Globe headline on Rogers' Chocolat launch
[See earlier items here and here.]
It's fascinating to see the negative spin that the 3 June Globe and Mail article (and in particular its headline "You can move, but can't hide, from new Rogers magazine") put on the Chocolat launch ... not to mention the roughly 20-to-1 negative comments that Globe readers posted online. Words like "appalling" and "disgusting", and (so far) 4 references to Rogers Cablevision's mid-1990s negative-billing PR fiasco.
Here's one sample reaction: "A huge invasion of my privacy! I have the right to move without being pursued by commercial interests. When I move this fall I will cancel my Rogers cable. Too bad I can't cancel Canada Post."
And another: "Hey Canada Post. How about paying me to fill out your change of address form now that you are making money from my information, instead of charging me an extortionary $33..."
It seems that one of the dangers of being a huge company with diversified business lines under one common brand is that if one of your ventures cheeses off some customers/prospects, it might bite you back across all business lines.
[Secondary note: Rogers' Michael Fox (an entirely honourable person, it need not be mentioned here) earlier posted that "CPC will inform its customer that they will get an issue of the Smartmoves Movers Guide magazine as a benefit of registering for the COA" ... whereas the Globe piece says (about Chocolat) that "Those people will also receive a letter from Rogers that will allow them to decline the magazine." Neither says anything about the original address change application form carrying an opt-out check-box.]
[Tertiary note: I'm a little fuzzy on the Globe writer's distinction between existing SmartMoves/Déménageur as being Canada Post's "own magazine" (I understood it to be produced by Rogers under contract to Canada Post), vs. the description of Rogers' Chocolat as being "the first magazine publisher to tap Canada Post Corp.'s vast database of address changes". Ownership and the assumption of risk-vs.-profit, I suppose, but I bet that distinction is equally fuzzy to most readers.]
It's fascinating to see the negative spin that the 3 June Globe and Mail article (and in particular its headline "You can move, but can't hide, from new Rogers magazine") put on the Chocolat launch ... not to mention the roughly 20-to-1 negative comments that Globe readers posted online. Words like "appalling" and "disgusting", and (so far) 4 references to Rogers Cablevision's mid-1990s negative-billing PR fiasco.
Here's one sample reaction: "A huge invasion of my privacy! I have the right to move without being pursued by commercial interests. When I move this fall I will cancel my Rogers cable. Too bad I can't cancel Canada Post."
And another: "Hey Canada Post. How about paying me to fill out your change of address form now that you are making money from my information, instead of charging me an extortionary $33..."
It seems that one of the dangers of being a huge company with diversified business lines under one common brand is that if one of your ventures cheeses off some customers/prospects, it might bite you back across all business lines.
[Secondary note: Rogers' Michael Fox (an entirely honourable person, it need not be mentioned here) earlier posted that "CPC will inform its customer that they will get an issue of the Smartmoves Movers Guide magazine as a benefit of registering for the COA" ... whereas the Globe piece says (about Chocolat) that "Those people will also receive a letter from Rogers that will allow them to decline the magazine." Neither says anything about the original address change application form carrying an opt-out check-box.]
[Tertiary note: I'm a little fuzzy on the Globe writer's distinction between existing SmartMoves/Déménageur as being Canada Post's "own magazine" (I understood it to be produced by Rogers under contract to Canada Post), vs. the description of Rogers' Chocolat as being "the first magazine publisher to tap Canada Post Corp.'s vast database of address changes". Ownership and the assumption of risk-vs.-profit, I suppose, but I bet that distinction is equally fuzzy to most readers.]
posted by Jon Spencer at
3:12 pm
4 Comments:
DB...this subject could use more light cast on it. What is Mags Can's position on this cozy partnership with a government monopoly? Given the strong position taken vis a vis Food & Drink magazine, I imagine this new alliance is a bit tricky to reconcile. How can other magazines compete fairly with a government entity like this? Or can other magazines get access to this data base? What are the costs? Does Canada Post plan to start collecting privacy permission on the change of address apllications going forward? So many questions...
Actually, Jon Spencer was responsible for this excellent post. Earlier posts have raised the very good question you asked: can other publishers get access to this database, which is generated by a Crown corporation? Does anyone want to confront Canada Post about whether renting the change of address list (particularly people who are going up against Rogers)? That's the other part of the question. And, if they do, will every user have to requalify the names (target households would become pretty tired, pretty quickly, of having to fend off subscription offers)
Jon,
What more can you tell us? Is this list (collected by a Crown Corp, and thus owned by all of us) available to be rented?
As for SmartMoves, how does Mags Can view this development?
All of this is so bizarre...
Well, really I know nothing more than what I've read here and in the papers. I'm sure there are those who could tell us more, but whether they are inclined to do so is another question. And I haven't discussed it with MagsCan or anything, so really I'm not much help at all, am I?
My vague suspicion, however, is that these distribution arrangements aren't entirely privacy-compliant. I mean, I'm sure the Rogers and Canada Post folks did their homework so they must have some basis for proceeding, but the posts from some of the Globe readers really hit the mark -- things like "if our privacy legislation doesn't safeguard us against ventures such as this, then what good is it anyway?"
As I see it, if a consumer has to receive a piece of mail and respond to it in order to prevent subsequent pieces of mail from arriving, that's kinda iffy, privacy-wise.
Whether or not their personal info has been "shared" with another party, PIPEDA (as I understand it) says you can send people stuff that any reasonable person might reasonably expect to receive as a consequence of their divulging their personal info. (e.g. sending a magazine or invoice to someone who ordered a magazine and asked to be billed ... not a magazine as a consequence of asking to have their mail forwarded!)
And I suspect that so much of the privacy law is still to be decided on a case-by-case basis, so maybe these two corporations are crossing their fingers and hoping for the best? Sounds doubtful. They must have a better rationale than I'm able to guess at here.
If I do hear more, I'll be sure to pipe up. And if anyone else has some comments or insight, please jump right in!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home