Past quotes of the week.

Quotes from 2001

December 30, 2001

"Ninety percent of consumers say marketers should ask permission before sending information from any medium, according to a survey by direct marketing agency Brann Worldwide released yesterday.

"Of the 400 respondents surveyed by the Wilton, CT, company, 92 percent felt positively toward companies that ask permission and 81 percent would be more willing to respond if permission were sought beforehand......

"The news was not so good for telemarketing. Ninety-nine percent said they preferred not being contacted by telephone about frequent-buyer programs they belong to and travel offers that interest them."

From a report called "The Power of Permission: The New Rules for Making Relevant Connections With Your Consumers," by Brann Worldwide, a direct marketing agency. From DM News Brann: Permission Improves Consumer Response, December 11, 2001.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Even direct marketers know that telemarketing is a bad way to market their products. Yet the telemarketing companies tell their prospective clients how "effective" outbound telemarketing is for sales.

We at C.A.T.S. have to wonder why any legitimate marketer would use outbound telemarketing when survey after survey, from direct marketers to Dateline NBC to the Lou Harris Polls tell the same story: Customers object to the calls and the subsequent invasion of privacy.

At least one marketer, however, is using the situation to their advantage. Capitol One, a credit card provider, this year introduced their "No Hassle" credit card, which promises that their customer will get no telemarketing calls from them.

C.A.T.S. contacted Capitol One and asked how successful the program has been. While Capitol One refused give us exact figures on the program's success we did find out that the response was so overwhelming that they ran out of the "No Hassle" credit card plastic blanks, and had to issue generic blanks for a while.

We at C.A.T.S. have said for a long time, "Vote with your dollars." If a company that you do business with telemarkets you, simply end the relationship with them, and tell them why. If we all do this, 2002 will indeed be a happy new year!

December 23, 2001

"However, what has been made clear during the past three months is that the American people demand that their contributions be used for the people served by the charities. My report shows that only 32 cents of every dollar raised in the average telemarketing campaign goes to the charity, and that is totally unacceptable."

New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer commenting on the results of an investigation and subsequent a report by his office into the practices of charity telemarketers in his state. The report, titled "Pennies For Charity 2001", is available on the Attorney General's web site or by clicking here. From DM News, NY: Charities Got Little Funds Raised by Telemarketers in 2000, December 21, 2001. Attorney General Spitzer can be reached via his State Capitol office at: (518) 474-7330.

C.A.T.S. Comment: The American Teleservices Association (formerly known as the American Telemarketing Association) was quick to toot its own horn several weeks ago when its members "raised" large sums of money for the victims of the 911 tragedy. Yet a visit to their web site, www.ataconnect.org, shows no mention of this story, even though their practice is to post media stories about their industry.

We at C.A.T.S. have known for a long time that charity telemarketers take a large cut of any money donated to a charity by their fundraising efforts.

The solution to this problem is consumer education. Once consumers are made aware of the business practices of so called "professional telemarketing fundraisers" it will become obvious that the best answer to tell the telemarketer when they call is "NO".

Hats off to you, Mr. Spitzer, for exposing this dirty business that feeds off the goodwill and generosity of the average citizen.

December 16, 2001

"Interest has risen in recent months about potential legal challenges to certain state laws regulating telemarketers. Whether it is the frustration marketers have found with the 50-state regulatory environment or that they are fed up watching legislators play games to pass legislation that places an undue burden on their industry, telemarketers have discovered a new interest in the court system."

C. Tyler Prochnow, state legislative counsel for the American Teleservices Association (ATA), and a columnist for DM News, commenting about possible legal challenges to eliminate or limit state wide "Do-Not-Call" lists laws as well as other legislation regarding the outbound telemarketing industry. From DM News, Strategies for Legal Challenges, November 28, 2001. Mr. Prochnow can be reached via e-mail at: tprochnow@lathropgage.com.

C.A.T.S. Comment: According to Mr. Prochnow telemarketers "are fed up watching legislators play games." If anyone "plays games" it is surely the telemarketing industry's attorneys. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Attorneys like Mr. Prochnow and others have come up with weird legal theories, and try to twist words and the laws to their clients benefit. If legislators are indeed 'playing games' it is probably due to the fact that many legislators are attorneys themselves!

Really Mr. Prochnow, what part of "Do-Not-Call" don't you understand?

December 9, 2001

"Consumer research I find trustworthy says 93 percent of the American public agrees with [Federal Trade Commission Chairman] Muris that telemarketing is always intrusive. I know I do. I hate calls at dinner, calls when I'm writing, sales calls claiming to be research, calls that are dead air and calls where the salesperson won’t take no for an answer......

"I believe in commercial free speech. I believe in the freedom of businesses to advertise their products. I believe in using the right medium to sell the right product to the right customer...and sometimes that is the phone. However, the industry's use of this tool [outbound telemarketing] has put commercial free speech in jeopardy.

"We're in trouble when a conservative, market-driven official reaches the conclusion that lawful, non-deceptive communication is a problem that we must regulate."

Marty Abrams, a writer for Direct Magazine, commenting on the state of the outbound telemarketing industry. From Direct Magazine, Even Conservatives Hate Telemarketing, November 29, 2001. Mr. Abrams can be contacted through Direct Magazine's web site, www.directmag.com.

C.A.T.S. Comment: We agree with Mr. Abrams, the telemarketing industry is in big trouble, and despite the warnings of Mr. Abrams, and others as well, the industry goes on as if nothing is wrong.

It is the continued arrogance of industry officials that will lead to the eventual downfall of the outbound telemarketing industry.

December 2, 2001

"That [prison inmates doing telemarketing] in and of itself was unsettling. A convicted felon does not start a pen-pal relationship with a 15-year-old girl"

April Jordan, a Texas resident who has filed a class-action lawsuit against Sandstar Family Entertainment claiming that a Utah prison inmate wrote a letter to her teen-age daughter using personal information gathered in a jailhouse telemarketing operation.

The lawsuit claims that an inmate gathered personal information about her daughter, including her name, date of birth, physical description and home address, and gave it to a fellow inmate. The suit also claims that a week later, a second inmate wrote a letter to Jordan's daughter.

Charges in the lawsuit against SandStar include fraud, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress and privacy violations. The suit also claimed SandStar violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act when another inmate representing the company called the Jordan household despite Jordan's request for removal from the SandStar database.

From DM News, Woman Sues Over Inmate Telemarketer Incident, November 14, 2001. Sandstar Family Entertainment can be reached, toll free, at (800) 882-4056.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Sandstar is a company that sells "family friendly" videos (i.e. edited to remove any objectionable material, like profanity, sexual innuendo and graphic violence). People of faith put their trust in the company, only to have calls from convicts coming into their homes. It truly shows what the company thought of it's customers privacy rights. A fine example of "family values" indeed.

Hats off to you, Ms. Jordan, for filing this class-action suit. C.A.T.S. considers you a true hero. Go get 'em.

November 25, 2001

"They're [postal patrons] not wanting to read anything unless they know exactly where it came from.

"You're much better off with a telemarketer calling than getting mail from somebody you don't know. The right one can provide a lot of information without the hassle of going through the mail."

Jan Walton, owner of Walton Teleservices commenting on using telemarketing instead of direct mail since the anthrax scare. From the Bradenton Herald, Phone marketing sees revival, November 11, 2001. Ms. Walton can be reached at her company, Walton Teleservices, (941) 753-9540.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Ms. Walton gets a "A" in creative thinking for sure. Telemarketers have, in the past, justified their offensive practices by claiming their calls are a "service," giving consumers the "convenience of shopping at home." But Ms. Walton takes the art of "spin" to new heights, suggesting that due to the anthrax scare, people are afraid to open their junk mail, and thus, companies should forget the mail and use telemarketing instead. She further claims that we are "much better off with a telemarketer calling than getting mail from somebody you don't know." I hate to point out that one can throw away junk mail without opening it, and thus avoid any risk at all. Consumers have been doing this well before September 11, and will continue to do so in the future, anthrax scare or not.

Please, Ms. Walton, put us on your "Do-Not-Gall" list.

Ms. Walton responds:

To whom it may concern,

My name is Jan Walton, owner of Walton-Teleservices. My telemarketing firm concentrates on business to business telemarketing. Our clients offer a program to eliminate liabilities in workers compensation claims, human resource assistance and passing major corporate discounts to small businesses in health and medical benefits. Florida has the worst workers comp practices in the country today, our Clients have saved small businesses thousands of dollars by passing along corporate discounts to small business owners. We do not sell anything we only set appointments so that our clients representatives can provide complimentary price quaotes to those businesses that could benefit from these services. WE DO NOT SELL ANYTHING NOR DO WE CALL ANY RESIDENTIAL AREAS. OUR CLIENTS FEEL THAT IT IS POLITE TO CALL AND ASK IF A REPRESENTATIVE CAN STOP OUT TO SEE THEM ,THAN IT WOULD BE TO JUST SHOW UP. I'M GLAD YOU LIKED MY COMMENT, BUT AS YOU CAN SEE BY THROWING AWAY ANY LITERATURE THAT OUR CLIENTS WOULD SEND TO A BUSINESS OWNER ,IN FACT COULD END UP IN A BUSINESS MISSING OUT ON A HUGE SAVINGS ON INSURANCES THAT ARE SO ESSENTIAL FOR FLORIDA.

SMALL BUSINESSES. PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT OUR CALLERS ARE NOT PHONE PESTS, WE SIMPLY GIVE INFO AND SET UP QUOATES. In Florida if you have an 8 employee construction crew and one of your men gets seriously injured , it may quadrupple your work comp premium and cause you to have to downsize your company. Our client steps in and groups the 8 employees together with the 30,000 others that our client already represents to give this small business the buying power that a 30,000 employee corp. recieves in insurances it is called employee leasing. The small business hires , fires, gives raises but all liabilities will be transfered to the leasing company.

Telemarketing that focuses on gimmicks and scamming make it very hard for legitamate services like mine. My telemarketers are professional and informative. We put our hearts into what we do. However I realize that there are a larger percentage of telemarketing firms lacking in ethics and my work would be a lot easier if that kind of thing would be eliminated.

Thank You,

Jan E. Walton

November 18, 2001

"Bob [Arkow] is one of several people around the country who have made it their life's cause or their life's ambition to fight the great windmill of telemarketing."

Matt Mattingley, a Washington D.C.-based lobbyist for the American Teleservices Association (formerly known as the American Telemarketing Association), commenting on Bob Arkow's successful lawsuit against a carpet care telemarketer. The judge fined the telemarketer $1,000.00, for two violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). From the Antelope Valley Press, Activist puts telemarketer on hook for $1,000, November 13, 2000. Mr. Mattingley can be reached toll free at (877) 779-3974 or via e-mail at: matt@moinc.com.

C.A.T.S. Comment: The great windmill of telemarketing??? Well, lets see, Webster's revised unabridged Dictionary defines "windmill" as "a mill operated by the power of the wind, usually by the action of the wind upon oblique vanes or sails which radiate from a horizontal shaft."

The only connection we can find between a windmill and telemarketing is the fact that there is a shaft and a lot of hot air involved. This is especially true when it comes from a Washington D.C.-based lobbyist who represents the telenuisance industry.

November 11, 2001

"I think the idea of going out to [telemarketing] cell phones is the dumbest idea I've ever heard."

Paul Glancy, vice president of the Martin Agency, commenting about the question of whether placing outbound telemarketing calls to cellular phones is proper. From DM News, Strategies Key to New Technology, Telemarketers Told, June 28, 2001.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Mr. Glancy is right, telemarketing to cell phone users is not only a dumb idea, it is also illegal in the United States to place a sales call to a cellular phone. This is because it involves the concept of "cost shifting", i.e. the person receiving the calls has to pay for the cost of the call.

When we here at C.A.T.S. received a telemarketing call on our cell phone from Time Warner (our local cable company which we have sued before for violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act) we did the only thing that a person could do, we filed suit. Trial is set for December 7, 2001. We'll let you know the results.

By the way, AOL Time Warner is a proud member of the American Teleservices Associaton (ATA). The ATA has a code of ethics for its members. Too bad that ATA doesn't force their members to obey it.

The results of the lawsuit against Time Warner are in. The judge on January 4, 2002, ruled against Time Warner with a total judgement of $528.00. The $28.00 dollars were for court costs. We asked a Time Warner official at a meeting later at a meeting hosted by the City of Santa Clarita (CA) if they would now block cellular numbers in their telemarketing system. They stated "We will continue to run our business as we see fit." You be the judge on this one. By the way, we told them that that the number was a cell phone and not to call it for telemarketing purposes. They chose to ignore our warning.

November 4, 2001

"You so burden the message you're being paid to deliver for the client, you fear the message may never be heard. By the time you get the opportunity to talk to people about whatever the issue is, you've already lost them."

Errol Copilevitz, senior partner of the law firm Copilevitz & Canter LLC in Kansas City, MO., commenting on the anti-terrorism bill signed into law by President Bush last week which contains language requiring charity fund raisers to include added disclosures to their telemarketing scripts. According to Mr. Copilevitz, requiring telemarketers to add disclosures to their messages is "compelled speech" which may make it unconstitutional. From DM News, Anti -Terror Bill Requires Telemarketing Disclosures, October 29, 2001. Mr. Copilevitz can be reached at (816) 471-3977 or via e-mail at ecopilevitz@copilevitz-canter.com.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Here we go again! The telemarketing lawyers are using the constitution and freedom of speech arguments to fight legislation requiring telemarketers to disclose name and mailing address of the charity on whose behalf the calls are being made.

We suspect that the "real" fear of having to make these "disclosures" is once consumers know the address and phone number of the charity that placed the intrusive call(s), they will contact the the charity directly to express their anger. They may further say that as a result of the intrusive call(s), they will give their dollars elsewhere. The end result may be a consumer backlash causing charities to shy away from telemarketing in the future.

October 28, 2001

"Missourians whose numbers are on the [Do-Not-Call] list have been a vital and enthusiastic part of the No Call team, reporting violations to us and providing us with detailed information about those calls. We will uphold our end of the bargain by thoroughly investigating those complaints and doggedly pursuing those telemarketers who flout the law. Make no mistake about it — we are dead serious about playing hard ball on No Call....

"Telemarketers — no matter where they are located — will not be able to ignore our No Call law with impunity and do so at their own peril. We anticipate that this is just the opening salvo of legal action to enforce what is obviously a very popular law."

Missouri's Attorney General Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon commenting on how his office intends to enforce the "No Call" law in his state. In the few months that the law has been in force his office has done a record number of prosecutions. From a press release issued by his office, Nixon announces first lawsuit under state's new No Call law; other telemarketers to pay $15,000 total in penalties, July 12, 2001. Mr. Nixon can be contacted via his web page, http://www.ago.state.mo.us.

C.A.T.S. Comment: While the attorney general of California is just beginning to work the details of its new enacted "Do-Not-Call" law, Missouri has taken its "No Call" law seriously. Clearly, enforcement is the key to the law's success, and Jay Nixon is taking the steps to vigorously "enforce what is obviously a very popular law."

C.A.T.S. salutes you, Mr. Nixon, and we hope that California's Attorney General, Bill Lockyer, will follow your lead and protect the privacy of California citizens from unlawful and unwanted intrusions.

October 21, 2001

"We are rectifying the situation. It was due to a problem with the software that the telemarketing company uses to generate its call list, and we believe we are making the proper adjustments to continue to comply with the law."

Matthew C. Kraner, general manager of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch commenting about charges by Missouri's Attorney General that the newspaper violated the state's "Do-Not-Call" list law by calling consumers on the State's "Do-Not-Call" list. In the article Kraner refused to name the telemarketing firm which the Post-Dispatch hired to make the calls. If found guilty, the newspaper could be fined as much as $5,000 per violation. From Direct Magazine, Missouri Probes Post-Dispatch Phone Violation Charges, October 2, 2001. Mr. Kraner can be reached at: (314) 340-8975 or via e-mail at mkraner@post-dispatch.com.

C.A.T.S. Comment: We love Mr. Kraner's defense of his company when it comes to violating the law, especially the part about "making the proper adjustments to continue to comply with the law." What a 'spin' job. Wow!

A friend of mine is going to court in a few weeks for a speeding ticket. Using Mr. Kraner's same logic, I will suggest to him that he tell the judge: "I am rectifying the situation. It was due to a problem with the software that the vehicle uses to control the engine, and both myself and my mechanic believe we are making the proper adjustments to continue to comply with the law."

C.A.T.S. hopes that the Missouri Attorney General fines the St. Louis Post-Dispatch both for violations of state law, and for doing a bad 'spin' job as well!

Please, Mr. Kraner, put us on your "Do-Not-Gall" list.

October 14, 2001

(This weeks quote and comment comes from "Maxwell Smart" a viewer of this web site.)

"The premise of the bill in California goes beyond (seeing dead-air calls) as an annoyance factor. It's being cited as senior citizens are unnerved by dead-air calls (because they) fear that their home is being cased by criminals. Single women are afraid they're being stalked. All sorts of terrible consequences are being attributed to predictive dialers.

"However valid some of these concerns are, you can't attribute all of these bad things to predictive dialers. There is no empirical data whatsoever to demonstrate that the preponderance of dead-air calls are due to predictive dialing. They may be a wrong number; it may be that my daughter's boyfriend calls and hangs up when I answer the phone. Or it actually may be crooks casing your joint.....

"People ask, how can honorable, respectable people do this? There's the reason: Because it's profitable."

Matt Mattingley, director of governmental affairs for the American Teleservices Association (formerly the American Telemarketing Association), an industry trade group. Mr. Mattingley was commenting on California Assembly bill AB-870, a measure to limit the use of predictive dialers in California. From the San Francisco Chronicle, DEAD AIR - A new state law may put a stop to those 'no one there' calls, by Carolyn Said, October 12, 2001. Mr Mattingley can be reached at the American Teleservices Association toll free number which is: (877) 779-3974 or via e-mail at matt@moinc.com.

C.A.T.S. Guest Comment: Matt Mattingley can be my spokesman for the telemarketing interests anytime. Can you believe this guy says there's no empirical data that supports dialers creating dead air... then the article references ATA's own data to contradict him. Then his best argument for the honorability and respectability of the industry is that it's "profitable!" So are chop shops and drug trafficking. Wow.

Our thanks to "Maxwell Smart" for the quote and comment.

October 7, 2001

"It is more than an annoyance; it's an invasion "

California State Senator Liz Figueroa (D-Fremont) commenting on how she feels about telemarketing calls. Senator Figueroa sponsored Senate Bill 771, creating a state wide "Do-Not-Call" list in California. Her bill has passed the legislature and is waiting for Governor Gray Davis to sign it, which he has stated he will do. From the San Francisco Chronicle, Bill to curb telemarketers given new life. State Sen. Burton backs limits after receiving barrage of calls, August 21, 2001. Senator Figueroa can be reached via her web site. Click here to visit her site, where you can get a "fact sheet" on SB 771.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Congratulations Senator, C.A.T.S. knows how hard you worked to get this bill passed. All of California's citizens will thank you, especially at dinnertime!.

C.A.T.S. salutes you.

September 30, 2001

"I answered the phone, and someone who had the warmth of the woman from my high school cafeteria greeted me. She barked at me, "I need to speak with Mr. Ogen!" I responded, "That would be me. How can I help you today?"

She continued, probing with questions about my family in a way that made me think something was terribly wrong (of course, she mispronounced every possible name.) I tried to cut her off by asking, "What is this in reference to?" She ignored me and kept asking questions. Finally, I realize what was happening: She found my name and family information from my grandmother's obituary (she had passed away three days before this call.) This company wanted to jump at the opportunity to create the headstone. Although I was not the appropriate decision-maker, I am glad I received this call instead of my mother, who just lost her last living parent. Maybe if this company had a different approach and a much different type of representative on the phone, it would have been a helpful call; after all, we did need a headstone for the cemetery. "

Marshall Ogen, vice president of sales & marketing at TBC Consulting Group, Atlanta Georgia. From DM News, List Seeding Can Core the Bad Apples, September 26, 2001. Mr. Ogen can be reached at (215) 922-4537 or via e-mail at ogen@sellbyphone.com.

C.A.T.S. Comment: It seems that Mr. Ogen has no problem with a telemarketer using the obituaries in the paper to get sales leads, in fact he goes further and states: "it would have been a helpful call." Mr. Ogen's article goes on to explain how the call could be made better by using a method called list seeding.

Apparently Mr. Ogen is saying that it is acceptable practice in the telemarketing industry to call people for the purpose of selling them a headstone three days after the funeral. Is nothing sacred? Are the obituaries in the newspaper an acceptable source for telemarketing leads? It appears that Mr. Ogen has no problem with this practice, in fact he proceeds in his article to suggest that the call could have been done better! Do people have to now stop listing their loved ones in the obituaries to avoid the tele-vultures calling?

If Mr. Ogen really wants to get rid of the "bad apples" in the teleservices industry, he should condemn this practice, not suggest how the calls can be improved. Its called "common decency."

Please, Mr. Ogen, put us on your "Do-Not-Gall" list.

September 23, 2001

"I am intent on signing legislation that protects Californians against annoying telemarketers. In today's busy world we all need as much peace and quiet as possible. This bill will allow every citizen to say they don't want to be harassed with annoying phone calls day and night."

California Governor Gray Davis commenting about Senate Bill 771 after it passed the legislature by an overwhelming margin. From Direct Newswire, CA Governor Ready To Sign Telemarketing DNC List Bill Into Law, September, 14, 2001.

C.A.T.S. Comment: The Governor is a tough act to follow. Words like "annoying" and "harassed" sure seem to sum up the "teleservices" industry and the "services" that they deliver to our homes all too often.

September 16, 2001

Tragedy

Since September of 1997, this web site has provided a "Quote Of The Week" weekly for the enjoyment of our viewers. However, after the unprovoked attack on our shores this week we have decided to forego our quote this week, and instead extend our condolences to the people that have lost loved ones as a result of this tragedy.

Many outbound telemarketers ceased operation when the extent of the tragedy became known. We commend them for showing sensitivity during this trying time in our history.

War seems to bring out the best and the worst in people. Fraudulent telemarketers showed up this week seeking donations for the Red Cross and similar organizations. We at C.A.T.S. suggest if you are called by one of these fraudulent operators that you get as much information as possible and refer it to your local police department.

Finally, we at C.A.T.S. have been fighting a residential privacy war for over five years. Now a new battleground is emerging, a battle that we all must win. God bless our country, our leaders, and those that have lost, and will lose loved ones in the fight. With determination and sacrifice, we will win both battles.

Robert Arkow, founder and president of C.A.T.S.

September 9, 2001

"It's legal and within the rules. Fortunately or unfortunately, it happens all the time."

C. Tyler Prochnow, state legislative counsel for the American Teleservices Association (ATA), and a columnist for DM News, commenting on how California State Senator Liz Figueroa resurrected her "Do-Not-Call" list legislation by finding a bill that had already passed the Senate and gutted it with the permission of the original bill author. Then she replaced the original bill text, which had to do with licensing regulations for architects, with her DNC list legislation, and sent it onto the Assembly. From DM News, CA DNC Bill Looms, Biggest States Blocking Telemarketers, September 7, 2001. Mr. Prochnow can be reached via e-mail at: tprochnow@lathropgage.com.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Mr. Prochnow consistently has argued the merits of any thing anti-telemarketing. In the past he has taken some "controversial" positions that have earned him a "most quoted status" on this web site. Its nice to see that in this case, rather than argue the legality of Senator Figueroa's maneuvering her bill through the California State Senate, he just admits that the maneuvers were legal.

It appears that the bill (SB-771) is headed for passage. We suspect that Mr. Prochnow can "read the handwriting on the wall" and has decided this time to be a gracious loser.

While we often disagree with his positions, in this case we commend Mr. Prochnow for doing the right thing and admitting that the process, though unusual, was legal.

September 2, 2001

"With enough opposition the [California 'Do-Not-Call' list] bill could be delayed long enough to prevent a vote on it before the legislature adjourns for the year."

From the American Teleservices Association (formerly the American Telemarketing Association) web site, www.ataconnect.org.

C.A.T.S. Comment: The American Teleservices Association does not want the proposed state wide "Do-Not-Call" list bill to be voted on by the state assembly. That is because it probably will pass. So they hope to defeat the measure by using delaying tactics and cause the bill to "die" at the end of the legislative session.

If you are a California resident, you should write your representative and tell them that you support California's proposed "Do-Not-Call" list bill (SB-771). To find out who your state representative is click here, or check the listings in your local phone book.

We cannot let the telemarketing lobbyists win. Our privacy in our homes is at stake.

August 26, 2001

"It's absolutely driving me crazy. The same group keeps calling when you tell them you're not interested. It's an invasion of privacy."

California State Senate President Pro Tem John Burton (D-San Francisco) commenting on how telemarketers just can't take "no" for an answer. Last year Burton voted against a bill which would have created a state wide "Do-Not-Call" list. But after receiving some telemarketing calls, he turned about face and co-sponsored a similar bill, SB-771, by Senator Liz Figureoa (D-Fremont). From the San Francisco Chronicle, Bill to curb telemarketers given new life. State Sen. Burton backs limits after receiving barrage of calls, August 21, 2001. Senator Burton can be reached via e-mail by clicking here, or by telephone at: (916) 445-1412.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Here is yet another example of the telemarketing industry making yet another consumer upset by breaking the law and not leaving people alone. As a result, they have made a powerful enemy. Last year, Senator Burton opposed a state wide "Do-Not-Call" list bill, calling the measure "silly", and earning him a place in our "hall of shame." Now he is co-sponsoring legislation to create a list.

In view of Senator Burton's change of position on the issue, we have removed him from the "hall of shame" and congratulate him on his new found knowledge about the telemarketing industry.

It is unfortunate that we will never know just which telemarketer upset Senator Burton by calling him repeatedly after he told them that he wasn't interested in their product or service. But if we ever find out who they are, C.A.T.S. has one thing to say to them: thank you, thank you, thank you.

August 19, 2001

"This is the No. 1 thing [Wisconsin's proposed state wide 'Do-Not-Call' list] in the budget everyone wants to talk about....The people I talk to, everybody wants to be the first one on the list."

State Senator Jon Erpenbach, sponsor Wisconsin's proposed state wide "Do-Not-Call" list bill commenting on the response to the proposed legislation. From DM News, W I Governor Weighs DNC Bill, August 16, 2001. Senator Erpenbach can be reached at (608) 266-6670 or via e-mail at: Tryg.Knutson@legis.state.wi.us. To view his web site (including the proposed legislation) click here.

C.A.T.S. Comment: It seems that the telemarketing industry has offended so many consumers that a bill to restrict them seems to be the No. 1 discussed item in the Wisconsin State budget.

We can thank the American Teleservices Association (ATA) and the Direct Marketing Association (DMA) for not taking any action when their members violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). These continued abuses (and their members' arrogance) have caused the consumer backlash that is currently sweeping the country. As more and more telemarketers continue to violate the TCPA (and not face action by industry groups), we are assured that there will be even more restrictive legislation passed by the states and the federal government.

Keep up the good work guys! We really appreciate your help in our efforts to pass meaningful telemarketing and privacy legislation.

August 12, 2001

"Giving consumers control over which companies call them satisfies their demands for privacy, Fotta said. Ignoring their privacy demands leads them to sign up for state DNC (Do-Not-Call) lists -- and once they are on a state DNC list, they are lost to the entire telemarketing industry."

Scott Hovanyetz, Senior Reporter for DM News, reporting on the comments of Keith Fotta, president and CEO of Gryphon Networks. Mr. Fotta made the comments at the ceremonial signing of Texas' DNC list bill. Gryphon Networks provides a telemarketer with an automated, real-time solution that empowers them to instantly and automatically comply with Do-Not-Call and call curfew laws at every level - state, federal, and as other "Do-Not-Call" lists as well. From DM News, ATA Member Goes Against the Grain on DNC Issue, August 10, 2001. Mr. Fotta can be contacted via his company web site, www.gryphonnetworks.com.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Gryphon Networks is a member of the American Teleservices Association (ATA), an industry advocacy group which supports the outbound telemarketing industry and has come out officially against state "Do-Not-Call" lists. The ATA however, continually refuses to take any action against their members when they break the law and ignore consumer requests for privacy. It is no wonder that Gryphon supports the ATA, since their members flaunt the laws and anger millions of consumers in the process, causing them to demand action from their state governments. As a result, Gryphon is assured of even more state "Do-Not-Call" list laws as well as other legislated restrictions on telemarkers, and hence, more customers needing their services.

As we have so often noted, the success of the anti-telemarketing movement (as well as Mr. Fotta's company) is based on the industry's continued arrogance and refusal to police themselves.

Congratulations Mr. Fotta on designing a great product, and a job well done.

August 5, 2001

"If I were directly involved in the telemarketing industry, I would be seeking ways for the industry to police itself to isolate the unethical practitioners who seem to be doing a good job of driving the industry toward legislated obsolesce....Let's hope that by the time the telemarketing industry finds a way to police itself, there will be a telemarketing industry left to police."

Paul Stockford, president of Saddletree Research, a consulting firm for the telemarketing industry. From Customer Interface Magazine, Reality Check, It's a Question of Ethics, How did the telemarketing industry get so out of control that only state legislation can rein it in, July 20, 2001 issue. Mr. Stockford can be reached at (480) 922-5949 or via e-mail at: info@Saddletreeresearch.com.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Mr. Stockford's article seems to suggest that the problems in the telemarketing industry are caused by a few bad apples. This is the mantra of the industry also. These "fly by night" telemarketers are destroying the industry according to his article.

Mr. Stockford responded with these comments in an e-mail. As always, we print such responses.

From: Paul Stockford
To: catsbox@jps.net

Subject: Suggestions

Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001

My first suggestion is that you re-read my column, then see if you can understand the difference between an opinion piece, and a research report. A 750 word column is not a research report. Then please point out to me anywhere in the column where the words "fly by night" are used in any way, shape or form. If the statements you make on your web site are a result of your interpretation of my column, or are your opinion, state them as such. Don't attribute those statements to me.

In any industry, telemarketing or otherwise, there are rogues who will routinely ignore business practices or, in some cases, the law. If you read my latest column in Customer Interface magazine you will find that it covers questionable business practices in other areas of the call center industry, not just telemarketing. In many cases, these questionable practices are the result of ignorance, or of the over-zealous enthusiasm of misguided representatives. In other cases, the questionable practices are the result of a campaign that has been blessed by management at the highest level.

You suggest on your web site that the companies you list in your comments routinely ignore the law. I can't speak for all of the companies listed, but I can prove to you that corporate policy at AT&T and Sprint is to comply with "no call" legislation. I challenge you to prove to me otherwise.

If you read The Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, or any number business periodicals that are published on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis, you will find the pages filled with stories of company executives and managers who have made mistakes. Were these mistakes the result of corporate policy or a result of poor management? I contend that many of the mistakes made in telemarketing by those companies you list on your web site in "rebuttal" to my comments were a result of poor management and CSR decisions made at the field level. Corporate policy does not dictate routine non-compliance of the law.

There are telemarketing firms out there that blatantly ignore the law, but they are not of the caliber of MCI and AT&T as I state in my column.

Don't expect to see any further research on this subject from me. If, however, you would care to publish your proof of corporate policy regarding non-compliance of the law by the companies you list in your comments, I would be most interested in reviewing these documents. In the meantime, I stated my opinion in my column, and as far as I'm concerned that's where this will end.

Paul Stockford
Saddletree Research, Inc.

July 29, 2001

"When Louisiana, possibly the most pro-business/anti-consumer state in the United States, passes 'one of the most onerous' do-not-call laws in the country, shouldn't this remind us, once again, that telephone marketing is universally hated?"

William Raney, in his article, states that telemarketing is 'a constitutionally guaranteed freedom.' Good God."

N. Norvus, director of marketing, Bell Springs Publishing, Willits, CA, in a published letter to the editor of DM News. Publish date: July 23, 2001. Norvus can be reached via e-mail at bellsprings@saber.net.

C.A.T.S. Comment: We agree. But let's be fair. If you, as an attorney, had to defend a client's universally offensive practices, what would you do? The "constitutionally guaranteed freedom" argument is used by pornbrokers, advertisers, and "fringe" religious organizations to defend their offensive practices.

Suppose a telemarketing executive, who also is a devout Christian, found out that the church of Satan called his home in an attempt to get his minor daughter to join their church, would he still support that "constitutionally guaranteed freedom?" We don't think so!

July 22, 2001

"I couldn't believe that someone in a public position would say something like that. If Solomons wants to shoot people, he can start right here."

Direct Marketing Association senior vice president Michael Faulkner commenting about the statement made by Texas state Representative Burt Solomons, sponsor of the recently passed "Do-Not-Call" list law there, who was quoted as saying that if it were up to him, telemarketers would be shot. The remarks were made when he spoke at the Direct Marketing Association's recent Telephone Marketing Conference. You can contact him via the Direct Marketing Association's web site at www.the-dma.org.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Really Mr. Faulkner, I am surprised by your reaction to Representative Solomons' statement. After all, the DMA all too often uses the "freedom of speech" argument to defend its' members offensive business practices.

In view of this, we would have thought you would praise Representative Solomon for exercising his freedom of speech rights, rather than condemning him.

July 15, 2001

"Within the industry, lower long-distance costs are making it possible to market to American consumers from overseas call centers, leading the industry to move jobs out of the United States."

Scott Hovanyetz, a senior reporter from DM (Direct Marketing) News reporting on the Direct Marketing Association's Telephone Marketing Conference earlier this year in Florida. From DM News, Strategies Key to New Technology, Telemarketers Told, June 28, 2001.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Whenever legislators propose bills that would limit the telemarketing industry, they are constantly reminded by the industry's lobbyists that the industry creates jobs. They warn legislators that if proposed legislation passes and becomes law it could mean the loss of jobs in their districts.

Now the telenuisance industry is beginning to use telemarketers outside of the United States to lower their costs. If your state is considering legislation to limit the telenuisance industry, you should inform your local legislators that the "jobs" that the industry claims to "create" may not be for residents of that state.

July 8, 2001

"The bonding provision in this law is constitutionally suspect. Courts rarely allow such a sizable price tag upon the enjoyment of a constitutionally guaranteed freedom. Further, it is unlikely that a court would uphold a law that silenced some speech and allowed others based on the speaker’s credit rating."

William Raney, an attorney with Copilevitz and Cantor, a law firm specializing telemarketing law. Mr. Raney is referring to the fact that on May 24, Louisiana Gov. M.J. Foster signed House Bill 175 into law, creating a state do-not-call list to be implemented by Jan. 1, 2002. Though it resembles laws enacted in a score of states, the Louisiana law differs from all previous state do-not-call list laws in an important way: It requires all purchasers of the list to post a $20,000 bond to be applied to penalties for future violations. From DM News, Louisiana Adopts Onerous DNC Law, June 25, 2001. Mr. Raney can be reached at (816) 471-3977 or via e-mail at braney@copilevitz-cantor.com.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Here we go again! Another high priced telemarketing attorney is yelling "freedom of speech" when it comes to laws regulating the telemarketing industry. What Mr. Raney does not say in the article is that the courts have ruled that telemarketing is "commercial speech", which does not enjoy the same constitutional protections as non-commercial speech.

Perhaps we should take a similar position that the deposit required by Pac-Bell to activate our telephone service infringes on our "freedom of speech." Like the Louisiana law, Pac-Bell charges a deposit based on your credit rating when you initiate service with them.

Rather than fight this law, Mr. Raney and his law firm should encourage their clients to obey the law. If telemarketers didn't break the laws so often, bills like this would not be passed by the states. You have only your clients unlawful behavior to blame for this one.

July 1, 2001

"Things are not going well in this arena right now...We have some big, daunting challenges."

Direct Marketing Association senior vice president Michael Faulkner commenting about the trend by the states to pass laws to limit telemarketing. The remarks were made when he spoke at the Direct Marketing Association's Telephone Marketing Conference. You can contact the Direct Marketing Association at www.the-dma.org.

C.A.T.S. Comment: A major challenge that the industry faces today is the public's anger with the telemarketers in general. Survey after survey shows that most people do not like to receive telemarketing calls. If the industry had obeyed the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) the public might not have such anger.

Perhaps the greatest challenge will be to get the industry to obey the law. We here at C.A.T.S. plan to test more telemarketers in the future in regard to compliance with the law. We plan to post the results on our web site. Stay tuned!!

June 24, 2001

"As the proliferation of state statutes continues, telemarketers must be vigilant in contacting their state legislators to educate them on the positives of the [outbound telemarketing] industry. When the industry is able to tell its story of employment opportunities and economic growth, unfair and onerous legislation is often defeated"

Tyler Prochnow, state legislative counsel for the American Teleservices Association (formerly the American Telemarketing Association). From "Free Speech and Interstate Commerce", DM News, May 4, 1998. Mr. Prochnow can be reached at: tprochnow@lathropgage.com.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Our lawmakers are getting wise to the telemarketing industry's mantra of "employment opportunities and economic growth." With employee turnover as high as 300%, most legislators now consider telemarketing a "non-job" and the so-called "economic growth" usually ends when the campaign ends. Legislators are looking for good paying jobs that support families and will be around a while.

Tyler, you'll have to come up with something better to convince legislators that they want your industry in their state. Good luck!

June 17, 2001

"This type [Do-not-call list bills] of legislation is not necessary...The administrative burden is ultimately going to raise prices for the customers."

Mat Mattingly, director of government affairs at the American Teleservices Association (formerly the American Telemarketing Association). From Direct Magazine, Busy Signal, Do-not-call list bills are cumbersome and costly for telemarketers, June, 2001 edition. Mr. Mattingly can be reached toll free at: (877) 779-3974.

C.A.T.S. Comment: We agree with Mr. Mattingly that telemarketing will become more expensive to do because of these laws, and as a result it will cost "customers" more in the long run. In the case of telemarketing however, the "customer" is usually the company that hires a third party telemarketing "service bureau" to telepest their customer base.

Since the companies that "share" our personal data with third party telemarketing "service bureaus" will face increased costs when they telemarket their customer base, we at C.A.T.S. won't lose a whole lot of sleep over the higher rates that telemaketing "service bureaus" will be forced to charge for their services. As the costs of telemarketing goes higher, we are sure that companies will be forced to consider another way to market their products.

June 10, 2001

"I am a telemarketer, and I have been one for many years. So, it might sound a bit strange when I say that telemarketers should never seek to invade consumers’ privacy.... Invading privacy is just plain bad business. It alienates the consumer, and in this day of customer relationship management, that is the last thing a marketer should want to do. Instead, today’s marketers must do all they can to nurture and build customer relationships. "

Paul Kerstetter, a senior vice president of sales and marketing at The Aftermarket Company, Phoenix, AZ. From DM News, When Does Telemarketing Invade Privacy?, May 31, 2001. Mr. Kerstetter can be reached at (602) 470-2500, extension 2581, or via e-mail at paulk@amctelesales.com.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Nothing invades a consumer's privacy more than a telemarketer calling a consumer after they have asked to not be called. Even though Mr. Kerstetter is a senior vice president with The Aftermarket Company, their written "Do-Not-Call" policy states "it may take eight (8) to twelve (12) weeks" to get on the "Do-Not-Call" list. The policy further states "individuals may continue to receive calls during this period."

Not only is The Aftermarket Company's "Do-Not-Call policy illegal (The Telephone Consumer Protection Act provides for no "grace period"), it is also in direct opposition to Mr. Kerstetter's statement regarding consumer privacy.

Please Mr. Kerstetter, put us on your "Do-Not-Gall" list, (even it takes your company "eight (8) to twelve (12) weeks" to do so.)

June 3, 2001

"E-mail may be the easiest tool to use, but the phone is still the most powerful, direct way to communicate with your customers. A well-designed outbound campaign to existing customers will be perceived more as thoughtful customer service and less as 'telemarketing.'"

From an advertisement placed by The Aftermarket Company in DM News, May 21, 2001. They can be contacted via their web site or at (602) 470-2500.

C.A.T.S. Comment: According to The Aftermarket Company, a "well designed campaign" will be perceived more as "customer service" rather than "telemarketing". They have told this lie so often that now they believe their own B.S. When we made a request by telephone for a copy of the company's written "Do-Not-Call" policy, our request was ignored.

It seems that they also believe that the law somehow does not apply to them. According to the FCC, failure to provide a company's written "Do-Not-Call" policy "upon demand" is a violation of Federal law. The law allows private citizens a "private right of action" in civil court and each violation carries a $500.00 penalty.

Perhaps we should take The Aftermarket Company to court in order to educate them as to their responsibilities when it comes to the law. But in order to be fair, we will do a well-designed court action so it will be perceived more as a "thoughtful educational adjudication" and less as a "civil lawsuit."

May 27, 2001

"In all well-tempered governments there is nothing which should be more jealously maintained than the spirit of obedience to law, more especially in small matters for transgression creeps in unperceived and at last ruins the state, just as the constant recurrence of small expenses in time eat up a fortune."

Aristotle in Politics, Bk. 5, Ch. 8 (Jowett trans.) From the TCPA Law web site.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Since the government does not enforce the law, it is up to us consumers to do it. If we let the telemarketers get away with violating the law, then we have only ourselves to blame. With web sites like tcpalaw.com, consumers have a wealth of legal information and cases at their fingertips.

May 20, 2001

"Hmm, according to the Direct Marketing Association’s 'Impact of Direct Marketing on the U.S. Economy,' Texas has the third-highest number of telemarketing jobs, behind California and New York. Telemarketing employs more than 200,000 people there, and several mortgages get paid and a lot of mouths get fed thanks to those annoying calls."

Tad Clark, Editor-in-Chief of DM (Direct Marketing) News, Editorial: No More Deliveries April 30, 2001. Mr. Clark can be reached at (212) 925-7300 or via e-mail at tad@dmnews.com.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Its amazing that a man so educated in direct marketing as Mr. Clark could fall for the oldest trick in the telemarketing book, the great telemarketing lie. OK Tad, 200,000 jobs? Are they inbound? outbound? both? The fact is that the Direct Marketing Association doesn't separate them because they define 'telemarketing' as doing business by phone. This is purposely done to inflate the figures so they can fool legislators, and the general public as well. I would expect legislators and the public to fall for such a scheme, but not the editor of a major weekly on direct marketing.

Tad, we at C.A.T.S. issue you a challenge. Since only outbound calls are effected by "Do-Not-Call" list bills, how many jobs are really at risk? As a reporter, and an editor, you should get the facts.

Frankly, your readers deserve better.

May 13, 2001

"The only thing that matters is whether or not it [telemarketing] is profitable. Nothing else. Read what financial analysts who study industries for a living say about publicly traded telepest companies and their long term aspects. Run up their costs of doing business, take their time, document the calls completely, make them send Do Not Call Policies, and speak to your representative. "

From a posting on Tom Mabe's anti-telemarketing bulletin board dated May 11, 2001, by "Brooks" (we respect his privacy and will not release his name or e-mail address).

C.A.T.S. Comment: "Brooks" has the right idea. My making each contact cost more money, telemarketing will be less cost effective. If ten percent of the people who receive a telemarketing call takes just one minute of a telemarketer's time and make them send out copies of their "Do-Not-Call" policy, the industry would grind to a halt.

Hats off to you "Brooks"--you got it!

May 6, 2001

"The idea of the government dictating dinnertime hours is ridiculous. When they talk about regulation intruding on our lives, this is it."

Tyler Prochnow, state legislative counsel for the American Teleservices Association (formerly the American Telemarketing Association). From "Telemarketing Bills Have Had Little Impact -- So Far", DM News, April 3, 2001. Mr. Prochnow can be reached at: tprochnow@lathropgage.co.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...Tyler resents government regulation "intruding on" the telemarketing industry's lives, but it's okay for the industry to intrude on OUR lives? What's wrong with this picture?

April 29, 2001

"We were finding [telemarketing] was becoming less and less successful."

Stu Vincent, a spokesman for Newsday, a daily newspaper serving Long Island and parts of New York City. Newsday is shutting down its in-house telemarketing division and laying off 92 telenuisance agents. The move culminates a year-long shift away from telemarketing as the newspaper's main marketing channel. The newspaper will continue to do targeted telemarketing through its service provider but will scale back call volumes. With telephone sales rates declining and the obstacle of a state "Do-Not-Call" list, Newsday executives determined that an outside firm could do its telemarketing more cost-effectively. From DMNews, Newsday Set to Outsource Teleservices, April 26, 2001.

C.A.T.S. Comment: We have always said that the only sure way to eliminate outbound telemarketing was to make it not cost effective. Consumers can do this by not buying the product or service (no matter how good it seems), wasting the telemarketer's time, and asking for a copy of the company's written "Do-Not-Call" policy. These all cost the telemarketers money. The decision by Newsday executives to shift their marketing away from telemarketing is proof of that.

April 22, 2001

"If it were up to me, we would shoot telemarketers."

Rep. Burt Solomons, (R-Carrollton) during a heated debate in the Texas State Legislature, regarding a proposed state-wide "Do-Not-Call" List Bill supported by Solomons. From DM News, State Legislator: Shoot the Telemarketers, April 18, 2001. To visit Rep. Solomons web site, click here. To send him an e-mail, click here.

C.A.T.S. Comment: This is not the first time that public officials have made radical statements about the annoying calls. For example, the Judge presiding in State v. Wagner, (608 N.E.2d 852, 80 Ohio App. 3d 88 1992) said "There are times when I just want to take a shotgun and, if I could shoot them through the phone, I'd do it." And U.S. Senator Earnest "Fritz" Hollings (D-South Carolina) during introduction of the Automated Telephone Consumer Protection Act said, "They wake us up in the morning; they interrupt our dinner at night; they force the sick and elderly out of bed; they hound us until we want to rip the telephone right out of the wall."

While the American Teleservices Association (formerly the American Telemarketing Association) wasted no time in blasting Rep. Solomon's statement, we at C.A.T.S. have enough common sense to realize that his statement (like the two examples above) was probably made "figuratively", and not "literally." To that end, Mr. Solomons, it seems to us that you are in good company. Keep up the good work. If we were in Texas, you'd get our vote!

April 15, 2001

"I've yet to see a piece of legislation get through that has been absolutely devastating to the [telemarketing] industry. This is the most resilient and adaptive industry I've ever seen."

Tyler Prochnow, state legislative counsel for the American Teleservices Association (formerly the American Telemarketing Association). From "Telemarketing Bills Have Had Little Impact -- So Far", DM News, April 3, 2001. Mr. Prochnow can be reached at: tprochnow@lathropgage.com.

C.A.T.S. Comment: If I were you, Tyler, I wouldn't brag about your industry. SHARKS and ROACHES are resilient and adaptive, too, and no one wants to hear from them, either.

Our thanks to Ms. LKA for the quote and comment.

April 8, 2001

"It was a case where I saw there was a violation of the law, and I just felt there needed to be something done about it"

Sam Nicholson, a local attorney in Augusta GA, commenting after he won a 4 to 12 million dollar judgement against Hooters of America. Nicholson filed the class action lawsuit in June, 1995, against the restaurant chain for sending "junk" faxes to 1,320 people in the Augusta area. The actual damages are to be determined at a later date. "Junk" faxes are prohibited by Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and carry a $500.00 per fax civil penalty. From the Augusta Chronicle, Hooters faces hefty fine after losing fax lawsuit, March 22, 2001.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Way to go Sam! Maybe this will set a trend in the future. Your successful class action may encourage other attorneys to think about taking similar actions on a class action basis under the TCPA. Your victory will send a message to telemarketers and junk faxers to take the TCPA seriously.

C.A.T.S. congratulates you

April 1, 2001

"Do I support those who might gleefully accept the next unwanted call so that they may sue the offending party? Absolutely not. And I am certain that such people may well exist. But I am equally certain that they are relatively few in number ...; their numbers far exceed by those in our own line of business who just as cheerfully ignore the requirements of the law because they don't like it."

Bob Van Voorhis, Editor of Teleprofessional Magazine. From I'm Not Killing This Dog. I'm Trying To Save Its Life!, June 6 1998. Mr. Van Voorhis wrote these words after his magazine performed a test of industry compliance. They sent out 48 requests for "Do-Not-Call" policies and after three months, received 17 responses. (Failure to provide a copy of a company's "Do-Not-Call" policy is a violation of the law.) The industry was not pleased with Teleprofessional Magazine's test and the article that followed, and veiled threats were made that the magazine would not see the continued support of the industry. A few months later Mr. Van Voorhis "left" Teleprofessional magazine. His publisher Ross Scovotti "left" also at about the same time. The magazine then changed its name from Teleprofessional Magazine to Customer Interface Magazine.

C.A.T.S. Comment: It is true that most people won't go through the hassle of suing a telemarketer when they break the law. The telemarketing industry "banks" on consumer apathy when they break the law on a daily basis.

However the fact that laws are broken on a daily basis has caused consumers to complain to their state legislatures, thus causing state laws to curb the industry.

If the industry had followed the federal law, the states would not be regulating the telemarketing industry today. In short, the industry reaps what it sows.

March 25, 2001

"I note that your magazine (Customer Inter@ction Solutions) listed Gecko Communications in the top 50 listing of Outbound Teleservices Agencies. As usual, you failed to do your homework.

In February of this year the FBI raided Gecko and shut down their business. It seems that they were allegedly running a credit card scam. In 1999, Gecko paid $22,000.00 in fines to the State of Minnesota to settle a lawsuit alleging "misleading practices."

If this is your example of a "top" teleservices agency, I hate to see the bottom of the list."

Robert Arkow, President and founder of C.A.T.S. in an e-mail dated March 24, 2001 to Nadji Tehrani, Executive Group Publisher of Customer Inter@ction Solutions.

C.A.T.S. Comment: What a fine example Mr. Tehrani offers us as a leading company in the outbound telemarketing industry. It doesn't get any better than this!

March 18, 2001

"Can any of us really believe that, once deceived and lied to, our legislative and regulatory bodies will think twice about enacting truly draconian regulations?

Unless some significant actions are taken ...; and immediately, not quickly ...; the entire issue of industry self-regulation will become moot"

C.A.T.S. Comment: Mr. Van Voorhis words in June, 1998 may have upset the industry but his predictions are coming true. Last month, despite industry opposition, the Indiana legislature passed a statewide "Do-Not-Call" list unanimously in both houses, a margin rarely seen in Indiana or anywhere else. One of the reasons cited is the fact that the telemarketing industry continues to ignore federal laws that protect consumer privacy, and therefore states have to take action on behalf of their citizens. What will it take to convince the industry that strict compliance with the law is, ultimately, in the industry's best interest?

March 11, 2001

"ATT: Better Business Bureau. MCI and Verizon have had telemarketers call me repeatedly, on my unpublished number, at assorted hours, over and over and over, to hustle me into using their company. After saying "no" politely a dozen times to as many different voices, after telling the last several callers I'd investigate legal action if this doesn't stop, I'm still being troubled. A phone company using priveleged access to gain your private line and hassling you repeatedly over months - does this not constitute invasion of privacy and/or harassment?"

Cindy Adams, a columnist for the New York Post commenting on the calls that she receives at her home. Publish date: February 16, 2001.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Ms. Adams needs to learn her rights under the law. As a member of the media she would do her readers a service by telling them about the State of New York's statewide "Do-Not-Call" list and the Federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) as well.

Ms. Adams: C.A.T.S. is more than willing to help you learn your rights under the law. All you need to do is e-mail us. That's why we're here!

March 4, 2001

"In Indiana we have a long honored tradition of respecting the right to privacy in our own homes. Senate Bill 1 [Indiana's state-wide 'Do-Not-Call' list bill] continues this tradition by providing remedy and relief to Hoosiers who do not wish to be solicited by phone."

Indiana State Senator Timothy Lanane commenting on the Indiana State Senate passing Senate Bill 1, establishing a state wide "Do-Not-Call" list. Source: Press release from the senator's office, Feb 20, 2001. To visit the Senator's web site click here.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Despite heavy lobbying by the telemarketing industry the bill passed the Indiana State Senate by a margin of 48-0. The Indiana House of Representatives passed similar legislation the week before by a vote of 99-0.

The unanimous passing of this bill shows that the outbound telemarketing industry is in big trouble.

February 25, 2001

"Communities and their agencies also dislike outbound telesales because the pay is low, and the work is often part-time and impermanent, leading to layoffs when programs end and there aren't others in the wings. They want companies that will stick around for a while and pay wages that people and families can live on. "

Brendon B. Read, reporter for Call Center Magazine, Caution, US Call Center Location Challenges Ahead, January, 2001 issue.

C.A.T.S. Comment: The telemarketing industry often tells legislators about the jobs it creates and how it benefits the community. We are sure that they will present this same argument against California's proposed state-wide "Do-Not-Call" list, Senate Bill 17 when hearings convene later this year. The industry in the past has threatened to leave the state and take the jobs with them if the bill passes. Should they try this tactic again, C.A.T.S. president Robert Arkow will be at those hearings to set the record straight.

Thank you Brendon, for telling the truth about the industry.

February 18, 2001

"It's one of the most popular consumer protection programs."

Terence McElory, a member of Florida's Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, commenting on the success of Florida's state-wide 'Do-Not-Call' list. From the AARP (American Association of Retired Persons) Bulletin, February, 2001.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Despite the widespread popularity of state-wide "Do-Not-Call" lists among consumers, legislators often still fail to pass effective regulation of the telemarketing industry. Could it be because of the big bucks that the industry gives legislators at election time?

February 11, 2001

"Texas state Rep. Burt Solomons, who introduced the [statewide 'Do-Not-Call' list] bill in his state earlier this month, says telemarketers have only themselves to blame because the industry opposed efforts to create a nationwide DNC list and because the federal government’s failure to act has forced state legislatures to take measures into their own hands"

Tad Clarke, Editor-in-Chief of DM News, reporting how one state legislator feels about the junk call industry. From EDITORIAL: Don't Call Us, January 31, 2001. Mr. Clarke can be reached via e-mail at: tad@dmnews.com

C.A.T.S. Comment: It takes courage to make a statement like that when you are the editor of an industry-supported magazine.

Hats off to Mr. Clarke and his staff their fair and honest reporting, even if it upsets their advertisers.

February 4, 2001

[I am implementing] "the most popular piece of legislation that I've ever been involved in. People stop me on the street and give me the thumbs up."

Idaho's state Attorney General Al Lance commenting about the public's reaction to Idaho's "Do-Not-Call" list law. From the Spokane, WA, Spokesman-Review, November 17, 2000, as well as the Associated Press. Mr. Lance can be reached via e-mail at: constituent_inquiry@ag.state.id.us

C.A.T.S. Comment: The outbound telemarketing industry's lack of compliance with the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and other laws, has caused the public and legislative backlash that the industry now faces.

To Attorney General Al Lance we say: Attorney generals are not, as a rule, popular figures, but the general hatred of telemarketers and their practices, has caused you to be an instant hit with the people.

You have only the arrogance of an industry out of control to thank for you new found fame. Enjoy! C.A.T.S. gives a you a thumbs up too!

January 28, 2001

"These are not easy times if you are responsible for an outbound telesales call center, especially if you are looking to open a new facility. You may find that your business is as welcome in many communities as a strip club or adult video outlet. There are site selection consultants that will not take you on as a client unless your center is part of a larger firm that has other call center or back office functions, such as inbound."

Brendon B. Read, reporter for Call Center Magazine, Caution, US Call Center Location Challenges Ahead, January, 2001 issue.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Seems that no one wants an outbound telemarketing center in their community. With the high turnover of employees and low pay, communities are just saying no to the industry.

If you are trying to locate an outbound telemarketing business, may we suggest some prime property in Chernobyl, where a burned out nuclear plant used to be.

January 21, 2001

"Surveys show that telephone solicitation interruptions are the No. 1 complaint of California consumers"

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer commenting to the Los Angeles Times, June 1, 1999.

C.A.T.S. Comment: The telepest industry will spend millions of dollars this year on lawyers, lobbyists and campaign contributions in opposing proposed state wide "Do-Not-Call" list bills in Texas and California, the nations two most populated states. Will the California legislature turn a deaf ear on the Attorney General's comments, and the public's wishes again this year and fail to pass legislation limiting the industry?

If Senate Bill 17 (the "Do-Not-Call list bill) fails to pass again this year, we can honestly say that California has the best legislature that money can buy.

January 14, 2001

"Starting a new company requires a huge time commitment, and we understand why Gordon chose to resign."

Jason Clawson, executive director of the American Teleservices Association (ATA) commenting in a press release, on the resignation of Gordon Mckenna as its chairman. From DM News, McKenna Resigns as ATA Leader, January 10, 2001.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Mr. Clawson claims that former ATA chairman Gordon McKenna wants to devote more time to his new company Customer Satisfaction First, and thus resigned as ATA leader. But last December, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram wrote a story about McKenna and problems at his former company TeleQuest Inc., Arlington, TX, saying McKenna had mismanaged funds. TeleQuest filed for bankruptcy on June 6, 2000.

Now McKenna is starting yet another telemarketing company, Customer Satisfaction First. In view of the public's attitude toward the telemarketing industry, may we suggest that McKenna change the name of his new company to: Customer Dissatisfaction Always.

January 7, 2001

"I find it discouraging that the compliance rate [with the law] is so low and I would encourage the Commerce Committee to continue their efforts and take further action in exploring this non-compliance issue and ask the Federal Communications Commission to testify what action they are taking to increase the the compliance rate with existing laws."

U.S. Congressman Howard "Buck" McKeon (R-California) in a letter to W. J. Tauzin, Chairman of the Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection Subcommittee. Congressman McKeon can be reached via e-mail at: tellbuck@mail.house.gov

C.A.T.S. Comment: When members of Congress find the compliance rate with the Telephone Consumer Protection Act is about 35% industry-wide they are understandably surprised. That is because all the lobbyists tell congress that voluntary compliance with the law is working and no new laws are needed.

Check out our section "The Great Telemarketing Lie" and you will begin to see just how our legislators are fooled by the telemarketing industry.

Is your congressman stupid enough to fall for the lie? Congressman McKeon didn't fall for it.

Quotes from 2000