Is The Do Not Call List A Threat To Startups?
from the say-what?!? dept
This is just one of those days with plenty of bizarre logic stories. Here’s a commentary from someone suggesting that the national “do not call” list is a threat to our startups. The writer throws up all the red herrings (lost jobs! environmentally destructive!) which have all been deconstructed before and aren’t worth discussing again. Then, he makes the odd leap from people not wanting to be bothered at dinnertime by boiler room operations to suggesting that startups won’t be able to survive if they can’t telemarket or spam people. Say what? What startups really built their market around telemarketing and spamming? A smart business knows that building a market and getting attention isn’t about bothering people, but offering customers something they want.
Comments on “Is The Do Not Call List A Threat To Startups?”
"Do Not Call" Argument is Thin on Logic
This article contain two statements in the second to the last paragraph that are based on spurious logic:
“However, the world is full of unpleasant things (Madonna, for example). Restricting access to marketing channels, especially for young companies, is a counterproductive restriction of free speech.” – William Blundon, News.com, 09/10/03.
To start, this world is full of umpleasant things, including the twisted logic in this article.
First, Madonna is trying to break into my house and sing to me. She is not intruding into my life at her whim. I get to choose when I want to listen to Madonna. I can turn her off and shut her down instantly. Unless telemarketers are willing to absorb the costs of my telephone bill, they are not entitled to abuse my equipment or time whenever they desire. This is not about freedom of speech: this is about control of resources and the telemarketers want you to believe they have the right to control items you own and services you have purchased.
The second assumption with which I have a problem is the notion that marketers have a greater range of free speech than anyone else. This is inferred in the last sentence of the above quote. Once again, I use the example of standing outside his house with a bullhorn. I would get arrested for disturbing the peace if I used such a tactic. Since that is the case, can I sue telemarketers for unfairly, without cause or warrant, for disturbing my peace? The fact that the marketers freedom of speech intrudes upon my right of peace (and privacy) is never mentioned in the article. This is not a freedom of speech issue. Once more, this is about control of resources, including the resource of humans who have to suffer the intrusions. I contend again that since telemarketers do not bear the cost of my telephone and telephone service, they are not entitled to use it as they see fit. I purchased it for my convenience, not theirs.
Finally, I highly doubt Will Rogers would have liked this man by virtue of his reasoning. Thus, the old addage would be violated.