|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Bob Van Voorhis’ commentary in the June ’98 issue of TeleProfessional Magazine illuminated a problem within the telemarketing industry. The following (July/August) issue put a spotlight on the cause of that problem. Some telemarketing leaders try to avoid recognizing or dealing with the extent of their industry’s violation of law.
In Mary Weyand’s letter on behalf of the American Telemarketing Association, she wrote; “I genuinely regret the unprofessional, accusatory and condescending tone of your article. I believe you do the industry and TeleProfessional a great disservice with this approach. Your topic is crucially important and deserves a balanced, thoughtful and constructive perspective.”
If the ATA claims Van Voorhis was unprofessional by being truthful, then the ATA should examine who indeed is unprofessional. Heartfelt candid criticism should be welcomed as a starting point for further growth, rather than something to minimize as accusatory. As for Weyand’s suggestion to cover compliance issues in a balanced, thoughtful and constructive fashion, well I think it was. Of course, someone with a “My Industry, love it or leave it” attitude, may have a different perspective; one that hopes the truth will not be told (in public). By the way, Private Citizen member, Robert Arkow reports that, when Weyand became ATA President, he called her firm, TMW Marketing, and personally asked Weyand for TMW’s do-not-call policy. It arrived well over a month latter. Thus, it seems her own firm violated the law by failing to send it upon demand. Now, whether Weyand considers that information to be constructive or destructive, depends on her motive; to correct problems or hide them.
Sam Kades of the Martin Agency suggests the article could have included data about, “...the millions of dollars that have been spent by our companies to make sure that tens of thousands of people who request to be removed from calling lists are in fact put on do-not-call lists.”
Mr. Kades evidently fails to realize that, generally, telemarketers are paid to get people to comply with a pitch; not to put them on do-not-call lists. Any act not directed towards that end, interferes with that goal. Many telemarketing firms require do-not-call requests to be written up and submitted by telemarketers. I have heard of at least one firm that offers overtime to those telemarketers who have recorded the fewest do-not-call requests during a shift. The millions that the industry purportedly spends to put folks on do-not-call lists would not have been required had the industry not fought against a national do-not-call list, as originally proposed by Congress. It is the industry itself that made the soup it now finds itself in.
Dennis McGarry of Personal Legal Plans complained that Van Voorhis’ evaluation and conclusions were developed through limited and unscientific research methods. He even went so far as to write “Shame on you”.
Perhaps McGarry thinks TeleProfessional should have the Chairman of the US House Telecommunications and Finance Subcommittee ask for the do-not-call policies of the 50 largest out-bound telemarketing firms. Indeed, that occurred in 1994. The result was an overall grade of “C - “ for industry TCPA compliance, with an “F” in “Companies’ written policy for maintaining do-not-call list”. Thus, the industry deserves an “A+” for their consistency in failing to meet do-not-call policy requirements. The shame for this should be cast upon the ineffective industry leaders who, over the years, have failed to lead the industry to compliance.
Wendy J. Taylor wrote, “During the past several years, associations such as the ATA and the DMA have steadfastly devoted time and energy toward partnering with state and federal entities to craft ethical legislation.”
Sorry Wendy, it just ain’t so; unless you consider ethical legislation to be ineffective or non-existent legislation. The October 22, 1990 issue of DM News pretty well summed up the DMA’s legislative activity, wherein Jonah Gitlitz (then DMA president) said:, “The goal of the DMA is to discover and to thwart possible government regulation, and we have done it.” A few years later, a DMA membership solicitation stated, “Right now the DMA is fighting to make sure that restrictive telemarketing legislation does not pass.” As for the ATA’s involvement in ‘crafting ethical legislation’; I’ll let the ATA speak for itself through their, then president, Mac Hansbrough who proclaimed, "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." (TeleProfessional; January 1994). Hansbrough is now the President of TeleWatch.
On July 1, 1998, I received e-mail addressed to me, but naming ‘Gene’ in the salutation. It was sent by a telemarketing industry association executive. With respect for her privacy, I shall not name her (although she evidently sent the e-mail to enable me in publicizing her position).
The first line of her e-mail states, “When I see this garbage I get furious that Bob Van Voorhis did what he did, against the industry.”
This telemarketing leader’s fury with what Van Voorhis did “against the industry” does not bode well for the industry’s future TCPA compliance. If there is anything to get furious about, it would reasonably be against those TeleWatch member firms, and other telemarketing entities, that failed to comply with do-not-call policy requests, in violation of the law. Perhaps the reason for this attitude can be deduced from the earlier quoted statement of TeleWatch’s current president, Mac Hansbrough, concerning his fight against all federal legislation. Unless the industry is anti-privacy at its heart, the only conceivable reason for this attitude is an expectation of difficulty in complying with pro-consumer / pro-privacy legislation. Rather than trying to meet the challenge, the industry attempts to cripple or defeat the challenging legislation. Such behavior is more like that of an invading army, than an industry which can comfortably operate within a socially responsible framework.
Essentially, Van Voorhis just scratched the surface of the industry’s TCPA non-compliance. As a result of years of discussions with telemarketing industry insiders, Private Citizen members and the public, I am vividly aware of the extent of such failures.
Concerning the industry’s failure to comply with identification requirements; I commonly ask those of the general public who call Private Citizen, whether the last sales solicitor who called their home, gave an address or telephone number. The response is “No” or “No, I didn’t ask for it”, more than 85% of the time. This evidence of failure to comply with the ‘identification requirements of the TCPA is bolstered by an industry practice of sometimes presenting the address or phone number to a dead line, after the called party has hung up. I understand this practice is often referred to (in telemarketing-speak) as a “Courtesy Close”. The English translation of “Courtesy Close”, is “A violation of 47 CFR §64.1200 (e)(2)(iv)”.
Concerning the industry’s failure to comply with written policy requests: Private Citizen members commonly ask telemarketers for their written policy. Again, more than 85% of such requests go unfulfilled. Indeed, one leading telemarketing entity has acknowledged its incapacity to meet this mandate or avoid calling residents who have asked to be placed on the firm’s do-not-call list, by essentially establishing a procedure to settle with Private Citizen members for these infractions. This is a frustrating absurdity for our members, as well as the subject firm.
A couple years ago, five of the “Top 50” telemarketing firms signed consent decrees, and paid thousands to settle state government charges of violating telemarketing laws. Remarkably, I do not recall any industry leader who now publicly criticize Van Voorhis for his Commentary, to have then publicly shamed, scolded, or even admonished these firms for diminishing the industry’s image. This evident duplicity speaks volumes about the industry, its leadership and the actual reason Van Voorhis was criticized. ‘Don’t draw attention to the industry’s failure to comply with all laws’.
And to those who criticized Bob Van Voorhis for his role as the messenger of disturbing news; it is you who perpetuate many of the problems within the industry. Closing your eyes and shaming the messenger will only serve to keep the message alive and inevitably, encourage the further legislation you so disparately hope to avoid. So far, you seem to want to help Private Citizen achieve one of its goals; that of effective and meaningful regulation of the telemarketing industry’s privacy abusive practices. Keep it up, we appreciate your support.
Robert Bulmash - President
Private Citizen, Inc.
Bob and Ross,
I included the italicized and underlined material (regarding Joan Mullen,
of TeleWatch) but wasn’t sure you’d want to print it since I didn’t name
her as the author. If you decide to publish my letter, or any portion of
it; Great! If you consider its publication with the ‘Joan Mullen’
material inserted, that’s fine too. I wanted to give you all options. If
you want to chat, my number is 630-393-2370. A disk of this file (in Word
and Ascii format) is enclosed. I also sent you a copy via email. The full
text of Mullen’s e-mail is attached.
By the way, it seems the ‘untruths’ mentioned in Mullens’ e-mail, concerned
my broadcast statement that; ‘The DMA sells the Telephone Preference Service
to telemarketers’.
Bart Zeller, Vice President
of Market USA e-mailed me to say, “In speaking with the DMA attorney, he
asked for a copy of the tape, which I have sent, he guarantees me that
the DMA has never and will never sell the DNS [do-not-solicit] list to
anyone.”
In response, I suggested he ask the DMA if they themselves “make the TPS
available only in exchange for payment” (if you ask the DMA if they sell
the TPS, they will deny it by adhering to Clinton-speak rules of language).
He did that, and when we
had lunch (at his invitation) he acknowledged that the DMA admitted to
selling the TPS.
Thus, Mullens’ ‘untruths’ remark likely resulted from the DMA’s obfuscation.
Thanks
Bob Bulmash
------------
X-From:
Joan.Mullen@telethinking.com Wed Jul 1 21:46:14 1998
Received:
from ronweb.com (www.ronweb.com [199.244.165.220]) by
Received:
from gateway.ronweb.com ([10.1.10.202]) by gateway.ronweb.com
From:
Joan Mullen <Joan.Mullen@telethinking.com>
To:
"'pci@private-citizen.com'" <pci@private-citizen.com>
Subject:
RE: The attached file is in response to you 'refusal'
Date:
Wed, 1 Jul 1998 22:41:51 -0400
Gene,
When I see this garbage
I get furious that Bob Van Voorhis did what he
did, against the industry...I
lent a copy of Mitch Lieber's radio
interview with Bob Bulmash
to MKL and Bill...ask them to borrow it if
you really want to be frustrated...and
Mitch Lieber did the industry no
favors as he wasn't prepared
and didn't even correct untruths...yet
Mitch thinks he did a great
job...Mac also has a tape.
So, if I understood corectly,
Bill is not planning to respond...I think
this is another example
of why we should NOT face off with these nuts,
no matter how much media
training we have!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Private Citizen
[SMTP:prvtctzn@private-citizen.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 15,
1998 1:17 PM
> To: bill@ataconnect.org
> Subject:
The attached file is in response to you 'refusal'
>
> I look forward to your
reply.
> --
> Bob Bulmash
> Private Citizen, Inc.
> http://privatecitizen.com
>
> << File: ATA-Betcher.doc
>>