Asymmetrical Information

You mean, you don't derive any pleasure from messing with the average telemarketer mind?

Unfortunately, the law does not prevent charitable organizations or companies you already to business with from calling you up. So while the Daily News may not end up calling me trying to get me to subscribe (and, in all seriousness, they once called me up and told me that if I didn't subscribe the children living in my neighborhood would 1) go hungry, 2) become pimps and drug dealers, 3) would be told where I live and beat me up), anyone from my bank, the United Way or PETA can call and harrass me as much as they want.

So I guess I can still mess with those people's minds. Normally I don't have the patience. I just say I'm not interested (politely) and hang up (quickly).

It's certainly not perfect, but you have to remember that we've been spoiled by the New York State DNC list -- in many parts of the country, people are still suffering the way we used to, with zillions of calls.

I was (mostly) being facetious. Half the time, the phone simply goes dead.

I'm certainly not lockstep with regards to who rings; you do have a point, Kate. If it weren't for the telephone, Purple Heart, Easter Seals and a whole swarm of legitimate organizations with whom we do engage with would be up a certain creek.

So sorry the telemarketers' pyramid get-rich-easy schemes will be hurt, I guess now they'll have to make an honest living like the rest of us. Bottom feeders.

Wonderful how they're jumping on the economic terrorism bandwagon to FUD the pols into siding with them. But I think most Americans will see through it. Let's just hope our pols do too.

Just remember the magic words: "Please place this number on your do-not-call list." Even in the few months left before the national DNC list, it will make a big difference.

I'm more annoyed by spam than these horrid cold callers but I guess its a start. I don't see how either one is protected speech of any sort.

Colorado No-Call has been a joy. In the last couple years before that option went into effect the dinnertime telemarketers were getting downright obnoxious, and given that I come from a household that still believes in the value of a family dinnertime, it was a very rude intrusion.

I’m rather surprised at the willingness of so many to deny someone their freedom of speech merely because the group affected is so unpopular. Oh well, so much for limited government.

Thorley,

Freedom of speech? No one's stopping anyone from standing on the street corner and saying whatever they want. But the First Amendment does not, in my reading, give anyone the right to make a speech in my living room.

Asking the caller to put me on the "do-not-call" list helps, but how do I make such a request when I get one of those computer dialled calls where there's nobody there, or worse still when it's a recorded message?

I’m rather surprised at the willingness of so many to deny someone their freedom of speech

...which doesn't extend into private homes.

A-Mouse, kudos on the dinner hour. How drastic has the change been? Complete?

Actually Michael, I was kidding too (PETA Can kiss my meat-eating, leather wearing a$$).

My suggestion is that EVERYONE (even before the DNC list), no matter what the call, says the following, "Thank you. I do not entertain any type of solicitation over the telephone. If you would like me to do anything, please send the request to me in the mail and I may review it."

If people stop giving money to telemarketers, they'll go away.

I must say that I am rather shocked that a proponent of the free market would subscribe to a law that plainly interferes with one's way of making a living. If the phone calls are so hated (and I must admit that I get quite annoyed at calls during dinner hour), then why do they still happen? Presumably, at least some consumers welcome the solicitations or they wouldn't be worthwhile. Plus, I know more than one person who put themselves through school or staved off rough times by taking a job at the phone banks making cold calls. Believe me, it's not a fun job, but it beats the alternatives (obviously), primarily because of the flexible hours. The fact that the such calls are so annoying doesn't in any way justify a *federal law* prohibiting them.

The sad fact is, people will always raise holy terror about laws that they hate and cheer with the vigor of a child on Christmas Day about the laws that are perceived to benefit them and never put two and two together -- if YOU can stick to somebody with your legislation, THEY sure as hell can and will do the same to you.

This is a little different from your ordinary regulation.

Telemarketers make their sales to the people who want their services (whoever they may be) by using the private property of an enormous number of people who don't want their services. There's a huge negative externality that's borne by the rest of us in order to produce a benefit for the few. Curbing very large negative externalities and securing the property rights of its citizens are both well within the scope of legitimate government action.

Michael Ubaldi: Like I said, a joy :) I'm only around there on the weekends (live in an apartment by school, yet close enough to home to drive back and forth regularly), but apparently it was getting to the point of multiple interruptions per week. Now it's maybe once or twice a month for legitimate solicitiations (i.e. those initiated by charities et al not covered by the telemarketing ban).

Presumably, at least some consumers welcome the solicitations or they wouldn't be worthwhile. Plus, I know more than one person who put themselves through school or staved off rough times . . . . Believe me, it's not a fun job, but it beats the alternatives (obviously), primarily because of the flexible hours.

When did we start talking about prostitution? I thought this was about telemarketers. I'm confused now.

"Presumably, at least some consumers welcome the solicitations or they wouldn't be worthwhile...."

Telemarketers make their sales to the people who want their services (whoever they may be) by using the private property of an enormous number of people who don't want their services. There's a huge negative externality that's borne by the rest of us in order to produce a benefit for the few.

No one hates telemarketers more that I do, but is this a fair analysis? What private property is being used? They pay for the call, not me. It's true that my time is being wasted, but I can hang up. I can see that your argument works when directed against junk faxes and spam, but it's a stretch to apply it to telemarketing, isn't it?

antirealist:

What private property is being used? They pay for the call, not me. It's true that my time is being wasted, but I can hang up. I can see that your argument works when directed against junk faxes and spam, but it's a stretch to apply it to telemarketing, isn't it?

You mean your phone, in your household, on a line you rent for maybe $28 (or more) a month, isn't your private property being put to use?

The telemarketing business model is predicated on interrupting people on a device that most people did not install for advertising purposes. You get advertising on, say, the TV or radio, that's great -- you chose to turn the device on and the ads are helping to pay for delivery of that service. Junkmail is more of an irritant but the mailbox need only be checked at your leisure; and an incoming credit card application does not ring, with the possibility of being Great Aunt Margaret calling to say that the hip-replacement surgery was a success.

It would be one thing if the government simply issued a complete ban on telemarketing, which would possibly run afoul of state rights by regulating non-interstate commerce, but AFAIK that's not what we are discussing here. A no-call list is comparable to hanging a No Soliciting sign on your front door -- only substantive differences between the door and the phone are (so far as I can see) that the telemarketer...

(a) ...has less cost overhead than the door-to-door salesperson hence there are many, many more of them.

(b) ...(without no-call in place) has to interrupt you in order to learn that you explicitly did not wish to be interrupted.

(c) ...via computerized dialing can interrupt people on multiple lines simultaneously while connecting with only the first caller that picks up the phone, thereby interrupting multiple people without ever learning that some of them may have explicit wishes not to be interrupted.

You mean your phone, in your household, on a line you rent for maybe $28 (or more) a month, isn't your private property being put to use?

It's being employed, but I don't think it's being used in the relevant sense, in that no new costs are being imposed. I pay for the line rental whether telemarketers call me or not.

antirealist,

You seem to be saying it's OK because there is no marginal cost to the telemarketer's use of my phone. That may be true, but the main resource being used, without my permission, is my time and my convenience.

The telemarketing industry makes its money by imposing this cost on me and countless others. My guess is that if these costs were considered, the industry woud be a net negative for the economy.

But that doesn't really matter. Sayng it's OK because there's no marginal cost to using my phone is like sayingit's OK to force yourself into my house to give a spiel, because there's no marginal cost, other than time and annoyance, to that either.

By that logic, antirealist, it would be okay for them to come into your house and shout their sales pitch, provided you weren't actually being charged extra by your mortgage provider or landlord to have them come in. That being approximately what they are doing when they call you on the phone. When they do so after you've announced in advance that you don't want their pitch, that seems to me to be a pretty clear-cut violation of the right to be secure in one's home.

I'm aware that this is going to destroy the industry, since most of the people they sell to will put themselves on those DNC lists. Since most of those people are (I'm told) the elderly and housebound with clinical psychiatric problems of one sort or another, I'm just not that worried about it. I feel bad for the telemarketers, and all, but I don't see a compelling societal interest in ensuring that lonely seniors are able to purchase electronics they can't afford great enough to justify the rest of us suffering through the calls. That, incidentally, is apparently why they call at dinnertime: it's when the housebound are at their loneliest and most vulnerable to sales pitches. Delightful.

First: Thanks to antirealist for picking up the slack (and abuse :P) while I was not paying attention to this discussion.

Second: Phone lines are not your private property in the same way that your house is. Primarily this is because you rent those lines on which a free license of access is given to everyone and anyone who wants to use -- including telemarketers. In fact, due to the incredible amount of politiking, rent seeking, and subsidizing involved in local phone companies operation, those lines are much closer to being public rather than private property.

Third: The major issue here is that too many of you equate a few minutes per day (at most) of annoyance with the need for federal government legislation. The negative externalities here are really not that high. I'll bet that most of you have already found a way to deal with the annoyance on your own, such as by getting unlisted phone numbers or Caller ID. Why do you need Big Brother to step in now? While I agree that one of the government's proper roles is to regulate for widely dispersed externalities, that should only be where the costs are too great on the individuals to take care of it themselves.

Fourth: It is incredibly naive to think that the No-Call List won't be watered down. The rent-seeking that went into establishing it just means that they'll be more exercised in defgeating it. Pretty soon you'll be getting those calls again because you forgot to check the box on that credit card slip or tell the cashier who asks for your phone number while ringing you up that you don't mean to waive your rights of inclusion on that list by disclosing your number now. This is not to mention the incredible amount of bureaucratic waste and dead-weight loss created by this needless legislation.

Finally: I am no lover of the telemarketers, but I simply don't see the need to have the feds jump in here. There are perfectly workable market-responses to the negative behavior that obviate the need for the legislation. And for any of you who are thinking "but why should I be forced to pay for those protections when I can simply have a law making the behavior illegal?" should remember TANSTAAFL. The government solution is almost invariably the most expensive option.

Whew! That was a long rant for something maybe three people will actually read;)

As I already said, I'm not trying to defend telemarketing - quite the opposite. I'm trying to suggest that making an economic case against the practice on the grounds of its negative externalites misses the point about what's really wrong with it. That kind of analysis also leads naturally to suggestions like those made in this otherwise excellent article, which I find equally objectionable. The commodification of personal property assumed by this kind of economic analysis has corrosive effects on our notions of personhood. Mary Jane Radin, if the the article linked above does justice to her view, expresses this idea much more eloquently.

In my view, what's wrong with the practice is wrong prior to any economic considerations. It exploits certain social norms - like politeness to strangers - ultimately weakening them.

Of course, the way to make sure no one ever, ever gives you a telemarketing call is to get a cell phone. I haven't gotten one in 2 years.

"If the phone calls are so hated (and I must admit that I get quite annoyed at calls during dinner hour), then why do they still happen?"

1% of the population is gullible enough to buy the stuff, and that's plenty to keep them in business annoying the other 99%.

It's pretty funny to see the strong libertarians favor a technological arms race instead.

Of course, the way to make sure no one ever, ever gives you a telemarketing call is to get a cell phone. I haven't gotten one in 2 years.

"If the phone calls are so hated (and I must admit that I get quite annoyed at calls during dinner hour), then why do they still happen?"

1% of the population is gullible enough to buy the stuff, and that's plenty to keep them in business annoying the other 99%.

It's pretty funny to see the strong libertarians favor a technological arms race instead.

Okay, I'm still hearing "this legislation..." and I don't get how this is legislation. It appears to be a regulatory act by the FTC.

Furthermore, it is not a ban on commerce -- it is a voluntary action on the part of those who would opt out, to opt out. No household is on this list until it voluntarily places itself there; the default option is for business to proceed like normal. The regulator then has the option of using a fine to impose compliance upon those organizations that would flout this express wish.

What's so objectionable about this approach, again?

Colorado No-Call has been a joy. In the last couple years before that option went into effect the dinnertime telemarketers were getting downright obnoxious, and given that I come from a household that still believes in the value of a family dinnertime, it was a very rude intrusion. -- anony-mouse

I agree -- we got like 15 calls a night pre-DNC...
Post-DNC is f--ing marvelous.

And don't worry about those telemarketers -- trust me, they've got so much crap going on it won't hurt them a bit. There might a little bit of contraction in the industry as small time contingency players drop out but by and large the major call centers aren't reliant on revenue from these services. Besides, my guess is the little guys have seen this coming for awhile and have moved on to spam anyway.

As an aside: I had an earthlink account that came with my internet access for a year and a half before I logged in one day out of curiosity: 7,500 emails. I'd never used the account, never signed up to a website with the account, nothing and I still got 7,500 emails over the course of 18 months.

If people stop giving money to telemarketers, they'll go away.

Funnily enough, I came to that same conclusion about a different form of intrusive, unwanted solicitation - in spite of all the urban legend indicating that "it'll go on forever."

For an entire warm season (April to September) my office would be accosted by salesmen and women in twos or threes. They were invariably well-dressed, drop-dead attractive men or women my age (22-27) who looked like they had an Abercrombie & Fitch shoot that evening. For those of us who went to a big university, these would be the high-profile sorority girls and frat boys (I don't think I saw a single girl under 5' 11''). They'd enter and perform, presumably gambling that they'd meet a pliable member of the opposite sex to schmooze with sex appeal. The product was the usual: "office supplies" and all that nonsense.

Our secretary at the time, a determined once-retired former BBB employee, was unflappable - much as the young men would try to politely intimidate her. The girls were always a treat to gawk at, even though they were simply there to gather contact information, and couldn't care less beyond that simple mission.

None of these incidents ever succeeded with us. We'd marvel at how a company would ostensibly spend so much money on tripling-up employees. Even if the kids were paid on commission, time and resources would be wasted somewhere.

Last summer, not a single one of these gaggles entered. I haven't seen a trio since.

Let's hope market gravity affects telemarketers, as well!

I'm getting rid of my phone. People keep calling me on it.

Most of you are missing the point. These no call lists affect legitamit business as well as those shady telemarketers. Small businesses who do not have IBM"S or MCDONALD's advertising budgets are the one's whom will suffer the most. This legislation will prevent them from building up their clientel. Large companies are happy that smaller firms will not be able to compete for customers. Not everyone operates from a store front business. Some individuals such as insurance agents, and real estate agents need to telemarket to build a customer list. Are you so annoyed by telemaketers that you feel that it is okay to put these people in the unemployment line? What happened to adults bieng strong enough to say "I'm not interested!" Remember when you invite Big Brother into your personal life, where does it stop?

Comments are Closed.