Consumers, make the right call now - against telemarketers

After reading this article, I could not help but to think how we must also take more action in Malaysia to have stricter rules on telemarketers, unsolicited ones of course.

How many of us have had to endure these calls when we are overseas or in the midst of an important meeting? There have also been calls from overseas in English and Chinese on all types of investments!

If we do make rules to make it better for the consumer, again the issue will come to enforcement (the issue for many Malaysian problems) and also to make it expensive for the companies who continue to flout the law. High time, we should get something done correctly and effectively.

Maybe we can't stop the overseas ones but we sure can do something about the local ones. I like the idea that before any telemarketer makes any calls, they must check through this central list for those who do not want to such calls.

Fomca, maybe, you can take the lead?

Until the next time, cheers.

Sunday Star, Sunday September 18, 2011

Consumers, make the right call now

A law to tackle the problem of pesky telemarketers has finally been proposed but there are some wrinkles to iron out.

 

SINGAPORE: It is great news that an overdue law to tackle the problem of pesky telemarketers has finally been proposed for Singapore. But consumers, roll up your sleeves. It’s time to iron out the wrinkles.

The law will let you register your phone number to opt out of receiving telemarketing calls and text messages. Telemarketers check against that list before they make that call or send an SMS. If the calls persist, registered consumers complain. The offending party could be slapped with a fine of up to S$1mil (RM2.5mil).

That sounds a great way to gain back phone privacy. But read the fine print.

First, the proposed law covers telemarketers. But many calls and spam text messages come not from telemarketers making cold calls, but from service providers with “existing business relationships” with consumers.

A friend spent one night at a hotel and was inundated with text messages – touting the chain’s weekend staycation packages – for months after. Another signed up for a package at a spa and has been fending off its representatives’ hard-sell tactics since. Then there are those never-say-die financial planners from your own banks.

Should these companies be allowed to call consumers for telemarketing purposes if they have listed their numbers on the Do-Not-Call registry? It isn’t clear yet. This and other issues will be addressed in public consultations next year.

Clear rules are essential. Otherwise, consumers remain at the mercy of companies that sell you one item, persuade you to fill in a form to get your personal data, and then call you for the next 10 years every time a new product is offered.

Canada’s national Do-Not-Call policy allows companies to make calls to customers on the list for up to 18 months after a sales transaction.

Another issue is overseas telemarketing calls – a pertinent issue as many companies outsource their calls to cheap overseas call centres. However, Mica admits that there would be practical difficulties in enforcing it on companies with no local presence, and that “breaches by such organisations may remain uncorrected”.

This is an issue the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts (MICA) is inviting views on, in the first consultation exercise for the proposed Bill which ends on Oct 25. Another round of consultations will be held, and then the Bill will be tabled in Parliament next year.

Another issue up for discussion is whether some groups like survey companies – a bugbear for many consumers here – should be exempt from the registry.

Whatever form the final law takes, consumers should not think it will spell the end of their cold call woes. Companies will find a way to get round the rules.

I remember picking up a stream of automated telemarketing calls when I was in university in the United States.

Without fail, the preternaturally chipper voice of a computerised robot would pipe: “Hi, I am Lucy, how are you today?”

In the span of a minute, I am offered a one-for-one deal on paving stones or lawn-mowing services – not quite needed for my cement cubicle of a dorm room.

In theory, I shouldn’t have received those calls: I had put my phone number on the country’s Do-Not-Call registry.

Needless to say, perky Lucy’s number did not show up on caller ID, and she never gave me the name of the company she worked for – making it almost impossible for me to file a complaint.

In Australia, telemarketers posed as representatives of popular companies like Microsoft and Windows and made calls from unknown numbers.

Marketers here may resort to using automated diallers or other ruses to bypass the Do-Not-Call rule.

Such a registry can also open itself up to abuse. In 2009, the Consumers’ Association of Canada was inundated with feedback from people saying that they started getting telemarketer calls only after putting their numbers on the Do-Not- Call registry. It turned out that the list was downloaded by more than 100 companies that used it as a source of names and contact information.

But if implemented well, the new law will at least dampen the zeal of telephone touts in Singapore.

In the US, the Do-Not-Call registry has been branded as “wildly successful” by the local media. Stringently enforced since coming into effect eight years ago, it now has more than 200 million phone numbers on it.

In a prominent case in 2009, the country’s largest telecommunications operator Comcast Corp was fined US$900,000 (RM2.8mil) – US$1 per call – for allowing its telemarketers to call customers on the list.

In Canada, thousands of consumers rushed to sign up the day the list was launched, crashing the registry website. Earlier this year, a survey of 2,035 registered Canadians found that eight in 10 were getting fewer calls.

The proposed law, however, needs to be looked at thoroughly. Similar laws have flopped in countries like India because weak penalties meant it was widely adopted as a cheat sheet for telemarketing companies.

The law, now under review, also did not apply to text messages, and telemarketers simply spammed consumers’ phones with those instead.

Marketers and companies may argue against the Do-Not-Call list on grounds that their costs will rise. But if the law takes a complaint-based approach and does not require the auditing of companies, the additional costs will be kept minimal.

In the US, the telemarketing industry resisted the list, warning of the end of the industry and massive job losses. I have no doubt companies here will also lobby hard to protect their interests.

But for consumers, the benefits are obvious, provided the law has the right provisions.

Mica’s call for feedback is a welcome opportunity for interested parties to offer their views.

So, consumers, speak up now, or risk losing your peace.