Recently, Rick and I had a conversation with an emergency manager who, though not responsible for public alerting, had some strong opinions about it. Primarily, he believed the days of telephone call notifications were gone--that SMS or email was the only real viable means of alerting people in a crisis at this point. His main concerned stemmed from capacity--the ability to make a large number of calls quickly. Further, he had been burned by vendors who overstated their actual call handling capabilities (and the capacity of local phone switches) causing him to conclude this method was fundamentally flawed.
While we understand his overall frustrations and greatly respect his perspective, we do not believe telephone notifications have gone the way of the dinosaur. Here are a few reasons why we believe new methods and technologies are not yet ready to place the telephone call:
Large segments of the population still do not use SMS or email.
The market penetration of SMS and email is high and continues to grow. However, large groups of people still do not rely on these technologies with regularity. Managing a notification program with no method for reaching land line telephones will bypass a significant portion of local citizens.
Geographic targeting is often desired.
Most critical situations have a geographic element to them, and generally, emergency managers need to deliver specific alerts to targeted areas. As email and SMS data are not tied to geography, targeting alerts is impossible (unless a citizen has signed up for the alert and/or downloaded a mobile application). The exception is cellular broadcast technology which will help mitigate this problem but is not currently available on a widespread basis in the U.S. (more on this in the future).
SMS and email have capacity issues as well.
Though vendor and local telephone switch capacities should be a concern, we should not lull ourselves into thinking network limitations do not exist for digital messages (or cellular messages for that matter). Research conducted by Dr. Patrick Traynor at the Georgia Institute of Technology a couple of years ago illustrates this well, as do our own conversations with cellular carriers who have expressed deep concerns about SMS/email capacity limitations.
The human voice element can be important.
In research conducted by behavioral scientists, voice alerts have been shown to produce greater compliance than textual alerts alone (actually the greatest compliance comes from presenting both textual and voice alerts). This potentially illustrates the benefit of receiving information in an audible form from a human voice (or at least one that sounds human in the case of text-to-speech).
In all, we believe there is no one right answer for alerting the public. A successful notification program must encompass a variety of methods and devices to ensure alerts get through. Further, the impact of any method on the local communications infrastructure should be considered before a widespread notification is issued.
What do you think? Can we forget about telephone notifications and move to other technologies altogether? We'd love to hear from you. Oh, and you can use the telephone to call us if you'd like. We'll still answer it.
Best regards,
Lorin
Top
While we understand his overall frustrations and greatly respect his perspective, we do not believe telephone notifications have gone the way of the dinosaur. Here are a few reasons why we believe new methods and technologies are not yet ready to place the telephone call:
Large segments of the population still do not use SMS or email.
The market penetration of SMS and email is high and continues to grow. However, large groups of people still do not rely on these technologies with regularity. Managing a notification program with no method for reaching land line telephones will bypass a significant portion of local citizens.
Geographic targeting is often desired.
Most critical situations have a geographic element to them, and generally, emergency managers need to deliver specific alerts to targeted areas. As email and SMS data are not tied to geography, targeting alerts is impossible (unless a citizen has signed up for the alert and/or downloaded a mobile application). The exception is cellular broadcast technology which will help mitigate this problem but is not currently available on a widespread basis in the U.S. (more on this in the future).
SMS and email have capacity issues as well.
Though vendor and local telephone switch capacities should be a concern, we should not lull ourselves into thinking network limitations do not exist for digital messages (or cellular messages for that matter). Research conducted by Dr. Patrick Traynor at the Georgia Institute of Technology a couple of years ago illustrates this well, as do our own conversations with cellular carriers who have expressed deep concerns about SMS/email capacity limitations.
The human voice element can be important.
In research conducted by behavioral scientists, voice alerts have been shown to produce greater compliance than textual alerts alone (actually the greatest compliance comes from presenting both textual and voice alerts). This potentially illustrates the benefit of receiving information in an audible form from a human voice (or at least one that sounds human in the case of text-to-speech).
In all, we believe there is no one right answer for alerting the public. A successful notification program must encompass a variety of methods and devices to ensure alerts get through. Further, the impact of any method on the local communications infrastructure should be considered before a widespread notification is issued.
What do you think? Can we forget about telephone notifications and move to other technologies altogether? We'd love to hear from you. Oh, and you can use the telephone to call us if you'd like. We'll still answer it.
Best regards,
Lorin
