Mike Murray wrote in message . ..
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.

I thought of that explanation too. But I was wondering if KidDon
could come up with some explanataion that was less cynical.

(Bruce Leverett) wrote in message . com...
Mike Murray wrote in message . ..
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.

I thought of that explanation too. But I was wondering if KidDon
could come up with some explanataion that was less cynical.
________________________________________
1. It takes away part of a potential market, arguably in violation of
the 1st Amendment;

2. It's an administrative pain in the butt; and

3. Even unintentional violations can lead to serious fines.

KidDon

1. It takes away part of a potential market, arguably in violation of the 1st
Amendment;

2. It's an administrative pain in the butt; and

3. Even unintentional violations can lead to serious fines.

KidDon
==============
I think a lot of ban supporters are unaware of the long history of 1st
Amendment protection granted by the federal courts to commercial speech.
I became interested in this many years ago when I got into a snit with the
Florida Insurance Department's advertising regs. I wrote to the US Supreme
Court and purchased a number of "slip opinions" on cases involving the
regulation of commercial speech. Until then even I was unaware that the Court
has ruled steadfastly over many, many cases that commercial speech is identical
to any other speech and has the same 1st Amendment protections as any other
speech.
Also, in the telemarketing case as well as in past cases, the Court
generally does not like to allow the government to make substantial choices for
the consumer... to wander too far into the process of making consumer
decisions. The consumer should be allowed to make his own choices.

RSHaas

On 29 Sep 2003 04:58:35 -0700, (KidDon) 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.

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

I thought of that explanation too. But I was wondering if KidDon
could come up with some explanataion that was less cynical.
________________________________________
1. It takes away part of a potential market, arguably in violation of
the 1st Amendment;

This isn't cynical?

2. It's an administrative pain in the butt; and

More than the in-house do-not-call lists that the telemarketing firms
claim to use?

3. Even unintentional violations can lead to serious fines.

Kinda like a speeding ticket.

(RSHaas) wrote in message ...
[[ KidDon wrote: ]]
1. It takes away part of a potential market, arguably in violation of the 1st
Amendment;

2. It's an administrative pain in the butt; and

3. Even unintentional violations can lead to serious fines.

KidDon
==============
[[ End of what KidDon wrote ]]
I think a lot of ban supporters are unaware of the long history of 1st
Amendment protection granted by the federal courts to commercial speech.
I became interested in this many years ago when I got into a snit with the
Florida Insurance Department's advertising regs. I wrote to the US Supreme
Court and purchased a number of "slip opinions" on cases involving the
regulation of commercial speech. Until then even I was unaware that the Court
has ruled steadfastly over many, many cases that commercial speech is identical
to any other speech and has the same 1st Amendment protections as any other
speech.
Also, in the telemarketing case as well as in past cases, the Court
generally does not like to allow the government to make substantial choices for
the consumer... to wander too far into the process of making consumer
decisions. The consumer should be allowed to make his own choices.

"The consumer should be allowed to make his own choices." Right on
brother. What if my choice is not to receive calls?

But I owe a response to KidDon first. Thanks for the courtesy of
trying to come up with a non-cynical rationale. The "administrative
pain in the butt" issue is meaningful to me. If it isn't real easy
for a telemarketer to use a do-not-call list, then it's real hard,
there's no middle ground when you're making a zillion calls a day.
The "unintentional violations ... serious fines" issue follows
directly from the "administrative pain in the butt" issue. But on the
other hand, as a consumer, I don't feel like this should be my
problem. If I post "No trespassing" or "no soliciting", what happens
if you then commit an "unintentional violation"?

Separately, there's the "takes away part of a potential market" issue.
This is just a restatement of the "cynical" stuff. Like I said, if
people don't want to be called, why would you really want to call
them?

I had an interesting change of perspective on this very recently. My
wife and I both regard telemarketers as a nuisance, but on the other
hand, my wife made two major purchases from telemarketers who were
making cold calls: my wife signed up for cell phone service that way
(her favorite electronic toy), and also DSL service (my favorite
electronic toy). So when Pennsylvania came out with a do-not-call
list, I thought, "I'd like to sign up, but would she let me?" But
then my wife signed up. I reminded her of the two major purchases,
but she replied, "Yes, I know, but I want to be on the list anyway; I
just get tired of all those calls." And she's the one who takes most
of the calls, so she gets to make that decision. So when I think of
"taking away part of a potential market", I think of my wife, who was
very definitely in the potential market, and who definitely wants out.

I am reminded of various other nuisances caused by people who want to
sell me stuff. I get more junk mail than you can shake a stick at,
including thick stacks of flyers from area supermarkets, discount
stores, etc. I throw it out. If I had to pay for garbage disposal by
the pound, I'd worry about it, but being a city boy, I don't. Then
there are TV and radio commercials. Then there is spam. If all I had
to do was delete messages every morning, it wouldn't be much different
from throwing out junk mail. But it's full of pornography, chain
mail, frauds, and other loathsome matter that I don't want my children
to see. Somehow that stuff has been eradicated from all the other
media, but not from spam. Guess that is what law enforcement has
accomplished in this context. So spam is a more serious problem than
all the other nuisances, including telemarketing.

Bruce Draney wrote in message ...
RSHaas wrote:

If telemarketers slip up and call only 10% of the expected 60 million and
trigger a complaint, the courts would be flooded with 6 million cases requiring
some kind of due process.
Florida was the first state to have a do not call list. Only 5 or 6 people
run that department. The number of cases they've actually pursued is tiny.

RSHaas

You think this is a joke, you ought to try and download and read a copy
of the No Child Left Behind Act and see what the Federal Government's
expectations (and punishments) are for the school systems nationwide.

This from a country that was toppled into a recession by the
destruction of a couple of buildings from a terrorist attack.

Nonsense: the country was well on its way into recession, due to
the Dot.com bust, and 6 months of Bush's insane economic policies

One of these days, people are going to realize two things in this
country:

1) There is not enough money to solve every problem completely to
everyone's satisfaction.

No, but all of the major problems could be largely
ameliorated. It's a question of priorities.

2) Military power cannot solve all political problems in the world.

Yes, but it can do a better job than has heretofore been
demonstrated. US military power, such as it is, has been misapplied by
Bush and the
neo-conservatives.

Best Regards,

Bruce

(Bruce Leverett) wrote in message om...
(RSHaas) wrote in message ...
[[ KidDon wrote: ]]
1. It takes away part of a potential market, arguably in violation of the 1st
Amendment;

2. It's an administrative pain in the butt; and

3. Even unintentional violations can lead to serious fines.

KidDon
==============
[[ End of what KidDon wrote ]]
I think a lot of ban supporters are unaware of the long history of 1st
Amendment protection granted by the federal courts to commercial speech.
I became interested in this many years ago when I got into a snit with the
Florida Insurance Department's advertising regs. I wrote to the US Supreme
Court and purchased a number of "slip opinions" on cases involving the
regulation of commercial speech. Until then even I was unaware that the Court
has ruled steadfastly over many, many cases that commercial speech is identical
to any other speech and has the same 1st Amendment protections as any other
speech.
Also, in the telemarketing case as well as in past cases, the Court
generally does not like to allow the government to make substantial choices for
the consumer... to wander too far into the process of making consumer
decisions. The consumer should be allowed to make his own choices.

"The consumer should be allowed to make his own choices." Right on
brother. What if my choice is not to receive calls?

But I owe a response to KidDon first. Thanks for the courtesy of
trying to come up with a non-cynical rationale. The "administrative
pain in the butt" issue is meaningful to me. If it isn't real easy
for a telemarketer to use a do-not-call list, then it's real hard,
there's no middle ground when you're making a zillion calls a day.
The "unintentional violations ... serious fines" issue follows
directly from the "administrative pain in the butt" issue. But on the
other hand, as a consumer, I don't feel like this should be my
problem. If I post "No trespassing" or "no soliciting", what happens
if you then commit an "unintentional violation"?

Separately, there's the "takes away part of a potential market" issue.
This is just a restatement of the "cynical" stuff. Like I said, if
people don't want to be called, why would you really want to call
them?

I had an interesting change of perspective on this very recently. My
wife and I both regard telemarketers as a nuisance, but on the other
hand, my wife made two major purchases from telemarketers who were
making cold calls: my wife signed up for cell phone service that way
(her favorite electronic toy), and also DSL service (my favorite
electronic toy). So when Pennsylvania came out with a do-not-call
list, I thought, "I'd like to sign up, but would she let me?" But
then my wife signed up. I reminded her of the two major purchases,
but she replied, "Yes, I know, but I want to be on the list anyway; I
just get tired of all those calls." And she's the one who takes most
of the calls, so she gets to make that decision. So when I think of
"taking away part of a potential market", I think of my wife, who was
very definitely in the potential market, and who definitely wants out.

I am reminded of various other nuisances caused by people who want to
sell me stuff. I get more junk mail than you can shake a stick at,
including thick stacks of flyers from area supermarkets, discount
stores, etc. I throw it out. If I had to pay for garbage disposal by
the pound, I'd worry about it, but being a city boy, I don't. Then
there are TV and radio commercials. Then there is spam. If all I had
to do was delete messages every morning, it wouldn't be much different
from throwing out junk mail. But it's full of pornography, chain
mail, frauds, and other loathsome matter that I don't want my children
to see. Somehow that stuff has been eradicated from all the other
media, but not from spam. Guess that is what law enforcement has
accomplished in this context. So spam is a more serious problem than
all the other nuisances, including telemarketing.

________________________________
One simple example/hypothetical. A person hearing on the news that a
free do not call list is available via 60 seconds on the internet may
very well sign up on the spur of the moment, and never receive
telemarketing calls again. That does not necessariy mean that person
would have always been an unwilling recipient and/or would have always
said no to a properly targeted marketing pitch for the right product
or service. For example, let's say that a skilled telemarketer calls
and says something like: Hello, I'm Joe Smith from FinestMortgage.*
Is this Mr. Johnson? I see from public records that you have a [VA,
FHA, etc...] loan on your home at 10%. With minimal paperwork and no
closing costs out of your pocket, I may be able to refinance that loan
at 7% and save you $189 per month. Doesn't that sound good to
you?.....etc....." That same person might very well be interested.

KidDon

*This is a fictional name I picked at random. If there is a real
FinestMortgage out there, this is not intended to reflect on it or
refer to it in any way.

Kenneth Sloan wrote in message ...
"StanB" writes:

"Fifiela" wrote in message
...
How does one say NO to a phone call during dinner?

1. Don't answer phone
2. Screen calls
3. Hang up if telemarketer
4. Don't buy anything

If you do answer, ask them to take you off the calling list.

I prefer to be creative. If I have the time, I like to see how long I
can prolong the call without actually providing any information.
___________________________________
I usually listen for about 10 seconds, and then say: "No thank you"
and promptly hang up before they find the part of their script that
deals with handling objections.

KidDon

"I usually listen for about 10 seconds, and then say: "No thank you" and
promptly hang up before they find the part of their script that deals with
handling objections.
(KidDon)
===============
That is a good policy.. the 10 second window.
Every salesman should be worth 10 seconds of your time. One in 10 or 1 in
100 may have something that you didn't know about and would find interesting.
I find this to be true of the MSA type health insurance which I telemarket B2B.


RSHaas

Bruce Draney wrote in message ...
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

Don't be silly.

A ringing phone is simply annoying. It's meant to be heard across
distances, and when I'm having dinner, watching TV, talking to someone
or just reading the newspaper, I don't want my phone ringing 5 times.
I also don't want to then sit there, pausing while the answering
machine goes through its motions to hear if its someone I want to talk
to.

You might think that makes me sound impatient, but that's how I feel
about the phone -- its ring bothers me. If I didn't receive calls from
telemarketers, I could always pick it up quickly.

And that doesn't make me part of "fast food culture" because I can't
sit through 5 rings. I'm a patient man. I PLAY CHESS. No sooner would
I abide someone stepping onto my porch, yelling through the window 5
times and then leaving.

You talk about these roundabout solutions, "be patient", "get caller
ID" when we have a PERFECT solution right there in front of us, a "do
not call" list.