However, the authors describe their findings using clunky sentences that make the report virtually impossible to understand. For example: "Highest levels of acceptance, on par with TV and radio, among those regularly receiving marketer messages and knowing these are controlled by their carrier/portal" is a daunting sentence (3). In a report as brief as this, sentences should be compact, succinct, and easy to read. Furthermore, the visual aids in these three sections offer little help. The three-dimensional bar graphs are confusing, even if they are pleasing to the eye. The graphs do little to enhance the verbal explanations because the verbal explanations are themselves lacking in clarity. Furthermore, the authors also use terms like "negligible rejection" and "some issues" in their study, when they could have selected more common phrases like "strongly dislike."

Finally, "Consumer Preferences for SMS Marketing in the UK" could be organized in a manner that better explains the details of the research experiment. In particular, the methodology section should come before the conclusion, as explaining methodology is essential to any credible research report, not ancillary to it. Although the authors state that the participants were contacted by telephone and given interviews, they do not state how the sample was selected. Readers do not know the demographics of the sample...

The report would have been structured better with the methodology following the synopsis and the conclusion should include a more thorough discussion of the implications of the study
Furthermore, the synopsis section should read more like an abstract. It should contain more succinct statements. The conclusion of the report is basically just a long quote from the Enpocket CEO. Concluding remarks should extend beyond a CEO statement to include broader implications for the research.

In general the report seems to have been written for a narrow audience, is probably used mainly as a sales pitch for Enpocket, and does not stand alone as a reliable source of scholarly information. To make the report more approachable and meaningful to a wider audience, the authors could have also offered an explanation of why Enpocket's research is important and what implications it would have for marketing professionals and for future marketing research. More attention should have been paid to prior research and implications for future research. Authors could have mentioned what the ramifications of the current study are on the types of marketing media that are being developed. In general, Enpocket's "Consumer Preferences for SMS Marketing in the UK" has the potential to be an interesting report but falls short due to technical and structural…