[Re: Loose Cannon: Too Soon for TM Hindsight? (Part 1), Direct Newsline, Oct. 6, 2003]:
It’s time to stop the insanity. Telemarketing firms created this nightmare. They often use poorly trained telemarketers to push services on people at inappropriate times. Telemarketing firms are not the victims in this op-out process — they brought this on themselves and it’s time to reap what they sowed.
A serious reinvention is all this industry can do to save itself.
S. Glotfelty
****
I like your idea of categorical opt-out, but I don’t think a categorical opt-in would be in the best interests of the direct marketing industry. The reason is the fundamental inertia of people and the dynamic nature of their interests, which direct marketing is designed to overcome.
I agree that the inherent conflict of interest politicians bring to direct marketing regulation represents an opportunity for PR efforts, but the need to assess the potential backlash of legislators so criticized must be taken into account.
Even I didn’t know about the five-year DNC time limit. This among other things, like the pathetic position FCC finds itself in as it attempts to beg, borrow, or steal a copy of the DNC list makes it clear that the best way to fight industry regulation is on the bureaucratic and judicial front. The bureaucrats are clearly not competent to administer the system and the judges make a fine mess of everything they touch.
A motivated private sector (DMA and ATA administered DNC list for example) with public sector force of law (FCC safe harbor for telemarketers who belong to DMA and/or ATA and abide by their DNC lists) would work far better and avoid the constitutional issues involved with direct federal administration.
This is the sort of arrangement Microsoft proposes to deal with spam, which I think has great merit.
Terry Nugent
Director of Marketing
Medical Marketing Service, Inc.
Wood Dale, IL
Network
