Inc. Magazine: A Pocket Full of Marketing
Cellit highlighted as provider of mobile solutions.
Keywords
Mobile App, Mobile Applications, Mobile Coupon, Retail Mobile Coupons, Mobile Coupons, Mobile Couponing, Mobile Marketing, Mobile Phone Marketing, Mobile Websites, SMS Marketing, Text Message CRM, Text Message Marketing and Cellit Mobile Marketing
Don’t Shoot the Messenger: Differentiating between the Carrier and the Mobile Content Provider
Recently, a Canadian wireless provider, Telus, was forced to halt its delivery of adult content after receiving hundreds of complaints and several service cancellations. Further pressure was applied by high-ranking Catholic officials who encouraged their parishes and schools to cancel their contracts with the provider.
The provider had taken steps to ensure this content was not seen by children, including age-verifying and registering those who wished to receive the service, a step that many adult websites have ignored. Furthermore, the service was limited to images of partial or full nudity, and did not include depictions of sex acts. They even took the extra step of actively blocking access to illegal child pornography. These precautions did not sway the protesters though, and the provider decided to stop the service.
Although Cellit Mobile Marketing is not engaged in the delivery or distribution of “questionable content”, we believe that the preceding example could set a dangerous precedent for a new type of censorship. The Canadian company was simply providing the conduit through which the content was distributed and was not an active participant in its production or promotion. The actions taken by those who boycotted the provider would be the equivalent of suing your ISP for allowing access to adult websites, or complaining to a credit card company for not denying transactions involving potentially offensive products and services.
It is not, and should not be the responsibility of the service provider, be it wireless, internet, or even cable and satellite television, to police the content which may be accessed through their service. Each consumer has the ability and the right to look or not look at any material they please, and it is up to the creators and distributors of this content to make sure that their products have the appropriate safeguards in order to restrict access to only those who are legally allowed and wish to see them. Otherwise, if the providers did take it upon themselves to decide what their customers would be able to access, their actions would be in serious violation of our right to free speech.
Furthermore, if these companies could be bullied into changing their policies by religious, political, or other affiliated groups, then consumers would effectively have their morals and values dictated to them by their service providers, and thus the protesting groups, a dangerously inappropriate proposition.
Carriers and customers alike need to distinguish between the content and the provider of access. Let’s face it, someone will always be offended by something. It’s up to the consumer to choose not to buy the offensive content, and boycott the content provider, but to boycott the access provider is taking this several steps too far.