Yet Another Telemarketing Sob Story

from the oh-boo-hoo dept

The telemarketers have their PR people going overtime, it seems, in placing "sympathetic" articles about the supposed "costs" of the national "do not call" list. The latest piece in the Christian Science Monitor reads as if it was written by the telemarketers themselves, whining about all the job losses they'll face, and mentioning one story of a call center that has already shut down. These articles, of course, are ridiculous. As many people have pointed out, laws against drug dealing keep many dealers "out of work", but you don't hear much complaining. Meanwhile, telemarketers should be happy that they now have a list of exactly who not to bother - as they're only likely to be the folks who slam down the phone anyway. Besides, in making less calls (and more targeted calls) with less people, doesn't that mean that the telemarketers (themselves) should be able to spend less while making more money? Even the article admits that other areas of direct marketing (such as mailings) have already seen business increase - so, this isn't a situation where all those marketing dollars simply disappear.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 15th, 2003 @ 8:21am

    Your Ideology is Showing

    The national do-not-call list does have costs. Not just "quote-unquote" costs, but real costs. To the employees of telemarketing firms. To the employees of companies that are trying to sell products. To taxpayers. And to consumers who will not learn about better products at cheaper prices because they think that they do not respond to telemarketing.

    On that point - the popular myth that people on the do-not-call list would not have bought something anyway - not true. Anecdotal reports have sales dropping in direct proportion to use of the list to limit calls.

    Your point is that it is OK for *other* people to pay those costs so that *you* can get some reduction in telemarketing calls. It's OK to hold that view. Just don't complain when someone else imposes costs on you to get what they want from their version of nanny-government.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 15th, 2003 @ 8:35am

    Re: Your Ideology is Showing

    >>And to consumers who will not learn about better products at cheaper prices
    ...Show me one, just one, that cannot be advertised in any other way. And while you're at it, put a few links in to your "anecdotal" reports- I, for one, would like to have some data other than "I think I heard someone say...." when presented with some weak, bullshit opinion that is presented as fact.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    aNonMooseCowherd, Oct 15th, 2003 @ 9:43am

    Re: Your Ideology is Showing

    Your point is that it is OK for *other* people to pay those costs so that *you* can get some reduction in telemarketing calls.

    What you're really saying is that you think it's ok for telemarketers to take up my time without paying me anything so that they can make money. In other words, your logic is backwards.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    LittleW0lf, Oct 15th, 2003 @ 8:09pm

    Telemarketers...

    Meanwhile, telemarketers should be happy that they now have a list of exactly who not to bother - as they're only likely to be the folks who slam down the phone anyway.

    Well, actually, these are the same telemarketers that complain that those who receive their calls are often rude to them. So no, I don't think they are happy.

    Then again, spammers often make the same arguments, so I am beginning to believe that those who fail at telemarketing become spammers.

    So I guess mass-executions of telemarketers should commence soon so we can get rid of any new spammers joining the ranks of the spammer elite.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Originating Anonymous Coward, Oct 16th, 2003 @ 7:10am

    Re: Your Ideology is Showing

    I have no link or I would have posted it. I learned this in conversation with an *anti-commerce advocate* like you. (Why don't you put up a link proving that people who list themselves wouldn't have bought anyway?)

    Do you actually want things advertised another way? Or do you just want them not advertised at all? Now apply that rule to whatever business you are in. Your company may no longer try to find customers, but must wait for them to come looking. You're livelihood is toast.

    My point is: Go ahead and hold this view, but maybe you are next. Careful what you wish for.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    LittleW0lf, Oct 16th, 2003 @ 12:37pm

    Re: Your Ideology is Showing

    Do you actually want things advertised another way? Or do you just want them not advertised at all?

    I believe we want them advertised another way. Once you start receiving 400 emails a day selling boob-jobs (I am a male, and don't need a boob-job,) male enhancement (I am perfectly happy with the size of my unit as it is,) loans (I would rather go through a trusted loan resource instead of a fly-by-night operation when dealing with financial companies,) and all the porn I want (which, incidently, is not only against my religion, but also against the law in many cases, i.e. teenage sluts, kiddie porn,) then you can stand there with a straight face and tell me that email is a great platform for receiving advertisements.

    I am not against email advertisements, as I have specifically asked several companies to send me their ads through email. The difference, I have asked those companies to send me the things they are selling, and that I want and am most likely to purchase through email, the 400 other emails I receive are for products I don't want or need, and which I have not asked to receive (although 3/4 of them say that I did, though they give no valid site to go to in order to ask to receive the email, and no site to go to in order to ask not to receive them.)

    Call me "anti-commerce" as much as you want, AC, but I do not believe commerce is a one-way street...but instead a contract between buyer and seller, in which the seller provides something of value to the buyer and vice-versa. If you are providing the buyer with something they don't want or need (your worthless advertising), and they are forced to provide you with something of value in return (their time,) is that really commerce? Any company who does not respect this contract not only doesn't receive my business, but instead gets my disdain and open criticism.

    I am not against email advertising, but I am very much against unsolicited commercial email in which the sender "shotguns" the SPAM to everyone regardless to whether they have even shown the most miniscule interest in the product or not.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward is a fool, Sep 18th, 2008 @ 4:51pm

    Telemarketers are loser. "Anonymous Coward" is a stupid telemarketer.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This