ACMA Mobile Ethnography of Scam Communication

This project was completed by the team for the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) in 2024. Rob Cover, Ingrid Richardson, Haiqing Yu, James Meese, Rowan Wilken and Joel Humphries undertook a comprehensive analysis of scam messages everyday Australians receive on their mobile devices (as phonecalls, SMS, platform posts and messenger services).

The study provided ACMA with a powerful evidence base of the harms of scam communication, how everyday Australians respond and manage, the extent to which they report scam messages to the authorities, and to identify trends and patterns in scam communication with which to build new policy interventions and inform Australia’s Scam Prevention Framework Bill 2025.

The project had six objectives:

Identify the amount of scam material received by Australians for different communication services on a mobile device (SMS, calls, digital platforms)
Identify the nature of scam material received by Australians across these communication forms
Identify what actions Australians are taking when they receive scams on their mobile smartphones, and how they feel about different types of scams
Compare the accuracy of ‘self-reported’ data about scams collected by the ACMA with real-time data obtained by mobile ethnography research to determine the role of recall in self-reporting scam experiences
Explain how Australians identify scams from other unsolicited communications
Provide detailed insights into perceived vulnerable consumers, such as Australians from lower socio-economic backgrounds and older Australians.

Project activities

The study conducted the following research activities:

[A] A 2000+ survey to collect data on the experiences of everyday Australians receiving scam calls/messages on their mobile devices, including demographic background, actions taken, reporting practices;

[B] A mobile ethnography of 476 participants. Participants installed a progressive web app on their devices and, across 21 days of study, notified at close-to-real-time any perceived scam communication received, provide a screenshot of any scam messages and source numbers, and answer some brief questions on actions taken, attitudes towards the scam and certainty of scam. 6,627 notifications were received and analysed to provide an evidence base for the rate and form of scam calls/messages, their use of blocking software/apps, the types and content of scams and the actions taken by participants.

[C] 20 follow-up interviews undertaken with a selection of participants representing diverse target demographics in the community (e.g., older participants; participants who speak a language other than English at home, etc.) to provide depth-of-knowledge on scam experience and attitudes towards remedies.

Insights

Key insights of the study include:

Participants in the study had a very high rate of scam literacy, capable of recognising both common and rare scams and, where relevant, of taking note of a device’s “suspected scam” notification on messages.
Digital platform scams are significantly under-reported.
Those who had been scammed in the past may be more at risk of continued high rates of exposure to scam messages.
Scammers may be using a number of techniques to avoid scam detection software and services, including minor changes to wording, URL links or word order each day they send out the same scam message.
The most common time for sending scam messages by SMS was very early in the morning, which may be a tactic used by scammers to mislead target recipients before transitioning to full wakefulness and cognitive clarity.
Actions taken across most scam types were broadly passive, with the majority of participants ignoring or taking no action, even when they found scam messages and calls intrusive, annoying and upsetting.
Third-party app blocking software is not necessarily preventing participants from receiving higher rates of scam calls and messages.
Austrlaians who have been, or nearly have been, scammed in the past five years are more likely to report scams to their telecommunications provider and/or government agencies.
Prior experience with scams increases scam literacy and motivation to prevent others being scammed.
The lack of contact information for service providers and authorities such as the ACCC’s Scamwatch is a significant barrier to reporting, alongside a lack of trust that reporting will make a difference to the consumer.
Scam communication received on mobile devices may have non-financial harms, including to the wellbeing or health of some users, even when they are at very low risk of being scammed and/or have a high rate of scam literacy.
Those share their mobile number online because they are required to by employers or are self-employed in business receive a substantially higher rate of scam messages, because their number is more likely to have been trawled.
Those who may be socially isolated by not working and living alone are subject to a higher rate of scam calls and messages than the wider population, and have a high rate of being scammed or nearly scammed in the past five years.