The Caller You Have Reached is Unavailable and/or Annoyed

July 15, 2003 7:10 AM

The day the dinnertime phone calls stopped. We've previously discussed the new national do-not-call list on Mefi, but this Salon piece puts a new spin on the subject. Millions of rural Americans will inevitably lose telemarketing jobs because telemarketing will be regulated out of business. But the government isn't regulating them out of business, it is just providing a way for people to choose not to participate in this business scheme. The people who add their names to the list are the people who are going to hang up in the telelmarketer's face anyways, so where's the harm in this list? And what about the DMA's 10 reasons to protect the teleservices industry?
posted by archimago (64 comments total)

and if we don't subscribe to Salon we should do what?
posted by mhaw at 7:14 AM on July 15, 2003

Give them a call. Tell them you'd like to subscribe.

And sign up all your friends, while you're at it!
posted by yhbc at 7:17 AM on July 15, 2003

you should ignore this post or take the 3.2 seconds it takes to get your free day pass by clicking on the ad.
posted by archimago at 7:20 AM on July 15, 2003

Jesus H. Christ! Don't link to articles that you know a bunch of us can't access. I don't wish to subscribe to Salon because I already subscribe to Smithsonian and Barely Legal and that's plenty.
posted by Mayor Curley at 7:24 AM on July 15, 2003

As anyone who has worked as a telemarketer can tell you, it's an awful job with absolutely no security. Telemarketers are nomads, moving from one call center to another. Most of your time is spent sitting in uncomfortable folding chairs in small rooms, often filled with smokers. If you last more than three or four weeks at a particular place, you're lucky - the odds are simply against you continually making the random quotas set by the call center managers.

And, of course, none of this even begins to touch on amount of abuse you take for disturbing people at home. This is not an industry that needs to survive.
posted by gsh at 7:24 AM on July 15, 2003

I understand that outlawing torture put a bunch of hard working torturers out of business.

(/overblown rhetoric)
posted by norm at 7:26 AM on July 15, 2003

Generated more that $660 billion in sales in 2001 - that's about 6 percent of GDP and more than the entire United States restaurant industry.

If that's true, it's shocking.
posted by goethean at 7:30 AM on July 15, 2003

What a classic misunderstanding (or misuse) of economics. Those $660 billion -- without telemarketers, where would that money have gone? Presumably it would have been spent, or nearly all of it; it was, after all, disposable income.

The implication is that cutting out telemarketing would decrease the GDP by 6 percent! Throwing us into ruin! Which would only be true if the legislation specifically stated that money previously spent on telemarketing-related sales must be converted to cash and stamped into a muddy field!
posted by argybarg at 7:43 AM on July 15, 2003

yeah, I'm wondering about this:

In 2001, 185 million Americans made a purchase via outbound telephone calls.

What exactly is an "outbound" telephone call? And how twisted are their criteria for inclusion in this statistic that they can claim that many customers? (185 million is more than half the entire population of the US.) To the best of my knowledge, no one I know has ever bought anything due to an unsolicited sales call of any kind.
posted by deadcowdan at 7:44 AM on July 15, 2003

goethean -- I suspect that's the amount that Americans ordered over the phone, not that Americans bought because of telemarketing. There were weasel-words later in the article.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:45 AM on July 15, 2003

If given the choice, we'd all say we prefer not to see any commercial messages unless we ask for them -- but we'd all be lying. The fact is that even though we dislike advertisements in general, we do like specific ads, the ones for products that happen to appeal to us.

*Bzzzt* If I happen to like an ad it has nothing to do with the product in question: I have utter contempt for Yahoo! as a search engine for instance, but I loved their ads highlighting that part of the portal from a few years ago. Just a datapoint.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 7:48 AM on July 15, 2003

(geez, I've been reading Salon for years and I've never paid a cent to subscribe. Free Day Pass means just that, people.)

"Some significant number of people who will sign up have in fact purchased something" - I love the combination of speculation with assertion, especially as both are baseless. How do they know anybody who has bought something from a telemarketer will sign up? And how do they know there will be a significant number of them?

But then, I'm Canadian and have an unlisted phone number, so I don't get nearly the number of unwanted calls others apparently do. Can't afford/don't want an unlisted number? Misspell the last few letters of your name when you get phone service. When you get a call looking for "Mr. Smitch", you can honestly say he's not home and hang up. Best of all, anybody legitimately looking up your name in the book will see it's an obvious typo and find your number. Worked for me for 5-6 years.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 7:50 AM on July 15, 2003

But the government isn't regulating them out of business, it is just providing a way for people to choose not to participate in this business scheme.

Something in that statement made me very grateful. The government has empowered the people to decide the fate of an industry. Isn't it up to the people, after all? There isn't anyone to do favors for or pay off. There is only the people to decide whether something continues.

This is perhaps a sign that the telemarketing industry should have dramatically self-regulated a long time ago, so that it wasn't so invasive that it was threatened with extinction when its fate was put up to the people. Perhaps more of our lives should be open to opt-in/opt-out regulation.
posted by VulcanMike at 7:53 AM on July 15, 2003

I'm not sure I buy this whole "throwing millions of people out of work" claim. If the law had been done differently, say for example if they had to pay a small fee per person called with proceeds going to a consumer rebate instead of not being able to call people at all, then the claim would probably be along the lines of "our margin is razor thin as it is, so this extra burden will put lots of telemarketing companies out of business," etc. As it is, they're claiming huge sales numbers that allow them to employ millions of poor defenseless single moms, who will now have to go on welfare. In other words, no matter how you play it, they'll claim to be the victim, with plenty of statistics to back up whatever claim they happen to be making.

Misspell the last few letters of your name when you get phone service. When you get a call looking for "Mr. Smitch", you can honestly say he's not home and hang up.

I use a variant of this idea - I have a listed number with my name spelled correctly, and when they call me up, I just say "Not interested, put me on your do-not-call list" and hang up. After I did that for a while, I got next to zero telemarketing calls. (That is, until I ditched regular phone service and started using my cell phone as my regular phone - I haven't heard from a telemarketer in over a year.)
posted by RylandDotNet at 7:56 AM on July 15, 2003

WAAAH i'm so fucking upset. really.

as sad as it is for this to happen to them, jesus f'ing christ. 660 billion annually?

I get so many sales calls at work, too. i'd say odds are 1/3 when the phone rings there will be some asshole salesdroid asking me where I get my SANs from or wether I have a managed AV solution or not. it's counterproductive to my day to take these calls. i make up some bullshit about being against corporate policy to answer sales/survey calls, and the usually agree to leave me alone. afaik, i haven't had any return calls..
posted by shadow45 at 7:58 AM on July 15, 2003

yeah, I worked as a telemarketer* one summer in college , and it is an awful awful job. Actually, I found it more depressing how many people were willing to buy what I was selling (it was a telemarketing firm, so that changed regularly - baby toys one week, death and dismemberment insurance the next). I was also surprised how many women still wanted to be known as Mrs. as opposed to Ms. (I naturally converted everyone to Ms. at first and got indignant responses). And how many stay at home wives there were out there... Anyway, the people I could relate to were the ones that hung up on me. I have had some funny interactions with telemarketers since by revealing to them that I know how much their job sucks, but those tape recorded voices just frustrate me.

As others have said, the money will go elsewhere, the people on the no call list were not going to buy anyway, and regardless of the financial incentives, the industry is unethical, taking advantage of & manipulating people for profit, so it's to our advantage as a society to minimize its reach.

* I was going to make some sort of joke about how I should have been a prostitute or drug dealer or hit man instead, but the thing is, sex work or drug dealing actually does seem less morally questionable to me, and hit man was hard to word partly because I would really be a hit woman, but more because it sounded like telemarketing made me angry enough to kill people or something, which I didn't mean. so there you have it, the breakdown of the absence of a cliche one-liner.
posted by mdn at 8:06 AM on July 15, 2003

deadcowdan, I suspect those aren't 185 million unique customers. Fewer than 1/3 of Americans are as dumb as the American Teleservices Association makes them out to be...
posted by whatzit at 8:09 AM on July 15, 2003

You gotta love how politicians are exempt, though.
posted by signal at 8:09 AM on July 15, 2003

I worked as a telemarketer/telefundraiser for about a year, and while I value the experience for making me more comfortable calling people up and starting a conversation, I don't think anyone needs to do such a job - and almost nobody enjoys it. I say "almost" because I vividly remember the two or three people I met who really did enjoy it, and they happened to be some of the most ill-adjusted people I've ever encountered.

In those particular cases where a call center is the only thing available in a particular town (and I find those stats a little overblown), people could hang onto those jobs by the place being retrofitted to handle customer service calls for retailers and companies who will now have money freed up from one area - annoying promotions - to put into another - building brand loyalty and customer satisfaction. Add in the rest of us being able to eat dinner in peace, and it looks like a win-win-win.
posted by soyjoy at 8:13 AM on July 15, 2003

I found this whole article very annoying - and I love Salon.

And many Americans will sign up for the do-not-call list under the impression that they do not want to buy things over the phone, but they're lying, too.

Speak for yourself, Salon. I'm Canadian, but if we had a do not call list I'd be on it like a wet-shirt - and I wouldn't be lying. I've never bought anything from a telemarketer and I never will.

I used to do phone surveys at a time when I was struggling just to pay the rent and buy some groceries. I thought it was less evil. Then one night I called a woman whose husband had just died. After I got off the phone I grabbed my jacket and purse and walked out.

Oh, and when a telemarketer calls me and asks, "Is Mr. or Mrs. Smith there?" I can just honestly say "No," and hang up. One of the many advantages to being a single woman.

I'm sure it isn't only politicians who are exempt - charitable organizations would be too. And sure, it may not be consistent, but somehow I have no problem with that.
posted by orange swan at 8:16 AM on July 15, 2003

Yes, yes, it's all about Job Creation. How come when people talk about how wonderful Job Creation is, they never talk about how wonderful the jobs themselves are? Which is more valuable to the nation's well-being: one thousand essentially minimum wage jobs with no room for advancement, no security, and no respect, or (for the same cost) forty semi-skilled manufacturing jobs (never mind that we already essentially regulated American manufacturing out of business). The United States has plenty of soulcrushing jobs where fat absentee assholes scrape sixty percent off the top and let the little morsels of precious precious cash fall through the grates to the unwashed masses below. We have so many we've started to export them.

What would be really great is if the call centers decided to pitch their excess service capacity as customer support services, and the megaconglomerate LPs in their client lists decide that they can get more money if they simply treat their existing customers well. I'm not holding out a whole lot of hope.

Oh, yeah, and what VulcanMike said.
posted by Vetinari at 8:22 AM on July 15, 2003

One thing that article doesn't point out is that an increasing number of telemarketing jobs are actually being outsourced to India. So it might be a poor, rural individual who's going to be out of work, but its possible they're not going to even be in the same hemisphere.

Not that that really makes it better for the person who's now out of work. I'm just saying...
posted by bshort at 8:26 AM on July 15, 2003

I can go one better than the guilt-ridden former telemarketers in this discussion: I created software that made it easier for AT&T and other companies to call more people, train new telemarketers, and save call data.

It was one of those punch-your-ticket-to-hell jobs. Shortly after I left its employ, my former boss was giddy about new technology called a "predictive dialer" that enabled computers to call people, detect real humans on the other end, and either pass the call to a telemarketer (if one was available) or hang up on them.

Needless to say, I should be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.
posted by rcade at 8:31 AM on July 15, 2003

You and those bastards from Sirius Cybernetics.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:38 AM on July 15, 2003

See also:
AdAge.com story that mentions loop holes, and DMNews.com that has some good quotes:
"On the record and off, veteran telemarketers acknowledged that the industry could look only to itself to place blame for its troubles. Telemarketing turned out to be its own worst enemy, an effective sales tool that, combined with new calling technology and a lack of self-control by some telemarketers, grew beyond consumer tolerance for it. "

These are both aimed at the marketing crowd, more of an insiders view I guess.
posted by Blake at 8:43 AM on July 15, 2003

rcade: Needless to say, I should be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

I'm sorry, sir, but if you had anything whatsoever to do with predictive dialing, even if it's only knowing somebody who knew someone who once thought about implementing it, I say we'd all be justified in just killing you now, and damn the revolution...

They've gotten so good at it, they can get through my (1) unlisted number with (2) Privacy Manager installed and (3) still manage to use a number that when "redialed" calls a fax machine. Arrrgh! I've found that if you answer the call and set the phone down near the TV, the system passes it to a telemarketer, so at least I'm wasting some of their time, too.
posted by JollyWanker at 9:13 AM on July 15, 2003

Can telemarketing companies call you at your cell phone?

PS, Was getting hammered with sales calls; Saturdays, telemarketers were ringing me before 8am; come home from work, there would be several messages from the recorded telemarketing services; call all they way up until 9pm at night. Solution is not to turn off your ringer, so cancelled my home phone service, been peacefully quite for a year now.
posted by thomcatspike at 9:15 AM on July 15, 2003

Slave owners had a pretty good business, as well.
posted by the fire you left me at 9:48 AM on July 15, 2003

rcade - that was you? JollyWanker's right, we can't be waiting around for the revolution to get our retribution. And I'm speaking as a former telemarketer.

It's gotten so that when I hear the strange silence after saying "hello," instead of idiotically repeating "hello? hello?", I now get ready to launch into my diatribe as soon as the hapless telemarketer comes on and starts trying to pronounce my name:

"Listen, sonny, when I was a telemarketer, we had to dial every call ourselves! And not only that, we had to sit there and listen to it ring to see if anybody answered! Not like this fancy-shmancy techno-gadgetry you kids today are using, and that's why I don't feel like..."

By about that time, they've usually hung up. If not, though, I will in the future be sure to curse your username to them, rcade, for bonus discombobulation points.
posted by soyjoy at 9:49 AM on July 15, 2003

"When Reuters correspondent Jeff Krolicki received an unsolicited call, he struck up a conversation with the telemarketer [audio file] and learned a little more about the telemarketing industry as well. Krolicki decided to challenge "Stephen" on many fronts: what his real name is, whether he’s really just a computer program, and what his first grade teacher’s name was." from Marketplace.org
posted by Frank Grimes at 9:57 AM on July 15, 2003

now if we could just do something about the "offshore" customer service centers where non/minimal engish speakers repeatedly read from scripts...

listening, dell?
posted by aiq at 10:17 AM on July 15, 2003

I, too, have done time on the electronic plantations known as telemarketing firms. I worked pitching heating oil, during the summer, in the middle of the Gulf War. The guy in the next cubicle spoke into the phone at Deep Purple Live in Concert level volume. But on the upside, we were allowed to smoke.

After a month and a half I got a job working in an industrial bakery. Yes, sweaty factory labor was preferable and it paid better too.

About a decade later, the major computer manufacturer I was a sales rep for had us making cold calls to local business. There are probably very few less fun ways to make a living. It got to the point where the joke around the store was "Hi, I'm Jon from blahdyblah, can I interest you in new technology products or should I just go fuck myself?"

But somebody out there must be buying this stuff otherwise why would they do it?

the industry is unethical, taking advantage of & manipulating people for profit, so it's to our advantage as a society to minimize its reach.

True, but then again, all sales does that to some extent. Telemarketing just compounds it all by being annoying and intrusive, which is what the real problem is.
posted by jonmc at 10:25 AM on July 15, 2003

The arguments of telemarketers fall apart for the same reason that justifications of spam do: it's a poor use, to the point of being a misuse, of the consumer's time. No matter what they yap about market research and qualifying cusomers, the fact is that everybody they call who _doesn't_ want their product has just had their time wasted. Any business predicated on, essentially, stealing resources (time, in the case of phone solicitation) from others is not an honorable business and is a good candidate for being shut down by consumer action.

And that's all this is: a consumer action. The feds are only providing the database and making sure that businesses respect it by force of law. The feds don't put anyone on the list, people put themselves there. The marketers haven't got a leg to stand on.
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:33 AM on July 15, 2003

And before anyone mentions television or magazine ads, I can choose not to watch television at any given time, and I don't have to read ads. I can't choose not to answer the phone, not if I don't want to defeat the purpose of having one.
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:35 AM on July 15, 2003

For an industry as large as they claim they are, the telemarketers sure don't have their shit together when it comes to lobbying politicians. I mean, geez, the tobacco industry isn't merely an annoyance, they kill their customers and they have lobbied to stay in business for decades. If they really command 6% of the GDP and they got unanomously voted out of business by the Senate, they have no one to blame but themselves.
posted by McBain at 10:39 AM on July 15, 2003

If they really command 6% of the GDP and they got unanomously voted out of business by the Senate, they have no one to blame but themselves.

I'm willing to bet most Senators (being in a high-end demographic and all) get fuckloads of sales calls. That's probably all it took.
posted by jonmc at 10:41 AM on July 15, 2003

True, but then again, all sales does that to some extent. Telemarketing just compounds it all by being annoying and intrusive, which is what the real problem is.

yeah, but that's the part that I think makes it actually unethical - the telemarketer intrudes on someone who had not even been thinking about buying X before, and convinces them to buy it. Salespeople at least have to wait until a customer wonders about maybe wanting X and so stops by a store where it's sold.

Obviously manipulation etc takes place there, but at least the customer had some kind of interest in the product initially, and also, knows that the salesperson will try to upsell etc. Telemarketing catches people off guard and the script basically guides a less-than-willing individual into spending money on something random and unnecessary.

"electronic plantations" - that's great.
posted by mdn at 10:41 AM on July 15, 2003

Telemarketing catches people off guard and the script basically guides a less-than-willing individual into spending money on something random and unnecessary.

I think the greatest source of annoyance comes from being put on the spot. If I wandered into Best Buy interested in merely browsing for televisions and a salesperson started in a pitch after I'd begged off with "just looking", I'd be out of there in a big hurry and this is AFTER I have willingly walked in to the store. I don't want anyone selling me something unless I've asked for it.
posted by McBain at 10:50 AM on July 15, 2003

Does anyone else find it ironic that Salon (whose content I generally love) published this article behind their dodgy "Free Day Pass" advertising curtain? I join those who have balked at linking to subscription sites. Even if it's only 4 seconds, the idea stinks and shouldn't be supported. Every click is a vote.
posted by squirrel at 10:57 AM on July 15, 2003

Does anyone else find it ironic that Salon (whose content I generally love) published this article behind their dodgy "Free Day Pass" advertising curtain?

What's dodgy about it? Not to derail the thread, but they have to make money somehow. I'm a paying subscriber, as I look at it like donating to public television, but I don't quite understand complaints about dealing with a quick ad to get a free day pass.
posted by McBain at 11:10 AM on July 15, 2003

Even if it's only 4 seconds, the idea stinks and shouldn't be supported.

Peoples gots ta eat. I don't want to have to subscribe for everything, but it's a small inconvenience that helps Salon stay afloat. If you don't like it, don't visit the link. But as long as the content is somehow available for free, it's fair game for FPP, IMO.
posted by jpoulos at 11:15 AM on July 15, 2003

McBaaaaaaaaaaaaaain!
posted by jpoulos at 11:16 AM on July 15, 2003

Does anyone else find it ironic that Salon (whose content I generally love) published this article behind their dodgy "Free Day Pass" advertising curtain?

hmm...good call. anyways, are you pro or anti smashing-the-front-of-newspaper-machines?
posted by mcsweetie at 11:22 AM on July 15, 2003

I join those who have balked at linking to subscription sites. Even if it's only 4 seconds, the idea stinks and shouldn't be supported. Every click is a vote.

Why can't you take four seconds of your precious time to watch an ad, so money is paid to those people who create the content you generally love?

And every click is a vote for what? Salon to stay in business?
posted by SweetJesus at 11:37 AM on July 15, 2003

Hm, it's actually surprising to see the gotta-pay-the-bills justification in the same thread where the DMA's similar arguments have been so neatly disposed of. I mean, telemarketers don't have bills, too? Don't get me wrong: I have bills of my own; I love Salon and in fact have friends who work there. I just think that this ad rev model is poor and the slope is slippery. As for smashing newspaper machines... guh?

On preview: Every click is a yes vote for this ad model, SweetJesus.
posted by squirrel at 11:39 AM on July 15, 2003

I mean, telemarketers don't have bills, too?

A guy from Salon isn't calling me at my house telling me that for a small fee he can read some of today's news to me. It is about a pervasive model vs a passive model. What is the slippery slope? Time magazine's first few pages are filled with full-page ads, aren't they?
posted by McBain at 11:48 AM on July 15, 2003

Hm, it's actually surprising to see the gotta-pay-the-bills justification in the same thread where the DMA's similar arguments have been so neatly disposed of.

Except that Salon doesn't call you at 7:43pm, right after dinner when you're all vulnerable, trying to sell you things you don't want.

In fact, you're actually going to Salon, not the other way around, so they're not forcing anything on you. So your analogy is shaky at best.

And if those little ultramercials are the way Salon want's to make money, in addition to subscriptions, I say go for it. There's nothing wrong with it, and it's fairly unobtrusive. You can either pay the 30 bucks, or watch an ad everyday you want to access the site.

What exactly do you object to in this ad model?
posted by SweetJesus at 11:55 AM on July 15, 2003

squirrel, you're seeing "irony" where there isn't any. The two ad models are almost diametrically opposed. "Every click is a yes vote" for Salon continuing.
posted by soyjoy at 11:58 AM on July 15, 2003

I hate it when people get mad at telemarketers. It's like getting mad at panhandlers. They wouldn't be doing it if they had any better alternatives.

Boo hoo, you got called during dinner.

The do not call list is a good idea -- I signed up for it. But telemarketers are not your enemy. Develop some perspective and/or compassion.

And direct marketing is certainly not the most invasive form of advertising, it's just the least subtle.
posted by Hildago at 12:34 PM on July 15, 2003

Boo hoo, you got called during dinner.

Calling people you have no prior relationship with is rude. I've been woken from naps, gotten up from food or my favorite television show to hunt for the cordless, been called by the same company twice within five minutes. It goes on and on, day after day. Honestly, I try not to answer the phone if I am not expecting a call, but I worry I'll miss calls like "Grandma is sick". It shouldn't be that way.

I have no problem with advertising. It is quite an important part of an economy, but most of it is passive. Spammers and telemarketers simply need to find another way of doing business.
posted by McBain at 12:44 PM on July 15, 2003

Boo hoo, you got called during dinner.

Shifting a large part of the burden of advertising to the target. This is exactly what spammers do: they take the time and use the equipment of non-consenting non-customers, and largely waste it, and they do this as the basis of their business model. Just as you can no longer send junk faxes and use up the paper in people's fax machines thus preventing them from getting faxes they actually need, telemarketers should not be allowed to consume a resource that they have not paid for. This is what distinguishes it from legitimate forms of advertising.
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:54 PM on July 15, 2003

To answer DeadCowDan, an outbound call is when they call you. An inbound call is when you call an 800 number to order "Sweatin' to the Oldies." Some telemarketers only do outbound calls, some do only inbound calls and some do both.
posted by Atom12 at 12:58 PM on July 15, 2003

For a time, I forwarded my home phone line to my cell phone, to simplify matters. Telemarketers are the reason I stopped -- when you're paying per-minute charges to have carpet cleaning pushed at you, the "theft" aspect of the business becomes a lot plainer. But before you mention unlimited minute plans, the fact remains that my time is worth more than any per-minute charges. During slow periods I might accept telemarketing calls if there were a bill-back button I could press to charge them my usual consulting rate: which is orders of magnitude larger than cellular connect charges.
posted by George_Spiggott at 1:03 PM on July 15, 2003

I hate it when people get mad at telemarketers. It's like getting mad at panhandlers. They wouldn't be doing it if they had any better alternatives.

Speaking as someone who did the absolute worst kind of telemarketing (selling Lifeline equipment to the elderly, and then monitoring it in the same building), I agree with you in principal. But the fact is, if you're working for a telemarketer, you're prepared to get some rude responses. It comes with the job, and everyone knows it.

Boo hoo, you got called during dinner.

Give me your phone number, and I assure you, you'll never have an uninterrupted dinner again. I got calls for years (my employer added employee phone numbers to the master telelmarketing list, and also sold that list to other companies), and it fucking sucks.

The do not call list is a good idea -- I signed up for it. But telemarketers are not your enemy. Develop some perspective and/or compassion.

No, the Telemarketing industry is the enemy. They treat their people like shit, like nothing more that indentured servants. They routinely break labor laws, hire kids without working papers, younger than 16. Where I worked, they were always hiring, because they had a 80% turnover rate. Out of my training class of 15, I was the only one left after 3 weeks.

The people who work for telemarketers can find other jobs, and it's pretty evident if you look at the industry-wide turnover rates, that they do. It's not as if these people are being left out in the cold, if telemarkers go out of business.

And direct marketing is certainly not the most invasive form of advertising, it's just the least subtle.

And one of the most annoying...
posted by SweetJesus at 1:24 PM on July 15, 2003

SweetJesus, soyjoy: I didn't say that Telemarketer and Salon models are the same, (or I didn't mean to--they're not). I meant to draw attention to the double-standard being applied here regarding the gotta-pay-the-bills justification: seems it's okay for Salon, not okay for telemarketers. This is why I tend to glance askance at this justification.

McBain, you're right about the active-passive difference, and there are others. The slippery slope I refer to is the possibility of a future where half-content is all you get unless you pay and/or serve out your time in teaspoons to advertisers. My respect for Salon aside, I don't like the mini-commerical precedent, although I acknowledge that tough times call for compromises.
posted by squirrel at 1:25 PM on July 15, 2003

The slippery slope I refer to is the possibility of a future where half-content is all you get unless you pay and/or serve out your time in teaspoons to advertisers.

Content on the internet isn't free. Get used to it. I'm constantly amazed that people whine about ads on web pages but not a peep is said about a print magazine that you have to pay for.

The cost of something like Time Magazine is really just a barrier to entry anyway, the real money is made through advertising. That's why subscription rates are a small fraction of cover price.
posted by McBain at 1:57 PM on July 15, 2003

The hands-down most mystifying calls I get are from auto glass companies, asking if I have a crack or a chip in my windshield. The first time I got one of these calls, I thought it was a joke (of the is-your-refrigerator-running type). Surreal.
posted by swerve at 4:10 PM on July 15, 2003

I think Squirrel has a point -- I mean, rock on for Salon, lord knows I've got the RSS feed in my reader de choice and have been known to click through their ads, but I think a news article that you have to click through stuff to get to is kind of pushing the definition of "something cool you found on the web." Compare to this, this, or this, or, um, this, or even possibly a little bit of this. It looks kinda wack. [Sorry if these are double posts.]

I have experimented with fooling the kind of things that rcade mentioned. A good thing to do is to answer the phone with something that doesn't sound like "hello." "Good morning" in a really low voice is my favorite. 9x out of 10 you'll just get dead air for a couple of seconds, and that's when you hang up.

Furthermore, I have experimented with fooling the Salon ads. Where it says "Having trouble viewing this? Click here," click there.
posted by britain at 6:11 PM on July 15, 2003

Thanks for the back-up, britain.

McBain, your "content isn't free" truism/barb doesn't address the issue of how content is paid for. Certainly there are varied ways of paying for things; cost alone is no mandate to bring in revenue by any manner possible. The experience of the users has to be taken into consideration, and the precedent of the model.

The good folks at Salon struggled over this issue for a long time, I know, which suggests that the issue isn't as clear-cut as you depict it. You're welcome to your opinion, but because mine differs from yours doesn't make it whining.
posted by squirrel at 10:22 AM on July 16, 2003

Certainly there are varied ways of paying for things; cost alone is no mandate to bring in revenue by any manner possible.

I'd love to hear how magazines have generated revenue outside of ads and subscription fees.
posted by McBain at 12:33 PM on July 16, 2003

Do you make no distinction between a banner ad and an ad that makes you wait? If so, you're in the minority. Maybe it's just 10 seconds today, but that's why I call it a slippery slope: the gotta-pay-the-bills justification works just as well for a 30 second ad as it does for a 10 second ad; and supporting the model encourages other content providers to do the same. I doubt you truly fail to distinguish among different types of ads, McBain, and suppose you're just trying to make a point. I get it. I think we both have made our point here. Onward. After your last word, of course. ; )
posted by squirrel at 2:34 PM on July 16, 2003

The telemarketer comparison is utterly invalid.

Telemarketers are a bunch of asshole ear-priates who harass you uninvited. Their bills don't deserve to get paid.

Salon is offering you something you want, at a price. How are those relationships comparable?

Let's not forget how hard Salon has worked to keep from charging, too. They've struggled to keep a pure subscription model at bay. Being able to read without paying is something they've sweated to defend. Give 'em some credit.
posted by scarabic at 5:02 PM on July 16, 2003

You and what army?
posted by squirrel at 5:54 PM on July 16, 2003

Telemarketers generally come from poor, underprivileged backgrounds? No doubt. But so do crack dealers. And at least the latter distribute something that people want, enough to actively seek out. (The claim that people actually want to receive telemarketing calls, on the basis that they very occasionally buy the products that these telemarketers sell, is the kind of spurious logic that only an economist could believe.)
posted by ramakrishna at 10:35 PM on July 16, 2003