Falsehoods = Obfuscation = Junk Calls = The American Telemarketing Associotion
         On June 8, 1998 the President of the American Telemarketing Association wrote a Letter to the Editor of Teleservices News.  The Letter tried to defend the telenuisance industry and the ATA and included a claim that ATA members have testified against telemarketers in court.

          We didn't exactly accept that claim on its face, so we asked for the names of the ATA members who testified... just to make sure the ATA was being honest.  Here is the ATA's reply. >  324k wavclick here  The letter (below) is our response to the ATA.


 
630-393-2370
pci@privatecitizen.com      
Private Citizen, Inc. 
 P. O. Box 233
     Naperville, IL 60566 
Mr. Boettcher - Marketing Director
American Telemarketing Association
4605 Lankershim Blvd, #824
North Hollywood, CA 91602
                                                                                                           June 15, 1998
Dear Mr. Boettcher,

Last week we chatted by phone about a 'Letter to the Editor' published in the June 8, 1998 Teleservices News. The President of the American Telemarketing Association (ATA) Mary Weyand, wrote it in response to an earlier (May 8th) Letter from Private Citizen member, Russ Smith. He outlined how the ATA, the Direct Marketing Association (DMA) and Telewatch seemed more intent on protecting telemarketers from the citizens they annoy than visa versa.

Of course, such a 'circle the wagons' attitude would be appropriate were it not for the claim of these same outfits that self-regulation works to protect consumers privacy, and is preferable to truly meaningful and effective government regulation. The telenuisance industry's failure to self-regulate is described, to some extent, in Mr. Smith's letter.

My reading of the ATA's June 8th response left me with questions, since much of what Ms.Weyand claimed was either simply not true or an obfuscation. To wit:

"If the company fails to comply with that [do-not-call] request the consumer may take separate  action through the courts." NOT TRUE

"In addition, consumers can elect to contact the DMA's Telephone Preference Service [TPS]
to have their telephone number added to an industry-wide do-not-call list." NOT TRUE
"However, care must be taken to avoid making the broad interpretation that a company is in violation of the TCPA because it did not respond to a [do-not-call policy availability] 'test' conducted by an industry publication." OBFUSCATION The telemarketing industry commonly exhibits its inability to abide by government regulation. Perhaps that is why the ATA's former president, Mac Hansbrough, proudly proclaimed the following: "We have modified to our benefit, or helped to defeat every piece of federal telemarketing legislation that has been introduced. I plan to not only continue this effort, but to devote even more resources to it." (1/94 TeleProfessional Magazine) Hansbrough now heads Telewatch. Recently, 17 Telewatch members were asked to supply do-not-call policies (as required by law). Only 6 complied. Considering this level of compliance, it is clear why Hansbrough's organizations seek to thwart regulation which would result in additional circumstances of non-compliance.

Ms. Weyand's "Letter' also encouraged those who had questions, to contact the ATA by telephone.
Based on that encouragement I called for information concerning Ms. Weyand's following statement;
"When there have been violations of the TCPA and the TSR, ATA members have often been called upon to serve as expert witnesses to testify against violators in court proceedings."

Specifically, I asked that the ATA identify those of its members who served as expert witnesses and testified against TCPA violators in court proceedings. Your response was: "It's our policy not to provide that information about our individual members. What you can do is check public records … and then approach those individual companies that did participate in those court cases."

Members of the ATA are involved in a marketing mechanism so reviled and intrusive that they fail even to complete their pitch two-thirds of the time, and which is generally considered to be:
- More of a nuisance or invasion of privacy = 82% (1991 Lou Harris / Equifax Corp.)
- Very annoying when made 'live' = 68% (1991 Roper / American Demographics Magazine)
- An offensive way to sell = 69% (1991 Walker Research / Telemarketing Magazine)
If you want to know the public's opinion of residential telemarketing today, just ask some of the people walking past your office building as you leave work to enjoy a peaceful dinner at home.

The ATA's protection of its members' privacy is a vivid counter-point to what ATA members do to the privacy of the millions of folks who just want to be left alone in their final sanctuary; their homes.

In recognition of the ATA's insistence on protecting its members' privacy, I ask that the ATA identify (with name and address) the plaintiffs who benefited from ATA expert witnesses who testified against TCPA violators in court proceedings. Fulfilling this modified request will not be adverse to ATA policy, since it does not require the identification of ATA members. I look forward to your response, as it will afford the ATA an opportunity to further exhibit its remarkable character and honesty.

Sincerely,

Robert Bulmash, President

cc: Illinois Secretary of State George Ryan / House Telecommunications & Finance Sbcmte
      Rep. Edward Markey & Dennis Hastert / Senators Richard Durbin & Ernest Hollings