Bluespamming - Bluetooth Marketing: ICO removes guidance for Opt-In permission.
This week the Information Commissioners Office ( ICO)
Before:
In other words, both email and text, picture and video marketing messages are considered to be ‘electronic mail’. Marketing messages transmitted using ‘Bluetooth’technology, for example, messages sent to all ‘Bluetooth’ enabled handsets within a given radius, are also considered to be ‘electronic mail’, as are WAP messages. WAP Push allows a sender to send a specially formatted SMS message to a handset which, when received, allows a recipient through a single click to access and view content stored online, through the browser on the handset. (View the entire guidance v 2.0 Dec. ’06 )After:
In other words, both email and text, picture and video marketing messages are considered to be ‘electronic mail’. Marketing transmitted in WAP messages is considered to be ‘electronic mail’. WAP Push allows a sender to send a specially formatted SMS message to a handset which, when received, allows a recipientWhat does this mean?
through a single click to access and view content stored online, through the browser on the handset. ( View the entire guidance, Version 3.1 Oct. '07)
Up until this week, the ICO guidance required that Bluetooth marketing campaigns comply with Opt-In permission in the same way as E-mail. But now Bluetooth is no longer covered by this guidance and as such may not require opt-in permission.
Both the Direct Marketing Association (DMA-UK ) and the Mobile Marketing Association (MMA) are strong advocates of permission based marketing. Even the ICO states that, legislative definitions notwithstanding, their good practice advice for any type of marketing would be to avoid sending people marketing they do not want. If you read the websites and marketing collateral from Bluetooth marketing companies they also will assert their commitment to permission based marketing. So – what’s the problem?
When a consumer walks by a Bluetooth enabled poster their phone will buzz or beep and display a message, “Do you want to receive content from xxx?” It is this invitation message which is the subject of much discussion and debate. Should the consumer have given their opt-in permission before receiving this invitation? Both the DMA and the MMA say, “Yes.” – Bluetooth marketing companies say “No.”.
Many Bluetooth marketing companies assert that if your phone has Bluetooth turned on and visible then you have given an implied consent to receiving contact from them. The counter argument states that just because your have a public listing in a telephone directory it can not be implied that you wish to receive telemarketing sales calls.
In a statement from Nick Fuller, Chair for the DMA’s Mobile Marketing Council:
“Whilst it is understandable that the ICO sees Bluetooth as falling outside of the PECs legislation in terms of its underlying technology, it is important that the principles underlying the PECS are not lost.” … “We recommend to our members to err on the side of caution when considering the permission implications of Bluetooth but we would certainly like to have a more definitive legislative position. The question is under whose auspices now that it is not the ICO's.”The DMA-UK has specific guidelines for Bluetooth marketing for its members.
Laura Marriott, President of the MMA, reasserted the commitment from the MMA to maintain the sustainability of the mobile marketing channel through a member dedication to an opt-in experience for the consumer, “It has to be a pull – not push – marketing experience.” says Marriott. "We believes that permission should be secured from the consumer before the Bluetooth announcement, 'Do you want to receive content from xxxx?' ". The MMA is currently developing best practice guidelines which will specifically address Bluetooth.
What is likely to happen now?
The very intimate and personal relationship between a consumer and their mobile device makes marketing to them a very sensitive issue. When someone’s phone beeps, vibrates or otherwise begs for their attention it interrupts whatever they may be doing at the time – but if that interruption is unwanted then the communication becomes a negative brand experience for that consumer. And this applies whether SMS or Bluetooth – and without regard to ICO guidance.
With Bluetooth having been removed from the ICO guidance it is likely that a number of Bluetooth marketing companies will capitalise on this opportunity to contact brands and agencies formerly cautious about deploying a Bluetooth solution due to concerns about the ICO regulations. Brands who are concerned about permission based marketing due to concerns of perception by consumers associated with Bluetooth SPAM are likely to remain cautious regardless of the changes to the guidance. Other brands will see this as having been given a "green light" to use Bluetooth without need to worry about regulatory compliance. The net effect will be an uptake in more campaigns to experiment with Bluetooth marketing across the UK.
Looking abroad to other countries where direct marketing legislation is opt-out rather than opt-in we can already see where major brand names are engaging consumers via Bluetooth marketing in high visibility trials such as Land Rover’s Bluetooth enabled billboard in Times Square and the new trial in New York’s Grand Central Station executed by CBS to promote several high profile television shows. Read more... It is reasonable to assume that we can expect to see more of these types of campaigns here in the UK in the very near future.
Today an estimated 51% of UK consumers have used Bluetooth - and that number jumps to 74% for those aged 16-24. ( Carphone Warehouse Mobile Life Report 2007 ) thus making the addressable market for Bluetooth marketing quite high. The limiting factor will be the number of businesses and advertisers who take up this new technology and roll it out in a broad way. There is still some time before we have a “Minority Report” style experience where our phones buzz and beep constantly as we walk down the high street. But that time is growing shorter.
If you would like to read a more detailed interpretation of the ICO’s recent decision, as well as to learn more about Bluetooth marketing and how it can be done in a truly permission based method – please register for your copy of the report, “The Future of Bluetooth Marketing: A best practice approach to maximising results from proximity marketing.”
For many of us this is a hot topic - please do leave a comment!
Read more on the ICO change at:
Out-Law Bluetooth spam on the way as watchdog gives marketers green light
The Register Info chief shrugs off Bluetooth regulation
Wired.com Dumb Regulators to legalise Bluetooth SPAM
PCPro Bluetooth no longer protected by anti-spam laws
Technorati tags: Bluespamming, Bluetooth Marketing
posted by Troy Norcross at 10:19 AM
22 Comments:
Why all the panic about Bluetooth marketing and the assumption that it will get abused? Says who?
I think I’d rather have the opportunity to decline an invitation from a brand I respected walking down the high street on my mobile, than have the ad continually interrupt my favourite TV show or movie in my living room whether I liked it or not!
Doesn’t Bluetooth advertising at least offer consumers the choice?
As long as brands understand that their advertising will only work if their giving the consumer a genuine and valuable offer, then the consumer who wants it and accepts it wins too – WIN/WIN - isn’t that what we are all striving to achieve anyway?
Armando Coletta
BlueBroadcast.com
2:05 AM
Hi Amanda - thanks for your comments.
You'd rather have someone interrupt whatever you're doing to look at your mobile phone - only to find a crypt note saying "Bluetooth message from N1ke" than watch an ad on television?
The whole concept of responsible mobile marketing is to avoid interrupting the consumer without their permission.
Your point about genuine and valuable offers is right on target - but the first thing you need is the consumers permission to make the offer - and Bluetooth Marketing currently doesn't support that.
E-mail SPAM or BlueSPAM - it is unsolicited communication.
2:22 PM
Hi Troy,
It’s actually Armando not Amanda.
What I actually said was I’d rather be interrupted with the choice of accepting or declining a targeted ad on my mobile whilst walking down the street, than get constantly interrupted whilst watching my TV with hundreds of non targeted ads without any choice. Wouldn’t you?
Perhaps TV advertising is just taken for granted now? I wonder what we would think if it were being introduced to us today?
You said in your reply, “The whole concept of responsible mobile marketing is to avoid interrupting the consumer without their permission”
What about the responsibility of marketing to consumers in general? You’ve got TV advertising, radio advertising, leafleting, posters, bill board advertising, newspaper advertising, magazine advertising, etc etc, You don’t think you’re being interrupted? You don’t think that the advertising you see every day is unsolicited?
If your point is about being interrupted, then advertising spam via your TV, email or any other advertising media for that matter doesn’t offer you any choice first, it’s just feeds it to you whether you want it or not.
My definition of spam? - Advertising being fed to you whether you want it or not.
Thats not Bluetooth marketing, Bluetooth consumers are given the choice, I can’t think of any other type of advertising media that gives the consumer more consideration - Can you?
Armando Coletta
BlueBroadcast.com
5:05 PM
Hi Armando - (my apologies)
Advertising via traditional media is very important - no question. TV, Radio, posters, bill boards and newspapers are all media in which you have a choice as a consumer. You can ignore them - watch another TV channel - listen to your MP3 player (commercial free) - or do whatever you want.
E-mail SPAM forces you to deal with a new message. And the same is true of Bluetooth. Bluetooth marketing forces you to respond to the buzzing in your pocket... only to discover that it's an ad.
E-mail marketing started off with the same rational - If they don't like it they can just delete it - and as long as marketers offer good content the consumer won't mind.
This has been proven to be totally untrue. Illicit marketers have completely abused e-mail marketing and created an entire business around stopping, managing, manipulating e-mail to avoid SPAM.
I don't want Bluetooth marketing to be stopped - It's a great channel for low cost delivery of high value content - but only if we get the consumers permission to send the message first. And I don't mean the content - we get permission for that - I mean the announement. We MUST get permission before the phone rings, buzzes or otherwise distracts the user.
There is a difference between passive advertising - and active marketing. Passive advertising can be ignore - active marketing cannot... Billboards are passive - Bluetooth is active.
Let's agree that Bluetooth marketing is a great opportunity even if we disagree on the mechanics. Because it's simple. If the medium is abused consumers will just switch off. And that's that.
7:29 PM
Hi Troy,
You make some reasonable points some of which I agree with and some of which I don’t.
The bottom line for me is as I already stated, you get the choice with Bluetooth to decline or receive and you don’t with any other kind of advertising so why single out Bluetooth for special sign up only prior permission? It doesn’t happen with email and that’s where we have the biggest problem.
Billboards and TV advertising may be passive in your view but not in mine, you have to choose to look the other way, you have to choose to change the channel, you have to make active choices to avoid traditional marketing and that’s a fact. It just depends on what your definition of active is – pressing a button on a mobile or pressing a button on your TV remote – your still actively pressing a button.
Yes email spam or spam of any kind is a problem for us all, but to take it out on what is the only way for brands and consumers to get together in the most targeted way you can imagine isn’t fair. To ask the Bluetooth industry to find a way of implementing a new Global acceptance list is completely unworkable both from a mobile acquisition, churn or contract termination viewpoint, never mind the millions of Pay as you go customers you actively choose to remain anonymous.
Remembering that Bluetooth doesn’t work with mobile numbers, If you can come up with a way for the industry to seek, capture and manage a complete UK mobile networks subscriber list of both contract and PAYG customers on a daily basis , then I’d love to hear it.
10:32 PM
You're absolutely right - Bluetooth doesn't use mobile numbers and trying to create a registry doesn't make sense.
What I suggest to all of my clients who want to do Bluetooth marketing is that they implement a "Permission kiosk" for consumers.
Brands promote their Bluetooth offering using posters and other traditional media. If a consumer is interested in the offer they can go to a permission kiosk and register their phone as someone who would like to opt-in to receive marketing.
The kiosk works by using a very close range Bluetooth transmitter (range less than 1 meter) or using the new Bluetooth standard for "touch to pair". It's very easy for the consumer and completely satisfies the need to opt-in before sending a message to the consumer.
8:24 AM
Hi Troy,
I hope that you had a good new year, I’m sorry about the delay in my response to your suggestion but I did get a little sidetracked with other things.
What you’ve suggested is a more of a diversification than a solution? I think you’re trying to solve the issue by asking the industry to change? By creating what are essentially download booths, you’re creating a whole new set of problems.
For example, if you’re only talking about distances of only a meter or so, then why bother using Bluetooth at all, why not just use infrared?
Also, what would be the point of creating download booths if you’re using print to convey your message as well? An attractive benefit of Bluetooth Marketing is the environmentally friendly aspect of it i.e. no wasting paper or creating unnecessary duplication.
Also, you’ve got the planning permission element of the kiosk to think about too, erecting a booth on a high street for what could be some considerable time, perhaps permanently, would need planning, how have your clients that you have suggested this to got around that?
Also, how long would the booths need to be erected and staffed for in an area before you’ve captured everyone in that area? Chances are you would never capture everyone no matter how long it stayed because so many people come and go all the time.
Also, how many people would take the time out of their busy schedules to register to receive it? I think more people would have an issue with the registration process and the personal information that it would capture than receiving the ad in the first place.
What about the additional cost? Would you expect the industry to pay for it? And even if you’ve managed to get around all those issues, you’re still left with the problem of registering the mobile without a mobile number?
Personally, I think it’s a little bit over the top to ask the Bluetooth marketing industry to come up with download booths just to get opt in permission from consumers on the high street that may or may not want to receive a genuine offer from a brand, when you consider how much other non opt in advertising consumers receive, don’t you think your singling out the Bluetooth industry just a little?
If you were to draw comparisons with other media, TV advertising for example; it would be a little bit like asking potential customers of any forthcoming TV ad to stop by their local TV studio first to watch it so that it wasn’t transmitted to them in their homes? Or, having all TV advertising stopped all together and start asking companies to convey their advertising messages via a DVD for people to watch when they got home if they wanted to see it?
I’m sorry Troy, it’s not a bad idea but it’s not something that I could actively support or even suggest to any of our affiliates, customers or partners.
Like I said right at the very start, at least you get the option to decline an ad with any Bluetooth marketing you may or may not get and you don’t get that option with any other advertising media.
Armando Coletta
BlueBroadcast.com
5:00 PM
Hello Armando - and Happy New Year to you as well.
I appreciate the well thought out and detailed reply - the dialogue is always good.
To clarify my point I suggest "permission kiosks" - not "download kiosks" -- and this functionality can be built into the marketing posters as many posters already contain the bluetooth transmitters.
The idea is simple - add a second transmitter used solely for managing opt-in permission and then use the primary transmitter for content delivery.
A further point you make is that I'm singling out Bluetooth marketing for these issues. This draws a bigger question - Is Bluetooth marketing ambient marketing like billboards and posters - Is it interrupt person-to-person marketing like people distributing flyers - or is it mobile marketing - like SMS and MMS and WAP Push marketing?
My answer is that since it arrives on my mobile device in the same way as an SMS message arrives on my mobile device - it is mobile marketing. And because Bluetooth marketing is mobile marketing - it requires opt-in permission.
Look at it from a consumer's point of view:
SMS marketing requires opt-in permission per EU legislation.
1) Consumer's phone beeps/buzzes
2) Phone displays "1 new message"
3) Consumer reads message and may take action
Bluetooth Marketing - "should" require opt-in permission
1) Consumer's phone beeps/buzzes
2) Phone displays "Receive Bluetooth content from XXXXX?"
3) Consumer accepts/declines request
4) If Accept - content is downloaded to the phone.
The consumer doesn't care if marketing is via SMS, MMS, Bluetooth or some new technology not yet developed - they care that they were interrupted on their phone without their permission.
Bluetooth is not ambient marketing - it's mobile marketing. We can't ask consumers to ignore Bluetooth marketing in the way they ignore billboards any more than we can ask them to ignore SMS marketing.
Bluetooth marketing is interrupt marketing and intrusive... and requires permission.
11:10 PM
Hi Troy,
SMS marketing is not the same as Bluetooth marketing on a number of fronts but mostly it’s because SMS marketing arrives to the mobile through the network, and is mostly a chargeable service.
Bluetooth, as you rightly say comes through the same device, but does not arrive through the network, it arrives as radio wave transmission and is completely non chargeable.
The reason the UK and not the EU has the mobile opt in permission law is when it comes to SMS and MMS, as I said earlier is that those services are mostly chargeable services and consumers need to know what the costs are before they use them. They also need to be able to 'unsubscribe from chargeable services quickly and easily, hence the UK legislation was introduced and subsequently managed by Phone Pay Plus formerly ICSTIS.
‘What needs to be understood is that this legislation was introduced to protect consumers from being ripped off, not as you imply to stop them from being interrupted.’
Ok, rather than go down the road of completley misunderstanding you again, let me ask you a couple of specific questions about your idea.
Now before I ask them, please be aware Troy that I’m actually trying to see a way where the industry could effectively manage the implementation of the service to the majority of consumers as best it can, it’s just that you haven’t shown me any way where this can actually be done.
For example you said earlier that ‘The idea is simple - add a second transmitter used solely for managing opt-in permission and then use the primary transmitter for content delivery.’
Now given that transmitters can only transmit, how could a transmitter manage the recording and capturing of the data required to effectively manage any permission based opt-in list of mobiles?
Secondly, and this is the third time I’ve asked you this question, how could it do this without being able to record or use the mobile number from the device it’s supposed to be managing?
Regards,
Armando Coletta
BlueBroadcast.com
2:06 AM
Hi Armando,
First - I'd like to clarify the point of regulation.
In the UK the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations are for marketers - From the ICO Website:
The Privacy and Electronic Communications
Regulations 2003
The Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003 (‘the regulations’) give rules that govern electronic marketing .
http://www.ico.gov.uk/what_we_cover/privacy_and_electronic_communications/the_basics.aspx
There are other regulations which cover premium rate messages and subscriptions (as you correctly point out these are managed by ICSTIS) -
The regulation governing permission are aimed at marketers and are specifically designed to address concerns of SPAM. In the case of Bluetooth marketing - this definitely applies as the communications is "without permission".
On your second point - my use of the word "transmitter" was not technically accurate. I mean to say that a 2nd Bluetooth Radio could be installed with a very limited range (1m) such that devices which are discovered within that range could be considered to have chosen to opt-in to communications from the primary radio.
In the next generation of the Bluetooth standard there is support for NFC (Near Field Communication) and this will allow consumers to merely touch their phones to a special access point to either pair - or break pairing and thus expressly manage their opt-in permission.
One other point of clarity - Bluetooth does not capture a mobile device number but only a unique Bluetooth ID.
The point I always try to make is simple. In order for marketing to be successful it's got to be more than clever - it's got to be TRVR - Timely - Relevant - Valuable and Requested.
Bluetooth marketing must be permission based - must be opt-in or consumers will simply switch off-- and then no one wins.
Bluetooth marketing in its current form is intrusive and annoys consumers far more than it offers value... regardless of what is on offer. If not careful - legislation will come along and totally eliminate Bluetooth as a valid marketing channel - and all because marketers can't get their heads around the fact that consumers will not tolerate this invasion of their personal space.
Bluetooth marketing is like walking up to a complete stranger and sticking your hand in their purse or pocket - without their permission. It doesn't always matter that you may be offering them a great value or great content - the fact is you invaded their personal space without their permission.
8:54 AM
Hi Troy,
You have introduced the Privacy and Electronic Communications Act (2003) and it is important that you understand where Bluetooth marketing actually stands with it.
I don’t believe that Bluetooth marketing violates any aspect of this law simply because of some of the misunderstandings that some consumers have about the way that a Bluetooth message is delivered. It’s not the same as a text message and it’s not the same as an email.
A message sent to your phone via Bluetooth is not stored on your phone in the same way that a text or email is stored on your phone or PC. The UK Privacy and Electronic Communications Act (2003) regulations involve content that is ‘stored’ but there is no way any content can be stored on a mobile or any other device via Bluetooth without the user’s permission.
The fact is that the transmission of this initial introduction message is actually generated by the phone itself, the Bluetooth transmitter says: ‘I am here’ and it’s the phone that says: ‘Do you want to accept this? It’s only when the consumer says ‘Yes’ that you get something in your inbox. So the legality is airtight.
The point that we have been discussing has been that the initial message is considered by some consumers to be intrusive and that it is in itself an unsolicited or unwanted message, so we have been discussing the various points to put that into some kind of context, those have included what other advertising mediums offer consumers by way of an introduction before their advertising is delivered and pointed out the very limited choice that consumers have with them.
We have discussed your ideas about how we could create a pre opt-in list of consumers that could sign up to receiving this initial message if they wanted it based on your permission kiosks idea, but the fact of the matter is that under scrutiny and with the best intentions in the world, they simply can’t be created.
Your idea is simply asking the industry to limit its technical ability to only sending out content to consumers who are close enough to read that it’s available on posters?
The Bluetooth technology simply sends out a signal in a given area that some Bluetooth enabled mobiles can receive or not, those that can are alerted to the signal and that they can receive it if they want it.
There isn’t anything that the industry can do about it other than ask consumers that don’t want to receive it to simply switch off, that way the industry can get on with making this technology available to companies that want to make genuine offers to consumers that want them and do it in the least intusive way possible.
Armando Coletta
BlueBroadcast.com
2:56 AM
Hi Troy,
With respect, now that you hopefully understand the technology, the industry and its legal position a little better, it’s my opinion that for you to label the industry as you have done as blue spamming or spammers of any kind is not only untrue but to do it publicly is potentially libelous.
Spamming is illegal and to publically imply that a perfectly legitimate industry is engaged in an illegal activity such as spamming is highly defamatory; because you are implying that the companies or individuals engaged within it are breaking the law and are therefore criminals.
That’s very damaging to the industry and very damaging to the companies within it including my own and it will ultimately have a cost implication that my company and others will have to bear.
So could I respectfully ask that you remove this very damaging ‘spamming’ term that you have used to bring the industry into disrepute and go through the rest of your content here to ensure that you have not left yourself open to any one raising any litigation against you.
Its one thing to become an evangelist for certain things that you believe in but quite another to put yourself in the firing line for what could be considered by some as considerably overstepping the mark.
Are you views here commercially supported by anyone or just personal?
Are you writing this highly defamatory self opinionated content anywhere else publically that I should be aware of?
Armando Coletta
BlueBroadcast.com
5:07 PM
Hi Armando,
You are absolutley right on this one. Also, it may be worth pointing out to Troy that the initial Bluetooth opt-in invite does not "beep" or "buzz". It simply appears silently on the recipients screen and disappears if not responded to. It certainly does not interupt any other functionality of the device.
If I walk down the high Street and see a poster, I don't have to stop and read it but I also don't expect to have given my permission for it to be there in my field of view in the first place.
SMS and e-mail are totally different in this way.
John Scorah
Bluepod Media
4:15 PM
Hi John - Just a quick reply to you.
Doesn't beep or buzz -- 2 comments
1) Every phone is unique in how it responds to Bluetooth push messages. The wording is slightly different and the device may or may not beep or buzz.
2) If the phone did not beep or buzz, then the consumer would never know that they had been sent an invitation to download content - unless they were looking at their phone. In short, the service would not be interruptive in nature. And if the service isn't interruptive in nature, I am not so concerned and neither is anyone else. But further, if it isn't interruptive then it isn't effective and you aren't interested in it anyway - right? --- The whole point of Bluetooth is that it "cuts through" the rest of the advertising in an area and get's a consumer's attention (interrupts them).
And as for "posters versus Bluetooth":
You're right. You don't have to get anyone's permission to put up a bill board or a poster or even a video wall. That's what I call "ambient" marketing.
Bluetooth is not ambient because it is delivered inside my intimate space - directly to my device. The invitation comes - and then if I accept the invitation - the content comes. It is completely inaccurate to compare what I see (a poster) with someone who I can't see sticking their hand in my pocket without my knowledge or permission.
Troy
12:35 PM
Troy and Armando:
This was a great discussion. I appreciated your back and forth comments. I have to say that I side with Troy on this.
That first contact made to the phone is interruptive. In the example of email spam it would be like getting an email that said, "Can I send you an email message?" Even if the answer is no (and saves the user from getting the second messsage)the email asking if one could be sent took up space in the Inbox and time from the person who received it.
Bluetooth is an awesome technology, but it must be used with caution. The whole mobile marketing industry is counting on consumers accepting mobile marketing. If they feel accosted by marketers via Bluetooth they will turn off more than just that technology.
3:18 AM
I disable Bluetooth on my phone just to avoid the sort of intrusion I would otherwise face from marketers.
4:15 PM
Interesting article, though when you ask the question:
"Should the consumer have given their opt-in permission before receiving this invitation?"
I'm curious as to other than accepting the invitation, how else could someone opt in to receiving bluetooth marketing?
I think if running a campaign, for it to be a success, you do need to make users aware of the fact a campaign is in progress and the benefits of accepting the bluetooth message.
This is something we find to always be of great effect, for example, we recently ran a campaign in Liverpool to combat binge drinking - by projecting video onto walls outside bars and actively promoting the campaign in bars and generally letting people know about what was going on, we saw 700 downloads in one evening.
Bluetooth marketing campaign in Liverpool
If the user doesn't want to receive the download they decline and are not contacted again.
Other than this real time opt in / out scenario am not sure how such permission would be granted, other than having Bluetooth turned on, but as you rightly point out, this shouldn't be taken as an invite to send someone an ad.
4:31 PM
Kim,
My view here is that its more about education.
Where you and Troy are correct is that the initial alert you get is intrusive, where you are both wrong is that you believe you have a private right to own the Bluetooth frequency as your own private personal network.
Bluetooth is a radio frequency a little like AM or FM radio and needs to be thought of as like that. It cannot be affected with filters, additional protocols or opt in lists like email or SMS because like any other radio frequency once its on its on.
If you and Troy believe the alert your phone gives you is intrusive, its because its been designed that way by your phones manufacturer. Its been designed that way because you have asked it to do just that, to alert you to any Bluetooth transmissions simply because you have it switched on.
Your mobile might be a little personal device you carry around in your personal pocket, but its capable of receiving and transmitting data around the world and on every communication format like 3G, GPRS, SMS, MMS, Satellite and Bluetooth.
Bluetooth operates on the unlicensed 2.4 GHz (Industrial, Scientific and Medical) frequency band that is shared among other devices (microwave ovens, cordless phones, garage door openers, etc.) and has been designed as a robust communication frequency.
The education piece here is that people need to understand that if they don't want their mobiles to alert them to Bluetooth transmissions then they need to switch Bluetooth off, or in the circumstances of people constantly wearing hands free kits, to switch Bluetooth to private, hidden or invisible.
That way your mobile alerts you in the way that you prefer, only on the Bluetooth Transmissions that you yourself instigate via other devices like handsfree kits etc and not on other available Bluetooth transmissions.
Armando Coletta www.bluebroadcaster.com
5:55 AM
Hi Armando -- Let's talk about this.
You say,
"Bluetooth is a radio frequency a little like AM or FM radio and needs to be thought of as like that. It cannot be affected with filters, additional protocols or opt in lists like email or SMS because like any other radio frequency once its on its on."
SMS is delivered over a GSM radio frequency ... and the signal that is broadcast is designated for a specific radio device (your SIM card) -- Similarly Bluetooth broadcasts to a specific address - the Bluetooth ID.
SMS functionality is built into the device and based on the direct communication it wakes up the device and delivers the message including an alert.
So far as I can see - Bluetooth and SMS are exactly the same in that regard. And since SMS is subject to permission -- so is Bluetooth.
I do agree with your point that there is an opportunity here for people to learn that they can change their Bluetooth settings to either OFF or INVISIBLE and thus avoid the aggressive Bluespam that seems to be popping up everywhere - but here again - I take issue with this.
Forcing people to turn off their Bluetooth in order to avoid getting unwanted Bluespam messages is a little like forcing people to remove themselves from a public phone directory to avoid receiving telemarketing calls.
I want my Bluetooth device to be visible to my friends - and anyone else that I "invite" to send me content via Bluetooth. I don't want to have to change the way I live in order to avoid getting telemarketing - or Bluespam.
The onus and responsiblity lies with us - the marketers - to use Bluetooth responsibly and to engage the technology that is soon to be available to allow for explicit opt-in when delivering any content to the consumer.
Here I am referring to the NFC part of the new Bluetooth standaard. With NFC you can touch a contact point to opt-in (in the same way that a Londoner touches their Oyster card when entering the Tube). In so doing, the consumer knows exactly what is happening - and is in full control.
I will go back to what I consider to be the most important aspect of this discussion -- "Consumer's have a right not to be interrupted without their permission." -- This means that anything that interrupts the consumer requires permission. A phonecall, an SMS or a Bluetooth invitation to receive content all interrupt the consumer and thus all are subject to the same best-practice approach to good, respectful and responsible marketing - Get permission first!
Brands who implement Bluetooth marketing inside their businesses (like within a cinema) are having great success and the consumer knows and expects to get the communication. Brands to Bluespam consumer's out on the street -- tha'ts another matter and will lead to poor performance, brand damage and consumer backlash.
As soon as the Bluetooth marketing technology providers understand this, there will be great opportunity to grow this very exciting new marketing channel.
Best regards,
Troy
11:32 AM
Hi Troy,
Bluetooth and SMS as you know have significant differences.
A lot of this we have gone through already and in some detail so I’m not prepared to repeat it to be honest.
SMS goes through the network, is chargeable and delivers content in an initial and single delivery hence the requirement for permission; Bluetooth does not go through the network, is not chargeable and does not deliver anything unless the user agrees by pressing the yes key.
It’s like chalk and cheese. The radio analogy is to educate people into understanding that once they have switched on their Bluetooth radio then they need to understand that there asking the phone to alert them of potential transmissions, if you do not want to engage in any Bluetooth exchange then your mobile should not be in this mode it’s as simple as that.
Your Said: Forcing people to turn off their Bluetooth in order to avoid getting unwanted Bluespam messages is a little like forcing people to remove themselves from a public phone directory to avoid receiving telemarketing calls.
Well, consumers who have their number in the phone book can and often do get marketing calls unless they opt out by registering with the TPS.
Using the bandwidth to exchange content with your friends has to be done via a pairing of devices and this pairing is not affected by your Bluetooth’s normal settings, in fact in order to get any content from any of your friends you have to physically seek the device and pair with it using a shared secure 4 digit pin number. So the misconception of you having to 'change your life' is something that already has to happen anyway!
In terms of the NFC (Near Field Communication) protocol it’s great and I’m sure we will find a use for it but it doesn’t not require any interaction between the content and the user and it’s essentially been introduced to allow a more simplified pairing process, not to send content onto consumers mobiles at close proximity without any kind of permission being granted.
Bottom line here Troy is that Bluetooth is a radio like I explained to you before, if you refuse to get your head around that simple fact then we are always going to have to disagree on this, at least with Bluetooth you have the option to opt out because anything other Bluetooth interaction or land line change all requires a ‘change of life’ by the user.
Armando Coletta
www.bluebroadcaster.com
12:25 AM
Well - it's been a good and spirited debate.
A few points on this last post - and then some concluding thoughts.
1) SMS requires Opt-In because of concerns over SPAM. SMS SPAM is chargeable to the sender not the receiver (unless they're roaming) - and Bluetooth does deliver a notification to the device to cause it to wake up and ask advise the consumer that their is content waiting. The debate has always been about the notfication that interrupts the consumer - not the content.
2) You don't have to pair to send content between 2 friends.
3) Telemarketing is Opt-Out - Bluetooth marketing is Opt-In
4) NFC is used to pair devices - not transmit content - you still have to use Bluetooth to send the content
At the end of the day, it's the consumer who is important here - not the technology. And if the consumer decides that a marketing communication is Bluespam - then it is.
Obviously some Bluetooth solution providers are going to fight this battle because if they lose, they feel they won't have a business any more.
I disagree.
I contend that when done right - Bluetooth marketing can be very effective - and can be done in an Opt-In permissioned - RESPECTFUL - way.
In the coming months the Mobile Marketing Association will come out with their guidelines for Proximity Marketing - and knowing their commitment to responsible and respectful marketing they will likely align with my philosophy for Bluetooth marketing.
Thanks to everyone for their comments... for now this topic is closed.
2:44 PM
Today the message is the history and true ...
2:46 PM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home