Text Messaging Featured Article

Your opinion on marketing calls may depend on which side of the phone you tend to land. For those who want to market their products and services, telemarketing is still a viable option. For those who want to be left to make their own decisions on their own time, the same call is an unwanted interruption.

With advancements in communication technology over the last few years, marketing messages are getting more attention. Now, text messaging is entering the marketing mix with proven results. The only problem is that consumers are starting to pay attention when they receive a text they forgot they agreed to or one that simply showed up because they were on a list.

Most professional marketers know that consumers have a right to opt out of receiving unwanted messages. In fact, a failure to offer the opt-out option can generate significant consequences for the accused. When the option is offered and ignored, a company could find itself with a huge fine and in the spotlight.

Sprint (News - Alert) is the latest to earn unwanted attention in text messaging. The company has been ordered to pay $7.5 million to resolve an FCC Enforcement Bureau investigation of its failure to honor consumer requests to opt out of marketing text messaging and phone communications. Sprint is at the center of the largest Do-Not-Call settlement the FCC (News - Alert) has ever decided.

In addition to the ordered payment, Sprint must also put in place a two-year plan to ensure the company is compliant with all guidelines to protect consumer privacy and prevent consumers from receiving unwanted telemarketing calls. This move follows a settlement from 2011 in which Sprint was accused of making telemarketing calls to consumers who had specifically requested they be placed on the company’s Do Not Call list.

The reason for the significant fine is the FCC’s desire to send a message on the importance of customer privacy. It is considered a top enforcement priority by the Enforcement Bureau. But the fact that Sprint had an issue in 2011 and then violated FCC rules again suggests the company doesn’t take the rules seriously enough. It also suggests that the marketing plow is working if the company is willing to risk the negative PR and associated cost.

The ruling does have implications for other companies that rely on text messaging campaigns to reach the consumer base. While these organizations should be scrubbing their lists consistently to ensure compliance, it doesn’t take much for a consumer to lodge a complaint and be found right in the argument with little proof. When that happens, the company’s brand is damaged in the eyes of that consumer, creating conflict.

This is certainly a complex issue as it pits providers against marketers against consumers. The reality is, consumers want to be sold to, but they want more control in the interaction. Marketers have a job to do, but they still have to play by the rules. A failure to do so could easily render them in the hole by $7.5 million.