Marketing teams urged to make consent a foundation for customer trust

Getting a customer to opt in is only the beginning of a permission-based marketing relationship. At a November 2026 MarTech Conference session, practitioners argued that how companies explain, manage and use consent can determine whether an initial yes develops into lasting engagement—or becomes a source of distrust.

The session, “Beyond the opt-in: Engineering consent for better marketing,” was moderated by Jeanne Jennings, founder and chief strategist at Email Optimization Shop. Panelists were Joss Merckaert, head of consulting operations, North America, at fifty-five; Zack Meszaros, senior principal solutions engineer at OneTrust; and advisor Sal Tripi.

An audience poll underscored the operational challenges: more than half of respondents said they rely on standard preference centers, while a third said they operate strictly out of compliance fear. The discussion focused on moving beyond treating consent as a legal checkpoint and considering how permission practices can support a more valuable customer relationship.

Focus on the relationship after permission

Jennings framed the issue as a choice between maximizing the number of people who agree to hear from a brand and maximizing the value of the relationship after they do. The distinction matters when campaign pressure encourages teams to send another message without first considering whether recipients find the communication useful.

Tripi emphasized making the value exchange clear when asking people to share information. Customers should understand what data a brand is requesting, why it needs it and what practical benefit they will receive in return. That clarity can help people make an informed decision and connect consent to a specific utility rather than presenting it as a generic condition of engagement.

Meszaros described the importance of asking for permission when the reason for doing so is apparent. He cited timely delivery alerts as an example of a moment when a customer may readily understand the benefit of a particular communication channel. In such contextual situations, he said, organizations have seen a 5% to 10% lift in high-value channel opt-ins.

The example points to a practical consideration for marketers: review customer touchpoints to identify where a request for permission feels relevant and reciprocal. The session did not suggest that the same approach will produce identical results in every setting; the reported lift was tied to contextual consent and high-value channel opt-ins.

Separate what customers allow from what they want

The panel also addressed how marketers should interpret stated preferences alongside observed behavior. Jennings summarized the difference directly: “Consent tells us what we’re allowed to do. Preferences tell us what customers want.” Treating those signals as interchangeable can lead teams to make assumptions that are not supported by a customer’s expressed choices.

Merckaert said declared and observed data serve different strategic purposes, with context guiding how teams act on them. Behavioral activity may provide useful information, but it does not automatically establish that a person wants a particular message or that immediate outreach is appropriate.

Meszaros illustrated why context matters by contrasting browsing related to medical content with research into enterprise software or consumer goods. Those activities can carry different expectations, and marketers need to handle sensitive contexts accordingly. The broader implication is that behavioral signals should be interpreted carefully rather than treated as an invitation for premature outreach.

Build consent practices into marketing operations

For marketing leaders, the discussion puts consent design across several parts of the customer journey—not only at the initial sign-up. Teams can examine how they describe data requests, whether the promised utility is clear, when channel permissions are requested and how stated preferences inform subsequent communications.

That work also calls for coordination among the people responsible for marketing execution, customer data and privacy. The session’s emphasis on cross-functional alignment reflects the fact that permission practices shape both what organizations are allowed to do and how customers experience their communications.

Preference centers remain common, according to the audience poll, but the panel’s recommendations suggest that a preference mechanism alone does not resolve every question. Marketers still need to provide context, distinguish permission from preference and use behavioral information with sensitivity. The goal is not simply to collect more opt-ins, but to make the exchange understandable and deliver communications that respect the relationship those opt-ins begin.