Keep the Registry intact, but don’t increase the fees again!

The FTC’s authority to collect list fees from marketers who access the Federal Do Not Call Registry is set to expire at the end of 2007.  However, Senate Bill 781, introduced on March 6, 2007, by Senator Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) would allow the FTC to collect Registry access fees indefinitely – and potentially continue to increase those fees.

We are supportive of Senator Pryor’s intent to keep the DNC list intact, but we are against any further increases in the fees charged to marketers who access the Federal Do Not Call Registry.  Since the Registry’s inception in 2003 the fees to comply have risen by approximately 135%.  Currently fees charged to marketers to access the Registry are $62 for each area code or a maximum annual fee of $17,050 to access the full Registry.  

I believe the DNC Registry has improved the image of our industry.  The companies that are thriving are those that respect the wishes of consumers not to be called and have invested millions of dollars in technology that enable them to comply with the regulations.  However, the FTC needs to realize that increasing the fees makes it more difficult for companies, who want to do the right thing, to comply. 

So we must keep the cost of DNC Registry fees at the lowest possible rate for all companies and continue to improve the image of the entire call center industry.

On hold for now…

Steve Brubaker

On February 13, Bob Sullivan of MSNBC wrote a piece for his Red Tape Chronicles titled “Making telemarketers pay – in cash.”  This entry focuses on a man named André-Tascha Lammé who has made some noise (and money) recently by suing telemarketers who have violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).  Lammé has been able to make this process cost-effective for himself by filing in small claims court where he doesn’t need to hire a lawyer and legal fees are relatively inexpensive.

In addition, Lammé has set up a website that gives consumers instructions and advice on how to successfully sue a telemarketer using these same methods.

It would be easy for me, as a proponent of the teleservice industry, to get up on my soap box and condemn Lammé for these actions.  Certainly many of the people who visit his site have no idea if a call they have received violates the TCPA, they just want to know how they can make a quick buck at the expense of an industry that already has a bad reputation. 

However, in this age of technology where anyone with an opinion can express it to the world at the click of a button, Lammé is entirely within his rights.  The law says that he can sue telemarketers who don’t adhere to certain regulations, and there is no law saying he can’t share how he does it with anyone who wants to know.  In fact, there are several articles and web pages out there dedicated to giving consumers information on the same subject.  With the amount of negative press the industry has received in the recent past, this should not come as any great shock to any of us.

I am not bringing this up to complain about it, but rather to remind us that we must remain vigilant in our efforts to be compliant with all laws and regulations that pertain to each calling campaign we undertake.  Just because we are almost four years removed from the Do Not Call legislation does not mean we can relax our efforts even a little.  Any firm that does may find itself staring a major legal problem straight in the eyes.  I am proud that InfoCision takes compliance so seriously.

In this day and age, if consumers find a way to make a quick buck, you’d better believe they are going to take advantage of it.  Our goal should be to eliminate that opportunity by sticking to the letter of the law.

On hold for now…

Steve Brubaker

The Better Business Bureau of Central Ohio recently released its annual top ten lists concerning the number inquiries and complaints they handled in 2006.  For the second consecutive year, telemarketing calls have not been mentioned on either list.

This is great news for telemarketing professionals.  Now that the dust has settled from the implementation of the Do Not Call Registry, those of us that remain have stood up and showed that our industry will be strong despite these regulations, as long as we focus on great customer service.  Call Center organizations like InfoCision have worked hard to provide quality service and improve the reputation of the industry, and they should be commended.

The Better Business Bureau handles many serious claims concerning mistreatment of consumers.  The bureau is the authority on protecting consumer rights.  Considering that the industry is fueled by professional contacts with consumers, we must make it a goal to stay off these lists in the future.

Another interesting note:  The Cleveland Better Business Bureau has released its list of the Top Ten Scams of 2006.  Among the scams listed, none of the scams are associated with fraud committed over the phone.  Many of the scams deal with the internet and e-mail, and the top scam on the list utilizes snail mail.  With all the time that has been spent on legislation to regulate the telemarketing industry, perhaps it is time lawmakers spend some time trying to regulate conduct on the internet, where the true crimes are being committed.

On hold for now…

Steve Brubaker

In July of this year, Tim Searcy of the ATA wrote an excellent article titled “Will the EBR Exemption Survive?”  In this article, Mr. Searcy discusses the confusion the EBR exemption creates for these existing customers who are on Do Not Call Lists.  Many consumers who do not understand the law are filing complaints based on perfectly legitimate calls made on behalf of clients with whom they have done business in the last 18 months.  The FTC is forced to spend time sorting out these complaints to find which are legitimate complaints and which are simply a misunderstanding.  Mr. Searcy’s contention is that the teleservices industry needs to be proactive in finding ways to reduce the number of false complaints filed with the FTC in an attempt to curb any negative legislation that could be passed if the problem persists.

I agree whole-heartedly.  We can spend a few moments during each call we make to EBR customers to inform them as to why we are legally able to call.  This would drastically reduce the number of false complaints fielded by the FTC.  While this might increase call times when considering the broad spectrum, it could save money in unnecessary legal fees.  Keeping consumers more informed could also help to improve the negative image of teleservices industry showing the public that we are in compliance with laws and regulations.

In addition, reminding customers or other members of a household that they have an existing relationship with our organization and/or our clients lends credibility to our calls.  There is no better endorsement for a product or service than to remind someone that they themselves or a member of their family thought it was a good idea less than 18 months ago.  We simply wish to follow up and see if there is more we can do for our customers or our clients’ customers.

If the FTC decides to take matters into its own hands and change the legislation for EBR calls, it could have far-reaching negative consequences for the teleservices industry.  We should do all that we can to ensure this does not happen.

On hold for now…

Steve Brubaker

The automated attendant has overtaken being put on hold as the country’s most annoying telephone faux pas according to a recent survey conducted by Telephone Doctor Customer Service Training.  Click here to read the article.

Is anybody shocked to read this?  We have all been there, stuck in a never-ending cycle of automated messages, with no hope of speaking to a live person.  It’s infuriating because usually the help you require would take only a few minutes if you got to the right person.  Instead you spend what seems like hours on the phone, pushing buttons or talking to a robot, and getting nowhere. 

What does this mean for the call center industry?

This hardly startling revelation that people thoroughly dislike automated attendants is a significant endorsement for the call center industry.  The public is saying, “We want people to listen to our needs and work with us to find solutions.”  Call centers employ real-live humans for the sole purpose of helping customers, whether they have a question; a concern; a request; a demand; wish to purchase something or whatever the case may be.

In addition, we train these real-live humans to be cheerful, treat each caller with respect and listen attentively to all of the caller’s concerns.  Incidentally, the second biggest telephone pet peeve is lack of good manners, rudeness and bad attitude.  So this is yet another form of public appreciation for call centers. 

People want to talk to a nice, friendly person who cares when they are on the phone with a company.  Call centers provide them that service and much, much more.