Suppressed opportunities

By Colin Lloyd, chairman of the Suppression Providers Alliance, and former CEO, Direct Marketing Association

In these recessionary times, as Tesco claims, “every little helps” and direct marketing is no exception. To squeeze the most out of a DM campaign can often make the difference between successful ROI or abject failure.

The sermon from the mount of DM – “right person, right message, right time” – is as relevant today as it was at the birth of modern DM. Test and test again was also the fourth commandment, but this seems to be forgotten these days. So making sure that you have the right person and as many of them as you can is vital.

When you think of the effort and cost of running an effective campaign, satisfying stakeholders, procurement and compliance, it is a tragedy that opportunities are being squandered probably through bad practice. Perhaps also deliberately, dare I speculate.

The Suppression Providers Alliance (SPA), which I have been invited to Chair, brings together all the major data suppression providers. The main purpose of SPA is to improve practices and education in the use of suppression files. If we get it right, standards in DM will improve significantly meeting good practice, environmental and ROI criteria.

SPA is now in its second year and has achieved much and I am grateful for the support that I have had to date. However, having peeled off many of the layers of data management activity, through consultation and mystery shopping activity in the market, I am deeply concerned about what I am finding.

What I thought was going to be a straightforward role for me could mutate into a crusade. What I am finding in the intermediary marketplace is a great deal of misunderstanding, lack of the knowledge of the basics, inadequate internal processes and suppression practices that leave a lot to be desired.

To flag or to suppress is a choice that seems to confuse many. There seems to be no accepted standard of hierarchical suppression. So the same suppression files used on identical databases by different procedures can produce very different outcomes, which theoretically they should not.

Perhaps the most worrying aspect of my findings to date is over – and indeed under – suppression. There have been a number of instances in our controlled testing where suppression can be as high as four times the median. The result is that valuable contact data is not available for a campaign and sales opportunities are lost.

This is unacceptable at any time, let alone now. I fear I have more work to do than I originally envisaged.

Latest from Marketing Week


Access Marketing Week’s wealth of insight, analysis and opinion that will help you do your job better.

Register and receive the best content from the only UK title 100% dedicated to serving marketers' needs.

We’ll ask you just a few questions about what you do and where you work. The more we know about our visitors, the better and more relevant content we can provide for them. And, yes, knowing our audience better helps us find commercial partners too. Don't worry, we won't share your information with other parties, unless you give us permission to do so.

Register now


Our award winning editorial team (PPA Digital Brand of the Year) ask the big questions about the biggest issues on everything from strategy through to execution to help you navigate the fast moving modern marketing landscape.


From the opportunities and challenges of emerging technology to the need for greater effectiveness, from the challenge of measurement to building a marketing team fit for the future, we are your guide.


Information, inspiration and advice from the marketing world and beyond that will help you develop as a marketer and as a leader.

Having problems?

Contact us on +44 (0)20 7292 3703 or email

If you are looking for our Jobs site, please click here