Social profiles corroborate a brand that is otherwise thin
The requirementstatement
Social-media profile URLs should be supplied to strengthen brand verification.
- Severityseverity
- LowLOWBest practice. Worth fixing, rarely fatal on its own.
- When it bitesphase
- Gates approvalapprovalGet this wrong and the brand or campaign is refused at registration.
- What is checkedobject
- brand.social_profiles
- Where it liveslayer
- BrandBRAND
- How Ekas settles itdetectability
- DeterministicDETERMINISTIC
- Settled in code from the values you submitted. No model involved, no judgement call, same answer every time.
- What the fix involvesfailureClass
- Fix the fieldRETRY_FIELD
- A better value in the form fixes it. Ekas can rewrite it and re-check.
- Who requires itauthorities
- Twilio
- When it appliesapplicabilityText
- Applies to every 10DLC registration.
Why this rule existsrationale
Vetting scores partly on how much independent evidence exists that the business is real and has a history, and social profiles are the cheapest such evidence to supply — an account with years of posts corroborates a company far better than a website registered last month. Nothing rejects a brand for omitting them, which is why almost everyone does, including the businesses whose score most needed the help.
How to fix itremediation
Add the business's own profile URLs — the ones with real posting history, not a placeholder account created this week. Two or three established profiles are worth more than five empty ones. Done when the profiles are populated and each opens to the business.
A compliant exampleexample
social_profiles: ["https://www.linkedin.com/company/acme-coffee", "https://instagram.com/acmecoffee"]
Provider rejection codescodes
The code you get back when this rule is what failed, and whether that provider lets you resubmit.
| Provider | Code | Resubmit |
|---|---|---|
| Twilio | 30799 | Yes |
Notesnotes
Advisory rather than a rejection, which is why it is LOW and why an empty field PASSES with the advice attached rather than failing: nothing is wrong with a registration that omits it, and failing one would be a false positive on every compliant brand. The rule fails only on URLs that are supplied and unusable. It earns its place because it is one of the very few ways a business can raise a trust score by supplying information rather than by paying for a vet.
Rules you will hit next
Other brand rules at the same severity. A registration is judged as a whole, not rule by rule.
BRD-158 is one of 196 brand rules in the 915-rule 10DLC registry. Free to cite under CC BY 4.0.