Submission to the ACCC regarding ADMA's request for authorisation
of a modified Code of Practice
12 September 2003 Robin
Whittle rw@firstpr.com.au 11 Miller St
Heidelberg Heights Vic 3081 03 9459 2889 Fax 03
9458 1736
[Apart from this note, what you are reading is my submission
verbatim. Please see this directory here index.html
for further submissions - and the parent directory
and its parent for the other submssions, general
information about the debate, and information on how best, to my mind,
to reduce the incidence of telemarketing calls in Australia.]
Background
I am an independent advocate, having
been involved in telecommunications privacy since making submissions
to, and meeting with, the AUSTEL Privacy Inquiry in 1992. My work
involves technical writing in telecommunications. I was a member
of the CTN (Consumers Telecommunications Network) council for several
years in the mid 1990s.
I was one of the advocates who made submissions in 1999 when ADMA
originally applied for their Code to be authorised.
My 1999 submissions are at:
http://www.firstpr.com.au/issues/tm/
and the final version of this submission will be available at this URL.
This submission consists of one HTML page and a number of attachments
which I intend the ACCC to also print and consider - and which I will
supply in printed form to the ACCC in the next few days.
Summary
This submission focuses primarily on
the telemarketing aspect of the current and proposed Code, with
secondary focus on ADMA's fitness, and the Code's suitability, for
consumer protection in direct mail or other forms of direct
marketing.
The problems caused by telemarketing - to consumers and businesses -
are not primarily due to marketing and sales as such. The
problems are primarily due to repeated, systematic, (typically)
large-scale, unauthorised, pernicious and knowingly intrusive use of
telecommunications networks, people's telephone services - with all the
annoyance and costs this entails. These problems should be solved
by
government regulation, not by any self regulatory regime such as ADMA
was granted, and is seeking to extend.
Even if it were deemed appropriate that telemarketing be subject to a
self-regulatory regime, ADMA should not be the organisation which is
given government approval for a Code, because firstly it does not have
significant "industry coverage" and secondly it is not the key
representative body in outbound telemarketing.
Even if telemarketing and other forms of direct marketing were deemed
to be suitable for industry self-regulation, ADMA's record of being
hostile to privacy, and its apparent desire to have no relationship
with the Australian Teleservices Association of makes it an
unsuitable body to be given this
responsibility.
Numerous failings of the Code are highlighted, but these are
illustrative of what is wrong with the whole concept of self-regulation
of this kind of exploitative "industry". These are not things
which, if fixed, would
make the Code acceptable.
The ACCC can only approve codes where there is a shown to be a net
positive benefit to consumers (compared to no such approved code) and
where that net positive benefit justifies the anti-competitive impact
of such an approval. But it is argued here that the code,
at least in respect of telemarketing, if approved, conveys an overall
burden on consumers.
The ACCC is presumably required, either formally or in general pursuit
of its consumer protection goals, to only approve a code when it can be
shown that the code is as good as it could possibly be. One way
of saying this is that the code should be "worlds best practice".
Worlds-best practice for telemarketing regulation is not based on
a self-regulatory model. This has failed here and in other
countries. In the USA, a
centralised government-based opt-out system has been implemented, with
tremendously high participation rates. Realistic calculations
below indicate that the US scheme is at least
400 times more effective at stopping calls per targetted person than
ADMA's, irrespective of the general frequency of calls in each
country. The US scheme has a 43 times greater participation rate
in its opt-out list - and it applies to all telemarketers, whereas
ADMA's applies to 10% or less.
While the US scheme falls
somewhat short of the ideal regulatory scheme, it is vastly better than
any self-regulatory scheme or anything ADMA would willingly
accept. Similarly Europe has adopted government regulation,
Australia is poised to use legislative measures to govern email on an
opt-in basis, and even ADMA has accepted that mobile marketing must
only take place on an opt-in basis.
The ACCC should refuse to approve any code of
self-regulation regarding telemarketing at all, especially with
ADMA. Telemarketing and other systematic intrusive misuse of
telecommunications networks should be subject to centralised federal
government regulation.
The Nature of the Telemarketing Problem
ADMA portray the systematic making of
millions of unwanted, intrusive, phone calls as an acceptable marketing
practice. It is not and never has been acceptable to the vast
majority of residential and business telephone customers.
The vast majority of recipients of these calls find them annoying,
perplexing, privacy invasive, insulting and/or a burden in other
ways. If ADMA or anyone else argues that outbound
telemarketing is generally or even to a moderate extent acceptable to
consumers, or businesses, then they
should propose that it only take place on an opt-in basis.
Outbound telemarketing places a variety of burdens on consumers, on
businesses (and therefore on consumers through increased business
costs) and on
society in general.
Outbound
telemarketing has absolutely
no advantage for the recipient
over the wide variety of
non-intrusive advertising techniques (print, radio, TV) or over
traditional non-intrusive, respectful, ways of doing business in which
the customer initiates contact with the vendor when he or she desires
to make a purchase.
Outbound telemarketing is expensive, but getting cheaper due to these
developments which will surely lead to a greater burden on consumers
and business unless the practice is properly regulated:
- Decreased costs of placing local telephone calls and calls to
mobiles.
- Decreased costs of making calls from distant places, via various
telephone links or via Voice over IP (VoIP - calls carried partly or
wholly on the Internet or some other TCP/IP packet-switched
network). This enables call centres to be more centralised,
including them being located in a remote low-labour-cost country.
- Decreased costs of long distance and international calls.
- Decreased costs of using computers to dial numbers, manage calls
and keep operators busy. (Such "Predictive Dialling" systems make
more calls than operators can answer, and burden the recipient in two
ways when this occurs. Firstly they may end the call before it is
answered - only to call again later. Secondly, upon answering,
the hapless recipient hears a recorded voice instructing them to wait
for an operator to be available with an "important message". The
use of such predictive diallers should be regulated as a
telecommunications matter, it is a question of deliberate widespread
misuse of the network and the recipient's telephone service. This
is not a privacy or marketing matter at all.)
- Increased tendency to use pre-recorded or partially automated,
and therefore lower cost, methods of making the call.
- Increased sophistication of computer technology to place calls in
ways which get around recipients attempts to defend themselves.
In one report (sorry, I don't have the reference now - but I will add
it to my site) in the USA, telemarketers have developed automated
calling systems which end the call as soon as a live person answers,
but persist and leave messages when an answering machine or voice-mail
system answers the call.
The prevalence of an unwanted, pernicious, intrusive marketing
technique is proportional to its success rate and inversely
proportional to its cost. Spam emails have exceptionally low
costs and it is not uncommon for a single address to receive 40 a day
at present, despite their low success rate which is probably below one
in a
million at present. All lowering of costs, and all uses of
new technology in outbound telemarketing will drive its more widespread
use, until proper regulations are enforced.
The burden placed on consumers (and business recipients) has many
dimensions. It should not be necessary to list these
exhaustively - for several reasons.
Firstly, all ACCC members should be well aware of the problem this
causes, unless perhaps they have been shielded in recent years by
unlisted numbers at home. Also, I expect that telemarketers don't
target the ACCC as much as they target businesses and other
organisations, who are plagued with
calls and trickery to try to bypass the defensive measures put in place
to stop these calls wasting the time of decision-makers.
Secondly, outbound telemarketing has
no
benefits for recipients over a variety of well accepted non-intrusive
marketing/sales techniques. So even if the burden it placed on
consumers, business and society in general was small, the conclusion
would be the same - it must be regulated to prevent these costs being
borne, except by those very few companies or individuals who for some
reason explicitly consent to receiving such calls
on an opt-in basis.
Nonetheless, here is a summary of some of the burdens outbound
telemarketing places on society. Other forms of intrusive
systematically made unwanted telephone calls create similar burdens -
market research calls and malicious calls (harassing, threatening or
offensive, as per Section 85ZE of the Commonwealth Crimes
Act).
Some proponents of outbound telemarketing draw a distinction between
"charity" calls and sales calls - but this usually of no importance to
the persons who must be protected (consumers and businesses) because
they simply do not want any such sales (or often survey) calls
at all irrespective of whether they
are thought to be commercial or charity by the caller.
Some burdens imposed by outbound telemarketing include:
- Disruptions, wasted time, frustration and annoyance at home and
at work, on a massive scale nationally, at almost any time of the day
or evening - with little or no chance of using personal defences to
avoid such calls.
- Tying up a person's telephone line with an unwanted call.
- Interrupting an existing call (via call waiting) for the unwanted
telemarketing call.
- The necessity (for most people who prefer to be pleasant) of
trying to get rid of an unwanted caller who is trained and experienced
at avoiding all such attempts to end the call. Thus the
recipient is thrown into a contorted, deceptive, psychological
situation where they
are trying to get a trained, paid, professional manipulator to
end the call, without being unpleasant and without violating standards
of decency the recipient would prefer to uphold. Callers often
use every possible means to twist the recipient's mind into listening
to their spiel, especially be deliberately misconstruing or ignoring
the recipient's polite rejections. The result is that the
best way, as most people discover, to get rid of telemarketers is to be
abrupt and unpleasant (such as hanging up without a word, or with few
words) or to be actively unpleasant in the hope of contributing to job
stress, costs for employers and so, in a lasting sense, to an overall
reduction of the incidence of outbound telemarketing.
- The common experience by many people - whoever answers the phone
- of being talked to in a supposedly pleasant and supposedly polite
manner, for purposes of manipulating them into doing something they do
not want to do. Callers often insist they are not selling
anything, and that they are making a "courtesy call" - but this is
deliberately deceptive and gives the recipient little alternative but
to either end the call abruptly, or engage in an argument about the
nature of the call, which the caller is trained to exploit as a means
of delivering their marketing message.
- The constant, unpredictable, privacy invasions at home, or on
mobiles, by which recipients stop what they are doing, answer the phone
expecting a friend or a customer, and find themselves wasting their
time talking to, and trying to get rid of, a person who cares nothing
for them and only wants to get their attention and money, despite all
the caller's pretences to politeness, "courtesy" etc.
- The pressure of unwanted calls, often resulting from aggressive
repurposing of the contents of the White Pages (which Telstra has
consistently opposed in the courts), causes many people (but
usually not businesses, who must be in the directory to do business) to
pay substantial fees each year for an unlisted number (known in
Australia by the anachronistic term of "silent line" and overseas as
"ex-directory" or "unlisted" numbers). This is an
economic burden for millions of Australians, amounting to costs in the
dozens of millions of dollars per year. This is a small
indication of how much people value their peace and quiet - that they
would go to the trouble and the recurring expense to get their name and
number out of the directory. There are further costs to the
people themselves, to their friends and to society in general from this
trend towards having an unlisted number. It causes friends from
the past to be unable to find each other as people move and change
their addresses. It causes extra costs to phone company enquiry
lines - which is the supposed justification for charging $32 or so (I
haven't researched the actual fee recently). It greatly inhibits
the ability of individuals, helping professionals and officials to
contact people in times of accident or emergencies. I have
not researched current figures for ex-directory numbers in Australia or
the USA, but I recall in the mid 1990s it was well above 50% in
California. The pressure for going ex-directory is almost
entirely due to the problems of outbound telemarketing calls - but some
proportion of the population would want to be ex-directory for other
privacy reasons as well.
The ACCC should ask Telstra the annual cost of the "silent line"
service and how many customers currently pay for this.
Multiplying the two together gives a dollar cost to the community which
is very largely due to the burden of telemarketing on the community,
and which represents only a fraction of the many concrete and diffuse
costs and other burdens the public has to pay for this pernicious
business practice.
- In the USA, where many people at home are subject to two or three
telemarketing calls a night, for years after year, this must contribute significantly to
the level of angst, and generalised levels of distrust of
strangers. (It would also exacerbate the suffering of people
with depression, mood disorders and the like.) This, along with the
prevalence of guns and
violence, is a significant contributor to the generalised lower
levels of trust for strangers in the USA compared to
Australia. Every outbound telemarketing call in Australia
degrades our collective ability and propensity to trust and be
happy. So outbound telemarketing, especially as it rises towards
the extreme levels it has in the USA, is a powerful cause of the
irrevocable destruction of one thing which Australia is rightly
well-known for - our generalised trust for strangers, otherwise known
as our happy "national character". It is a travesty that a
pernicious marketing technique should be allowed to invade the lives of
most citizens and systematically destroy our trust in fellow
Australians who we don't know, forcing us to be more defensive about
answering the phone, and damaging our "national character". The
destruction or diminution of this "national character" has important
economic impacts in tourism and more broadly in our ability to export
food and other goods and services where the subjective judgement as to
the product's quality and value is partly dependent on the nature of
the people and society which produce it. It follows that
any country which successfully protects its citizens (at home and at
work) from the time-wasting and character-embittering effects of
outbound telemarketing will enjoy greater domestic happiness, lower
levels of stress-induced illness, greater productivity and will be
internationally recognised, explicitly and by flow-on effects, as a
country where respect, quality and decency are thriving.
- Market research via telephone is not always of any social
value (such as merely testing the impact of an advertising campaign) -
but it can be of immense social value (for governments, community
organisations and social researchers), and the alternative
forms or contact are either much more expensive (face-to-face
interviews) or have such a low response rate (surveys by mail or the
Web) that their results are of little or no quantitative
value. Some or many people are prepared to respond
positively to market research calls, assuming that these are genuine
calls for matters of interest to the person, and that they are
conducted according to internationally recognised standards as has long
been developed by the market research industry. Market research
telephone calls are a unique, cost-effective and timely approach to
market
research - but their effectiveness is greatly diminished by the
pressure of telemarketing. This has long been recognised in the
market research industry (I have some references, but it is
self-evident), to the point where this, the most widely used form of
market research, is becoming increasingly useless due to low response
rates. The cause is firstly the high incidence of ordinary
telemarketing calls, leaving people with no interest at all in why they
are being called - just an urgent desire to end the call and ensure
they are never called again. The second cause is the subset of
outbound telemarketers who are "SUGgers" - Selling Under the Guise of
market research. SUGging is a trades-practice and marketing
regulation issue, embodied within an unwanted intrusive
telecommunications issue. Theoretically SUGging might be
effectively eradicated by some regulatory means - though almost
certainly not a self-regulatory one, since the callers who use these
deceptive techniques would not want to join any such self-regulatory
industry body. As long as telemarketing is not properly regulated
as a telecommunications problem, SUGing will continue. Any level
of telemarketing, and SUGging in particular, seriously burdens the
market research industry, as well as the recipients of these
calls. Telephone market research is a vital and irreplaceable
avenue for a wide range of socially valuable research. The only
way of saving the value of telephone market research is to properly
regulate telemarketing -
with centralised government regulations.
There are some specific problems with telemarketing from a consumer
protection perceptive which do not relate to its central problem of
being an intrusive misuse of the recipient's phone service.
Telemarketing-specific consumer protection issues
Direct marketing sales involve a
number of systemic problems for recipients/customers. These
include the way customers are prompted into making decisions about
purchases when they least expect it, with the possibility that they
will therefore make a decision they later regret. ADMA's code and
other state regulations try to deal with these problems with cooling
off periods etc.
But there is another systemic problem with outbound telemarketing which
is not at all subject to regulation - the fact that any level of
officially sanctioned telemarketing is an encouragement to people in
general to divulge personal information to anyone who calls
them.
One would think
that far from allowing outbound
telemarketing as if it was a reasonable business practice, that there
should be a complete ban on this approach to selling or soliciting
donations and/or a public awareness program to warn all business people
and consumers never to
divulge information to people who contact them by phone.
The following discussion uses the example of the person's credit card
details, but applies in general to absolutely anything they divulge
about themselves in the course of responding to a call which to them,
appears to be an outbound telemarketing call.
In an ideal world, outbound telemarketing would be banned outright,
with the possible exception of an infinitesimally small number of
people who opted in, after they had been warned of all the risks, of
whom it could be shown were not certifiably insane, and who had made a
fully informed explicit decision.
As long as outbound telemarketing remains an officially or socially
"accepted practice" (even though the vast majority of people do not
respond positively) then there is a generalised situation in which
some, or many, people have the following expectations:
- It is common, and officially accepted, that legitimate
businesses, charities (and so-called charities, such as businesses
licensing charity's names for a tiny percentage of the proceeds of the
sales/"donations") will call businesses and homes, requesting
information about recipient's living situation, desires, plans etc. and
making sales, or taking donations, typically involving the recipient
giving their full
credit card details.
- That recipients of such calls should take on face value what they
are told by the caller.
- That since this is an officially sanctioned or tolerated business
practice (as it currently is due to lack of regulation and due to the
ACCC's approval of ADMA's Code) that there is some form of safety in
this sort of communication, and that there are ways by which the
recipient will be generally protected by the law (or perhaps some
self-regulatory scheme) in the event that the caller misuses the
information divulged to them.
In the current situation, where these things are generally accepted by
some or many people, then some of them will naturally divulge personal
details to whoever calls them and convinces them of their
bona-fides. Its easy to imagine this being used for
criminal purposes, and for stretching or breaching standards of good
business practice. No degree of self-regulation can prevent
this. Furthermore, even firm government regulation of
telemarketing - any situation in which outbound telemarketing is
accepted by the government as a legitimate practice - will foster the
above beliefs in the minds of millions of consumers, without being able
to prevent criminals from duping consumers.
In the above environment, criminals can easily convince many people
that the
caller is a company or "charity" the recipient may or may
not have heard of. Also, the criminal could be outside
Australia, and so not in the slightest subject to Australian laws, or
probably any (currently lacking) ability of the telecommunications
carrier to retrospectively trace the origin of the call.
Here are some scenarios which demonstrate that
any public acceptance of outbound
telemarketing as a legitimate business practice will inevitably lead to
criminals taking great advantage of consumers.
- Caller convinces recipient that they are a legitimate business or
charity - and solicits a sale or "donation" to be paid for by credit
card. Caller then has the recipient's full card details - their
name, card number, expiry date and security number. This
enables the caller to make a potentially very large series of purchases
with the recipient's card. These would typically be via the
Net. Purchases of goods and services might be revealed in the
weeks or months which follow to be fraudulent, but by then, the goods
or services (such as saleable items and Internet access, telephone
calling cards in any country, or perhaps online gambling etc.) will
have been delivered. A more direct method by which credit card
details can be used to generate cash is via the huge number of adult
Internet sites which involve monthly subscriptions (by credit card)
with
incentive payments to referring web sites. Thus, the caller
establishes some such site, and registers it as a referring site with a
large number of adult sites. The caller then collects a
substantial number of sets of credit card details, and using
appropriate software to automate the process, causes multiple
"customers" to subscribe to multiple adult sites, with the incentive
payments being made to their own site before the fraud is
exposed. The cost to the banks and consumers is massive,
since hours or days are required in each instance to untangle and try
to reverse the unauthorised transactions, and to establish a card with
a new number.
- Caller asks about the recipient's security system and/or their
valuable possessions, and thereby gains information for a future
burglary.
- Similarly, asking questions about holidays, work times or other
aspects of the person's life, under the guise of selling travel
packages, provides information which will assist in a burglary or other
fraudulent activity.
Other branches of the ACCC would be well aware of the many ways in
which people can be duped via telephone. The point is that
these criminal abuses only possible on a
large scale in an environment when there is a generalised expectation
that outbound telemarketing is a legitimate business practice.
There is no way of successfully regulating to prevent these
abuses. The only way to reduce or eliminate them is to either ban
outbound telemarketing (except perhaps for a tiny number of
well-informed
people who opt-in to it), or to allow it to continue, with a public
awareness campaign which urges people never to divulge any personal
information to anyone who calls them - but to do so only after calling
a number which the caller may point them to, but which can be know for
sure, (such as via the White Pages) as belonging to a legitimate
organisation which is known to and regulated by the appropriate
government regulatory agency. This is fine in principle -
and somewhat inconvenient in practice. But it would be
anathema to telemarketers is because the sole reason they persist with
outbound telemarketing is because of its surprise effect, its
manipulative power over some people - its ability to cajole some people
into paying money without much further thought. A lot of that
manipulative power would be destroyed if all recipients were required
to end the call and call some number, after verifying that it was to a
legitimate organisation. This would give them time to reflect
upon what they had just been talked into, and time to get back to
whatever they were interrupted from doing - so ending the
attention-focussing manipulative spell of the telemarketer before the
sale or donation has been finalised.
The elimination of outbound telemarketing as an accepted business
practice is the only way to prevent a large number of potential and
actual criminal and fraudulent misuses of consumers' private
information, especially their credit cards.
Far from being regulated and approved
by the ACCC, outbound
telemarketing should be banned or tolerated only once the public is
fully informed of the dangers it involves.
Charities and outbound telemarketing
A small number of legitimate charities
use outbound telemarketing directly to raise funds. There
are a number of reasons why this should be discouraged. Firstly,
as noted above, it conditions people into giving their credit card
details to people they do not know, and have no way of identifying,
since telephone calls have no way, at the time, of being traced and
shown to originate from a legitimate organisation.
Secondly, the charity use of outbound telemarketing involves several
pernicious costs which are contrary to the needs and expectations of
the public, and of charities in general. These costs and
problems include:
- The cost of unwanted intrusive phone calls which is forced upon
the public in general (unless the charity only calls those
who have previously given their informed consent). It makes
no difference how needy or worthy a charity is - this can be no
justification for burdening individuals or businesses, or hundreds of
thousands of individuals or businesses, as listed above in the
discussion of the general problems of telemarketing.
- The high costs, in phone calls, call-centre capital and running
costs and labour costs, of making the vast numbers of outbound
calls. This inevitably greatly
diminishes the proportion of funds collected which remain after costs
for
the intended purpose of funding the charity's core activities.
(There is a fair-trading problem here in that potential donors are not
told what proportion of their payment actually goes to the charity -
and also that there seems to be no compulsion for them to be told the
caller is a business licensing the name of the charity, rather than the
charity themselves. These problems would be insignificant if
calls were made only to the small number of people who would knowingly
opt-in to them. )
- The resulting fatigue of potential donors caused by repeated
calls from a specific charity, or charities in general. This
transforms the charity from an organisation which should be, and wants
to, contribute to society into a privacy invasive, manipulative
time-waster which has to try to make a profit in a low-efficiency,
high-cost relationship with the public and its donor base.
There are further costs and problems
inherent in the common practice of
a legitimate charity (or even an organisation such as a public radio
station, which is not a charity, but may be perceived as one by the
public) licensing its name to a commercial outbound telemarketer, which
solicits donations, sells "gifts" or sells "discount cards" (for $90 or
so) on behalf of the charity. Very often, the caller
pretends to be from the charity itself, and the recipient has no way of
knowing that only a small proportion of the gift sale, or "donation",
goes to the charity. As I wrote in 1999
http://www.firstpr.com.au/issues/tm/comments-rw-1.html
:
I recently (1995) talked to a telemarketing company which licensed
the
name of a teenage cancer charity (CanTeen) and sold a pen and letter
opener
set for a $39.95 "donation" - with an invoice from the charity.
There
was no mention in the call or the paperwork that any other
organisation
than the charity was involved, and yet the telemarketing
supervisor confirmed
(without apparent shame) that only $2 of that
$39.95 goes to the charity.
The general donor fatigue caused by legitimate charities telemarketing
the public, plus the knowledge that charities (at least some of them)
care so little about the public that they will spend hundreds of
thousands of dollars making such calls, is greatly compounded by the
commercial licensees of charity names - who further wear out the public
and give them less and less confidence that a substantial proportion of
their "donation" ever goes to the charitable cause.
Some of the issues here are more properly covered by trades-practice
and charity-specific regulations, since they are not specific to direct
marketing. However direct-marketing techniques of telemarketing,
door-to-door sales and direct mail (as well as potentially email or SMS
etc.) significantly exacerbate the problem, firstly by the charities
and pseudo-charities (the commercial licensees) spending so much money
invading peoples privacy, and secondly because these direct-marketing
arrangements provide people with greatly diminished opportunities to
think carefully about their "donation" or to check the bona-fides of
whoever they are being urged to give their money to.
As with sales, "charity" telemarketing has
no benefits for recipients over
other non-intrusive methods of making donations.
These problems can and should be solved by centralised government
regulation in the domains of telecommunications,
charity and direct marketing. A self-regulatory scheme such as
ADMA's has no real impact, because any charity or commercial licensee
who would be restricted by ADMA's Code would be better off not joining
ADMA.
Regulating telemarketing
While outbound telemarketing does have
some unique problems in the event that a sale or "donation" takes
place, the real problem is that it happens at all (unless to
the minuscule number of people who would make an informed and
unpressured choice to opt-in to such
calls).
Outbound telemarketing is primarily a telecommunications issue.
It is the systematic misuse of people's telephone services, in
circumstances where potentially millions of people are called - in all
but a few cases, contrary to the desire of those recipients.
As such, neither the ACCC nor ADMA should have any role in regulating
this particular aspect of the unwanted call problem. It is a
telecommunications problem and it should be regulated appropriately by
the federal government. Ideally this should be as part of a
generalised prohibition of systematic abuses of the telephone network
and individual and business telephone services, extending the currently
narrow criminal provisions (85ZE: harassing, threatening or, in all the
circumstances, offensive).
This regulation should be generalised
in principle and apply as evenly as possible to email, phone calls,
instant messenger, ICQ etc. as well as to SMS and other point-to-point
technologies which are yet to be developed.
The problem with the current arrangement of an ACCC approved Code for
ADMA as the government sanctioned regulator of the "telemarketing
industry" is that it provides zero or negative benefits ot the public
(both consumers and business) whilst giving the impression that:
- Outbound telemarketing is properly regulated.
- That it is a legitimate practice for businesses and charities.
I believe the ACCC should refuse to approve any Code proposed by ADMA
(or any other body) which concerns telemarketing. The reasons
above are more than
sufficient to show why telemarketing should not be be subject to any
legitimising weak self-regulatory regime, and why it should be subject
to centralised, hard, telecomunications-specific government
regulation. Even if the ACCC rejects all the above,
additional considerations detailed below show why ADMA should not be
entrusted with the regulation of telemarketing, and perhaps any matter
concerning consumers' privacy at all.
Worlds best practice in email and mobile marketing regulation
In June 2003, the Australian Government
has promised to regulate unsolicited commercial email on an
opt-in basis, via
legislation, except where the
recipient was in an existing business relationship with the sender:
This follows an NOIE report into the spam problem, in April 2003.
This includes details of the European Union, Austrian and Danish
opt-in legislation.
The Danish
legislation of 2000
(as amended to 2003), provides
opt-in
arrangements (or an existing business arrangement) for email, fax and
"automatically dialled" phone calls (section 3). There is also a
government-operated opt-out list, with no mention of
charges to access that list:
(There may be some definitional problems in whether "automatic
dialling"
refers to any non-manual dialling system, as is used by moderate and
large-scale telemarketers - which it probably does - and whether the
following "automated calling machines" only refers to systems with no
human involvement.)
The European Union
legislated
in 2002 for
opt-in regulation
of email and other forms of communication.
DIRECTIVE 2002/58/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of
12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the
protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector
(Directive on privacy and electronic communications)
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2002/l_201/l_20120020731en00370047.pdf
(40) Safeguards should be provided for
subscribers against
intrusion of their privacy by unsolicited communications
for direct marketing purposes in particular by means of
automated calling machines, telefaxes,
and e-mails,
including SMS messages. These
forms of unsolicited
commercial communications may on the one hand be
relatively easy and cheap to send and on the other may
impose a burden and/or cost on the recipient. Moreover,
in some cases their volume may also cause difficulties
for electronic communications networks and terminal
equipment. For such forms of unsolicited communications
for direct marketing, it is justified to require that
prior explicit consent of the
recipients is obtained before
such communications are addressed to them. The single
market requires a harmonised approach to ensure
simple, Community-wide rules for businesses and users.
http://www.euro.cauce.org/en/bground.html
http://www.euro.cauce.org/en/timeline1.html
The European Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email has an
extensive listing of regulations regarding email and sometimes other
forms of unsolicited communications. A number of countries are
listed as having
opt-in
legislation.
The state of California regulated unsolicited commercial email,
telephone, mobile and fax communications. This legislated opt-in
approach is contained in three bills which can be found via the search
page:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html
by selecting the 2001-2002 session and three bill numbers listed
below. Also listed is a brief description and the URL of the
final Act:
SB 1560
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/01-02/bill/sen/sb_1551-1600/sb_1560_bill_20020919_chaptered.pdf
Attorney General's department to maintain do-not-call list and
distribute it with appropriate conditions, in the form of numbers and
zip codes only. (As noted
below this
list of 1,550,644 numbers has been added to the new US national
do-not-call list.) The list is made available with a sliding
scale of fees depending on size or telemarketing company.
AB 1769
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/01-02/bill/asm/ab_1751-1800/ab_1769_bill_20020919_chaptered.pdf
Legislated opt-in for SMS spam and
other marketing messages to mobile devices.
"This bill would, subject to certain exceptions, generally prohibit a
person or entity conducting business in this state from transmitting
or causing to be transmitted a text message advertisement to a
cellular telephone or pager equipped with short message or a
similar capability. By creating a new crime, the bill would
impose
a state-mandated local program."
The main exceptions seem to be charities and political parties, since
it relates only to promotion of "sales". Messages to recipients
who already have a business relationship with the sender are exempted
AB 2944
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/01-02/bill/asm/ab_2901-2950/ab_2944_bill_20020919_chaptered.pdf
Bans unsolicited commercial emails
unless there is a valid email address or toll-free number with which to
opt-out - in the first text section of the message. "ADV:" and
"ADV:ADLT" to be at the start of the subject line. Employers can
opt-out for all email addresses in their organisation. Act to become
inoperative when federal legislation to prohibit or otherwise regulate
unsolicited commercial email (UCE) is enacted.
Worlds best practice in telemarketing regulation
I have not had time to research
in detail the latest telemarketing regulation regimes in European
countries. While worlds best practice is not necessarily defined
by the new arrangements in the USA, these arrangements, described in
the next section, should be examined closely by the ACCC in assessing
ADMA's application.
I have written in the past on how some phone companies in the USA
implement "Customer Activated Malicious Call Trace" - the ability, for
a small fee, to have any incoming call traced after it has ended, with
the number being available only to the Police and/or phone company or
telecommunications authority inspectors. This material has not
been updated in recent years, but as far as I am aware, no progress at
all has been made
towards this in Australia since I wrote it:
For a variety of reasons well beyond proper regulation of
telemarketing, it is vital that this be made a standard feature of all
Australian telephone services - fixed and mobile. Without
this, hoax calls, including potentially hugely costly and disruptive
bomb threats, can be made with impunity.
There is no jurisdiction I am aware of which has a really solid
regulatory arrangement for all forms of systematically made unwanted
calls, and for other such abuses of the phone networks and Internet,
and the services which are connected to them.
However there has been a major step in the right direction in the USA,
at least for telemarketing, which accounts
for the vast majority of the invasive unwanted call problem.
Self-regulation and state-wide opt-out lists were found to be
insufficient to deal with the burden imposed on the public by outbound
telemarketers. The USA suffers a higher incidence of calls than
we do in Australia, due in part to the fact that local calls are
free. But as telecommunications costs and technologies
change, there is no reason for complacency in Australia - there is
every reason why the telemarketing pressure will increase to the levels
of several calls a day that it has in the USA.
The primary reason citizens create, support and pay for governments is
to create a centralised system for protecting some or all citizens from
things they cannot protect themselves from individually.
An in-principle and case-by-case study
of this - and those aspects of life in which the government should not
be involved - is in my 1998 submission to the Senate Select Committee
on Information Technologies: Inquiry into Self-Regulation and the
Information and Communications Industry:
An adult
citizen can individually protect himself or herself quite adequately,
and
much better than a government could, from various threats and
inconveniences, such as the problem of seeing or hearing things which
they find distasteful or disturbing in the books, magazines,
newspapers, radio, television and Web-sites they read, listen to or
view. (But governments bent on social control sometimes pretend
otherwise.) Citizens individually, or as small communities,
cannot protect themselves against a number of more diffuse and serious
invasive threats, including burglary and assault by local criminals,
from attacks by terrorists, and from the entire country being invaded
by foreign forces. These are
primary
reasons why people expect, demand and depend on government
protection. Likewise, citizens expect governments to
systematically work to control threats of disease, flood, fire etc.
which they cannot individually defend themselves against.
Outbound telemarketing and other systematic kinds of unwanted telephone
calls are threats and inconveniences which people have no way
of protecting themselves from, due to the very limited capabilities of
their phone, and the very limited nature of its connection to the
telephone network. (The situation is quite different in the case
of the Internet, where the customer equipment is a computer, which can
run software which communicates with any other computer on the Net - so
it is possible, if tricky, to build very good personal defences against
spam. However, spam still should, in my view, be subject to some
government regulation, since it is a systematic abuse of the network
and of people's Internet services.)
Since the 1980s or so, there has been a fashion in administration and
politics for governments getting out of regulating industries and
protecting citizens. The current overall policy in Australia
which gives rise to these ACCC-approved Codes is part of that
trend. In some cases, where the industry body and the industry
participants are of good character and have a genuine desire to respect
the needs and desires of the public, a self-regulatory approach is good
or ideal. But this is
not
the case with the intrusive communications of spammers or outbound
telemarketers.
The experiment of self-regulation in outbound telemarketing has failed,
here and overseas (as far as I am aware). Certainly in the USA,
it has failed. It takes a lot go get a government, especially the
Bush administration, to
increase
or
instigate government
regulation of business to protect consumers. But this is what has
happened, because the long experiment with weaker forms of
telemarketing regulation has
failed.
We advocates consistently argued against self-regulation for
telemarketing in 1999 and many of us argued against ADMA having any
self-regulatory role, based on our past experience - and our experience
at the time - with this organisation, which has consistently tried to
minimise privacy protection for Australians.
So the ACCC should look closely at the US development, where these
self- and state-based regulatory experiments have been tried, because
they failed there for the same reason they fail here: Outbound
telemarketing is
inherently a
privacy invasive business practice. Proper regulation involves
ending this business practice entirely, except for whatever small
number of individuals would knowingly opt-in to receiving such
calls. Therefore, asking an industry to self regulate itself is
like asking a burglar to never burgle again. It is entirely
unrealistic to think that ADMA, or any group which is genuinely
representative of telemarketers (which ADMA is not), could ever
regulate telemarketing properly, because to do so would virtually
eliminate the practice by which they earn their living.
The new arrangements in the USA are far from ideal, because of the
various types of call, such as from political parties, which escape
regulation. But this is an important and long-overdue step in the
right direction, because it is centralised government regulation, with
real harsh penalties, imposed by
the government, on a national basis.
The ACCC should refuse to authorise ADMA as a regulator of
telemarketing and so enable this problem to be regulated properly,
following the lead of the USA, the EU and some European countries.
The US National Do Not Call Registry
This is operated by the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and will
be
enforced by these two agencies, and state law enforcement
officials. This national, strongly enforced, opt-out system
is the product of many years deliberation. The key pages for
regulatory decisions and rules are:
This greatly extends the FCC's relatively weak regime established in
1992, and shows that the US public and government have no faith at all
in direct marketer's desire to self-regulate outbound telemarketing.
The sites for consumers and telemarketers are:
The FAQ
http://www.donotcall.gov/FAQ/FAQConsumers.aspx
says:
The
registry was created to offer consumers a choice regarding
telemarketing calls. The FTC’s decision to create the National Do Not
Call Registry was the culmination of a comprehensive, three year review
of the Telemarketing Sales Rule, as well as the Commission’s extensive
experience enforcing the Rule over seven years. The FTC held numerous
workshops, meetings and briefings to solicit feedback from interested
parties and considered over 64,000 public comments, most of which
favored creating the registry.
Scaling to Australia's population, this would be about 5,000
submissions.
This current ACCC consideration of ADMA's Code has received no
publicity, and will primarily draw submissions from a handful of
advocates and consumer organisations. But the ACCC might like to
consider that in principle, if not yet in intensity, the US situation
is identical to the Australian one, and that with proper consultation
with the public, 5,000 or so submissions would be received, the vast
majority opposing self regulation and calling for an urgent government
regulatory response at least as robust as that adopted in the USA.
Rather than entrust the opt-out list to a "self-regulatory body" (the
US DMA has long had such an opt-out list), the regulations establish a
body under government auspices to operate the list. This means
that consumers can have far greater confidence in their information
being handled properly. (See
below
for the problems inherent in
ADMA's approach.) Most of the 27 state-based do-not-call lists
have been or will be transferred to the federal system.
Enforcement is
hard rather
than the weak or non-existent sanctions of a self-regulatory
regime. Telemarketers who break the new rules can be fined
USD$11,000 for each call.
The FTC, in a press-release:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2003/09/030902dnc2.htm
stated:
For Release: September 2, 2003
DO NOT CALL Registry Jumps To 48.4 Million
Six Million
Consumers Register During Labor Day Weekend
In the 72 hours before the Do Not Call
Registry became available to telemarketers, more than six million
consumers added their telephone numbers to the list. In contrast to
earlier DNC registrations that were completed primarily through
Internet registration (80%), the Labor Day weekend registrations were
more evenly divided with about fifty percent Internet registrations and
fifty percent telephone registrations.
|
A table of state-by-state details, as at 25
August:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2003/08/030825drs.htm
shows
41,717,790 registered
numbers, of which 14 state lists contributed 9,033,751 and the remainder being the
result of individuals registering by:
- Phone: 6,981,298.
- TTY (for the
sight/hearing impaired): 237.
- Web: 25,702, 504.
With six million numbers being added in the week before the cutoff date
for commencement of the regulations on 1 October, it can be seen that
there is a tremendously positive public response, with the likelihood
of tens of millions of numbers still to be added. (ADMA's
response to its opt-out list is shown
below
to be about 1/43 as successful after two years as the initial phase of
the US system.)
Predictably, the telemarketing representative organisations are unhappy
about genuine government protection of consumers. A 2 September
report at
http://www.adage.com/news.cms?newsId=38620
reports two lawsuits against the government Commissions:
30,000 an hour
During the first 66 days, consumers registered to block telemarketing
calls at an average rate of 733,333 phone numbers a day -- or more than
30,000 an hour. Those numbers do not include an additional 9 million
phone numbers transferred into the federal list from existing state
do-not-call lists.
Because the
Registry keeps track only of phone numbers and not
households, it is not known exactly how many individual households have
taken advantage of the new anti-telemarketing system. There are
approximately 105 million U.S. households.
Both the FTC and
the American Teleservices Association declined
to estimate the number of individual households involved with the 48.4
million phone numbers registered to date.
The teleservices
association, which represents companies that sell by
telephone, and the Direct Marketing Association have filed lawsuits
challenging the FTC and Federal Communications Commission rules that
established do-not-call lists. A judge has scheduled a hearing on the
ATA's lawsuit for Sept. 12.
At the highly regarded
http://www.junkbusters.com
site of ex-patriate Australian, Jason Catlett, reports on how the two
Commissions worked together and reduced the number of exceptions to the
new system
http://www.junkbusters.com/new.html
(2003-9-9):
(26 June)
The
FCC's
co-ordination is significant because the
FTC
does not have statutory authority over
two of the largest industries that use telemarketing,
telecommunications and financial services.
Junkbusters President Jason Catlett
commented:
With the FCC's
cooperation, the Do-Not-Call registry
will
have the breadth and clout to eliminate most of the nation's
junk
calls.
Aluminum siding installers may be weeping,
but the 99%+ of Americans who are not employed to pester
people
by long distance calls can rejoice.
The registry is
surely one of the most significant consumer protection
measures ever implemented by the federal government.
It will save the equivalent of thousands of lifetimes wasted
picking up the phone on unwanted calls.
The FCC was late
for the party that they should have thrown a decade
ago,
but they have now said, a weekend in advance, that they'll
come
to the ball with the FTC.
American consumers who
hear about it will be in such a rush
to register that they may
not think to ask
why their interests were disregarded the
FCC for so long.
FTC Chairman Muris will go down in the
history of consumer protection
as the savior of the
American dinnertime.
The FCC
commisioners' vote was unanimous, some of them
called the plan the "best thing" the FCC has ever done.
Junkbusters President Jason Catlett
commented that it was indeed the best thing the FCC has ever gone along
with.
The main
recent political battle had been in the House.
[Washington Post]
(2/13, p. E7)
The
Wall
Street Journal
recounted
the heroic efforts of
FTC
chairman
Muris to save the project from
the underhanded lobbying of the Direct Marketing Association.
(4/4)
The National Do Not Call Registry only publishes numbers - it does
not link those numbers to any other
information. In contrast, the ADMA list involves distributing
each
person's full name, address and telephone number to all companies (ADMA
members and non-members) who pay for it, which has completely
intolerable privacy implications for many or most people.
The National Do Not Call Registry makes lists of numbers available, by
area code or for the entire country (depending on the subscription
arrangement) so that telemarketers can remove these numbers from their
lists. As described at
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2003/08/tmkraccessinfo.htm
these are text or XML (a highly structured form of text) as compressed
zip files, via FTP over the Net. Update files are also produced,
so that it is not necessary to regularly download the entire file to
stay up-to-date.
There is also a web-based interactive approach to checking numbers
which involves no lists or data-processing - up to 10 numbers at a
time, in one area code, can be checked via an ordinary Web browser
session.
More information for telemarketers can be found at:
https://telemarketing.donotcall.gov/FAQ/FAQBusiness.aspx
.
According to
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/alerts/dncbizalrt.htm
Data
for up to five area codes will be available for free.
Beyond that,
there is an annual fee of $25 per area code
of data, with a maximum
annual fee of $7,375 for the
entire U.S. database.
An explanation of how to comply with the
TSR (Telemarketing Sales Rule) is
at:
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/tsrcomp.htm
. In contrast with fashions still prevailing in Australia, this 38 page
document constitutes detailed and prescriptive government regulation of
business, in order to protect consumers in a field where they cannot
individually or collectively protect themselves. This US Federal
Trade Commission document is an attachment to this submission and I ask
that the ACCC scrutinize it and compare it to ADMA's proposal. I
don't have time to exhaustively compare the two, but it is clear that
ADMA's proposal falls well short of Worlds Best Practice, in principle
(self-regulatory vs. government regulation) and in many specific
details.
These rules concern the sales and information privacy aspects of
telemarketing calls, including inbound calls - where other marketing
material encourages a potential customer to call a number in order to
purchase goods or services. So this goes well beyond the question
of unwanted calls, and into the consumer protection aspects of direct
marketing.
The rules, in general, do not apply to charities or political
organisations. The exemptions are summarised at a site with a
name similar to, but with a .com, rather than .gov, to the Do Not Call
site:
http://www.donotcall.com/loopholes.asp
:
The
Loopholes
- Political calls are exempt under both FTC and
FCC rules -
These are always the first to be exempt since politicians
make the rules.
- Charity calls are exempt under both FTC and
FCC rules.
- Telephone Survey Calls are exempt under both
FTC and
FCC rules - Many telemarketers will try to claim they are
taking surveys when they are actually selling something.
- "Existing Business Relationship" calls are
exempt under
both FTC and FCC rules - This is the tricky one. You
see
if you buy a piece of gum at a chain store you suddenly
could have
an "Existing Business Relationship" with 27
affiliated entities trying
to sell you everything under the sun.
Marketers are now adding
clauses to surveys, contest
entries, and other contracts and agreements
that allows
them to add you to telemarketing lists even if you
registered with the National Do Not Call Registry.
Exempt under FTC rules but included under FCC
rules:
- Long-distance phone companies are exempt under
FTC
rules but FCC rules will not exempt these calls.
- Airlines are exempt under FTC rules but FCC
rules will
not exempt these calls.
- Banks and credit unions are exempt under FTC
rules but
FCC rules will not exempt these calls.
- The business of insurance, to the extent that
it is
regulated by state law are exempt under FTC rules but
FCC rules
will not exempt these calls.
FCC is trying to add exemption for Radio and TV
station calls. They claims calls telling people to watch or tune
in are somehow not an advertisement!
The rules do not generally apply to calls directed at businesses, but
there are specific, and quite important instances in which the rules
do protect businesses from the
constant pressure of sales calls regarding fax rolls, cleaning supplies
etc. From the explanation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/tsrcomp.htm
:
Business-to-Business
Calls, Unless They Involve the Sale of Nondurable Office or Cleaning
Supplies
Most phone
calls between a telemarketer and a business are exempt from the Rule.
But business-to-business calls to induce the retail sale of nondurable
office or cleaning supplies are covered. Examples of nondurable office
or cleaning supplies include paper, pencils, solvents, copying machine
toner, and ink – in short, anything that, when used, is depleted, and
must be replaced. Such goods as software, computer disks, copiers,
computers, mops, and buckets are considered durable because they can be
used again.
|
The abovementioned document is the short, informal, version. The
formal document is a 101 page PDF:
This Final Rule document is also an attachment to this
submission. I ask the ACCC to cast their eye over it, since it
contains reasoning behind the Federal Trade Commission's decision, and
is indicative of the importance and complexity of proper regulation of
outbound telemarketing.
The final decision on fees for telemarketer access to the list contains
some estimates of the numbers of telemarketers in the USA:
Strengths and limitations of the US approach
Ideally, outbound telemarketing would be banned, except to those those
who give explicit, informed and unpressured consent.
Failing that, an opt-out system seems to be the best solution - but
since the majority of people, at home and business, want to opt out, it
seems quite ridiculous to have to maintain such a large list, rather
than the much smaller list of those who actually find the practice
acceptable.
The ideal way to run an opt-out system is something I explored in
detail in my 1992 submissions to the AUSTEL Privacy Inquiry.
Ideally, there should be no publishing or release of numbers at
all. Instead, telemarketers (or any marketer for some other form
of do-not-contact list) should submit their numbers for scrutiny and
have the list operator respond with a Yes / No for each number.
This is easy to do with database files, submitted via the Net, and it
can also be done with trivially easy programming for one number at a
time queries for both telemarketer staff using a browser manually, and
for telemarketer software doing real-time checks on numbers just before
making calls.
The privacy problems of releasing numbers linked to names and/or
addresses are completely insurmountable - but this is what ADMA wants
ACCC approval for. Virtually no person who values their privacy
can tolerate such linked data being distributed in ways they cannot
control - and there is no way at all that ADMA can prevent their list
falling into the hands of untrustworthy people. Privacy is not a
luxury, it is a right and for people who are trying to keep themselves
safe from abusers, or in the case of public figures just trying to keep
themselves safely and sanely out of the public gaze, it is an essential
of life. For instance, its is impossible to imagine Bob Hawke
giving his name, address and phone numbers to ADMA.
The US system works primarily by distributing numbers. This
avoids most of the privacy problems of linking them to other personal
details, but it does raise some problems. For instance, if a
stalker was seeking the phone number of their victim, and they know the
area code they live in or have moved to, and they have a good idea of
when that person changes their number and so gains a new one, then they
can monitor the changes to the opt-out list within an area code in that
period of time and arrive at a relatively short list of numbers, one of
which will be their victim's. This is especially true since
geographic location is typically indicated by all but the last four
digits. This abuse of the system is largely impossible with the
preferred approach of operating it on an enquiry basis.
Ideally, a telemarketing regulatory approach would cover calls to
businesses, schools, community organisations, homes and government
departments.
Ideally there would be no exceptions for charities, political parties
etc.
The US system has its limitations, but for an opt-out system, it is
fundamentally the right approach - hard, government regulation, real
penalties for each violation, government control of the opt-out
database and no publishing of any information at all in relation to the
opted-out numbers.
If the ACCC approves ADMA's proposals for telemarketing in any way at
all, then it will be giving official approval for a self-regulatory
scheme which is opposed by most or all Australian advocates, and which
is utterly deficient in principle and in detail from the US
scheme. So the ACCC would be giving its imprimatur to a
sham of a so-called "regulatory" system when it should be
supporting the protection of Australian homes and businesses along
lines at least as substantial as those now enacted in the Unites States.
ADMA's suitability for running a self-regulatory scheme
ADMA represents some Australian
direct-marketing companies and charities. While for reasons of
revenue and credibility, it seeks to increase its membership and to
claim that it already has a very large and complete coverage of direct
marketers, ADMA's limited membership is in fact all that the
organisation represents.
Even if a self-regulatory regime were considered suitable for
telemarketing, or for other aspects of direct marketing, there are
several sets of reasons to question ADMA's suitability for the
task. Some of these are general problems inherent in such
self-regulation and others are particular to ADMA.
ADMA's membership
In October 1998, ADMA had 370 members, of which 28 were listed as being
involved in telemarketing.
The following analysis is based on
ADMA's site
http://www.adma.com.au
on 9 September 2003.
The main page of ADMA's sites claims that it represents "over 500
member organisations.". However the membership list, as shown by
searching for all categories in all states, has 443 members.
After removing a handful of members of the same name which are
evidently state-based divisions of the one company, or two branches of
the one company at the same location, ADMA's membership stands at
436. (One of these is "New Zealand Post International".
Another is "CW Agencies Inc VANCOUVER BC" - and Google finds no pages
in the .au domain which mention "CW Agencies".)
Some members are evidently suppliers of goods and services to direct
marketers, rather than marketers or list providers themselves, such as
printers, envelope manufacturers and legal and staff recruitment
firms. These firms have no marketing activities so their
membership involves no regulatory restrictions on their business
activities.
A text file with all members is an attachment to this submission
ADMA-members-2003-09-09.txt
Those members which appear in the "Telemarketing Services" (
27) and "Lists" (22) categories are
flagged with T and L respectively. While not every
"telemarketing" company would be involved in outbound telemarketing,
quite a number of ADMA members in addition to those listed as
"Telemarketing Services" would also be engaged in outbound
telemarketing, for their own sales, but not as a "service" for other
clients.
It is impossible from ADMA's site to estimate the percentage of members
involved in outbound telemarketing. The
27 of 443 represents
6% and gives
a very approximate idea of the proportion of ADMA members who are
engaged in outbound telemarketing.
ADMA's Industry Coverage
As was pointed out by many advocates in
1999, ADMA's coverage of companies (and charities) involved in outbound
telemarketing falls demonstrably below the substantial coverage needed
for ACCC approval of a Code. The ACCC seemed to accept this
during our discussions, but nonetheless approved the Code.
Before trying to quantitatively estimate ADMA's coverage of outbound
telemarketing, some definitions and clarifications are in order.
Bold claims are often made by telemarketers and by ADMA about the value
of goods and services
transacted through "telemarketing" - but this term includes "inbound"
telemarketing as well as "outbound". Inbound telemarketing
has no obvious privacy or unwanted telecommunications problems.
There are some pretty straightforward consumer protection issues, but
these are not important in the debate about ADMA receiving ACCC
approval as the government mandated industry body to self-regulate
outbound telemarketing in Australia.
As a very approximate insight into the telemarketing problem, here is a
list of the details of some of the telemarketing calls I received in
2000 and 2001. I have not kept complete records, and sometimes I simply
hung up without finding out anything about the caller. (I now get
fewer calls, after having the two major CD-ROM vendors remove my name
from
their products. These are listed, so that other people can do the
same, at the start of my page
http://www.firstpr.com.au/issues/tm/
) My number had a basic "business" listing
in the White Pages, as well as its residential listing, but there was
no Yellow Pages listing. I never give my name or number in
situations which might lead to telemarketing. This is a
lower level of calls than some people get, for instance in suburbs such
as Camberwell which is wealthier than mine. These do not
include the persistent and at times truly bizarre repeat callers such
as "Calder Windows" who were a problem in earlier years.
These calls took place after ADMA's Code was established. They
include some in the period after January 2001 when Desktop Marketing
removed my number from their system. I did
not register with ADMA's
do-not-call list. I sometimes simply hung up, but usually
instructed them never to call me again.
Apparent
caller (details may be incomplete or garbled)
|
Notes
|
Small business fax paper
newsletter
|
|
Diabetes Australia
|
2000-02-03 they have called me
multiple times before. Spoke to supervisor - she understands why
I am pissed off - "I don't blame you." They call their way
through their list (essentially the White Pages) every 2 to 3
months. Will take my number off the computer. I will not be
called again.
|
Golden Sampler
|
Selling a
"discount card" to local businesses.
|
Laser Tan Services
|
|
Yooralla Society
|
|
Niagara Therapy
|
SUGger - pretended to be doing
survey on "pain therapy". Note 25 Feb 2004: I notice this
company is an ADMA member. See list at end of this page.
|
Hardcourt Financial Services
|
|
Rothwells Negative Gearing
|
|
Variety Club
|
|
Deaf Blind Association
|
Caller's first day on the job -
had no control over their list.
|
Lost Dogs Home
|
(I kept separate notes on their
multiple calls but can't find them now.)
|
Some health club
|
|
Taxation Examiner Newsletter
|
|
New Life Roof Inspection
|
|
Association for the Blind
|
|
Diabetes Australia
|
Different supervisor this
time. Agreed she wouldn't want this done to her. Gave me managers
name to write to.
|
Telstra
|
Trying to tell me about prices I
am already aware of. (I have Telstra for phone and local calls, but not
long distance.)
|
Red Cross
|
|
Melbourne Lions Club
|
|
Network Planning
|
Supposedly not selling anything
- no-doubt an invitation to a "free seminar".
|
Telstra
|
Checking I was happy with their
service and then launched into marketing spiel.
|
??
|
Asked caller if he would do this
to his friends. He said he would.
|
Lions Club
|
|
Fund-raising department of
Austin
Hospital
|
|
Police Bluelight Handbook
|
Do I want to advertise?
|
Australian Wine Collectors
|
Call began with a ringing tone.
|
Greenwich Solutions
|
Told me it was a "courtesy
call".
|
Home Pride Service - roof
restoration
|
|
Diabetes Australia
|
40 people in the Eltham call
centre, working for 4 hours per shift. Repeat offender despite multiple
promises and apologies with supervisors. Haven't heard from them
since I sent some letters to their management.
|
Madison Investing (Bangkok)
|
Twice in one day.
|
Victorian Quality Roofing Co.
|
|
Stanford Lions Darebin Centre
|
|
Deaf Family's school St Kilda
|
Claimed to have got my number
"from Telstra" - but probably got it from Desktop
Marketing's CD-ROM
|
Fund-raising department Austin
Hospital
|
Again.
|
Rotary Club of Preston
Children's
Appeal
|
|
Kidney Foundation
|
|
Deaf Blind Association
|
|
RSPCA
|
|
Orange Telecommunications
|
|
Bodywork Gym
|
"Boss told me to call some local
businesses."
|
Bodywork Gym
|
Again, despite me telling them
never
to call again.
|
Network Planning - home owners
|
|
MS Society
|
|
Some homeware company
|
|
ANZ bank marketing
|
I have an ANZ credit card.
This was on an Optus line which I hardly ever have a phone plugged
into, which I never give the number of, but which was listed in the
White Pages.
|
Holiday Concepts
|
|
Myers Cleaning Services
|
|
Ray White Real Estate
|
|
Dust Busters Australia
|
|
Melbourne Lions Club
|
|
Discount card scheme
|
$90 or so for a discount card to
local businesses - proceeds supposedly to a well respected community
radio station. I wrote to the station and complained - they
replied they licensed their name to this company and were desperate for
the funds.
|
Firefighting Union
|
|
Australian Fire Prevention
|
|
Preston Rotary Club
|
|
Holiday Club
|
|
Myer Cleaning Services
|
Repeat offender.
|
These 56+ calls, some of them from repeat offenders, is not a
complete record of the telemarketing calls I have received.
However, it is
highly representative
of the calls which a home - and in some cases a small business
with no Yellow Pages entry - would receive. (I cancelled my business
listing in the White Pages to reduce the telemarketing problem.)
Apart from Telstra and the ANZ bank, both of whom I am a customer,
none of these calls seem to have came from
ADMA members.
ADMA's claim of adequate coverage of outbound telemarketing is of no
practical importance to me. It is impossible to imagine that my
experience of telemarketing is so different from the general experience
of all Australians that ADMA really does have significant coverage of
outbound telemarketers, and for some unknown reason, my experience does
not reflect this.
Another approach to gauging industry coverage is to find companies in
the Yellow Pages who advertise telemarketing services. This is
only a small subset of those companies and charities who make such
calls, so even if ADMA or some other organisation can demonstrate high
coverage of such telemarketing services companies, that would in no way
show they have coverage over the main source of the calls.
Here are the companies listed in the Yellow Pages, under Telemarketing,
for Victoria,
on 9 September 2003:
Access
Training
407/ 107 Beach St Port Melbourne VIC 3207
Active Contact
208 York St South Melbourne VIC 3205
Advance Marketing Enterprises Pty Ltd
209 Bulleen Rd Bulleen VIC 3105
All Encompassing Business Solutions
Melbourne Elsternwick VIC 3185
Appeals Office
Level 1 191 Glenferrie Rd Malvern VIC 3144
Apple Telemarketing
4th Floor 11 Queens Rd Melbourne VIC 3000
Catalyst Recruitment Systems Ltd
421- 437 Grieve Pde Altona North VIC 3025
Connect International Voice Mail Call
Forwarding And Custom Answering
L23, 390 St Kilda Rd Melbourne VIC 3000
Connected There
Contact Management Associates (Vic)
Pty Ltd
94 Tope St South Melbourne VIC 3205
Data Connection Pty Ltd
238 Normanby Rd South Melbourne VIC 3205
Datapurify
Level 2, 6- 10 Chapel St Prahran VIC 3181
D S Marketing
DTS Group
Cheltenham VIC 3192
First Approach Marketing
PO Box 212 Foster VIC 3960
Focus On Australia Pty Ltd
Box Hill North VIC 3129
Golden Local Sample
Essendon North VIC 3041
Hands on Promotions
Boronia VIC 3155
Insight Contact Centre Services
K. A. P. Advisors & Telemarketing
45 Alma Rd St Kilda VIC 3182
Kelly
Collins Melbourne VIC 3000
Link
Communications
Corporation
ADMA
Member
Level 8 , 600 St Kilda Rd Melbourne VIC 3004
Take Advantage of Link's Extensive Call Centre Experience
Laffite Services
PO Box 411 Seaford VIC 3198
Mailcare Systems Pty Ltd
18 Edgecombe Crt Moorabbin VIC 3189
Marketcom Pty Ltd
Marketing Skill Pty Ltd AKA Phone Skill
6 Ambleside Cl Mt Eliza VIC 3930
MLA Telemarketing
Suite 11/ 2 Charnwood Crs St Kilda VIC 3182
Nautilus Marketing Services
104 Dover St Richmond VIC 3121
Outbound Services Pty Ltd
32 Harris Rd Donvale VIC 3111
PartnerCall
Phone Direct.
Level 2, 6- 10 Chapel St Windsor VIC 3181
Phoneline Marketing
Pracom
Profile Telemarketing
Traralgon VIC 3844
Realscape Technologies Pty Ltd
Level D 42 Upper Heidelberg Rd Ivanhoe VIC 3079
ResponseAbility Telemarketing
Consultants
Unit 52/ 4 Sydney St Prahran VIC 3181
SRG Data Sell
Port Melbourne VIC 3207
We Are A Unique, Integrated Relationship Communications
Agency
Sirius Telecommunications
Level 8, 616 St. Kilda Rd Melbourne VIC 3004
Stellar Call
Centres Pty Ltd
ADMA Member
PO Box 4238 Richmond VIC 3121
Salmat
ADMA
Member
Melbourne VIC 3000
Simon Richards Group
65 Fennel St Port Melbourne VIC 3207
Sirius
Telecommunications
ADMA
Member
Level 1, 341 Queen St Melbourne VIC 3000
Skilled Engineering Ltd
850 Whitehorse Rd Box Hill VIC 3128
Smart Health
Australia
ADMA Member
2a Carlisle Ave Balaclava VIC 3183
Tele Personnel
Suite 3 899 Whitehorse Rd Box Hill VIC 3128
Teleconnect Aust Pty Ltd
24 91 Tulip St Sandringham VIC 3191
Telephone Power Pty Ltd
48 Lake Ave Ocean Grove VIC 3226
Unity4 Teleservices Pty Ltd
U.C.M.S. Contact 360
80 Dorcas St South Melbourne VIC 3205
Vocon Pacific
After removing duplicates, 50 telemarketing companies listed for
Victoria. 5 are ADMA members. Many of the non-member
companies listed here are clearly active
telemarketers. (Chris Connolly repeated this exercise
in NSW with similar results.)
Although I have not researched it specifically, it is clear that there
are a number of major list brokers who are not ADMA members, such as:
Another approach to estimating the number of companies involved in
telemarketing is to consider the membership of the
ATA - Australian Teleservices Association
(previously the Australian Telemarketing Association)
http://www.ata.asn.au . This
association is discussed further below. The membership includes
both individual and a number of corporate categories, so it is
impossible from the membership number alone to gauge the number of
organisations involved in telemarketing. The ATA seems to be
primarily concerned with inbound calls for many purposes other than
sales - but their Code of Conduct applies specifically to outbound
calls. So the ATA covers many call centre activities beyond
direct marketing. The membership is not publicly available.
On 21 August 2003, in response to my emailed
enquiry, Michael Meredith, Executive Director of the Australian
Teleservices Association, wrote to me:
1. The ATA has over 1,800 members across Australia.
2. We have local representation in all the states in Australia.
3. We believe that through our membership that we cover approximately
75% of
the Contact Centre Industry.
4. Whilst I do not have any specific numbers on the percentage of ATA
members who conduct outbound calls only, I have seen two independent
research papers that quote 5% and 3% respectively of the Contact
Centre industry undertake outbound call only. 26% only inbound and
71% a mixture of inbound and outbound calls.
Even allowing for:
- ADMA's membership being more involved in telemarketing than the
27 formally listed members indicates.
- The ATA's 1,800 strong membership being only partly companies.
- Uncertainties about the above estimates of 3 to 5% purely
outbound and 71% partly outbound.
it is reasonable to conclude that the ATA's representation of outbound
telemarketers greatly exceeds ADMA's.
This does not mean that the ATA or any other organisation is a suitable
industry self-regulator, but it does show that ADMA is definitely not a
tenable organisation to receive ACCC approval for this role.
ATA - Australian Teleservices Association
The Australian Teleservices
Association, whose membership and telemarketing coverage is discussed
in the previous section, is a second and larger organisation which
seeks to represent telemarketers in Australia.
Neither ADMA or the ATA seem to refer to each other whatsoever in their
web sites.
As each organisation is surely well aware of the other, the only
possible conclusion is that these two organisations are involved in a
"turf war" for membership and credibility - credibility amongst
industry
members and also presumably with government agencies such as the ACCC.
The ATA has its own Code of Practice, regarding primarily outbound
telemarketing:
ATA Code of Practice
A commitment to Professionalism, Best
Practice and Ethical Behaviour
The Australian Teleservices Association Ltd
(ATA) is a not for profit organisation founded in 1990 to represent and
serve the call centre industry in the delivery of teleservices.
The ATA is committed to meeting the needs
of our members, as well as protecting the rights of consumers and
businesses who consume the teleservices provided by our members.
The ATA advocates adherence to the highest
standards of professionalism and ethical behaviour for all call centre
operations. These standards, when conscientiously adopted and practised
on a call-by-call basis, help assure the long term satisfaction of our
members, their employees and their customers.
Through professional programs and
activities in support of the Code, the ATA seeks to educate members,
the public and governments at all levels concerning the desired
behaviour for both inbound and outbound delivery of teleservices. The
Code of Practice is also designed to assist any business, consumer or
legal entity seeking to objectively measure the integrity and
professional performance of a teleservice program. The Code of Practice
has been developed to assist professional reputable call centre which
have specific goals to achieve in an efficient and effective manner
through high quality performance, with the public interest in mind.
This Code of Practice has been developed
as a guide to the call centre industry, the business community and
consumers to describe what is expected of an ethical and professional
teleservices operation and to assist in the enhancement of
professionalism within the industry
Call centres and teleservices operations
are required to operate in accordance with all applicable Federal,
State and local laws and acts, specific industry codes, business codes
and regulations, the Privacy Act and this ATA Code of Practice.
1. Proper Identification
All contact with the
customer should begin with the name of the company for whom the contact
is being made or taken and the name of the Teleprofessional making the
call, eg ‘The Australian Teleservices Association, this is Rachelle’.
2. Purpose of Call
A teleservices
representative will promptly disclose the primary reason for the call
as soon as practical into the conversation.
3. Contact Details
Either as part of the offer
or as part of documentation confirming the sale, information must be
given to the customer which provides a method for contacting the
organisation making the offer by address and telephone number so that
anyone with any enquiry or complaint can follow-up.
4. Skill Development
Prior to making or receiving
customer contact, all teleprofessionals must receive adequate training.
Appropriate supervision is to be provided.
5. Honesty
All offers must be stated
clearly and honestly so that the parties know exactly what they have
committed to and what they will be getting in return. All claims which
are untrue, misleading, deceptive, fraudulent or unjustly disparaging
of competitors are deemed by the ATA to be unprofessional, dishonest
and are considered to be a breach of this code.
6. Hours of Operation
Outbound Calls Daily
Weekdays
Outbound calls to either
consumers or business’ shall not be placed during hours that might be
considered unreasonable; ie. before 8am or after 9pm (local time at the
called party’s location). Any expectations must be with the expressed
consent of the called party.
Weekends
Customer Contact Centres
should be particularly sensitive to any inconveniences caused during
weekend calling. It is recommended that Saturday calling begin no
earlier than 10am local time and no earlier than noon local time no
Sundays.
Public and Religious Holidays
No unsolicited calls should
be initiated on major national holidays such as Christmas Day and New
Year’s Day. When determining whether to call on any other holiday or
other especially recognised days, any inconveniences caused by the call
must be considered beforehand.
In Bound Calls
There is no restriction on inbound calls as it
is the decision of the customer to make the call at time convenient to
them.
7. Call Preference Scheme
The ATA has established a “Call Preference
Scheme” for the purpose of capturing the details of those who elect not
to be contacted by telephone. It is expected that those companies who
conduct outbound telemarketing will regularly “cleanse” their database
from the Call Preference Scheme.
In addition to the ATA scheme each company
is to maintain its own listing of those customers who have expressed a
desire not be contacted by telephone and to develop a written policy
implementing this “Call Preference Scheme” list keeping processes.
These Procedures are to Include:
- How Teleprofessionals will capture
“Call Preference Scheme” requests.
- How and when these details will be
loaded into the database.
- How the “Call Preference Scheme” data
will be forwarded to the person or company maintaining the Scheme.
- How the accuracy of the database will
be maintained.
“Call Preference Scheme” Lists must be
maintained indefinitely and cannot be sold, or in anyway shared (except
with a subsidiary of affiliate company), without the customer’
expressed consent. Any employee engaged in any aspect of the process
must be fully trained in the above mentioned procedures. Service
agencies must make sure their clients fully understand and agree to
follow the procedures for maintaining to data.
8. Automatic Dialing Apparatus Regulations
The ATA recommends Automatic
Diallers are only to be used in conjunction with a compiled and quality
managed database. Pre-recorded or artificial message machines are not
to be used for any outbound sales or marketing function, including lead
generation or qualification, appointment making, market research of
fundraising. Companies need to manage resource levels in connection
with the dialling apparatus to ensure customers are not left holding
lines for longer than necessary (less than a minute) before speaking
with a live operator.
9. Facsimile and E-mail Regulations
The ATA does not support the
transmission of unsolicited advertisements to e-mail and fax equipment.
If however, the contacted party has an established business
relationship with the intended recipient, then expressed prior consent
is assumed until a “Telephone Preference Scheme’ ie. “Do not send
information request is received.
Each facsimile must have either a header
of a footer that clearly states the caller’s name, telephone number and
the date and time of transmission.
It is noted that in some cases (ie
business to business) a relationship may not exist, although the
transmitter of the e-mail or fax will still need to be aware that the
recipient would not object to receipt of the communication. The same
will apply to marketers utilising lists of prospective clients who have
previously expressed a desire to receive additional information about a
generic area.
10. List Usage
Untargeted calling is not in
the best interest of consumers, businesses or the Telemarketing
industry. Calls should always be targeted to people or companies who
are likely to have a use for the particular product or service being
offered. The ATA does not condone random or sequential number calling
that has no concern for the offer applicability to the call recipient.
The only exception to this is legitimate market research, where random
sampling techniques are required to assure the validity of a particular
study.
11. Monitoring and Taping
The ATA strongly supports
monitoring as a tool for assuring the quality of call and improving
staff performance through ongoing training and development. It provides
a means for employers to observe and evaluate the performance of the
teleprofessional and the contact centre program and to provide
immediate feedback on both. It also provides a means to protect the
consumers and customers against unethical practices by individual
teleprofessionals. It also protects the employer’s rights to supervise
and regulate the quality of work being performed.
Monitoring of calls for the purpose of
assessment or quality measurement does not require the consent of all
parties to the call, providing that the call is not recorded.
The taping of part or all of the
conversation is often used as an objective call verification tool to
help clarify specific details of the call and answer questions. In this
case, the teleprofessional must ask the called party for their
permission to tape record the conversation before proceeding. If the
called party does not consent, taping must not proceed beyond that
point. It is recognised however that the need to obtain permission to
tape a call can be waived in special work environment such as emergency
services call centres.
It is important that the following guidelines
for monitoring in the work place are set up:
- All job applicants must be
made aware of the company’s monitoring policy before accepting the job.
This can be stated in the job application.
- A written monitoring policy
that addresses all issues of concern to an employee should be provided
upon employment and additional copies should be placed clearly in
employee work areas. This policy should include how and why monitoring
is done and how soon after the calls are monitored a review will take
place. (As a rule, feedback to the employee in a timely manner.)
- The ATA strongly supports
the position that monitoring work related calls is not a violation of
anyone’s “personal privacy.” ATA members have a legitimate need to
assess the quality of the calls to and from their customers. By the
same token, the ATA advocates the employee’s rights to privacy during
personal conversations.
|
I will not critique this Code, since telemarketing should be regulated
by the government, not telemarketers themselves. It doesn't seem
to be significantly better than ADMA's, and has the same problems of
explicitly allowing a pernicious misuse of people's telephone services
for intrusive marketing, pretty much any time of the day and most days
of the year.
Here are some points I hope the ACCC will consider when evaluating the
success of ADMA's Code so far and ADMA's suitability as a
government-authorised industry self-regulator, for any aspect of direct
marketing whatsoever:
- Why, after four years of operation as an ACCC approved
self-regulatory Code of Practice, does Australia's primary
telemarketing representative organisation make no reference to ADMA's code at all?
- Why does the ATA persist with its own Code, rather than accede to
the government-mandated "Code Authority" of ADMA?
- Why does the ATA have its own complaints procedure, encouraging
consumers to write to it, rather than to ADMA, the Privacy Commissioner
or the ACCC? https://www.ata.asn.au/info_complaints.htm
:
Complaints
The ATA is committed to the promotion of a
professional and ethical call centre industry. To assist in this the
ATA has established a complaints resolution program to assist those who
have experienced difficulties.
It is recommended that in the first instance
that you approach the other party in order to seek a resolution as many
organisations already have a stringent complaint-handling program in
place. Should you find that after doing this you are unable to obtain a
satisfactory resolution please forward the relevant details to the
address below. The ATA will then undertake to raise any concerns and
issues on your behalf.
Please ensure you include
all relevant information together with your contact details.
|
- Why does ADMA not mention the ATA in its site, or have it as a
member?
- It is my clear impression, from the reply I received from the
ATA's Executive Director (above) on 21 August
that my email to him the day before was the first he had heard of
ADMA's application for further ACCC approval of their Code.
Assuming that this is the case, why hadn't the ACCC already alerted
the ATA? Why didn't ADMA alert the ATA?
It is easy to get the impression that part of ADMA's aim in seeking
ACCC
approval for its Code as part of its sparring for status and
membership. ADMA's failure to mention its new Code authorisation
application to the ATA seems impossible to reconcile with the notion
that ADMA is anywhere near trustworthy and resourceful enough to be
granted express government mandate for what should, by rights, be a
government responsibility: regulation of direct marketing and
protection of the privacy of all Australians.
Problems with self-regulation in general and
ADMA in particular
There are substantial potential
advantages in a self-regulatory regime for a given industry. In
general, the shorter the feedback paths and the more knowledgeable the
regulator, the sooner problems will be corrected. This is
assuming that the regulatory body has a genuine desire and the ability
to regulate the industry to protect consumers. However, since
self-regulatory bodies are
industry
bodies they are beholden to their industry members. (To the point that
the organisation or its directors could be sued if it failed to
properly represent the interests of its members.) Theoretically
they have a formal and social contract with the government and society
to protect the interests of consumers, but in fact, their entire
existence and funding depends upon the willingness of industry
participants to support the body.
There is always a tension, or potential tension, between business and
customer. (Not all the problems are businesses taking advantage
of customers - there are also a handful of unreasonable and at times
criminally fraudulent customers who,
given the chance, will take advantage of businesses.)
There are industries where most of the participants take a genuine
pride in providing an excellent service for customers, and who are keen
to maintain standards and work to avoid over-pricing, anticompetitive
conduct etc. which are potential problems in any type of
commerce. The ideal industry in this respect is one which makes
no demands on customers, potential customers, society in general or the
environment other than the fees it requires for its goods and
services. Such an industry, with a well respected industry body
with excellent coverage of participants, is a good candidate for the
sort of "co-regulatory" or "self-regulatory" arrangement ADMA was
granted in 1999. Such an industry can be profitable and overall
beneficial to customers and society in general, provided that customers
are prepared to pay the fees the participants are happy with.
Then, other than potential disputes about pricing, there is no
conflict whatsoever between the industry going about its business, and
the public benefit.
But direct marketing, in the form of unsolicited contacts to thousands,
hundreds of thousands or millions of people, by mail, and especially by
telephone, is a completely different situation.
No-one gets a telephone service so that they can be interrupted and
subjected to distraction and manipulation by telemarketers.
No-one maintains a postal address with the desire that they will get
junk mail.
The key characteristic of direct mail and telemarketing especially is
that in general (unless the seller has a list of prospects of people
who are 100% happy about being contacted, which is never the case in
practice) this business practice of
intrusive mail or telephone communication places a significant and
completely unjustifiable burden on individuals all over the
country. Virtually everyone with a postal address or a telephone
is forced to share this burden, time and again, over and over, from the
same marketers many times and from many marketers just
once. There is no possible moral or economic justification
for this imposition. There are no benefits whatsoever for
consumers in finding out about, or purchasing goods and services (or
making donations) over other non-intrusive methods of advertising and
purchasing / donating.
Via email, the post, telephone calls and any new methods of
point-to-point communication which become available, outbound
direct-marketing places a
massive
burden on society in general, and a frequently intolerable burden on
millions of citizens.
Because direct marketers can never even closely approach their ideal -
a list of people who have never heard of them, but who will be happy to
be contacted and who will very often accept their offer - outbound
direct marketing (except on an opt-in basis)
always
imposes a huge, unfair, distressing, expensive and destructive burden
on virtually all adults in Australia.
This is not a clearly defined "industry". Outbound
direct-marketing is a pernicious business practice adopted by a few
full-time operators and occasionally by a larger number of ordinary
businesses.
Outbound direct marketers
cannot do
business without continually and repeatedly burdening thousands
or millions of people at home, and at their workplaces (thereby
burdening all businesses with extra costs which damage national
competitiveness and which must be paid for by consumers in the end).
Since outbound direct-marketing offers no benefits to consumers over
non-intrusive methods, and since it always imposes unacceptable costs
on the public in general, the only proper form of regulation is to ban
it except for those who make an explicitly, fully informed and
unpressured decision to accept outbound direct-marketing communications.
Direct mail
can have some
benefits over telemarketing and ordinary advertising. Unlike
advertising, it can include product samples, or more detailed and
personalised product information than is possible via the Net, print
media advertising or radio or TV. Unlike telemarketing, the
recipient's attention is given to the material when they choose to go
to their letterbox, and at any time afterwards. But direct mail
clutters up mailboxes and wastes paper and transport resources.
I think that direct mail could probably remain a viable business
practice on a carefully managed opt-in basis. But it is
impossible to imagine this for outbound telemarketing. Since
becoming involved in this issue in late 1991, I have never seen any
evidence that anyone at all actively wants to be subjected to sales and
fundraising calls on their home, work or mobile phones.
Both direct-mail and outbound telemarketing have a huge negative impact
on society, primarily on people who have no interest whatsoever in the
product or charity, and who have no way of defending
themselves. This is the sort of problem we create
governments to solve.
Successful regulation of direct mail to properly protect consumers and
businesses who are targeted would lead to greatly reduced direct mail
activity, significantly lower revenues, but greater profit margins on
this smaller revenue base, since mailouts would go to people who want
them. (Alternatively, if it is assumed that competition has the
effect of driving prices down to the limit set by a viable, lower,
profit margin, then benefits flow to consumers in the form of lower
costs.)
Successful regulation of outbound telemarketing would result in
cessation of all outbound sales and funds-raising calls except to the
very small number of people who have knowingly and explicitly consented
to receiving them. Outbound calls would be vastly reduced, say to
0.1% of current activity. Efficiency could be higher, depending
on the costs of maintaining a properly regulated "industry" which
ensured calls were only made to those who genuinely want to receive
them. The current huge number of scatter-gun calls, which burdens
practically every adult and every business in the country, would
cease.
Direct marketing on the regulated basis just described would be like
any other legitimate, accepted "industry" or business practice - it
would not burden anyone except those who wanted to be burdened by its
activities.
The problem for the public is that the great majority of outbound
telemarketing - and to a somewhat lesser extent direct mail - activity
is directed at people who don't want it, and who can't individually
protect themselves from it.
The only economic reason this extraordinarily costly, unfair, overkill
of intrusive communications persists is because in a small proportion
of cases, it happens to reach someone who is in the mood to buy or
donate or who can be talked into doing so. Ideally, all
consumers and businesses would refuse
to do any business with anyone who approached them in an intrusive
manner. Unfortunately, a small proportion of people
are susceptible to intrusive
marketing and
do part with
their money. These careless / impressionable purchasers and
donors are at least as culpable as the marketers themselves for the
burdens everyone suffers from intrusive marketing, since the fund it
entirely. (There are also
non-economic reasons behind outbound direct marketing. Firstly
there is the instinctual hunting and gathering thrill of spear-like
targeting or
mass-netting income-generating customers, rather than just opening a
shop and waiting for them to walk in. Secondly, many businesses,
for ill-considered reasons, have brief forays into outbound
telemarketing and direct mail because vendors of lists, especially
CD-ROMs of home and business contact details, are able to convince them
it would be acceptable and profitable to engage in these aggressive,
"take action rather than wait and hope" intrusive marketing approaches.)
An industry which naturally happily co-exists with its customers and
the wider public, and for which there is one clearly respected body
which has sufficient coverage, is a good candidate for some level of
self- or co-regulation.
Even if telemarketing and direct mail were such "industries", there
would be systemic problems with self- or
co-regulation:
- From the point of view of a customer or other member of the
public, their perception of their bad experience with the business or
business
practice does not necessarily lead them straight to the appropriate
self-regulatory body. For instance, if outbound telemarketing
calls were self-regulated (or government regulated) as if they were a
primarily a marketing matter, then a person who has a problem with
repeated non-fax calls to a fax number (from voice telemarketers) sees
the problem as a telecommunications matter, and has no reason to
consider the telemarketing regulatory framework - since such calls are
indistinguishable to them from malicious or accidental calls or
technical failures.
- In any self-regulatory arrangement, the aggrieved party has to
first determine the domain of their problem - from a range of
government spheres and a much larger array of interlocking and at times
overlapping self-regulatory arrangements. This is an initial
problem, and in some cases an ongoing problem if the person's actual
experience is deemed to involves more than one regulatory domain.
- Similarly due to the poor correspondence of the various
self-regulatory domains to the actual experience of people, there are
problems of overlap and turf-wars between the domains, and also the
pattern of one domain insisting the problem belongs to
another. For instance, if a person is repeatedly called by
their bank (actually someone claiming to be from their bank - the
recipient has no way of knowing for sure who is calling), is this a
matter for the banking industry self-regulatory body, or does it belong
to the direct-marketing domain?
Modern life is complex, so regulatory arrangements tend to be complex
too. The advantage of self-regulatory schemes is the
potential for faster, more knowledgeable, "closer" feedback and problem
resolution. But there are real disadvantages because of the
difficulty of discovering and negotiating a complex, diffuse and poorly
co-ordinated mish-mash of regulatory arrangements. This is bad
enough for someone like me who is a telecommunications
consultant. The problems are far worse for the elderly, those
with poor English skills and those who lack the patience or the general
knowledge to successfully discover and navigate the maze of frameworks,
laws and regulatory bodies. Similarly, the maze raises problems
for these regulatory bodies themselves.
There are arguments for and against self-regulation. But it
is clear that self-regulation can only be successful when the
representative body has good coverage, and when the mainstream of the
industry naturally and happily does business in a way which does not
burden society in general or cause problems for customers.
But direct-mail and outbound telemarketing are striking examples of the
opposite conditions. These business practices, in their current
scatter-gun form, are inherently a serious and often intolerable burden
on
society. These business practices are inherently of little or no
value to customers over
non-intrusive alternatives.
These facts make it impossible for any industry body to successfully
self-regulate the "industry" - really the pernicious business practice
- to the point where it no longer burdens society and where it does not
take unfair advantage of its few remaining customers. This is
because any such successful outcome would have the effect of
significantly reducing (direct mail) or almost entirely eliminating
(outbound telemarketing) the current "industry" - the current business
practices - which provide the membership and funding for the industry
body.
An honest and proportionate account of the impact outbound
telemarketing has on Australians would be a massive, deafening, roar of
millions of people cursing, characterising the telemarketers with vile
invective, and demanding government action to halt this abuse.
Of necessity this submission contains a polite, concise and incomplete
account of the problems caused by outbound telemarketing. However
it is instructive and
not at all unfair to draw an analogy between a telemarketing industry
body protecting consumers from telemarketing and giving foxes
guarding chickens.
But even if, by some bizarre distortion, outbound telemarketing was
deemed to be an industry or business practice in which consumers really
could be protected by a self regulatory body, there are several reasons
why ADMA in 2003 cannot be that body:
- Its coverage of outbound telemarketing - both of dedicated
telemarketers and of businesses (and charities) who for their own
purposes conduct outbound telemarketing - is far below that which the ACCC
requires. It is both low in absolute terms and it is lower than
another teleservices (previously "telemarketing) industry body: the ATA.
- ADMA has repeatedly displayed its hostility towards privacy and
consumer benefits. It also displays its contempt for the ATA by
failing to mention the ATA on its site, and apparently by failing to
inform it of the current application to the ACCC. (This is not to
say that the ATA is any more genuinely interested in consumer privacy.)
ADMA's application for ACCC accreditation was opposed largely or
entirely, and often with great passion and in substantial detail, by a
wide range of privacy and consumer advocates in 1999. The ACCC
listened to and apparently accepted all the advocates' critiques - and
then granted ADMA the approval it requested.
Now, after four years, we can see how ineffectual ADMA and its
so-called "Code Authority" has been at actually protecting Australians
from the flood of outbound telemarketing calls.
While the ACCC's 1999 decision might be seen as an act of faith - in
self-regulation generally and in ADMA's character and capabilities
specifically - there is no basis in 2003 for continuing to give
ACCC-approval for this failed experiment.
The ACCC must have criteria for refusing approval for codes of
practice. There must be cases where the arguments are so
clear that approval is refused. Its hard to imagine a clearer set
of circumstances than ADMA's for refusing to approve a code of conduct.
In 1999, the advocate's concerns were directed to what we believed
would happen. We predicted it
would be a sham, of no real benefit to consumers, with many significant
costs.
The last four years of sham consumer protection with no substantial
protections proves that the advocates were right, and that the ACCC's
1999 faith in self-regulation of outbound telemarketing - and in ADMA -
was ill-judged.
The US
hard regulation of
outbound telemarketing - in a country renowned for letting corporations
do as they please (largely due to the dependence of both parties on
corporate funding) invites some observations:
- Firstly, that the problem is so bad, and industry
"self-regulation" so ineffective that even a Republican US government
was moved to act decisively.
- That this would probably never have happened if the parties to be
regulated were big corporations - who provide most of the funding to
the political parties and so who have disproportionate influence and
lobbying power. (For instance, such regulation of the drug
industry is inconceivable in the USA - a friend who reports on the
health industry there tells me that the number of drug industry
full-time lobbyists in Washington DC outnumbers the combined numbers of
senators and congressmen.)
- Therefore, that major corporations are generally not involved in
outbound telemarketing. This makes sense, since outbound
telemarketing is perhaps the surest way of destroying the public
perception of a company or product.
- Therefore, that most participants in the direct marketing
industry are small companies (too small for their political donations
to stop this legislative regulatory response). In many cases, the
main source of outbound telemarketing calls - in the USA and probably
Australia - results from those at the moral bottom of the business food
chain: operators who have no scruples and whose business principles are
no better than those of spammers.
Shortcomings of the Code and its "Authority"
The criticisms of the "Code Authority"
in this section would be pointers to improvements for the future
if it is thought worthwhile for
ADMA to continue to have a role in regulating direct-mail. But
there
are many arguments against ADMA having any government-mandated consumer
protection responsibilities. The point about these shortcomings
is that it demonstrates failings which are attributable to:
- The entire concept of ACCC-approved industry self-regulatory
bodies in circumstances such as this, where the "industry" (rather the
pernicious business practice) would almost cease to exist if consumers
really were protected.
- The specifics of this instance - ADMA being unwilling and unable
(due to its need to enable members to continue their privacy invasive
business practices) to genuinely protect consumers, and there being no
oversight or pressure for it to do so.
There is no "Code Authority". There is a pretence to such a body
existing, but there is no evidence of a separate organisation, with
articles of association, constitution, budget, audited accounts
etc. The "Code Authority" is not under any kind of public
oversight - it is a private function within ADMA.
As best as can be ascertained from publicly available material, the
"Code Authority" is a secretariat of ADMA staff handling day-to-day
operations, with a chairman, two industry representatives and two
"consumer representatives". These people are presumably paid and
work as contractors. There is is no public disclosure in
the "Authority's" annual reports, or anywhere else of some matters
which are crucial to the independence of these people:
- There is no mention of what they are paid.
- There is no mention of the length or nature of the contracts they
are on.
- There are no details of what non-disclosure agreements board
members have signed regarding their interaction with ADMA proper, their
work on the so-called "Code Authority" or their interaction in this
role with ADMA members and members of the public.
- There are no minutes of meetings or public disclosure of
communication between the so-called "Authority" and ADMA.
So we have no reason whatsoever to think of these people as independent
in their "Code Authority" activities.
There is no information at all on how they are selected.
As far as I am aware, the so-called "consumer representatives" were not
selected in consultation with any consumer representative body. A
proper approach would be to leave the appointment of consumer
representatives to AFCO (Australian Federation of Consumer
Organisations
http://www.consumersfederation.com
) who would also ensure that their terms of involvement and payment
enabled them to be truly independent from ADMA and so to truly
represent consumers.
The chairman and one of the "consumer representatives" are members of
the Australian Consumers Association board. But what are their
capabilities in the "Code Authority"? If they were to suggest
real regulation, such as telemarketing being conducted on an opt-in
basis only (which is the only way of properly protecting the public)
ADMA would ignore it. What then would be their position in this
"Code Authority"?
This so-called "Authority" is not a separate body - it is part of
ADMA. ADMA consistently claim to have 500 members, when the real
number is less than 450. ADMA consistently claims the "Authority"
is independent, when it is in no way independent of ADMA. These seem to
be three clear, and oft-repeated, instances of false and misleading
advertising.
Chris Connolly's submission covers the low level of complaints
(compared to direct marketing complaints directed to state and federal
privacy commissioners) which shows there is a low public awareness of,
and/or trust in, this Code and its so-called "Authority".
There appears to be no oversight whatsoever of either ADMA or the
"Authority" to give confidence in any of the published information
about the Code, the "do-not-call" list, the "Authority" or the
complaints from the public. ADMA can't even get its own
membership numbers right within 10%. Why should the ACCC or the
public have faith in the accuracy of any other qualitative or
quantitative information ADMA presents?
Only cursory details of complaints are given.
Complaints can only be made in writing, which precludes the faster and
more convenient method of email, and the more interactive, reassuring
and informative approach of making a complaint by phone.
This is the "Authority", given government approval to self-regulate the
direct marketing industry, including outbound telemarketing which
involves hundreds of millions of intrusive phone calls a year.
Yet there is no provision for using the telephone to call the
"Authority" regarding complaints.
ADMA contends, and the ACCC seemed to accept, that the threat of
expulsion from ADMA was likely to be a significant deterrent to members
who failed to meet the requirements (weak though they are) of the
Code. Yet when one long-time member of ADMA is found by the
"Authority" to be repeatedly violating the code, it willingly left the
organisation. (2000-2001 report. Victor Paul Direct
Marketing Pty Ltd is "sanctioned" for "unsatisfactory handling of
complaints, disputed billing practices, and lack of clarity of the
initial offer". The company, a member since 1994, advised in
August 2000 that it would not be renewing its ADMA membership.)
This shows that the "Authority" has no clout with at least some
companies, and probably most companies, whose business practices harm
consumers - since the company can save the bother of code compliance
and its ADMA fees by either leaving ADMA, or never joining in the first
place. The implication is that the so-called benefits to a
company from the public percieving it to be an ADMA member are worth
little or nothing to such companies.
Without the ability to order financial compensation, the "Authority" is
truly toothless, since its worst possible action against a
non-compliant ADMA member is to expel the member and so free the
company from its obligations under the code.
All these concerns were raised in 1999 by the advocates as arguments
that self-regulation for an "industry" - or rather a business practice
- where the majority of problems are caused by hard-to-identify,
unprincipled, systematically intrusive and exploitative "cowboys" can
never work. Those telemarketers who most urgently need to be
regulated are those which are least likely to pay money to join ADMA,
to pay for access to the do-not-call list and so to be subject to the
Code in any way.
The "Code Authority" meets every three months. How can this
facilitate timely handling of consumer complaints?
What qualifications does its secretariat have to deal with complaints
day-to-day? Do they keep in touch with complainants via phone and
email, or are all attempts at resolution conducted by the slow, formal,
one-way use of letters in the postal system?
The "Code Authority" produces an annual report as its sole public
record of activity. This is slow to come out (no 2002-2003 report
yet on 11 September 2003 - and the previous years report's PDF file was
created on 20 March 2003) and gives no indication that the "Authority"
is genuinely interested in protecting consumers from
telemarketing. While the "Authority" can suggest changes to the
Code to ADMA, in the years reported to date, there has been no
suggestion that, for instance, outbound telemarketing be conducted on
an opt-in basis only.
There is no information on the number of members or non-members who
used the do-not-call/mail list. (I wrote to ADMA about this on 8
September and have not received a response by the time this submission
was completed after 4PM on 12 September.)
The 2001-2002 report does not mention the number of people who have
registered with the do-not-call/mail list. The previous reports
give the following information:
Prior to 1999-2000: 16,000.
During 1999-2000: 8,000 new, for a total of 24,000.
2000-2001 report, total is now 49,000.
This last figure was presumably for the end of June 2001. Now,
two years and three months have passed and ADMA expects the ACCC to
give another five years of approval for its Code and so-called
"Authority". But where is the key information on numbers of
people who have registered for the opt-out list? Where is the
information on how many members and non-members of ADMA have actually
paid the fees to use the list?
How can ADMA justify charging its own members for a list of consumers
who should not be contacted, when compliance with this list is a
requirement of membership? The fees are substantial, and in
addition to the membership fees, constitute a further disincentive for
any business, especially a smaller business, for using this list or
being subject to the Code and its so-called "Authority".
The fees on 11 September 2003 are:
File
Type |
Member |
Non-member |
Do
not Mail / Do Not Call |
$450
|
$1450 |
Do
Not Email |
$250 |
$750 |
M-Marketing
Opt-Out |
$250 |
$750 |
Do
Not Email/ M-Marketing Opt-Out |
$450 |
$1450 |
Complete
Package |
$750 |
$2500 |
Since the lowest fee for ADMA membership (companies with less than
$750k) is $1,089:
Annual Gross Revenue
|
Total Inc. GST
|
Under $750,000
|
$1,089
|
$750,000-$1,500,000
|
$2,078
|
$1,500,000-$3,000,000
|
$4,290
|
$3,000,000-$5,000,000
|
$6,820
|
$5,000,000-$10,000,000
|
$10,340
|
Over $10,000,000
|
$16,500
|
any small telemarketer who wants to comply with the the do-not-call
list faces a cost of $1450 (these are all annual fees) or $1539
including joining ADMA and so being subject to the Code
authority. (Although the contract for the list - 4.4 - involves
the licensee undertaking to comply with the Code.)
By contrast, the US Do-Not-Call system provides free access to the list
for five area codes (telephone areas in the USA are significantly
smaller
than the big metropolitan areas of Australia). There is also a
manual web-based system for looking up numbers - I can't find cost
information for this, so perhaps it is free.
The low number of registrations on the do-not-contact list shows that
it is almost entirely ineffectual at protecting Australians from
unwanted intrusive communications, especially outbound telemarketing.
The USA has population about 13 times that
of Australia. At the start of operations of the US Do-Not-Call
service (the end of August 2003 cutoff date for the list which becomes
effective on 1 October) there were 48,400,000 registrations. In
Australia, after two years of ADMA's code, its opt-out-list had 49,000
registrations - 1/1000 of the number, with 1/23 of the
population.. So the US
legislated,
government controlled,
telemarketing opt-out list was very quickly
43 times as effective as ADMA's
industry controlled, weak, "self-regulated" scheme. Furthermore,
the US scheme covers all telemarketers, whilst ADMA's only covers a
small fraction - 10% or less.
It is reasonable to assume that the number of people registering in the
US scheme will double over time. Even allowing for some growth in
ADMA's numbers (which one would think they would have reported if they
had grown) to as much as double the 49,000 reported in 2001, it seems
that ADMA is never going to have more than 1/43 of the proportion of
the population on its list than the US government scheme.
Multiplying this factor - 1/43 - by the low coverage of the "industry"
(say 10%) then we must conclude that as a proportion of calls affecting
the general population,
the US,
legislated, government controlled
scheme is at least 400 times as effective as ADMA's.
How can ADMA's Code "Authority" be considered "independent" or publicly
accountable when it is necessary to use Google to find out anything
about its M-Marketing Committee, and when an enquiry about the
do-not-contact list registrations and the numbers of members and
non-members who use it goes unanswered?
Privacy and security problems of the
Opt-Out List
ADMA's list does not apply to businesses - yet businesses or other
organisations such as charitable organisations involved in delivering
social services - are constantly hounded by telemarketers and
hawkers. The great majority of businesses have an "Absolutely No
Hawkers" sign on their doors, but no such thing is possible via
telephone.
The public and privacy advocates have no reason to trust ADMA its
"Authority" or any of the members or non-members who access the list.
The public is asked to provide their name, phone number (for opting out
of telemarketing) and/or address (opting out of direct mail).
Likewise their mobile-phone number and email address for opting out of
being contacted by these methods.
The full information is then included in the list to be distributed to
members and non-members. There is no possible way of ensuring
that the information is used only as intended.
The list could not possibly be used by anyone who values their privacy,
because it explicitly links their name to whatever contact details they
put on the list.
It only takes one unprincipled employee to take a copy of the list and
forward it to persons who would misuse it for there to be serious and
perhaps life-threatening impact on people who placed their details on
the list. There is absolutely no way of preventing this or
detecting any such copying and misuse.
Stalkers, abusers and the like cannot be prevented from paying other
people to supply information on the people they want to know the
whereabouts of. This leads to a straightforward financial
incentive for misuse of the list, including non-ADMA members to
purchase it under false pretences which ADMA would find hard to
detect. Anyone at all in Australia can pretend to be a
telemarketer and purchase the list, and ADMA has no way of ensuring the
bona-fides of any such person.
No public figure, or person trying to remain safe from an abusive
ex-partner, or who feels under threat from criminals (including corrupt
police) could possibly use this list without great risk.
The M-Marketing Code of Practice
(ACIF has a Code regarding SMS
marketing
http://www.acif.org.au/ACIF/files/C580_20021.pdf
which I have not had time to study.)
The telephone network, email and later mobile text communications
developed in an environment where security and privacy were not
properly considered. Since mobile text messaging (and other more
complex protocols with extensive text, audio, graphic and video
content) has become widely adopted
after
the terrible problems of telemarketing and spam became well known, it
is not surprising that those promoting mobile services were at pains to
prevent its widespread misuse.
(This has not occurred in Japan, where
the widely used, mobile phone, email and somewhat Internet-compatible,
DoCoMo i-mode system was reported in early 2002 to carry emails which
were 98% spam.
http://www.jir.net/jir5_02.html#3
"Of the 900 million messages that go through DoCoMo's servers each day,
880 million (98%) are spam, according to the company. The problem is
that, regardless of the source of the message, subscriber phones ring
(or vibrate) every time mail arrives.". These phones have a
unique email address such as: <telephonenumber@docomo.ne.jp> A
test phone received 857 spams in August 2001 rising to 2,578 spam
messages in February 2002.)
ADMA's initial approach to email and "M-Marketing", was purely opt-out
- as still reflected in its do-not-contact list.
This is to be expected from any
industry body, since the opt-in approach - the only one which properly
protects consumers - would result in a virtual cessation of the
practice, unless marketers were somehow able to convince a significant
number of people to accept their messages.
It is not clear how ADMA's M-Marketing Code came into being, but it is
dated June 2003. Acknowledgement is given to the carrier AAPT,
but Google finds no significant reference to "M-Marketing Council" (AKA
"Mobile Marketing Council") outside ADMA's site - and the site's page
for this "Council" is available only to ADMA members. According
to
www.bandt.com.au/articles/a4/0c0163a4.asp
this was chaired by David Burden, CEO of Legion Interactive
http://www.legioninteractive.com.au
which operates BlueSkyFrog, claiming "811,795 customers opted-in to
receive email and mobile marketing messages".
The M-Marketing Code covers an open-ended variety of communication
techniques and requires that people either
opt-in or be an existing customer
of the company who sends them commercial messages.
Opt-in is the only proper approach for regulating intrusive
communications.
The M-Marketing Code has minimum requirements for each message:
- Information identifying the message originator in such a way that
they can be easily recognised and contacted by the recipient.
- Details of an appropriate contact mechanism that allows the
recipient to obtain all the following information in relation to the
message originator:
- Full company name
- Legal address
- Company registration details
- Postal address - PO Box addresses are not permitted
- Email address.
- Fixed line telephone number.
- Where appropriate, details of where the recipient can view or
hear the terms and conditions applicable to a particular promotion,
advertisement or offer.
- Contact details to which enquiries or complaints should be
directed.
- The contact mechanism provided (above) must be provided at low
cost and be easy to use by the recipient.
So in order to opt-out of future messages, or to even find out how to
opt-out, the recipient may be required to use a service which costs
them a fee. While this may be necessitated by the costs and very
limited message lengths of SMS (160 or 130 characters depending on the
technology), this complicated and potentially costly burden of
responding to or opting out of mobile marketing messages is a burden on
individuals, and further cause for them to only be sent to people who
explicitly opt-in to them,
not just to anyone who becomes a customer of a company which
wants to send such messages.
If a Google search is anything to go by, there is close to zero public
or industry awareness of this M-Marketing Code.
ADMA's amendments are irrelevant
In respect of telemarketing at least,
there is nothing ADMA could do to alter its code which would result in
its approval (AKA authorisation) by the ACCC leading to net public
benefit.
This submission has given many reasons why this is the case.
These are summarised below.
No net benefits for consumers in approving the proposed Code
If ACCC approval of ADMA's code was in
the public interest, then consumer/privacy advocates would support
it. However we believe that the regulation of intrusive
telecommunications, and many other aspects of consumer protection, are
best achieved by government regulation, rather than self-regulation or
a maze of ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) schemes.
In order to approve this Code, the ACCC needs to establish beyond
question that there is net benefit to consumers in doing so. Its
not good enough to identify one or more specific items of real or
purported benefit and assume from this that the benefit of approval is
in total positive. Approval of this code involves immense costs
to consumers immediately (the continuation of virtually unrestricted
telemarketing, with government approval), and in the broader sense of
damaging the
prospects for proper regulation of the problems inherent in direct
marketing. So the ACCC needs to consider all these factors in
deciding whether the
net
benefit is positive.
There are a series of tests which ADMA's proposal - and ADMA
itself - must pass in order for the Code to be approved. Failing
any one of these tests renders the Code unapprovable. Most of
these tests have nothing to do with the Code itself, so its not a
question of the ACCC granting approval subject to changes to the code,
or additional conditions to take effect in the future.
The purpose of government is to support and protect citizens - with
particular emphasis on protecting citizens from threats they cannot
protect themselves from individually, if this can be achieved
efficiently on a country-wide basis, without significant diminution of
individual freedoms or imposing unreasonable burdens on citizens.
The ACCC's responsibility is to protect consumers and businesses - in
this case from a small proportion of businesses who impose great costs
on society by pursuing unreasonable business practices which the vast
majority of individuals and businesses would never inflict on anyone.
Authorisation of ADMA's Code in 1999 was a mistake. It
constituted government approval of business practices which burden
uninvolved parties with unreasonable costs. It was a clear
statement to the public that ADMA is a trustworthy
organisation, that it has proper coverage of telemarketing and other
aspects of direct marketing, and that the public should be happy with
the meagre protections and dispute resolutions its Code and "Authority"
offers.
In summarising this submission, here are a list of tests, all of which
the ACCC must establish beyond reasonable doubt that ADMA, its Code and
the "Code Authority" pass, before authorisation can be
contemplated.
1 - ADMA's coverage of telemarketing and direct mail
ADMA fails this test for telemarketing
in several ways. Its absolute coverage of telemarketing bureaux
(companies large and small who conduct telemarketing for others) is
minimal - for instance 10% of those listed in the Yellow Pages in
Victoria. Its coverage of such bureaux is clearly less than that
of a competing industry association, the ATA. ADMA's coverage
(and the ATA's) of the businesses and charities which sometimes, or as
a core part of their operations, engage in outbound telemarketing is
probably below 10%. My experience of telemarketing calls is solid
evidence that most organisations which make these calls have nothing to
do with ADMA. ADMA's coverage of list brokers is similarly
deficient.
To what extent ADMA has coverage of direct mail bureaux, companies and
charities whose operations centre on direct mail, or the much broader
range of companies and charities who at times use direct mail, I cannot
be sure. But it seems there is a similar pattern of ADMA
overstating its own importance and pretending there is a clearly
definable industry when in fact this is simply a business practice with
serious privacy problems which needs to be regulated by government
legislation.
2 - ADMA's integrity and suitability for being a government
approved regulator
ADMA's integrity is lacking in many
ways. The organisation has known since 1991 that telemarketing at
any time is rejected by the great majority of consumers. Its own
research (kindly forwarded to me in 1992 by a previous director and
which is analysed and reproduced in facsimile at
http://www.firstpr.com.au/issues/tm/adma-survey/
) 70% of the 1204 respondents to a national telephone survey say that
outbound telemarketing is unacceptable to them. Telephone surveys
have a low response rate (due largely to the pressures of
telemarketing) and it is reasonable to assume that the proportion of
the public who did not respond, say 40% to 60% in those days (response
rates are generally much lower in recent years), find telemarketing
entirely unacceptable. Chris Connolly's submission details more
recent research by the Privacy Commissioner showing that about 90% of
respondents find telemarketing unacceptable. In my own
discussions with many people over the years, I haven't met anyone who
found it acceptable.
Telemarketers know very well how unacceptable their
intrusive communications are.
Any person, company, charity or industry organisation with
integrity would work hard to prevent exploitative business
practices like outbound telemarketing from burdening the vast majority
of people at home and in businesses who find it unacceptable.
ADMA pretends to want to protect consumer privacy. But this is a
transparent sham. If ADMA, or telemarketers, valued consumer
privacy, or if they wanted to prevent the costly interruptions all
businesses (and government / community organisations) suffer from
telemarketers, then they would work assiduously to ensure outbound
telemarketing was conducted only on an opt-in basis.
There are many ways in which ADMA can be seen to lack the integrity
which befits an organisation which the government entrusts with
consumer protection responsibilities. Many of the
trade-organisations which apply for ACCC authorisation are of a high
integrity, but ADMA is surely at the bottom of the integrity
scale, and on many counts far below the basic requirements the ACCC
expects.
- Since the 1999-2000 Code "Authority" report, ADMA has
consistently claimed "500" or "more than 500" corporate
members - in its website, submissions to government enquiries, and in
subsequent reports, but its membership was 370 in October 1998
and no more than 443 in September 2003. Unless it is believed
that the supposed industry peak body for list-based marketing can't
maintain its website to reflect its own fee-paying membership (who
supposedly rely on their ADMA membership for credibility) then the ACCC
and all other government bodies should regard these claims
of "500" corporate members as deliberate deception.
- ADMA's claims of high coverage of outbound telemarketing are
similarly deceptive. ADMA knows very well that it covers only a
small fraction of outbound telemarketers.
- ADMA's apparent failure to mention to the ACCC that there is
another telemarketing industry body - the ATA - is further proof that
ADMA is trying to avoid proper scrutiny, and has no genuine interest in
the truth or in genuine industry self-regulation. Likewise ADMA's
complete failure to mention the ATA on its site and its apparent
failure to notify the ATA of this authorisation application.
(Similarly, the ATA's complete lack of mention of ADMA or its Code -
and instead suggesting consumers contact the ATA if they have a problem
with telemarketers - indicates that the ATA has no interest in the
truth or in proper regulation.)
- ADMA has never acted to genuinely limit telemarketing calls to
those who express a desire to receive them - yet this is the only
possible way of protecting the public.
There are no-doubt many more aspects to ADMA's lack of integrity - but
its not just ADMA specifically which would be unable to have the
required high integrity required of any government-authorised industry
self-regulator.
The entire notion of an industry body
successfully curtailing a pernicious business practice to achieve
proper consumer protection, when that "industry" is entirely based on
this pernicious business practice, means that no industry body, which
represents industry participants, could ever survive if acted seriously
to protect consumers.
The logic of this is
inexorable: the interests of the industry participants is inherently at
odds with the interests of the public, because the "industry" is based
on an exploitative business practice which is intrusive and costly to -
and rejected by - the vast majority of businesses and consumers who are
targeted. So its probably not fair to blame ADMA for its failure
to genuinely seek consumer protection - just as it would hardly be fair
to blame foxes for being constitutionally incapable of protecting
chickens. Like foxes, telemarketers and ADMA would starve if
their quarry was genuinely protected. It is unrealistic to
expect a self-regulatory body like ADMA, in an industry based on
exploitation of the public, to genuinely protect the public.
3 - Approval of ADMA's code has serious broad costs for the public
and for policy development
For the ACCC to approve this entirely
deficient form of so-called consumer protection is firstly to deceive
the public that this is in fact effective and that ADMA has the
integrity and capability to protect the public from outbound
telemarketing. This would be a dereliction of the ACCC's
formal and moral duty to the public. Such a decision
would force the public, in the years to come, to negotiate a minefield
of potentially
overlapping and often deficient, poorly run, toothless, non-government
alternative dispute resolution arrangements. Citizens pay their
taxes and comply with the laws with the reasonable expectation that the
governments they fund, and give legitimacy to, will act to protect them.
But there would be further long-term costs to the public if this
approval was made. Firstly, the government approval for
open-slather telemarketing (with an ineffectual and privacy violating
opt-out list) is then seen as a supposedly acceptable benchmark for
other aspects of government policy and industry self-regulation.
Chris Connolly discovered an instance of a state electricity marketing
code which copied ADMA's telemarketing hours - no-doubt in part because
these hours are "ACCC-approved".
Secondly, whenever the question of telemarketing regulation arises,
ADMA and others who are opposed to real regulation (including those in
government, politics, the bureaucracy and other industries who are
opposed to genuine, hard, regulation) can deflect calls for proper
regulation by pointing to the "ADMA's ACCC-approved Code of Practice,
with its Independent Code Authority" as an already existing arrangement
which properly protects consumers.
By refusing to re-authorise this Code, the ACCC would be reversing its
mistake of 1999. It would be withdrawing government support for
this worse then
useless Code and its untrustworthy sponsor, ADMA, and thereby providing
a basis on which proper regulation can be developed. Proper
regulation of telemarketing is opt-in. Worlds best practice of
telemarketing regulation is at least at the level of the USA's privacy
protective opt-out list, with hard government legislation for real
fines (USD$11,000 per call).
I have run out of time to complete this submission. But even if
only a fraction of the problems highlighted here were true, then ACCC
approval for ADMA's code would be impossible to contemplate.
There may be a relatively small number of submissions opposing ADMA's
application, due to this not being a publicly advertised process, due
to privacy advocates having their hands full with many other issues,
and also due to this week having two privacy conferences in Sydney.
I trust that the ACCC will consider all these points carefully, and
take a close look at major developments in telemarketing regulation
which have taken place in Europe and the USA since 1999.
Attachments
I will supply these in hard copy - and
I ask that the ACCC print these documents too since they can best be
considered on paper, rather than on screen.
- An explanation of how to comply with the US TSR (Telemarketing
Sales Rule): http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/tsrcomp.htm
.
- US Federal
Trade Commission 16 CFR Part 310 Telemarketing Sales Rule; Final Rule: http://www.ftc.gov/os/2003/01/tsrfrn.pdf
.
- A text file I prepared from ADMA's site, listing their members
(with duplicates removed) and with list suppliers and telemarketers
flagged: ADMA-members-2003-09-09.txt
(In this version of the submission, emailed as a single file to
the ACCC, for simplicity I have appended this text below.)
Australian Direct Marketing
Association members 9 September 2003.
List and Telemarketing Services
members flagged with L and T.
303
Advertising
SUBIACO WA
360
Partnership
SYDNEY
A.P.V.C.
Business Holdings
P/L ROBINA QLD
A1 Green
House
Printing
HAYMARKET NSW
AAMI
Insurance Company
Ltd MELBOURNE
AAPT
Ltd
SYDNEY
ACE
Insurance
Limited
SYDNEY
ACP
Publishing Pty
Ltd
SYDNEY
Action
Direct Marketing Pty
Ltd MALVERN VIC
T Active
Mail
TAREN POINT NSW
L
Acxiom
SYDNEY
T Advantage
Communications & Marketing NORTH PERTH
Advertising
Depot
PADDINGTON QLD
AdXplorer
WOOLLAHRA NSW
AGL
Energy Sales &
Marketing NORTH SYDNEY
Air New
Zealand
SYDNEY
Allegiance Marketing Pty
Ltd MANLY NSW
Allens
Stores Pty
Ltd
FYSHWICK ACT
American
Express International
Inc SYDNEY
American
Home Assurance
Company MELBOURNE
AMP
SYDNEY
Amway of
Australia
CASTLE HILL NSW
ANZ
Bank
MELBOURNE
AOL/7
Pty
Ltd
CHATSWOOD NSW
AP Mail
Management Pty
Ltd PARRAMATTA NSW
T Atlantis
Information Services P/L
GLADESVILLE NSW
Audi
Australia Pty
Ltd
CONCORD WEST NSW
Aussie
Mortgage
Market
SYDNEY
AUSTAR
Entertainment
SOUTH SYDNEY
L Australasian
Medical Publishing Co STRAWBERRY HILLS NSW
Australia
Post
MELBOURNE
Australian Business
Limited NORTH SYDNEY
Australian Central Credit
Union ADELAIDE
Australian Committee For Unicef
Ltd SYDNEY SOUTH
Australian Direct Marketing Association KINGS
CROSS NSW
Australian
Envelopes
NOTTING HILL VIC
Australian Pensioners Insurance Agency MELBOURNE
Australian Quality
Monitoring MANLY NSW
Australian Red
Cross
SOUTH CARLTON VIC
Australian Unity
Limited
SOUTH MELBOURNE
Australian Wine Selectors Pty
Ltd HUNTER REGION
MC NSW
AVIS
Australia
MASCOT NSW
Avnet
Computer
Marketing
NORTH RYDE NSW
AWDM
SURRY HILLS NSW
L Axiom
Databases / Marketing & Communications ARTARMON
NSW
Bank of
Western
Australia PERTH
Batey
Vida
THE ROCKS NSW
Baycorp
Advantage Marketing Solutions SYDNEY
BCM
Direct
FORTITUDE VALLEY QLD
Berger
Software Pty
Ltd
NORTH RYDE NSW
Black
Box Network Services Australia CROYDON VIC
Black
Ink
BRISBANE
Blue
Star Print Group
Australia SILVERWATER NSW
T Blueprint
Management Group Pty
Ltd SYDNEY
T Boomerang
Integrated Marketing & Advertising BALMAIN NSW
Boystown
Lotteries
MILTON QLD
Brett
Goulston and
Associates CROWS NEST NSW
Bristow
Prentice Lambaart
Budd ALBERT PARK VIC
Brown
Melhuish Fishlock Pty
Ltd PYRMONT NSW
T Call Centre
INTEGRITY Pty
Ltd MILSONS POINT NSW
callcentres.net Pty
Ltd
NORTH SYDNEY
Caltex
Australia
SYDNEY
Candida
Stationery Pty
Ltd LIDCOMBE NORTH NSW
Capital
Finance Australia
Ltd SYDNEY
Carlson
Marketing
Group
SYDNEY
CCH
Australia
Ltd
SYDNEY
Cellarmaster Wines Pty
Ltd BONDI
JUNCTION
Children's Cancer Institute Australia for Medical Research
RANDWICK NSW
Chippendale
CONCORD WEST NSW
Chubb
Home Security Pty
Limited ASHFIELD NSW
CIGNA
International Marketing Aust. SYDNEY
Citibank
Limited
SYDNEY
Clayton
Utz
SYDNEY
Clemenger Proximity Pty
Ltd ST LEONARDS NSW
CNet
Direct
BROADWAY NSW
Cojo
CHATSWOOD NSW
Colourcraft Printing Pty
Ltd KEYSBOROUGH VIC
Commonwealth
Bank
SYDNEY
Commonwealth Securities
Limited SYDNEY
L T Comprite Pty
Ltd
RED HILL QLD
L Construction
Research of Aust. VICTORIA PARK WA
T Contact Centres
Australia Pty Ltd SURRY HILLS NSW
T Controlled
Marketing
WEST PERTH
Cumming
Agency & Studios Pty
Ltd DARLINGTON
Curtis
Jones & Brown
Advertising BALMAIN NSW
T Customers 1 to1
Pty
Ltd
CHATSWOOD NSW
CW
Agencies
Inc
VANCOUVER BC 0
Dale and
Waters
PERTH WA
Dalton
Fine
Paper
SCORESBY VIC
Data
Active
ORMOND VIC
Data
Demographics Pty
Ltd SYDNEY
Data
Solutions
Australia
NORTH SYDNEY
Database
Communications Pty
Ltd MELBOURNE
Database
Consultants Australia (DCA) NORTH
MELBOURNE
DataTools Pty
Ltd
PARRAMATTA NSW
Day-Timers Pty
Limited
HORNSBY NSW
Demedia
Australia Pty
Ltd EAST BURWOOD
VIC
Desktop
Marketing Systems Pty Ltd (DTMS) BLACKBURN VIC
Deutsche
Post Global Mail (Aust.) MASCOT NSW
Dibbs
Barker Gosling
Lawyers SYDNEY
Diners
Club Pty
Ltd
MELBOURNE
T Direct
Connect
SYDNEY
Direct
Mail & Marketing Pty
Ltd DANDENONG SOUTH VIC
Direct
Mail Services Pty
Ltd MASCOT NSW
Direct
Marketing Services Pty
Ltd CREMORNE
JUNCTION NSW
Direct
Marketing
Software TOOWONG
QLD
DK
Marketing Pty
Ltd
BUNDALL QLD
dmc
Direct Print
Solutions BURWOOD VIC
Doubleday Australia Pty
Ltd LANE COVE NSW
Draft
SYDNEY
L Drake List
Management
MELBOURNE
Dun
&
Bradstreet
MELBOURNE
Dymocks
(NSW) Pty
Ltd
SYDNEY
Dynamic
Press
DEE WHY NSW
e-dm.com.au pty
ltd
SOUTH YARRA VIC
e-fill
Pty
Ltd
PORT MELBOURNE
Elcom
Credit Union
Ltd
GOROKAN NSW
Elders
Ltd
ADELAIDE
L Emailcash
Marketing Pty
Ltd CHATSWOOD NSW
Encyclopaedia Britannica Aust. Ltd NORTH
SYDNEY
Endeavour
Foundation
FORTITUDE VALLEY QLD
Energex
Retail Pty
Ltd
BRISBANE
EnergyAustralia
SYDNEY
Enterprise Marketing Pty
Ltd MOSMAN NSW
Envelope
Specialists
OSBORNE PARK WA
Epitact
Pty
Ltd
KENMORE EAST QLD
Ergon
Energy Pty
Ltd
BRISBANE CENTRAL
Erskine
Dental
MACKSVILLE NSW
ESG
Direct
SYDNEY
Euro
RSCG
Partnership
NORTH SYDNEY
Evalue
SURRY HILLS NSW
Express
Logistics International ALEXANDRIA NSW
EXTRAFILM
SOUTHPORT QLD
Ezyhealth Company Pty
Ltd GOLD COAST MC
f2-
Australia & New Zealand Pty
Ltd PYRMONT NSW
Fairfax
SYDNEY
Faxem
International Pty
Ltd NEWPORT NSW
FCB
Sydney
PYRMONT NSW
Finger
Graphics Pty
Ltd
ELTHAM NORTH VIC
Flight
Centre
Limited
BRISBANE
Flightcentre
Corporate
SYDNEY
FOXTEL
Management Pty
Ltd SYDNEY
Friend
Group Pty
Ltd
MILLERS POINT NSW
Fuel
Marketing Solutions Pty
Ltd RICHMOND VIC
Fuji
Xerox
Australia
NORTH RYDE NSW
Future
Sources
ALEXANDRIA NSW
Gallery
Global Network
Ltd EAST SYDNEY
GE
Capital Finance
Australia RICHMOND VIC
Gembold
Holdings Pty
Ltd PERTH
George
Patterson
Bates
SYDNEY
Geospend
- Div. of Australia Post MELBOURNE
L Global
Contact Solutions Pty
Ltd SURREY
HILLS VIC
Global
Loyalty
NORTH SYDNEY
Gold
Corporation
PERTH
Golden
Casket Lottery Corp. Ltd. COORPAROO D.C QLD
Government Employees Superannuation Board PERTH
Greater
Building Society
Ltd HAMILTON NSW
Greenpeace Australia Pacific
Ltd SYDNEY
Grey³ Pty
Ltd
KINGSTON ACT /
MILSONS POINT NSW /
MELBOURNE
Guide
Dog Ass. of NSW and ACT CHATSWOOD NSW
Guide
Dog Association of
Victoria KEW VIC
Harlequin Enterprises (Australia) CHATSWOOD DC NSW
Harstel
Pty Ltd - Celebrity
Wigs MELBOURNE
Heritage
Fine
Wines
SYDNEY
Hewlett
Packard
NORTH RYDE NSW
Hi Fert
Pty
Ltd
MELBOURNE
T Hogan Marketing
Services
SYDNEY
Holiday
Concepts Corporation P/L RICHMOND VIC
Home
Building Society
Ltd EAST PERTH
Hopewiser
Ltd
MELBOURNE
Horizon
Media
NEUTRAL BAY NSW
Horwitz
Publications Pty
Ltd ST LEONARDS NSW
HPA Pty
Ltd
MATRAVILLE NSW
HSBC
Bank Australia
Limited SYDNEY
Hulsbosch Pty
Ltd
NEUTRAL BAY NSW
Hyundai
Automotive Distributors CONCORD WEST NSW
ICLP Pty
Ltd
CROWS NEST NSW
T ICT Australia Pty
Ltd
SYDNEY
IDG
Communications Pty
Ltd ST LEONARDS NSW
iGo
Direct Pty
Ltd
SOUTH MELBOURNE
IIR Pty
Ltd
NORTH SYDNEY
T
iLeo
MCMAHONS POINT NSW
Illawarra Mutual Building Society WOLLONGONG
L IncNet -
Marketing
Orientations NORTH SYDNEY
L Independent
Direct Marketing Solutions ROZELLE
Informa
Australia Pty
Ltd SYDNEY
T Information
Dialling Services WATERLOO
DC NSW
Information Technology Mailing Services SOUTHPORT
BC QLD
ING
Direct
SYDNEY
ING
Marketing & Advertising
GLEBE NSW
Innotek
Australia Pty
Ltd MUDGEERABA QLD
Innovations
Direct
FRENCHS FOREST NSW
Insurance Australia
Group SYDNEY
Insuranceline Pty
Ltd
SYDNEY
Intech
Solutions
BONDI JUNCTION NSW
Integrated Mailing
Services TULLAMARINE VIC
Integrated
Options
THE ROCKS NSW
International Masters Publishers SYDNEY
Intouch
Call Centre
Services MILTON QLD
T IT Direct Pty
Ltd
RYDALMERE NSW
J.S
McMillan Pty
Ltd
REGENTS PARK NSW
Jaeger
Fine Papers Pty
Ltd BROOKVALE NSW
JDA
Solutions
JOLIMONT WA
JMG
Marketing (Aust) Pty
Ltd PERTH
Job Find
Centre
SYDNEY
Kinergy
Pty
Ltd
SURRY HILLS NSW
Kirin
Direct
Marketing
MONA VALE NSW
Kleenmaid Pty
Ltd
MAROOCHYDORE SOUTH QLD
Lavender
SYDNEY
Legends
Genuine
Memorabilia CAMPERDOWN NSW
T Legion Interactive
Pty
Ltd EAST SYDNEY
Lilyfield
Printing
REGENTS PARK NSW
Linda
Loose Marketing & Communications PORT
MELBOURNE
T Link
Communications
Corporation MELBOURNE
L List
Marketing
Australasia ELSTERNWICK
VIC
LookSmart
Australia
SURRY HILLS NSW
Lotteries Commission of W.A.
OSBORNE PARK WA
Loud Pty
Ltd
NORTH SYDNEY
Loyalty
Magic Pty
Ltd
MELBOURNE
M&CSaatchi
SYDNEY
Magnamail Pty
Ltd
BROOKVALE NSW
Mail
Marketing Works Pty
Ltd LANE COVE NSW
Mailing
and Print Services Pty
Ltd FRENCHS
FOREST NSW
Mailmasters Pty
Ltd
NORTH SYDNEY
Make It
Happen Pty
Ltd
BELROSE
Manchester Holdings Pty
Ltd WOOLOOWIN QLD
L
Mardev
CHATSWOOD NSW
Marketability
MELBOURNE
Marketforce
WEST PERTH
L Marketing
Direct Australia Pty
Ltd KEW VIC
Marketing eServices Pty
Ltd SOUTHBANK VIC
Marketsoft Services Pty
Ltd CROWS NEST NSW
Markitforce Pty
Ltd
MOOREBANK NSW
Martin
College
SYDNEY
MasterCard
International
NORTH SYDNEY
McCann
Erickson
Advertising FORTITUDE VALLEY
QLD
Medecins
Sans
Frontieres
BROADWAY NSW
MercerBell Pty
Ltd
SYDNEY
Metropolitan Ambulance Service Vic DONCASTER VIC
L Mezzo
Marketing Australia Pty
Ltd NORTH
SYDNEY
Michael
Page Sales &
Marketing SYDNEY
MindWorks Marketing
Communications ULTIMO NSW
Mission
Australia
SYDNEY
MLC
Limited
MELBOURNE
Moore
Gallagher Pty
Ltd
ALEXANDRIA NSW
T Morganisation Pty
Ltd
OBERON NSW
Morris
International
BUNDALL QLD
T MRM Partners
Worldwide
WOOLLOOMOOLOO NSW
Mt Eliza
Business
School
MELBOURNE
Multiple
Sclerosis Society of Qld. COORPAROO DC QLD
National
Australia
Bank
MELBOURNE
National
Geographic
Society WASHINGTON DC 0
National
Pharmacies
ADELAIDE
NCR
Australia Pty
Ltd
NORTH SYDNEY
Nestle
Australia
Ltd
SYDNEY
Network
Data Management Pty
Ltd SOUTHPORT QLD
New
Internationalist Publications ADELAIDE
New
Zealand Post
International ALEXANDRIA NSW
Niagara
Therapy Manufacturing (AUST) LOGANHOLME D.C QLD
Nickelodeon
Australia
SYDNEY
Noble
Systems Australia Pty
Ltd SYDNEY
Norcross
Pty
Ltd
MORNINGTON VIC
T NSP Telemarketing
Pty
Ltd AUBURN NSW
NSW
Seniors
Card
SYDNEY
NSW
Teachers Credit
Union HOMEBUSH NSW
Nutrimetics International (Aust.) BALMAIN NSW
Offset
Alpine Printing Pty
Ltd LIDCOMBE NSW
On The
Pulse Marketing Pty
Ltd ROZELLE NSW
One 2
One Marketing Pty
Ltd NORTH SYDNEY
One To
One Marketing Communications KENT TOWN SA
Opsm
Direct
AUBURN NSW
Origin
Energy
MELBOURNE
Oxfam
Community Aid
Abroad FITZROY VIC
P &
O Princess Cruises Intern. Ltd. SYDNEY
L Pacific
Micromarketing
MELBOURNE
Pacific
Publications
MCMAHONS POINT NSW
Pack One
&
Post
ROCKDALE DC NSW
Pathfinder
Solutions
MELBOURNE
Penfold
Buscombe
MT WAVERLEY VIC
Performance Edge
Systems
SYDNEY
Permail
Pty
Ltd
LANE COVE NSW
Phoenix
Society
Incorporated MARLESTON SA
Pinpoint
Pty
Ltd
BALMAIN NSW
Placard
Pty
Ltd
BAYSWATER VIC
PMP
Distribution /
Print
MOORABBIN VIC
Police
& Nurses Credit Society
Ltd EAST PERTH
Police
Credit
CARLTON VIC
Post
Data
OSBORNE PARK WA
Preferred Design Pty
Ltd
LABRADOR QLD
L Prime
Prospects Pty
Ltd
FITZROY VIC
ProVision Eye Care Pty
Ltd PRAHRAN VIC
Publicis
Dialog
EAST SYDNEY /
SOUTH BRISBANE
Qantas
Airways
Ltd
MASCOT NSW
QAS Pty
Ltd
NORTH SYDNEY
QM
Technologies Pty
Ltd
SOUTH BRISBANE
R.S.L.A.(QLD Branch) War Veterans' Homes Art Union
RED HILL QLD
RAC
PERTH WA
RACV
NOBLE PARK NORTH VIC
Radio
Rentals
PROSPECT SA
RAMS
Home Loans Pty
Ltd
SYDNEY
Rapp
Collins
Australia
ULTIMO NSW
RCI
Pacific Pty
Ltd
GCMC QLD
Reader's
Digest
SYDNEY
Recruit
Direct
CROWS NEST NSW
ReMark
Asia Pacific Pty
Ltd NORTH SYDNEY
Renard
CHIPPENDALE NSW
Resonate
Solutions Pty
Ltd NORTH SYDNEY
Response
Direct Publishing Pty
Ltd DOUBLE BAY NSW
Response
Systems
International DOUBLE BAY NSW
Robe-John & Associates Pty
Ltd HAWTHORN EAST VIC
Ross
Direct
Recruitment
MCMAHONS POINT NSW
Royal
Automobile Association of
SA MILE END SA
Royal
Blind Society
of NSW BURWOOD NSW
Royal
Children's Hospital Foundation HERSTON QLD
Royal
Doulton
Company
GORDON NSW
Royal
Flying Doctor Service of Australia (Victorian Section)
ST KILDA VIC
Royal
Institute for Deaf & Blind Children
PARRAMATTA NSW
Royal
Victoria Institute For The Blind MELBOURNE
Saatchi
&
Saatchi
THE ROCKS NSW
T
Salmat
CHESTER HILL NSW
SAS
Institute
Australia
LANE COVE NSW
Scenic
Tours and Evergreen
Tours SYDNEY
Scholastic at
Home
GOSFORD NSW
Securities Institute
Education AUSTRALIA SQUARE NSW
Security
Mailing Services Pty Limited KINGSGROVE NSW
Seeing
Eye Dogs
Australia
KENSINGTON VIC
Select
Teleresources
SYDNEY
T Sensis
(Telstra phone directories) FITZROY VIC
Service
Corporation Intern. Aust. CROWS NEST NSW
Seton
Australia Pty
Ltd
REGENTS PARK NSW
Shell
Company of Australia
Ltd MELBOURNE
Shop-A-Docket Pty
Ltd
BRIGHTON-LE-SANDS NSW
Shorter
Direct
EAST PERTH
Simm
Group Marketing Pty
Ltd SOUTH MELBOURNE
Simon
Richards Group Pty
Ltd PORT MELBOURNE
Simplot
Australia Pty
Ltd CHELTENHAM VIC
Singtel
Optus Pty
Limited NORTH
SYDNEY
Sirius
Telecommunications
MELBOURNE
T Smart Health
Australia
(Aust) BALACLAVA VIC
South
Australian Tourism Commission ADELAIDE
Spark
Brand Communications Pty
Ltd ULTIMO NSW
Spicers
Envelopes
PRESTON VIC
St
George
Bank
KOGARAH NSW
Star
City
Casino
SYDNEY
State
Library of NSW
Foundation SYDNEY
T Stellar Call
Centres Pty
Ltd NORTH SYDNEY
Sterling
Mail Order Pty
Ltd PYMBLE NSW
Storepack
Fulfilment
WETHERILL PARK NSW
Suncorp
Metway
Ltd
BRISBANE
Sunsuper
Pty
Ltd
MILTON QLD
Sydney
Swans
Limited
PADDINGTON
Synchro
Marketing Australia P/L NORTH SYDNEY
Tactics
Marketing Pty
Ltd BROOKVALE NSW
Tactix
Creative Pty
Ltd
NORTH MELBOURNE
Tattersalls Gaming Pty
Ltd MELBOURNE
Telstra
Corporation
Ltd
MELBOURNE
Telstra
Super Pty
Ltd
MELBOURNE MAIL CENTRE
Tesselaar Bulbs &
Flowers SILVAN VIC
Text
Pacific
PYRMONT NSW
The Age
Company
Ltd
MELBOURNE
The
Australian Kidney
Foundation ADELAIDE
The
Bakery Marketing
Communications ST
LEONARDS NSW
The
Benevolent
Society
PADDINGTON NSW
The
Brand
Agency
WEST PERTH
The
Cancer
Council
KINGS CROSS
The
Clark
Alliance
WOOLLAHRA NSW
The
Direct Partnership Pty
Ltd ARTARMON NSW
The
Federal Publishing
Company ALEXANDRIA NSW
The Fred
Hollows
Foundation BURWOOD NSW
L The Great
Australian List Company P/L TERRIGAL NSW
The
Intelligent
Investor
BONDI JUNCTION NSW
L The List Bank
Pty
Ltd
NORTH SYDNEY
The
Loyalty
Factor
ADELAIDE
L The Mailing
List
Centre
SPIT JUNCTION NSW
The
Mailing
Professionals
SCMC NSW
The
Marketing Business Pty
Ltd BENDIGO CENTRAL VIC
The
Marketing Department
Group ST LEONARDS NSW
The
Marketing Store
Worldwide ULTIMO NSW
The
Moult
Agency
THE ROCKS NSW
L The Prospect
Shop Pty
Ltd WOOLLAHRA NSW
The
Quantium Group Pty
Ltd SYDNEY
The
Right Mix Pty
Ltd
ADELAIDE
The
Royal Automobile Club of Qld. BRISBANE
The
Salvation Army (Sth Terr. Headq.) MONT
ALBERT VIC
The
Smith
Family
CAMPERDOWN NSW
The
Spastic Centre of NSW
BROOKVALE NSW
The
Wedgwood Collectors
Society CASTLE HILL NSW
The Wine
Society
MELBOURNE
T Thomas Direct Pty
Ltd
RUNAWAY BAY QLD
ThompsonConnect
Worldwide SYDNEY
Thomson
Education
Direct
ARTARMON NSW
Tibet
Direct
CHIPPENDALE NSW
Ticketek
SYDNEY
Time
Inc.
Magazines
MILSONS POINT NSW
Time
Life
Australia
SYDNEY
TKTS Pty
Ltd
NORTH SYDNEY
TMP/Hudson Global
Resources SYDNEY
Tolemy
Communications (Australia) CROWS NEST NSW
Tonic
Communications
GLEBE NSW
Top Gear
Pty
Ltd
SILVERWATER NSW
Toppik
Pty
Ltd
MIDDLE PARK VIC
Torque
Solutions
MCMAHONS POINT NSW
Total
Advertising & Communications PYRMONT NSW
T Touch Point
Solutions
NEWCASTLE NSW
Tourism
Tasmania
HOBART
Tower
Australia
Ltd
MILSONS POINT NSW
TrademarkDM Pty
Ltd
MELBOURNE
Trading
Post Australia Pty
Ltd PARRAMATTA NSW
Transamerica Direct Marketing Australia Pty/Ltd =
= Transamerica Insurance Marketing Asia
Pacific
SYDNEY
Trendwest Resorts South
Pacific GOLD COAST
Triad
Promotional Marketing P/L DRUMMOYNE NSW
TXU Pty
Ltd
MELBOURNE
Vickerman Direct Pty
Ltd SYDNEY
Viking
Office Products Pty
Ltd RYDALMERE NSW
Virtual
Communities
MELBOURNE
Visible
Results Australia P/L SYDNEY
Vision
Australia
Foundation BRIGHTON VIC
VisitBritain
NORTH SYDNEY
Vodafone
Australia
CHATSWOOD NSW
WA
Sports Centre
Trust
CLAREMONT WA
wam
Advertising
SOUTH MELBOURNE
Wentworth
Mutual
PERTH
L White Horse
Direct
Marketing WEST END QLD
Whybin
Lawrence
TBWA
PYRMONT NSW
Wine
Directions Australia Pty
Ltd ADELAIDE
Witness
Systems
NORTH SYDNEY
World
Class Direct
Mail
PORT MELBOURNE
World
Vision of
Australia BURWOOD
EAST VIC
WSPA
Australia
Limited
ST LEONARDS NSW
Wunderman Pty
Ltd
NORTH SYDNEY
X-Beam
Australia Pty
Ltd CASTLE
HILL NSW
L Xpedite
Systems Pty
Limited SYDNEY
Young
Direct Pty
Ltd
NORTH SYDNEY
Z-Card
Asia
Pacific
ALEXANDRIA NSW
Zebra
Direction
RICHMOND VIC
Zoological Parks Board of
NSW MOSMAN NSW
.