Communication | Business communications » Thomas Kiddie - The future of texting in business communication

The Future of Texting in Business Communication Thomas J. Kiddie West Virginia State University Introduction A researcher in 2008 considering the topic of text messaging in business communication could have easily concluded that as teenagers, many of whom grew up with ubiquitous texting, entered the work force, they would transfer their communication preferences to the public sphere. The argument could be reinforced by the perennial stall of the deployment of next generation data services that the telecom industry had been promising the business world for almost a decade. With text messaging in the United States finally catching up with the rest of the world, and with more than one trillion messages sent worldwide in 2008, three times more than in 2007 (SMS/Text messaging soars, 2009), it appeared that texting would create a niche to fulfill a need for wireless data services in the business community. That researcher would not be alone in her thinking. Beaumont (2008) observed an

increased use of texting in business as preferred way to communicate with staff, and Naismith (2007) noted the increased use of text messaging in administrative communication in higher education. Amazon began pushing its “TextBuyIt” service (Amazon TextBuyIt FAQ, 2008), and Papa John’s boasted an increase in sales following the launch of its text-based ordering system (Ross, 2008). But in the summer of 2008, Apple and AT&T announced the launch of the iPhone. Naturally, Verizon and Sprint’s smartphone advertising campaigns followed shortly thereafter. More than a year has passed since that launch, and newer versions of the iPhone, Blackberries, and Palms have already appeared on the market. So unlike in 2001-2002, when the first third generation (3G) launch failed due to expensive hardware, limited networks, and a global recession, the 2008-2009 recession appears to have had limited effect on smartphone sales. The central question, and the focus of this paper, thus evolves

into an examination of the applicability of text messaging in business and whether younger people will have a significant influence on the way people communicate in business versus the possibility that the next generation data services will solidify current preferred communication methods by making them mobile. To address that focal question, this article reviews the current literature and analyzes the results of a survey in which 385 respondents, ranging in age from 18 to 77, answered questions regarding their preferred methods of communication. The article first presents a short history of SMS followed by a discussion of the current uses of SMS in business communication and the growth of 3G technology. Next, a survey addresses three research questions: how people schedule business meetings, how people communicate with work colleagues, and how people communicate with friends and family. A final question about plans for future hardware purchases gathers data about future communication

trends, the implications of which are discussed in the conclusion of the article. Proceedings of the 74th Annual Convention of the Association for Business Communication November 4-7, 2009 – Portsmouth, Virginia History of Short Message Service (SMS) The history of text-messaging, also officially called Short Message Service or SMS, is well documented. SMS began as an add-on to the GSM mobile phone standard developed in Europe as a way for service providers to push messages to mobile customers without requiring a data connection. Many mobile operators envisioned using SMS to broadcast alerts to all subscribers at once (Gordon, 2007) because text messages consume fewer network resources and are more likely to get to the end user in an emergency situation when voice lines are out of service or congested. Other uses included notifying post-paid subscribers that a monthly bill had gone out or pre-paid subscribers that their account balances were low. Many pre-paid providers also

send a text message at the end of a call to alert subscribers to their remaining account balances. Technology rarely evolves in the way that its developers predict, but no one expected that in the three years after Neil Papworth sent the first text message in December 1992, SMS would gain in popularity what it took e-mail 20 years to achieve (Williamson, 2002). Much research has been done on the SMS phenomena, but the massive adoption of text messaging by teens has captured the most interest of many now famous experts, such as Rich Ling in Norway and Leopoldina Fortunati in Italy. As Ling (2004) points out, cell phone usage among teens became popular quite early in Scandinavia. By 2001, 90% of Norwegian teenagers had their own cell phone, and he reports similar numbers throughout Europe and Asia. In the US, many grew up with a home phone in a public space, such as in the kitchen or living room, with an extension that could be dragged into another room for privacy. Lucky onesmostly

teenage girls in the late 1960s and through the 1970s and 1980shad a second, “teen” phone line, AT&T’s “princess phone,” for additional privacy. Teenagers in many countries did not have that luxury, so the advent of the cell phone granted them privacy. Although mobile phones gave teens the privacy that they desired, most also needed to learn budget management since mobile calls were expensive. As a means of reducing costs, teens turned to texting, overlooking its awkwardness and turning it into a fashion. As texting gained in popularity, more teens started managing and organizing their daily activities via SMS (Oksman & Turtiainen, 2004) and even establishing romantic relationships (Horst & Miller, 2006). Ling (2004) writes extensively about social networking via SMS and notes that teens also use texting to alleviate boredom. As texting usage matured, adolescents began to develop special text message terminology to develop additional privacy from prying adults

(Geser, 2004), and old-fashioned note-passing went electronic as students began to text during class and workers secretly exchanged messages in call centers (May & Hearn, 2005). The slow acceptance of cell phones and SMS in the United States is also well documented. Given AT&T’s mission to provide universal phone service, most Americans grew up with landline phones and viewed cell phones as a luxury. Cell phone technology was introduced in the early years following AT&T’s divestiture, so competing wireless companies developed incompatible standards that hindered interoperability, making roaming difficult (Gow & Smith, 2006). The slow acceptance of texting may also be explained by the wider access to the Internet in the U.S and the popularity of instant messaging programs introduced in the 1980s and popularized by AOL, Yahoo, and ICQ in the mid 1990s (Ling & Baron, 2007). Between 2004 and 2006, however, cell phone sales grew 56% in the US with 221 million

subscribers or 74% market saturation (Norris, 2007). In 2000, 144 million text messages were sent per month in the U.S By June 2007, the number had increased to 288 billion per month (Brown, Shipman, Proceedings of the 74th Annual Convention of the Association for Business Communication November 4-7, 2009 – Portsmouth, Virginia & Vetter, 2007). Clearly, as PC Magazine announced in April 2005, text messaging had finally taken off in the United States (Beyond Voice, 2005). SMS in Business Communication Although Faulkner & Cutwin (2005) agree with Ling that most text messages “are sent by individuals to individuals and are of a personal nature” (p. 170), they predicted that SMS use in business would grow as text-based revenue-generating applications appeared on the market. Indeed, in the previous five years, many businesses have experimented with text messaging as a means of attracting Generation Y audiences. Insurance companies send out payment reminders (Chordas,

2008), banks enable consumers to obtain any-time balance information (Metavante, 2009), and politicians text their potential constituents in an effort to increase political awareness (Geser, 2004). Even clergy are experimenting with texting to recruit young people and maintain social relationships with their congregations (Hawkins, 2007). In the world of entertainment, American Idol expanded its voting options to include text-voting, which may be directly attributable to SMS’s sharp growth in America (Gibbs, 2007). While young people have integrated mobile telephony into their lives, it remains to be seen whether SMS will become the norm in business communication. The medium could very likely “remain a type of teen and young adult technology that resists adoption by other, ‘more serious,’ age groups” (Ling, 2004, p.165) But others will argue that today’s young will bring this technology with them into the workplace Using texting to alert colleagues in transit of a changed

meeting time will remain a useful feature, although there are alternative technologies to accomplish the same task. International business travelers can use SMS to keep in touch with the family less expensively (Castells, 2001; White & White, 2005), but casual observation suggests that business travelers are rarely concerned about the cost of phone calls. Text voting appears to be convenient, although as the producers of American Idol demonstrated by asking Telcordia, who manages the toll-free telephone system in North America, to enhance its system to allow up to 130 toll-free calls per second, up from 33 calls/sec, not all Americans are ready to abandon their landline phones (American Idol winner crowned, 2008). Text messaging’s strengths lie in its efficiency in pushing alerts to subscribers, and more emergency services are expanding beyond radio and television for emergency broadcasts (Thomas, 2008). The other significant strength of text messaging is its ability to remain

unintrusive. Similar to electronic notepassing, business people in meetings with a strict, no-cell-phones policy, or at a presentation where a voice call, even sotto voce, would be disturbing to neighbors and speakers, often use SMS to keep in contact with their teams. And young executives, who manage their people impulsively and often out of hours, might learn to use SMS to mitigate intrusions into employees’ private spheres. The Growth of 3G Services Expectations in the telecommunications industry were high in 2001 as operators hoped to profit from the SMS craze by building 2.5G and 3G versions of mobile messaging (Beyer, Enil, Maaso, & Ytreberg, et al., 2007) Although early predictors indicated that the only data application that would ever take hold on the cell phone would be SMS (Madell & Muncer, 2005), photos and then videos started appearing as cameras became a common option on cell phones. Gordon (2007) speaks at length about the 2005 London Underground bombing and

the role that cell phone photos taken by eyewitnesses played in creating “immediacy and poignancy” in the media coverage of the event (p. 314), and many predicted that the next “killer application” would be live video-conferencing. To put consumers in the right frame Proceedings of the 74th Annual Convention of the Association for Business Communication November 4-7, 2009 – Portsmouth, Virginia of mind as operators built their 3G networks, service providers began to offer premium multimedia services to entice customers to jump to 3G platforms as they became available (Goggin & Spurgeon, 2007). The 2001 recession and the telecom sector bust caused wide skepticism about the future of 3G networks in 2001-2002. The US service providers faced issues with interoperability once again, and in Europe the high fees paid by companies to governments for UMTS licenses “sent jitters throughout the markets” (Castells, 2001, p. 160) By 2005, however, the industry had renewed

hopes for a successful market launch since limited 3G services were available in 66 countries offered by 147 commercial operators (Gow & Smith, 2006). But handsets were still expensive, and in North America, Wi-Fi was starting to proliferate, competing head-on with 3G. Wireless cards became standard issue with laptops, many public spaces started to offer free Wi-Fi to customers, and many hotels were offering free Wi-Fi to business and loyalty customers. Thus, once again the demand for mobile broadband remained considerably less than what telecommunications strategists had anticipated. The field changed when Apple announced the iPhone. Although the initial release on June 29, 2007, was a success, the July 11, 2008, launch of the iPhone 3G combined with AT&T’s aggressive marketing of its 3G network made consumers take notice. Apple produced a multimedia smartphone including a cell phone, voice mail, an organizer, e-mail, a camera, a video player, and a Web browser that takes

advantage of higher 3G data speeds (McCormick, 2007; Costello, 2009). What makes the iPhone particularly attractive to consumers is its software on demand capability, which Apple markets via its “App Store.” Even though the telecommunications industry had been using the buzzword “convergence” since the start of the decade, the smartphone finally provided a converged service that consumers could understand. And as more PC-like applications become available on mobile phones, the more likely the smartphone will become the preferred multi-purpose device, causing “older, device-specific technologies *to+ ‘mediamorphosize’” (Lehman-Wilzig & Cohen-Avigdor, 2004, p. 710) Although Apple targeted the consumer market, it is clear that the smartphone’s convergence of Wi-Fi and the cell phone opens up a number of possibilities for enhanced business communication. Many smartphones now offer QWERTY keyboards for composing e-mails and sending instant messages, and newer

smartphones come equipped with operating systems that make calendar, contact lists, and email synchronization possible for Microsoft Office users. Since the most common business traveler is in sales, many companies have begun to offer sales force productivity software and mobile sales force automation tools. As sales-supporting software and other office technologies migrate to the cell phone, sales people are likely to start using those phones both on the road and while at the home location. Software that synchronizes data on the phone with desktop PCs, much as PDAs work, would guarantee the market. Also business travelers will start to use the increasing number of location-based services and turn-by-turn directions when visiting an unfamiliar city, as well as take advantage of entertainment features, such as e-books, audio books, and even mobile TV and video. In other words, business people will start using their cell phones as they would their PCs (Brown, Shipman, & Vetter, 2007;

Kinneber, 2009; Norris, 2007; What can you do, 2008). Proceedings of the 74th Annual Convention of the Association for Business Communication November 4-7, 2009 – Portsmouth, Virginia Case Study: How We Communicate To gather some current data on communication trends, 385 people were surveyed. The survey asks three primary research questions: How do people schedule business meetings; How do people communicate with colleagues; and How do people communicate with friends and family? A final question about plans for future hardware purchases gathers data about future communication trends. The survey was designed to test two hypotheses: 1) younger people prefer texting over e-mail for communicating both professionally and privately, and 2) e-mail will remain the preferred method of business communication. While the data confirmed the hypothesis that young people are more likely to text than older generations, the numbers who preferred texting over other methods were not as high as

expected. The results confirmed the hypothesis about e-mail, but they also contained a few surprises about the way people communicate. Methodology The survey was initially piloted with 25 students from the author’s business writing class. After revisions and a reduction to 10 questions to encourage more respondents, the survey was distributed to four primary audiences via electronic invitation, namely the entire West Virginia State University (WVSU) community in Institute, WV; the entire staff in the Service Delivery Solutions business unit at Telcordia Technologies in Piscataway, NJ; the subscribers to the BIZCOM discussion group; and approximately 100 friends and family from the author’s personal contacts folder. The first four questions gathered demographic information, such as gender, profession, age, salary, and work location. Questions five through eight addressed questions about how the respondents communicate, and the last two questions were specific to communication

hardware. All 385 questionnaires returned were usable, although some respondents skipped questions, which are indicated in the data summaries with the label “No Response.” Of the 385 responses, 229 (595%) were completed by women, 154 (40%) by men, and 2 (0.5%) identified no gender The most common professions were engineer (19.2%), professor/teacher (184%), and student (182%) The largest group, however, at 20.5% (79 respondents) did not answer the question Also, WVSU has a large nontraditional student population in which many students work full-time and already have established careers. If a respondent listed both student and a profession, that person was counted as a student Many undoubtedly who fall into the category of “student and” only identified their primary profession, so although it is not verifiable, one can assume that the student population is actually higher than reported. Results The questionnaire was designed to discover how the respondents communicate with

colleagues in two different scenarios: scheduling a meeting and spontaneous discussion. The questionnaire also was designed to discover if respondents corresponded differently with family and friends. Table 1 summarizes those data. Proceedings of the 74th Annual Convention of the Association for Business Communication November 4-7, 2009 – Portsmouth, Virginia Table 1 Summary of Methods of Communication with Colleagues, Friends and Family Method Landline Phone Work Meeting Responses Percentage Work Conversation Responses Percentage Personal Conversation Responses Percentage 21 5.5 19 4.9 57 14.8 Memo 1 0.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 Cell Phone 33 8.6 28 7.3 161 41.8 U.S Mail 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 E-mail 178 46.2 131 34.0 57 14.8 59 15.3 146 37.9 65 16.9 17 4.4 19 4.9 38 9.9 52 13.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 1.0 20 5.2 5 1.3 Voice Mail 2 0.5 1 0.3 0 0.0 NA Retired 15 3.9 14 3.6 0 0 No Response 2 0.5 0 0.0 2 0.5 It depends 1

0.3 7 1.8 0 0 Face-toFace Text Message Corporate Calendar Instant Message Not surprisingly, almost half (46.2%) of the respondents prefer to use e-mail to schedule meetings with colleagues. E-mail, being asynchronous, gives the recipients time to check calendars before responding, and the sender can reach multiple people with one transaction, which is more efficient than individual phone calls. What is surprising is that the second most popular method is face-to-face at 153%, which when combined with landline and cell phones makes 29.4% of the population who prefer synchronous voice communication. From that, one might infer that these respondents find the immediacy of schedule confirmation more important than the interruption that a synchronous communication might cause. An initially surprising observation was that only 52 respondents preferred to use a corporate calendar, such as Microsoft Outlook, for scheduling meetings. Since tools like Outlook provide quick confirmation

without intrusion, one would expect a higher response rate for this option. On closer examination, 46 of those 52 responses came from the questionnaires sent to Telcordia, so one might Proceedings of the 74th Annual Convention of the Association for Business Communication November 4-7, 2009 – Portsmouth, Virginia assume that other organizations do not use corporate calendars. That is the case with WVSU What was not at all surprising was the low number of respondents who use text messaging to schedule meetings. Only 4.4% of the respondents indicated a preference for texting, and out of those 17 people, nine were under age 30. In the area of workplace communication, face-to-face and e-mail were the top choices at 37.9% and 34%, respectively. Based on personal experiences in the corporate world and in academia, and based on the literature and the audiences to whom the questionnaires were sent, these results are expected. Corporate employees rely heavily on e-mail while academics

will more often wander down the hall and knock on a colleague’s door. But as several academic colleagues noted after they had completed the survey, and as reflected in the 7 respondents who selected “other” and wrote in “it depends,” the nature of the conversation can determine whether a face-to-face meeting is necessary. Another interesting observation is that even though 146 people indicated a preference for in-person meetings, almost 17% noted that their preferred method was not the one that they used most often. Many of these respondents indicated in their comments that their preference was for face-to-face, but due to various circumstances, such as geographical distance, corporate culture, and peer preference, they were more likely to use e-mail to communicate with colleagues. Instant messaging and texting were the next two most popular means of communicating with work colleagues. The results again are supported by the literature Ling and Baron (2007) note that instant

messaging established itself in America because most people had internet access before they had cell phones, so one would expect that a significant percentage of respondents would prefer IM to communicate with colleagues. The fact that 12 of the 19 respondents who indicate a preference for text messaging are under age 30 is also in line with Ling’s assertion that young people will continue to have a preference for the technology that they grew up with. Turning to personal communication, one observes in Table 1 that 41.8% of the respondents prefer to communicate with friends and family on the cell phone and 14.8% on a landline phone, which combined is more than half of all respondents. Given the tariff structures and voice plans in effect in the US, these results are not surprising. Most landline subscribers have free local calling and inexpensive long distance plans, and most cell phone users enjoy generous monthly allowances, rollover minutes, friends and family plans, and unlimited

night and weekend minutes. Informal interpersonal communication is perhaps best facilitated by voice calls, especially when the communication serves no informational purpose but is rather just a means of “keeping in touch.” The fact that face-to-face communication among friends and family only received 16.9% of the vote may be an indication of geographical separation. Almost 10% of the surveyed population indicated a preference for text messaging as a means of keeping in contact with friends and family. Following Ling (2004) and other research, one might expect this number to be higher given that almost 35% of the respondents are under age 30. In fact, 29 (76%) of the 38 people who indicated a preference for texting were under age 30, demonstrating perhaps that texting for interpersonal communication is growing in the U.S Table 2 shows that 84.2% of the respondents own a cell phone, which is in line with CTIA’s current estimate of 87% cell phone ownership in the United States

(CTIA, 2009). The fact that fewer respondents, at 69.9%, own a landline phone is also expected and confirmed by a recent survey from the Center for Disease Control, which notes that the number of wireless-only households continues to grow (Blumberg & Luke, 2009). What is significant to this study is the number of respondents who own a Proceedings of the 74th Annual Convention of the Association for Business Communication November 4-7, 2009 – Portsmouth, Virginia 3G phone. Combining the Apple iPhone, the Blackberry smartphones, and other brands of smartphones, 22.5% of the respondents indicated that they already own some type of 3G phone, and of the 109 respondents who indicated that they had plans to purchase new hardware in the coming year, almost 60% noted that they had plans to purchase some kind of smartphone. One final observation of interest is that even though the PC was not included as one of the choices of communication devices in the survey, 31 respondents felt the

need to indicate that they owned PCs. The survey was designed, perhaps unjustifiably, with the assumption that everyone taking the survey would either own or have easy access to a PC, hence the omission. Clearly, more than 31 respondents own their own PCs Table 2 Types of Communication Devices Currently Owned Device Landline Phone Cell Phone Palm Pilot Blackberry Push to Talk Apple iPhone Smartphone Other PDA Blackberry Smartphone Text pager VoIP PC Respondents 269 324 25 34 3 29 39 25 19 1 3 31 Percentage 69.9 84.2 6.5 8.8 0.8 7.5 10.1 6.5 4.9 0.3 0.8 8.1 Discussion and Implications The fact that nearly one-half of the respondents prefer e-mail for scheduling meetings and only 4.4% prefer SMS implies that texting will not significantly grow in popularity as Gen Y-ers enter the work force. The data suggest that the dominant method will continue to prevail so long as the current technology supports it. Given that the smartphone is attempting to bring mobility to PC applications, it

would appear likely that businesses will continue to use e-mail or corporate calendars as staff migrate from cell phones to smartphones. The data concerning communication between colleagues reflect corporate styles. The large number of respondents who prefer face-to-face communication, mainly from a university setting, appears to be indicative of an environment where colleagues are in close proximity and have opportunity for casual conversation. A larger sample from diverse settings, including a diversity of universities, would need to be obtained before any definitive conclusions could be drawn. The data suggest, however, that preferred communication methods are independent of technology, which implies that there would be little resistance to moving from a 2G to a 3G environment. The data for personal communication also appear to be independent of technology. Mobility seems to be more important than the device used to communicate. The surprisingly low number of respondents Proceedings

of the 74th Annual Convention of the Association for Business Communication November 4-7, 2009 – Portsmouth, Virginia who prefer texting over voice communication may be an indication that the popularity of SMS is still growing in the U.S, or it may be a sampling error Since WVSU has a large non-traditional student population, gathering data from more traditional universities might yield different results. One point the data clearly implies is that many respondents are curious about smartphones. Whether the interest is practical or just reflects a desire to purchase the newest gadgets, it is easy to predict, given past experiences with technology models, that the price of smartphones will continue to decline, providing accessibility to more people. Since the intention of the smartphone is to move consumers toward a full-blown graphic communication device, the fact that increasing numbers of younger people are buying smartphones implies that they will move away from text-based

systems. Limitations and Further Research The survey covers a diverse audience in the categories of age and profession, but the study could be enhanced to include more geographical diversity. A larger sampling with participants from businesses and universities across the country would yield more conclusive results. Extending the survey internationally would also enrich the study, especially including countries that have a strong embedded base of people who text regularly and have been doing so for 10 years or more. A comparison within countries who have extensive 3G networks, such as Korea and Japan, might give more insight into future trends in the U.S Another area for future research would be to expand the original questionnaire to delve more deeply into particular communication situations. Several colleagues resisted the request to generalize about their preferred methods for scheduling meetings and would have liked more specific questions about different types of meetings.

Expanding the scope of the research could also lead to developing a theoretical framework to interpret how next generation services will alter the business communication landscape. Applying Roger’s Diffusion of Innovations, to the study, for example, might prove fruitful. Conclusions The telecommunications world is not an easy one to predict, as demonstrated by two unsuccessful 3G launches in 2001 and 2005. The data as presented here, however, implies that the US has finally started to move forward with next generation services. All of the major carriers are heavily advertising their 3G networks, smartphone sales are up, and carriers, such as Sprint, have already begun to announce plans for their 4G networks. So will text messaging become a prevalent means for communicating information in business? Despite Goldsborough’s (2009) claim that e-mail is old-fashioned and people are fed up with overflowing inboxes, it is difficult to imagine that SMS could replace e-mail. Overflowing

text in-boxes would be no less frustrating, and e-mail has developed a filing system and sorting algorithms that are not available with SMS. The survey in this study also demonstrates that e-mail remains a preferred method of communication. Nevertheless, many companies, in an attempt to address e-mail clutter, have begun to experiment with alternatives, such as sharepoint and wiki for posting and sharing documents within work groups. These documents could also be easily accessible from a WiFi-enabled smartphone and would provide a repository that is better organized than an in-box. Proceedings of the 74th Annual Convention of the Association for Business Communication November 4-7, 2009 – Portsmouth, Virginia So why does SMS persist? As the data shows, the number of text messages continues to grow worldwide, and as Bamforth (2009) notes, operators who make money from text traffic will continue to popularize SMS for as long as possible. As can be seen in the survey results, SMS

will continue its popularity in personal communication because it is simple, inexpensive, quirky, and ubiquitous. It is, as Bamforth notes, also closely tied to the real “killer application” of mobile phones--the contacts folder which aids in its simplicity. But even though SMS usage may still be growing, mobile web is also growing Business needs are not simple and extend beyond what can be conveyed in 160 characters. Scheduling a group meeting requires complicated coordination, signing contracts requires detailed negotiations, and sharing documents requires large volumes of easily accessible storage. These needs of the business community are best met by combining the software of a PC, the reliability of the telephone, and the power of the Internet, exactly what the smartphone provides. References Amazon TextBuyIt FAQ. (2008) Amazoncom Retrieved July 28, 2008, from https://paymentsamazoncom/ sdui/sdui/productsServices?sn=mobileShopping/tbiFAQ American Idol winner crowned thanks to

Telcordia. (2008, June 24) Telcordia NEWStand Extra Bamforth, R. (2009) Is messaging immortal? The Mobile Data Association Retrieved July 5, 2009, from http://www.themdaorg/latest/is-messaging-immortalphp Beaumont, A. (2008, February 9) Practice safe texts Engineering & Technology, 3(2), 77-77 Beyer, Y., Enil, G S, Maaso, A J, & Ytreberg, E (2007) Small talk makes a big difference: Recent developments in interactive, SMS-based television. Television New Media, 8, 213-234 Beyond voice: Text messages take off. (2005, April 26) PC Magazine, 24(7), 19 Blumberg, S. J, & Luke, J V (2009, June 17) Wireless substitution: Early release of estimates from the national health interview survey, July-December 2008. Retrieved July 26, 2009, from http://www.cdcgov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/wireless200905htm Brown, J., Shipman, B, & Vetter, R (2007, December) SMS: The short message service Computer, 40(12), 105-110. Retrieved May 26, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database

Castells, M. (2001) The Internet galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, business, and society New York: Oxford UP. Chordas, L. (2008, February) Get the message Best’s Review 77-81 Costello, S. (2009) Initial iPhone 3G country availability list Retrieved July 22, 2009, from http://ipod.aboutcom/od/iphone3g/a/iphone 3g relhtm CTIA. (2009) Wireless quick facts Retrieved July 26, 2009 from http://wwwctiaorg/advocacy/ research/index.cfm/AID/10323 Proceedings of the 74th Annual Convention of the Association for Business Communication November 4-7, 2009 – Portsmouth, Virginia Faulkner, X., & Cutwin, F (2005, March) When fingers do the talking: A study of text messaging Interacting with Computers, 17(2), 167-185. Geser, H. (2004, March) Towards a sociological theory of the mobile phone In Sociology in Switzerland: Sociology of the Mobile Phone. Online Publications, Zuerich, March 2004 (Release 30) Retrieved June 17, 2009, from http://socio.ch/mobile/t geser1htm Gibbs, C. (2007,

January 22) 'American Idol' dumps Mobliss for text-message voting RCR Wireless News, 26(3), 1-21. Retrieved June 27, 2008, from MasterFILE Premier database Goggin, G., & Spurgeon, C (2007) Premium rate culture: The new business of mobile interactivity New Media & Society, 9, 753-770. Goldsborough, R. (2009, February) More trends for 2009: What to expect with personal technology Public Relations Tactics, 16(2), 9. Retrieved July 3, 2009, from Business Source Elite database Gordon, J. (2007) The mobile phone and the public sphere: Mobile phone usage in three critical situations. Convergence, 13, 307-319 Gow, G. A, & Smith, R K (2006) Mobile and wireless communications: An introduction New York: Open UP. Hawkins, L. (2007, January) Blogs, podcasts, and text messages: Reaching the next generation Clergy Journal, 83(3), 18-19. Horst, H. A, & Miller, D (2006) The cell phone: An anthropology of communication New York: Berg Kinneber, C. (2009, Spring) Facebook to go

AT&T Magazine, 12-15 Lehman-Wilzig, S., & Cohen-Avigdor, N (2004) The natural life cycle of new media evolution: Intermedia struggle for survival in the internet age New Media Society, 6, 707-730 Ling, R. (2004) The mobile connection: The cell phone’s impact on society New York: Elsevier Ling, R., & Baron, N S (2007) Text messaging and IM: Linguistic comparison of American college data Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 26, 291-298. Madell, D., & Muncer, S (2005, March) Are the Internet and mobile phone communication complementary activities amongst young people? Information, Communication & Society, 8(1), 64-80. May, H., & Hearn, G (2005) The mobile phone as media International Journal of Cultural Studies, 8(2), 195-211. McCormick, J. (2007, July) iPhone: Is the future of business at hand? Baseline 10 Proceedings of the 74th Annual Convention of the Association for Business Communication November 4-7, 2009 – Portsmouth, Virginia Metavante and

MOnitise Americas launch text message banking. (2009, February 25) M2PressWIRE, Retrieved July 3, 2009, from Newspaper Source database. Naismith, L. (2007) Using text messaging to support administrative communication in higher education Active Learning in Higher Education, 8, 155-171. Norris, D. T (2007) Sales communications in a mobile world: Using the latest technology and retaining the personal touch. Business Communication Quarterly, 70, 492-498 Oksman, V., & Turtiainen, J (2004) Mobile communication as a social stage: Meanings of mobile communication in everyday life among teenagers in Finland. New Media Society, 6, 319-339 Ross, J. R (2008, June 9) Papa John’s boosts sales with text message ordering system Nations’s Restaurant News, 42(23), 66. SMS/Text messaging and MMS usage soars in 2008. (2009) Retrieved June 30, 2009, from http://www.cellsignscom/blog/ Thomas, H. (2008, March) Not getting the [text] message Security: For Buyers of Products, Systems & Services,

45(3), 94-96. What can you do with the mobile Web? (2008, July). Library Technology Reports, 16-32 Retrieved July 3, 2009, from Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts database. White, P. B, & White, N R (2005) Keeping connected: Travelling with the telephone Convergence, 11, 102-112. Williamson, J. (2002, March) SMS: An unlikely hit Global Telephony, 10, 16-20 THOMAS KIDDIE is an assistant professor in the English department at West Virginia State University, where he teaches business and technical writing, literature, and German. Address correspondence to tkiddie@wvstateu.edu Proceedings of the 74th Annual Convention of the Association for Business Communication November 4-7, 2009 – Portsmouth, Virginia