The Council of American Survey Research Organizations (CASRO) has reluctantly decided to part company with the Council for Marketing and Opinion Research (CMOR), originally set up to co-ordinate the industry's approach on such matters, due to irreconcilable differences in approach to legislation affecting MR.
Simon Chadwick, most recently CEO of NOP World, was interviewed via e-mail by Michael Kenyon, MrWeb's Director of US Operations. Michael began by mentioning a meeting of the Research Industry Leaders Forum (RILF) in Florida many years ago, which both attended. The meeting agreed on the potential for governmental legislation to create obstacles to the future of MR in the US, and by its end, individuals made financial pledges to develop an undefined organization to address what was identified as the top priority for the MR industry. The resulting body, CMOR, was tasked both with promoting positive legislation and preventing restrictive legislation impacting MR, and with improving respondent cooperation in research.
SC: | I
share your recollection
of the foundation
of CMOR in 1992 -
I was indeed there
and was a very early
supporter, signing
a financial pledge
there and then. Since that time, I have continued to be a strong supporter of the organization - I have served on the Board for most of the organization's existence and NOP World is the only company contributing at the topmost level ($50,000 a year). Given this, you
will understand that
things must have gotten
pretty serious for
me to decide - alongside
my other CASRO Board
members - that it
would be best if CASRO
were to cease its
membership of CMOR.
(By the way, CASRO
is not the first of
the four founding
associations to cease
being a member - the
AMA left the organization
some 4 years ago,
if memory serves). |
|
MK: | What are the primary reasons for CASRO decision (to resign from CMOR)? Was there any discussion of possible compromises / re-wording or re-positioning to suit both sides, and if there was what were the consequences? | |
SC: | The
primary reason for
CASRO leaving CMOR
was a fundamental
disagreement between
the two organizations
about the strategies
and tactics involving
the industry's relations
with regulators and
government. Under
advice from legal
counsel and from top
legislators, CASRO
has been very careful
to argue that our
interactions with
the public (in any
data collection mode)
do not amount to “commercial
speech”. That
is because we do not
advertise, promote
or sell anything in
our conversations
with the public and
other respondents.
Why is this important?
Because regulations
and legislation like
that which gave rise
to the Do Not Call
Registry have as their
purview commercial
speech. Essentially,
if speech is commercial,
but is not to be covered
by these regulations,
organizations using
such speech need to
fight for exemption.
This is what applies,
for example, to fund-raisers
and charities. In the past, both CASRO and CMOR used to use the expression that survey research was implicitly exempt from such regulations – i.e. it was not mentioned in the Act or the Rules. However, this implied that we were commercial speech, which could have potentially disastrous consequences (see below). So we took the advice we were given and started to urge our members and the industry (including CMOR) as a whole to describe survey research as not covered or not included. And why is this so important? Because despite the Appeal Court’s ruling on the constitutionality of the DNC Registry as currently set up, the federal rule is not pre-emptive of state rules. The battle is now moving from the federal level to the states, where many politicians are running on DNC as a platform – a good example is the Missouri AG who ran on the basis that he would draft the State’s DNC rules much more tightly than the federal ones by going after the exemptions. So, think about
it: if you are an
exemption (because
you classify as commercial
speech), you set yourself
up as a prime target
for ambitious politicians
to catch you in the
snare of the state
regulations. Where
the survey research
industry is concerned,
that is potentially
disastrous, since
now we could be faced
with the possibility
that we are confined
by DNC registers in
some states but not
others – try
making a national
sample on that basis! |
|
MK: | What would you say to the charge that CASRO’s position is more likely to sound like semantics to the general public / legislators who are not MR specialists? Is it possible that CMOR was just acknowledging the impossibility of distinguishing research from commercial activity in the minds of others, therefore being more practical? | |
SC: | These
are not mere semantics
– these distinctions
are very real in the
world of law and rule-making
and a slip-up could
land the industry
as a whole in a heck
of a mess. Which is
why, when it came
to the DNS (Do Not
Spam) Registry and
the CAN-SPAM Act,
we were very particular
once again to assert
that we are not commercial
speech and therefore
not covered. On DNC,
CMOR had joined with
CASRO and AAPOR arguing
exactly that. However,
in the interim, it
was still pushing
the “implicitly
exempt” argument
on its website and
in missives to the
industry, despite
CASRO’s pleas
not to. And then,
very startlingly,
on DNS – over
CASRO’s explicit
opposition –
CMOR submitted a comment
to the government
that stated that we
were commercial speech
and asking for explicit
exemption! This cut
the legs out from
under all the argumentation
that the industry
had used on DNC and
could seriously weaken
the industry’s
position in the future.
As you know, the CASRO governmental affairs team is very highly experienced – Diane Bowers led both CASRO and CMOR for many years; Jim Robinson is a very seasoned political operative in both state and national politics; and Duane Berlin, our General Counsel, probably knows more about the status of the research industry and the law than anyone else, period. So these three people convened a conference call with Brian Dautch (CMOR’s new Government Affairs Director) and Larry Hadcock, (the MRA’s new Executive Director, to whom Brian reports) and asked them very urgently to withdraw their comment. While they promised to consider the question, the CMOR Executive Committee ultimately turned our request down. From our perspective
– the perspective
of the association
whose remit it is
to protect the business
and businesses of
research – this
was a colossal error.
To our minds, the
CMOR position on this
and other issues are
detrimental to the
research industry
as a whole –
and certainly to our
members. We could
not, in all conscience,
continue membership
in an organization
that, for whatever
reason, was supporting
positions that we
felt could endanger
our members’
livelihoods. |
|
MK: | Does CASRO see its Government and Legal Affairs committee competing with CMOR for a role in representing the best interests of the MR industry or will CASRO approach government and legal affairs differently from CMOR? | |
SC: | CASRO
does not see itself
competing with CMOR
in any respect. We
have a different view
than CMOR does and
will express that
view to government
– this is not
an unusual scenario
in industries with
diverse constituencies.
Please also remember
that CASRO has been
active in governmental
and legislative affairs
for many years even
when it was a member
of CMOR – we
set up our acclaimed
3P Privacy program
to help members and
non-members comply
with a whole set of
privacy laws; we published
our EU Handbook to
help companies doing
business in the EU
from a legal point
of view; and we were
the leading association
to put together the
Research Alliance
(CASRO, CMOR, MRA
and AAPOR) to fight
DNC. In many ways,
CMOR and CASRO have
been complementary
and we hope that will
continue. In addition,
we have pledged openly
and to the Executive
Committees of CMOR
and the MRA that we
would keep all communications
open between the government
and legislative affairs
branches of the two
organizations and
would inform them
well in advance of
any initiatives we
planned to take. Where
possible, we would
hope to work in concert
with them. |
|
MK: | When CASRO tackles government and legal affairs, are your Members likely to miss CMOR’s inclusion of organizations that use research? | |
SC: | It is always good to have research users and providers involved on the same side and we will continue to seek to do so through trying to find common ground with both CMOR and the ARF. | |
MK: | Will CASRO play a separate role in improving respondent co-operation in research? | |
SC: | No – CASRO will continue to support CMOR and the ARF in their respondent cooperation efforts. | |
MK: | Is CASRO likely to informally work with CMOR on legislative and respondent co-operation issues to avoid duplication of efforts? | |
SC: | Yes. | |
MK: | Are there changes that CMOR should make that would motivate CASRO to consider rejoining CMOR in the future? | |
SC: | Were CMOR to change its position on the fundamental issues that separate us, it is possible that we would consider rejoining at some stage in the future. However, it is much too early at this point to be thinking of that. | |
MK: | ‘Whoever is right, the fact that the industry can’t present a united voice will only undermine the strength of its case(s) regarding legislation’. Discuss :) | |
SC: | As
you know, I have been
an advocate of a unified
voice for a long time.
Indeed, it was I who
brought the associations
together at the beginning
of last year –
a process out of which
was born the Partnership.
CASRO decided not
to join the Partnership
because its Board
was not convinced
about the long-term
objective of merger
– that said,
CASRO has been a leader
in trying to put together
industry positions,
alliances and standards
to which all can adhere.
A very recent example
is where CASRO paid
over $7,000 to join
the American National
Standards Institute
and become the American
representative on
the ISO Committee
that is drafting a
new global ISO standard
for market research.
We invited other associations
to join with us in
this work and I am
glad to say that both
AAPOR and the American
Statistical Association
have done so.
However, in an industry in which there are many constituencies, it is not always possible that a single unified voice will be found. A very good example was the Research Alliance, which the ARF – a member of the Partnership – felt it could not join despite MRA and CMOR doing so. Why? Because its members include advertisers and direct marketers who felt that their interests lay elsewhere on the DNC issue. Does not having a unified voice damage us with regard to legislation and legislators? Obviously, it would be preferable to have one voice, but it is not unusual for industries to have a number of voices which sometimes disagree and legislators are used to that. |
|
You can read CMOR's response on this site.
All articles 2006-23 written and edited by Mel Crowther and/or Nick Thomas, 2024- by Nick Thomas, unless otherwise stated.
Register (free) for Daily Research News
REGISTER FOR NEWS EMAILS
To receive (free) news headlines by email, please register online