Loose Cannon: Too Soon for TM Hindsight? (Part 1)

While the legalistic wrangling over the do-not-call list has left its administration technically in limbo, for all practical purposes it’s in place. Does this mean that marketers have lost all opportunities to influence the playing field?

Not by half. In the small amount of daylight left before the list’s regulation is cemented, there is an opportunity for one last thrust from the DM industry, in which it takes its case directly to the consumer population. This effort would a) point out that the opt-out is not total and b) postulate that consumers might have been better served by being allowed to opt out industry by industry.

Under an industry-by-industry opt-out plan, consumers could elect not to receive calls from, say, credit card marketers, aluminum siding retailers – and, perhaps, politicians, although there would likely be a clash between the pols’ First Amendment rights and the expressed desire of consumers not to hear from ‘em. This would have allowed consumers to remain fair game for, say, magazines, automotive services and other desired offers.

The list could even have been set up as an opt-in proposition, allowing consumers to receive only those relevant magazine or automotive offers, while forsaking all other callers.

Unfortunately, in its ruling, the Federal Trade Commission said that a menu of choices would confuse consumers. Right. As if they weren’t going to be confused by why they are still receiving calls from politicians and charities after they signed on to the list.

As long as the FTC is a government entity, we really couldn’t have expected it to offer any solution that could potentially disenfranchise politicians. And the direct marketing industry didn’t do itself any favors by making its case solely to the FTC through briefs and testimony without a concurrent consumer-focused campaign. Absent consumer pressure, the FTC wasn’t going to consider a rule any way but the way they did.

Here’s another point that the industry should be discussing. Numbers that are placed on the federal do-not-call list fall off it after five years, and have to be re-contributed, as it were. Try polling a group of non-industry consumers and get a sense of how many realize this.

Now consider these two thoughts: First, if you thought this meant consumers were angry now, how are they going to react in 2008? Second, does this mean that we have a five-year window for a hell of a campaign to convince consumers of the value of being receptive to telemarketing?

I’ll offer a few ideas on how to do this in next week’s column.

To respond to the opinions in this column, please contact [email protected].