[Re: Loose Cannon: Caller’s Id, Direct Newsline, June 30, 2003]:
Gosh, Richard, a guy would think that you have no use for outbound TM agencies.
It’s a sore point to me. As a career salesman making hundreds of unsolicited calls a month to introduce myself to unsuspecting business people, I think I am hurt by your column. Then I realize that what I call about has a definable benefit to the person I am calling.
Okay, I’m cool now. The moment has passed. I’m not like them.
Heck, none of this is unsuspected. Like spam, it’s hard to defend. Except to say that honest consumer telemarketers are simply telephone Fuller Brushmen and Brushwomen. They call to offer a service or a product that could solve a problem, cater to a desire, be of use to a consumer who just may welcome the call and suggestion that they may want to buy it right now. Folks just need a little prodding.
Trouble is wading through all the marginal calls and the pure larceny… Oh, is Alexander Graham Larceny offering tickets to a fireman’s ball or a policeman’s dinner? Now, there’s a call that’s worth getting on the DNC list!
Just please take that “No Solicitor” sign off your office door and maybe disconnect your volice mail once a week. Every salesman brings an idea and one day they will bring you an idea that really benefits Richard H. Levey!
John Galavan
Development
Seattle Publishing, Inc.
Gutenberg Publishing System
Seattle
* * * * * I was quite amused by the therapy spin, but doesn’t outbound get even MORE profitable if we can eliminate the soreheads before we switch on the autodiallers? There’s nothing quite like having the initial filtering work done for free by the government. Next stop in the twilight zone: a tax on TM to cover the maintenance expense of the national opt-out database. What do you think?
Thanks for your clever story.
Elliott Hawk
Lead Generation/Database Manager
Skyline Displays Inc.
Eagan, MN
Network
