Telemarketers Call For Products And Services example essay topic

Abstract For years companies from all areas of commerce were allowed to call anyone they thought might be a candidate for their product without repercussions. A court order on Feb, 17th 2004 upheld an order to allow the general public to be listed on a do not call list. Businesses will now be held responsible if they contact someone on this list without their permission. The question is did the court make the right decision.

We may not agree on much in this country, but one thing most of us can agree on is that telemarketing is a big nuisance. In fact one survey done by Walker Research in 1990 showed that 70 percent of Americans considered telemarketing an invasion of their privacy. In February of 2003 the Federal Trade Commission passed a national law that would restrict the consumers telemarketers could legally call and enforce an $11,000 fine when ignored. By September of that same year more than 50 million Americans had added their names to this list. Telemarketers fought back though claiming that they had the right to be making these calls under their constitutional right to free speech and the case went to court. Finally, after a series of court battles between these companies and the FTC, in February of 2004 the appeals court upheld the so called Do-Not-Call list and the right of Americans to sign up.

This brings about the question of how effective this law will be. Also should the average consumer be able to restrict the calls that come into their phone line or do these large businesses have a right to market their products over the phone? The American Teleservices Association claims that the registry violates the First Amendment rights of telemarketers in regards to free speech. But what is a "right"?

A right can be defined as something to which a person is entitled by law, tradition, or nature, which does not detract from someone else. My freedom to practice my religion takes nothing away from you. However, a house is not a right, since providing me with a house requires land, materials, and labor, and it is one fewer house that is available to be given to someone else. There is a cost involved in entitling me to a house that must be carried by someone else; therefore the entitlement to a house is not a right. If I choose to pay for the house and the seller agrees to accept my payment, that's a whole other story. My freedom to speak my mind does not impose a cost on someone else.

Yet, forcing someone to listen to me speak my mind does impose a cost. This is the heart of the matter, which many people fail to understand: The right of free speech does not include the right to an audience. You have to earn an audience, which must be given of their own will. If not then the company is violating one of the most basic rights we have and that is the right to simply be left alone. As stated by the 10th U. 's. Circuit Court of Appeals in The Associated Press (Feb. 14, 2004) 'Just as a consumer can avoid door-to-door peddlers by placing a 'No Solicitation's ign in his or her front yard, the do-not-call registry lets consumers avoid unwanted sales pitches that invade the home via telephone'.

Telemarketing businesses disagree with this point of view of course. They view their work as simply another way and means of advertising. The Direct Marketing Association fought the ruling in Sept. of 2003 and won with the court stating that the original law was imposing on their right to freedom of speech. They stated that the phone lines were owned by the phone companies and not the consumer which for the most part was true. Companies such as SBC and AT&T had built most of them yet the phones at the ends of these lines are owned by the general consumer. This is where the customer's argument comes back into the light.

With the phone being theirs they strongly believed that they should have the right stop inbound telemarketing calls. Unfortunately for the consumers the U.S. District Court of Oklahoma didn't see it this was and 'unplugged' the do-not-call list. The court believed that the law was infringing too much upon the big businesses and took away too many of their rights under the First Amendment. Big Telemarketing's other claim is that it would kill the golden goose that provides $100 billion a year in sales. This is a very spurious claim. When they tell you that billions of dollars in sales are generated from telemarketing that is probably true.

What they don't tell you is that that figure encompasses both inbound telemarketing (ITM) and outbound telemarketing (OTM). The term "telemarketing" simply means "selling over the phone". When the business calls you at home during dinner that is OTM, which is the telemarketing that people think of when they think of telemarketing. If you see a commercial or a print advertisement for a product or service and you call up the 800 number to order it, that sale is also considered telemarketing. ITM means that the customer initiated the call.

Since the $100 billion figure includes both ITM and OTM, Big Telemarketing exploits the public's unfamiliarity by lamenting the potential loss of both when in reality the registry only affects one. And to keep the waters sufficiently muddied they " ll never include in any press release the percentage of sales that are inbound as opposed to outbound. Personally, I don't know what the actual ratio is. But since every ITM contact involves someone that is interested in the product or service, and more than 30 million people have declared that they want nothing to do with OTM, common sense can tell you which one makes up the vast majority of that $100 billion. The people that signed up would still say "no" to a telemarketer even if there was no list, so in essence that makes the telemarketer's job more efficient. As Billy Tauzin was quoted in CNN Money (Sept.

24, 2003) 'To those who said this is a free speech issue, this is not about speech. This is about your right not to hear, not to listen,' Tauzin told Dobbs. 'If you don't want to listen, you ought to get on this list. This court in Oklahoma is not going to stop us".

And they didn't. In Feb. 2004 the U.S. Court of Appeals turn over the decision bringing the do not call list back online. Of course to suggest that the entire industry would evaporate because of the do-not-call list is ludicrous. Antagonizing potential customers doesn't seem to be a really intelligent method of building up goodwill for a business. Many large businesses contract out their telemarketing duties to outsourced companies. So odds are that the person calling you about MCI or Sears doesn't work for MCI or Sears.

If you ask only to be placed on their do-not-call list (which they are required to maintain), they will only stop calling you about MCI or Sears but you will remain on the dozens of other calling lists they have. The other reason Big Telemarketing is afraid of the do-not-call list is that some of their successful OTM sales calls are made to suggestible people including the elderly. It's much easier to trick Grandma and Grandpa when you call them than it would be to convince them to pick up the phone and call you instead. In fact as stated in Straight Talk about Telemarketing on the Federal Trade Commissions website (2004) "Although most phone sales pitches are made on behalf of legitimate organizations offering bona fide products and services, many sales calls are frauds. Consumers lose more than $40 billion a year to telemarketing fraud. A statement made to CNN Money (Sept.

24, 2003) "The DMA acknowledged that millions of American do not want to receive telephone marketing calls". The group said it supports the idea of a list for consumers to express their preference not to be solicited by telephone, and pointed out that for years it has offered its own no-call system for consumers". Then again for years there were various state laws that were meant to stop telemarketing but each of these seemed ineffective to those on them. Yes, "Do Not Call" has its loopholes, and some are gaping. Telemarketers that work only within one state are free to disregard it, as can long-distance phone companies, airlines, banks and credit unions, insurance companies, charities and non-profit organizations, telephone surveyors, and (surprise, surprise) political organizations.

Yet in my eyes these are tolerable contacts with telemarketers. I've had previous business contacts with these companies and will usually have a need for their services in the future. For them to be contacting me most of the time means that they are going to be offering me something of use not merely having picked my name out randomly with a computer to try and sell me magazines that I've never even heard of let alone would ever read. Advertising gets more and more intrusive every day.

But the walls of my home, which also surround my telephone, overrule your desire to advertise your business. Yes, TV and radio commercials make it through, but I accept those because they subsidize the programming that I watch. The ads in my newspapers and magazines defray the cost of printing the articles that I read. If telemarketers followed the TV commercial and print ad model, they would pay for a large portion of my phone bill (and I don't mean if that's what they were trying to sell). They don't. They bring me no sports writing, no TV shows, nothing but the sales pitch itself.

And if I don't accept commercials, then I turn off my TV. With all of the advances of modern technology, I have still never seen a commercial when my TV was turned off. To those businesses that cannot survive without unsolicited outbound telemarketing, which is the only form of telemarketing that is in question, unfortunately I must say, "Tough!" Innovate! Situations change and businesses adapt.

That's called "progress". If your business model is such that it cannot survive being prevented from making junk phone calls, perhaps you need a new business model. Many telemarketers call for products and services that already advertise on TV, radio, or in print. If I want to buy your product, I'll call you. Don't call me. With the new do not call list hopefully this won't be a question.

Reference: The Associated Press (Feb. 17th, 2004) Appeals Court Upholds Do-Not-Call List. Retrieved February 18th 2004 from web CNN / Money (2003) Do Not Call List Unplugged September 24, 2003. Retrieved February 18, 2004, from web donotcall Federal Trade Commission (2004) Straight Talk about Telemarketing. Retrieved March 13, 2004 from web.