If management did not require a review of all marketing pieces before distribution, the penalty and suspension were earned whether this was the first detected violation or not. If the company was the least bit vigilant in enforcing an “all marketing must be reviewed” policy and could have shown rejected marketing as evidence, when looking at the fact pattern in other cases and the related punishment, again this verdict seems harsh.

It is difficult to imagine how one piece of a 100 mailing piece distribution would end up in the hands of HUD. From a probability standpoint, this seems like a virtual impossibility.

Why the promoter of this kind of marketing cannot be punished is ridiculous. If they guaranteed compliance with HUD, it seems the originator and the company would be suing for the amount of dollars lost including lost profits. If the marketing firm is not made to pay for its warranties then we as an industry are the losers.

Even if the originator were performing a test of the claims of a marketing firm, how would a mailing of 100 pieces provide any proof of the product? We would all jump for joy if our close rates on such marketing even approximated 1% of the mailers sent. There is far too much information missing from this story.

No doubt some of the missing information has to do with the concerns of legal counsel.