The Spam Act is probably the most important piece of legislation to effect marketers since the Privacy Act in 1988, but despite this, a new survey reveals many organisations are feeling both “jaded and confused” by what the new regulations mean for business.
The first Australian survey to examine the impact of spam and the new Act, was conducted by the Australian Direct Marketing Association (ADMA) and specialist email agency, Permission Communications. One of its key findings has been the serious lack of understanding many people still have about the new law.
While 71% of respondents believed they understood the Act, 82% could not identfy particular spam items.
Permission Communications managing director Jeremy Glass said this showed “there’s potentially this false sense of understanding where people think they understand but the bottom line is that they simply don’t”.
He says, while the legislation came into effect on April 10 this year, it’s been generally understood that the Australian Communications Authority (ACA) will be giving businesses a few months to absorb the details of the new law and understand how it will affect them.
“But once they [the ACA] start looking at chasing breaches, chances are there are going to be some big brand names—marketers—who are going to get tripped up, possibly because they haven’t understood it, or because they haven’t ticked all the boxes or crossed all the ‘Ts’ to make sure they’ve done everything.
“And I think that the media and the ACA are going to be very hungry to try and make an example of companies to ensure that people are complying,” Glass said.
This sentiment may not be shared by everyone however, with 60% of the survey’s respondents revealing that they believe there will be no change in the level of spam following the introduction of the Act, with some even going as far as saying that it will in fact increase.
And further, only 67% per cent believed that compliance with the Act was important to their business, and an even lower 45% said they would be willing to invest in compliance.
Glass says this may suggest that many marketers are taking a “wait and see”approach, while others believe the work that they have already done may be sufficient enough to address any compliance issues.
There is also mixed opinion on who is actually responsible for compliance with the Spam Act, with 39% indicating that responsibility lies with the marketing department, 19% pointing the finger at the legal department and 13% choosing management.
But the Act itself says the “sender” is the responsible party, which indicates that ultimately the organisation as a whole will be responsible.
