fivestring
Veteran Member
No reason....
You were the closest...
Lucky you, eh????
You were the closest...
Lucky you, eh????
Do Not Call List
- Thread starter dieselsmoke1
- Start date
- Views: 4328
- Status
MikePA
Super Moderator
<font color="blue">Lucky you, eh???? </font>
I'm gonna go play the lottery! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
By the way, the news is reporting the chairman of the FCC has said his agency will enforce the Do Not Call List legislation. The controversy has been with the FTC.
I'm gonna go play the lottery! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
By the way, the news is reporting the chairman of the FCC has said his agency will enforce the Do Not Call List legislation. The controversy has been with the FTC.
Alan L.
Elite Member
It never ceases to amaze me how an entire congress, senate, and the President can make put something into law, and ONE judge can veto it by himself.
Libertine
Gold Member
MikePA:
<font color="blue">The only law that never needed to be passed and will never be repealed is the Law of Unintended Consequences and there were a number of unintended consequences associated with this legislation. </font>
I'm not going to respond to the various economic illiterates who have posted to this thread, but your post does deserve a response. Some of the consequences, MidePA, you refer to:
1) Everything anyone buys will increase in price. Some increases will be trivial, others measurably. Marketing by telephone, if done responsibly, is more personal and less expensive. Increasing costs increases, ultimately, what people pay for things - and NOT just things sold by telephone. Often, the telephone call is merely an initial contact followed up by literature and future contacts until the sale is made. The actual sale may not be made by phone at all. Often sales are a matter of timing. The telephone is a less expensive way, and more personal, to maintain that contact over time until the person is ready to purchase something. This legislation is just one more nail in the coffin of American business added to 100s of other "nails" raising the costs of doing business, and hence the prices of things. Everything that adds costs to business adds to the price of what people buy. It works its way through the economy.
1a) To give a very specific example of #1. I publish a color catalog with prices of things (as far as I know, no one in the industry puts anything out like I do - at least not on the retail level). Let me use the example of headstones. I personally know of one competitor (a larger dealer who sells many more headstones than I do) who uses my pricing as a competitive benchmark - and I doubt he's the only one. This person does not use telephone contacts. As a direct result of this legislation I will be adding a surcharge to every product I sell. When this competitor finds out my prices have gone up, he will certainly raise his prices accordingly. Thus people purchasing headstones from us, including someone not using telephone contact, will pay a bit more than they otherwise would have directly as a result of this legislation. Multiply this by 10,000s of times throughout the economy for all kinds of products. Of course, the economic illiterates don't understand things like this. They bite the hand that feeds them.
2) There will be an increase in "fly by night" boiler rooms. When you become subject to outrageous fines for simply trying to do honest business, why bother. Set up a boiler room with the idea of closing up in a few months when the fines start hitting, then open again under a different name. There will be MORE flakey operations as a result of this legislation, not less. And, of course, those same ignorant people who supported the legislation that caused the problem in the first place, will, no doubt, support stricter enforcement in a viscous circle. Of course, those same people lack the ability to grasp that they themselves were the cause of what they are objecting to.
3) There will be an increase in jobs going overseas. While I do not have a "telemarketing" company and only use the telephone incidently in my business, if I DID have one I would certainly be looking at setting up overseas where I could find English speakers (India comes to mind) and it would be easier to avoid the legislation. I see posts on this site from people bemoaning jobs going overseas, no doubt the same people who support such laws as the "no call" lists. Like I said, economic illiterates biting the hand that feeds them then objecting to the consequences.
4) "The straw that broke the camel's back" - yes, an old cliche. No, I do not think this legislation is that straw, but it IS another straw added to the unproductive load the economy already has to carry. And every "straw" brings us closer to collapse. Compared to the tort/liability problems, OSHA, EPA, ADA, etc. etc. ad nauseum, this one is fairly small. But it is a REAL additional cost imposed on an economy already dangling by a thread. And when the thread breaks, those same people will certainly not acknowledge that it was their demand, for their little goodie, that broke it.
I could go on, but what's the point. I doubt if anyone supporting this legislation has given ANY serious thought to any of the issues/consequences just mentioned.
Anyway, thank you, MikePA, for having, and showing, a grasp of reality on this particular issue.
JEH
<font color="blue">The only law that never needed to be passed and will never be repealed is the Law of Unintended Consequences and there were a number of unintended consequences associated with this legislation. </font>
I'm not going to respond to the various economic illiterates who have posted to this thread, but your post does deserve a response. Some of the consequences, MidePA, you refer to:
1) Everything anyone buys will increase in price. Some increases will be trivial, others measurably. Marketing by telephone, if done responsibly, is more personal and less expensive. Increasing costs increases, ultimately, what people pay for things - and NOT just things sold by telephone. Often, the telephone call is merely an initial contact followed up by literature and future contacts until the sale is made. The actual sale may not be made by phone at all. Often sales are a matter of timing. The telephone is a less expensive way, and more personal, to maintain that contact over time until the person is ready to purchase something. This legislation is just one more nail in the coffin of American business added to 100s of other "nails" raising the costs of doing business, and hence the prices of things. Everything that adds costs to business adds to the price of what people buy. It works its way through the economy.
1a) To give a very specific example of #1. I publish a color catalog with prices of things (as far as I know, no one in the industry puts anything out like I do - at least not on the retail level). Let me use the example of headstones. I personally know of one competitor (a larger dealer who sells many more headstones than I do) who uses my pricing as a competitive benchmark - and I doubt he's the only one. This person does not use telephone contacts. As a direct result of this legislation I will be adding a surcharge to every product I sell. When this competitor finds out my prices have gone up, he will certainly raise his prices accordingly. Thus people purchasing headstones from us, including someone not using telephone contact, will pay a bit more than they otherwise would have directly as a result of this legislation. Multiply this by 10,000s of times throughout the economy for all kinds of products. Of course, the economic illiterates don't understand things like this. They bite the hand that feeds them.
2) There will be an increase in "fly by night" boiler rooms. When you become subject to outrageous fines for simply trying to do honest business, why bother. Set up a boiler room with the idea of closing up in a few months when the fines start hitting, then open again under a different name. There will be MORE flakey operations as a result of this legislation, not less. And, of course, those same ignorant people who supported the legislation that caused the problem in the first place, will, no doubt, support stricter enforcement in a viscous circle. Of course, those same people lack the ability to grasp that they themselves were the cause of what they are objecting to.
3) There will be an increase in jobs going overseas. While I do not have a "telemarketing" company and only use the telephone incidently in my business, if I DID have one I would certainly be looking at setting up overseas where I could find English speakers (India comes to mind) and it would be easier to avoid the legislation. I see posts on this site from people bemoaning jobs going overseas, no doubt the same people who support such laws as the "no call" lists. Like I said, economic illiterates biting the hand that feeds them then objecting to the consequences.
4) "The straw that broke the camel's back" - yes, an old cliche. No, I do not think this legislation is that straw, but it IS another straw added to the unproductive load the economy already has to carry. And every "straw" brings us closer to collapse. Compared to the tort/liability problems, OSHA, EPA, ADA, etc. etc. ad nauseum, this one is fairly small. But it is a REAL additional cost imposed on an economy already dangling by a thread. And when the thread breaks, those same people will certainly not acknowledge that it was their demand, for their little goodie, that broke it.
I could go on, but what's the point. I doubt if anyone supporting this legislation has given ANY serious thought to any of the issues/consequences just mentioned.
Anyway, thank you, MikePA, for having, and showing, a grasp of reality on this particular issue.
JEH
MossRoad
Super Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 66,536
- Location
- South Bend, Indiana (near)
- Tractor
- Power Trac PT425 2001 Model Year
<font color="blue"> I could go on, but what's the point. </font>
The point is, if you don't speak your mind, no one will know what you are thinking and no one will hear your opinion. While I may not agree with your opinion, I still enjoy hearing it. Gets the old brain working and makes for stimulating conversation and I might learn something.
As for telemarketing, or any sales pitches at my residence... I don't want people calling me at home. I also don't want them knocking on my door. I don't mind them mailing me. And I don't mind if they advertise on TV, radio or in the Newspaper. I have the choice of watching, reading or ignoring. But the phone is just as invasive as knocking on my door(to me at least). As an advertiser, how do you know if you call someone or knock on their door, that you aren't disturbing them? Maybe they work nights. Maybe they are ill. Maybe the baby is sleeping. Maybe they are just crabby hermits and don't want to be bothered. Anyway, mail, TV, radio or newspaper/magazine advertising won't disturb people. They can opt out. Just my opinion.
The point is, if you don't speak your mind, no one will know what you are thinking and no one will hear your opinion. While I may not agree with your opinion, I still enjoy hearing it. Gets the old brain working and makes for stimulating conversation and I might learn something.
As for telemarketing, or any sales pitches at my residence... I don't want people calling me at home. I also don't want them knocking on my door. I don't mind them mailing me. And I don't mind if they advertise on TV, radio or in the Newspaper. I have the choice of watching, reading or ignoring. But the phone is just as invasive as knocking on my door(to me at least). As an advertiser, how do you know if you call someone or knock on their door, that you aren't disturbing them? Maybe they work nights. Maybe they are ill. Maybe the baby is sleeping. Maybe they are just crabby hermits and don't want to be bothered. Anyway, mail, TV, radio or newspaper/magazine advertising won't disturb people. They can opt out. Just my opinion.
fivestring
Veteran Member
The bottom line to the legislation is to stop the annoying telemarketers. It is a ridiculous scam. The majority of the public supports it. The majority of folks do not like being bothered with unsolicited calls. I would even guess that you wouldn't want a feminine products telemarketer calling to try to sell you something you can't use or do not want just as you sat down to eat or just as you jumped out of the shower to answer what you thought was an important call from a friend or family member -- the only ones that YOU gave your telephone number to.
Studies have shown: in sales, only 1 out of 10 will be a good lead. This alone shows that 90% of those sales calls are a waste of time for all involved.
I pay my phone bill. The telemarketers and sales people do not. The person that pays the phone bill should have the untimate decision regarding who should call that phone number. If I want to buy something, I'll look up phone numbers myself and make the call.
It's the exact same thing with unsolicited junk mail.
Talk about a waste of money!!! If companies would stop printing junk mail, their prices should go down.
One can rank telephones right up there with computers and televisions for a device that was a good idea on paper, but is really something one can do without in the real world.
This of course is my opinion only and does not express the views of others unless others express the same views.
Studies have shown: in sales, only 1 out of 10 will be a good lead. This alone shows that 90% of those sales calls are a waste of time for all involved.
I pay my phone bill. The telemarketers and sales people do not. The person that pays the phone bill should have the untimate decision regarding who should call that phone number. If I want to buy something, I'll look up phone numbers myself and make the call.
It's the exact same thing with unsolicited junk mail.
Talk about a waste of money!!! If companies would stop printing junk mail, their prices should go down.
One can rank telephones right up there with computers and televisions for a device that was a good idea on paper, but is really something one can do without in the real world.
This of course is my opinion only and does not express the views of others unless others express the same views.
fivestring
Veteran Member
<font color="red">"As for telemarketing, or any sales pitches at my residence... I don't want people calling me at home. I also don't want them knocking on my door. I don't mind them mailing me. And I don't mind if they advertise on TV, radio or in the Newspaper. I have the choice of watching, reading or ignoring." </font>
Thank you. Well said.
With TV, radio and papers, there is CHOICE. With phone calls and direct mail, there is NO CHOICE.
Don't believe it? Ask your post office to stop bringing junk mail to your mailbox.
I disagree with the mailing part. Do you know how easy it is for dishonest people or those down on their luck to take the pre-approved credit card offers (JUNK MAIL!), fill them out and VOILA... they now have a credit card in your name that YOU have to jump through hoops and red tape to prove that YOU did not fill out the application? Or all of the affadavits to sign at the bank? All of this takes from YOUR time! YOU have to take off work to get it straightened out.
I know first-hand because I have to spend the taxpayers' $$$ (my time) filling out the police reports.
If the unsolicited junk mail had not been mailed at all, it would not have happened in the first place.
On another topic of the pending legislation... as far as exempting charities, etc. from the legislation, that is a crock. There should be NO EXEMPTIONS. Exemptions are loopholes for lawyers to S T R E T C H the law to ultimately weeken it to the point of the law becoming a farce and non-enforceable. People would be surprised that there are tons of laws on the books that are non-enforceable.
Thank you. Well said.
With TV, radio and papers, there is CHOICE. With phone calls and direct mail, there is NO CHOICE.
Don't believe it? Ask your post office to stop bringing junk mail to your mailbox.
I disagree with the mailing part. Do you know how easy it is for dishonest people or those down on their luck to take the pre-approved credit card offers (JUNK MAIL!), fill them out and VOILA... they now have a credit card in your name that YOU have to jump through hoops and red tape to prove that YOU did not fill out the application? Or all of the affadavits to sign at the bank? All of this takes from YOUR time! YOU have to take off work to get it straightened out.
I know first-hand because I have to spend the taxpayers' $$$ (my time) filling out the police reports.
If the unsolicited junk mail had not been mailed at all, it would not have happened in the first place.
On another topic of the pending legislation... as far as exempting charities, etc. from the legislation, that is a crock. There should be NO EXEMPTIONS. Exemptions are loopholes for lawyers to S T R E T C H the law to ultimately weeken it to the point of the law becoming a farce and non-enforceable. People would be surprised that there are tons of laws on the books that are non-enforceable.
MossRoad
Super Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 66,536
- Location
- South Bend, Indiana (near)
- Tractor
- Power Trac PT425 2001 Model Year
<font color="blue"> One can rank telephones right up there with computers and televisions for a device that was a good idea on paper, but is really something one can do without in the real world. </font>
I respect your opinion, but disagree with you that one can do without a telephone. While it is technically easy to do without it, wait until a loved one needs medical attention. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
We were brought up to use the telephone sparingly. Mom would say, "Call your friend, see if they are home, hang up and go over there and visit. Now get off the phone, someone important might be trying to call us!" /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
I respect your opinion, but disagree with you that one can do without a telephone. While it is technically easy to do without it, wait until a loved one needs medical attention. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
We were brought up to use the telephone sparingly. Mom would say, "Call your friend, see if they are home, hang up and go over there and visit. Now get off the phone, someone important might be trying to call us!" /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
MossRoad
Super Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 66,536
- Location
- South Bend, Indiana (near)
- Tractor
- Power Trac PT425 2001 Model Year
I like junk mail. I have the option of reading it or tossing it out. If it has a snazzy cover, I'll read it. Granted, there are lots of scams, but I was raised that if a deal sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
I get tons of junk mail for my father. He passed away in 1995. Funny thing is, he gets offered better deals on things than I do. Apparently I'm less appealing to the advertisers than a dead guy! /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
I get tons of junk mail for my father. He passed away in 1995. Funny thing is, he gets offered better deals on things than I do. Apparently I'm less appealing to the advertisers than a dead guy! /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
fivestring
Veteran Member
"We were brought up to use the telephone sparingly. Mom would say, "Call your friend, see if they are home, hang up and go over there and visit. Now get off the phone, someone important might be trying to call us!"
I was raised that way, also.
And then the phone rings and it's a #$%^ telemarketer!!!
I also agree on the phone for help (911). The phone was designed (on paper) to be a big help. For the most part it is.
But you already know that and agree with the phone solicitation legislation.
Can I forward my junk mail to you??? /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
I was raised that way, also.
And then the phone rings and it's a #$%^ telemarketer!!!
I also agree on the phone for help (911). The phone was designed (on paper) to be a big help. For the most part it is.
But you already know that and agree with the phone solicitation legislation.
Can I forward my junk mail to you??? /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Bird
Rest in Peace
I guess I'm one of those "economic illiterates" since I disagree with your opinion that the "do not call" list will hurt telemarketers. And the reasons for my opinion are:
I will not buy anything from a telemarketer. Now that being a fact, it seems to me that telemarketers would appreciate knowing that so they wouldn't waste their own time calling me (I know they have no regard or respect for my time, of course, but it does seem that they wouldn't want to waste their own). So if they skip my number, that gives them more time to try to sell to someone who might actually buy something.
My mother is an 82 year old invalid widow, living in a nursing home, and we got her a private phone in her room. So far this year, she's had callers trying to sell her: (1) memberships in dating groups, (2) life insurance, (3) health insurance, (4) aluminum siding for her house, (5) magazine subscriptions, and goodness knows what else. Seems to me another case in which the telemarketers could more profitably spend their time.
I will not buy anything from a telemarketer. Now that being a fact, it seems to me that telemarketers would appreciate knowing that so they wouldn't waste their own time calling me (I know they have no regard or respect for my time, of course, but it does seem that they wouldn't want to waste their own). So if they skip my number, that gives them more time to try to sell to someone who might actually buy something.
My mother is an 82 year old invalid widow, living in a nursing home, and we got her a private phone in her room. So far this year, she's had callers trying to sell her: (1) memberships in dating groups, (2) life insurance, (3) health insurance, (4) aluminum siding for her house, (5) magazine subscriptions, and goodness knows what else. Seems to me another case in which the telemarketers could more profitably spend their time.
Bird
Rest in Peace
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Do you know how easy it is for dishonest people or those down on their luck to take the pre-approved credit card offers (JUNK MAIL!), fill them out and VOILA... they now have a credit card in your name that YOU have to jump through hoops and red tape to prove that YOU did not fill out the application? )</font>
I only open junk mail for one reason, and that's to pull out all those "applications" and run them through my paper shredder. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif
I only open junk mail for one reason, and that's to pull out all those "applications" and run them through my paper shredder. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif
RockyMnt1
Silver Member
Here is what I do with junk mail:
1) Shread any identifying information
2) Put all other stuff in the enclosed postage paid envelope. I tend to overpack the evelope so that the sender
gets charged for overweight envelopes.
3) Send the pre postage paid enveloipe to the junk mail sender.
This approach does several things:
1) It gets the junk out of my house and fills the junk mailer's trash cans
2) It supports the US Postal service so hopefully my stamp prices will remain low.
3) It makes the junk mail more expensive for the sender so that their profit margin will
be miniumized. This would be incentive for them to be more selective with their offers.
Maybe even look for another sales approach!!
1) Shread any identifying information
2) Put all other stuff in the enclosed postage paid envelope. I tend to overpack the evelope so that the sender
gets charged for overweight envelopes.
3) Send the pre postage paid enveloipe to the junk mail sender.
This approach does several things:
1) It gets the junk out of my house and fills the junk mailer's trash cans
2) It supports the US Postal service so hopefully my stamp prices will remain low.
3) It makes the junk mail more expensive for the sender so that their profit margin will
be miniumized. This would be incentive for them to be more selective with their offers.
Maybe even look for another sales approach!!
Henro
Super Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2003
- Messages
- 5,007
- Location
- Few miles north of Pgh, PA
- Tractor
- Kubota B2910, BX2200, KX41-2V mini EX
<font color="blue"> I'm not going to respond to the various economic illiterates who have posted to this thread, but... </font>
JEH,
What was the name of that course people take to learn how to win new friends and ... /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
I will seriously tell you that one thing I did find extreemly distasteful was getting phone calls and letters from people who obviously read the obituaries each time after my parents died...seemed almost like it started the day of the funeral...tryinig to sell me...you guessed it...tombstones!
Personally I think there should be a "Please Call List" that telemarketers would have to use, and that they should be limited to calling only those who have thier names on this list...
I know this defies logic... /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif
JEH,
What was the name of that course people take to learn how to win new friends and ... /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
I will seriously tell you that one thing I did find extreemly distasteful was getting phone calls and letters from people who obviously read the obituaries each time after my parents died...seemed almost like it started the day of the funeral...tryinig to sell me...you guessed it...tombstones!
Personally I think there should be a "Please Call List" that telemarketers would have to use, and that they should be limited to calling only those who have thier names on this list...
I know this defies logic... /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif
Boondox
Elite Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2000
- Messages
- 3,880
- Location
- Craftsbury Common, Vermont
- Tractor
- Deere 4044R cab, Kubota KX-121-3S
I think this thread is going over the top and well beyond the rules of decency and moderation that make TBN such a pleasant place to visit.
Let's divest ourselves of the emotional torts and go back to an informed discussion, shall we?
Pete
Let's divest ourselves of the emotional torts and go back to an informed discussion, shall we?
Pete
Grim -
<font color="blue"> I'm not going to respond to the various economic illiterates who have posted to this thread... </font>
I agree. It's a lot easier to pull out of a losing battle, pivot, and attack from a different direction when it is obvious you can't effectively rebut valid points. An approach that works wonderfully in war but is definitely a losing methodology when it comes to debate. /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif (I's gess I's jusT ONe's Of themm ThErE IlllLetirates... /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif)
To your latest points:
re: (1) <font color="blue">Marketing by telephone, if done responsibly, is more personal and less expensive. </font>
Wow, you agree with one of my points!!! - Telemarketing is such an attractive avenue due to its low cost. Cool! Will it be a nail for some businesses - yep. But that's the principle of evolution - you either evolve or you die. i.e. the whole buggy whip thing again.
re
2) <font color="blue">As a direct result of this legislation I will be adding a surcharge to every product I sell. </font>
Interesting. Even though the facts I put on the thread illustrate that your $30K expense is really almost $0 and the "weeks & weeks" of effort will most likely only be a few hours or even minutes instead, you say you have no choice but to raise prices. Hmmm. Seems to me you are really looking for an excuse to raise prices since in reality there is no other viable reason (i.e. effort = minimal; cost = virtually $0) Sorry.
re: (2) <font color="blue">There will be an increase in "fly by night" boiler rooms. </font>
Another alarmist statement. No proof of this what so ever in the telemarketing industry due to regulation. Haven't heard of a huge growth in "boiler room" activity since the Texas no-call list went in to effect. Initially it sounds like a reasonable argument, but there is no proof of causality here. Besides, you honestly think that any "boiler room" is going to sell a legitimate product anyway? They will simply operate in a criminal fashion duping folks for their money and offering them nothing in return. It's called fraud and will be around regardless of if the no-call list goes in to effect or not. Caveat emptor will always apply regardless of the outcome of the no-call list decision.
re: (3) <font color="blue">There will be an increase in jobs going overseas. </font>
This is already happening. Please explain the direct relationship and the no-call list? Reality is that there is no connection - if a company wants to save $, they look to lower costs, and right now since labor rates in India (and other countries) is so low, that's where they are migrating to. Just look around Wal-Mart and observe how many products are made in China. Your argument is an invalid one commonly found debate known as a "Non Causa Pro Causa" - or more accurately in your example, "Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc." Sorry.
re: (4) <font color="blue">I do not think this legislation is that straw, but it IS another straw ...But it is a REAL additional cost imposed on an economy already dangling by a thread. </font>
Yes, there is a lot of regulation out there - some good, a lot of it bad. Some regulation is necessary as it serves to protect the public at large. Making restaurants keep meats below a certain temperature, disallowing toxic substances in our water supplies, etc. The no-call list is meant as a protective regulation, and was never devised or intended to put all telemarketers out of business. This all goes back to what one believes their rights are. Basically by putting one's name on the list, it is the same as hanging a big "NO TRESPASSING" sign on your phone - no different than putting a "NO SOLICITING" sticker on your door.
All the list does is provide a centralized way of doing it because face it, a lot of individual telemarketing businesses don't take "don't call me back" seriously. I've had those I specifically told not to call back call back multiple times - that is until I used the Texas no-call list. Guess what? No more calls - and if someone does violate the law, you're darned right I report them. 'Course I'd report someone physically trespassing too.
As far as the "state of the economy," that's a whole other thread (actually found on CBN if I remember correctly). Suffice to say, not everyone shares your "doom and gloom" view of the U.S. economy.
<font color="blue">I could go on, but what's the point. I doubt if anyone supporting this legislation has given ANY serious thought to any of the issues/consequences just mentioned. Anyway, thank you, MikePA, for having, and showing, a grasp of reality on this particular issue. </font>
Continually insulting the intelligence of others on TBN who don't share your view neither helps to validate your arguments nor does it reflect reality. I've seen multiple posts from other individuals who make valid arguments. Very few are as verbose as I am, but that doesn't mean they aren't making good, solid, logical, well thought out arguments.
If you simply want to rant, hurling insults wherever because it makes you feel better, well, that's one thing. But if you are trying to make people see the "other side of the coin" in the hopes of converting their viewpoint, I'd suggest that you take a different approach.
<font color="blue"> I'm not going to respond to the various economic illiterates who have posted to this thread... </font>
I agree. It's a lot easier to pull out of a losing battle, pivot, and attack from a different direction when it is obvious you can't effectively rebut valid points. An approach that works wonderfully in war but is definitely a losing methodology when it comes to debate. /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif (I's gess I's jusT ONe's Of themm ThErE IlllLetirates... /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif)
To your latest points:
re: (1) <font color="blue">Marketing by telephone, if done responsibly, is more personal and less expensive. </font>
Wow, you agree with one of my points!!! - Telemarketing is such an attractive avenue due to its low cost. Cool! Will it be a nail for some businesses - yep. But that's the principle of evolution - you either evolve or you die. i.e. the whole buggy whip thing again.
re
2) <font color="blue">As a direct result of this legislation I will be adding a surcharge to every product I sell. </font> Interesting. Even though the facts I put on the thread illustrate that your $30K expense is really almost $0 and the "weeks & weeks" of effort will most likely only be a few hours or even minutes instead, you say you have no choice but to raise prices. Hmmm. Seems to me you are really looking for an excuse to raise prices since in reality there is no other viable reason (i.e. effort = minimal; cost = virtually $0) Sorry.
re: (2) <font color="blue">There will be an increase in "fly by night" boiler rooms. </font>
Another alarmist statement. No proof of this what so ever in the telemarketing industry due to regulation. Haven't heard of a huge growth in "boiler room" activity since the Texas no-call list went in to effect. Initially it sounds like a reasonable argument, but there is no proof of causality here. Besides, you honestly think that any "boiler room" is going to sell a legitimate product anyway? They will simply operate in a criminal fashion duping folks for their money and offering them nothing in return. It's called fraud and will be around regardless of if the no-call list goes in to effect or not. Caveat emptor will always apply regardless of the outcome of the no-call list decision.
re: (3) <font color="blue">There will be an increase in jobs going overseas. </font>
This is already happening. Please explain the direct relationship and the no-call list? Reality is that there is no connection - if a company wants to save $, they look to lower costs, and right now since labor rates in India (and other countries) is so low, that's where they are migrating to. Just look around Wal-Mart and observe how many products are made in China. Your argument is an invalid one commonly found debate known as a "Non Causa Pro Causa" - or more accurately in your example, "Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc." Sorry.
re: (4) <font color="blue">I do not think this legislation is that straw, but it IS another straw ...But it is a REAL additional cost imposed on an economy already dangling by a thread. </font>
Yes, there is a lot of regulation out there - some good, a lot of it bad. Some regulation is necessary as it serves to protect the public at large. Making restaurants keep meats below a certain temperature, disallowing toxic substances in our water supplies, etc. The no-call list is meant as a protective regulation, and was never devised or intended to put all telemarketers out of business. This all goes back to what one believes their rights are. Basically by putting one's name on the list, it is the same as hanging a big "NO TRESPASSING" sign on your phone - no different than putting a "NO SOLICITING" sticker on your door.
All the list does is provide a centralized way of doing it because face it, a lot of individual telemarketing businesses don't take "don't call me back" seriously. I've had those I specifically told not to call back call back multiple times - that is until I used the Texas no-call list. Guess what? No more calls - and if someone does violate the law, you're darned right I report them. 'Course I'd report someone physically trespassing too.
As far as the "state of the economy," that's a whole other thread (actually found on CBN if I remember correctly). Suffice to say, not everyone shares your "doom and gloom" view of the U.S. economy.
<font color="blue">I could go on, but what's the point. I doubt if anyone supporting this legislation has given ANY serious thought to any of the issues/consequences just mentioned. Anyway, thank you, MikePA, for having, and showing, a grasp of reality on this particular issue. </font>
Continually insulting the intelligence of others on TBN who don't share your view neither helps to validate your arguments nor does it reflect reality. I've seen multiple posts from other individuals who make valid arguments. Very few are as verbose as I am, but that doesn't mean they aren't making good, solid, logical, well thought out arguments.
If you simply want to rant, hurling insults wherever because it makes you feel better, well, that's one thing. But if you are trying to make people see the "other side of the coin" in the hopes of converting their viewpoint, I'd suggest that you take a different approach.
- Status
