Subscribe

Concern mounts about MMS spam

By Leon Engelbrecht, ITWeb senior writer
Johannesburg, 24 Jan 2007

As multimedia messaging service (MMS) advertising becomes a more common alternative to traditional media, recipients are angry over having to pay to unsubscribe from what they believe is spam.

"Actually getting the MMS does not bother me that much (yet!)," says an ITWeb reader. "But soon, as more and more companies go this route, it will become annoying. What [irritates] me is the fact that you have to pay to unsubscribe. Yes, 50c is really nothing, but it is the principle," the reader argues in response to a recent MMS received from banking giant Nedbank.

Mike Sham, director at Vibrant Media, says MMS is still a novelty and almost not worth discussing, but it faces the same problem as SMS advertising: it is regarded as intrusive.

"It is a good tool when people have 'opted in'. We use it as a notification service, not as a marketing tool, as people are not that responsive to it. I have no doubt that resistance is being built up [against SMS and MMS advertising]."

Sham adds that although bulk opt-in lists is spamming by another name, opt-out rates are extremely low, simply because, like junk mail, junk SMS and MMS can easily be discarded.

Useful tools

Nedbank says many reputable organisations, itself included, use direct mail to communicate with clients and potential clients. SMS and MMS are electronic alternatives to the more traditional methods that were used for many years, it notes.

"SMS and MMS are useful communication tools and we use these channels for a number of purposes - not all of them promotional," says spokesperson Cecilia de Almeida. She adds that Nedbank subscribes to the Wireless Application Service Providers' Association's Code of Conduct "and our campaigns - whether SMS or MMS - are carried out within the boundaries of the code".

De Almeida says opt-outs are rare. "The percentage of people asking to be removed from our database as a result of these campaigns is negligible (currently 0.15% of all people targeted) and we would gladly absorb the cost if it were possible to do so," she adds.

"The relevant cellphone networks (Vodacom, MTN, Cell C) levy a charge for the SMS and the use of their network and this money does not accrue to the campaign originator - in this case, Nedbank. Unfortunately, it would appear there is currently no solution that allows the campaign originator to directly absorb the charge. We have taken the matter up with our vendor as the last thing we want to do is alienate the recipients of our messages," De Almeida explains.

"We are confident the cellular networks will also step up their efforts to find a solution that is client-centric."

Money trail

Stephen Whitford, spokesperson for Netbank's vendor Multimedia Solutions, says it makes no money from the unsubscribe SMS either, nor is it responsible for the cost of the SMS: it is something instituted by the cellular networks.

Riaan Groenewald, operational director at Multimedia Solutions, adds it is a priority for the company to make the unsubscribe SMS free to the consumer.

"SMS was chosen as a means to unsubscribe because it is the cheapest and most accurate way to unsubscribe. Multimedia Solutions is currently required to charge 50c for the unsubscribe SMS, which is the standard SMS cost levied for the use of the cellular networks. However, neither Multimedia Solutions nor its clients make any money from that SMS.

"However, in order to make the unsubscribe SMS free, the cellular networks will have to reverse-bill the advertiser in order to make it free for the consumer. This process of implementing reverse billing is already under way at the cellular networks," he adds.

Vodacom and MTN did not immediately respond to queries on the state of that project.

Share