e-mail and sms communications - why not in the U.S?
Both of these communication methods already have or will soon become SOP in the Far East due to the extreme low cost and fast turnaround. One of the reasons these methods have been accepted in that region is due to the fact that the communications carriers have been able to bill the sender, rather than the receiver of the message. These tools are but two of an entire suite of customer contact tools which should be available to collection companies.
Does anyone have any updates as to whether or not the large U.S. based carriers have plans to implement this bill-back arrangement and, if not, why not?
Does anyone have any updates as to whether or not the large U.S. based carriers have plans to implement this bill-back arrangement and, if not, why not?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John Gallagher on -
I wonder why the text space is such an unusual size? It may prove to be a "Drop dead" issue unless the full message can be contained within a single communication.
I think it bears investigation further.
Thanks for the update.
-
Permalink Reply by John Gallagher on
-
I wonder if a concatenated SMS schema would be the logical answer, as long as the user actually sees only one message. IT would allow a full message to be sent, in compliance with FOTI.
Any experience with this protocol type?
-
Permalink Reply by John McNamara on -
FDCPA does not address or preclude email or SMS. My main concern has always been TCPA. Joffe v. Acacia Mortgage established that an SMS message regardless of who pays for it is a call to a cell phone by an ADD. That's at TCPA violation without prior consent.
I have to ask, with all the hype around SMS, with Twitter, etc. it seems like we might be counting too much on this SMS mini-in box. I use SMS as a primary communcition tool for my kids. If it filled up with all sorts of other messages, I would howl in outrage.....and I'm a bill collector. How will the average consumer react? Am I a curmudgeon, or does anyone else feel that way?
-
Permalink Reply by John Gallagher on
-
Excellent points - curmudgeonly or not. Wish we knew the correct answers.
-
Permalink Reply by Daniel Doherty on
-
Yes, John, you are a curmudgeon, but despite that, good points all.
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Baggett on
-
Permalink Reply by John Gallagher on
-
Good link - but who will test this without deep pockets coupled with a nature which is not risk averse?
-
Permalink Reply by Jack Gordon on -
After the initial communication, the only "required element" in any communication is that you identify yourself as a debt collector. Logistically, texting could work quite nicely, if we could only get those pesky laws sorted out.
-
Permalink Reply by John Gallagher on
-
Agreed .. maybe a "Cash for Revising Clunky Laws" plan might work.
-
Permalink Reply by Neal Cropper on -
We have had clients using these technologies for years in our international markets. These have proven to be very effective tools for communication.
With a FTEU (Free To End User) solution here in North America you could easily use this solution for consumers who are cooperating with you. Send them an SMS to let them know your going to cash a check or to follow up on a missed payment.
These are not appropriate tools for use during initial communication but beyond that I do not see why we have such late adoption in North America. 96% OF SMS messages are read by the end user, do your mail or email campaigns have that level of readership? I doubt it.
If they text you back you know they are at their phone :)
We partnered with golivesms.com and have an integrated solution with them today. I do understand the cautious approach in the litigious society we live in however I think adoption of these tools is happening in spite of this.
-
Permalink Reply by John Gallagher on
-
Agreed on the international market - we see no problem there as there are already many solutions in place. It is in the U.S. where the regulatory issues have stopped people. I'm trying to find out if there are companies who have implemented these technologies in the states without suffering through legal issues.
-
Permalink Reply by Shawn Yates on -
Great discussion. A couple of comments. The TCPA is an issue but if the number was given to the creditor as a primary contact medium then you should be ok. If you purchased the cell phone you cannot use it for even dialer calls and recently a decision in a telemarketing case stated a text message sent from an automated software program that was web based qualifies as a automated dialer and thus could not be used.
As for the FDCPA you have to remember that state laws sometimes go over and beyond the requirements of the FDCPA. Some states require the minimiranda for "every" communication. You could just build a table to handle those states that require this but what happens if the debtor moves and keeps the same area code (I am one of these people)? What if they move temporarily to a state that requires this? There is really no way to know so to be safe you really need to handle this with all your communications thus the limited character issue.
As for the limited size (only 160 characters) this revolves around the technology. SMS is really basic and outdated. In Asia for example 80% of the population has mobile technology with the operating system to handle more advanced messages and images. The advent of iPhone is helping the US move forward but there is still a long ways to go.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2010 Created by JJ Hornblass
