# How do you handle telemarketers? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [January 23, 2003, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-handle-telemarketers/150331 "2003-01-23T01:12:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2003, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-handle-telemarketers/150331/141 "2003-02-03T00:25:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr2001 \* > I know how patent law works. I’m sure someone at Amazon thought it was a great business decision to apply for such an obvious patent. However, the problem here is that the patented “technology” is blatantly obvious, on the same level as [Microsoft Patents Ones, Zeroes](http://www.theonion.com/onion3311/microsoftpatents.html). The latter is a funny story in _The Onion_ that we read for a laugh; the former is a tragic indictment of our patent bureau. You called Amazon ‘not a decent company’ for applying for a patent. When they get it, you say it’s ‘a tragic indictment of our patent bureau’. So why is it Amazon’s fault - and since they got the patent, why wasn’t it a great business decision? > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by glee_ > Surely a quality product from a reputable company doesn’t need random cold-calling, causing irritation to most of the potential customers? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr2001 \* > Does any product _need_ any specific form of marketing? Do you not understand how valuable ‘customer satisfaction’ and ‘word of mouth recommendation’ are to reputable companies? > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by glee_ > So you admit telemarketers need no qualifications? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr2001 \* > Yawn. “Have you stopped beating your wife?” Your debating skills seem to be on a par with your knowledge of business. I ask a simple question, with no hidden assumptions, to confirm that telemarketers need absolutely no qualifications. 1. You dodge the issue by saying “You don’t need a degree.” Apparently you don’t understand that this statement implies you **do** need some qualifications. I ask you again. 1. You claim to be bored (well, you are a telemarketer, so perhaps thinking is not your strong suit :rolleyes: ), then use a statement with a hidden assumption as if it were somehow relevant. :wally I assume that you admit both that telemarketers need absolutely no qualifications, and that this shames you. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by glee_ > I am surprised that every US school pupil doesn’t have computer training. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr2001 \* > Some schools are a little more concerned with fixing leaky roofs than buying computers. The richest country in the world allows leaky roofs in its schools?! :eek: No wonder people grow up to be telemarketers. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by glee_ > You claim telemarketing needed the above skills. I quote telemarketers who patently don’t use them. > And this means I don’t understand you? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr2001 \* > If they don’t use those skills, they don’t make sales. That’s how it works. You listed a handful of examples, but you must try to see the forest instead of the trees. Rudely dispatching an irate customer once in a while isn’t going to harm your sales, but if you rudely dispatch _everyone_, you’ll be looking for another job soon. Well there were only a few examples of telemarketing practice in the thread, so I quoted them all. Your statement sounds reasonable, but there hasn’t been any support for your view that telemarketing is a skilful job. Is it not a fast-talking job selling low quality products to people who will buy something just to make the telemarketer go away? > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by glee_ > I point out that telemarketing is the only industry that has had a law passed protecting the public from it. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr2001 \* > Um… meat packing? Drug manufacturing? There are regulations and restrictions on _hundreds_ of industries. Restaurants, like telemarketers, can also be fined if they don’t follow strict guidelines; does that mean there’s something wrong with restaurants? You don’t see a difference between ensuring that the product or service is of a suitable standard, and the fact that customers can, by law, ban telemarketers from ever speaking to them?! :smack: The approximate equivalent to the telemarketing legislation would be that e.g. a McDonalds would have to cover up their sign every time an objecting customer came into sight! > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr2001 \* > There were a lot more people who went out of their way to be nice to me than to be rude. Perhaps they felt sorry for you. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2003, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-handle-telemarketers/150331/142 "2003-02-03T05:32:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by glee \* > **So why is it Amazon’s fault - and since they got the patent, why wasn’t it a great business decision?** Their business practices have alienated customers. Tech-savvy customers who are looking to shop online may choose to look elsewhere after hearing about Amazon’s ridiculous patent scheme, and if you search [Slashdot](http://www.slashdot.org), you’ll see that indeed many of them have. > [@](#): > > **Do you not understand how valuable ‘customer satisfaction’ and ‘word of mouth recommendation’ are to reputable companies?** What can I say? Telemarketing works for the companies that use it, many of which offer reputable products. If it didn’t work, they wouldn’t use it. Either the number of new customers they get from telemarketing is greater than the number of customers they alienate, or most people just aren’t that offended by telemarketing. I have no idea which is the case. > [@](#): > > **1. You dodge the issue by saying “You don’t need a degree.” > Apparently you don’t understand that this statement implies you do need some qualifications.** Sure, you need to be able to speak clearly on the phone and get yourself to work. You don’t need a degree, a letter of reference, or (usually) prior experience in the field. The qualifications for telemarketing are comparable to those for any other entry level job, like cashier, waitress, or fry cook. Haven’t we been over this? > [@](#): > > **2. You claim to be bored (well, you are a telemarketer, so perhaps thinking is not your strong suit :rolleyes: )** Touche, sir! I, for one, am in awe of your rapier wit. Perhaps you’d like to open a showcase in the Pit and impress us all some more, but this is not the place for it. And you misspelled _were_… or is it “once a telemarketer, always a telemarketer”? 😉 > [@](#): > > **I assume that you admit both that telemarketers need absolutely no qualifications, and that this shames you.** Well, you know what they say about assuming. I haven’t said either of those things. Maybe I’ve been misled. When you say “no qualifications”, the image that springs to mind is a random bum off the street stumbling into the office and being hired on the spot–i.e., they’ll give anyone a job, because by definition everyone is qualified. But that’s not the case; there are definitely people who aren’t qualified for telemarketing. If your interview shows that you have no interpersonal skills and can’t relate to people over the phone, you won’t be hired. (pause for glee’s knee-slapping remark about how _these_ telemarketers aren’t showing any interpersonal skills) > [@](#): > > **Is it not a fast-talking job selling low quality products to people who will buy something just to make the telemarketer go away?** For a moment, let’s suppose that’s accurate. Are you denying there’s a skill involved? Do you think every single person is equally capable of performing the job you described? > [@](#): > > **You don’t see a difference between ensuring that the product or service is of a suitable standard, and the fact that customers can, by law, ban telemarketers from ever speaking to them?!** I see it as ensuring that the service meets a suitable standard. Restaurant workers wash their hands before cooking; telemarketers don’t call people who request not to be called. Obviously the guidelines have to be different for each industry. Restaurant workers don’t call customers, and telemarketers don’t need to wash their hands after touching the keyboard (although they should, considering how many other people touch it ;)). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-handle-telemarketers/150331.md?page=7)