After a long career in the telecomm industry, part of it spent investigating harassing telephone calls, I have a tendency to agree with him, Charles. Maybe you could bring it up at the next board meeting.Charles L. Cotton wrote:Really? Are you saying the NRA isn't generating revenue on this program?03Lightningrocks wrote:Nobody benefits from telemarketing other than the company that sells the service.
Chas.
It isn't really that no revenue is being generated, but that it is generating at least as much bad will as good will, and that's not a good thing.
It would probably be another matter if the call was really a "personal" one, but recognizeable "robo-calls" start out irritating and go downhill from theree. You hear the call being switched from the robo-call machine to the operator, who (maybe) gets your name from a screen showing who the call connected with and starts what is obviously a canned talk. Then they won't take no for an answer, or they make inane commentary, such as "I'm sorry to hear you have lost your job, when do you think you will be able to contribute." And it gets worse from there.
I realize that the person on the other end is just working their job and it's the company that is responsible for the call, which is why when it's an identifiable company, like the NRA, the pent up frustrations tend to be expressed against the easily identifiable company.
If the NRA, or anyone else for that matter, wants to do cold canvas calls, then the least they could do is use a service that ensures that there is someone on the line when you say hello the first time, and that it doesn't sound like a canned talk with canned responses. I remember when organizations and volnteers did the calls, I even did some way back when, and robo-calls just don't cut the mustard, even if they do cost less to do.
I could go on.