This article, authored by Keith Norris, Compliance Consultant at the Marketing Association, digs into the complexities of proposed amendments to the Privacy Act 2020. Keith highlights the potential impact on marketers and advocates for exemptions and practical solutions to protect industry interests while ensuring consumer protection. Read below to know more about this new legislation, how it could reshape marketing practices, and what steps are being taken to address its challenges.

When you first considered marketing, as a career, were you excited about the unique blend of glamour, creativity, and influence it offered? Did you think it was perfect for someone like you with a passion for storytelling and a knack for creativity? Did you dream of shaping brands, developing compelling copy and ‘knock m dead’ promotional ideas? Yes, of course you did, and quite right too!

What you may not have realized back then is that there is another side to becoming a marketing professional. Not nearly as glamorous and much more demanding of the left side of your brain. There are rules to follow, industry standards to comply with and laws to obey. These rules are set by bureaucrats, lawyers and politicians who seem to be intent on making life as difficult as possible for would-be entrepreneurs like you. Don’t they realize you have deadlines to hit, market share to worry about, KPI’s to achieve?

No, they don’t …... but that’s our job!

One of the most important roles of an industry body like the Marketing Association is having a strong voice to ensure your needs are understood by the lawmakers when new legislation is being considered. Every single new law seems to make our lives more complex, and every new minor amendment creates a new playing field. My job, as compliance consultant to the MA is to make sure those changes don’t bring with them unintended consequences for marketers. And I’m passionate about protecting our interests!

Take for instance an innocuous amendment to the Privacy Act 2020 currently being considered by the Parliamentary Justice Committee. This amendment to Principle 3 of the Act will require you to inform an individual whenever you collect any personal information from a third party. So, if you exchange, rent or buy personal data from anyone other than that person you must inform them. Simple and seemingly logical….or is it ?

Very little personal data is exchanged commercially on a permanent basis. It is commonly ‘rented’ for a one only use. The data is not permanently collected or held by the marketing organisation, it is simply used to send one direct mail piece or make one phone call. So what is the point of advising the person you have received their contact details if you are not holding it permanently? This simply creates more expense and administration for the marketer and information overload for the consumer.

We met with the Justice Select Committee and made this recommendation:

We recommend that:

1.    Personal contact information obtained from a third party which is the subject of a single use agreement should be exempt from the requirements of the proposed IPP 3A.

Similarly, data containing contact details is often rented for a limited time period covered by a legal contract.

So, we recommended:

2.    Where data is exchanged for a limited time period it should be exempt from the requirements of the proposed IPP 3A.

Think for a moment about registered charities. They are often manned by volunteers and have no marketing systems. They depend on being able to acquire prospective donors by renting data and running a low cost campaign. The costs and systems required to comply with the new amendment will be difficult to bear. The same applies to the 560,000 small businesses in New Zealand. Legislation has an unfortunate habit of financially hitting those that can least afford it.

So, we recommended:

3.    Registered charities should be exempt from the requirements of the proposed IPP 3A. and that strong consideration be given to extending the exemption to small business.

Individual New Zealand consumers will clearly receive more unwanted communications as a result of this amendment bill because organisations will be contacting them to advise that they have received personal data from a third party. This will simply cause annoyance to many thousands of individuals as they will receive continuous notices advising that their data had been exchanged or shared. We do not believe that is the intent of this bill. A far more effective solution would be to allow consumers to reduce the number of unsolicited communications they receive by registering themselves on the MA operated Name Suppression Service (NSS). In other words put the fence at the top of the cliff rather than the ambulance at the bottom!

We therefore recommend that:

4.    The facility to opt-out of receiving unsolicited marketing communications though the MA Name Suppression Service should be ratified in law.

There were a few more recommendations about interpretation of the wording and queries about exclusion clauses, but I don’t want to keep you away from planning your next promotion any longer. This amendment to a piece of legislation that most people either don’t know about, or don’t care about, is just a small example to give you an idea of the work that goes on behind the scenes at the Marketing Association.

And we’re passionate about it! 

Source: Keith Norris, Compliance Consultant to the marketing profession