The pitch: Age of consent for cellphone spam

By STEVE SHEARMAN*

Door-to-door sales people were the original spammers. They showed up uninvited, used a very personal access channel, required time and effort to remove and left individuals feeling uncomfortable.

Ten years ago, unsolicited advertising was the junk mail you received through the letterbox.

Email brought with it a whole new class of unsolicited advertising, much of it for services that may not have, ahem, upheld the decorum of the workplace.

Now the text and picture-text messaging phenomenon means that if we don't make some changes, spam will be coming to our cellphones.

Spam through these new digital channels is less welcome. Spam to mobile is seen as particularly invasive: we value our privacy more with communication channels that are "always on".

Australia has tackled this problem head-on, introducing a legally binding code to ban bulk text-messaging to those who opt not to receive them.

In the US, federal anti-spam legislation seems no longer a question of "if" but "how much?". There's even talk of a no-spam registry, similar to the Federal Trade Commission's "Do Not Call" list, and of jail terms for repeat spammers.

Interestingly, there's some support for this approach from customers, businesses and ISPs, who find it increasingly expensive and cumbersome to deal with spam.

Whatever regulations are settled on for email will also spill over into other channels eventually.

On the other hand, say marketers, direct mail is an effective and even popular marketing technique.

But modern marketers know that they seriously risk alienating consumers by the plethora of messaging being delivered uninvited. So how can responsible marketers take advantage of new communication channels?

Some say offering an "opt out" is the answer. Some say self-regulation is the way to go - but that will only work with agencies that sign up to the regulations.

Opt in - meaning a customer has to ask to receive advertising from a company and confirm his or her own details - offers most to the consumer and the marketer.

It works for consumers because they control who they receive advertising from. It works for marketers because the consumers who opt in are already interested in the company's products or services.

I'd welcome tighter regulation in New Zealand that protects consumers and fosters best practice among marketers. I'd welcome consequences for those who don't play by the rules.

I believe this would be good business.

* Steve Shearman is the director of multi-channel marketing technology company Touchpoint.

* The Pitch is a forum for those working in advertising, marketing, public relations and communications. We welcome lively and topical 500-word contributions.
Email Simon Hendery.