In the previous article entitled Permission Based Mobile Marketing – The What, the How, and the Benefits, we discussed the very basis for mobile marketing–permission & consent. To recap where we left off, permission based mobile marketing is defined as:
The practice of gaining consent from consumers in advance of a continuing marketing dialogue taking place on mobile devices and in return for some kind of value exchange.
Remember, you are to gain consent of an individual to receive text messages that have some kind of value to them. Please re-read the previous article if you have questions about permission based mobile marketing. The Mobile Marketing Association expects those participating in mobile marketing to adhere to the regulations set forth and ,of course, we know that there are those that do not want to comply and adhere to these regulations. Part 2 of permission based mobile marketing is going to explore some of the recent text message spamming lawsuits that have left some companies with very hefty legal bills.
The Most Recent
Last week, a California resident filed a class action lawsuit against a public relations firm for sending an unsolicited message to his phone. The message contained a simple message about quitting smoking, and according to the California man, the firm violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The going rate for this single unsolicited message? The man claims they should be penalized for at least 5 million dollars. See how easy it is to find yourself having to foot a huge bill for not adhering to permission based mobile marketing?
Similar Events
Similar events have happened in the past as well. Some well known cases of unsolicited messaging were filed in the last few years against companies such as Burger King and Jiffy Lube. An example of just how expensive this unsolicited messaging gamble can get is portrayed in a lawsuit that was filed against a publisher known as Simon & Schuster. The publishing company used an SMS promotion to promote a new book by Stephen King. The lawsuit was originally instated at $90 million, and the roughly 60,000 consumers affected could have received between $500 to $1500. They paid upwards of $175 to everyone who received the unsolicited messages and the ending bill reached an estimated $10 million dollars.
In reality, there are 2 types of SPAM. One type is when legitimate businesses fail to respect the regulations found in the TCPA. The other type of SPAM is when a business purchases lists of phone numbers from a third-party source and sends blasts of messages to unwilling subscribers. We’ve seen examples of legitimate businesses facing lawsuits for failing to respect the TCPA. Now we’ll look at an example of the latter form of spamming. In March of 2011, the Federal Trade Commission petitioned a federal judge to shutdown an illegal text messaging operation that was sending millions and millions of unsolicited messages to people. The messages contained a bogus claim of doing loan modification for mortgages and had a URL that appeared to be a government site. The perpetrator sent over 5 million in a period of 40 days, roughly equal to 85 messages per minute every hour of every day. Many of the consumers faced loss of money for lacking a texting plan and having to pay their wireless carriers for the unwanted messages that were received. In addition to sending the unsolicited messages, the perpetrator also illegally collected and sold the information of the people who replied to opt-out of the texts.
Conclusion
Obviously, there ARE repercussions for not following regulations set forth by the Mobile Marketing Association. As you can see by these real life examples, the repercussions are very weighty and very costly. We take highest priority in assuring that we as a texting message marketing company follow the regulations as closely as possible and educate clientele alike. If you have any questions regarding permission based mobile marketing, or mobile marketing period, contact us at 1-877-989-8180, send us an email, or visit our TXT180 website.
You guys are complete hypocrites… You can’t tell customers not to send text message spam, then allow them to import phone numbers, bypassing a true mobile opt-in.
* Don’t think that just by warning customers not to import phone numbers that’s letting you off the hook.
Derek,
Thanks for your response, it’s an honor to know that you follow our blog! As per our policy that follows the Mobile Marketing Association (MMA) we do not permit spamming and heavily monitor all accounts to maintain accordance with these guidelines. Fortunately for TXT180, the MMA does allow companies the ability to transfer from one shortcode (company) to another without losing their hard earned opt-ins. Much like phone number portability, it keeps companies from confining customers to an inferior service for fear of losing their phone number or lists. The details to this can be found here: http://mmaglobal.com/Consumer_Best%20Practices_6.1%20Update-02May2011FINAL_MMA.pdf
1.7 Program Short Code Transfer MMA ID CCS-277
1.7-1 A subscriber to a recurring program may be transferred to a new short code without a new opt-in, as long as the content and purpose of the alerts remain
the same as what the subscriber opted-in to receive and the content provider has not changed. Under these circumstances, the following notifications must be
provided:
1.7-2 The subscriber must receive notice on the short code they originally opted into that the program will be moving to a new short code. This message must
include instructions on how to opt-out of the program. This should be the last message sent by the program on the old short code
1.7-3 When the program initiates on the new short code, the first alert the subscriber receives must remind subscribers of the short code change and
include instructions on how to opt-out of the program.
Not to limit the importing feature solely to the customers that move away from another company to TXT180, the MMA also categorizes consent as:
Mobile Marketers ask for and obtain consent by obtaining an explicit opt-in from the user for all mobile messaging programs. This can be accomplished via an SMS or MMS opt-in process, a voice response, website registration, other MMA recognized methods or other legitimate methods.
And again in the MMA link above you will find:
1.5-5 1. Subscriber initiates opt-in to a recurring Standard Rate Program by
responding to a call to action (CTA)
i.) Subscriber may send a Mobile Originated (MO) message from their handset to the short code.
ii.) Subscriber may initiate opt-in from a web interface
iii.) Subscriber may initiate opt-in from a WAP interface
iv.) Subscriber may initiate opt-in from an IVR system
v.) Subscriber may initiate opt-in from a paper-based consent form
2. Program responds with pertinent phone, program, and contact information
via a Web/WAP/IVR/handset/paper application-based form.
TXT180 restricts customers from uploading prior to going over the rules regulations and possible fines that can occur for those who do not abide by the regulations. After the due diligence is done and the upload feature is enabled uploads and messages are monitored to assure compliance and will shut down any not in compliance.
Even a strictly Mobile Originated opt-in platform does not completely eliminate the chance that a message might be sent to a “person” that has not opted-in! If I opt-in and cancel my phone tomorrow, within 30 days that number is resubscribed to a new user, however, the number is still opted-in for 18 months.
Again, thanks for the response and good luck!
TXT180