Why Is Telemarketing Different Than Any Other Group or Individuals Telling a Business What to Do?

self | self

[joesbucks]

I've read over the course of the past few months the numerous threads regarding the use of telemarketing and the intrusion it has on our homes.

I had a long discussion with my wife who hates the intrusion. I ask her why did they call her? She had no idea. Well, despite the black eye telemarketers get, it's probably the most effective way to get business. Even Mrs. Me admitted that if they called about something that she had an interest in, she probably would buy. BINGO.

But let's look at if from another perspective. You will see numerous threads about how regulation is driving business from our shores to others. How we've taken manufacturing and moved it to low cost countries. Not because of productivity, but because of emission regulations or community groups that complain about the noise, smell or traffic caused by the facility. Even right to know and safety concerns. Changes necessary would be costly and not enforeced across the border or across the pond so companies locate there.

We seen threads about government regulation taking over our lives. Yet when it comes to a minor inconvience, we run to the government for help from the big bad telemarketers.

What's the difference between regulating out a obnoxiouis telephone call but not noxiouis fumes from the plant next door?

What happens when all the telemarketing jobs get exported to Ireland or India and our laws don't extend to them? And the calls continue cause we can't stop them.

What are we to do with all the folks who try to eek out a living working in a humid cramped call center. Many are the folks we drove from the welfare rolls with welfare reform (a good thing). Many are college students trying to earn their way through college. Others are seniors trying to supplement a fixed income. Or the physically disabled who find work in a sitting position reading a script, possibly from the company you work for or possibly even own. Some are just the slugs of life and a call center is the only way they've managed to find some sort of paycheck. What do you suggest they do for a living that's not immoral, illegal or indecent?

I find it amazing that we would rally all day about government intrusion and regulation on companies, yet we have rallied to stop a few phone calls a week or day.

The other thing to remember is that there are several ways that you will still get calls. They WILL NOT GO AWAY. Doing business with a company? They can call. Done business with them in the past 18 months? They can call. Signed up for one of those free give aways recently? You can now legitimately get a call. Charities. Exempt. Local lib dem candidate? Exempt. Pollsters. Exempt. Probably a thousand other loop holes? Exempt too!

[Dave S]

the law regulation not only exceeds the authority of the regulating government agency, the regulations also violates Amendment I (freedom of speech), Amendment V (property taking without compensation), and Amendment XIV (equal protection under the law).

Bull. You have the freedom to speak but there is no freedom to be heard. And there is definitely nothing that says I have to listen to your spiels. As far property taking, no one is taking anyones property unless you are considering your telemarketing database as property. You are still free to call the other 60% that want telemarketing calls to provide some social interaction. Equal protection? Maybe you have a point but if the list is structured for basic telelmarketing, charities and political calls and then citizens are allowed to opt-out for each of those types of calls they want, then that goes out the window.

[El Gato]

They WILL go door to door. Instead of an ignorable phone ring during dinner hour, there will be parades of former telemarketers ringing the doorbell. And SCOTUS recently ruled that door-to-door pitches are pretty much unstoppable.

How about a sign that says "NO SOLICITORS TRESPASSERS WILL BE SHOT", beside a laminated used pistol target... the use being the object of a couple of loads of the buckshot of your choice from about 7 yards. Seriously I can't believe that the SCOTUS would rule that you must allow folks onto your property that you don't want there. Apartment dwellers may have a problem though, unless the entire building or complex is declared off limits to uninvited salesmen, since the common/public area pretty well extends right to your door. Do you have a link to the decision, or at least the name of the case?

[lewislynn]

the regulations also violates Amendment I (freedom of speech), Amendment V (property taking without compensation), and Amendment XIV (equal protection under the law).

The term "ignorance is bliss" can apply here Mr./Mrs. telemarketer.

take the "individual" steps necessary for you to stop telephone calls from telemarketers.

That's exactly what signing onto the list does....I-N-D-I-V-I-D-U-A-L-S choosing, "taking the steps necessary", making individual decisions to sign onto or not sign onto the list.

[auboy]

Anybody that calls into my home that I do not know gets the "Hello… Hello… Hello…" treatment.

[FITZ]

Telemarketing is one of the number one "service industry" jobs this new service industry economy has provided. What else are people who have lost jobs in manufacturing, computer programming, and the garment industry going to do? There are only so many hamburger flipping jobs out there and they're getting scare. End the "service industry" jobs and what's left?

[Terry Mross]

The people who say this is a free speech issue are missing the boat. No one is infringing their right to free speech. But what the telemarketers want to do is force me to listen to their "free" speech.

[Voltage]

I pay for my sidewalk and driveway and those girl scouts still walk on it to sell those cookies. There ought to be a law! I demand a constitutional ammendment!

[BattleFlag]

My biggest problem with telemarketers occurs when they will not take a polite "NO" for an answer.

I had an experience with this back in May, you can read about it here. This link (before recent edits) was provided to the entities mentioned below.

The update to the document at the link above is that I reported this incident to my State Department of Consumer Affairs and the Better Business Bureau.

I eventually received a response from the BBB telling me that this was not the type of complaint they handle but they did forward my letter to the home office of the company.

Eventually I got a very courteous and apologetic phone call from the second in command at this company. I was told that after reviewing the situation "Shawn" was shown the door and assured that this was not the way this company did business. I stressed the need for proper training and thanked the company rep.

This is a big part of the problem IMO. The turnover is so high in this business that merely placing another warm body in the chair becomes the prime consideration and adequate training falls through the cracks.

And this is not the only instance in which I have gotten attitude from a TM, its just the worst.

[azcap]

This is a double win for the Democrats. Not only do they get to vote for bipartisan legislation that is hugely popular but a million lost jobs will be on the books in the 4th quarter. You can bet they will be screaming bloody murder about "Bush's" huge increase in lost jobs without a mention of this bipartisan legislation that directly caused it. It is rare when the government really and truly "creates a job" or "loses a job." but this is it.

 

There is also no easy way to block foreign telemarketing. Using voice over IP (the affordable way to do it anyway) you will now be getting your telemarketing totally unregulated and with a bad Bombay accent. Oh sure, you'll see a big drop off next week and people will talk about how wonderful it is now that the telemarketers are gone, but bive them a few months to get setup and retooled overseas and what do you know the phones gonna start ringing at dinner again.

 

Good intentions - bad idea. Kind of like the Brady Bill, the TSA, Social Security, Prescription drug Medicare benefits... "Government is not the solution to our problems. Government is the problem." It's sad to see conservatives get suckered.

 

[tahiti]

"As far property taking, no one is taking anyones property unless you are considering your telemarketing database as property."

"I think it probably will hurt some companies, and particularly the smaller operations would have a harder time absorbing the economics of adjusting to the latest regulations," said Brian M. McCutcheon, founder of SoftReach Services of Gilroy, Calif., an independent consulting practice that has helped some companies satisfy the latest government regulations."

Stevens, J., concurring SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 98—963

JEREMIAH W. (JAY) NIXON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI, et al., PETITIONERS v. SHRINK MISSOURI GOVERNMENT PAC et al.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT [January 24, 2000]

"...therefore, I make one simple point. Money is property;"

Amendment V

"...nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

In order for this regulation and/or federal law to be constitutional, there has to be a corresponding tax and funding mechanism to satisfy the requirements of Amendment V.

It is precisely why we have an massively intrusive, job destroying leviathan called a federal government that the president, members of congress, and the judiciary freely and expansively use Art I, Sec 8, Cl 3 as the constitutional basis to regulate commerce, but ignore the Bill of Rights, Amendment V, particularily, when enacting such regulations.

[NittanyLion]

You should ne thanking us for putting our names on the list. The 40% least likely to purchase products via the phone have notified the telepests of that fact. In turn, these firms are now free to devote their time to the remaining 60% who are more likely to purchase from them.

[jpl]

What these telemarketers are apparently too foolish to understand for some strange reason is that if they recognized and obeyed the list instead of stubbornly insisting on harrassing people who don't want to be harrassed, they'd end up becoming much more efficient and making more money in the long run.

[Salo]

Put up a no trespassing sign. If they trespass, call the police. The do not call list is a no trespassing sign for your telephone. Is it that hard to comprehend?

[Melas]

The do not call list is the phone version of the "No Soliciting" sign. That and nothing more. A telemarketer no more has the right to call me if I'm on the list than a salesman has the right to ring my bell when it's explicity posted that he cannot.

[palmer]

Don't worry, it's just the sheep leading themselves to the slaughter.

[Ditter]

Your wife & I must be *very* different. She *might* buy if they offered something she wanted. I would NOT buy even if I was walking out the door to buy that very thing they were selling. I detest telemarkerters!

[palmer]

do-no-connect international calls list. How many of us typically get international calls. Ive maybe had five in the past ten years.

Enforced by the U.N.? I guess you aren't aware that it's cheaper to call internationally than locally.

[DefCon]

If the telemarketers are as business savvy and honorable as you and their other defenders claim to believe, then it seems to me they would actually EMBRACE the "no-call" list.

After all, here is the govenment, offering to provide them with a FREE LIST of over 50 million people who they need not spend their valuable time and resources calling-on, because these people have no intention of buying their products. This leaves them free to concentrate on true potential customers, making their businesses more efficient.

Wouldn't it be great for other businesses if government could provide them with such a truly useful service...

But then, if the telemarketers were as business savvy and honorable as you and their other defenders claim to believe, then the entire industry could have created their OWN "no-call" list and skipped this entire controversy.

[NittanyLion]

Some would say that the difference is that telemarketers are trespassing when they come on their private phone.

That's me.

Of course they don’t say the same about unwanted commercials on their private television...

...because those commercials pay for the programming on my TV. Last I checked telemarketers are not paying part of my phone bill. Incidentally, I voluntarily initiate the action of watching my TV; calls by telemarketers are a unilateral and unwanted intrusion which I have no power to stop, aside from disconnecting my phone.

and they don’t mention they connected their phone to a public network with the implication and understanding that anyone could call.

Perhaps that was your implication/understanding, but it certainly isn't mine. My home is connected to a public network of roads and sidewalks - certainly that doesn't mean I must entertain door-to-door sales pitches during dinner.

[norraad]

cheaper to call internationally than locally

Why is that?