Should telemarketing be outlawed?

[Dinsdale]

Mr2001 - it probably doesn’t mean anything to you, but I’d like to offer my compliments on what I consider your most reasonable post so far on this topic.

*Originally posted by Mr2001 *
So you draw the line at people you know?

I see a distinction, of course, but not a clear-cut one; there are an infinite number of situations in between. Suppose you (as someone who doesn’t know me) drive past my house and see that my basketball hoop is a rusty unusable mess. You happen to have a brand-new basketball hoop wasting space in a box in your garage, so you look up my phone number, call me, and offer to give it to me.

<snip> Basketball example

Sure, there are problems with any line drawing on a continuum. And there is certainly going to be a grey area in the middle. But I’m not sure the mere fact that there are some “difficult cases” means we should abandon all hope of addressing clear cut cases at the extremes of the spectrum. I think a distinction could be made between the individual in your example, who is trying to sell something, not as his primary source of income, and will only call very specifically targetted households one time each. But I do not believe we should get bogged down in this admittedly grey middle ground.

Mr2001, databank proposal.

[ul]
[li]The bank keeps a list of numbers by category. Numbers that aren’t in the list are assumed to be “residential”. Business numbers are marked as “business” either by the owner’s request or by notification from the phone company.[/li][li]A nominal fee (~$5.00) is charged to mark all lines in the same house as “never call”, and the owner can choose which categories of marketers to exclude, such as for-profit corporations, charities, or non-profit organizations. All other funding for the bank comes from the industry in the form of annual license fees.[/li][li]As an alternative to the above, an owner may choose a single line to receive calls if he has more than one line. This is free as long as the line is answered by a person.[/li][li]A number expires from the list after 5 years, or when the line is no longer owned by that person.[/li][/ul]

I disagree with an “opt-in” system, and with placing the entire burden on the industry.

That sounds good. As you have stated, not everyone dislikes receiving all such calls. Sure, I’d be willing to bear some portion of the costs - and $5 for 5 years is certainly not excessive. My problem with the current system is that enforcement depends almost entirely upon the consumer, who bears the cost of ordering caller ID, call blocking, or some other service, keeping a log, seeking out the avenues of enforcement and following up at their own time/expense, etc.

What you propose, or perhaps some elements of your suggestion and mine certainly has some promise. A couple of questions. How is it enforced? How are “unlicensed” callers identified? What are the penalties? What is the role of the phone companies?

I don’t consider answering the phone any more of a cost than sitting through a commercial on TV.

I guess it is my fault that I do not sit with a phone constantly within reach. Therefore, it is more of an “inconvenience” to have to get up and go to a phone (or the caller ID box), than to push the mute button and scan a magazine until the show comes back on. Moreover, if I choose not to turn on the TV, the advertiser doesn’t get to disturb me with his commercials.

I just looked back through this thread and the Pit thread, and I’m still not sure what [harassment] you’re referring to here.

Sorry if I’m mistakenn, and forgive me for not going back through both lengthy threads, but I thought I recalled you suggesting you put people on redial when you knew it would irritate them. Suggesting that though they think they can piss you off, you can bother them at no significant cost. Sorry if I attributed someone else’s words to you.

re: credulousness

I fully understand that you are not a mind reader. I will suggest that most people either consciously or subconsciously adopt what I term a mindfuck that allows them to do their job without thinking of themselves as a “bad person,” or even that they are doing a “good thing.” I am not speaking only of telemarketers. But the mindset you necessarily adopt to pursue your profession, is not the same as that of other portions of the population.

Mgibson
I do disagree that it is a violation of privacy. And I seriously doubt that any court would agree that it is a violation of your privacy. I expect calls from salesman from time to time even if I don’t look forward to them.

Perhaps I am in error for suggesting what I consider “desirable," not merely what is enforceable by law.

[RoboDude]

How about if we just license all telemarketers and make it illegal for telemarketing companies to utilize caller ID blocking, with severe penalties for failure to comply? Then, use the money from licence fees to pay the phone companies maintain a list of people who do not wish to be called by telemarketers, and set things up so that it is impossible for telemarketers to call people on the list.

[Lynn_Bodoni]

I don’t consider answering the phone any more of a cost than sitting through a commercial on TV. Most viewers would probably agree that they dislike commercials, but their desires have to be weighed against those of business owners who wish to advertise.

Commercials pay for the programs on TV, though. While I dislike the commercials, I’m aware that they pay for the shows that I like (not that I like many, I watch fewer than 10 hours of TV a week). The advertisers are giving me a product that I want in return for my viewing their commercials. As far as I know, however, telemarketers do not pay for anything that I want. They don’t subsidize telephone rates, as mass mail subsidizes private letters. So your analogy doesn’t hold up.

[Ms2001]

Rocket88:

If there is no problem with the industry, why, in your opinion, have the majority of the posters to the recent telemarketing threads been so negative in their opinions of the practice?

I suspect that they have only experienced telemarketing as “oh god, someone’s calling to sell me something again,” probably never spoken to a telemarketer who was friendly or interesting, and never worked in the industry (or did, but had a terrible experience).

Do you sincerely believe that when someone says, “I’m eating dinner” or “I have company over” or “I’m on my way to work”, they mean “please call back at another time”?

I believe that they mean they can’t talk to me right then, or don’t want to. I also believe that if they want me to interpret it some other way, they should be saying something else.

In your opinion, does the phrase “I’m not interested” mean “keep talking until I become interested”?

Depends when they say it. If I’ve gone through the presentation and they say “No thanks, I’m not interested” then it means “I understand what you’re asking for and who it benefits, but I don’t want to contribute this year.”

But if they cut me off as soon as I say my name, they obviously just don’t want to talk to me. They don’t know what we’re offering, what we’re asking for, or who it benefits, and our job is to inform them.

Now, if someone interrupts with “I know, I did it last year, but this year I’ve decided not to”, that’s different. They know what they’re saying no to.

you’ve hinted in previous posts that the telemarketing outfit you work for makes calls on behalf of various charitable organizations. a) Is this correct?

More or less. We call for a single nonprofit organization. Since it’s not technically a charity, we don’t accept donations; instead, we sell tickets to a benefit concert.

b) If so, what’s the split of the proceeds, on average, between the telemarketer you work for and the charity?

According to the Secretary of State’s report, about 20% of the proceeds stayed with the organization last year. I don’t know if we get paid by percentage or by our costs plus a margin. But since we don’t just do donations, keep in mind that we have to pay the bands, rent two of the largest arenas in the state, and send out two mailings per contributor.

Dinsdale:

A couple of questions. How is it enforced? How are “unlicensed” callers identified? What are the penalties? What is the role of the phone companies?

I think the existing system works fine for these. Callers already have to give their name, company, and organization they’re calling for (if any), so the data bank could run a toll-free number to verify licensed callers and report unlicenced ones.

I believe the existing penalty is $500 per person for calling someone who has asked to be taken off the list; this could just be applied to every call made by an unlicensed caller.

The phone companies could report disconnected numbers and business lines to the bank. This makes it better for everyone… we hate calling businesses and disconnects, and businesses hate getting “sorry, wrong number” on each of their lines as we call them. It also means less calls for everyone, since business advertisers only call businesses, and residential advertisers only call homes.

Sorry if I’m mistakenn, and forgive me for not going back through both lengthy threads, but I thought I recalled you suggesting you put people on redial when you knew it would irritate them. Suggesting that though they think they can piss you off, you can bother them at no significant cost.

Well, our policy is to redial anyone who hangs up before we get into the presentation; after that it’s more of a judgment call unless they’re actually turning down the offer. But as for people who try to piss us off, I can only defer to what wolfman said.

Lynn Bodoni:

As far as I know, however, telemarketers do not pay for anything that I want. They don’t subsidize telephone rates, as mass mail subsidizes private letters. So your analogy doesn’t hold up.

Mass mailers get a huge discount for sending 100,000 letters. We’re not a huge company, so I’ll guess we have 100 lines at this office… but we’re paying business rates.

As far as business vs. residential phone rates go, I’ll mention that the ISP I used to use was located in a house (instead of an office) specifically to save money on phone lines.

[Lynn_Bodoni]

I disagree with an “opt-in” system, and with placing the entire burden on the industry.

The industry benefits from telemarketing, therefore the industry should bear the entire burden. Anything else is cost-shifting.

But if they cut me off as soon as I say my name, they obviously just don’t want to talk to me. They don’t know what we’re offering, what we’re asking for, or who it benefits, and our job is to inform them.

I know as much as I need to know, which is that I’m getting a phone pitch. I object to this. I do not wish to support ANY phone pitches, unless I’ve previously signed up for them. And I’ll know if I’ve signed up for them, as I use a different name if I register to be notified by phone

Mass mailers get a huge discount for sending 100,000 letters. We’re not a huge company, so I’ll guess we have 100 lines at this office… but we’re paying business rates.

Mass mailers STILL pay more than their fair share of mailing costs. The payments are structured so that the mass mailings, even at the reduced prices, subsidize the private mailings.

And I’d like to add another category of phone call I don’t want, which I received this very afternoon. This isn’t telemarketing as such, but someone obviously used an autodialer and a prerecorded message to witness to me. Sheesh. I was prompted a couple of times to repeat a Scripture verse. I stayed on the line as long as I could, but I was not given an option to tell any human to remove my phone number from the list. I’m starting to think that autodialers should be made illegal, as well as mass telephone calls in general.

[zwaldd]

dinsdale

I suggest the maintenance of a national information bank where I can make one call or mailing to indicate my desire that I not be solicited at a specific number. It might be possible to set up different categories, say block all solicitations, or block only “for profit” callers.

i think that should work the other way around. considering that most (most meaning in the 99.9% range) people don’t like telemarketing calls, telemarketers should only be allowed to call people who specifically register to receive telemarketing calls. all those who would register for this please raise your hand.

[Ms2001]

zwaldd:

considering that most (most meaning in the 99.9% range) people don’t like telemarketing calls, telemarketers should only be allowed to call people who specifically register to receive telemarketing calls. all those who would register for this please raise your hand.

Hey, I think you’re on to something!

Considering that most people don’t like having their TV shows interrupted by commercials, stations should only be allowed to broadcast commercials to people who specifically register to receive them (perhaps in the form of a video tape sent through the mail). All those who would register for this, please raise your hands.

Considering that most people don’t like looking at magazine ads, magazines should only be allowed to send advertisements to subscribers who specifically register to receive them. All those who would register for this, please raise your hands.

Considering that most people don’t like paying taxes, taxes should only be levied upon people who specifically register to pay them. All those who would register for this, please raise your hands.

[Lynn_Bodoni]

You’re either missing or ignoring the point again, Mr2001. The ads in magazines and TV shows pay for those magazines and shows. Telemarketing ads do NOT pay for telephone services. Therefore, telemarketing cannot be equated with ads on TV or in magazines or ad banners on Web pages. Taxes are spent to run the government, and we are free to TRY to get them reduced.

And, for the record, I do happen to know of a magazine that doesn’t have ads…and it is rather expensive.

[zwaldd]

mr2001
tv commercials allow us to have free tv and only affect us when we voluntarily turn on and watch tv.

magazine ads are in magazines that we buy and allow the magazine to be profitable enough to employ writers good enough retain our business.

taxes pay for things we need to run society.

unlike telemarketing calls, reasonable people subjected to these things understand their purpose and don’t mind them. it’s a bad analogy.

[Ms2001]

Perhaps the telephone rate structure should be changed so that telemarketers subsidize everyone else’s phone service. I don’t know enough about it to make a proposal… anyone know how this works for bulk mailings?

I think a better analogy would be billboards. No one likes to see them, and they don’t pay for the roads or buildings, but we still allow them. Of course there are people who want to outlaw billboards, but they don’t seem as militant as those who want to outlaw telemarketing.

zwaldd:

unlike telemarketing calls, reasonable people subjected to these things understand their purpose and don’t mind them.

Who doesn’t understand the purpose of telemarketing?

And as for not minding them, I think the problem is that people are so irrationally pissed off about telemarketing. I pay for TV and I still get commercials; even the digital cable menus are chock full of little ad banners. But it’s just a nuisance… I don’t think it should be illegal.

[Dinsdale]

Yesterday we got 2 calls concerning ATT Wireless. When Mrs D asked the 1st guy to put us on the Don Not Call list, she says he copped an attitude and said, “ATT hired 20 companies to do this marketing, they all have the same lists, so you can expect 19 more calls.” And she said he signed off with a really snotty “So you have a real nce day.” Sure enough, we got another call in the afternoon. So what is our recourse in this situation?

Another tactic of telemarketers we deslike. Say I’m home alone, the phone rings, and the caller asks for Mrs D. (We have a kind of long name, so it is not too tough to tell if a caller knows you or not. Also, shows up as “unavailable” on caller ID.) If I say she’s not home, they hang up before I can ask to be put on the Do Not Call list. Very irritating knowing we will be subjected to additional calls.

[zwaldd]

Who doesn’t understand the purpose of telemarketing?

mr2001, how can this be so hard to understand? are you the cliff clavin of telemarketers? even when i was a telemarketer i realized my job served no useful purpose to anyone but myself and my employers. reasonable people understand that commercials and taxes are necessary for the existence of services they want. they understand that the purpose of telemarketing is to make money for the telemarketers.

Of course there are people who want to outlaw billboards, but they don’t seem as militant as those who want to outlaw telemarketing.

i guarantee you, if companies started putting up billboards in people’s houses, they would be militant in trying to ban them. especially if they rang periodically.
mr2001, your analogies are not getting any better.
here’s a hint - the only thing that would be analogous to telemarketing would have to be something in a private home that the homeowner doesn’t want there, that makes a noise periodically that causes the homeowner to stop what he’s doing and address it over and over and over again. tv commercials, billboards, and taxes are not analogous.

[Ms2001]

Dinsdale, I would suggest calling AT&T and getting them to contact their 20 companies.

zwaldd:

even when i was a telemarketer i realized my job served no useful purpose to anyone but myself and my employers.

Telemarketing serves as useful a purpose as any advertising - a man walking down the street with a sandwich board declaring “1/2 OFF FURNITURE SALE!” is not helping anyone but himself and his employers either.

reasonable people understand that commercials and taxes are necessary for the existence of services they want.

Speaking of which, you ignored my proposal that telemarketers subsidize residential phone costs, as bulk mailers apparently do. Would this make it acceptable?

here’s a hint - the only thing that would be analogous to telemarketing would have to be something in a private home that the homeowner doesn’t want there, that makes a noise periodically that causes the homeowner to stop what he’s doing and address it over and over and over again.

The people who have to “address it over and over and over again” are the ones who think it’s a better use of time to answer the phone and immediately hang up every 4 days, than to ask to be taken off the list once.

[zwaldd]

a man walking down the street with a sandwich board declaring “1/2 OFF FURNITURE SALE!” is not helping anyone but himself and his employers either.

you see the BIG difference though, right? this man on the street can go his merry way. if he walked into my house wearing a sandwich board and ringing a bell, his next stop would be the proctologist to remove my shoe from his butt.

Speaking of which, you ignored my proposal that telemarketers subsidize residential phone costs, as bulk mailers apparently do. Would this make it acceptable?

to some, probably. to me, no. bulk mail isn’t as intrusive to me because i don’t make a special trip to the apartment mailbox for it. i’m going there anyway to check my mail. i don’t get woken up from an afternoon nap when junk mail comes. your proposal would give the telemarketing business a reasonable place in society, though. folks who would otherwise not be able to afford phone service would benefit from it.

[Measure_for_Measure]

*Originally posted by Mr2001 *
Speaking of which, you ignored my proposal that telemarketers subsidize residential phone costs, as bulk mailers apparently do. Would this make it acceptable?

IIRC, bulk mailers are subsidized by the post service; they certainly pay lower rates than the rest of us punters. Got to check this though.

If telemarketers were not allowed to use Caller ID blocking, AND they were taxed at, say, $12 an hour for the use of their respondent’s time, then I for one would be less irritated with them. I’m not sure what should be done with those who prey on the elderly and mentally disabled though.

[Ms2001]

zwaldd:

you see the BIG difference though, right? this man on the street can go his merry way. if he walked into my house wearing a sandwich board and ringing a bell, his next stop would be the proctologist to remove my shoe from his butt.

Yes, if someone comes to your house and asks you to buy something, you are free to turn him away… just like if someone calls you on the phone. Or do you propose making door-to-door sales illegal as well?

(Would telemarketers subsidizing phone costs make it acceptable?)
to some, probably. to me, no.

No? You excuse TV and magazine ads because they subsidize the cost of broadcasting television and printing magazines. Why is this different?

flowbark:

IIRC, bulk mailers are subsidized by the post service; they certainly pay lower rates than the rest of us punters. Got to check this though.

That’s what I thought… but Lynn Bodoni stated otherwise on the previous page:

Mass mailers STILL pay more than their fair share of mailing costs. The payments are structured so that the mass mailings, even at the reduced prices, subsidize the private mailings.

I’ll take her word for it, since I don’t know anything about mass mailing.

If telemarketers were not allowed to use Caller ID blocking, AND they were taxed at, say, $12 an hour for the use of their respondent’s time, then I for one would be less irritated with them.

I’m not convinced about caller ID. If you walk across the room to look at the caller ID box, you’ve already inconvenienced yourself as much as if you had walked across the room to pick up the phone.

And I assume the tax bit is a joke… or do you really think you (or the government) need to get paid every time someone annoys you?

I’m not sure what should be done with those who prey on the elderly and mentally disabled though.

Fraud is fraud. It’s already illegal.

[zwaldd]

do you propose making door-to-door sales illegal as well?

hey - you finally made a decent analogy. i don’t know if it’s illegal, but door-to-door sales is prohibited by most apartment complexes where i live and is illegal in many other districts. it’s called ‘soliciting’. you know that sign that says ‘no soliciting’? that’s what it refers to. i definitely support laws prohibiting soliciting. it’s annoying and intrusive.

You excuse TV and magazine ads because they subsidize the cost of broadcasting television and printing magazines. Why is this different?

why is it different? this has already been addressed. scroll back and read some prior posts by myself and others.

[MsRobyn]

*Originally posted by zwaldd *
**

do you propose making door-to-door sales illegal as well?

hey - you finally made a decent analogy. i don’t know if it’s illegal, but door-to-door sales is prohibited by most apartment complexes where i live and is illegal in many other districts. it’s called ‘soliciting’. you know that sign that says ‘no soliciting’? that’s what it refers to. i definitely support laws prohibiting soliciting. it’s annoying and intrusive.
**

My apartment complex has allowed non-profits to solicit, which resulted in ads for churches, political candidates and Girl Scout cookies being placed on my doorknob. Definitely annoying, if you ask me.

I take exception to **Mr2001{/b]'s assertion that if there is an emergency that I can just hang up and call 911. I’ve gotten telemarketing and collection (which isn’t that much different from telemarking, IMO) calls when I was at home waiting for news on my son, and after he died, when family and friends were making sympathy calls. After trying to explain that this was not a good time, and that I needed to keep the phone open, and after listening to these jackals go into their pitches, I told them the truth; that my son had died, and that I needed to keep the phone open. With the exception of one jackass who accused me of lying to avoid his calls (I was familiar with the organization that was employing him, and a call to his supervisor took care of that [I could hear the supervisor fire the guy in the background])), most of these people were understanding and took my name off their lists as a kindness.

I still think they’re annoying, and there should be a lot more controls placed over what they can say and how they operate. Oh, hell. They should be illegal.

Robin

[Ms2001]

zwaldd:

i definitely support laws prohibiting soliciting. it’s annoying and intrusive.

I guess my home life just isn’t exciting enough… I don’t see how someone coming to the door once in a while can be so annoying and intrusive that it’s worth making illegal.

(You excuse TV and magazine ads because they subsidize the cost of broadcasting television and printing magazines. Why is this different?)
this has already been addressed.

You seem to be saying that telemarketing should be outlawed not just because it’s annoying (which you agree that TV and magazine ads also are) but also because it doesn’t serve a “useful” purpose. By this logic, giving it a “useful” purpose puts it on the same level as TV and magazine ads.

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding something.

msrobyn:

My apartment complex has allowed non-profits to solicit, which resulted in ads for churches, political candidates and Girl Scout cookies being placed on my doorknob. Definitely annoying, if you ask me.

I hope you’re not going to use that insignificant “annoyance” as a reason to make it illegal.

I take exception to Mr2001’s assertion that if there is an emergency that I can just hang up and call 911. … After trying to explain that this was not a good time … I told them the truth; that my son had died, and that I needed to keep the phone open.

OK… but how does that disprove my assertion? You could just as easily have hung up on them.

I’ve gotten telemarketing and collection (which isn’t that much different from telemarking, IMO) calls

If you promise to pay a bill and you end up not doing it, you don’t think your creditor has a right to call you and ask for you to pay it?

I still think they’re annoying, and there should be a lot more controls placed over what they can say and how they operate. Oh, hell. They should be illegal.

Way to support your opinion there. “It annoys me, so it should be illegal.”

[Measure_for_Measure]

*Originally posted by Mr2001 *
And I assume the tax bit is a joke… or do you really think you (or the government) need to get paid every time someone annoys you?

No joke. For any level of government spending, they have to raise the revenue in some way. It is better for them to tax “bads”, like pollution or advertisements that don’t subsidize common goods like information, than to tax “goods”, such as labor or (indirectly) investment.

Put it another way. Most people have better things to do with their time than field these phone calls. Now ideally, I’d like it if telemarketers would pay the public directly for their time. To make things simple though, they can send the check to the government.

The government, in turn, pays for such items as national defense, medicare and interest on the debt: those 3 items account for about 60% of all non-social security federal outlays.

Furthermore, some organizations would shift out of telemarketing once they were paying something closer to the amount to which they burden society.

More newspapers, more TV, fewer dinner interuptions: tax the telemarketers!

“ATT hired 20 companies to do this marketing, they all have the same lists, so you can expect 19 more calls.” And she said he signed off with a really snotty “So you have a real nce day.” Sure enough, we got another call in the afternoon. So what is our recourse in this situation?

Your recourse is to read my previous thread and its associated link. Keep a record by your phone and you can sue AT&T for up to $500 per violation, possibly more. I wish AT&T would call me 20 times.