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