Why the Do Not Call List is GOOD for Telemarketers

[Beleth]

Background: The US Government instituted a Web page a few months ago where one could enter one's telephone number to be placed on a national Do Not Call list. Telemarketers would face heavy fines if they called any of the numbers on that list. The only exceptions were companies who already had a business relationship with you, charities, and Government agencies themselves.

This list was supposed to go into effect today. It's up in the air right now because some court in Denver ruled it unconstitutional. By having different classes of who has to abide by the DNCL and who does not, the telemarketers say that it violates their free speech.

I think they're looking at it the wrong way.

The people on the list are there because they value their privacy. They do not want to be solicited on the phone. Many of them, like me, summarily reject any offer made to them on the phone.

Telemarketers exist to make money. They are hired by product- or service-suppliers to try to drum up sales.

The do-not-call list should be looked at as a godsend by the telemarketers. Here's a list of people that won't buy anything anyway, so calling them is a waste of time.

The DNCL makes telemarketers more efficient. By following the DNCL, the likelihood of making a sale on any particular call goes up. In a given amount of time, they make more sales; the company that hired them makes more money; and the telemarketing industry improves their reputation.

Meanwhile, people like me get to eat their dinner in peace.

It's a win-win-win situation. Why are the telemarketers fighing it?

[jj]

Originally posted by Beleth
It's a win-win-win situation. Why are the telemarketers fighing it?

Because I think they're wanting to use it for a list of people they should call... :mad:

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Beleth
The DNCL makes telemarketers more efficient. By following the DNCL, the likelihood of making a sale on any particular call goes up. In a given amount of time, they make more sales; the company that hired them makes more money; and the telemarketing industry improves their reputation.

Meanwhile, people like me get to eat their dinner in peace.

It's a win-win-win situation. Why are the telemarketers fighing it?

The usual argument is that some people will buy after they hear the sales pitch.

However, as you indicate, while they might get some sales with people on the no-call list, it will clearly be much less efficient.

I also like the part about "all those people will lose their jobs." But dude, the reason you have to have all those people on your payroll is because it is so inefficient! Think, you won't have to pay 4 million telemarketers to make unsuccessful calls!

You are right: this is the telemarketing companies dream! The government has weeded out a ton of the dead-ends, leaving a much higher fraction of willing buyers.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
However, as you indicate, while they might get some sales with people on the no-call list, it will clearly be much less efficient.

I'm not so sure. I have to imagine that a fair percentage of phone "customers" are people who don't have much willpower and have trouble saying no (my wife was one of those people with door-to-door salesmen until she grew a pair :)).

Those people would probably choose to be on the list, yet would be the telemarketers' main targets.

Jeremy

[Beleth]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
The usual argument is that some people will buy after they hear the sales pitch.
There are two types of people who buy from telemarketers: those who actually want the product offered, and those who are browbeaten into buying the product.

People who want such products would not be on the DNCL in the first place.
People who are browbeaten into buying something are the victims of unethical treatment. It is this unethical treatment that got the telemarketers the reputation they have today.

I also like the part about "all those people will lose their jobs." But dude, the reason you have to have all those people on your payroll is because it is so inefficient! Think, you won't have to pay 4 million telemarketers to make unsuccessful calls!
The losing-jobs argument is the most bogus one I have heard. One might just as validly argue that making telemarketing more profitable (by separating the willing-buyer wheat from the DNCL-subscriber chaff) will actually create jobs in the industry.

The best anti-DNCL argument I have heard is that it will stifle competition by only letting companies with whom you currently have a relationship with call you. If you use Sprint as your long-distance carrier, for instance, MCI can't call you to offer you a better deal. I'm not sure how to counter that argument. I suppose you could say "that's what mail is for" but nobody wants more junk mail either.

Someone on the radio this morning likened the telemarketer's objection to this to the messy breakup of a relationship that's gone sour. Where one person says "I don't love you, I haven't loved you in a long time, please don't call me any more" and the other person is too dependent on the relationship to let go. I like that analogy a lot.

[Lemastre]

Originally posted by Beleth
It's a win-win-win situation. Why are the telemarketers fighing it? My simple explanation is that the vast majority of companies doing or using telemarketing are too stupid to figure out that phone numbers that never answer, or that always hang up immediately, or that use answering machine messages saying go away are probably NOT GOING TO BUY ANYTHING! Only that can explain why the same dumb bastards call me week after week, leaving messages on my machine begging me to call about their financial seminar/stock deal/time-share/debt-consolidation scheme. Some of these guys are actually live, as far as I can tell. So they must waste hours of their lives dialing and blathering away to answering machines in total futility.

[BPSCG]

Saw a letter to the editor in the Washington Post yesterday that said the supposed loss of all those jobs is a phony issue, because the "dirty little secret" (as the writer called it) is that about 2 million of the 4 million callers are actually overseas and have been trained to use U.S. regional accents.

Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. Anyone know if this is true?

[Psi Baba]

Originally posted by Beleth
Why are the telemarketers fighing it?
Due to the simple fact that no one wants to be called. Even though not everyone in the U.S. is signed up, were the DNC to become successful, everyone who is not signed up would eventually sign up. The eventuality is that there would no longer be a telemarketing industry since there would be no one to call.

What bothers me about the exception that allows companies you've previously done business with to call you, is that it also applies to that company's affiliates. What I want to know is how many degrees of separation are permitted to be classifiied as an affiliate. I'm sure you could play the Kevin Bacon game and connect any company with virtually any company, thus allowing everybody to call you anyway based on their affiliation with [insert string of companies and subsidiaries], which finally leads to Company X that you dealt once with years ago.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Beleth
Why are the telemarketers fighing it?Originally posted by Psi Baba

Due to the simple fact that no one wants to be called. Even though not everyone in the U.S. is signed up, were the DNC to become successful, everyone who is not signed up would eventually sign up. The eventuality is that there would no longer be a telemarketing industry since there would be no one to call.I don't think the telemarketers believe that no one wants to be called. At least, they'll never admit it. And if they don't admit it, they can't use it as an argument against the DNCL.

(As an aside: what if it were true that everyone eventually signed up for the DNCL? That would mean that there would be a last person to sign up - that there would be only one person left whom the telemarketers could call. Imagine that poor guy's dinnertime!)

I think the DNCL is going to play a pivotal role in deciding whether the US government is serving the people or the corporations.

What bothers me about the exception that allows companies you've previously done business with to call you, is that it also applies to that company's affiliates. What I want to know is how many degrees of separation are permitted to be classifiied as an affiliate. I'm sure you could play the Kevin Bacon game and connect any company with virtually any company, thus allowing everybody to call you anyway based on their affiliation with [insert string of companies and subsidiaries], which finally leads to Company X that you dealt once with years ago.
There's a difference between an affiliate and two companies that work closely together. I doubt, for instance, if Microsoft could call you because you bought an Intel architecture-based computer at some time in the past.

[Furious]

The best anti-DNCL argument I have heard is that it will stifle competition by only letting companies with whom you currently have a relationship with call you. If you use Sprint as your long-distance carrier, for instance, MCI can't call you to offer you a better deal. I'm not sure how to counter that argument. I suppose you could say "that's what mail is for" but nobody wants more junk mail either.

Counter it with the argument that tons of other companies make plenty of money using other unwanted annoying techniques, such as television advertising, radio spots, road signs and pop-up banner adds.

I'd love a do-not-advertise-to-me-at-all list I could sign up for. Pipe dream, but a good idea at face value (yes, I know the economy would basically collapse).

Libertarians need to get on that idea and make it their own. The idea of more personal choice seems to fit. They would actually get a few people elected to major offices I bet. :p

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Furious

I'd love a do-not-advertise-to-me-at-all list I could sign up for. Pipe dream, but a good idea at face value (yes, I know the economy would basically collapse).

I come pretty close, I don't have a TV and on the radio I listen mostly to NPR. I use Mozilla to browse and turn off pop-up ads.

[roger]

bump.

So, over half a year has passed. Do we yet have evidence on changes in the business?

Google didn't give me anything authoritative:

http://www.btobonline.com/cgi-bin/article.pl?id=11992
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/166408_donotcall26.html

For the record, I am for the list, independent of the actual economic impact on the business; however, the point of my inquiry is only whether there was a clear economic impact due to this list.

[crimresearch]

Don't know about economic impact, but I can report that being on the DNCList hasn't diminished the 5 to 8 calls a day that come to my home.

[phildonnia]

I've often wondered why e-mail spammers try so hard to devise "subject" lines that will get past a filter. If I have a filter, it's a pretty good indication that I'm not interested in your wonderful offer.

[roger]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Don't know about economic impact, but I can report that being on the DNCList hasn't diminished the 5 to 8 calls a day that come to my home. Really? Interesting. I've gotten, I dunno, maybe 5 or 6 total since then, all from apparently the same business, starting with boilerplate language stating they have the right to call because they are a non-profit or some such.

Are you sure you registered the # correctly?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by roger
bump.

So, over half a year has passed. Do we yet have evidence on changes in the business?


The law was written with the call centers and thier automated dialers in mind, and from their point of view it does provide a benefit in weeding out the names from the list of people you know won't buy.

What the law didn't take into consideration (and should have) are those small businessmen in certain industries that traditionally get their start by cold calling. Insurance people, financial planners, mortgage brokers, etc. People who cannot afford to set up a call center and would be put out of business by a single fine from accidently calling someone on the list. I am aware of people in these fields who have given up and gone on to do other things.

From personal experiance, I've seen a huge decline in the number of telemarketing calls I get since being on the list. I've recieved a few calls from call centers in India who are non-specific about what company they are calling for, so that anyone who lodged a complaint wouldn't be able to identify the company responsible.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Mycroft
What the law didn't take into consideration (and should have) are those small businessmen in certain industries that traditionally get their start by cold calling. Insurance people, financial planners, mortgage brokers, etc. People who cannot afford to set up a call center and would be put out of business by a single fine from accidently calling someone on the list. I am aware of people in these fields who have given up and gone on to do other things.

It would be good if there was a defense based on good-faith efforts to maintain one's list.

[Michael Redman]

I don't think there should be any defense. This is an activity deemed so obnoxious and unwanted that a republican congress created new regulations against it. If you can't do business without cold-calling people, you should find a new business. It's simply not a legitimate way to operate. If you decide to do it, you take the risks associated.

I made a complaint last night to our state DNCL enforcement agency after getting a call from a telemarketer who told me they don't have to use the do not call list because they dial random numbers. Idiots. It's a pretty big local heating and air conditioning service company. Other than that, I don't think we have had more than 1 or 2 calls since we got our number about a year ago, and signed it up for the list.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
I don't think there should be any defense. This is an activity deemed so obnoxious and unwanted that a republican congress created new regulations against it. If you can't do business without cold-calling people, you should find a new business. It's simply not a legitimate way to operate. If you decide to do it, you take the risks associated.

I often feel the same way, but I am an advocate of measured response. Making a mistake (especially if it is not a pattern of mistakes) is not as deserving of punishment as deliberately ignoring the regulation.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by gnome


I often feel the same way, but I am an advocate of measured response. Making a mistake (especially if it is not a pattern of mistakes) is not as deserving of punishment as deliberately ignoring the regulation. Maybe so, but when you chose to do something that you know is illegal in certain many circumstances, the burden is yours to be sure you're compliant. Think bartenders. Should they get the same leeway when selling alcohol to minors that we would give someone who, say, accidentally builds a fence too close to an easement?

[Skeptic]

That's a bit like saying that cockroaches should support exterminators: after all, they can just go to those houses that DO NOT have bug spray and therefore, surely, WANT roaches. So why are cockroaches fighting it?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
If you can't do business without cold-calling people, you should find a new business. It's simply not a legitimate way to operate. If you decide to do it, you take the risks associated.


So if your ex-roomate called you up and said he'd just gotten into the insurance business, was having trouble getting started and wanted to pitch you on saving money on your car insurance, you think he should get slapped with a $1000 fine for that?

[Rob Lister]

The idea that the DNCL is good for telemarketers because it gives them a list of people that don't want to be called would hold more water if it was actually a list of people. It's not. It's a list of numbers. Each number has more than one person at the other end of it. Two in many cases (husband and wife) and more in others (inlaws, adult children).

On the other hand, my brother-in-law has not signed up for the list. He enjoys talking to telemarketers. He can keep one on the phone for a half hour by asking different questions about the product or service. He flirts with the female (sounding) calls. AFAIK, he's never bought anything.

I didn' think the DNCL would work when I signed up for it. I was sure the TM's would find a way around it. I was getting at least five calls every day. Now I get two (illegal) calls a month at best.

It seems to have actually worked. My paper junk mail seems to have increased but I can't swear to it.

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by phildonnia
I've often wondered why e-mail spammers try so hard to devise "subject" lines that will get past a filter. If I have a filter, it's a pretty good indication that I'm not interested in your wonderful offer. In a sudden burst of sociopathic inspiration, I realized that the motivation for avoiding the filters is to get to new and or unsophisticated users who have just gotten their first AOL account. These people are less ready to deal with the spammers, so avoiding AOL's filters means they can get to people who may not realize they're dealing with sociopaths and think it's a good idea to buy. So they're avoiding filters of people who know they're rat bastards to get to people who aren't yet aware. (I'm just using AOL as an example because, well, they're annoying :p)

I suppose a similar case can be made for telemarketers, where I sign up my grandmother for the do not call list cause she's no longer "all there," but if they can get to her they might be able to convince her to buy crap. Same idea as those Publisher's Clearinghouse pricks.

Wow, if only I had no conscience, morals, or ethics. I could probably make a fortune! ;)

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Mycroft


So if your ex-roomate called you up and said he'd just gotten into the insurance business, was having trouble getting started and wanted to pitch you on saving money on your car insurance, you think he should get slapped with a $1000 fine for that? No. But a telemarketer covered by the law should be.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
Maybe so, but when you chose to do something that you know is illegal in certain many circumstances, the burden is yours to be sure you're compliant. Think bartenders. Should they get the same leeway when selling alcohol to minors that we would give someone who, say, accidentally builds a fence too close to an easement?

Obviously not. But I would classify mistakenly calling someone, an infringment closer to the latter. Until they start to repeat--then screw em.

[Ranb]

Originally posted by Beleth
............The only exceptions were companies who already had a business relationship with you, charities, and Government agencies themselves..........

I used to get frequent phones calls from my local phone company (or it could have been from a telemarketer they hired) pushing their latest phone service (another way to overcharge me) options. They did not stop calling until I got rude with them on the phone. The long list of callers has been reduced though. The list is a good thing.

Ranb

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
No. But a telemarketer covered by the law should be.

My point is he is a telemarketer.

We could also create a more realistic example. Suppose your ex-roomate just got into the insurance business, he lives on commission only with no salary, he needs to get started somehow so he goes to infousa.com and purchases a list. He happens to work for the one insurance company that doesn't check credit, so he buys a list of 500 names of people who own homes and have recently filed bankruptcy. He pays $125 for the list, and another $300 to have his marketing list scrubbed against the DNC list.

The problem? There is a time lag between when people place their names on the DNC list and when they get into databases to have their names removed. He's unlucky, gets a complaint and a thousand dollar fine, and now he's out $1425 before he's made a single dime in the insurance business.

Fair?

[dmarker]

Bringing up telemarketers also brings up this question, since telemarketing is considered unethical wouldn't working for a company which uses telemarketing, even if one doesn't directly telemarket, also be unethical?

After all, they prosecute those who received stolen goods as well as the people who steal them.

[The idea]

Suppose you want to hire telemarketers. Would you be allowed to call people on the DNCL to offer them jobs as telemarketers?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by dmarker
Bringing up telemarketers also brings up this question, since telemarketing is considered unethical wouldn't working for a company which uses telemarketing, even if one doesn't directly telemarket, also be unethical?

Who considers telemarketing unethical? Annoying, yes, but unethical?

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Who considers telemarketing unethical? Annoying, yes, but unethical?

Michael Redman:

I don't think there should be any defense. This is an activity deemed so obnoxious and unwanted that a republican congress created new regulations against it. If you can't do business without cold-calling people, you should find a new business.It's simply not a legitimate way to operate. If you decide to do it, you take the risks associated.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Mycroft


My point is he is a telemarketer.

We could also create a more realistic example. Suppose your ex-roomate just got into the insurance business, he lives on commission only with no salary, he needs to get started somehow so he goes to infousa.com and purchases a list. He happens to work for the one insurance company that doesn't check credit, so he buys a list of 500 names of people who own homes and have recently filed bankruptcy. He pays $125 for the list, and another $300 to have his marketing list scrubbed against the DNC list.

The problem? There is a time lag between when people place their names on the DNC list and when they get into databases to have their names removed. He's unlucky, gets a complaint and a thousand dollar fine, and now he's out $1425 before he's made a single dime in the insurance business.

Fair? In your initial example, he is not a regulated telemarketer, arguably for three reasons. The above example assumes that you are liable for calling people who have signed up, but are not yet on the published list. Show me where the law so provides.

The only case we're realistically considering here is someone who makes a good faith effort to abide by the list, but accidentally calls a number on it. In that case, I say it is fair to fine this caller. If you're not willing to pay the price for the occasional mistake, you should not do business in this manner. If this is, in fact, a useful marketing tool, and you do, in fact, make a good faith effort to stick to the list, the occasional fine should be a small price to pay for the business you generate. If not, telemarketing is probably not worth your while anyway.

(Anyway, I would think someone who goes into business for himself selling insurance better have a more effective marketing strategy than cold-calling strangers.)

[Calee]

Originally posted by Mycroft



What the law didn't take into consideration (and should have) are those small businessmen in certain industries that traditionally get their start by cold calling. Insurance people, financial planners, mortgage brokers, etc. People who cannot afford to set up a call center and would be put out of business by a single fine from accidently calling someone on the list. I am aware of people in these fields who have given up and gone on to do other things.



I disagree. I signed up for the list, and it works for me. I don't care if there are 1 or 1 thousand people in your "company".

Don't call me. I don't want you to bother me. Period.

I filed complaints (CT State and federal) against "Primerica" because on of the suckers who fell for their sales pitch not only cold called me, but hung up when I started asking for information that he was required to give. Luckily the idiot was too stupid to block his number. I used *69 to call back, got his name, address, the name of his "company" etc. and filed the complaints. Also called the Primerica legal department and informed them of the illegal call.

Although there will most likely not be any fines, hopefully I cost them a bit of money with the time they spent dealing with me. Hopefully the idiot who was cold calling from his living room realized that it could be too expensive to stay in the "business".

If they don't like it, then YES, they SHOULD give up and go onto other things.

[Calee]

Originally posted by Mycroft


So if your ex-roomate called you up and said he'd just gotten into the insurance business, was having trouble getting started and wanted to pitch you on saving money on your car insurance, you think he should get slapped with a $1000 fine for that?

I would do my friend a favor and not file the complaint. I WOULD, however, explain how lucky he was. I would then explain how he would be an ex-friend if he called again.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
In your initial example, he is not a regulated telemarketer, arguably for three reasons. The above example assumes that you are liable for calling people who have signed up, but are not yet on the published list. Show me where the law so provides.

He calls you to ask for your business, that makes him a telemarketer. If he takes a moment to talk about the wife and kids first, you might not catch on that he’s telemarketing.

I’m not an attorney, I can’t point to the specific law. I do have some former business partners who ran an auto-dialer for lead generation and was able to see the numbers for dollars earned versus dollars spent. They made every effort to be compliant, yet were still hit with heavy fines. They switched to a fax advertising service with the primary benefit that if someone wanted to complain, it was really hard to figure out who to complain about.

Originally posted by Michael Redman
The only case we're realistically considering here is someone who makes a good faith effort to abide by the list, but accidentally calls a number on it. In that case, I say it is fair to fine this caller. If you're not willing to pay the price for the occasional mistake, you should not do business in this manner.

I think that attitude carries the fundamental assumption that all business is big business with deep pockets capable of absorbing any losses. What I’m trying to get across is the effect on small business, where a thousand dollar loss means that persons income for that month is reduced by a thousand dollars. Would it be fair to you if some routine yet essential task at your job carried a random thousand penalty for doing it?

Originally posted by Michael Redman (Anyway, I would think someone who goes into business for himself selling insurance better have a more effective marketing strategy than cold-calling strangers.)

Oddly enough, the first priority is to learn about insurance and get your licensing. The best advantage of cold calling is that it’s free, something that’s very important to someone who hasn’t yet earned a paycheck in their new job.

[evildave]

I have no problem with reporting and (hopefully) fining telemarketers. I do it for spammers, too.

You see, I pay this monthy phone bill for a technological device that serves me, not for some army of ******** who want to interrupt me at all hours of the day and night to hear about their "exciting offer". And do it "for free", no less.

As far as the computer goes, it's the same deal. I have a spam filter in place provided by the ISP. Whenever spam gets through (because it has masked its nature to fool a spam filter), I am doubly irritated. Now they've gone and violated my obvious and clear desire not to hear from them by spamming me in ways that defeat the software. These I report relentlessly to the BBB and FTC.

A few resources... useful for telemarketers, online ordering issues, spam, etc.

https://www.donotcall.gov/Complain/ComplainCheck.aspx
http://www.bbb.org
http://www.fraud.org/
http://spam.getnetwise.org/action/ftc
http://www.spamcop.net/?code=nRSOHptsLGYK5oEv
http://tmda.net/

[Michael Redman]

Mycroft, your ex-roommate isn't a covered telemarketer because he's probably calling to set up a meeting to discuss selling you insurance, not hoping to sell you insurance during the initial phone call. Also, the rules allow calls to friends, acquaintances, and family members.

Also, the law prohibits calling people who are on the published list, not people who have signed up to be put on the published list. I don't see how a telemarketer could be fined if the number isn't yet published.

I understand that the fines may make telemarketing prohibitively expensive for small businesses. Good. That's the purpose of the law. Don't do business by cold-calling people at home.

I don't have sympathy for businesses that can't generate revenue without engaging in obnoxious behavior. Would you like to receive phone calls at home from lawyers looking to drum up business? Is it unfair that that's not allowed?

Cold-call telemarketing is not a routine and necessary part of any legitimate business, and the fines are not random. I can lose a lot more than $1000 for illegally adversiting, and I don't have sympathy for those who can't figure out how to comply with the law.

I understand that cold-calling is a usefull way to start a business if you don't have any other source of leads. However, I believe you shouldn't go into a business in the first place if you don't have a reasonable plan to generate revenue legally.