Telemarketers on the ropes

CINCINNATI BUSINESS COURIER ^ | 8/11/2003 | Lance Williams

[xrp]

Popular do-not-call list bringing industry to its knees

Aug. 11 — In the past three months, the hallways at Groesbeck-based Tel-A-Sell Marketing Inc. have become a lot less crowded. CEO Edd O’Connor has been forced to trim his telemarketing staff from 72 to 18.

“I WAS RUNNING a full house earlier this year,” said O’Connor, who also serves as president of the American Teleservices Association’s Great Lakes Chapter, which covers Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky and Michigan.

One of the big reason for the cuts: the chilling effects of the National Do Not Call Registry and other similar efforts in statehouses across the country.

A month into the sign-ups for the federal Do Not Call list, nearly 30 million phone numbers across the United States have been registered for the list. That number could double by the time the list takes effect on Oct. 1.

The ATA, which is challenging the list in court, said the national list could eventually cause more than 2 million lost telemarketing jobs. The ATA estimated that telemarketers are responsible for $660 billion in sales. The combined effects of do-not-call lists and the movement of jobs overseas have left the industry ailing.

“It’s going to cause significant business problems for this industry,” said O’Connor, who said he expects a pickup in business in early fall. “We’ve got to step back and regroup.”

[XJarhead]

Up to 2,000,000 more Americans could be put out of work.

I don't buy that number in the slightest. Even if I did, those are pure advertising jobs, neither service nor production. The money will be spent elsewhere.

A simple annoyance that can be remedied by hanging up, using caller ID or an answering machine is going to result on a bunch more people drawing unemployment checks. Sorry, but when you've got two kids you're trying to take care of at night, getting 6-8 of these every evening goes beyond a little annoyance.

Once again...the big government/nanny state loving Americans find another way to screw their fellow citizens.

Wait a minute. Are you saying that I have some sort of moral obligation to listen to someone who calls me unsolicited? Is my failure to listen to their call "screwing" them? It's my phone, isn't it? So how does the telemarketer have a right to call me at home and occupy my phone line even when I tell him not to?

Presumably, that would give me the right to harass someone I don't like with 100 calls per night. Because if the government doesn't have the right to tell telemarketers not to call people on the "do not call" list, they've got no right to tell me to stop harassing someone else with phone calls.

Next up to bat are the babies who want legislation against email spam.

Yeah, real babies. Every morning at work, I have anywhere between 40-50 bits of spam. I can't read it all, so I end up deleting it, and occasionally delete something of importance by mistake. On a Monday, that total is over 100. After vacation, it may be over 500. That's not a "little annoyance" either. It is an impediment to me doing my own work and lowers my productivity. I'm really curious where you are finding some sort of free market "right" to flood other people's mailboxes.

[bfree]

I am looking forward to the day the DNC takes effect. If that puts you and your cohorts on the street, so be it.

[discostu]

How does junkmail cost you any any time? You're going out to check the mail anyway, whether you have real mail, junk mail or no mail the trip from door to mailbox and back again is the same distance and time. The most it's costing you is a couple of second of sorting (which I generally do on the way back from the mail box), and if you have a fire place you're getting free kindling.

You pay for the mailbox, you do not pay to receive mail. If you never send a piece of mail in your life, thus never giving USPS any money, you will still be able to receive mail. Telephones aren't like that, you don't just pay for the phone, you pay for the actual service itself, if you never make a single phonecall you'll still need to pay your regional Bell to get phonecalls.

We already have a "do-no-knock" list, it's called a No Solicistors sign, if you have that posted somewhere easily visible you can have any violators charged with trespassing.

This isn't a law that intrudes on the business of private companies. All the DNC list did was centralize the process. For many years now telemarketers have had to give people a way to get off their list and could be heavily fined for continuing to call. The difference is that it was done company by company and the management of the list was left primarily up to them. Telemarketers abused the freedom they were given by making it incredibly difficult to get on the list (going so far as to instruct their employees to hangup on people that request to be on the list) and forced more drastic meassures to be taken. Had the telemarketers acted in good faith when they were given the opportunity to police themselves the DNC list never would have happened, instead they chose to abuse the system, I'm shedding no tears.

It's not an inconvenience on people's time. It's theft of service. This was already determined for cellphones where people directly pay for receiving phonecalls, it is more losely defined for landlines where people simply pay for the general service, but the basic principle holds. You pay for the service, if you don't want these people taking up your time and intruding on your ability to receive wanted phonecalls they should comply with your wishes.

[xrp]

The Democratic National Committee? I KNEW you were a liberal.

FYI - I'm not a telemarketer. Blow on that duck call, boy.

[XJarhead]

You know, everyday I go to by mailbox, and mail has been around for centuries, it's full of stuff I don't want either.

It's a HUGE difference, and the reason is cost. It costs a fair amount of money to print up fliers and mail them out. That's an incentive for companies to target a far more limited number of people. Spam is very, very cheap to send, and telemarketers -- particularly the computer automated ones -- are cheaper as well.

But the real problem I have with this objection to supposed governmental regulation is that it proceeeds from the assumption that people have the right to send you unsolicited e-mail. Even from a libertarian perspective, the assumption could be that nobody can use your mailbox without your permission.

[Tired of Taxes]

But, the federal gov't isn't maintaining a list of people who don't want door-to-door solicitors. And, aren't the no-solicitation laws state laws?

I would never argue against a law restricting companies from calling someone who has told them specifically never to call again - that should fall under "harrassment". But, with the DNC list, companies are restricted from even making the first call.

Those telemarketers are salespeople, and the sales staff is the heart of every company. Behind a great many products and services is an obnoxious salesman in a bad suit. They may be annoying people, but they're necessary for many businesses to survive.

BTW, opening the mail and looking at it, then having to keep it around like clutter until recycling day is what I consider a hassle, especially with all the junk mail we receive. It's endless.

[Revolting cat!]

We're so anti-goobermint here that we forget that there are legitimate functions of the government. The governement is to protect the citizenry against enemies foreign and domestic. Do tell me that telemarketers and all the other vermin knocking on our doors uninvited are not enemies of the citizens' domestic tranquility! Where do you suggest we turn to protect us against such predators?

It's gotten to the point where obnoxiousness is a Constitutional right, and many think that people have an absolute right to attempt to sell to other people. No, you don't! You don't have a right to block my way on the sidewalk with a stinking political petition, and you don't have a right to knock on my door to beg for a donation to some National Disease Society, you don't have a right to the space in my mailbox or to the ring of my phone.

[Revolting cat!]

What I meant to say was that Selling has become like the Catholic Holy Mass in this country, a protected, revered ritual. Holy Salesmen!

[XJarhead]

I just find it hypocritical that the same group who would rightly oppose other laws that intrude in the business of private companies would support a big-government program that does just that, all to stop a little inconvenience on their time.

It's not a question of the government intruding into their business -- its a question of telemarketers intruding into my business. Look, it would be one thing if the government banned telemarketing or spam. That would be an intrusion into the private market, and I'd be on your side completely.

But that's not what the DNC does. All it says is that if a private citizen directs a third party to stop using his/her telephone or e-mail address, the third party must respect the property rights of that citizen. It's the electronic equivalent of a "No Trespassing" sign. I suspect you don't think its unlawful for the government to use its police power to protect the private property rights of a citizen who posts a "no trespassing" sign. So, why is it such an affront to the free market for the government to use its police powers to protect electronic personal property rights?

Of course, I will admit, we're on the list, too. :-)

Heh. Well, I don't agree with you on this, but you're obviously a good guy anyway.

[bfree]

I guess you're just an a-hole, boy.

[discostu]

And the telemarketers were maintaining their own do not call lists, but they abused the system. Also remember most telemarketing calls cross state lines (they do that to reduce the chance of the caller and recipient knowing each other) so it's tough for the states to handle. And finally given the lack of physical pressence it's a little tough for the private citizen to handle things on their own, I can detain an illegal solicistor until the cops get there, if a telemarketer violates my request to not be called I don't have that luxury.

If the companies had honored the intent of the law and made it easy for people to get off their call lists thing wouldn't have escalated up to the DNC. Because they couldn't play nice on that first call they've lost that priviledge. Which arguably they never should have had, when I post a No Solicistors sign salesmen don't get a one time exception to make sure I mean them.

You're deliberately obfuscating the issue. No one denies the importance of making sales, the discussion here is the legality of the method. Cold call telemarketers exist at the sufference of the person leasing the phone service. Continuing to harass the person after they've requested not to IS illegal regardless of the method of harassment. There are specific laws that have been in place for quite a long time on this.

Again obfuscation, the point isn't whether or not junkmail is annoying, is it theft? And the answer is no because you don't pay to receive it. Since 95% of junkmail is obviously junkmail without you opening it I think you're overstating things trying to appeal to emotion. Not working here.

[Ramius]

Since by all these posts you've made it clear that anybody, anytime, for whatever reason they like should be able to call you and have it be their absolute RIGHT to do so...

Post your phone number. I dare ya. :-)

[xrp]

I guess you're just an a-hole, boy.

[Belial]

When I opt out of an e-mail campaign, the originator should honor that, and also refrain from sharing my e-mail address with anyone else.

Wouldn't that be nice?

In many cases today, "opting out" means that your email may be removed from one list, only to be sold at a premium to the community of spammers as a "live one".

[IowaHawk]

Not to mention all the millions of squeegiemen put out of work by our insane anti-vagrancy laws.

[Nov3]

Screw them they blew it with their rude operators and computer generated hang up calls. They would not operate ethically and responsibly so they reaped what they sowed. The freaking IDIOTS like yourself that support them either have a financial interest or are brainless or both.

[Nov3]

Thank goodness there are busy bodies like you to keep me from my stupidity and relieve me from the horror of actually controlling my own life.

You obviously have no life and telemarketers are the only ones who call you. Just don't sign the opt-out list and you can still have friends.

[Pablo64]

"No...you big government lovers have screamed loud enough and your beloved government has come to your rescue."

Oh, please! Is that your best argument? You won't get far if you keep on making assumptions about people you don't know.

I pay for my phone service for my convenience and use, not for some shyster company to use it to intrude on my life and peddle crap I didn't ask for and am not interested in. Since I can't legally take the kind of action that would be required to stop these morons (there are laws against what it would take) the only option left is to be protected from them by law. If I would be allowed to deal with them as I see fit, then perhaps I wouldn't need any help from the government (which, by the way, is precious to me, but not for the reasons you're trying to imply).

[Tired of Taxes]

Actually, Mr. Tired of Taxes put us on the list. I was the one dealing with the telemarketers all the time, and at one point I had the long distance telephone service switch down to a science. :-)

[Tired of Taxes]

I suspect you don't think its unlawful for the government to use its police power to protect the private property rights of a citizen who posts a "no trespassing" sign. So, why is it such an affront to the free market for the government to use its police powers to protect electronic personal property rights?

I have no problem with the "No Trespassing" signs and the law supporting them. The problem with the DNC list is that the federal government has taken the responsibility for posting all of our "No Trespassing" signs for us.