Unfortunately, a total ban would likely be deemed unconstitutional. That’s what I meant when I said in my Pit rant that the practice is defensible only in terms of its legality.
What galls me is that Mr2001 seems quixotically bent on persuading us not to hate the practice, and to passively accept it, or even approve of it, as part of the free-market landscape. My position is that it is intrusive, annoying, and often deceptive, but that, for constitutional reasons, it cannot be banned outright. I feel the same about TV ads for telephone psychics, billboards for cigarette companies, and political-campaign mass mailings.
I do believe that, just as those types of speech can be given regulatory oversight, telemarketing can and should be regulated as a specific form of expression, such as the “opt-in” or “opt-out” lists discussed on this thread (and as suggested by the Texas legislation), and I would wholeheartedly support such a plan. Further, I would support additional regulation to minimize its deceptive elements, such as charity solicitation where only a tiny fraction of the revenue actually goes to the charity.
Bottom line: I am willing to admit that, because of its legal and constitutional protections, the practice will continue for the foreseeable future, at least in some form. It’s one of the many tradeoffs in our society. That doesn’t mean, however, that I can’t hate it.
And if Mr2001 continues mulishly tilting at my twin windmills of disgust and derision, then I’m afraid another Pit visit will be in order.
Seems like I am only able to put in one link per post-It’s been awhile since I’ve been around, is there some rule or something? Anyway, here is the first in the series:
So it appears that I’m a freaking idiot who can’t get a simple message to post correctly-Hopefully, once and for all, this will work—arrrghhh. Oh, hell, this thread is already 3 pgs. long.
So just go here and look for the Dec.12th, 16th and Jan. 6 columns
If what Talbott says is true, then it would seem this organization is fraudulent. I agree wholeheartedly with shutting down businesses that use fraud to get people’s money.
Of course, there are also fraudulent mechanic shops, appliance stores, car lots, and businesses of any other type. That doesn’t mean you should never get your car fixed or buy a freezer.
His comment on the “do not call” list is interesting, though. I don’t know about Colorado, but in Washington they’re covered under state law, even for non-profit organizations (although we only have to remove a number from the list for one year).
Yes, but like I said, there are also people who won’t answer the calls if they are blocked. And explicit blocking costs money, so they’d have to make even more sales to make up for it.
I guess you’re lucky… every headset in our office is set to max volume, and half the time they still aren’t loud enough to make out what the customer is saying.
Plus, of course, we listen to fax machines and modems all day. Some of those are as loud as any whistle you could come up with.
Cervaise:
I never said you had to like it. But there’s a difference between “I don’t like it” and “it should be illegal.”
even more disturbing is that this late in the thread, he’s still a telemarketer. so how do these gd threads end anyway? you got one guy taking on everyone and he’s still standing.
Thank you, thank you so much for that clarification. And this whole time I’d been mixing the two up. I’m so glad you were able to draw that distinction for me. It’s a good thing I’m stupider than a bag of briquets, because otherwise I’d read that as a condescending insult. I’ll be sure to call you the next time I make a cup of coffee so I don’t accidentally mix up the sugar with the rat poison.
:mad:
[feels rant coming on] - [realizes this is the wrong forum] - [takes deep breath]
All right. I’ll take you at your word. You say you’ve been responding factually only to people who have supported the idea of a ban on telephone solicitation. You say you haven’t been trying to change the minds of people who know it’s legal, but who hate it anyway – your replies have been limited to the “make it illegal” crowd.
Fine.
Sherman, set the Wayback Machine.
Would you like to publicly recant all of that smarminess now? Or acknowledge the contradiction?
Here’s the thing. You acknowledge that the vast majority of people hate, hate, hate telemarketing. You likewise acknowledge that most people would eliminate it if they could, and give voice to sentiments like this:
While most people would agree with that statement in spirit, the majority would painfully concede that the courts do not share that interpretation of our Constitution, and that telemarketing cockroaches have found a rather conveniently immobile rock under which to hide. There are, in other words, concessions on both sides.
However, by continuing to dip your toe into various facets of the debate, you exacerbate the emotional turmoil already stirred up by the topic in general. You say you don’t want to make us like it, even though it’s fairly clear that isn’t the case.
Your argument can and should be summed up as follows: “I know you hate telemarketing. I know you’d ban it if you could. However, under our current legal system, and our current interpretation of the Constitution, it’s legal. Further, under a certain limited definition, the practice can be considered profitable. So despite your opinion of it, it will continue. Period.”
Don’t you see why this makes people so crazy?
On another topic:
With certain limited exceptions, spouses are able to make legal commitments for their partners. So if a telemarketer calls for my wife, and I say, “My wife refuses, and my wife wants this number put on your ‘do not call’ list,” your refusal to honor this request is illegal.
And one last comment: I don’t tell telemarketers to put my number on a ‘do not call’ list. I tell them it’s a cell phone. Because it’s illegal for a telemarketer to make a call for which the recipient bears the cost, this works the same as ‘put me on your do not call list’ except that it’s permanent.
Contradiction? I was responding to arguments that telemarketing should be made illegal, or severely restricted through legislation.
No. I’m not saying it is legal, everyone knows that already. I’m saying it should remain legal. Of course, there’s a certain “it’ll stay like this, so your time is better spent dealing with the current system than ranting about how much it sucks” aspect, and I acknowledge that I’ve pissed a few people off with that.
Might fool some of them… but cell phones have their own prefixes. We know which those are and we don’t call them.
And we don’t even have a key to mark it as “never call again”. The best you’d get is a turn down or regular take off list, or the agent would go running to his boss saying “I just called 535-1234 and he said it was a cell phone.” “No, 535 is downtown. That’s a redial.”
No. Most people, if asked “do you like being called by telemarketers?”, would probably say no. But the fact that we get so many sales leads me to believe that those people are mostly indifferent.
Yes, perhaps the TM in question should have given up after the first try. I’m just saying that since he obviously didn’t, it would have been easier to put the husband on the phone once than get called all night.
Telemarketing is advertising. In exchange for advertising, businesses exchange money or services.
When a telemarketer calls me, I am providing them with an advertising service by giving them my attention, however brief, yet they provide me with no equivalent in money or service. My presence on the phone is the equivalent of the postage they might pay on a printed mailing, the rental space they would pay for a billboard, or the air time they would rent for a TV or radio spot. The fact that the person placing the call is also providing them with a service is irrelevant–afterall, an unanswered call provides no marketing value whatsoever, just as a flyer that a business pays to have printed but then does not mail would provide no marketing value. Important here also is the fact that my resources are expended in this process: my phone service, for which I pay monthly, and for which they pay nothing. The success of their marketing campaign hinges on my provision of the medium.
So…as an active, and I dare say crucial, member of the advertising team, I should receive a suitable commission or compensation for each unsolicited sales call I answer. A credit to my phone bill paid by the business placing the call would be a good start. Sounds fair to me.
If telemarketers want to hide behind the glorious freedoms of a relatively unrestricted marketplace, then they should at least pony up some dough. I recognize their rights to aggressively promote their business, and to be resourceful. However I do not recognize their right to conscript me and my time in the process. So, pay up. To me. Or kiss off.
I’m not sure the right to call someones private phone is a Constitutionally protected right, but if it is, perhaps there are other things you can do to at least slow down the telemarketing industry.
Whenever a telemarketer calls you, find out what company they are calling for. Boycott that company and encourage as many people as possible to do the same. If you can find some way of contacting them, call, email, and write them as much as is convenient for you, telling them how their intrusion has lost them a customer forever, send them links to pages where you slam them for their practices. Make as big a stink as possible, lie if necessary. Maybe if they get enough (false) complaints that their telemarketers are insulting or threatening people, they will either spend more on monitoring their employees or take other expensive measures to regulate the quality of their calls out.
Do everything you can to hurt the morale of their telemarketers. When you get an unsolicited call, take it as an opportunity to get out all the frustration and anger you have built up. Take it out on the person calling. Scream at them and call them horrible names. Yes, most of them won’t mind, might find it amusing - but there ARE more sensitive people working in telemarketing, some with mental problems even. If it becomes an unpleasant enough job (as is, maybe 1 in 100 calls end up with an openly irate customer) some people will quit. If turnover rates go up just a little, it will cost the company more to hire and train more people. I know that I would have quit my former telemarketing job if I was abused by customers enough, and that would have hurt the guy who hired me.
Waste their time. If you don’t have anything better to do, keep the person on the phone as long as possible. Ask for as much information as you can without spending any money. Ask for a callback at a specific time (maybe one when you know you aren’t at home). If they are trying to talk you into letting a salesperson come out, say yes, you can schedule it for a time when you aren’t home, or better yet tell the salesperson when they show up that you never even heard of their company. Make it so they hate to follow up on telemarketing leads.
I think if even 20% of people did stuff like this when telemarketers called, this would have a huge impact on businesses that relied on telemarketing. Yes, it’s not nice, some of it maybe could even be considered immoral - but you have to fight fire with fire. Just remember that these people tend to prey on the elderly and those with mental problems. By making telemarketing a tougher and less profitable job, in the long run you are doing a good thing.
The closest relative to telemarketing is direct mailing. The direct mailing house pays the government a fee to send advertisements to potential customers; the telemarketer pays the phone company a fee to connect its telephone to potential customers. Answering the phone is the equivalent of opening the envelope (except that without caller ID, you don’t know what’s inside).
Subscribing to phone service does facilitate telemarketers, just like buying a radio facilitates radio advertisers, or learning to read facilitates magazine advertisers.
However, your phone service is not an expendable resource, any more than a mailbox is. Telemarketers and direct mailers don’t use up something you own; you are paying for the ability to receive calls or mail, in unlimited quantities. You don’t pay by the minute or by the letter.
Badtz Maru:
Anyone who’s still working there after a few days has already experienced enough irate customers to make up his mind. And turnover is already high enough that it’s unimportant.
Think of it this way… the better salesmen are the ones who’ve been there the longest, so you’re unlikely to affect them at all. If you manage to frighten someone into quitting, it’ll be a new hire, which means proportionally more calls will be handled by the better salesmen. Result: more sales per man-hour.
Also, at least in our office, we have no training costs. Training means letting the applicant listen to the experienced salesmen for a couple hours. They get on the phones themselves at 5:00; if they’re still around by 6:30, they’re hired.
I would enjoy a cite showing that a majority of telemarketers prey on either of those groups.
I’m also amused that just a few paragraphs above, you were encouraging readers to humiliate and terrify employees with mental problems.
I disagree. I have done telemarketing, and very rarely did a customer get irate, and when it happened it was always a quick ‘Go to Hell’ or ‘Fuck you’ and then a dial tone. Maybe once a week, if that. I NEVER had a customer go on a prolonged rant against me, or scream in my ear. If that happened frequently, I definitely would have quit sooner.
once a direct mailing has reached my mailbox, it has accomplished its main goal, which is to alert me to a service/product and give me the choice of considering it or not. The fact that I throw them out without looking at them is irrelevant–I have seen the ad, and its delivery to me required no effort on my part. Direct mailings require only passive participation on my part–they just have to pass in front of my eyes. However, a telemarketing call requires my active participation. It does not cue up in some “mailbox” in my telephone and wait until I feel like sifting through my calls. I have to get up from whatever I am doing and personally engage in brief conversation. Without my doing that, the sales call has reached no one, which means it has accomplished nothing. I provide them with the means to deliver their message to me, therefore I have provided them with a marketing service.
Phone service is not at all analogous to having a mailbox, and it is, in my opinion, an expendable resource. While I am required to pay postage on things that I send in the mail, the postal service does not charge me a monthly fee for the delivery of incoming mail. One need not subscribe to mail service–it is provided to all residents who have an address and a mailbox. Once I possess those things I am obligated to no further expense. However, phone service costs me on a monthly basis. I cannot own my phone service, and I pay for both the incoming and outgoing service. Furthermore, I have limited bandwidth, so when a telemarketer makes an unsolicited call to my home, he is using some of that resource. If I do not have call waiting, this means that other important calls are temporarily blocked from reaching me. It is a use of my resources.
I also disagree with your Radio/TV analogy. While it is true that, in purchasing one of those devices, I open myself up to advertisements, I am not in any way actively participating, any more than I am actively participating in seeing a billboard. The fact that I am actively watching a program is besides the point–the add is delivered to my screen by the network and requires no permission or participation from me. It is a fundamental difference. Active vs. passive. Almost all advertising is passive on the part of the recipient. Telemarketing is active.
how quickly we forget our analogies! telemarketing is soliciation that involves live, direct interaction between the solicitee and the solicitor in the solicitee’s home. the closest relative to this is door to door sales, another soliciting nuisance that fortunately is not as prevalent and has already been made illegal in many places.
If AT&T has 20 different telemarketing companies working for them, do you really think telemarketing is ever going to stop? There are about 140,000 “phone rooms” in operation. Most are companies like AT&T and big banks selling “enhancements”, not scams selling to retarded people. When a vote came up in congress last year to place more restrictions on telemarketers, it failed. Why? Probably because big business has the power to lobby congress, and get what it wants.
And just what is so difficult about saying take my name off your list, or don’t call back. I don’t like telemarketers, but I realize my phone number is as “private” as my front door. Anyone can call me at any time for any reason, and anyone can knock on my door. I don’t have to let them in.