I respond with, "I don't know, I just have this gut feeling it's not right
for me. Why do you suppose that is?"

Good one! I'm going to use it.

Sometimes they ask for the ex-wife. In my most funeral director voice I say,
"I'm sorry but Esther is no longer with us. As you can imagine the family is
quite upset. Who did you say you were?"

(KidDon) wrote in message . com...

My clients in the telemarketing industry (mortgage refinancing in
particular) should be happy to learn of the court ruling. It was
expected.


I don't understand why telemarketers would be unhappy about a
do-not-call list. Shouldn't it be the other way around? If I knew
ahead of time who didn't want me to call, I could skip calling them,
saving time and money. Right? Plus, they all get to use the same
list--there must be economies of scale, right? Tell me what I'm
missing.

Bruce Leverett

(Bruce Leverett) writes:
I don't understand why telemarketers would be unhappy about a
do-not-call list. Shouldn't it be the other way around? If I knew
ahead of time who didn't want me to call, I could skip calling them,
saving time and money. Right? Plus, they all get to use the same
list--there must be economies of scale, right? Tell me what I'm
missing.

A big part of salesmanship is getting people to buy products that they
didn't realize that they wanted. To do that, the salesman first has
to get his foot in the door. So a good salesman may correctly decide
that a "no peddlers" sign often means the person whoever put it up is
simply mistaken, and really DOES want to buy that waffle iron, and
rings the doorbell anyway. That means he'll annoy some people who
really meant "no peddlers", but he doesn't care about that. He'll
still sell some waffle irons, and that's what he cares about.

Therefore, to preserve the peace and quiet of those who mean it when
they say "no peddlers", there has to state intervention available
against salespeople who choose to ignore the signs. But that makes
ignoring the signs risky and unattractive, and the salesperson
effectively goes out of business if enough people put the signs up.

THAT is why the telemarketing industry is so terrified of the
do-not-call list. They are like spammers: if they can sell to 1% of
the people they call, they don't care how much they annoy the 99% who
hang up on them.

On 25 Sep 2003 08:38:47 -0700, (Bruce
Leverett) wrote:

I don't understand why telemarketers would be unhappy about a
do-not-call list. Shouldn't it be the other way around? If I knew
ahead of time who didn't want me to call, I could skip calling them,
saving time and money. Right? Plus, they all get to use the same
list--there must be economies of scale, right? Tell me what I'm
missing.

Many people don't want to be called because they lack sales
resistance. The telemarketers love 'em.

Mike Murray wrote:

On 25 Sep 2003 08:38:47 -0700, (Bruce
Leverett) wrote:

I don't understand why telemarketers would be unhappy about a
do-not-call list. Shouldn't it be the other way around? If I knew
ahead of time who didn't want me to call, I could skip calling them,
saving time and money. Right? Plus, they all get to use the same
list--there must be economies of scale, right? Tell me what I'm
missing.

Many people don't want to be called because they lack sales
resistance. The telemarketers love 'em.

What most people haven't realized is that the government cannot afford
to prosecute no-call list violations by telemarketers which are certain
to occur. This is a country that is going to be spending at least 87
billion dollars on rebuilding Iraq, not to mention toughening up our
internal security, not to mention trying to do other things for as many
people as possible, while going over $400 billion into debt in just one
year. How many federal prosecutors do you suppose the Bush
administration is going to put on prosecuting an accidental (or a
deliberate) no call list member being bothered?

There are many people out there who are ignorant of even who is and is
not bound by the no call list rules. Market research for example is
exempt from the regulations, because they are not trying to sell
anything, but market researchers are repeatedly told by ignorant
consumers that they are on the no call list.

In addition, the same people who always argue that gun laws will only
be followed by the law abiding gun sellers and owners, don't seem to
understand the same concept when applying it to telemarketers. Although
some might think the term "honest telemarketers" is an oxymoron, there
are in fact many reputable telemarketing companies that will comply with
the law, while the swindlers and thieves will find ways to break or
circumvent the laws and stay one step ahead of the authorities who will
never have the money to prosecute them.

While I understand the annoyance of people who are continually bothered
by sales people, there are a few tips that people can take to avoid
being hassled or bothered. One of the cheapest and easiest ways is the
caller ID. Most telemarketing numbers will not show up on a caller ID,
so when I look and see "out of area", I just wait to see if someone
leaves a message. If they don't then I figure it was a telemarketer.
If someone starts to leave a message that I wish to talk to, I then pick
it up.

Because of time constraints, telemarketers and market researchers rely
upon the "McDonalds, drive thru" behavior of most Americans in the 21st
century. The corporate "secret" is that the phone is almost always
answered by the 5th ring if someone is home. Therefore most
telemarketing companies set their dialing systems to ring no more than 5
times before moving on to the next "customer". Time is money even for
telemarketers. If people would merely be patient and let the phone ring
5 times before picking it up they would save themselves a lot of time
and trouble.

Why is it that Americans are so impulsive that they MUST pick up a
ringing phone as quickly as possible? I have literally seen people run
to the phone and hurt themselves in the process. If that person calling
is so important, why would anyone think that they won't let the phone
ring for more than 5 times before hanging up? I can absolutely
guarantee you that any auto-dialing system will be set for 3-5 rings
maximum before trying another number, so people should just relax and
wait a few rings.

In conclusion, people are always claiming the government is trying to
do too much, yet they praise the national no-call list as solving the
telemarketing problem. It won't solve the problem of telemarketing
violators who are disreputable. Those people are already breaking far
more serious laws by cheating people so the fear of being prosecuted for
calling someone on the no-call list will be a joke to them.

Best Regards,

Bruce

Paul Rubin wrote:

(Bruce Leverett) writes:
I don't understand why telemarketers would be unhappy about a
do-not-call list. Shouldn't it be the other way around? If I knew
ahead of time who didn't want me to call, I could skip calling them,
saving time and money. Right? Plus, they all get to use the same
list--there must be economies of scale, right? Tell me what I'm
missing.

A big part of salesmanship is getting people to buy products that they
didn't realize that they wanted. To do that, the salesman first has
to get his foot in the door. So a good salesman may correctly decide
that a "no peddlers" sign often means the person whoever put it up is
simply mistaken, and really DOES want to buy that waffle iron, and
rings the doorbell anyway. That means he'll annoy some people who
really meant "no peddlers", but he doesn't care about that. He'll
still sell some waffle irons, and that's what he cares about.

Therefore, to preserve the peace and quiet of those who mean it when
they say "no peddlers", there has to state intervention available
against salespeople who choose to ignore the signs. But that makes
ignoring the signs risky and unattractive, and the salesperson
effectively goes out of business if enough people put the signs up.

THAT is why the telemarketing industry is so terrified of the
do-not-call list. They are like spammers: if they can sell to 1% of
the people they call, they don't care how much they annoy the 99% who
hang up on them.

Do the math for a moment and predict how much money the federal
government will devote to prosecution of the no-call list violations?

My suspicion is the feds will take on a couple high profile violators
in the hopes that everyone else will fall into line. Which of these two
scenarios do you believe is most likely to happen:

a) There will be almost no violations of the no-call list law?

b) There will be hundreds of thousands of violations of the no
call list law?

Bonus points for answering the following:

True or False

Disreputable telemarketing companies are more likely to disobey the
law.

Best Regards, and thanks for playing today,

Bruce

Bruce Draney writes:
What most people haven't realized is that the government cannot afford
to prosecute no-call list violations by telemarketers which are certain
to occur.

They can pay for it by imposing big fines on the telemarketers they
convict, and seizing the assets of those who don't pay up.

Bruce Draney writes:
Do the math for a moment and predict how much money the federal
government will devote to prosecution of the no-call list violations?

You are right. There should be a private right of action, just like
there is for people who receive junk faxes. Then the government won't
have to prosecute any telemarketers. People receiving unwanted calls
will be able to sue the telemarketers instead.

See www.junkfax.org for info on how to sue people who send you junk faxes.

Paul Rubin wrote:

Bruce Draney writes:
What most people haven't realized is that the government cannot afford
to prosecute no-call list violations by telemarketers which are certain
to occur.

They can pay for it by imposing big fines on the telemarketers they
convict, and seizing the assets of those who don't pay up.

If you believe this then that's fine, but I'm here to tell you the cost
to prosecute millions of violations will far exceed the fines and the
seized assets.

I think the law will help curb it, but it will not stop it, and the
disreputable swindlers will still be the biggest violators.

Best Regards,

Bruce

Briarroot wrote in message ...
KidDon wrote:

My clients in the telemarketing industry (mortgage refinancing in
particular) should be happy to learn of the court ruling. It was
expected.

I certainly hope your clients aren't associated with the
company that called me recently on five consecutive days,
trying to get me to refinance my mortgage. Despite my
firm refusals, these jerks kept on calling me. Not only
was this extremely annoying, but I do not even have a mortgage!
___________________________________________
Nope, couldn't have been them.

KidDon