The Yes campaign’s SMS to thousands of Australian ignited the wrath of No voters. The No campaign’s robocall to a million Australians sparked fury in Yes voters.

The marriage equality campaigns have brought to the surface an issue that advertising has been not been discussing in earnest. But possibly should have. Or at least, now should.

Privacy and pissing off your audience.

ADMA has the grit to start that talk and has done so with its blog, Three lessons from the same sex marriage campaigns.

Here is ADMA’s input in a nutshell. Read the full discussion here.

Neither the Yes vote’s text messages nor the No vote’s robocalls broke the law. Australia has anti-spamming and telemarketing laws, but they apply only to commercial electronic messages. Yes vote’s SMS was not one of these. It is considered to be for a commercial purpose only if one of the purposes is to offer, advertise or promote the supply of goods and services. The SMS’s purpose was purely a political message.

The robocall is not a telemarketing call because it was purely a political message. And while there are extra standards applied to telemarketers (the Do Not Call Register Act), Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), the robocalls still fall within the approved guidelines.

In fact, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), had stated on September 25 that Australians may be contacted by phone, email or SMS in relation to the SSM Postal Survey because that contact is not for a commercial purpose.

On top of this, the SMS was sent by Australian Marriage Equality (a registered charity) and the Australian Conservatives (a registered political party). Registered charities, registered political parties and education institutions are exempt from the Spam Act. And calls from registered political parties, are automatically not considered telemarketing phone calls under the DNCR Act, which covers the robocalls.

BUT…

… there is still a valuable lesson for all businesses, ADMA points out. They got people riled. That’s not what brands want do.

Australians don’t have an actionable right that protects them against invasion of privacy. Our Privacy Act 1988 only applies to ‘personal information’ – information that can identify an individual. The Yes campaign text messages were sent using a technology platform that generates randomised phone numbers and phone numbers alone do not identify an individual unless matched to a database with names and addresses.

Both the Yes and No Campaigns complied with existing laws, but they caused a ruckus. Everyday people don’t know the ins and outs of complex privacy laws. They don’t want companies sneaking into their information and don’t like it when they think that’s what’s happening.

“Where did they get my number?” is not a business building response.

And when it comes to robocalls? Australians simply don’t like them.

“The response from some members in the public in relation to these tactics is precisely why we, as an association, advocate for, and encourage our Members, to operate to a higher level of transparency and with a greater level of awareness of customers’ expectations – the aim is always to ensure a positive experience through any interaction, and to engender greater consumer trust with respect to privacy and how information and data is used,” ADMA notes in its article.

“ADMA continues to support its members with regulatory compliance, but we and our members know, it’s the community/customer expectations that count.”