Some interesting discussion has sprouted around my post on Bluespamming from Friday:
It’s an ugly, ugly message that most consumers don’t care for. It’s then a hugely underwhelming experience — to be sent a 100×100 shite image. Or some blocky video. You have to pair with the sodding device. It’s just……… it’s a by-hook-or-by-crook marketing method. How many sodding hoops do you want your (potential) customers to jump through so you can get them to view a video on their phones? Please. Stick it on Youtube or something, do the marketing that way. Bluecasting in a theatre? Bluecasting in a street? Oh dear.
I also understand why Avenue Q would use something like bluecasting - there’s no messaging cost to the network operator. This makes it hugely attractive financially. And it is marginally less intrusive than a text message as your mobile number is kept private. And for any marketing campaign, 7% is a good response rate. And after all, we live in a commercial world and if the maths adds up, then the maths adds up.
But you know what, bluecasting will be an interim technology at best.
This stuff is balls, it’s the mobile equivalent of paying a man to stand in the street shouting at passers-by in a strong accent few of them can hope to understand, then putting out a press release claiming that 10% of them heard you. And a kick in the eye goes to the next person to justify it to me because it’s “better than direct mail”.
I’m sure there is potential in Bluetooth for interesting marketing applications, which make appropriate use of the technology and treat consumers in a respectful and ethical manner. But this nothing but spamming, even if you buy the IMHO shady legal-on-a-technicality argument.
A couple of interesting points there. As Ewan says, even if you don’t see this as spamming, the user experience isn’t great (and it’s even worse if you try and act responsibly, which hardly provides an incentive). Also, as Tom points out, the supposed legality of bluespamming seems like it comes from a technicality, not the actual spirit of the relevant law — even though Dutch regulators have ruled commercial Bluetooth messages aren’t covered by European anti-spam laws either.
Legality aside, is Bluespamming something companies should really want to be doing? Can they guarantee a user experience that’s not going to end up hurting their brand? And would they ever advertise their products through straight-up email spam?
[...] Over at Mobhappy there are some interesting thoughts. The focus of this debate is moving to rapidly to regulation. This would be a shame, there are lots of cool things you can do with transmitting bluetooth. [...]
The question on if bluetooth marketing is spam or not may be discussed with respect to local law. But it should be discussed from the users point of view also.
In another project, where I am involved in, a Java program containing the menu of 15 different refectories for 14 days in advance is pushed to mobile phones at a central refectory. This service is advertised in the student union’s newspaper, on wallpapers, on their website. An acceptance rate of up to 40% suggests, that many students turn on Bluetooth in order to receive the program, surveys of the student union show positive remarks on the project.
Therefore it is the content being pushed, that decides the value of a Bluetooth campaign. So I don’t see *** 100×100 pixels image there, as Mcloed wrote.
More detailed information are given on:
http://openpr.com/news/11616/Bluetooth-Hotspot-sends-out-Menu-to-Mobile-Phones.html
Whether sending marketing messages to any bluetooth enabled device within range is actually spam or not will, I am certain, fall outside the remit of local laws and bye-laws in almost every country in the world at this stage, simply because the idea itself is still pretty new.
Also, the question of whether sending such messages by bluetooth is spam at all, is surely a question of context. It certainly doesn’t seem that unreasonable that KLM would send such messages about flights to people in an airport, who are there to fly.
Imagine if the crowd in a massive sports stadium received a warning message from the stadium owners about a bomb warning, or a fire erupting under the stands, telling them to get the heck out of there. Would that be spam, or a helpful public service?
Context is vitally important.
Bluetooth firms must employ best practices in this area. There are companies like ProximityMedia who are well versed in the area of best practices when it comes to Bluetooth Marketing and then there are the rest. Those getting involved should make sure the companies they partner with are dealing with this issue. The one thing that separates marketers from spammers is whether or not they use best practices. Colby Fede, a principal with ProximityMedia, a Bluetooth Marketing firm gave our group a 10 minute lecture via conference on how ProximityMedia employs best practices in their business.
[...] Some say this sort of thing is as bad as email spam: http://mobhappy.com/blog1/2007/01/30/accept-connection-from-more-bluespamming-debate/ [...]
I’m somewhat new to the arena of Bluespam, but can say with feeling that I hate and despise it intellectually and emotionally.
I do not want to receive it as a phone user, though must keep bluetooth switched on for my car kit.
As a marketing person I cannot see why I would want to spam people. I suppose it’s cheaper than the man with the “Massive Golf Sale” board, but far more aggravating. Emotionally I want to visit the advertiser who spams me, but mainly to take up their time with thumping their table with my fist.
HSBC and Nissan have, advertising unseen, put me off being a customer of either, just because they are deploying it!
I’m quite heartened by the offering from Terimobile that has a predefined opt in to the marketing message. It means the non bluetooth message must be very strong, and that only those who are receptive will receive it.
I’m tracking on my own blog the response I expect to get from the UK Information Commissioner confirming their guidance note that Bluespam is unlawful under the PECR. It’s interesting that the ASA and the DMA both say “not our bailiwick”, and that each thus appears not to understand the issues.