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.”

[steve-b]

I used to work in an industry where we HAD to rely on telemarketing

Aren't you ashamed of yourself for peddling crap that can't sell on its own merits if people see it in writing, study it, and proactively seek it out if it's worth having?

[TexasCajun]

If you or your friends are freaking tele-marketers, I suggest you go back to school, get an education and get a REAL job and leave everyone at peace when at home!

[steve-b]

Telemarketers should have seen the writing on the wall when they got banned from cellphones, changes in their behavior would have avoided this.

Yep. The last straw was when they started installing technology to get around "TeleZapper" blocks -- once they demonstrated that their response to a locked gate with a NO SOLICITORS sign was to break and enter, the only thing left to do was to force them to respect people's private property.

[steve-b]

Again, if a person told a telemarketer not to call again, and the telemarketer or telemarketing company called again, that should be considered "harrassment".

Well, then, the DNC list is a good thing, since it gives a one-stop shopping solution by which telemarketers can determine whether or not a specific person has told them not to call. Duh.

[TexasCajun]

What's your home number XRP? ...and your mothers?

I'd love to call you at 8:59 pm and offer you a great price on new and used oilfield equipment. After-all, I just know you are interested and maybe if mom is a bit senile, I can get your credit card number too!

[steve-b]

with the DNC list, now those companies don't have the opportunity to hear from the potential customer himself that he's not interested

???? A listing on the DNC list says precisely that: "I AM NOT INTERESTED"

[steve-b]

But, the federal gov't isn't maintaining a list of people who don't want door-to-door solicitors.

True, the government could order the phone companies to rewire the phone system so that each caller would receive a message posted by the recipient without ringing the recipient's phone (making it work more like a NO SOLICITORS sign). The DNC list is less intrusive.

[Tired of Taxes]

Aren't you ashamed of yourself for peddling crap that can't sell on its own merits if people see it in writing, study it, and proactively seek it out if it's worth having?

We weren't "peddling crap." I worked in the travel industry, and my employer was the oldest (30 years), largest, and most successful in its sector of the industry. Most of our customers returned again and again for our services. A few had been with us from the beginning.

The fact is that, whether we like it or not, a salesperson will bring in the business, and as I already said the telephone is the only way to widen your market. Glossy brochures are only a small part of sales. Someone has to follow-up with a call.

[Tired of Taxes]

True, the government could order the phone companies to rewire the phone system so that each caller would receive a message posted by the recipient without ringing the recipient's phone (making it work more like a NO SOLICITORS sign).

The above would be a great idea (with the telemarketing company charged for the do-not-call message at the same cost as a regular call). That would settle things down. But, I never said the gov't should "order" the phone companies to rewire anything. The idea is a good one, though, if it's feasible.

[cmak9]

I hate all salesman!

Just curious, does your business "sell" anything? Most businesses "sell" something, whether they realize it or not. The reason I ask is, since I am a salesman (who is getting tired of dealing with ever increasingly cheapo "Walmart Minded" people), I would like to go into a business that doesn't sell something. I.E. How do you do it?

[discostu]

Which it was, the problem was you had to "officially" tell the telemarketer not to call you, inbetween now and Oct 1st try it out. When one call ask to speak to a manager, don't let them snow you about there being no manager or the guy you're talking to being good enough, most of the guys actually manning the phones are contractors so they aren't considered representatives of the company. Once you get through to a manager you need to find out the name of the company, the actual telemarketing company not the company who's product they're selling, write that down. Now that you have that you need to request to be on their no call list, specify the no call list that is mandated by law and will get them fined if they violate it, many firms have other "non-binding" no call lists. Give him your name number and address and note the date and time where you wrote down their name. Now every time a telemarketer calls you can repeat the first two steps, if it's the same company you can file a complaint with the FCC and they'll get fined. It should be noted that now that they have confirmed this number they'll be selling it to other companies who aren't effected by what you did (you'll need to repeat the process with them) and in a year or so (if you weren't on the DNC) they'd start calling you again under the defense that "it's been so long, we assumed this wasn't your number anymore". Of course all of that effort is null and void if for some mysterious reason you're disconnected before the manager gets all the information necessary to put you on their list... you know mysterious odd things that sometimes happen, like the guy hanging up on you.

And that's why this went federal. They were given a chance to handle this privately between them and the people they were calling, they chose to pervert it.

You are paying for an open line, and when these salesmooks tie it up it's no longer an open line. Again this concept has stood up very nicely already because it is already 100% illegal or them to make unsolicited calls to a cell phone.

There's a HUGE difference between the phone and cable, which I already pointed out. The commercials are paying to get the TV shows produced, telemarketers aren't doing anything that helps my uncle call me from Chicago. TV advertisers are using a service THEY pay for (the studio, and the broadcast equipment) to send their message to me.

As for the mail you're ignoring what I said: it's not the private property it's the PAYING FOR THE SERVICE. You don't pay to receive mail, inbound mail service is free for everybody, so they aren't taking something you've paid for. We ARE paying for the telephone calls made by telemarketers, you pay a certain amount every month to have a live telephone connection that can receive phone calls, they're using that time and availability that you pay for.

We're not going to agree on this because you're wrong. You're obfuscating the issue with innacurate analogies that have no ACTUAL bearing on the situation.

[discostu]

Exactly. They acted just like thieves, every barrier people tried to errect around their phone service they tried to get around. They always made it clear that the companies seaking advertising were their customers, we were an enemy to be subjugated. If 10 years ago these guys make it easy to get on their internal don't call list and respect the request none of this happens.

[RLK]

So, you need the federal government to assure you of uninterrupted toilet time?

-------------------------------

As far as I'm concerned there is a point where telemarketing is a form of trespass. I have a right to put up a sign saying no trespass and have a barrier. The government can enforce the no trespassing law.

[discostu]

No that's not what most companies do. They are all REQUIRED to by law, but most of them have errected so many procedural barriers that it's going to take you 10 to 15 minutes to be get on the list if you can manage it at all. Even worse if they're using a recording because the keypress to start the process of getting off the list isn't announced or accepted until the end, so first you have to listen to the entire sales pitch THEN take 10 to 15 minutes to get on the list, and hope they don't suffer any mysterious disconnects.

Why should they have a right to hear that I'm not interested? There are thousands of businesses in this city who's floor will never see my shadow, I haven't told them I'm not interested, I'm just not going.

[discostu]

Of course telezappers and caller IDs already DID that. And the response from the telemarketing industry was to find ways around them. In effect we put up a No Soliciting sign and their answer was to claim to not speak English, we put up another in Spanish and they said they didn't understand that either. Screw 'em.

[Tired of Taxes]

As I said, we disagree. It's not just "paying for the service" that counts. It's private property. Your mailbox, your TV, and your computer are all private property, too.

And, from what I can tell, the term "telemarketing" is not limited to only the annoying salespeople who call again and again (don't you think I'm annoyed by them, too?) but rather any company calling you to offer their product/service. It is all "telemarketing". And, like it or not, that's how companies bring in business.

In any case, it's done now.

I'd appreciate an answer to one question: Do you favor other anti-business laws? I am amazed by the number of people out there gungho about the DNC list but vehemently opposed to any other anti-business efforts, like laws against logging or fishing or laws penalizing companies for dumping chemicals into our water supply.

[discostu]

No it's the paying for the service. You can tell because there are specific laws against unsolicited phone calls on cell phones and even laws to allow people to opt out of unsolicited calls on landlines. There are no such laws about commercials or junkmail. Therefore it's the SERVICE.

You just said it's not A it's A. Telemarketers are companies that COLD call people who have shown no previous interest in a product to try to get them to buy it. They are using the TELEphone as a MARKETing tool. I have no problem with anybody doing followup contact by phone, that's not telemarketing, that's telephone sales. The difference is whether you're using the phone for initial contact or continued contact, is it advertising or actually continuing a client relationship. The DNC has a specific exemption for followup contact, and it should there's nothing wrong with continuing a client relationship by phone, there is something extremely wrong with calling people to advertise a product, especially if they've already indicated with caller ID and telezapper that they're not interested.

That question is false at it's face. This isn't an anti-business law. This is a pro-individual right law. As I've said REPEATEDLY, and you deliberately have ignored REPEATEDLY: if the telemarketing companies would just have respected people's right to not get harrassed this never would have happened. But they didn't. I don't even have a problem with telemarketing companies IF they give me (and everybody else) an easy way to not be called by them. But they've chosen to define their relationship with people as adversarial, stupid on their part.

[Tired of Taxes]

Just because "paying for a service" was used as a basis for a cell phone law doesn't mean that I have to agree that the basis for that law was a good one.

There is a distinction between "paying for a service" (phone line, cable service, internet service) and private property (your house, your land, your telephone, your TV, your computer). That cell phone service is not our private property. We're simply leasing open lines from companies.

I hate sales calls, too. But, the phone companies, not the feds, should handle it. (I like the idea of a "No Solicitors" message transmitted to telemarketers by the phone company, and harrassment charges against a telemarketer who ignores a person's request not to call. Certain keys could be dialed to report telemarketers for harrassment and the calls traced. No need to ask for the telemarketing manager, just report them via the phone company for harrassment).

C'mon, Discostu, we have too many federal laws as it is. Big Brother is already micromanaging our lives, and this is just another step in that direction.

Telemarketers are companies that COLD call people who have shown no previous interest in a product to try to get them to buy it. They are using the TELEphone as a MARKETing tool. I have no problem with anybody doing followup contact by phone, that's not telemarketing, that's telephone sales.

"Telephone sales" also involves cold-calling. Telephone salespeople who sit around waiting for people to call them aren't salespeople at all - they're "order-takers".

As I've said REPEATEDLY, and you deliberately have ignored REPEATEDLY: if the telemarketing companies would just have respected people's right to not get harrassed this never would have happened.

We could apply the above to everything: "If gunowners would've just abided by the law, we wouldn't have to crack down on them." "If companies would've stopped polluting the environment, we wouldn't need laws to stop them."

I'm sure we're both busy people. Let's just agree to disagree. I don't have to agree with everyone here about everything. :-)

[discostu]

OK you don't think that's a good basis. That's your right, but it doesn't make you right. It's the basis for all laws about people's right to tell telemarketers to stop bothering them.

Now you're continuing with your version of what the law would be based on, which is nothing more than a strawman for irradicating all these laws. The law is based on theft of service. PERIOD.

We already gave them No Solicitor signs with caller ID, their answer was to find a way to stunt caller ID to let them through. We errected another No Solicitor sign with telezapper, AGAIN they decided the best response was to find a way around it. Of course before all that the federal government forced them to give us a way to get off their list, their answer was to make it as difficult as possible to do so. Now the fed is making a central list that they all have to follow. If they'd have followed the intent of the law in the first place the fed wouldn't have stepped in, but they didn't.

Another strawman, just because we have too many federal laws doesn't mean all new federal laws are bad. That same poor logic would apply equally to all federal law including those against murder, kidnap and fraud. Stop erecting strawmen, stop obfuscating the issue, deal with the FACTS. The FACTS are really quite simple and show quite plainly that the telemarketers over stepped the line repeatedly, they begged for a smackdown and now they're upset that it hurt.

Way to deliberately misinterpret what I said. It's getting quite clear that just like your telemarketing buddies you are incapable of acting in good faith. There are plenty of second contact methods of doing sales calls, those are cold calls.

More strawmen, and exceptionally pathetic ones at that.

No I will not agree to disagree. That would imply your position has a modicum of truth in it. You are wrong, across the board. You are apologizing for an abusive industry that brought it's own troubles on itself and deserves what is happening to it. The DNC list is a clearly justified application of federal government power based on well tested laws applying to theft of service by unwanted intrussions. You may walk away, but there is no agreeing to disagree with those who's desperate need to obfuscate and errect strawmen clearly demonstrates that even they know they are wrong.

[KineticKitty]

I feel so alone, lol. (j/k) You might find post 121 of interest.