The
National Do Not Call list has officially opened. Although so many people have tried to register themselves that the website has up and died, I was able to get this fantastic image of the front page. Look at that family, enjoying their dinner, not being interrupted by any annoying phone calls. It's enough to make you wonder why this is an opt-in list, instead of an opt-out list. Further, it makes me wonder if there are maybe any other commercial we could opt out of that would increase our quality of life. Maybe we should think about opting out of other forms of advertising: advertising directed towards children, advertising for unnecessary medications, advertising for psychic hotlines, those terrible political attack ads, those advertising cars that do nothing but drive around the city with rotating billboards, those advertising projectors that display ads on the sides of buildings on Friday and Saturday nights, maybe even those terrible Tim Hortons commercials? At the end of the day, I feel like I'm so bombarded with advertising that I can't remember a single ad I've seen. I may be the exception, but it seems to me that advertisers, in their constant game of one-upmanship, have essentially created a sea of noise, where all of the ads are meaningless.
A while ago I was listening to a CBC programme on innovative new ways to advertise. A member of an advertising firm talked about the new techniques they're trying to use to create ads that would appeal to specific customers, rather than just trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Maybe I could even settle for that? Sure, it invades my space, takes up valuable moments from my day, and ultimately tends not to accomplish too much, but at least it would be relevant?
::EDIT:: The above is mostly sarcasm. As noted in the comments, there are a million loopholes that will let companies call you, even if you are in the database. How bad are the flaws? Bad enough that
this Michael Geist article from 2005 still manages to chronicle them all. Indeed, Michael Geist's
most recent article on the subject states that "some estimates indicate that 85 percent of telemarketing calls will be exempt under the DNCL."
4 comments:
Ok, seriously, you need some facts on this. If you think this is going to stop telemarketing, you are really mistaken. There are a whole GROUP of telemarketers that it still allows to call you, including the biggest offenders: the newspapers, the charitable organizations and people you have previously done business with. So if you've been scammed before, you can be harassed and scammed again. So kiss your interruption-free dinner goodbye, because it ain't happening.
Sorry, I always forget how poorly sarcasm transmits over the internet. Yeah, I basically think this whole list is a joke, and I feel really sorry for anyone who has to explain to angry participants why exactly it is that the volume of calls to their house hasn't decreased.
It seems to me that, rather than having an opt-out list like this, the CRTC really ought to just come out and regulate the groups who are allowed to participate in telemarketing. Because I tend not to give out my phone number all over the place, I find that the only groups who do call me are the charitable organizations, the newspapers, and legitimate businesses such as my bank. And I really don't mind these calls. All of the above tend to be pretty friendly, and I've never had to tell them more than twice that I'm not interested.
As for the others, the fake contest scams, the ridiculous credit card companies, and all that other junk, I would be happy if they had just two simple rules to follow, enforcible through a reasonable fine: no lying, and no making the customer say no more than three times. Maybe as a bonus rule, they couldn't call back? Sure, I'd still have get up, get the phone, and say no, but at least I wouldn't have to hang up on the person who won't give up after the fifth no.
That said, caller ID tends to be the easiest solution. I've noticed that all of the telemarketers tend to have pretty easy-to-recognise caller information, so I just tend to ignore any calls that come from Maryland or Manitoba.
Now the only question that remains is who will Bell sell the no-call list to, and for how much ;)
See, no, this is my failure to actually have the time to read the entirety of what you wrote. :( I'm sorry. Sarcasm was there I just didn't see it in the 10 seconds or so I actually had to read the article before I opened my mouth and inserted my foot. Let's just say, we've received a LOT of calls on this today.
And I'm sure everyone will blame Bell. Oh yes. Right.
So I was at this seminar today, on the topic of "context-dependent computing". The guy was applying his concepts to all kinds of fields, but the common thread was that it was about trying to get technology to meet users on their own level, to try to read a user's intentions and patterns, and accomdate various systems accordinly. But one of the projects he mentioned involved Pepsi asking him to design vending machines. His solution involved making a vending machine an interactive thing, offering to play games and other such ridiculous things. Apparently, the Pepsi people didn't like how little it involved the name "Pepsi", but he felt that the more important thing in terms of getting people to buy the product was simply to have them spending time interacting with the machine in the first place. He suggested an idea, with a little drawing to illustrate it, in which the arrival/departure information at an airport could be displayed on a vending machine instead of on a monitor.
At this point, I lost all respect for the man and tasted something like ash in my mouth.
My point, not to be negative or anything, is that things are apt to get worse before they get better. And really, the only weapon that we have is, as you mentioned, selective apathy (though I've been noticing ad-specific vandalism becoming quite popular in the TO subway system - to each their own).
Post a Comment