Why Flash Calls Are Better

Single-Factor Authentication (SFA), much like single opt-in registration, is a fast way of logging-in and confirming the identity of the user, which involves just login and password. However, 90% of user-created passwords can be cracked in a matter of hours, especially due to the fact that passwords tend to be repetitive. Adding a second layer to the authentication process is a decent alternative to memorizing complex and lengthy passwords for each website.

Two-Factor Authentication (2FA) protects personal data not only with a relatively permanent login and password, but with a one-time password as well. The temporary password can be generated via SMS, e-mail, phone calls, or flash calls.

This article will focus on the flash calls and explain their pros and cons. Without further ado, let’s get started.

Flash calls 101

Flash call is a method for sending a One-Time Password (OTP) for registration, authorization, password restoration, and confirming an action, e.g., purchase. It works the following way:

1. While authorizing on a website or in an app, the user inputs its phone number, which is transferred into the Flash Call system via API
2. Flash Call generates an OTP, consisting of 4–6 digits, and send it into the backend via API
3. Simultaneously, Flash Call dials the user using a phone number, ending with the OTP digits
4. The user enters the OTP (last digits of the incoming phone call number), which is sent into the Flash Call system via API

Head-on comparison

There are many benefits in using flash calls, but to explain all of them better, let’s take a closer look at the available alternatives with all their pros and cons.

SMS and email messages boast greater familiarity among users, universality across all the devices, and high successful rate overall. Such type of verification can be considered classic but suffers from the drawbacks as well: 

1. Any OTP can be intercepted and modified for malevolent purposes, but the SMS verification is at highest risk 
2. SMS scale terribly; depending on the GEO, they can be up to 10 times more expensive than a flash call

Phone calls are another alternative, very similar to the flash ones but with an important difference. Phone calls are to be answered and listened for the OTP to be received, in other words, the call is no longer “mute”. This type of verification is more inclusive. First, not all the people are able to read from the phone screen. Second, not all of us utilize mobile phones, preferring the landline ones. Third, it complements ideally both SMS and flash calls, in case they are impossible to use.

Phone calls are not ideal, far from it in fact:

1. Verification via phone call is relatively new, therefore not all the users are aware of it, making it somewhat confusing
2. Accepting the call is not always possible, causing the recipients to look for a quiet spot and cumbering the whole process
3. The user has to memorize the OTP, for once it is pronounced there is no way to repeat it, only try the call one more time

There is also such alternative as data verification, which involves no calling at all. It compares the end-user’s phone number against a carrier-issued token that represents the end-user’s mobile data session, which serves as the indicator of confirmation. This method does not involve OTP at all, which makes it highly native, secure, and fast.

Unfortunately, data verification is not a flawless solution and suffers from:

1. Necessity to have cellular data available on the user’s device
2. Market policy, where the end-user may have a different SIM-card for their cellular data without knowing the associated phone number
3. Innovativeness and lack of mass adoption

Pros and cons

Flash call is a great tool for affiliate marketers, because it allows to save a lot on costs. They are really cheap, usable almost anywhere, and easier to establish. For the SMS verification to work, the marketer would need a signature with the brand name, shown instead of the sender’s name. This can be burdensome, because not always it can be done on the first try. Flash calls require you only to make a deposit.

Flash calls are more innovative and fresh. They can be used in multiple verticals, where the audience is quick to adopt new stuff. If your offer targets the elders, then flash calls might perform suboptimally, due to the conservative nature of the audience. On the other hand, iGaming, gaming, sweepstakes, e-commerce, and the verticals alike can deliver you exceptional results and returns, by saving on the costs and requiring the user to do fewer movements than with SMS.

Speaking of fewer movements, flash calls are more native, less intrusive. The call is made and dropped right away. The only thing that matters is the phone number, which is saved in the history of the calls. The user also does not have to turn their attention to listen to the message from the unknown number.

Flash calls are also (surprise-surprise) faster than SMS and involve less risk while inputting the OTP.

Problems with this type of verification are not too many, but can be of consideration:

1. Not all the audiences ready to adapt to the new format
2. Flash calls work best with Android devices, while targeting iOS might be more cumbersome, because the whole number must be input
3. People might not expect to get called, even if it does not oblige them to listen to the call itself

Conclusion

Flash calls can be used for password restoration, payment confirmation, registration, authorization, offline identity verification, transaction confirmation, Wi-Fi confirmation etc. They are cheap, native, fast, and innovative; making them a viable tool for almost any marketing campaign and business.

They are not free from the drawbacks, especially when it comes to platform selection for targeting. But remember, that you are not forced to stick just to a single verification format. Combining SMS with flash calls might be the right way to reap the most benefits of different approaches.

Keep trying, and you will emerge victorious, because practice makes perfect.