Ofcom, the communication regulator, want to introduce even further rules to reduce the number of “silent calls” received by consumers from automated diallers, http://bit.ly/d9TTpE .
Diallers are a fabulous tool to increase the efficiency of outbound calling operations by dialling a mass of numbers from a database, the answered calls are then connected to an agent who handles the call whilst the unanswered calls are dropped. Reported increases in efficiency can be spectacular, reported here as a 495% increase, http://bit.ly/al70oY . Normally when the dialler connects to an answering machine it drops the call but mistakes occur when the call is answered by a person and they are left with the dreaded “silent” call.
The number of complaints about silent calls has declined by 50% over the last 10 years but is further legislation really necessary when people can already help themselves with simple measures like registering with the Telephone Preference Service? Are new rules really needed which will inevitably have cost implications to users of diallers.
Is this the nanny state in operation and further evidence of the red tape strangling business or a serious social issue that needs solving?
By Martin Blain
Sales Director
As a long-standing campaigner against Silent Calls, perhaps oddly, I agree with some of what Martin says.
In fact, Ofcom has no powers to impose general regulations such as those suggested. Ofcom can and should only fulfil its duty to take necessary action against particular organisations it finds to be misusing the telephone system.
I personally hold with the idea that the proper way to deal with someone who answers a telephone call is to announce who is calling and to proceed with one’s business. I have to see the habitual practice of hanging up in silence as misuse. Sadly Ofcom does not agree with me on this point.
If the call centre industry were to be happy with the idea that all those who do not wish to suffer the rudeness of a caller hang up in silence should opt out of receiving DM calls by registering with the TPS, then it should declare its position openly – “We may call you and then hang up in silence – opt-out if you do not wish to receive such calls”. From my engagement with the industry I believe that many would most strongly oppose such a position.
Like Martin, I see no place for the state imposing lots of detailed silly rules to tell professional people how to do the right thing. They should be able to work that out for themselves. Those who need help should not necessarily be given it at public expense, although those who fail do need to be dealt with.
Those who conclude that it is acceptable to habitually hang up in silence when telephone calls are answered (as is permitted under Ofcom’s so-called “rules”) should first be told that the inconvenience, annoyance and anxiety which this causes makes this practice of misuse unacceptable. If necessary, they should be placed under an enforceable requirement to cease the practice and subjected to financial penalty as appropriate.
That is what Ofcom’s powers provide for; they should be used in that way – not in the foolish improper and illegitimate nannying way that they are being misused at present.
The TPS is supported by actual statutory regulatory provisions (the PECR 2003) which are commonly breached, most notably at present by marketing calls delivered by recorded messages. These require the nannying intervention of the ICO to be enforced. The argument being advanced is weakened by suggesting reliance on one ineffective nanny (the ICO) in place of another (Ofcom), the latter being actually illegitimate in its role.
I deeply regret the fact that the telephone marketing industry has tried to lean on nanny state, rather than get its own act together. There are indeed some in the wider DM industry who wish the state to act as the wicked step-mother and kill off its bastard unsolicited telemarketing child. The problem is that the state will never do so with a swift cut, the poison in the apple of the Ofcom “rules” is very slow acting.
I am not one of those who believes that because telephone marketing is seen to inevitably involve Silent Calls and breaches of regulations, it should be treated with utter disdain and perhaps banned (in effect) if there is insufficient public consent to be subjected to such treatment. This is where I disagree with Martin.
David,
Whilst I agree with most of what you say where you and I definitely don’t see eye to eye is in your final paragraph where you suggest that telemarketing could perhaps be banned. More big brother state action?
My feeling is that we need to respect somebody’s basic need to make a living and were telemarketing to be banned would we be taking away from somebody their ability to feed their family?
As a country we must prevent even more overzealous restrictions on business’s (lawful) activities.
Martin Blain
I’m torn over this issue. I would put silent calls, and might even go as far as saying the majority of “marketing” calls, firmly in the ‘anti-social and annoying’ sin bin. Receiving silent calls, or even a number of missed calls for seemingly no reason, can be extremely worrying. A friend of mine was driven to absolute distraction when she received a barrage of silent calls while her husband was in hospital. Fearing the worst, she called in only to find out that her husband was fine. Later in the day, she received a marketing call who “could neither confirm nor deny” that they had already tried to contact her that day.
Saying that, I don’t think these newly drafted Ofcom rules have enough clout to make a difference. It won’t have any power or opportunity to strangle businesses, in my opinion.