OK, I get a bit silly at the end but….

From: The United States of Litigation …

“Do Not Call. Those words are music to millions of Americans who have signed up for the list so they’re not bothered by telemarketers. Not content to let things stay as they are telemarketers are now lobbying the FCC to have state laws which regulate the practice overturned. In April an ad-hoc group of firms ranging from the Direct Marketing Association to the National Children’s Cancer Society filed a joint petition asking the FCC to declare that it has ‘exclusive jurisdiction over interstate telemarketing calls.’ The issue revolves around some states whose Do Not Call laws are more strict than Federal law and which prohibit telemarketers from calling anyone on a Do Not Call, regardless of an existing business relationship.”

The above was pointed out to me at the end of last week, I have the feeling this was done to elicit the same reaction as a red rag to a bull.

Digging a bit deeper it seems this ‘Ad-hoc’ group is saying that in five states where, locally, they have tightened the law over and above the federal statutes, marketing to existing customers (which is outlawed) should be allowed.

For a full description see Here: epic.org

Ok, so what does this mean?

Well the short version is some states have completely banned cold calling, whereas the majority have gone with the federal limits on ‘Existing Relationship Contact’, the ‘We may contact you with products or services we feel may suit you’ rather than the other, ‘ We’ll pass your details onto anyone who pays us a large wodge of cash for your personal data’.

This is specific to several states where the local legislature has ruled against not only marketing to individuals who are on the DNC list but to existing customers as well. This means they can’t call to up-sell, re-sell or solicit.

Now I have had calls where they’ve marketed on the basis I’m an existing customer (Guess who?) but I’m more interested in the slightly more esoteric and mercurial status that is ‘Existing Relationship’. Who do I have an existing relationship with? Who do you?

Some of the answers may surprise you.

1) Obviously anyone you trade with, Gas, Electricity, your bank, Telecoms provider.

2) Anyone you used to trade with. So if you’ve changed suppliers for any of the above in the last 12 months they can call and try to persuade you to switch back or sell a new product

3) Now the grey area. Anyone YOU have approached for information and supplied personal contact details to. Again they have 12 months to call.

Now we all know the NIMBY effect around Contact Centre staff. Hands up who’s NOT TPS registered? So one wrong marketing survey, one missed “Can we pass on your details to our carefully selected Cash Cows”, box and the whole cycle starts again. In this case you’ve potentially actually removed yourself from the list voluntarily.

So across the pond they are campaigning to be allowed to call ‘Existing customers’

I’m about to let my imagination run riot.

How long will it be before the courts are sitting on a test case where the American company is defending their right to call and sell you insurance because you bought a can of beans in one of their stores. Therefore establishing an existing relationship.

Come to think of it we’re not that far away here, even given my comments above.
Insurance, home loans, air freshener, new car and bunch of flowers all under one roof,
or in one call? How long before the ‘Existing relationship’ renders the TPS regulations invalid just by the scope of a modern business or a well thought out ‘Strategic Partnership’ forged only to exploit the two, potentially varied, customer bases comes into being?

British Airways and Samsonite? As you use luggage you may travel, as you travel you may use luggage?

Easy Jet and Walkers, because you bought a packet of their crisps on the plane or might be interested in other places they sell their crisps.

BMW and Odeon Cinemas because you saw the Italian Job therefore like Mini’s or vice versa.

Back to the serious part though…

As with Spam and Spam blockers where there is ongoing battle to hit your ‘In-Box’ the marketing / advertising / soliciting trade (Ok ourselves) are constantly adapting to the changing market conditions. I’m deliberately not using the phrase Market forces, all too often we use a ‘Shotgun’ approach. As the legalities of the trade tighten who isn’t prepared to shamelessly exploit the loopholes left in an effort to hit the widest possible demographic?

Will we in five years time see ourselves in the same position as our colonial cousins?

From the article above it appears the US DMA is one of the bodies behind the legal challenge. Whilst here we champion ‘best practice’, we set ‘Industry guidelines’ and we try to self regulate, for which the DMA here is responsible. Will we hit a point where our DMA is forced by the industry to challenge the TPS service it itself helped champion in the first place?

And what’s more do we want to be around to see that battle?

Dave Appleby

I am not a meek person.

I am demanding, exacting and have high expectations. I have a low tolerance for ineptitude and intellectual laziness.

And I’ve experienced a few customer service failures recently that have particularly frustrated me.

It’s not that I don’t accept that things can deviate from plan; I’m actually a firm believer that it is not so much what goes wrong, but more how a situation is dealt with, by organisations demonstrating positive reaction and resolution, that influences customers’ loyalty and shapes their impression of that company.

People are human, and will make mistakes, however robust your recruitment, training and ongoing development may be. And unanticipated (and unanticipatable!) things will also happen from time to time, often way outside an organisation’s sphere of control or influence, to throw things awry.

Neither of these things is the issue. It’s when things go wrong despite or particularly as a result of everything being done right that I seethe. Processes that are planned in isolation, that don’t drill down further than the most superficial of customer needs and wants, and that are even sometimes designed purely for the convenience of the organisation itself.

For example, I recently needed to request a standard form from my bank. Everyone I spoke to was polite, friendly and helpful, and would rightly have scored very highly on whatever quality metrics were applied, but yet I was not satisfied with the experience*. If I complained, I’m sure it wouldn’t be referenced as such, as nothing actually went wrong.

Isn’t there a case for organisations examining these non-compliant complaints further as indicators for process or procedural conflict? The assumption that all customer service failures are as a result of people or circumstances would be staggering organisational arrogance. Progressive organisations listen to customers, speak to staff and adapt and grow.

This isn’t to say that everything customers want will ever be deliverable, and there is perhaps a case that customers are becoming more difficult to satisfy; what delights them today, they expect as standard tomorrow. We just need to ensure we are looking in the right places for problems.

Zoe

*I called the number listed against my branch in the phone book and was told I had come through to the national call centre, I needed to call my branch on the number they would give me as they were unable to send out the form. But because it was (just) after 4.30pm on Friday they would not be available until 10am Monday. On Monday I called and my branch staff were unavailable, so I was routed to the cluster support team, who were also unable to send me the form, but took my details to pass a message to the branch to put one in the post. 10 days later, the form arrived. Grrrrrrrrrrr. And don’t get me started on everything else!

To quote JC: “…many people working in such systems who have sort of �fallen into it� in some way.”

Isn’t this just the case - and it rings true in every job in the land. The most frustrating thing is that often these people, and John’s example is a good one, don’t understand what they don’t understand. If you’re with me?!

I had a similar problem. I was trying to show a guy how to average service level figures. The stats in question being number of calls answered within x seconds, as a pecentage of offered calls. What he couldn’t understand is that you need to “weight” the figures depending how many calls were recevied in each period.

His logic:

% from period a * % from period b / number of periods (in this case; 2 periods).

My logic:

(% from period a * number of calls from period a) * (% from period b * number of calls from period b) / (number of calls from period a + number of calls from period b).

Would he listen? Nope. His incorrect figures then went to the client - who couldn’t understand why they didn’t tally with the daily figures. Some bizarre explanation was issued and eventually he got the client so confused they gave up trying to understand. Blinded without science.

This was a professional call centre operation and they weren’t even releasing accurate figures to their clients. You’d assume that such an organistation should go out of business, but as with John’s story the practice is rife. The clients themselves don’t have the knowledge, or the time, to be able to be checking up on such things. It’s one of the reasons I decided to start my own company. I wanted to ensure that what I put my name next to was 100% correct.

There are a lot of good centres out there - but there’s an awful lot of bad ones too.

So is this morally wrong? You’re giving your client incorrect figures, and at the end of the day you don’t know how to do what you’re charging money for. Would you pay a mechanic who didn’t know how to change an oil filter? I appreciate that this isn’t malicious, it’s ignorance. But I still find it totally unacceptable.

This ignorance brings me round to my favourite topic of the moment: silent calls. We just can’t get away from it at the moment - mainly because there’s plenty of fuel for the argument and the press are more than willing to fan the flames.

The public’s getting quite angry with it - and if not controlled it’s going to turn quite nasty for the call centre industry. To my knowledge most companies keep within reasonable limits such as the DMA guidelines. However, it needs to be remembered that a lot of dialler users are not DMA members, and a lot of dialler users are not even in the marketing business. The implication in the press is that the DMA should answer for all silent calls, which isn’t correct.

But it only takes a few “Kitchen Directs” (1) to cause an awful lot of silent calls - usually multiples to the same people on the same day - and this causes the problems. These companies are ignorant to what they’re doing.

If you use a dialler, review your practice. Even if you’re convinced that you’re compliant. Make sure you stay within the DMA’s guidelines, even if you’re not a member or your calls are not for marketing purposes. Don’t let youself be one of these people that were ignorant to the diallers misuse.

Regards,
DB

(1) : OFCOM website: MKD Holdings case

Will full respect John, you’re wrong. You just can’t get rid of full beams.

My Mini doesn’t have the Xenon lights as discussed, but that’s irrelevant. I just wanted to tell you that I had a Mini too - especially as we’re obviously car-name dropping!

I don’t think I’d be able to live without my full beams. Living in a rather rural area means that there’s a lack of street lights on most roads, and you just can’t see the corners coming at 60mph without your full beams. However, I also hate people who don’t turn them off - and it’s not just the old codgers. It’s the kiddies too. But the kiddies have another habit which is far more annoying than full beams, loud exhausts or Max Power stickers……….foglights.

It’s in the name. Can’t you tell? They’re lights for fog. They’re not called “nofoglights", so don’t turn them on when there’s no fog.

They don’t help you see any further - trust me I’ve tried. They don’t need to - you don’t drive fast in fog, it’s not possible. Come and see me in the peak district if you don’t believe me. Yet when the kids are tonking down the country lanes they love to put them on. I think it makes them feel mean……Arrgghh!!!

Of course the only law enforcers we have on the roads now (you know, the grey immobile things) can only ticket for speed - not lighting offences.

You shouldn’t have started me on motoring John….I’m thinking of writing about lane discipline now!

Drive safely all,
DB

Hot off the press: a lollipop lady* has been ordered to keep patrolling at her school - even though it closed four months ago. Sharon Grice stands outside the empty building in Burnley twice a day, while there is no one to help the former pupils who have moved to a new school 400 yards away. The council wanted here there in case anyone still crosses there.

Madness! Another example of a really stupid decision from Them Who Make Silly Rules (TWMSR). A pet bugbear of mine, you might say…

* School crossing patrol for those of a non UK persuasion.