to provide good and detailed interpretations of the new
legislation.
With the US DMA now backing the federal 'Do Not Call' list,
to be administered by the FTC, any outstanding challenges
to it seem unlikely to succeed. Indications are that a substantial
proportion of US consumers will sign up. Some companies
may be tempted offshore as a way of avoiding the regulations
(on both 'Do Not Call' and dialer rules). We sought clarification
on this last week to be told that the new rules will apply
equally to US companies exporting their lists. Investors
in developing countries who are ploughing their money into
call centers in the hope of attracting lots of business
from the US should take note.
There has been no respite for dialers. The FCC has gone
along with the rule changes made by the FTC which come into
force on 1 Oct 2003. But their reach is both intrastate
and interstate and no state may set rules less restrictive.
On the other hand there is nothing to stop them being more
restrictive. But with California now coming into line with
the federal rules, we expect other states to do so as well,
giving a common standard across the US.
The maximum limit on dialers for 'abandoned calls'
of 3% (measured as a percentage of calls answered
by a person) is as tough as anyone might have expected.
Many call centers, especially smaller ones, will find themselves
ill-prepared to dial at this level.
And assuming general compliance from 1 Oct, the outbound
industry in the US will experience a major regrouping as
companies outsourcing their lists react to what, in some
cases, will be a significant drop in 'talk time per hour'
performance, as dialer vendors fail to adapt to the new
rules.
The new rules on dialing could do with some further thought
being given to them. Here's why.
I Am Not An Answering Machine!
Readers of this column will know that for some years we
have questioned the usefulness of answering machine detection
done by dialers. Not because it's not an option with the
dialer provided by our Sytel
parent in some countries; it is!
It's because we doubt strongly whether the extra talk time
gained by deploying it offsets the negative impact of 'dead
air' on consumers. Or to put it bluntly, if someone keeps you
waiting for say 2-3 secs (yes, we are aware of the claims saying
it takes just one second!), or more, while they figure out whether
or not you are a machine, are you going to be well-disposed to
their pitch when an agent comes on the phone? The writer
of this column has often asked this question of professionals
in the outbound industry, and to a man (sorry, woman too)
they have insisted either that they hang up when they are
kept waiting in this way, or give the agent a torrid time.
So why is it that the FTC, and now the FCC, are effectively
endorsing the use of answering machine detection by allowing
all calls to consumers to be held up for a maximum of 2
secs after the greeting (i.e. "Hello...") from
the consumer? And does it matter?
Well before the days of 'Do Not Call' lists, even if you
upset people with 'dead air' calls, in one sense it didn't
matter because they were always there to be called again.
But many consumers just hate 'dead air' calls, and it is
sometimes the main reason given for them joining 'Do Not
Call' lists, for example in California and also in the UK.
Here's what Dial America, one of the largest call
center companies in the US, said in a submission to the
FCC in December 2002:
"If the specific problems inherent in outbound
telemarketing today are not satisfactorily addressed, practically
every consumer could eventually be on the national 'Do Not
Call' list. Presumably only those consumers who like to
be hung up upon and like to hear 'dead air' when they answer
the phone will not be on the list."
Well, if the 3% limit is extended to all outbound calls,
then the effect on consumers of hang-ups will be minimal,
but given current practices, most calls answered by consumers
are likely to be preceded by a burst of 'dead air'. And
it may not just be 2 secs after the greeting. The science
involved here is not exact. Who is to say when a greeting
finishes? So the two seconds could easily stretch to three
seconds, and maybe more, as consumers say "Hello...
Hello?... Hello!..."
Uncommon Bedfellows!
Apparently, the US DMA thinks that the use of 'dead air'
is OK. In fact, in a recent submission to the FCC they asked
for the 2 secs holdup after the greeting to be extended
to 5 secs! A far cry from when they issued their dialer
guidelines over 4 years ago and stipulated that calls should
not be held up for more than 2 secs after a call goes offhook
before hanging up!
So what do the FTC, the FCC and the DMA
know about consumer behavior that makes them take this stance?
The DMA have presumably carried out their own studies, and
must be convinced that consumers won't enroll with the national
'Do Not Call' list when confronted with what can only be
described as endemic 'dead air'.
What about the FTC and the FCC? Well it is part of their
mandate to care about consumers. The main reason for all
the Federal activity on dialing and 'Do Not Call' legislation,
is the raw deal that US consumers that have had in recent
years. So should these bodies care if consumers, fed up
because of the 'dead air' stemming from the new Federal
rules, were thus encouraged to join the national 'Do Not
Call' list!? Probably not. We are not accusing the FTC and
the FCC of being Machiavellian; we just think that, in the
rush to legislate, they have perhaps not thought it through
enough.
We hope that there is a rethink. There clearly needs to
be a maximum time interval set for delay, related to some
event. We respectfully suggest that the event or basis for
doing this should be the fact that the phone has gone offhook.
Determination of this is much clearer than pinpointing where
a greeting ends. As to the time interval - well the shorter
it is, the more likely people are to be receptive to an
outbound call, and the less likely they will be to rush
for the 'Do Not Call' list.
Phew, that was a mouthful wasn't it? But isn't it odd that
legislation especially aimed at discouraging the proliferation
of 'dead air' calls may well have quite the opposite effect,
and be a potent force in encouraging consumers to join the
national 'Do Not Call' list?
ii) Europe
Europe is well ahead of the US in terms of 'Do Not Call'
legislation. For example, half the countries in the EC run
opt in systems, meaning that you can only call consumers
if you have their specific permission. And the leading opt
out country, the UK, has had a national 'Do Not Call' list
in place for several years.
Call volumes are generally a lot less than the US, but
dialing habits leave a lot to be desired. We recently did
a survey of UK recipients of Outbound
Focus asking them about their experience of nuisance
calls, with the expectation of publishing the results for
you. The indicated rates of nuisance calls are so high that
we won't publish them but we are very happy to make the
results available, minus respondent details, to any responsible
body interested in doing further research in this area.
The UK in particular is beginning to look like a rerun
of the US. There is an excellent DMA code of practice in
place, and a lot of lip service from companies to this,
but in practice the temptation to dial without restraint
is proving too much for some companies. Now that predictive
dialing vendors are being obliged to restrain what their
products do in their home territory, it will be interesting
to see if this leads to a more responsible approach from
them in the UK marketplace. If it doesn't, then it's a dead
cert in our view that the new regulator, OFCOM, will act.
And maybe this would be a good thing if it prevented an
exodus to the national 'Do Not Call' list similar to that
expected in the US.
