Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Spam Government The Courts News

Telemarketers Sue Over "Do Not Call" List 1004

Joey Patterson writes "CNN reports that 'Telemarketers expanded their legal challenge to the government's do-not-call list, suing a second federal agency over the call-blocking service for consumers that the industry says will devastate business and cost as many as two million jobs.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Telemarketers Sue Over "Do Not Call" List

Comments Filter:
  • Hypocrites... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Gibble ( 514795 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @12:45PM (#6560649) Homepage
    I'm sure alot of people who work for telemarketers have their names on the list just so they don't get calls.
  • Better Now... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by FortKnox ( 169099 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @12:45PM (#6560653) Homepage Journal
    ...then later, then. Seriously, it should have been tackled long ago. What I'd like the government to do is say "OK, we'll compensate for those being laid off, but the list is staying." THEN we'll see the true side of the telemarketters.

    FYI - if you work in email spam, better start looking for a job now while you have a chance...
  • Re:In other words... (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @12:48PM (#6560695)
    The best thing I've seen on TV lately was a bunch of telemarketers standing outside near St. Louis, protesting the MO No Call list. They were worried they would lose their jobs. *Sniff*
    I was moved to tears of joy.
  • Those b@stards! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bennomatic ( 691188 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @12:50PM (#6560736) Homepage
    I'm sure that if their challenge to the authority of the list is successful, they'll probably also sue to be able to use it as a list of primary sales targets.

    I have heard that, in the day of door-to-door salesmen, many such folk were actually thrilled to see "No Solicitors" signs, because they felt that such signs were indicators that the people there knew they couldn't stand up to a sales pitch. I'll bet the same logic might be applied here, so those of us who prefer not to be called might in fact have inadvertently invited twice as many.

    What I don't understand is why the list officially does not apply to cell phones? I get sales calls on my cell phone, and it pisses me off. I pay for those minutes on incoming calls!

  • For once (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Zebra_X ( 13249 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @12:51PM (#6560753)
    The FCC does something right. In fact, the FCC is doing what the PEOPLE want. 28 Million can't be wrong. Look what happens! They get sued by an entire industry. Thinking this says a great deal about the tenious relationship the government has with business.
  • Re:In other words... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Doesn't_Comment_Code ( 692510 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @12:52PM (#6560770)
    The sad part about that two million jobs thing is that it's the entire legal basis of the suit. This is one in a string of lawsuits that are straying further from what's legal. Instead companies or class action groups just whine that they think something isn't fair. What's worse is that sometimes the courts go for it. If we keep going in this direction, there won't be laws or a constitution any longer. There will just be a judge who listens to two parties whine, until he proclaims the loudest one the winner.

    I would like to see some legal basis behind this challenge. What rights does it infringe? Where does it protect these rights in the constitution? Remember that stuff? That's what court cases used to be about.
  • by noahbagels ( 177540 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @12:55PM (#6560809)
    I can't believe how much the media and the courts let slip by. The CNN article should have been titled Telemarketers Attempt to Defraud Courts with fake job loss numbers and scare tactics.

    I don't have a clue how many people the Tele-hacks employ, but I sure know that they never get any business from me. By using this list, I am saving them time - increasing their profits!

    2 Million Jobs! You have to be kidding me!

    Why can't the media see thru lies like this one, and the RIAA, and simply report that companies are lying in order to survive.
  • Two million jobs (Score:5, Interesting)

    by AlphaHelix ( 117420 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @12:56PM (#6560831) Homepage
    A loss of two million jobs...of which a large number are convicts, currently serving prison sentences, who get paid below minimum wage, because it's a good source of cheap labor with American accents, and it's their only opportunity for work. See, e.g., http://www.stopjunkcalls.com/convict.htm
  • Embrace the change (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bennomatic ( 691188 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @12:59PM (#6560891) Homepage
    True, there's no expressly stated right to privacy, but I'm of the school of thought that it can be inferred. Regardless, though...

    This isn't about the government killing off an industry. It's about protecting the people who are "bothered" enough to request not to be bothered. If I called you every night at dinner time, and if you did not welcome my call, you would ask me to stop. If I did not stop, then by definition, I would be harassing you, and you would have some right to protection by the law.

    The DNC list does not prohibit phone solicitations; it merely requires that solicitors prune their lists based on people's requests not to be contacted that way.

    Most people in that line of work are paid by commission anyway, so I feel that I'm doing them a favor by having them not call me because I *NEVER* buy anything sold by an anonymous phone (or door) solicitor. Rather than sue, these folks should embrace the change for the better of all mankind!

  • Re:Exemptions? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by HiThere ( 15173 ) * <charleshixsn@@@earthlink...net> on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @01:00PM (#6560913)
    I normally just say "I do not accept any form of telephone solicitation."
    And then put the phone down...not hang up, just put it down. Hang up a few minutes later, when it starts making an annoying sound.

    It's quite effective. Even against robot callers.
  • by afniv ( 10789 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @01:06PM (#6561031) Homepage
    "The American Teleservices Association, an industry group that sued the FTC in January to stop the list, asked the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver to reject new regulations set by the Federal Communications Commission."

    Hey, I'm sure the judges have had positive experience with Colorado's No Call list [coloradonocall.com]. It's amazing, I went from an average of 3 phones calls plus 6 hangups a day to ZERO! It was a night and day difference.

    Perhaps they should have filed somewhere else?
  • by tds67 ( 670584 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @01:09PM (#6561078)
    "This truly is a case of regulatory overkill," said Tim Searcy, ATA executive director.

    This from a group that represents an industry that once called me at home no less than 60 times in a five day period!

  • Re:repeat after me (Score:5, Interesting)

    by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @01:10PM (#6561087)
    no it doesn't.

    Telemarkets don't show up as "ATTENTION, TELEMARKETER" or "TELEMARKETING INC." or some other dead give away.

    Frequently they show up as UNAVAILABLE just like 90% of valid businesses. My mother works for a small Funeral Home. They don't show up as "JOE'S FUNERAL HOME" they show up "UNAVAILABLE".

    Should I ignore valid business to block telemarketers? No.

    If anything, force Telemarketers to show their ID to the box and pay for me having to use it to block them.
  • by mobileskimo ( 461008 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @01:17PM (#6561191) Journal
    "This truly is a case of regulatory overkill," said Tim Searcy, ATA executive director.
    "This [telemarketing] truly is a case of pushy sales overkill" said mobileskimo, Annoyed phone owner.

    The telemarketing industry estimates the do-not-call list could cut its business in half, costing it up to $50 billion in sales each year.
    Go make money providing society with something usefull.

    Implementing the list could also eliminate up to two million jobs, the ATA said.
    Stop getting paid for being a schmuck and go do something usefull.

    Quality Service Management
    Don't get me started on this one.

    And we wonder why our economy sucks when people wake up and smell the garbage they've been tossing around. Well, duh, if we're not producing anything and just making shit up to sell to each other, how do you expect anything of real value to be added to our world?
  • Re:In other words... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by johnnyb ( 4816 ) <jonathan@bartlettpublishing.com> on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @01:21PM (#6561255) Homepage
    Although I agree that "do-not-call" lists are bad when regulated by the government (I should have every right to call you for any purpose, just as you should have every right to not pick up the phone), I am surprised that telemarketers don't like the concept.

    I work in email-marketing, and we get and maintain our clients on the basis of what percentage of click-throughs we get. If someone doesn't want to receive the email and we send it anyway, that just hurts our click-through ratio. We usually get about 10-30% click-throughs on our emails. We try to get the list as clean as possible so that we can show them how successful it was, rather than unsuccessful.

    I'm surprised, then, that the telemarketing association would go against the do-not-call list. It reduces their target area to people who don't mind being called! This should increase, not decrease, their success.

    So, I'm against the law as a law, but I think the telemarketing agencies are stupid for not at least holding their own.
  • by CitizenDynamo ( 645500 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @01:23PM (#6561285)
    It should also be defined as 2 million part time jobs. The call centers in Greensboro NC where I went to school had staff almost entirely made up of students. No one was allowed to work over 40 hours a week (preventing the company from having to worry about benefits, overtime and any other responsible thing for its workers)they fired at a whim when someone was nearing the senority they needed to become a permenant (read full time) employee and had a huge turnover rate of people who didn't depend on the money they paid at all. Unless a friday pizza is depending on the paycheck. Telemarketers are a blight.
  • by agentkhaki ( 92172 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @01:32PM (#6561422) Homepage
    You're wrong for two reasons.

    First, the Federal Government isn't putting the industry out of business, because (in addition to other reasons stated in other posts) there are exceptions, i.e., groups and organizations who can still call you even though you're on the DNC list.

    Second, when you ask a company to take your off of their list, they usually give you the 6-8 weeks bullshit. And yes, my friend, it is bullshit. Those 6-8 weeks give them time to sell the list to some other telemarketing company, with your name still on it, in addition to giving them time to harass you more. All of their lists are computerized. With a single click of a button, you could be removed from that list. And yet, it still takes them 6-8 weeks to click that button? Why? Because they're bending the law, getting around it.

    Just like they'll continue to get around it. Note the exclusions to the DNC list - churches, airlines, etc., Craftly lawyers and businessmen (or should I just say assholes - these people are no better than the SPAM kings who sit at home, smug smiles on their faces, telling us 'it doesn't take very long to delete unwanted email, so just deal with it') will find a way around the law, and we'll end up getting nearly as many calls as we did before the DNC list ever existed.

    Mark my words.
  • Phone SPAM (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mugnyte ( 203225 ) * on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @01:44PM (#6561573) Journal
    Whiners. Just like spammers, this is a case of people determined to make a medium not intended for advertising into one. Where does it stop? If they cannot call you, are they going to stand in front of my house and shout?

    This is laughable. Like travel/insurance/real estate agents and media distribution, this industry sprang up because of a particular circumstance of the business environment. Now that its changing, all these business are crying foul. Not so. They are slowly being replaced with online/digital mediums for searcing and sorting, micropayments and validation services.

    IMO, I hope these services die a painful death and the people involved with them go looking for work elsewhere. Economic disaster, true, but I think it'll be good for our population to be forced into newer concepts rather than propping up the old ones. A certain percentage may even train to be part of the digital industry's workforce. Sadly, some may become spammers (if not already).

    We're content overloaded and most of it is junk food. There simply isn't enough quality out there to warrant getting it stuffed in our faces every way possible. Let's have a phone/Voip be for private conversations, not substance-free radio blather.

    mug

  • by moonsammy ( 65351 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @01:48PM (#6561627)
    Sure, its annoying to get the calls, but someone feeds their family that way, is it RIGHT to screw them for a little convenience?

    You know what? I've *never* purchased anything from a telemarketer. Ever. I've never even been slightly interested in doing so. If I want a product, I'm going to go and get it, not wait for it to come to me. In spite of the fact that I've never once purchased something from a telemarketer, I'm certain I've spent hours telling them to go away. That's hours of my time spent doing something that serves me no purpose and waste's someone else's time as well. How am I "screwing" them by telling them not to call me? Is it ok for them to inconvenience me to attempt to sell me crap I don't want so they can feed their family?
  • Re:repeat after me (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Rude Turnip ( 49495 ) <valuation.gmail@com> on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @01:52PM (#6561668)
    "Heck, I can't figure out *why* we have to pay extra to have an unlisted number. "

    Hmm...I wonder if this puts the phone companies in a position where they are essentially blackmailing domestic abuse survivors by charging a fee to keep them unlisted (and somewhat hidden) from their assailants.
  • by DSP_Geek ( 532090 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @01:56PM (#6561712)
    When the DNC list first appeared, the Direct Marketing Association shrieked that telemarketing contributed $600 billion to the GNP. That's 6% of the economy. A quick poll of friends showed they didn't buy *anything* from phone spammers, so that number was immediately suspect. Then the American Teleservices Association said it was $200 billion and 4 million jobs, but that wasn't believable either. Their bid is now down to $50 billion and 2 million jobs.

    Those numbers mean each telemarketer's contribution to the economy is $25,000, as opposed to the approximately $40K to $50K to the GNP by each working citizen. Now, let us consider the telepests must be selling a product on top of getting paid - minimum wage is about $10K yearly, so with overhead we're talking closer to $15K, which means the products sold must be worth no more than $10K assuming full-time phone droids. This is supposedly a profitable industry, so one assumes the price would at least cover the overhead (in this case phone spammers) and cost of product. In this case we see the overhead is massive which means the end-user does not get value for money even if the phoners are getting minimum wage. Anecdotal evidence elsewhere in the thread indicates pay rates are better than that.

    For the customers to be getting a good deal, the yearly rate must decrease considerably - the only way this can be done legally is to hire people part-time or offshore the phone banks. The aforementioned wage rates, coupled with the overhead of annoying hundreds, if not thousands, of people to make a single sale, mean the jobs must be far less than even half-time. In other words, the "2 million" jobs number is actually equivalent to a fraction thereof.

    All the above calculations presuppose, of course, that the DMA and ATA are not merely lying sacks of shit. For the $50 billion and 2 million jobs they claim telemarketers "contribute" to the economy, I sure haven't seen any trace of that presence on the Fortune 500 list. For that matter, the demand for goods and services will not disappear just because Joe LoBrow isn't hawking them over the phone when you're eating dinner. The demand will still exist, and conceivably increase once the cost structure decreases when the inefficiencies of scattergun telephone marketing go away.

    Francois.
  • Re:repeat after me (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dknj ( 441802 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @01:58PM (#6561739) Journal
    No one called after my last accident except for the company of the truck that hit me offering to service our a/c unit at a discount(it was the same company that installed our a/c unit 10+ years ago)

    -dk
  • Voice Spam (Score:3, Interesting)

    by 4of12 ( 97621 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @02:02PM (#6561792) Homepage Journal

    When my audio Caller ID announces a call coming from "Out of Area" (aka no incoming caller id information), then I let the machine get it.

    Then, if the business really wants to get a hold of me, they'll leave a message and, if I'm home, I can pick up.

    This has worked pretty well until recently, when some of the more obnoxious telemarketers have played a pre-recorded spam message into my machine.

    I could have sworn it was not legal for them to do this; certain state statutes prevent it.

    Possibly my outgoing message must explicitly refuse such calls, or the loophole interpretation is that I am implicitly agreeing to opt-in, to receive such spam.

    <philosophical>

    One of the more tragic developments in modern society is that more and more of our "public attention commons" is getting exploited because the cost of doing so is largely external to the people doing the exploiting. For millenia, we've paid attention to people wanting our attention. With few people, such interruptions are infrequent and of little cost to our emotional well-being.

    Not anymore.

    Unless laws are put in place to provide guarantees of private space, then it will be exploited.

    But that won't happen. Instead, we'll all just turn into stressed out consumers that develop our ability to actively ignore our environment, other people and any attempt to grab our attention.

    The newest sign of affluence is less intrusion into your personal attention.

    </philosophical>
  • Re:repeat after me (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jonadab ( 583620 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @02:16PM (#6561992) Homepage Journal
    > Heck, I can't figure out *why* we have to pay extra to have
    > an unlisted number.

    You do? I don't.

    I've got an _unpublished_ number, and the rates are the same as
    for a regular number. Of course, I told them flat out I wasn't
    connecting a voice phone to the line, just a modem. (This is
    true. I've connected a voice phone a couple of times to test
    new jacks for dialtone, but that's it.) I don't know whether
    that has any impact on the rate, but I don't see why it would.
  • Almost as bad... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by EvilTwinSkippy ( 112490 ) <{yoda} {at} {etoyoc.com}> on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @02:24PM (#6562107) Homepage Journal
    I was on the Solar Race team in college. One year we had a massive matching grant, so rather than give us the funding for the parts we need, we had to fund raise for it.

    Did I mention Drexel's mascot is "the Shaft?"

    One night I did cold calling of Alumni. I called 100 names on the list, I had 1 donation. Most of the alumni I called were downright hostile. Many were unemployed. A good chunk were bitter that they hadn't even paid off their loans and they were already hit up for donations. (Ten years later, but who's counting?)

    I felt so dirty that I swore I'd never do it again.

    That said, I did help out our local PBS station during a call drive. At least there, people were calling US, with credit card in hand, after having already recieved the "product" so to speak.

    The first rule of marketing is to have a product that will sell itself. Ideally you are only introducing the buyer to the seller.

  • by jonadab ( 583620 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @02:30PM (#6562202) Homepage Journal
    > Maybe it's just that Sprint sucks. But a huge number of calls
    > show no data on the caller ID.

    To filter out telemarketers, you also have to get the additional
    feature known as Anonymous Call Block, wherein if the caller is
    blocking caller ID he gets a message saying you don't receive
    anon calls, and your phone doesn't ring. A legit caller who blocks
    caller ID normally (for other reasons than you, presumably) can still
    call you by using star-something to enable caller ID just for the
    one call.
  • by SKS_realm ( 693488 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @02:45PM (#6562455)
    ...a group of technophiles who largely know nothing about sales techniques citing privacy rights that don't exist...
  • by TomRC ( 231027 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @02:48PM (#6562505)
    Are those 2 million US jobs? Or 2M jobs that are already or soon to be moved overseas?

    It's too bad we had to come to this point. They brought it on themselves by not targetting customers more carefully when it became a widespread complaint. E.g. if I bought tires from Sears 2-3 years ago, I probably wouldn't mind if they called to ask if I'm interested in a big tire sale they're having.
  • by cybercuzco ( 100904 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @02:50PM (#6562538) Homepage Journal
    1 Acronym: VOIP.

    Step 1: Set up server in india at call center.

    Step 2: Set up servers in major american cities you want to market to.

    Step 3: Profit!

  • The TCPA (Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991) (47 USC 227 and subsequent FCC regulations of CFR 64.1200) have outlawed several practices and create certain requirements for others.

    Two things completely outlawed:
    1) Junk faxes - unsolicited commercial faxes may NOT be sent without WRITTEN authorization of the fax machine/line owner. Period. There is NO EBR (established business relationship) that would exempt that. If you are sent an advertisement and did not specifically give your (express) permission, then it is illegal. Period. Do not allow yourself to be taken in by the BS of 'removal' numbers that are on the faxes. It is merely an attempt to legitimize the industry as much as spammers try to suggest remove address make them ethical.

    2) Prerecorded commercial solicitations to your home may NOt be initiated without the EXPRESS permission of the owner. An exemption (unlike junk faxes) would be an EBR. Calls made for survey, political speech, or non commercial are exempt.

    If you receive either of the above offenses, then you are immediately owed $500 per VIOLATION by the person initiating the call and on who's behalf the call is made.

    That law provides a private right of action. Meaning you are specifically given the authority to sue them in court. While you cannot sue someone that litters on the highway, Congress provided this right. this pretty much makes you a private attorney general of your domain in regards to telemarketing.

    Live calls are regulated. They must identify themselves by the caller's name, entity placing the call, and an address or phone number by which they may be contacted. This MUST be provided without your even asking. The company MUST have a DNC (do not call) policy in place before making such calls. They MUST provide you with a written copy of that DNC policy upon request. NEVER, ever allow the telemarketer say they will take your name off 'the list'. Specifically DEMAND that they ADD your name to their company's Do-Not-Call list (emphasis added).

    The telemarketing is claiming the loss of millions of jobs. Yet they have not specified in what country. Do many of you not realize how many outbound call centers are in countries like India? The law by not affect that out-of-country company directly in terms of jurisdiction, but it does put liability on companies on who's behalf the call is placed. The only way a company can get by completely is if they are based and operate outside the country and have no business presence in any area under the jurisdiction of the US.

    I have gone to court several times against telemarketers. If people knew their rights and enforced them by bringing suit in court as Congress intended, then a national list would not be necessary. the companies would simply not be able to operate.
  • by Daetrin ( 576516 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @03:00PM (#6562664)
    From the article, "There are about 166 million residential phone numbers in the United States, the FTC said, and the wireless industry estimates there are more than 147 million U.S. cell phone numbers," and "The telemarketing industry estimates the do-not-call list could cut its business in half, costing it up to $50 billion in sales each year."

    So they're making $100 billion a year in sales? That means that on _average_ each phone number is paying between $300 and $600 a _year_ to telemarketers, depending on how many of the cellphone numbers we want to include. (Techncially it's illegal for telemarketers to call cell phones, but does that stop them?)

    So who's buying this stuff, what are they buying, and how much are they paying for it? Clearly there have to be some people spending totally atrocious amounts of money given how many people there are who have never bought anything from a telemarketer in their life.

    Do the idle rich sit around waiting for telemarketers to call so they can spend thousands of dollars a year on them or what? Or are a lot of low and middle income people blowing their savings on this crap?

  • by Reziac ( 43301 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @03:05PM (#6562719) Homepage Journal
    Exactly. They're never hawking anything I want anyway -- in fact, the interest level is about as high as for the average spam.

    But "2 million jobs"?? Are they counting not only the boilerroom flunkies and their managers, but also everyone in every industry that ever used telemarketing? Even it that's so, I suspect this number was pulled out of their ass.

    And most of said flunkies aren't making a living wage anyway. Back about 1985, I attended a "job fair" that proved to be a boilerroom recruiter. Now, they claimed that it was possible to make serious bucks. Well, I happened to be sitting where I could see onto the manager's desk, and the previous week's wage sheet just happened to be laying open where I could read it. ONE person had made the promised several hundred bucks. ONE other person had made about $100. But everyone else had made only $40 -- for the entire week.

    Now, do we really WANT to preserve an industry that pays that poorly, even compared to India??

    Come to think of it, if cheap internet-based long distance becomes an everyday reality, the next step is to outsource boilerroom telemarketing to India. And then how do you go about enforcing a Do Not Call list??

  • Re:repeat after me (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gozar ( 39392 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @03:07PM (#6562735) Homepage
    While on the topic.. Why do we STILL have to pay extra for touch tone service?
    Actually, in my area (Alltel, NW Ohio), you could tell them you didn't want touch tone service. Their equipment no longer supported pulse dialing though, so you would still get touch tone. I don't know if this is still true though.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @03:37PM (#6563155)
    I have ads on TV because the advertisements help pay for the programs.

    Telemarketers seems to think they have a fundamental right to use my telephone to sell stuff... You want to sell stuff using my phone, you help pay for it.

    Same goes with email massmarketing.

  • by walt-sjc ( 145127 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @03:38PM (#6563170)
    Nothing stops a telemarketer from pressing 1 and getting to me (other than the message telling them that they should hang up,) and so far in 2 years of using it, NONE has. From ~1000 telemarketing calls a year to ZERO. Hey, it works, that's all I can say.
  • Re:Almost as bad... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by EvilTwinSkippy ( 112490 ) <{yoda} {at} {etoyoc.com}> on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @03:56PM (#6563395) Homepage Journal
    The colleges have helped ZERO percent with contacts and networking, but hey they both claim a 97% job placement rate.

    I thought Starbucks was a perfect career path for caffiene addicted engineers...

  • by gerardrj ( 207690 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @04:19PM (#6563677) Journal
    I predict that outcome of all this DNCL stuff will be a reduction of about 0 in the medium to long term. All it will take is for the marketers to all be re-named as pollsters, that is an excluded class of callers in the law. THe DMA and other industry groups will quicly figure this out and spread the work to their members.

    Instead of getting calls like "I'm calling today to offer you a spectacular deal on vinyl siding!", you'll get calls like "I'd like to ask your opinion on vinyl siding and what you think it could do to the asthetics of your home." May I ask you a few quesions?" I can think of nary a pitch that couldn't be converted in to some sort of "poll quesion".

    I'm not at all familiar with what the FTC or FCC require of a "pollster" firm as opposed to a "direct marketing" firm, but my rough guess is little to nothing.
  • by the-build-chicken ( 644253 ) on Wednesday July 30, 2003 @02:25AM (#6568441)
    None

    You suuuuuuure? :)

    This may work for the uninformed or the unprepared, but it doesn't work on me.

    lmao...dude, it works on _everyone_...it just depends on how good the salesperson is. In fact, you're the kind of guy reps love...a lot of ego invested in the fact that you can't be swayed...unwilling to back down...you're an easy sell, only have to turn that ego around so it's invested in the product and bang, you're buying

    I'm not afraid to walk away from a salesman either

    I didn't realize that it took courage to walk away from a salesperson? It's not your obligation to listen blah blah blah Dude, you're so missing the point...a good salesperson(and I'm not talking about your crappy run of the mill "good morning mr x, do you know you may have won already" reps)...I'm talking about a good sales person, skilled in the art of psychological manipulation and selling, will make you _want_ to listen, and do so without you realising it. So many times I've sat talking to sales guys, I mean really really good ones, that earn most of there cash travelling around training teams etc...they love this stuff, they sit down at the end of the day and laugh about how someone said blatently to their face something like you're comment above (it doesn't work on me)...to which they've countered with understanding and re-assurance...thrown in a 'feel-felt-found'...built a sense of ownership and invested your ego in their product...casually 7 point closed you...then bamn...you're buying...and you think you've got one over on them while you're doing it...dude, they sit round and kill themselves laughing over people like you..."You should have seen him, he thought he tore strips off me, thought he put me in my place...*laugh*, he was really just setting himself up for and ego based close"....everyone will be talked into buying something they don't want by someone who is just better than them at pop-psych...if you haven't yet, lucky you...that just means that you haven't met a good sales person yet...but don't worry, they're out there...you will. Lmao...maybe you have been already...as I said above, the _really_ good sales people make you think it was your idea all along.

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Working...