VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 13:31:57 07/05/03 Sat
Author: richiep
Subject: So because the one firm you worked for was dishonest, or even if there are 5% of the firms are dishonest, we should shut down the entire industry? Should we apply that standard to other industries? I've dealt with dishonest retailers in the past, what new laws do we need to "protect us" from them?
In reply to: "Vince From Villanova" (The view's different on the inside.) 's message, "Confessions of an ex-telemarketer: click here for more." on 06:09:27 07/04/03 Fri


[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> [> I'm not convinced it's just 5%. Once you've seen the tricks of telemarketers and even done them yourself, it's a bit easier to recognize them when other telemarketers do them to you, so it seems to me that my former company is the rule, not the exception. Perhaps I'm biased from my experience, but that's how I feel. -- "Vince From Villanova" (Fire 'em all, let welfare sort 'em out.), 17:08:02 07/05/03 Sat


[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> Vince and Surf.... (as you maybe the only ones reading this LOL) -- richiep, 19:07:22 07/05/03 Sat

Vince, I'm in sales, and a lot of its is based on tricks (in a sense). I can talk to people all day long and have them tell me after my pitch "how good it sounds" and the famous words that salespeople hear all the time "let me think about it, and I'll call you". The "trick" is to get that person to do something NOW, its not to get them to do something that they don't want to do, just to do something NOW! People all the time complain about how salespeople don't take no for an answer, but when you consider that half of all sales that are made, are after a person says "no" once, you should be happy we don't listen to the no's. What this really has to do with is human nature, and to be in sales you have to understand that.

But there are a lot of salespeople that are not honest, just like there are a lot of people that own and run businesses that are not honest, and there should be laws that go after these people. The problem with the DNC list is two-fold, first, it says that I can't call you because you choose to block out these dishonest people. That's a scary thing to say - should we come up other blanket laws? Lets pick on radio, being this board is about that. Some things that are sold on the radio have been scams, I think you would agree, right? So what should we do about that? Should we have a "do not play" list that people that don't want to these ads can sign up for?

I now everyone's going to say that's not the same but stop and think... if the airwaves belong to us, and not the stations, don't we have even more of a right to say "do not play this"?

So if the government started a list that people could sign up for and say "no ads for fast food" (as it makes people fat) and the majority of people that in the range of that station sign up, how could you say that the station would still have a right to run those ads?

Now Surf here's the problem with your thinking... you say once it crosses the phone jack, it's in your house. How does that apply to the Internet? Should we have a "do not show" list of what ads you should be allowed to show me on your website? I know you're saying that's different because me going to your site is the same as me calling you, as the website does not call me. But if I go to a site to see information on talk radio, maybe I only want to see that and no ads. Is there that much of a difference?

Think about it - you are saying that you don't want businesses calling you, unless you contacted them first. But I made no effort to contact "Express tax refund" yet I see their ad on top of this page. I know you're going to say it pays for the site, but is that my problem? You could charge a membership fee and restrict it to those who pay. In the days of paper publishing, this model worked as you could not block ads, but what about now? I have software (Norton anti-virus) that can turn off these ads - am I stealing from you if I use it? If that's legal then what about a government program to so I can say no to seeing these ads?

What about if you had a party and I was your neighbor and you didn't invite me. What if I walked up to your door and asked if I could come in? You can say no and close the door. Should the Feds also pass laws as to who can knock at your door? (I know many people would sadly say yes)

When does it stop?


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> A radio station can't turn on my radio. I have to take a voluntary action to invite the signal into my home, and if I decide I don't want it in my home anymore, I turn it off... and it stays off. In contrast, a telemarketer can reach into my house and make my phone ring. Sure I can hang up on them. But then they can call back, and the cycle begins again, invading my implied right to privacy. It can only end with some variation on a government-enforced DNC list. -- "Vince From Villanova" (Come on in, the water's fine.), 06:30:59 07/06/03 Sun


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> Yeah Rich, average per day unique visits for this page has fallen to around 600. Not nearly the interest level one might expect. Given the tone of some of the posts it's no wonder. -- Surf, 08:11:28 07/06/03 Sun


[ Edit | View ]


[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.