Archive for August, 2009
The FTC has announced new fees starting on October 1, 2009, for telemarketers accessing phone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry. All telemarketers making calls to consumers in the United States are required to download the numbers on the Do Not Call list to ensure they do not call consumers who have registered their phone numbers. The first five area codes are free, and organizations that are exempt from the Do Not Call rules, such as some charitable organizations, may obtain the entire list for free. Telemarketers must subscribe each year for access to the Registry numbers.
The access fees for fiscal year 2010 (from October 1, 2009 to September 30, 2010) are based on the Do-Not-Call Registry Fee Extension Act of 2007. Under the Act’s provisions, in fiscal year 2010, telemarketers will pay $55 for access to Registry phone numbers in a single area code, up to a maximum charge of $15,058 for all area codes nationwide. Telemarketers will pay $27 per area code for numbers they subscribe to receive during the second half of the 12-month subscription period.
Copies of the documents announcing the fees are available at the FTC website or at PMA.This subject will be covered at the PMA Law Conference , Nov,.5-6. in Chicago http://www.pmalink.org/law/
As marketers seek every opportunity to get closer to their consumer either online or offline, a traditional “old school” marketing tactic has been proven to be more effective and affordable than ever believed possible.
A new study called R.I.S.E (Report on In-Store Effectiveness) was commissed by PMA member Promoworks and the In-Store Marketing Institute, and conducted by research firm Knowledge Networks-PDI. Results of the study include:
- In-store sampling works—driving trial and sales. The average cumulative trial for the sampled items was +58% over 20 weeks. Sampled items in multiple categories showed an average +475% cumulative sales lift on the day of event.
- In-store sampling impacts sales in ways never thought possible:
- In-store sampling drives additional repeat purchase. The average cumulative first repeat purchase for sampled products was +11% and +6% for the brand franchise over a 20 week period.
- In-store sampling drives sales for existing products and line extensions. The sales lift for the existing product sampled was +177% for day of event and +57% after a 20 week period. The sales lift for the line extension product sampled was +919% for day of event and +107% after a 20 week period.
- In-store sampling drives brand franchise trial and sales. The sampling was found to have a significant impact for the parent brand of the sampled products with +107% average sales lift on the day of event and +21% average sales lift after a 20 week period. The average cumulative trial for the brand franchise was +19% over a 20 week period.
- In-store sampling delivers new buyers – to the sampled items and to the brand franchise1.The average cumulative new buyers for sample products was +85% and +23% for the brand franchise over a 20 week period.
- In-store sampling increases the average household shopping basket size. As a result of the sampling event the involved consumers’ overall shopping basket expenditure increased +10%, as compared to the average frequent shopper basket in the participating retailer. This suggests sampling contributes to incremental growth and does not cannibalize other items within the brands’ own franchise.
- In-store sampling impacts sales long after the day of event, making it incredibly cost effective. By utilizing frequent shopper data, the actual sales impact of the in-store sampling can now be measured. Over the 20-week period, the sampled items saw an average cumulative sales lift of +74%. In-store sampling’s cost effectiveness when applied to all of sampling’s benefits over time is extraordinary.
An interesting suit to watch in coming months will be the class action filed in late July against the National Collegiate Athletic Association and its licensing arm, the Collegiate Licensing Co.
The suit, filed in the Northern District of California by a putative class of Division I college football and basketball players, alleges that the NCAA has violated antitrust laws by precluding them from receiving compensation in connection with the sale of merchandise using their images after they have graduated from their institutions. At stake is the right of graduates (not current athletes) to receive compensation when the NCAA licenses products, such as video games, that use their images.
The market for collegiate licensed merchandise currently is $4 billion, and while much of that is not the subject of the suit, the suit does challenge the NCAA’s requirement that student athletes sign a form each year relinquishing in perpetuity the commercial use of their images. The release clause apparently was meant to allow the NCAA to use athlete’s names and images to promote its championship games and other events, activities and programs, but allegedly has been more broadly used by the NCAA without compensation to the players. The case is worth watching for those who license footage and other properties from the NCAA, particularly that of historical interest.
The case was filed by former UCAL basketball star Ed O’Bannon and also requests monetary damages for the class. (O’Bannon v. NCAA, N.D. Cal., No. CV-09-3329, filed 7/21/09).
These materials have been prepared by Winston & Strawn for informational purposes only. These materials do not constitute legal advice and cannot be relied upon by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code.
The Maine governor signed into law on June 2 a new law that, starting September 12, will essentially bring the requirements of COPPA to 13-18 year olds that reside in that state, both in the online and the offline world. Under the new law, it will become an unfair trade practice to collect personal information from children under 18 without first obtaining parental consent. Consent must be “verifiable,” defined as “any reasonable effort, taking into consideration available technology” to ensure that the parent receives prior notice of and authorizes the collection of his or her child’s personal information. The law also makes it an unfair practice to engage in “predatory marketing” to kids under 18, defined as, among other things, using a minor’s personal information to market “a product or service to that minor or promoting any course of action for the minor relating to a product.”
The Maine Attorney General is given authority to enforce the law, with potential civil penalties of $10,000 to $20,000 for the first violation, and $20,000 or more for the second or subsequent violation the law. In addition, the new law provides for a private right of action, with statutory damages of up to $250 for each violation. Many are concerned about this law, in particular the private right of action, and fear that it could have serious impact for those who collect information from teenagers online, those who engage in direct marketing to children under 18 (for example
to teenagers between 13-18), as well as those who collect information offline in Maine from children. Several industry groups have indicated that they will be working to delay implementation of the law, PMA is working closely in this area, but as of this writing, no delay has been announced by the state of Maine.
However, this is an evolving situation and we will report very soon again about the efforts undertaken in this area, and the possibility of revision of the statute and the time frame frames therein contemplated.