• by Kate Kaye , May 10, 2004

Apart from prompting outcries by English-language purists, the wireless messaging craze has inspired mobile marketers in the United States and abroad to establish guidelines for mobile campaign best practices.

The Federal Communications Commission in March requested comments regarding how best to extend Can-Spam Act email marketing regulations to protect consumers against unsolicited wireless ads. The U.K.-based arm of industry trade group The Mobile Marketing Association (MMA) released its Code of Conduct in December 2003. Among other guidelines, the code requires that marketers must not disguise or conceal the identity of any mobile marketing communications sender.

"We pushed for that to be part of the directive," claims Jonathon Linner, CEO of Enpocket, a wireless marketing software and services company. The NY- based firm has launched thousands of campaigns in the United States, Europe, and Asia over the past three years for advertisers such as Nike, Walt Disney Co.'s ESPN, Honda, Warner Brothers, Procter & Gamble, and MasterCard, and began requiring what it refers to as original permission holder identification in its campaigns more than two years ago.

Now, the company wants mobile marketers in the United States to identify themselves in all permission-based campaigns. Enpocket defines original permission holder ID as "the concept of naming in each message the company that the consumer gave permission to for messaging to be sent." The firm contends that doing this will give consumers control by letting them know which company they originally opted-in with to receive a particular message, which may represent another advertiser or brand.

Enpocket also notes that identifying the original permission-holder will help eliminate consumer misperception of genuine opt-in messages as spam. "You can alleviate two-thirds of the people who think they're getting spam by initiating permission-based messaging," Linner maintains. "Giving consumers more data is always a good thing."

Standards are different in the United States compared to the United Kingdom, says Peter Fuller, executive director of the MMA's U.S. branch. Based in California, Fuller argues that industry guidelines are stronger here. "We have a different setup in North America," he comments, adding that Enpocket's demand for an original permission holder ID requirement "is somewhat of a moot point because of what we already require in North America."

According to The Yankee Group, 13 percent of wireless users in the United States received any kind of cell phone ad in 2003.

The U.S.-based MMA's Privacy Advisory Committee, which has members that include Carat Interactive, Cingular Wireless, Procter & Gamble, and The Weather Channel, ratified its Code of Conduct in November 2003. The regulations require that mobile marketing messages can be sent only to consumers who have opted-in, and must provide the ability to opt-out through channels identical to opt-in channels. The code also sets a limit of two new campaigns per week, and prohibits renting, selling, and sharing consumers' personal information with other people or nonaffiliated companies except to provide requested products and services. The guidelines do not, however, require original permission holder ID.

According to the MMA's Fuller, the organization has submitted a response to the FCC's call for comments regarding the extension of Can-Spam legislation to wireless marketing. "We also believe that industry self-regulation should be tried first," stresses Fuller.

"The industry standards in the U.S. are very, very lax, quite frankly," asserts Enpocket's Linner. While the MMA's U.S. standards don't require identification of the original permission holder, Linner insists that its inclusion in all mobile marketing messages is imperative. For example, large corporate advertisers often store separate databases for separate promotional campaigns, and also market via cross-promotions with other advertisers.

There's a good chance, Linner suggests, that recipients of such marketing messages could misconstrue an ad for, say, Coca-Cola, that was sent to them after opting-in to a program through Yahoo!, as spam--when in fact, it is a legitimate opt-in communication. In such a case, says Linner, today's U.S. standard does not have to clearly identify Coke as the permission holder.

"Most of the time people are unhappy about spam because they think they have no control over it," he concludes. "We believe the MMA code is good, but we just don't think it goes far enough. ... There is a better way to do this."