I was lucky enough to be elected Global Chairman of the MMA a few months back, on top of my role as Chairman of EMEA. This is an unpaid and part time role, in case you wondered, and has to be squeezed into my day job, blogging, my involvement in Mobile Monday and any kind of leisure time I might foolishly aspire to.
Having said that, I take my MMA role very seriously and am thoroughly enjoying it - even the challenges and controversies that inevitably come with this kind of job.
Speaking of which….you might have seen that the MMA has just published in draft form its “European Bluetooth Guidelines” for public review. This has been greeted in some quarters, like The Register with accusations that the MMA is encouraging spam and many people have written to ask me what my stance is on this.
This is a complex question in reality, especially as I need to balance my own opinions and that of my Chairman role. But I’m happy to be lay out some of the thinking here and am very fortunate that I have the platform to do it.
Firstly, let me make absolutely clear that these guidelines are not the final document that we’ll be going with. The process within the MMA for this kind of work is that members who have a special interest in a topic get together and form a committee. This committee then debates the issues, develops a position and drafts a paper - in this case, these Guidelines - and this can take many months of hard work, thought and negotiation.
After that, the guidelines are published for the public to provide feedback on. That feedback is consolidated, considered by the committee and may or may not be incorporated into the final guidelines that are then published. The guidelines may then be reviewed and changed on an ongoing basis, as opinions change and as technology develops.
To be completely transparent, I haven’t seen these guidelines either before now, as I wasn’t part of the committee. I can’t possibly oversee or even be involved all the work the MMA does and neither do I need to be.
So, my first request to all of you is to read the guidelines and comment as you see fit - read and comment here. And you don’t need to be a member of the MMA in order to do that.
As a brief background to the controversy here, there are broadly two types of Bluetooth campaign - just as there are two types of mobile marketing. Firstly, there is Pull. This is where (in the case of Bluetooth) the consumer sees the opportunity to interact in another medium and actively and consciously decides to initiate a contact. As an example, you might go to the cinema, see a poster and as a result download via Bluetooth a trailer for a forthcoming film, or a ringtone for the soundtrack of the movie you’ve just seen.
This is generally regarded, and I absolutely agree, as being totally acceptable. The consumer can choose to interact with the promoter or not.
The second type is Push campaigns and this is where the fun begins. With say, an SMS push campaign, we can stipulate that the consumer must opt in to receive messages from the promoter and of course, have the ability to subsequently opt out. This is actually a legal requirement in Europe and some other markets.
However, with Bluetooth, the modus operandi is to send a message to random phones that have Bluetooth switched on, are in discoverable mode and are in range of the transmitter, asking if they would like to receive a marketing message. If you take an SMS analogy, this is like sending an SMS to someone, asking them if they would like to opt in to a campaign. It might be polite and courteous, but it would still be unsolicited and still regarded as spam, in my opinion.
Proponents of Bluetooth Push campaigns argue that if people don’t wish to be contacted, they can either switch their Bluetooth off, or make it undiscoverable (so they can still use, for example, Bluetooth headsets). Opponents (and I’m one) say that that’s like saying if you don’t want to get email spam, don’t buy a PC or don’t use your email client.
There’s some even murkier aspects to this.
Firstly, it’s generally not covered by legislation, unlike say unsolicited email or sms. So no one is breaking the law in any way.
Secondly, there’s the closed community aspect. As an example, you go to a Madonna gig at the O2 Centre. The organiser decides that they’re going to send everyone (with Bluetooth switched on) a personal message from Madge, inviting them to download a free ringtone from her latest album. Technically, this is unsolicited, but then it’s hard to see who on earth would be offended by this and perhaps then it’s acceptable? In any event, it’s a far cry from the scenario of walking down a High Street or in a shopping mall and getting a “Can we send you something?” message from all the shops in the area.
Other areas of concern is that many people wouldn’t know how to change the Bluetooth settings on their mobile. And ultimately this would be a great way to distribute viruses to mobiles, but maybe this is getting just a bit too paranoid.
My position as a member of the MMA and a marketer is that the MMA should recommend against the use of unsolicited Bluetooth messaging campaigns, no matter how politely those messages are phrased. I would make an exception to promotion to closed groups, such as the Madonna scenario I outlined above.
But it’s more complicated than that. As Chairman of the MMA, I want to keep the members who promote these campaigns within the Association, as it means that we can continue to have a dialogue and discussion - and make them see that it’s not a good way for a marketer to behave. An outright ban would almost certainly encourage them to set up their own organisation and I think that this would be a bad thing for the industry.
Ultimately, I also believe that these techniques will die anyway, whether because of a massive consumer backlash at some future point or because legislation will ban it. It’s only remotely acceptable today because relatively few messages are sent to relatively few people.
The Bluetooth push proponents are almost all reasonable people and some privately admit that they would rather not run these types of campaigns. But if their competitors all do, they have to service clients who demand it, whether or not those clients and suppliers are MMA members. This is an argument which I have some sympathy with.
So what’s the answer here? I believe that the Guidelines at this stage should reflect that Bluetooth push campaigns while legal, are controversial, could reflect poorly on brands that choose to promote themselves in this way and don’t represent best practice.
The MMA is a democratic and consultative organisation, so while I have a definite opinion, we must be led by the majority. Which is why it’s so important that as many people comment on the Guidelines as they stand, whether or not they agree with them. So please make your voice heard while it’s fresh in your mind by heading over there now by clicking here.
—–>Follow us on Twitter too: @russellbuckley and @caaarlo
Good post, I can appreciate the MMA’s “keep them in the tent, pissing out” approach, but I would appreciate stronger guidelines and more rigorous recommendations on best practise.
I’ve commented on the guidelines, but the MMA forum doesn’t appear to show comments, is this intentional?
Imho, some bloggers (not you) don’t have faintest idea about it. On The Register, we read fairy tales like “having your phone bleep every time”… Even if your phone would bleep, why not simply switch to invisible, or turn off. There is no need to have Bluetooth visible all the time.
[...] häufig heftigen Reaktionen, die diese bei manchen Marktteilnehmern hervorrufen, zeigt auch der Blogbeitrag von Russel Buckley. Speaking of which….you might have seen that the MMA has just published in draft form its [...]
Does anyone still take any notice of The Register?
You have set out the dilemma brilliantly and I am so pleased that the MMA is working with the industry to provide some standards. Bluetooth Broadcasting is (in my opinion) an important stepping stone towards NFC Broadcasting which (I hope) will be less controversial for the industry.
My opinion, for what it’s worth, is that the practice of ‘Bluetooth Push’ can be compared with unsolicited mail, freesheet newspapers or leaflets, but shouldn’t be compared with ‘SMS Push’. Receiving a message is always free (but sometimes annoying) to the recipient.
Where I think that the MMA and the DMA both fail in their task is that they both frame Bluetooth in one exclusive range (up to 15 meters for the MMA, I think). The trouble with this strategy is that Bluetooth transmitters can be set from anywhere between 0 and 100+ meters, so the application of Bluetooth Broadcasting is very diverse.
The regulations for close proximity broadcasting should be different to the regulations for wider reaching broadcasts. For the record, I would go with;
- up to half a meter = push to anyone discoverable
- half a meter to 15m = only to permission granted
- 15m+ = push to anyone discoverable in closed groups (concerts, schools) but only with permission in open groups (shopping centers, hospitals)
m
You have been writing very agressive posts about Bluetooth for a long time. In my opinion you are not totally fair. For example when you write: “this is like sending an SMS to someone, asking them if they would like to opt in to a campaign”.
I can see several points that make it really different:
- You don’t need to reply to a Bluetooth notification, you can just ignore it and it will disapear from your screen after a few seconds whereas you have to delete unsolicited SMS and emails.
- Those unsolicited SMS and emails are stored on your device and are using space that you want to store your pictures, games, … whereas a Bluetooth notification is a standard message displayed by your phone itself and doesn’t take any space on your phone.
- You can turn your Bluetooth off or select the invisible mode when you want. You cannot turn SMS off, you can switch off your mobile but you will receive the SMS later when you switch it back on.
- On most phones the Bluetooth notification comes with a single barely audible beep and new SMS notification are a lot louder.
- Bluetooth campaigns have a very short range (a dozen meters) and they are usually related to nearby services or products, so they are better targeted and more relevant than many SMS campaigns who are literaly spamming thousands of people with completely irrelevant offers (I’m not really interested in a 20% discount on lingerie from a distant department store where I have never been).
For all these reasons Bluetooth push campaigns are generally a lot less intrusive than SMS or email campaigns.
And there are several ways to make those campaigns less intrusive:
- Stop offering a content to people who have already refused it once
- Stop offering a content to people who have already downloaded it
- Stop offering a content at least during 1 hour to people who have ignored a previous offer
- Stop offering any content to people who have refused 3 times
- In case several Bluetooth spots are used, respect above rules globally by connecting the Bluetooth spots to a network.
- Offer free high-quality mobile content that people will be happy to receive (e.g. movie trailers, ringtones, coupons, games, …) instead of regular advertising
- Only offer content designed specifically for mobiles (e.g. videos < 300Ko)
- Only send content in a format supported by the target device
The acceptance-level of a Bluetooth Marketing campaigns is mainly determined by the following factors: opt-in, number and frequency of download offers, level of targeting, location (private or public), type of content (agressive advertising or not), content quality.
With these guidelines I believe you can create very successful Bluetooth marketing campaigns with high user satisfaction and excellent results for advertisers.
Please give this new technology a chance and some time to mature before killing it.
Indeed a tough job for the MMA setting up guidelines in this field. As there is clearly some conflict of interests.
When talking to non-tech / mobile business people about mobile marketing, most times the first thing that comes to their mind is something spam related. - be it sms or bt.
Because of the low cost (at least nowadays compared to distribution via mobile web) BT will be used extensively.
This can / will cause many unsatisfied (stalked) users.
And users will not distinguish between mobile web advertising and bt advertising - mobile is mobile.
The guidelines say: “the recipient must first choose to enable the Bluetooth connectivity on their handset …”
I remember when I got my last phone, bt was on and visible.
So the first step I had to take was to disable bt on my handset.
Pull is ok. Push services should be used only after opt-in for each single session. Strict but userfriendly.
Thanks for the comments, everyone. Please make sure you share your ideas and thoughts direct with the MMA too.
The range of responses here also shows what diversity of views there are and thus how difficult it is to navigate this issue. Some people are going to be disappointed (and that may include me), but that’s democracy in action for you.
Olivier - you make some excellent points and I’m a fan of MobiLuck, as you know. But the points you make are really periphery to the central question ie has the consumer asked to receive messages or not? If he hasn’t, no matter how nice and friendly you are, no matter how you try to make the interruption tolerable, you’re still assuming that you have the right to send them messages.
Let’s take the parallel of physical direct mail. If I ask the question of the direct marketer “Has the consumer opted in to receive these letters?” it’s a simple case of “yes” or “no”. It doesn’t matter to what lengths the marketer has gone to design an eye-pleasing envelope, spell the name right or tried to make sure that the consumer was interested in the subject.
Yes, I agree that Bluetooth Push marketers can do a lot to mitigate their messages, but they still don’t have permission.
As for giving the technology a chance to mature, I’m a big fan of the technology and its applications generally. I just have a problem with one way it’s currently being used. It’s a little like my attitude to hammers - they’re great, apart from when they’re used to bludgeon people to death. [No, I'm not suggesting that Bluetooth marketing is like killing people, just pointing out that technology isn't uniformly good or bad.]
Anyway, there’s lots of mileage in this topic and thanks again for your interest and comments.
Russell
Good article!
i agreed too that bluetooth push marketer can do a lot to mitigate as like Oliver said before. But I still do a research about this.
Cheer,
Nokia News