Is the Do Not Call System Working? 415
BrentRJones writes "I signed up for the Do Not Call registry the first day I heard of it, and I have to say that I have gotten very few telemarketers calling over the past couple of years. However, there now seems to be more calls that start, 'This is a survey...' or some other such excuse. I do not mind getting a few charity appeals or calls from those I have done business with in the past, but I do wish that I could avoid the political phone calls. I am curious what other Slashdot folks are experiencing, and I am also wondering if I say, 'Please remove from any list that you have.' when I am called, will this do any good?"
Good luck on the political stuff (Score:2, Insightful)
They are exempted from the federal rule http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/tmarkg/donotc
Absolutely correct... (Score:5, Insightful)
From the parent post: Also note that once you say one of those two phrases, they are required to give the three pieces of information they need for every call if they have not yet mentioned them, and then terminate the call immediately...Again, this is if they're following the rules.
That phrase right there sums it all up. I heard this exact same explanation from a student of mine at school who worked for a legit telemarketer. If you say the magic words, "Add me to your do not call list," they are required to follow the rules and do follow the rules. If they do not follow the rules, they will be fined big time by the FCC. However, the US is powerless against some calling agency operating out of Costa Rica, who doesn't give a rip about telecommunication laws. These people will war-dial phone numbers at unscrupulous hours of the evening, varying their tactics anywhere from constant nagging to actually demanding that you buy from them, even sometimes claiming that you've already established an "oral agreement" to make a purchase that you cannot back down from without penalty. (I've heard stories of telemarketers saying anything from, "We already have your name and address, and we will file suit if you break your oral agreement," to, "We have your banking account information, have this conversation recorded for proof of transaction, and we will proceed with making an electronic withdrawl from your checking account whether you like it or not.")
The national do-not-call list will help keep the legit soliciters at bay. But the bad guys...well...international law is a bitch.
Re:Absolutely correct... (Score:5, Insightful)
What I haven't done is 'track' any of these telemarketers. As far as I can tell they never call back -- a non-communicative party who doesn't listen to them never translates into a sale, and they have an endless supply of other numbers to call.
The Federal do-not-call list seems to be working fairly well. We do not get nearly the number of calls we used to get (although political and charitable calls haven't dropped.) The phrase also appears to have stopped the polling firms, who used to be the worst time sinks. You'll find my f'ing opinion after election day along with the rest of America, thank you very nothing.
What does NOT work is to screen telemarketers with Caller ID (which is what my wife does.) She doesn't answer when it says something like "CRAPPY CARPET CLEANERS", or she'll tell me "don't answer, it's those damn carpet people again." But they'll call back over and over and over for like a week or two. Finally, I'll answer with my magic phrase, and lo! they quit calling instantly. It's easier on everybody to be brisk with them earlier rather than later.
Re:You should mind... (Score:5, Insightful)
If they're still on, wasting all that time with me, I know they're in trouble because that call is driving their average call time way up and the boss doesn't like it. So, in the interest of educating them about charities and to make sure their boss educates them about call time, I keep going. I explain that good charities will give most of what they get to the work they're doing. I deal with some that give something between 75-80% of all they raise to the work they're doing. I explain that true charities, when doing fundraisers, tell people how much of each dollar goes to the charity and how much goes to other costs (like ads or admin). Then I point out that they say they're giving $100,000 to a nationwide fund, but what if they raise over half a million -- who gets the other $400,000? That's a lot of money for someone to make when they imply it's all going to charity.
By then they've either hung up or they're so amazed by what I've said that you can already hear the tone in their voice indicating they just don't believe in their job anymore.
Re:Political Groups (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, it's legal in this case, but it has nothing to do with our constitutional notion of free speech or the intellectual foundations of liberal democracy. Free speech does not establish an obligation for anyone to listen. IMNSHO, the proper intellectual and (arguably) constitutional framework here should be the right of privacy. All calls should be banned (for anyone registering). Different categories of registration would satisfy my objections, too, but might be too complicated and create even more loopholes.
Re:"Your do not call list" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Absolutely correct... (Score:3, Insightful)
thats why I don't understand the DirectMarketing Assoc being such pigs about many many rules to help the legit. I mean make it as harsh of a offense (say federal offense like mail) for all fraud. Require ways to verify the legit, ie a working caller-id, and all telemarketers requiring a legit caller-id number...
As is, you can't trust a thing on the phone, because although the fines do occur for those they find, the DMA seams to ga out of their way to kill traceabilty.
Re:Political Groups (Score:1, Insightful)
[x] Telemarketing
[x] Political campaigning
[x] Surveys
Re:Absolutely correct... (Score:3, Insightful)
Call the source company, and ask them where they got the information, then have them place you on their do-not-call list.
Repeat until you reach a dead-end, which is usually one of the aformentioned clearing houses.
It sounds like a pain in the ass, but after going through this a couple of times it stopped virtually all calls for me years before the do-not-call registry went into effect. This technique also works for junk mail purveyors, particularly credit card companies.
Re:"Your do not call list" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Your do not call list" (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do you say that? Campaigns are nothing more than glorified advertising campaigns. The primary job of a campaign is to portray your candidate in the best light possible. The most cost effective method of advertising for most campaigns is mass media (there are some campaigns where direct mail is more effective, but that is limited to certain expensive media markets). Radio and TV advertising is limited to 30 second sound bites, you cannot run an issue-based campaign via Radio and TV. As a result, your advertisements are limited to either "My candidate equals Motherhood and Apple Pie" or "My opponent is a lying sack of shit".
Push-polling is yet another version of advertising to supplement the negative ads you see on TV. Have you ever received a political snail-mail advertisement that was "negative"? They ususally are comparison pieces. My candidate voted THIS WAY, the opposition voted THAT WAY. Same thing as a Push-Poll, just via mail. Sometimes, a more effective method than by phone, but it can be very costly to run mass mailings -- multiple mailings are required to have a true impact.
Now, before you start complaining about negative campaigns, let's think of traditional (non-political) advertising. A decade or so ago, Burger King ran negative ads against McDonalds. In these Ads, Burger King claimed their burgers were "flame broiled" and that much better than frying. Of course, "flame broiled" meant that Burger King ran their burgers over open jets of burning natural gas, but "flame broiling" sounds better.
Or, how about the most recent set of Miller Light beer ads? Miller Light claims to have 'more taste' than Bud Light. Note that Miller Light doesn't say that their beer tastes better. They only say it has MORE taste. Since taste is rather subjective, you could argue that Miller Light has more of a shitty taste.
Don't be so hard on push-polling. It is purely advertising. And, what is more American than a good advertisement? :)