There's quite a good 10 minute video here
from Sony Ericsson promoting mobile marketing. It includes some case
studies from Volvo, The Future Store, using RFID and Kitty Kat catfood.
The one that worries me slightly is Volvo's use of Bluetooth in their
showrooms. While the video espouses permission-based mobile marketing,
Volvo seem to be using our old friend, BlueSpam, in their showrooms.
My interpretation of "permission" is that the customer gives prior
consent to receiving marketing messages. This doesn't mean sending them
a message to their phones saying "Oi, can I send you something now?".
That's as spammy as sending the message itself, no?
Now, in this instance, you can argue that walking into a Volvo showroom
indicates an interest in their products. Then approaching the download
point with Bluetooth activated on your phone confirms some basis for
"permission". Plus, I wouldn't imagine anyone has actually complained
so far.
But this is a slippery slope to the kind of scenario none of us want -
being bombarded by marketing messages as we walk though a High Street
or mall. Does my presence in the mall constitute permission to the
retailers there to send Bluespam to my phone, in the same way as being
in a Volvo showroom, illustrates an apparent willingness to receive
messages?
Andclaiming that having your Bluetooth set as Discoverable is permission is purely
disingenuous. There's plenty of legitimate reasons why I'd want my
Bluetooth active and it doesn't indicate that I'm tacitly agreeing to
get marketing messages.
Marketers need to be very careful how they use the mobile channel if it
is to survive and thrive as a useful tool for marketers and users alike.
This doesn't mean promoting mandatory permission and then ignoring it
just because it suits us.
Is there a lawyer in the house or do you know a friendly one? I'd like to know what the legal position might be.
Recent Comments