Report: SMS Does Not Handle Volume Well At All

Written by Evan Schuman
June 27th, 2008

In one of the first wide-scale studies of SMS’ capability to hold up under volume pressure, the technology fared "surprisingly" poorly, according to Keynote Systems. This has particular significance for retailers, who are exploring the technology’s use for mobile communications connecting to both online and in-store.

Keynote tested two-dozen of the largest SMS players, including Chase, Coca-Cola, Google, NBC, PayPal, USA Today and The New York Times. SMS messages were sent to each of the 24 common short code (CSC) addresses every hour for four consecutive weeks, Keynote said.

"Response times for some short codes degraded severely during the busiest hours of the day. One CSC showed a 60 percent peak-period slowdown every day, indicating a major capacity issue was present," Keynote said. "Many of the CSCs monitored showed significant reliability issues. Several (experienced) more than 10 hours of outage while one (experienced) more than 50 hours."

The report also found that wireless carriers—understandably—can have a significant impact on SMS robustness. CDMA carriers had slower send times than GSM carriers, the report said, "and for some short codes, response time was more than twice as slow via one carrier compared to another."

With the keyboard and screen limits of most cellphones and even many smartphones, many retailers view CSC as a convenient commerce tactic. Consumers can type short number messages to purchase a variety of services or products or participate in a survey.

Keynote senior manager Ben Rushlo said many of the problems are likely to be short-lived, comparing today’s SMS/CSC efforts with where the Web was five years ago. "As for the peak period degradation issue, this is a new and emerging area. Some of these sites are just now starting to get into" text messaging experiments, Rushlo said. "For some of the sites in this study, this is not a core thing for them. I am not sure that mobile is even a core thing for them yet."

Although Keynote has an unfortunate policy of not publicly identifying the retailers who fared the worst on their surveys, they do release the names of those who performed the best. For overall reliability, the top five were CBS, Coca-Cola, Chase, The New York Times and Obopay while the top five for overall responsiveness were Obopay, Wells Fargo, The New York Times, Thumbplay and Chase.


One Comment | Read Report: SMS Does Not Handle Volume Well At All

  1. Robert Martinez Says:

    Did they publish which message aggregators the companies with problems were using for their promotions. There are definitely a wide range of quality for the aggregators available in the States and it may be unfair to make wide statements about the reliability of SMS messaging. If you could have the success broken out by the aggregator companies it would be appreciated. I am sure most people reading this would like to avoid those companies with delivery issues


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.