Falsehoods = Obfuscation =
Junk Calls = The American Telemarketing Associotion
On June 8, 1998 the President of the American Telemarketing Association
wrote a Letter to the Editor of Teleservices News. The Letter tried
to defend the telenuisance industry and the ATA and included a claim that
ATA members have testified against telemarketers in court.
We didn't exactly accept that claim on its face, so we asked for the names
of the ATA members who testified... just to make sure the ATA was being
honest. Here is the ATA's reply. > 324k
wav
The letter (below) is our response to the ATA.
630-393-2370
pci@privatecitizen.com
|
|
P. O. Box 233
Naperville, IL 60566 |
Mr. Boettcher - Marketing Director
American Telemarketing Association
4605 Lankershim Blvd, #824
North Hollywood, CA 91602
June 15, 1998
Dear Mr. Boettcher,
Last week we chatted by phone
about a 'Letter to the Editor' published in the June 8, 1998 Teleservices
News. The President of the American Telemarketing Association (ATA) Mary
Weyand, wrote it in response to an earlier (May 8th) Letter from Private
Citizen member, Russ Smith. He outlined how the ATA, the Direct Marketing
Association (DMA) and Telewatch seemed more intent on protecting telemarketers
from the citizens they annoy than visa versa.
Of course, such a 'circle
the wagons' attitude would be appropriate were it not for the claim of
these same outfits that self-regulation works to protect consumers privacy,
and is preferable to truly meaningful and effective government regulation.
The telenuisance industry's failure to self-regulate is described, to some
extent, in Mr. Smith's letter.
My reading of the ATA's June
8th response left me with questions, since much of what Ms.Weyand claimed
was either simply not true or an obfuscation. To wit:
"If the company fails
to comply with that [do-not-call] request the consumer may take separate
action through the courts." NOT TRUE
-
Concerning a violation of a
do-not-call request, court action is available only after two calls are
made within a twelve-month period.
-
Nevertheless, Private Citizen
members now has the expert commentary of Ms. Weyand to assist us in suing,
and prevailing, after such single call violations.
"In addition, consumers can
elect to contact the DMA's Telephone Preference Service [TPS]
to have their telephone
number added to an industry-wide do-not-call list." NOT TRUE
-
The TPS is not an industry-wide
do-not-call list. Indeed, the DMA explicitly states that the TPS
is intended for use by national telemarketing firms. In a DM News May 27,
1991 article titled Why the 'No-Call' Bill is Dangerous, the
DMA's chief lobbyist (Richard Barton) described the "…hundreds of
thousands of local businesses that account for most of the calls…"
-
Non-profits (and telemarketing
service agencies calling on their behalf) do not use it.
-
Telemarketing-research firms
do not use it.
-
The vast majority of non-DMA
members do not use it.
-
Many (if not most) DMA members
do not use it.
-
For example, DMA members who
receive do-not-call requests or telemarketing complaints commonly suggest
that such complainants register with the TPS. Yet, many of these same DMA
member firms will continue to junk call TPS listees. And this will continue
to be true even after the DMA 'tightens' its TPS guidelines in 1999, as
planned.
-
A report by the 102nd Congress
(House Committee on Energy and Commerce) found that less than 3% of DMA
members used the TPS.
"However, care must be taken
to avoid making the broad interpretation that a company is in violation
of the TCPA because it did not respond to a [do-not-call policy availability]
'test' conducted by an industry publication." OBFUSCATION
-
The TCPA is clear. A company's
do-not-call policy must be made available upon demand. It does not matter
why or who makes that demand. Indeed, the requirement that such policies
be available is to assure that firms are complying with the TCPA's do-not-call
policy mandate.
-
The grand failure of most of
those surveyed by Teleprofessional Magazine concerning do-not-call policy
availability is just a reprise of the July 1994 Report Card on Compliance
with the TCPA by Top Companies in the Telemarketing Industry
issued by the Majority Staff of the House Subcommittee
on Telecommunications and Finance. In that Report, these 'Top Companies'
were given a grade of 'F' in their written policy for maintaining a do-not-call
list.
-
Even Ms. Weyand's own firm's
behavior, TMW Marketing, seems to belie her protestations. As reported
by Private Citizen member, Robert Arkow, he contacted her firm soon after
Weyand became ATA's President. Arkow both e-mailed and called TMW Marketing
to request its do-not-call policy. It took months before it arrived. After
receiving the policy, Arkow called Weyand to ask why TMW's
do-not-call policy was not available upon demand as required by law. Arkow
claims that Weyand put him on hold, and that he was soon thereafter 'disconnected'.
The telemarketing industry commonly
exhibits its inability to abide by government regulation. Perhaps
that is why the ATA's former
president, Mac Hansbrough, proudly proclaimed the following: "We have
modified to our benefit, or helped to defeat every piece of federal telemarketing
legislation that has been introduced. I plan to not only continue this
effort, but to devote even more resources to it." (1/94 TeleProfessional
Magazine) Hansbrough now heads Telewatch. Recently, 17 Telewatch members
were asked to supply do-not-call policies (as required by law). Only 6
complied. Considering this level of compliance, it is clear why Hansbrough's
organizations seek to thwart regulation which would result in additional
circumstances of non-compliance.
Ms. Weyand's "Letter' also
encouraged those who had questions, to contact the ATA by telephone.
Based on that encouragement
I called for information concerning Ms. Weyand's following statement;
"When there have been
violations of the TCPA and the TSR, ATA members have often been called
upon to serve as expert witnesses to testify against violators in court
proceedings."
Specifically, I asked that
the ATA identify those of its members who served as expert witnesses and
testified against TCPA violators
in court proceedings. Your response was: "It's our policy not to provide
that information about our individual members. What you can do is check
public records … and then approach those individual companies that did
participate in those court cases."
Members of the ATA are involved
in a marketing mechanism so reviled and intrusive that they fail even to
complete their pitch two-thirds of the time, and which is generally considered
to be:
- More of a nuisance or
invasion of privacy = 82% (1991 Lou Harris / Equifax Corp.)
- Very annoying when made
'live' = 68% (1991 Roper / American Demographics Magazine)
- An offensive way to sell
= 69% (1991 Walker Research / Telemarketing Magazine)
If you want to know the
public's opinion of residential telemarketing today, just ask some of the
people walking past your office building as you leave work to enjoy a peaceful
dinner at home.
The ATA's protection of its
members' privacy is a vivid counter-point to what ATA members do to the
privacy of the millions of folks who just want to be left alone in their
final sanctuary; their homes.
In recognition of the ATA's
insistence on protecting its members' privacy, I ask that the ATA identify
(with name and address) the plaintiffs who benefited from ATA expert witnesses
who testified against TCPA violators in court proceedings. Fulfilling this
modified request will not be adverse to ATA policy, since it does not require
the identification of ATA members. I look forward to your response, as
it will afford the ATA an opportunity to further exhibit its remarkable
character and honesty.
Sincerely,
Robert Bulmash, President
cc: Illinois Secretary of
State George Ryan / House Telecommunications &
Finance Sbcmte
Rep. Edward Markey & Dennis Hastert / Senators
Richard Durbin & Ernest Hollings