In addition, to the recent FTC announcement, we’ve noticed a few other regulatory changes from the major mobile carriers. It is possible that these two events are separate, but they seem too coincidental. With 2008 being a break-out year for mobile, the regulating bodies are putting forth their best effort to protect the sensitivity of mobile numbers.
Once a short code has been purchased with the Common Short Code Authority it must be provisioned with each of the mobile carriers. Part of this process includes submitting a detailed program summary outlining everything from the program’s sample message flow, to the expected traffic volume. Each carrier has a different process for managing these applications. Some, like AT&T, prefer a short approval process (2-4 weeks) whereas others, like Verizon, have a longer process (6-8 weeks). AT&T’s method was supported by ongoing monthly audits, whereas Verizon preferred to complete all due diligence upfront. This makes for an interesting process to manage.
In the most recent weeks, we’ve seen a significant change in the requirements for the submission process. AT&T has begun taking more upfront time to approve programs and all of the carriers are more detailed in their acceptable use requirements. This has pushed AT&T’s approval timeline from 2-4 weeks to the 6-8 week mark. Without a doubt, this is an effort of the mobile carriers to protect their consumers and minimize any chances of a marketer abusing the technology.
Mobile carriers that audit ongoing programs are making sure that the program hasn’t changed from what was approved. They do this to prevent scams, but mostly to make sure that each consumer has a positive experience with each program. Many carriers realize that consumers do not differentiate an SMS content provider from their actual mobile carrier, so SPAM or faulty programs are often a poor reflection on the carrier. The FTC is taking a bit of a different route and acting as a second auditor across all mobile programs. The FTC’s main goal is to protect the under-eighteen crowd from aggressive marketers by scanning for misleading messages. This is a different angle that indirectly protects the mobile marketing industry because it reduces the likelihood of SPAM, which would desensitize mobile consumers.
While the carrier’s reaction to these events have created more policies for program summission, the additional few weeks to launch a program are significantly outweighed by the benefits of a well protected marketing medium. But even with these regulations, marketers still must do their part.
- Ainsworth