Jill Colvin’s article in the New York Times has had a ripple effect among both users and planners of communications services. The gist of the comments and Tweets (if there is such a thing as a “gist” for a 140 character declaration) is “It’s about time!” As the executives interviewed in the article explain, retrieving voice mail can is a time-waster for busy executives. But the conclusion is wrong that the logic is fundamentally flawed.

The common convention these days is to use the combination of CallerID and voicemail to screen inbound calls (or, at least) to capture the telephone number of the inbound caller if available, and retrieve the message if deemed necessary. In this context voicemail, the service, is part of a larger process of “using the phone.” Within that process, voicemail services improve our lives, whether we retrieve audio messages or not.

I, personally, only listen to about one-out-of-five of the voicemail messages that are left for me on my primary phone (my mobile). The others are either unwanted calls (solicitations to renew the non-existent warranty on my car) or “triggers” to call someone back (often without having to listen to the recorded messages). As a matter of fact, returning a call without listening to the obligatory “Hi Dan, this is XX, please call me back at xxx-xxxx”, is pretty much an accepted protocol these days.

As a matter of protocol, the return call inevitably starts with “Hey, I didn’t listen to your voice mail. What’s up?” By the standards listed the NYTimes article, this reflects a failure of voicemail because a message was not retrieved and, indeed, may stay on the server until it is purged from memory by the system. Yet the system served its purpose. The called party was notified of an incoming call and could retrieve the message via a low-end phone if desired or required. The CallerID and the stored message fall into the category of “pre-call content”.

Adding More Pre-Call Data to the Mix
The latest critique of voicemail notes that texting, Twittering and email are all substitutes that will ultimately replace it entirely. It’s a false claim and a fool’s errand. Purveyors of “voicemail-to-text” transcription services know well that email is complementary to voicemail. If a voicemail is fairly accurately transcribed, it can signal the call’s recipient to call in to hear the caller’s tone of voice, inflection and other nuances that cannot be captured in text. Or it may trigger the recipient to callback immediately with, in this case, a full transcription of the stored message. Once again, the audiofile may sit, unheard, on the server, but the voicemail system has done its job.

In the context of this emerging user protocol for phone-based interactions, SMS and Twitter also fall into the category of “pre-call content.” Many people that I know use text messages to set the stage for a forthcoming voice-based phone call. The convention is to send an “R U busy?” message and then wait for a return call or explanatory text message. It amounts to voicemail avoidance, but it should not signal the demise of voicemail services in the near term. (Although it does showcase the crying need for a way for “friends and family” to let you know their current status (available, busy, in need of distraction…).

Don’t Forget It’s a Phone
Voicemail is important because low-end feature phones, far outnumber smartphones and computers among the mobile population. In spite of the wild popularity of SMS and the billions or trillions of text messages that are generated each month, phones are instruments to support voice communications. What’s more, given everyone’s busy lifestyles, synchronous conversations are both less likely and harder to support than asynchronous communications. In short, voicemail is here to stay, and rightfully so.

Categories: Articles

Tags: Opus Reseaerch, voicemail, voicemail-to-text