What 'American Idol' Gets Wrong About Texting

Earlier this week I tipped my hat to Burger King and its innovative ad team for demonstrating a clear understanding of Facebook users (nevermind recent logistical hiccups). Today, however, I’m going to have to wag my finger in the direction of AT&T and “American Idol” for an equally impressive misunderstanding—this time about text messaging.

You probably that to promote the premiere of the show’s eighth season (which is in dire need of a ratings boost after a considerable drop last year) AT&T Wireless sent a lengthy text message to a “significant number” of its 75 million users who had either voted into the show in the past or qualified as “heavy texters.” Not surprisingly, many were not pleased. Really? No additional filters? No opting in? I think it’s fair to call this one a FAIL.

In defense of the campaign, AT&T spokesman Mark Siegel told The New York Times (reg. required) that “the message was meant as a friendly reminder… He added, ‘It makes perfect sense to use texting to tell people about a show built on texting.’” Finally, Siegel went on to address the spam accusation reasoning that “the message could not be classified as spam because it was free and because it allowed people to decline future missives.”

Let’s set aside the large number of “heavy texters” who could care less about American Idol in the first place, and instead consider actual prospective viewers. Siegel’s logic here on both points is flawed. First off, he equates the willingness to send a text in order to cast a vote with a tolerance for receiving an unsolicited advertising. This is simply not the case. While the former is an extension of the viewing experience and a natural engagement of fans rooting for their favorite contestants at home, the latter is an intrusion into viewers’ everyday assumedly non AI-centric lives. Not only is an unwarranted text disruptive, but it’s disappointing. By now teens who are heavy texters have developed a Pavlovian response to the sound of a new message. Discovering that the text is a mass ad with no new or valuable information? Well, that’s worse than a nagging message from Mom or Dad asking what time you’re going to be home.

Siegel’s second line of reasoning misses the mark even further. Since when does being free disqualify something as spam? And sure, sending “stop” to end the messages might not seem like it’s asking that much, but in reality requiring a teen to do anything other than just ignoring the message to make it go away is a bother and only serves to further alienate fans. If you can even still call them that.

For more coverage of the latest trends and developments in mobile technology for youth, check out the Ypulse Mobile Channel.