There were reports in the press recently that a Labour leaflet campaign was targeting cancer sufferers with a message that their lives could be at risk if a Tory government was to come into power using the strap line “are the Tories a change you can afford?”

Labour claims that they used publicly available social demographic data and the data management company Experian confirmed that both Labour and the Conservatives use its Mosaic database, which divides voters into 67 groups and identifies likely cancer patients using anonymised hospital statistics, including postcodes and the diagnoses of patients.

This throws up interesting questions about what customer information a brand should use in tailoring their communications.

The holy grail of all customer marketing is surely to get to a point where brands can treat their customers as individuals but if they are seen to be taking advantage of someone’s disadvantages to promote a product or service then this risks alienating the customer and potentially turning into a PR nightmare.

As a Business Development Manager I have the advantage of being able to react to information I receive during a conversation and amend my communications accordingly.

When I am making new business calls to marketing decision makers part of my job is to identify ‘pain points’ and highlight requirements that are not currently adequately provided by their internal resources or current suppliers. This gives me a great reason for them to meet my client. However I’m always very aware that identifying pain points is one thing, but overstating them is likely to turn the prospect off.

Quite often the questions I ask are designed to raise these areas in the prospect’s mind but sometimes ‘in their mind’ is enough and these ‘problems’ remain unspoken. If, in their mind they can see a problem that is currently unsolved and match that with a potential solution that my client has expertise in then I’m more than half way there.

In my experience there is such a thing as overselling your benefits and if that is on the back of excessively highlighting a prospective client’s (or for that matter voter’s) problems then you’re bound to risk appearing mercenary or as Phyllis Delik, 80, who received one of Labours leaflets described it “callous”.

What do you think the limit should be on marketers using sensitive data to target their customers, if any?

Of all the electioneering and posturing that’s going on, very few articles catch my eye and make me want to read on – this one did.

This particular article resonated for two key reasons:

Firstly, I run a business development agency helping marketing agencies find new business and am conscious of the fact that one day I may be invited to help an agency that specialises in marketing to kids, and as such, will have to make a decision as to whether we want to work with them.

Secondly, I’m the grandmother of an 18 month old and will no doubt be facing the problems associated with marketing to kids as she gets older and more verbal in her demands to keep up with all her classmates (my own son was told ‘no’ but I’m not sure that cuts it any more in this greed driven world)

Anyway, I’m pleased that to read that a website that will enable parents to complain about sexualised products and marketing aimed at children will go ahead whether Labour or the Conservatives win the general election.

I don’t care whose idea it was or who put it in their manifesto first, I’m just glad that both parties are sensible enough to see value in the notion. I also hope that the industry is consulted.

Here’s a prime example of why we need to prioritise initiatives like this – Primark is forced to withdraw its padded bikini tops for 7 year girls - need I say more?

Would be good to hear your views on this………

I heard on BBC’s Breakfast News this morning that the Electoral Commission are using Facebook to generate some new business – in this case to encourage the 3.5 million people who are eligible to vote but are not registered to do so to get their backsides in gear.

Voter turn out amongst 18-24 year-olds is always poor, so anything that can be done to improve this must be good news.

With this in mind, it is one of the most useful campaigns I can think of in recent times and one which can genuinely be called “social marketing”, what with the potential benefit it could have on society as a whole – a truer reflection of how the people would like the country governed as the proportion of people having their say increases… unless of course these 3.5 million who have slipped through the net are complete morons or Nazis or something, in which case I’m sure it will be awful.

Of course, how successful it will be remains to be seen and the real challenge will be to actually get people off Facebook for 5 minutes and into the polling booths. So may I suggest to the Electoral Commission some sort of experiential marketing or sales promotion enticement to follow up – put your ballot in the box and you get the chance to live on an MP’s expense account for a year perhaps? I can already see the headlines now: “Counting still going on after three days – all parties stunned by highest turnout ever.”