who have not given their con­s­ent, or who have with­drawn their con­s­ent, is often not pos­si­ble tech­ni­cal­ly. Collec­tion and pro­ces­sing of the rele­vant data can eit­her be activa­ted or deac­tiva­ted, if at all. In rea­li­ty this means that the pro­cess is eit­her car­ri­ed out for ever­yo­ne or no one. This pres­ents a dilem­ma for com­pa­nies which do not wish to eit­her refrain from pro­filing or abstain from legal secu­ri­ty.

Individual level of data processing based on consent

The Pri­va­cy Admis­si­on Con­trol Func­tion of the ELAI­NE FIVE Online Dia­log CRM sol­ves the issue of vary­ing types of con­s­ent in dia­lo­gue mar­ke­ting. The new solu­ti­on makes it pos­si­ble to dif­fe­ren­tia­te the tech­ni­cal pro­ces­sing of data direct­ly during collec­tion, accord­ing to the spe­ci­fic con­s­ent given by the indi­vi­dual per­son. The indi­vi­dual level of con­s­ent can be dis­play­ed and can be dealt with, in prac­tice, in a legal­ly secu­re man­ner.

During the collec­tion of beha­viou­ral data from mea­su­re­ments of various pro­ces­ses inclu­ding opens, clicks, con­ver­si­ons and send-to-a-fri­end, ELAI­NE checks which data usa­ge has been con­s­en­ted to by the per­son in ques­ti­on. When collec­ting and pro­ces­sing data the pro­filing metrics can dis­tin­gu­ish bet­ween any levels of con­s­ent. Detai­led inte­rest and beha­viour pro­filing can the­re­fo­re be car­ri­ed out without the risk of legal con­flicts with users who have not given their con­s­ent, or having to refrain from pro­filing com­ple­te­ly for this rea­son.

Fol­lo­wing the same prin­ci­ple, it is also pos­si­ble to mana­ge various opt-in sour­ces or dif­fe­rent ver­si­ons of data pri­va­cy notes and, accord­ingly, take their legal impli­ca­ti­ons into account.

Upgrading of consent as a marketing task

The Pri­va­cy Admis­si­on Con­trol Func­tion of the new ELAI­NE FIVE Online Dia­log CRM also faci­li­ta­tes the expan­si­on of data usa­ge decla­ra­ti­ons of older data bases, whe­re no gra­nu­lar collec­tion of con­s­ent took pla­ce. By kno­wing the spe­ci­fic level of con­s­ent, it is pos­si­ble, at the next oppor­tu­ni­ty or during spe­cial cam­pai­gns, to spe­ci­fi­cal­ly request an update or expan­si­on of the con­s­ent. This upgra­ding of data pri­va­cy state­ments is beco­m­ing an essen­ti­al task in the mar­ke­ting con­text, due to hig­her deman­ds in dia­lo­gue mar­ke­ting and stric­ter legal requi­re­ments.

Business practice is often not legally compliant

If you also wish to crea­te per­so­nal user pro­files pure­ly for sta­ti­s­ti­cal ana­ly­sis, you may need the expli­cit con­s­ent of the users, depen­ding on the legal posi­ti­on. Per­so­nal user pro­filing takes pla­ce when data from the mea­su­ring of user beha­viour is lin­ked or can be lin­ked to per­so­nal data – in email mar­ke­ting, the email address in par­ti­cu­lar. This also means that cam­pai­gns, which are alre­a­dy run­ning and tar­ge­ting all tho­se users who have not cli­cked on the last mai­ling, also fall under this exten­ded duty to obtain con­s­ent. Fre­quent­ly argued, sepa­ra­te sto­r­a­ge which can, howe­ver, in prac­tice sim­ply be lin­ked via IDs for exam­ple, is the­re­fo­re not suf­fi­ci­ent.

In any case, this con­s­ent to data usa­ge for the pur­po­se of per­so­nal pro­filing must be obtai­ned in a man­ner which can be pro­ven and, depen­ding on the legis­la­ti­on, should be requested sepa­ra­te­ly from the opt-in pro­cess for recei­ving emails. Howe­ver, this is hard­ly ever taken into con­side­ra­ti­on in prac­tice. Many of the solu­ti­ons in use and data usa­ge state­ments do not the­re­fo­re com­ply with the legal requi­re­ments and repre­sent a legal risk.

Fur­ther­mo­re, users and the public are beco­m­ing increa­sin­gly sen­si­ti­ve when it comes to data pri­va­cy. Com­pa­nies are the­re­fo­re requi­red to take their legal res­pon­si­bi­li­ties serious­ly. Jus­ti­cia­ble pro­ces­ses such as sui­ta­ble sub­scri­ber con­s­ent obtai­ned in an effec­tive man­ner are con­ti­nu­al­ly requi­red wit­hin the con­text of data pri­va­cy state­ments, as is a sui­ta­ble method for dif­fe­ren­tia­ting tech­ni­cal­ly bet­ween various types of con­s­ent in data pro­ces­sing.