Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Cellphones are an advertiser's gold mine, but will consumers dig it?

ANICK JESDANUN

Associated Press

Latest comment posted at 9:11 PM EDT 02/01/08

As ads arrive on cellphones, privacy concerns grow with targeting opportunities ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Krusty G from Ontariario, Canada writes:
    This is precisely why I don't have a cell phone. The convenience of reaching people instantaneously does not outweigh the infringement of personal freedom when people - mostly advertizers - want to reach me instantaneously. It's my life, I'LL decide who can talk to me and when. Having a cellphone gives that control to everybody else.
    I'm almost ready to lose my land line as well, mostly because of intrusive telemarketing. Yet again, mass media ruins another otherwise useful medium...
    And, no I'm not a Luddite - I work in cutting edge IT. Doesn't mean I'm a sucker for iAdvertizing too. It's just about relinquishing personal control. I prefer to use IT to my own advantage, not to the advantage of advertizers who think of every one of us as just a bunch of iSchmucks, ready to mined and pillaged. Although if we sit idly by and allow this to happen, well stupid is as iSchmuck does.
  2. H K from Winnipeg, Canada writes: I hope this technology never makes it to Canada. Cel phones are the last piece of communications technology that isn't dominated by mindless advertisements. And if it does, I'm switching to a numeric pager.
  3. david ferguson from Canada writes: I've actually recieved my first two spam messages on my telus phone. Both from Dell.

    Now while I may support Dells at work, it's not like I'm going to run out and grab one for my home network. Please stop.

    The issue that bothers me is, where did Dell get one of my cellular numbers? Telus?
  4. Albin Forone from Toronto, Canada writes: Obviously, cell should be limited to the same "do not call list" restrictions as land line phones. On the other hand, if opening my cell number to ads will discount my monthly bill, i.e. fairly sharing the revenue the wireless provider gets for selling my number, maybe I (or more likely my kid who cares less - tech is mainly aimed at the under 17s these days) will consider it. If I start receiving unsolicited nuisance calls or text messages, I'll cancel the service.
  5. karen l from Canada writes: Oh PLEASE don't let them do this. I used to have a cell phone primarily for work use, and had to answer or check for a message ASAP during work days in case it was my boss calling. Occasionally someone would fax to the cell phone, causing me to drop what I was doing and answer the phone only to get a bunch of little beeps. Sometimes it happened 20 times a day and drove me nuts. If my cell phone provider allowed advertising calls to come in, I'd run not walk to any company didn't allow it.
  6. A. Nonymous from Cellphone Ville, United States writes: I have the most basic of all cellphones, and it's on pay-as-you go.

    The purpose of a cellphone [in my opinion] is to make and receive calls. For me, these constitute emergency calls.

    Anything that gets in the way of this function, is considered [to me] junk, and is dealt with appropriately.

    Any carrier that sends me ads, or allows ads to get to my phone, will be dropped. I pay for the phone, I pay for the airtime, I will NOT under any circumstances, pay anything to receive ads, not a red cent.

    Wanna advertise to me, compensate me.
  7. Gordon Murray from Canada writes: Future Quote: "I hate now when simultaneously my cellphone goes off, and of a person 10 paces ahead walking towards me, to flash that our Xmas Gift cards received (and on person), suggest we have trades beneficial enough to stop and compare."
    "What's your trade threshold?"
    "What are you paying THEM for? Isn't that simply point your cellphone at me and hit '#' for you?"
  8. brian bishop from Your wasting you time, Canada writes: My cellphone is soon to become my only phone, landline being canceled next week.

    I'll be using my cellphone in the same manner I do now once it becomes my only telephone. It's powered on when I make a call & powered off when done, I don't check voicemail!

    If I start receiving spam I'll file complaints with the CRTC & my provider, if nothing comes of it I'll drop my cellphone altogether, OPP's worked fine in the past & they'll work just fine in the future, Other People's Phones!
  9. 1938371 1938371 from Vancouver, Canada writes: Cell phone plans that offer free airtime may be at risk, I suppose, for advertising; but those of us that pay .25 per minute for calls and text messages will be bankrupt if we have to pay for unwanted advertising.
  10. Wilf Kruggel from Canada writes: I really think that the cell phones must be off limits to any form of advertising period. The cell phone must be treated as a emergentcy medium and completely off limits to advertising. The CRTC had better take note of this one. If they do not, then the Prime Minister must deal with them in a very stern way. Phone numbers are supposed to be private. Who is giving them out if it isn't the phone companies???????? Sue them! Wilf
  11. Godfried Wasser from Canada writes: Quattro Wireless and similar wireless advertisers are disgusting. What is the difference between a totalitarian state and a totalitarian economy if technology is used to trace individuals and target them with unwanted indoctrination?

    We should actively boycott and criminalize any attempt to use our privacy for commercial and other non-emergency purposes. This stuff should be as illegal as tapping someone’s phone!
  12. Unabashed Opinion from Toronto, Canada writes: The Facebook solution is the answer: Mass consumer rebellion against the companies that inflict cellphone advertising. Soon companies will realize that such advertising reduces their business rather than increasing it, and so-called market forces will eventually prevail. However, I think this is only a marketer's wet dream. We've heard the now iconic "standing outside a Starbucks and getting a Starbucks discount message on the cellphone" so often that it's beginning to sound more like a(n unwanted) solution looking for a problem.
  13. IT Expert from Calgary, Canada writes: My question to the phone and advertising companies is who is going to pay for the message to be sent? The phone companies? The advertizers? All of us have plans on our cell phones, limited minutes, limit instant messaging, limited SMS. So here is the senario, I walk by the coffee shop to be blasted with advertizing offers, and then I personally get charged to receive them???? NO WAY!!!!

    There should be some "don't send" list or options on the device to turn off broadcasting my information out from the cell phone. That way, if that option is turn off on my cell phone, no extra messages need to be sent to the phone. If they don't know the address, to bad, I more than likely don't want to see it.

    In Canada/North America, the phone companies are in bed with the advertizers. Its a good scheme to "double dip" their wireless device customers. So another question is when do my personal rights come into play when they conflict with an advertizing companies right to advertize/make money. I would think and like to hope that personal rights would ALWAYS COME FIRST.
  14. Justin Kase from Victoria, Canada writes: If I start getting unsolicited ads on my mobile phone and there is no way to opt out of receiving them, then it is goodbye to the phone and back to using only land lines.

    A compromise might be that the user can turn ads on and off at will, allowing ads to come in when landing at an international airport for discounts on car rentals etc.
  15. Wilf Kruggel from Canada writes: I probably am like most people, I "loathe" any advertising, period. If ones does not want them then that right must be honored. These advertisers must be open to lawsuits. This advertising would be just as annoying as "pop ups on the computer. I just plan to boycott all advertising. One would get their attention if everyone did this. Most advertising is shamefull to watch and there are those that think that we want to watch this crap. The people concocting the adds must mave a "ZERO" IQ, so I do not plan to go there, Wilf
  16. Nassar Ben Houdja from Canada writes: Media advertising is used by quite a few people to decide what not to buy. If cell users are harassed by unsolicited advertising, the results could very well be not what the cheap hawkers of shoddy merchandise had in mind.
  17. Goose Bay Resident Canada from Canada writes: Only my wife and three kids have my cell phone number and my kids were always under threat of grounding if they gave it out to anyone that called on landline looking for me.

    The first unsolicited call I get the service provider will certainly know of my displeasure. They will be notified in writing by registered mail that any further unsolicited calls will be billed back to the service provider at $5.00 per call. Any further calls will be construed as acceptance of my offer. I have used this approach to ward off companies who send spam faxes. In those intances I tell them I welcome their unsolicited faxes but there is a 5.00 enviromental charge per page and that any faxes sent after that date will be considered acceptance of the conditions. They never take me up on the offer.
  18. Niran Sabanathan from Edmonton, Canada writes: Who pays. As cell phone service is payed by the user, there is a cost to the receiver. Can these charges be collected from the cell phone provider, as they are certainly making more revenue on the users time. I think this would do more to curb advertising than suing the advertisers.
  19. Wilf Kruggel from Canada writes: Goose Bay, what a novel idea, I have a proble with the fax, thanks to you, it's curred, Wilf
  20. John McMortimer-Boyles from An Undisclosed Underground Location Safe From Nuclear Attack, Canada writes: I can see this becoming a FOIP type of issue, with cell phone network operators only being allowed to collect personal information to the extent is necessary to operate the network unless you specifically give them permission to collect additional information and/or provice the collected information to a third party.
  21. Carey K from Canada writes: Note to advertisers: I'll boycott you forever if you try this stunt on my phone.
  22. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: Cellphone companies "get" your consent every month when you pay your bill . . . consent to do whatever the companies want. Read the fine print. It says that your company can change its rules whenever it wants, and that by paying your bill, you agree to whatever they do, you agree to whatever changes are made. And somewhere on their websites (tough to find, of course) appear . . . those changes in "terms and conditions". NOPE, consumers CAN'T win, as a matter of fact.. . . . and all of this is legal, since you "consented". HOW CLEVER.
  23. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: Any time that a number comes up as "Unavailable" or if it's a funny number (listing a state in the US as the caller) . . . on my land line or cell phone, or if no one speaks immediately, then I assume it's an ad, and I either don't answer, or I wait until someone does come on the line, in which case I either breathe heavily or inform the called that "I" have died in a fire. We gotta do something on our own, folks, since NO government will do anything about this. Another alternative is to ask the caller if I can borrow $200 'til next Thursday.
  24. Craig Cooper from Toronto, writes: You can't put an effective ad on a cellphone. Media buffoons and bean counters take note.
  25. M Neuman from Toronto, Canada writes: I agree with allowing cell providers to advertise when and whereever they want to. The customers are merely the end result in the bigger picture of telecommunciations. It is because of them that we have things like governance, bonuses and huge perks. Is this so bad? Afterall, the decision makers at these companies take huge risks and make huge dollars for the shareholders. If they can fatten the coffers for shareholders even more by allowing tracking and advertising on cellphones isn't that a good thing? The consumer wants competition..that's they they call themselves "consumers". Don't worry about security of your information..the banks, government and police have already compromised your information.
  26. Northumberland Dave from Canada writes: M. Neuman- You must work for one of the monolitic phone companies or in advertising! Are you kidding?

    It's bad enuff to get get a couple of kilos of junk mail in the mail box every week and have to phone ringing off the hook with, Congratulations.... you have won......... Or somebody selling windows or looking for a handout or just leaving you standing there waiting before the thing goes dead. Like you haven't got anything better to do with your day. So now you think that every citizen in this country should be tracked each and every day so that you get a message every time you pass a Tim Horton's? Or better still when they figure out you do the shopping with the kids on Saturday morning that there's a toy store just around the corner. This is harassment and I hope this will be the issue that makes people vote with their feet. As soon as this starts, I will be writing letters and changing companies asap. If that doesn't work then I'll give the whole cell phone thing a miss. Grr what colossal greed this is!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just how much do we have to buy for heaven's sake? Gross capitalism at it's best.
  27. old Curmudgeon From Ottawa from Ottawa, Canada writes: This is already happening to some extent. A couple of months ago, I got an automated call from a Rogers cable, reminding me not to miss some sports related broadcast the next day. As I do not follow sports, and totally abhor advertising, I sent them a really nasty letter, threatening cancellation of all my Rogers accounts.

    How dare these corporation disturb you at work, while driving, etc, just to feed you some garbage advertisement!

    Any company that thinks they can force-feed me with advertisements on my phone, whether as advertiser or phone provider, can be assured that I will drop the service and never buy that product or deal with that company again.

    It is time that people reject this consumer label that de-humanizes us, down to the level of a "unit of consumption".
  28. Ed Doerksen from Simcoe, Canada writes: As soon as the first add or what ever hits my cell phone, I will dump my cell phone.
  29. Ryan Fillmore from Sackville, Canada writes: If i start getting bombared by ad-crap then I will cancel my cell phone, and that will be the end of it.

    Under no circumstances do I want to see, or even have an interest in know about what any advertisement is for or what the product is.

    All ad's should be put onto 1 tv channel, no more ads or commercials on regular channels, no ads on radio (create 1 ad channel their too), and all forms of internet ads should be banned.

    To bad for the businesses that want to advertise, if your product doesn't generate its own buzz, and enough of it to sustain the product, then close your doors.
  30. Dan Shortt from Toronto, Canada writes: Looks like the writing is on the wall here, folks.

    Within the next 12 - 24 months, the cell "phone" will become a device used primarily for the delivery of advertising. Its use as a communication device will become secondary. Subscribers will pay a monthly fee to have personalized advertising delivered to them instantly, regardless of where they are.

    A lot of people here are grinding their teeth and threatening to cancel their wireless phones if this comes to pass. Why bother? I know you won't cancel your service, you know you won't cancel your service, and most importantly, advertisers and wireless providers know that you won't cancel your service.

    Welcome to the Brave New World.
  31. A. Nonymous from DRMVille, United States writes: Dan Shortt Writes: " Subscribers will pay a monthly fee to have personalized advertising delivered to them instantly, regardless of where they are."

    Nope, not by a long shot. This is one subscriber who won't.

    4 Words, Pay-As-You-Go

    The phone is already a secondary feature. Text messaging, taking tiny grainy pictures, playing mp3's, ringtones, and other 'nickel and dime' features that most people seem willing to pay for.

    People like being gouged and taken advantage of, I will grant you that. Some people however, find a way around it.
  32. Brian Whitmore from Toronto, Canada writes: If Rogers buys into this they lose me as a customer. Cold.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top