Hello group,

I work in market research (I emphasise, *not* telemarketing) and am 
interested in exploring the viability of random digit dial methodology 
in the UK.  One issue for smaller research companies that do not have 
large telephone rooms equipped with autodiallers is whether any given 
telephone number may be in service.  Manually screening against dead 
lines in a random digit generated context adds significant cost for 
these smaller companies.

It used to be legal in the UK to do what Ofcom call "number scanning", 
which is programming a dialler to loop through random numbers and, on 
establishing that a given numer was in service, hanging up.  The reason 
why Ofcom quite rightly have outlawed this is that for a portion of such 
'call' recipients, the ringtone was either heard or, with 1471 either 
picking up no caller ID or something they did not recognise.  One can 
easily imagaine that for the paranoid few in some cases severe 
discomfort may well have been caused.

I have asked ESOMAR (the international market research ngo--if you like 
cross-boundary equivalent of the Market Research Society in the UK 
--www.esomar.org) to explicitly declare number scanning to be illegal, 
even in countries where it is not explicitly outlawed.  This on the 
basis that a central tenet of market research ethics is that it should 
not cause misery (I'm paraphrasing) and Ofcom's informed decision was 
that number scanning does.  I have yet to receive a reply although I 
have pointed out that two companies advertise this service including one 
that is UK-based.

Meanwhile, I discovered this link from a Canadian research company that 
seems to suggest it is possible to screen for in-service numbers without 
  resorting to number scanning:

http://www.smres.com/bi_Phone_verification_main.aspx

How might this be achieved?

Thoughts gratefully appreciated.

Chris

"Chris Dent"  wrote in message
news:_RpEk.53699$fd.43792@newsfe12.ams2...
> Hello group,
>
> I work in market research (I emphasise, *not* telemarketing)

Market research, Telemarketing, is all the same to me.  If you ring my
number I will tell you to F' OFF
Both these activities should be made illegal.  Why would I want you ringing
up wasting my time?

"Don B"  wrote in message 
news:gbta81$vs8$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> "Chris Dent"  wrote in message
> news:_RpEk.53699$fd.43792@newsfe12.ams2...
>> Hello group,
>>
>> I work in market research (I emphasise, *not* telemarketing)
>
> Market research, Telemarketing, is all the same to me.  If you ring my
> number I will tell you to F' OFF
> Both these activities should be made illegal.  Why would I want you 
> ringing
> up wasting my time?

Yes, Ofcom needs to *all* forms of unsolicited calls from a business to be 
illegal, and no self-respecting business should regard it as an acceptible 
business practice, irrespective of its legality.

So any form of number-scanning to dial numbers at random is a no-no as far 
as I am concerned, no matter whether the number is in service or not and 
whether or not the subscriber has registered with the TPS.

Business calls shoudl only be made on an opt-in basis or to people that you 
already have a business relationship with. Anything else will get the 
standard F OFF response from me to. Anything unsolicited is SPAM! Any 
company that spams me gets added to my "never do business with and recommend 
friends to do likewise" list.

As an aside, when I was made redundant, the company sent me and my 
colleagues on a course to help us find new jobs. The course was recommending 
people to talk to friends and family and to get them to recommend business 
contacts to phone at work, effectively saying "X suggested I phone you - 
gizza job" (though not in so many words) - they called it "networking". The 
trainer said that people would be only too glad to help, which was 
completely the opposite reaction to that which most of us got when we tried 
it - most people very politely said "F OFF" and one person who I phoned said 
"How dare X give you my name? I'll be having words with him". You see, 
people don't like phone calls out of the blue from someone they've never 
heard of! How ever you dress it up, it's still spam.

On 30 Sep, 19:20, "Mortimer"  wrote:
>
> As an aside, when I was made redundant, the company sent me and my
> colleagues on a course to help us find new jobs. The course was recommending
> people to talk to friends and family and to get them to recommend business
> contacts to phone at work, effectively saying "X suggested I phone you -
> gizza job" (though not in so many words) - they called it "networking". The
> trainer said that people would be only too glad to help, which was
> ...

That got me once, but rather differently

I'd left one place, and someone there suggested another former
colleague

"I've heard Paul F's firm has got jobs going; why don't you ring him
up?"

And when I did, a language glitch became apparent:

"There are, and mine's one of them."

but we still met for a drink

"Chris Dent"  wrote in message 
news:_RpEk.53699$fd.43792@newsfe12.ams2...
> Hello group,
>
> I work in market research (I emphasise, *not* telemarketing) and am 
> interested in exploring the viability of random digit dial methodology
SNIP.
>
> Meanwhile, I discovered this link from a Canadian research company that 
> seems to suggest it is possible to screen for in-service numbers without 
> resorting to number scanning:
>
> http://www.smres.com/bi_Phone_verification_main.aspx
>
> How might this be achieved?
>
> Thoughts gratefully appreciated.
>
> Chris

...and you will be checking all the numbers, before you call them, against 
the TPS data base won't you?

...and your link doesn't appear to work.

Peter

In message <l9wEk.75244$QI5.35042@newsfe16.ams2>, Peter Andrews wrote:

> 
> "Chris Dent"  wrote in message
> news:_RpEk.53699$fd.43792@newsfe12.ams2...
>> Hello group,
>>
>> I work in market research (I emphasise, *not* telemarketing) and am
>> interested in exploring the viability of random digit dial methodology
> SNIP.
>>
>> Meanwhile, I discovered this link from a Canadian research company that
>> seems to suggest it is possible to screen for in-service numbers without
>> resorting to number scanning:
>>
>> http://www.smres.com/bi_Phone_verification_main.aspx
>>
>> How might this be achieved?
>>
>> Thoughts gratefully appreciated.
>>
>> Chris
> 
> ...and you will be checking all the numbers, before you call them, against
> the TPS data base won't you?
> 
> ...and your link doesn't appear to work.
> 
If it's for research rather than selling, he doesn't need to check the TPS.
However, anyone with even a bit of common sense would realise that people
who take the trouble to register with the TPS probably don't want to
receive any unsolicited calls and so should screen all their calls against
the TPS database. I wonder if the LibDems did for their recent foray into
alienating voters?
-- 
Dave
mail da ve@llondel.org (without the space)
http://www.llondel.org
So many gadgets, so little time

Peter Andrews wrote:
> ...and you will be checking all the numbers, before you call them, against 
> the TPS data base won't you?

Absolutely not.  The TPS is quite rightly irrelevant from the point of 
view of market research, in the UK and everywhere else.  If samples were 
screened against the TPS it would exclude 16 million of the 25 million 
residential households with fixed lines (figures off the top of my head) 
and thereby fatally undermine the external validity of any telephone 
survey.  Instead of being able to say, for example, 25% are in favour, 
you would only be able to say 25% of the one third who have not 
registered with the TPS are in favour.

It all depends on whether you see any value in having reliable 
statistics or not.  Most people, including regulatory and government 
bodies perceive a need.  Of course, you have the absolute right to 
refuse to participate in any study if you do not wish to.  Indeed, I 
have long advocated an opt-out scheme for research so that people who 
feel strongly about this have a place to go.

> ...and your link doesn't appear to work.

Its not my link but let let's try again. 
http://www.smres.com/bi_Phone_verification_main.aspx

Chris

Don B wrote:
> Market research, Telemarketing, is all the same to me.  If you ring my
> number I will tell you to F' OFF

I'll try not to call :)

> Both these activities should be made illegal.  Why would I want you ringing
> up wasting my time?

It's a colourful point of view, Don, though I note you now draw a 
distinction.  Reasons why you may be interested include that you may 
simply be interested in having people take account of your opinions. 
You may also benefit from better products and services by participating 
and prefer the stats you read to be more rather than less reliable.

Chris

In article <NPHEk.22097$Ax7.18643@newsfe14.ams2>,
 Chris Dent  writes:
> Reasons why you may be interested include that you may 
> simply be interested in having people take account of your opinions. 

I've yet to encounter an organisation doing marketing, in 40-odd years of
being marketed to, that wanted to take account of my opinions.  The way
marketing works is to replace what people want with what those doing the
marketing have.

> You may also benefit from better products and services by participating 
> and prefer the stats you read to be more rather than less reliable.

Marketing is a pseudo-religion.  Organisations do utterly ridiculous things
which are `for marketing reasons' and any attempt to challenge them as
utterly ridiculous is completely unacceptable and paid no attention to.
I've seen this happen dozens of times, from inside and outside many
companies, institutions, and other organisations, and the response is
always the same.

The notion that out there, there are marketing people that actually want to
take account of people's opinions is on a par with Gandhi's well-publicised
view of Western civilisation.
-- 
SAm.

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Chris Dent   wrote:

> Peter Andrews wrote:
>> ...and you will be checking all the numbers, before you call them,
>> against the TPS data base won't you?
>
> Absolutely not.  The TPS is quite rightly irrelevant from the point of
> view of market research, in the UK and everywhere else.  If samples
> were screened against the TPS it would exclude 16 million of the 25
> million residential households with fixed lines (figures off the top
> of my head) and thereby fatally undermine the external validity of
> any telephone survey.  Instead of being able to say, for example, 25%
> are in favour, you would only be able to say 25% of the one third who
> have not registered with the TPS are in favour.
>
Whilst accepting that it's not *illegal* to ring those registered with TPS 
for *genuine* market research purposes, it's still a good idea *not* to for 
several reasons:
* My guess - without having any specific evidence to prove it - is that the 
vast majority who register with TPS (many via BT *Privacy*) don't want to 
receive unsolicited calls of *any* kind
* Most people registered with TPS will be suspicious about calls 
*purporting* to be for market research purposes because quite a lot of such 
calls are clearly not, and are simply a cynical attempt to get round the 
rules
* In the light of the above you will simply piss off most people, and not 
get any quality information from them, anyway
-- 
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

Mortimer wrote:
> Yes, Ofcom needs to *all* forms of unsolicited calls from a business to be 
> illegal, and no self-respecting business should regard it as an acceptible 
> business practice, irrespective of its legality.

This is an extreme view and not one which is ever likely to become 
prominent.  Almost every self-respecting business conducts market 
research.  If they didn't, products and services would much less match 
your needs.  Oh yes, Ofcom conducts millions of pounds worth of market 
research each year...

...why is that?  Because they wish to drive you nuts with their 'spam' 
or because the results inform the regulation of the telecoms and other 
communication sectors?

> So any form of number-scanning to dial numbers at random is a no-no as far 
> as I am concerned, no matter whether the number is in service or not and 
> whether or not the subscriber has registered with the TPS.

Number scanning is rightly illegal because associated silent calls can 
cause distress.  That's why I am looking for an alternative means of 
finding out whether a given number is in service that is less expensive 
than manually dialling and avoids this distress.  Since I am not in 
telemarketing, the TPS doesn't come into it.

Please also note that big companies--in your terms, the major 
telespammers--have the dialling equipment anyway so its not an issue 
with them; just the small outfits that are less likely to call you anyway.

> Business calls shoudl only be made on an opt-in basis or to people that you 
> already have a business relationship with. Anything else will get the 
> standard F OFF response from me to. Anything unsolicited is SPAM! Any 
> company that spams me gets added to my "never do business with and recommend 
> friends to do likewise" list.

Having established your anti-spam credentials within the NG (we can all 
now agree you are a really good guy), I very much doubt that you adopt 
your stated position in practice.  Of course you have every right not to 
participate in any study you may be selected for but I do hope you are a 
bit more polite in turning down the opportunity than you suggest you may be.

The fundamental problem is that generalisable reliable statistics 
*cannot* be derived from opt-in sources.  If you feel society can do 
without reliable statistics your position is valid; otherwise it is 
simply hot air.

> You see, 
> people don't like phone calls out of the blue from someone they've never 
> heard of! How ever you dress it up, it's still spam. 

Bizillions of telephone interviews are successfully conducted every year 
so clearly not many share your view.  It's a shame this vocal minority 
cannot also be persuaded to participate since the effect is that their 
views are excluded.  The fact is that until you are counted, you don't 
count.

Does anyone have any ideas how the Canadians may be verifying their numbers?
Chris

The message 
from "Dave {Reply Address in.Sig}" <noone$$@llondel.org> contains these words:

> In message <l9wEk.75244$QI5.35042@newsfe16.ams2>, Peter Andrews wrote:

> > 
> > "Chris Dent"  wrote in message
> > news:_RpEk.53699$fd.43792@newsfe12.ams2...
> >> Hello group,
> >>
> >> I work in market research (I emphasise, *not* telemarketing) and am
> >> interested in exploring the viability of random digit dial methodology
> > SNIP.
> >>
> >> Meanwhile, I discovered this link from a Canadian research company that
> >> seems to suggest it is possible to screen for in-service numbers without
> >> resorting to number scanning:
> >>
> >> http://www.smres.com/bi_Phone_verification_main.aspx
> >>
> >> How might this be achieved?
> >>
> >> Thoughts gratefully appreciated.
> >>
> >> Chris
> > 
> > ...and you will be checking all the numbers, before you call them, against
> > the TPS data base won't you?
> > 
> > ...and your link doesn't appear to work.
> > 
> If it's for research rather than selling, he doesn't need to check the TPS.
> However, anyone with even a bit of common sense would realise that people
> who take the trouble to register with the TPS probably don't want to
> receive any unsolicited calls and so should screen all their calls against
> the TPS database. I wonder if the LibDems did for their recent foray into
> alienating voters?



I thought that "research" was considered to be the same as a sales call
as the Liberal Party found out recently not that there is much chance of
TPS/OFCOM/OIC doing any more than issue yet another warning.

I was surprised that the Liberals were only given a warning because
there was plenty of discussion about it in the media and the consensus
seems to be that it would be illegal.  Also there was the hypocrisy of
the Liberals having previous complained about other parties doing
exactly the same.  Perhaps they just decided to let them go ahead as it
would be another 250,000 who will be unlikely to vote Liberal in future.

Sam Nelson wrote:
> I've yet to encounter an organisation doing marketing, in 40-odd years of
> being marketed to, that wanted to take account of my opinions.  The way
> marketing works is to replace what people want with what those doing the
> marketing have.

I think you are confusing marketing with market research.  FWIW, I can 
easily agree that a lot of market research is of dubious value from the 
standpoint of society.  OTOH, a lot of it isn't.

> The notion that out there, there are marketing people that actually want to
> take account of people's opinions is on a par with Gandhi's well-publicised
> view of Western civilisation.

I have to disagree with you there.  It is an utterly stupid marketer who 
  takes no notice of the views of his potential customers.  The only 
likely result would be that vast sums of money will be wasted producing 
and marketing stuff which people will not buy.

Chris

Roger Mills wrote:
> Whilst accepting that it's not *illegal* to ring those registered with TPS 
> for *genuine* market research purposes, it's still a good idea *not* to for 
> several reasons:
> * My guess - without having any specific evidence to prove it - is that the 
> vast majority who register with TPS (many via BT *Privacy*) don't want to 
> receive unsolicited calls of *any* kind

I am sure you are correct with this guess.  My view is that the research 
industry should adopt its own voluntary opt-out scheme that clearly 
distinguishes research from telemarketing but gives these people 
somewhere to go.  It's not a widely held view in research, though, since 
researchers are mindful of the impact on the external validity of their 
findings if it is made 'too easy' for people not to participate in their 
studies.  But I am sure that many who disagree with the idea operate 
in-house lists of people they do not phone because they've had an angry 
reaction.

> * Most people registered with TPS will be suspicious about calls 
> *purporting* to be for market research purposes because quite a lot of such 
> calls are clearly not, and are simply a cynical attempt to get round the 
> rules

"Sugging"--i.e. Selling Under the Guise of market research--was illegal 
long before the advent of TPS and DNC.  As with TPS, this is 
internationally accepted as bad practice and illegal in most countries. 
  People are entitled to have confidence that this should not happen and 
nowadays rarely does.

> * In the light of the above you will simply piss off most people, and not 
> get any quality information from them, anyway

My belief is that many research agencies actually do screen against the 
TPS because it reduces costs.  It is cheaper because you are right: many 
do not distinguish research from sales and refusal rates are higher 
amongst TPS-listed households; you get the same number of interviews 
with less calls.  In fact, it is also absolutely wrong from a 
methodological point of view, rendering the results of very questionable 
validity.

Great discussion--thank you all--but any idea how to ethically screen 
for subscriber allocated numbers?
Chris

NOSPAM wrote:
> I thought that "research" was considered to be the same as a sales call
> as the Liberal Party found out recently not that there is much chance of
> TPS/OFCOM/OIC doing any more than issue yet another warning.

The Information Commissioner effectively decided that the 'questions' in 
the automated calls were a ruse and that the LibDems were canvassing 
rather than conducting research.  Because the calls were electronic, by 
law you have to have *opted-in* to receive them so its not a TPS issue.

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/pressreleases/2008/lib_dem_en_final_250908.pdf

> I was surprised that the Liberals were only given a warning because
> there was plenty of discussion about it in the media and the consensus
> seems to be that it would be illegal.  Also there was the hypocrisy of
> the Liberals having previous complained about other parties doing
> exactly the same.  Perhaps they just decided to let them go ahead as it
> would be another 250,000 who will be unlikely to vote Liberal in future.

In view of the hypocrisy revealing that the LibDems ought to have been 
fully aware of the law, I too think they deserved a whopping great fine.
Chris

Chris Dent wrote:

> 
> "Sugging"--i.e. Selling Under the Guise of market research--was illegal 
> long before the advent of TPS and DNC.  As with TPS, this is 
> internationally accepted as bad practice and illegal in most countries. 
>  People are entitled to have confidence that this should not happen and 
> nowadays rarely does.

I'm very careful about these things, but even I got caught out the 
other day walking through town. I was stopped by a woman doing a 
"survey on health". I agreed to answer questions "... how often do 
you exercise, do you do any sport, are you a member of a gym..." 
etc. It was very benign, but I was given a slip of paper with a 
"privacy statement" on it and asked for my telephone number "so that 
they can make random calls to check that I'm doing my job". Back at 
my desk, I read it through and it said "You agree that we may call 
you to check that you participated in the survey and that we may 
make health and leisure related offers to you".

In the phone call that followed, I expressed my displeasure.

regards, Ian

In article <cLIEk.19358$a24.3230@newsfe17.ams2>,
 Chris Dent  writes:
> "Sugging"--i.e. Selling Under the Guise of market research--was illegal 
> long before the advent of TPS and DNC.

Eh?  It goes on all the time.  It's the angle on just about every remaining
(TPS-registered, after all) cold-call I get.

> Great discussion--thank you all--but any idea how to ethically screen 
> for subscriber allocated numbers?

Nope.  Oh dear.  Better give up the idea, then.  What a pity.
-- 
SAm.

In article <JUIEk.19397$a24.3335@newsfe17.ams2>,
 Chris Dent  writes:
> NOSPAM wrote:
> > I thought that "research" was considered to be the same as a sales call
> > as the Liberal Party found out recently not that there is much chance of
> > TPS/OFCOM/OIC doing any more than issue yet another warning.
> 
> The Information Commissioner effectively decided that the 'questions' in 
> the automated calls were a ruse and that the LibDems were canvassing 
> rather than conducting research.  Because the calls were electronic, by 
> law you have to have *opted-in* to receive them so its not a TPS issue.

Having once gone as far as writing a letter to a local travel agent, using
supporting evidence from (then) Oftel, to point out that making automated
calls was in breach of their operating licence and extracted a grovelling
apology, I thought that too---although for all I knew, the list they were
using was LibDem sympathisers that had already opted in.  I was extremely
pleased that the LibDems were stomped on.

> > I was surprised that the Liberals were only given a warning because
> > there was plenty of discussion about it in the media and the consensus
> > seems to be that it would be illegal.

This is what happens when politicians break the law.  Wendy Alexander broke
the law over campaign donations, but there's been no prosecution.  Beats me.

> In view of the hypocrisy revealing that the LibDems ought to have been 
> fully aware of the law, I too think they deserved a whopping great fine.

Likewise.
-- 
SAm.

In article <JuIEk.86086$8f7.56899@newsfe20.ams2>,
 Chris Dent  writes:
> Sam Nelson wrote:
> > I've yet to encounter an organisation doing marketing, in 40-odd years of
> > being marketed to, that wanted to take account of my opinions.  The way
> > marketing works is to replace what people want with what those doing the
> > marketing have.
> 
> I think you are confusing marketing with market research.

Eh?  `market research' is less likely to take account of my opinion than
`marketing'?  I would've thought the purpose of `market research' woould
be to find out what people want.  Wouldn't it?  Although, most of it,
when people call and claim they're doing market research, involves eventually
getting round to the one question `would you like to buy product X for
price Y?' which from where I'm sitting is a `telesales call', and
therefore extremely unwanted.

When I'm called (rarely these days, TPS _mostly_ works) I tend to short-
circuit the script that starts `I'm conducting market research...' with
`Suppose you just get on with it and tell me what you're selling?'.  If it
were genuine market research, there wouldn't be anything being sold,
would there?  But, odd as it may seem, there is, mostly.

`Marketing' is surely a way of trying to persuade people to buy product X
for price Y.  Isn't it?

> FWIW, I can 
> easily agree that a lot of market research is of dubious value from the 
> standpoint of society.  OTOH, a lot of it isn't.

Go on, then: identify a single example of market research with real benefit
to society.  GRFI.  I'd love to have a counterexample.

> > The notion that out there, there are marketing people that actually want to
> > take account of people's opinions is on a par with Gandhi's well-publicised
> > view of Western civilisation.
> 
> I have to disagree with you there.  It is an utterly stupid marketer who 
>   takes no notice of the views of his potential customers.  The only 
> likely result would be that vast sums of money will be wasted producing 
> and marketing stuff which people will not buy.

Uh, yeah.  And then, when it doesn't sell, the marketing people spin their
own failure.  They market themselves.  And, in any event, they won't be in
the same job in a few months' time, so who cares?

It is possible that there are real, respectable, ethical marketing people
out there.  They must surely realise that they rank alongside estate agents,
journalists and politicians as being viewed as complete and utter slimeballs?
-- 
SAm.

Ian Smith  wrote:
> I'm very careful about these things, but even I got caught out the 
> other day walking through town. I was stopped by a woman doing a 
> "survey on health".

There must be different rules for telephones, because I still see 'consumer
panel' paper surveys around, which have questions like:

68. Have you ever considered a Caribbean Cruise Y/N
69. In what month is your car insurance due?
70. Do you play golf? Y/N

which are obviously sponsored by particular companies.  I once filled one of
these in with obviously bogus data ('I' was called Godzilla and was 359
years old).  It was the ticket to about 5 years of junk mail...

Anyway, this is getting off the OP's question...

Theo

In article <6xt*5ioos@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Theo
Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

> Ian Smith  wrote:

> > I'm very careful about these things, but even I got
> > caught out the other day walking through town. I was
> > stopped by a woman doing a "survey on health".

> There must be different rules for telephones, because I
> still see 'consumer panel' paper surveys around, which
> have questions like:

I get these too - I just send them back empty - supporting
the Royal Mail.

> 68. Have you ever considered a Caribbean Cruise Y/N
> 69. In what month is your car insurance due?
> 70. Do you play golf? Y/N

> which are obviously sponsored by particular companies.

I am not sure that the insurance questions are sponsored. I
suspect that the organisers of the questionnaires then offer
the lsts of data for sale to as many insurance companies as
they can.

>  I once filled one of these in with obviously bogus data
> ('I' was called Godzilla and was 359 years old).  It was
> the ticket to about 5 years of junk mail...

> Anyway, this is getting off the OP's question...

He was arguing that market research needs to talk to non
opted out people for statistical validty.

Anyone with a modicum of comepetence should have been able
to weed out your questionnaire - what should concern the
researchers much more are people like my partner who, if she
feels that she has the time, makes a point of providing
plausible but completely wrong information.

I suppose the statisticians would argue that these people
cancel each other out?

-- 
Russell
http://www.russell-hafter-holidays.co.uk
Russell Hafter Holidays         E-mail to enquiries at our domain
Need a hotel? <http://www.hrs.de/?client=en__MT&customerId=416873103>

Sam Nelson wrote:
>>> I was surprised that the Liberals were only given a warning because
>>> there was plenty of discussion about it in the media and the consensus
>>> seems to be that it would be illegal.

Looking for the sugging complaints procedure I accidentally unearthed 
this 2005 news from the Market Research Society: 
http://www.research-live.com/news_story.aspx?pageid=30&r=y&newsid=893

Ironic, huh?
Chris

"Chris Dent"  wrote in message 
news:QhIEk.86084$8f7.15885@newsfe20.ams2...
> Mortimer wrote:
>> Yes, Ofcom needs to *all* forms of unsolicited calls from a business to 
>> be illegal, and no self-respecting business should regard it as an 
>> acceptible business practice, irrespective of its legality.
>
> This is an extreme view and not one which is ever likely to become 
> prominent.

That is a shame. I have no interest whatsoever in receiving any unsolicited 
calls, whether for sales or market research. I thought by signing up for TPS 
I'd opted out of all of that. It seems that some unsolicited calls are 
exempt from TPS - that is a shock to me, and renders TPS *much* less useful 
than I thought.

>> Business calls should only be made on an opt-in basis or to people that 
>> you already have a business relationship with. Anything else will get the 
>> standard F OFF response from me to. Anything unsolicited is SPAM! Any 
>> company that spams me gets added to my "never do business with and 
>> recommend friends to do likewise" list.
>
> Having established your anti-spam credentials within the NG (we can all 
> now agree you are a really good guy), I very much doubt that you adopt 
> your stated position in practice.  Of course you have every right not to 
> participate in any study you may be selected for but I do hope you are a 
> bit more polite in turning down the opportunity than you suggest you may 
> be.

No. I am forceful but polite. If someone persists after I say "Sorry, I'm 
not interested, goodbye" then I will put the phone down. No-one has the 
right to pester me with nuisance calls, when I'm in the middle of something 
else, whether I'm at work or at home.

Market research is a valid thing to do, but it needs to be in a form that 
can be ignored. Multiple choice forms that are filled in and returned by 
post are much less invasive because you can attend to them when *you* want, 
not when the telemarketer wants to.

You seem to think that it is ethical to pester people at random. I think the 
tactic stinks!

On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 11:42:42 +0100, Chris Dent
 wrote:

>Sam Nelson wrote:
>> I've yet to encounter an organisation doing marketing, in 40-odd years of
>> being marketed to, that wanted to take account of my opinions.  The way
>> marketing works is to replace what people want with what those doing the
>> marketing have.
>
>I think you are confusing marketing with market research.  FWIW, I can 
>easily agree that a lot of market research is of dubious value from the 
>standpoint of society.  OTOH, a lot of it isn't.
>
>> The notion that out there, there are marketing people that actually want to
>> take account of people's opinions is on a par with Gandhi's well-publicised
>> view of Western civilisation.
>
>I have to disagree with you there.  It is an utterly stupid marketer who 
>  takes no notice of the views of his potential customers.  The only 
>likely result would be that vast sums of money will be wasted producing 
>and marketing stuff which people will not buy.


How nmany of your potential customers view being cold called as
offensive and what do you plan to do about the views of such potential
customers?
-- 
Cheers

Peter

On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 11:28:56 +0100, Chris Dent
 wrote:

>Mortimer wrote:
>> Yes, Ofcom needs to *all* forms of unsolicited calls from a business to be 
>> illegal, and no self-respecting business should regard it as an acceptible 
>> business practice, irrespective of its legality.
>
>This is an extreme view and not one which is ever likely to become 
>prominent. 

It's certainly a point of view that is prominent amongst my circle of
friends - how many other people find it an attarctive proposition? I'm
sure you must hold market research data that gives you an answer...

-- 
Cheers

Peter

On Oct 1, 10:40 am, Chris Dent 
wrote:
> Peter Andrews wrote:
> > ...and you will be checking all the numbers, before you call them, against
> > the TPS data base won't you?
>
> Absolutely not.  The TPS is quite rightly irrelevant from the point of
> view of market research, in the UK and everywhere else.  If samples were
> screened against the TPS it would exclude 16 million of the 25 million
> residential households with fixed lines (figures off the top of my head)
> and thereby fatally undermine the external validity of any telephone
> survey.  Instead of being able to say, for example, 25% are in favour,
> you would only be able to say 25% of the one third who have not
> registered with the TPS are in favour.
>
> It all depends on whether you see any value in having reliable
> statistics or not.  Most people, including regulatory and government
> bodies perceive a need.  Of course, you have the absolute right to
> refuse to participate in any study if you do not wish to.  Indeed, I
> have long advocated an opt-out scheme for research so that people who
> feel strongly about this have a place to go.


If you value reliable statistics, then you should find better methods
than phoning random people who don't wish to talk to you (btw, what do
you do about people who don't have a landline phone?). How about
paying people for their time, instead of assuming that they want to
work for you free? I am happy to talk to the couple organisations that
compensate for my time, but otherwise I will either tell you to get
lost or give you completely fake answers.

> If you value reliable statistics, then you should find better methods
> than phoning random people who don't wish to talk to you (btw, what do
> you do about people who don't have a landline phone?). How about
> paying people for their time, instead of assuming that they want to
> work for you free? I am happy to talk to the couple organisations that

A while back IPSOS MORI were calling me twice a day. A price structure, 
sent recorded delivery, followed by an invoice for £50/call put a stop 
to that.

Chris Dent  wrote 

> Great discussion--thank you all--but any idea how to ethically screen

> for subscriber allocated numbers?

Conduct a survey.

That is, use the proper methods for avoiding the silent calls
difficulty and provide CLID, ask a few demographic questions which you
can use to test the randomness of the sample, ring off.

One illegal way of doing what you want would be to hack the phone
company's line test facility and get line test results on every
generated number.

Another way of cutting down on the work would be to match against TPS
(Entries on TPS: 16,072,165) Only the no match ones need the expensive 
check.

-- 
Mike D

On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 11:28:56 +0100, Chris Dent wrote:
> Mortimer wrote:
>> Yes, Ofcom needs to *all* forms of unsolicited calls from a business to be 
>> illegal, and no self-respecting business should regard it as an acceptible 
>> business practice, irrespective of its legality.
>
> This is an extreme view and not one which is ever likely to become 
> prominent.  Almost every self-respecting business conducts market 
> research.  If they didn't, products and services would much less match 
> your needs.  Oh yes, Ofcom conducts millions of pounds worth of market 
> research each year...

It's certainly not an extreme view - I'd say it's one that's held my the
majority of people. Think about it (not from a marketing perspective).
You're interrupting people's lives. You expect them to *give* you their
time and for them to provide you with information - all for free.
I'd suggest you stand back from your job and be a little more considerate
of how real people live - then you'd realise just how intrusive you are
being.
If you want to do market research, you should expect to compensate people
for helping you make more money - not freeloading off their generous
nature.

Ultimate irony: "hello, we're conducting a telephone survey into people's
attitudes to telephone surveys".   Funnily enough, that's one call I've
never had.

In article <4fe7829544see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid>,
 Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> writes:
> what should concern the
> researchers much more are people like my partner who, if she
> feels that she has the time, makes a point of providing
> plausible but completely wrong information.

Yours as well?  My other half has been doing that for the last quarter
century---ever since she was more or less chased along a city street by
a market-researcher that wouldn't take `no' for an answer.
-- 
SAm.

In article <01c92413$083d8d80$LocalHost@default>,
 "Michael R N Dolbear"  writes:
> Another way of cutting down on the work would be to match against TPS
> (Entries on TPS: 16,072,165) Only the no match ones need the expensive 
> check.

There are >16M entries on the TPS?  Surely to goodness the people that
pay for and undertake cold-calling will have got the message by now?
-- 
SAm.

In article <slrnge8u85.ilq.no-one@corv.local>,
 pete  writes:
> On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 11:28:56 +0100, Chris Dent wrote:
> > Mortimer wrote:
> >> Yes, Ofcom needs to *all* forms of unsolicited calls from a business to be 
> >> illegal, and no self-respecting business should regard it as an acceptible 
> >> business practice, irrespective of its legality.
> >
> > This is an extreme view and not one which is ever likely to become 
> > prominent.  Almost every self-respecting business conducts market 
> > research.  If they didn't, products and services would much less match 
> > your needs.  Oh yes, Ofcom conducts millions of pounds worth of market 
> > research each year...
> 
> It's certainly not an extreme view - I'd say it's one that's held my the
> majority of people.

I've never met anyone that thinks it's anything but a perfectly normal
point of view.  I would be utterly gobsmacked to meet anyone (that didn't
work in marketing or market research) that thought anything else.

> If you want to do market research, you should expect to compensate people
> for helping you make more money - not freeloading off their generous
> nature.

You've surely been offered stylish ballpoint pens and vouchers for holidays
you'll never ever take, in returnfor participation.  Hasn't everyone?
 
> Ultimate irony: "hello, we're conducting a telephone survey into people's
> attitudes to telephone surveys".   Funnily enough, that's one call I've
> never had.

I'd have to admit, that's probably one telephone survey I'd take part in,
just for sheer irony value.
-- 
SAm.

Sam Nelson wrote:
> Eh?  It goes on all the time.  It's the angle on just about every remaining
> (TPS-registered, after all) cold-call I get.

Well if it does you should make absolutely sure you complain about it. 
According to the Market Research Society: "Currently [this practice is] 
banned in the case of telephone communication by virtue of Regulation 
7(4) of the Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 
(Statutory Instrument 2000 No. 2334). However there is no similar 
protection against such practices used in person or in any other form of
communication, such as letter, fax, and email."  Complain about the 
fraudulent call-content to the Information Commissioner at 
http://www.ico.gov.uk/.  Additionally, as a TPS-listed subscriber 
complain about illegally telemarketing to your number at 
http://complaints.tpsonline.org.uk/Consumer/.

>> Great discussion--thank you all--but any idea how to ethically screen 
>> for subscriber allocated numbers?
> 
> Nope.  Oh dear.  Better give up the idea, then.  What a pity.

Although touched by your concern, I shall certainly not be giving up on 
the idea and shall deliver the best solution possible.
Chris

Russell Hafter/Ian Smith wrote:
>> There must be different rules for telephones, because I
>> still see 'consumer panel' paper surveys around, which
>> have questions like:
> 
> I get these too - I just send them back empty - supporting
> the Royal Mail.

These are so called 'lifestyle questionnaires' used by the direct 
marketing industry to generate direct marketing lists.  They are nothing 
to do with the market research industry per se; that said resultant data 
are sometimes purchased as a sample source for surveys amongst niche 
groups e.g. when drivers of a particular car may be required.  The thing 
to look for is the check boxes providing permission to pass on your 
details to receive offers.  No questionnaire designed to elicit 
statistical information has those.

>> 68. Have you ever considered a Caribbean Cruise Y/N
>> 69. In what month is your car insurance due?
>> 70. Do you play golf? Y/N
> 
>> which are obviously sponsored by particular companies.

They are very likely to be sponsored.

> Anyone with a modicum of comepetence should have been able
> to weed out your questionnaire - what should concern the
> researchers much more are people like my partner who, if she
> feels that she has the time, makes a point of providing
> plausible but completely wrong information.
> 
> I suppose the statisticians would argue that these people
> cancel each other out?

That's the theory, yes.  My goodness, what devotion your wife has to 
spend so much time on 'fooling' researchers.  Do your family fall about 
laughing when results are published to suggest that, for example, 49% of 
people think yes about something and you secretly know the real answer 
is 48.5%?  It must be a real gas...
Chris

Chris Dent  wrote:
> 
> > Anyone with a modicum of comepetence should have been able
> > to weed out your questionnaire - what should concern the
> > researchers much more are people like my partner who, if she
> > feels that she has the time, makes a point of providing
> > plausible but completely wrong information.
> > 
> > I suppose the statisticians would argue that these people
> > cancel each other out?
> 
> That's the theory, yes.  My goodness, what devotion your wife has to 
> spend so much time on 'fooling' researchers.  Do your family fall about 
> laughing when results are published to suggest that, for example, 49% of 
> people think yes about something and you secretly know the real answer 
> is 48.5%?  It must be a real gas...

You really think that's there's only a few people out there giving
random or purposely wrong replies?

-- 
Chris Green

s_pickle2001@yahoo.com wrote:
> If you value reliable statistics, then you should find better methods
> than phoning random people who don't wish to talk to you (btw, what do
> you do about people who don't have a landline phone?).

Well ~12% of UK households have no landline.  Short of expensive and 
slow home visits (recommended when the validity requirement is 
greatest), it makes telephone research using RDD the best (albeit not 
perfect) methodology.  Especially if the mobile-only sector (younger, 
poorer) is important, you use a tranche of mobile RDD.

> How about
> paying people for their time, instead of assuming that they want to
> work for you free? I am happy to talk to the couple organisations that
> compensate for my time, but otherwise I will either tell you to get
> lost or give you completely fake answers.

Its not unusual for their to be a reward, prize draw, or whatever.
Chris

Thanks Michael,

Michael R N Dolbear wrote:
> Conduct a survey.
> 
> That is, use the proper methods for avoiding the silent calls
> difficulty and provide CLID, ask a few demographic questions which you
> can use to test the randomness of the sample, ring off.

Something to give serious consideration to, certainly.  Although I can 
see some drawbacks, shall give it some thought.

> One illegal way of doing what you want would be to hack the phone
> company's line test facility and get line test results on every
> generated number.

Might it be possible to hire rather than hack this facility?  (Hate jail 
lol).

> Another way of cutting down on the work would be to match against TPS
> (Entries on TPS: 16,072,165) Only the no match ones need the expensive 
> check.

Yes, thought of that, thank you.  Ironic, no?
Chris

a@b.invalid wrote:
> A while back IPSOS MORI were calling me twice a day. A price structure, 
> sent recorded delivery, followed by an invoice for £50/call put a stop 
> to that.

I bet a simple "please do not call me" would have worked just as well. 
Did they settle the invoice?
Chris

Petert wrote:
> How nmany of your potential customers view being cold called as
> offensive and what do you plan to do about the views of such potential
> customers?

Zero. 100% cast iron guaranteed, zero.

Sam Nelson wrote:
> Eh?  `market research' is less likely to take account of my opinion than
> `marketing'?  I would've thought the purpose of `market research' woould
> be to find out what people want.  Wouldn't it?  Although, most of it,
> when people call and claim they're doing market research, involves eventually
> getting round to the one question `would you like to buy product X for
> price Y?' which from where I'm sitting is a `telesales call', and
> therefore extremely unwanted.

The point of a given survey may indeed be to find out what people in 
general want.  However, it is not designed to identify the individuals 
and sell them such.  If you are getting such calls they are illegal and 
you should complain to the Information Commissioner.  If you are on TPS 
and are getting such calls you should also complain to the TPS.

> When I'm called (rarely these days, TPS _mostly_ works) I tend to short-
> circuit the script that starts `I'm conducting market research...' with
> `Suppose you just get on with it and tell me what you're selling?'.  If it
> were genuine market research, there wouldn't be anything being sold,
> would there?  But, odd as it may seem, there is, mostly.

That's an extremely good question and you should keep asking it.  If 
there *is* something being sold complain!

> `Marketing' is surely a way of trying to persuade people to buy product X
> for price Y.  Isn't it?

> Go on, then: identify a single example of market research with real benefit
> to society.  GRFI.  I'd love to have a counterexample.

I don't know what you consider real benefit.  How about, just notified, 
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/cm/tables/q1_2008/?  (Please don't 
click, you wouldn't be interested...)

> It is possible that there are real, respectable, ethical marketing people
> out there.  They must surely realise that they rank alongside estate agents,
> journalists and politicians as being viewed as complete and utter slimeballs?

Actually not true but since you have no interest in any research I won't 
bore you with any useless stats.  Go ahead with your wild guesses, they 
are a much sounder basis for any decision making...
Chris

tinnews@isbd.co.uk wrote:
> You really think that's there's only a few people out there giving
> random or purposely wrong replies?

In general yes but it depends.  One of the problems with the polling 
that failed to predict the 1992 general election result is believed to 
be that, feeling mean about it, people did not wish to own up to 
researchers that they were going to vote Conservative.  People have said 
the same thing about US Presidential election polling but another body 
of opinion just says the Republicans simply cheated last two times.

Frankly, it a lot easier to simply not take part, isn't it?
Chris

"Chris Dent"  wrote in message 
news:gG0Fk.27$ad5.11@newsfe16.ams2...
> Petert wrote:
>> How many of your potential customers view being cold called as
>> offensive and what do you plan to do about the views of such potential
>> customers?
>
> Zero. 100% cast iron guaranteed, zero.

You reckon that *none* of your potential customers regard being cold-called 
as offensive? You are sadly deluded, arrogant or both. Or maybe you are a 
troll.

You make a distinction between telesales and market research calls. For me 
(and maybe other people - opinions, please) it it utterly immaterial *why* 
someone is spamming me by phone - all that matters is that they do it.

For me, unsolicited phone calls are intensely intrusive and offensive - 
though less so than abusive or obscene calls, I grant you!

"Chris Dent"  wrote in message 
news:8X0Fk.18$8T1.17@newsfe28.ams2...
> tinnews@isbd.co.uk wrote:
>> You really think that's there's only a few people out there giving
>> random or purposely wrong replies?
>
> In general yes but it depends.  One of the problems with the polling that 
> failed to predict the 1992 general election result is believed to be that, 
> feeling mean about it, people did not wish to own up to researchers that 
> they were going to vote Conservative.  People have said the same thing 
> about US Presidential election polling but another body of opinion just 
> says the Republicans simply cheated last two times.
>
> Frankly, it a lot easier to simply not take part, isn't it?

It may be easier not to take part, but it's not as much fun!

I wonder how many people who give misleading answers do so for reasons of 
coyness (as in the example of Conservative voters in1992) and how many do it 
out of devilment and sheer bloody-mindedness in payback for being 
interrupted from what they are doing by an unsolicited phone call which asks 
(as they see it) inane questions.

On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 17:25:50 +0100, "Mortimer"  wrote:

>"Chris Dent"  wrote in message 
>news:QhIEk.86084$8f7.15885@newsfe20.ams2...
>> Mortimer wrote:
>>> Yes, Ofcom needs to *all* forms of unsolicited calls from a business to 
>>> be illegal, and no self-respecting business should regard it as an 
>>> acceptible business practice, irrespective of its legality.
>>
>> This is an extreme view and not one which is ever likely to become 
>> prominent.
>
>That is a shame. I have no interest whatsoever in receiving any unsolicited 
>calls, whether for sales or market research. I thought by signing up for TPS 
>I'd opted out of all of that. It seems that some unsolicited calls are 
>exempt from TPS - that is a shock to me, and renders TPS *much* less useful 
>than I thought.
>
>>> Business calls should only be made on an opt-in basis or to people that 
>>> you already have a business relationship with. Anything else will get the 
>>> standard F OFF response from me to. Anything unsolicited is SPAM! Any 
>>> company that spams me gets added to my "never do business with and 
>>> recommend friends to do likewise" list.
>>
>> Having established your anti-spam credentials within the NG (we can all 
>> now agree you are a really good guy), I very much doubt that you adopt 
>> your stated position in practice.  Of course you have every right not to 
>> participate in any study you may be selected for but I do hope you are a 
>> bit more polite in turning down the opportunity than you suggest you may 
>> be.
>
>No. I am forceful but polite. If someone persists after I say "Sorry, I'm 
>not interested, goodbye" then I will put the phone down. No-one has the 
>right to pester me with nuisance calls, when I'm in the middle of something 
>else, whether I'm at work or at home.

Agreed.  It is particularly annoying when the said phonecall wakes a
baby that parent has spent hours getting to sleep for example.

Personnally I hate being interrupted by these annoying calls as they
always occur at mealtimes or when I am playing the guitar!

>Market research is a valid thing to do, but it needs to be in a form that 
>can be ignored. Multiple choice forms that are filled in and returned by 
>post are much less invasive because you can attend to them when *you* want, 
>not when the telemarketer wants to.

Yes.  I do occasionally reply to posted surveys but mostly they seem
to be attempts to capture loads of irrelevant personal details.

>You seem to think that it is ethical to pester people at random. I think the 
>tactic stinks! 

If anyone cold calls me I make sure the company is added to my
"blacklist" permanently.

-- 
(\__/)  M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there.  If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 11:18:45 +0100, "Roger Mills"
 wrote:

>In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
>Chris Dent   wrote:
>
>> Peter Andrews wrote:
>>> ...and you will be checking all the numbers, before you call them,
>>> against the TPS data base won't you?
>>
>> Absolutely not.  The TPS is quite rightly irrelevant from the point of
>> view of market research, in the UK and everywhere else.  If samples
>> were screened against the TPS it would exclude 16 million of the 25
>> million residential households with fixed lines (figures off the top
>> of my head) and thereby fatally undermine the external validity of
>> any telephone survey.  Instead of being able to say, for example, 25%
>> are in favour, you would only be able to say 25% of the one third who
>> have not registered with the TPS are in favour.
>>
>Whilst accepting that it's not *illegal* to ring those registered with TPS 
>for *genuine* market research purposes, it's still a good idea *not* to for 
>several reasons:
>* My guess - without having any specific evidence to prove it - is that the 
>vast majority who register with TPS (many via BT *Privacy*) don't want to 
>receive unsolicited calls of *any* kind
>* Most people registered with TPS will be suspicious about calls 
>*purporting* to be for market research purposes because quite a lot of such 
>calls are clearly not, and are simply a cynical attempt to get round the 
>rules
>* In the light of the above you will simply piss off most people, and not 
>get any quality information from them, anyway

Also:
* Most market researchers ask a load of personal questions that I
don't believe would be prudent to answer nowadays.

-- 
(\__/)  M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there.  If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

Mortimer wrote:
>> Zero. 100% cast iron guaranteed, zero. [None of my customers complain].
> 
> You reckon that *none* of your potential customers regard being cold-called 
> as offensive? You are sadly deluded, arrogant or both. Or maybe you are a 
> troll.

LOL, Morty, you haven't been reading this thread very carefully, have 
you?  Your kind words are also noted :)

> You make a distinction between telesales and market research calls. For me 
> (and maybe other people - opinions, please) it it utterly immaterial *why* 
> someone is spamming me by phone - all that matters is that they do it.

It's not just me but every regulator and government in the world that 
draws this distinction.  All I say to you is consider what will be lost 
should your view ever come to prominence.
Chris

Mortimer wrote:
> It may be easier not to take part, but it's not as much fun!
> 
> I wonder how many people who give misleading answers do so for reasons of 
> coyness (as in the example of Conservative voters in1992) and how many do it 
> out of devilment and sheer bloody-mindedness in payback for being 
> interrupted from what they are doing by an unsolicited phone call which asks 
> (as they see it) inane questions. 

Why imagine that the questions are inane?  Who are these people consumed 
by devilment and bloodymindedness?  Why demand payback because you 
receive a phonecall in which you have little interest?  Are you sure you 
are not overstating this at least a little bit?

In article <HS0Fk.17$8T1.7@newsfe28.ams2>,
 Chris Dent  writes:
> Sam Nelson wrote:
> > Go on, then: identify a single example of market research with real benefit
> > to society.  GRFI.  I'd love to have a counterexample.
> 
> I don't know what you consider real benefit.  How about, just notified, 
> http://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/cm/tables/q1_2008/?  (Please don't 
> click, you wouldn't be interested...)

But surely that data is collected from phone-company billing systems.  No-one
had to cold-call home phone numbers or stop anyone in the street to collect
it, did they?

> > It is possible that there are real, respectable, ethical marketing people
> > out there.  They must surely realise that they rank alongside estate agents,
> > journalists and politicians as being viewed as complete and utter slimeballs?
> 
> Actually not true but since you have no interest in any research

On the contrary, I've worked in a scientific research environment for
getting on for quarter of a century.  People I work with do what they
do to make real new discoveries, rather than to pamper the egos of a
few self-appointed fat-cat captains of industry.

> I won't 
> bore you with any useless stats.  Go ahead with your wild guesses, they 
> are a much sounder basis for any decision making...

I don't believe it's me that's solely responsible for the way the
marketing/market-research business is regarded by the general public.  I
think it achieved that for itself.
-- 
SAm.

"Chris Dent"  wrote in message
news:wH1Fk.14871$yU7.4924@newsfe19.ams2...
> Mortimer wrote:
>>> Zero. 100% cast iron guaranteed, zero. [None of my customers complain].
>>
>> You reckon that *none* of your potential customers regard being
>> cold-called as offensive? You are sadly deluded, arrogant or both. Or
>> maybe you are a troll.
>
> LOL, Morty, you haven't been reading this thread very carefully, have you?
> Your kind words are also noted :)

So out of all the cold-calls you make to people to solicit their views on
whatever you are market-researching at the time, not a single person has
ever complained to you that you are interrupting him?

I find that hard to believe, but maybe you have a very persuasive tongue -
in which case you are one of the minority that manages to do it without
causing offence.

(Don't get side-tracked into a semantic discussion based on petert's use of
the word "customer", when "punter" or "person whose opinion is being sought"
might have been more accurate. No doubt your customers - the people for whom
you carry out research - have no complaints, but I don't think that's what
petert was talking about.)

What this thread has shown is that there *are* people who think the same way
as me, despite your comment that "This is an extreme view and not one which
is ever likely to become prominent."

Mark says "Agreed.  It is particularly annoying when the said phonecall
wakes a baby that parent has spent hours getting to sleep for example.
Personally I hate being interrupted by these annoying calls as they
always occur at mealtimes or when I am playing the guitar!"

Petert says "It's certainly a point of view that is prominent amongst my
circle of friends - how many other people find it an attractive proposition?
I'm sure you must hold market research data that gives you an answer..."

Pete says "It's certainly not an extreme view - I'd say it's one that's held
by the majority of people. Think about it (not from a marketing
perspective). You're interrupting people's lives. You expect them to *give*
you their time and for them to provide you with information - all for free.
I'd suggest you stand back from your job and be a little more considerate of
how real people live - then you'd realise just how intrusive you are being."

I wonder if people who make unsolicited telephone calls (for any purpose)
realise just how much the general public resent having their lives disrupted
by pushy salesmen, people carrying out market research etc, people trying to
convert us to their religion, etc.

The fact that you innocently asked your technical question and are surprised
by the vehemence of people's protests shows that you might be out of touch
with the public's feelings on the matter. The law distinguishes between
telesales and marketing, but I bet the majority of the public regards both
as nuisance calls.

I fully agree that we, the public, need to be asked for our opinions and
preferences if those opinions and preferences are to be taken into account.
What you are doing is very laudable. Long may it continue. It's the "how"
that I am passionately opposed to.

Phoning people when they may be in the middle of doing something else,
stopping them in the street or knocking on their door is *not* the right way
to go about it because you will just put people's back up and lead to
resentment and ill-considered or even maliciously untruthful replies.

A poll sent by post, or even by email (what, am I defending email spam?) at
least has the advantage that it is "off-line" and can be attended to when I,
the recipient, have time, not when you, the researcher, phone me or stop me
in the street.

In article <8X0Fk.18$8T1.17@newsfe28.ams2>,
 Chris Dent  writes:
> tinnews@isbd.co.uk wrote:
> > You really think that's there's only a few people out there giving
> > random or purposely wrong replies?
> 
> In general yes but it depends.  One of the problems with the polling 
> that failed to predict the 1992 general election result is believed to 
> be that, feeling mean about it, people did not wish to own up to 
> researchers that they were going to vote Conservative.

What this tells you is that large swathes of the population have no problem
with lying to market researchers.  How, as a result, can they ever trust
anything anyone tells them?  Isn't it a fundamental assumption of the
business?

> People have said 
> the same thing about US Presidential election polling but another body 
> of opinion just says the Republicans simply cheated last two times.
> 
> Frankly, it a lot easier to simply not take part, isn't it?

But walking away from the person with the clipboard knowing you just added
an awkward element to the long tail of their statistics (`my three major
leisure-time interests are cave rescue, extreme snowboarding, and
looking after my grandchildren, yes') can add an element of glee to the
day that's so much more satisfying than `not today, thank you'.
-- 
SAm.

In article <nL1Fk.14966$yU7.10702@newsfe19.ams2>,
 Chris Dent  writes:
> Mortimer wrote:
> > It may be easier not to take part, but it's not as much fun!
> > 
> > I wonder how many people who give misleading answers do so for reasons of 
> > coyness (as in the example of Conservative voters in1992) and how many do it 
> > out of devilment and sheer bloody-mindedness in payback for being 
> > interrupted from what they are doing by an unsolicited phone call which asks 
> > (as they see it) inane questions. 
> 
> Why imagine that the questions are inane?  Who are these people consumed 
> by devilment and bloodymindedness?  Why demand payback because you 
> receive a phonecall in which you have little interest?  Are you sure you 
> are not overstating this at least a little bit?

Everyone else contributing to this thread, except you, thinks he isn't, I
suspect.
-- 
SAm.

"Sam Nelson"  wrote in message 
news:ciner5-h41.ln1@nntp.stir.ac.uk...
> In article <nL1Fk.14966$yU7.10702@newsfe19.ams2>,
> Chris Dent  writes:
>> Mortimer wrote:
>> > It may be easier not to take part, but it's not as much fun!
>> >
>> > I wonder how many people who give misleading answers do so for reasons 
>> > of
>> > coyness (as in the example of Conservative voters in1992) and how many 
>> > do it
>> > out of devilment and sheer bloody-mindedness in payback for being
>> > interrupted from what they are doing by an unsolicited phone call which 
>> > asks
>> > (as they see it) inane questions.
>>
>> Why imagine that the questions are inane?  Who are these people consumed
>> by devilment and bloodymindedness?  Why demand payback because you
>> receive a phonecall in which you have little interest?  Are you sure you
>> are not overstating this at least a little bit?
>
> Everyone else contributing to this thread, except you, thinks he isn't, I
> suspect.

Thank you for that vote of support. I'm glad to see that I'm not alone in 
wanting to bugger-up the results of any survey that is carried out by means 
that I resent, in the hope that it will devalue to the results to a point 
where better, more public-friendly methods are used.

Chris, for someone who is in the business of gauging people's response and 
opinions, you seem to be sadly out of touch in this one. A telephone survey 
is needed - and this is one that I *would* answer truthfully and honestly: 
"What is your attitude to being contacted by phone by companies carrying out 
a) surveys, b) telesales? Choose from: i) resent it strongly, ii) resent it 
slightly, iii) neutral, iv) welcome it slightly, v) welcome it strongly". Do 
that, and let's see what the results are.

Hi All,

Herewith my last contribution to the 'privacy-concerned' hijacking of 
this thread.  This is because we are clearly not getting anywhere and 
shall have to agree to differ.  Thanks to all who added their 2 cents 
and especially Mike who was the only one to answer the OP.

Sam Nelson wrote:
> ...large swathes of the population have no problem
> with lying to market researchers.  How, as a result, can they ever trust
> anything anyone tells them?  Isn't it a fundamental assumption of the
> business?

You are right, it's a fundamental assumption and usually proves 
justifiable: it is pure fantasy to imagine nothing useful can be gleaned 
by such methods.  Care, however, does need to be taken and it has been 
known to go wrong.  FWIW, the problem you identify is known to be 
particularly acute in relation to permission-based (opt-in) internet 
research where participants have sometimes multiple web personas.  It 
was estimated a couple of years back that 0.25% of internet users 
completed 20% of all web surveys and more broadly 5% were responsible 
for 50% of completions.  Such concerns provide me with another impetus.

Or maybe you'd prefer to just know nothing?

(Sam, on a brief reading you are also right that the Ofcom link I showed 
was probably based on operator figures.  Here's one that is 
survey-based: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/cm/cmrnr08/.)

> But walking away from the person with the clipboard knowing you just added
> an awkward element to the long tail of their statistics (`my three major
> leisure-time interests are cave rescue, extreme snowboarding, and
> looking after my grandchildren, yes') can add an element of glee to the
> day that's so much more satisfying than `not today, thank you'.

Personally my grown-up friends and I prefer to pop out for a game of 
knock-down ginger...but whatever floats your boat...

Instead of clogging the NG with tales of sugging and telemarketers 
disrespecting the TPS, please make complaints about it.  Such practices 
have nothing to do with me.

I can't say I am surprised to find a large body of apparently macho 
anti-spam types outbragging each other about how much they hate *any* 
invasion of their privacy.  NGs attract this demographic and I know some 
of the more moderate feel at risk of being flamed and so prefer silence. 
  You're welcome to your view but should have some appreciation that it 
is not the mainstream one.  I am sorry, a baby is occasionally going to 
get woken up and sometimes your favourite TV program may be irritatingly 
interrupted.  Most people, however, perceive that the advantages 
outweigh the disadvantages and at least you get to have fun and games 
being gratuitously rude to interviewers and/or feeding them with your 
amusing misinformation.

Chris

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
tinnews@isbd.co.uk   wrote:

> Chris Dent  wrote:
>>
>>> Anyone with a modicum of comepetence should have been able
>>> to weed out your questionnaire - what should concern the
>>> researchers much more are people like my partner who, if she
>>> feels that she has the time, makes a point of providing
>>> plausible but completely wrong information.
>>>
>>> I suppose the statisticians would argue that these people
>>> cancel each other out?
>>
>> That's the theory, yes.  My goodness, what devotion your wife has to
>> spend so much time on 'fooling' researchers.  Do your family fall
>> about laughing when results are published to suggest that, for
>> example, 49% of people think yes about something and you secretly
>> know the real answer is 48.5%?  It must be a real gas...
>
> You really think that's there's only a few people out there giving
> random or purposely wrong replies?

There may well be some who go a bit further like in this audio clip 
http://dailycupoftech.com/2006/10/17/telemarketer-revenge/ (admittedly this 
refers to telemarketing rather than market research - but could easily be 
adapted)
-- 
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

"Chris Dent"  wrote in message 
news:U73Fk.1356$iX3.1071@newsfe18.ams2...
> I can't say I am surprised to find a large body of apparently macho 
> anti-spam types outbragging each other about how much they hate *any* 
> invasion of their privacy.  NGs attract this demographic and I know some 
> of the more moderate feel at risk of being flamed and so prefer silence.
>  You're welcome to your view but should have some appreciation that it is 
> not the mainstream one.

As a person who is involved in carrying out surveys, you are presumably wise 
to the fact that many people will suffer in silence rather than stand up and 
make a complaint or give a negative answer to a survey, even if they will 
moan about it to their friends.

I agree we need to call it a day on this discussion: we've all made our 
points of view abundantly clear. Hopefully you've appreciated that there is 
a weight of opinion that unsolicited phone calls are deeply resented by some 
(many?) people and that other ways of canvassing people might be less 
intrusive, and the rest of us have appreciated that market research is 
important (some might see it as a necessary evil!) if our opinions are to be 
taken into account.

In article <U73Fk.1356$iX3.1071@newsfe18.ams2>,
 Chris Dent  writes:
> Herewith my last contribution to the 'privacy-concerned' hijacking of 
> this thread.  This is because we are clearly not getting anywhere and 
> shall have to agree to differ.

Your view of the situation is so far at odds with real life that this
isn't surprising.

> Thanks to all who added their 2 cents 
> and especially Mike who was the only one to answer the OP.

Before the OP is worth answering, there's a generation's worth of work to
do in convincing the general population that market researchers are
worth paying any attention to at all.  I think I'd rather tell my mother
I played piano in a brothel.

> It was estimated a couple of years back that 0.25% of internet users 
> completed 20% of all web surveys and more broadly 5% were responsible 
> for 50% of completions.  Such concerns provide me with another impetus.

That's YouGov scuppered, then.  No need to pay any attention to any of
their results in future.  But, well, how was the above information gathered?

> Or maybe you'd prefer to just know nothing?
> 
> (Sam, on a brief reading you are also right that the Ofcom link I showed 
> was probably based on operator figures.  Here's one that is 
> survey-based: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/cm/cmrnr08/.)

Ofcom, by definition, have nothing to sell me.  If I were phoned by someone
apparently represent Ofcom and wanting my views on the next round of that
survey, they _might_ just get them, and accurately so.  It's a bit of a
special case, though, even if, strictly speaking, I'd have to admit that
you won that one, second shot.

> > But walking away from the person with the clipboard knowing you just added
> > an awkward element to the long tail of their statistics (`my three major
> > leisure-time interests are cave rescue, extreme snowboarding, and
> > looking after my grandchildren, yes') can add an element of glee to the
> > day that's so much more satisfying than `not today, thank you'.
> 
> Personally my grown-up friends and I prefer to pop out for a game of 
> knock-down ginger...but whatever floats your boat...

Hey, it's free, and you can't get into trouble doing it.

> Instead of clogging the NG with tales of sugging and telemarketers 
> disrespecting the TPS, please make complaints about it.  Such practices 
> have nothing to do with me.

I was aware that automated calls were illegal.  I wasn't aware that sugging
was until you mentioned it, for which I owe you thanks---I'll use that.
 
> I can't say I am surprised to find a large body of apparently macho 
> anti-spam types outbragging each other about how much they hate *any* 
> invasion of their privacy.  NGs attract this demographic and I know some 
> of the more moderate feel at risk of being flamed and so prefer silence. 

I'm forced to wonder why you came here in the first place, if you already
knew this.  However, you have been informed that it ain't just `us'.

> Most people, however, perceive that the advantages 
> outweigh the disadvantages and at least you get to have fun and games 
> being gratuitously rude to interviewers and/or feeding them with your 
> amusing misinformation.

The whole world is like this.  Don't say you weren't warned.
-- 
SAm.

In article ,
 "Roger Mills"  writes:
> In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
> tinnews@isbd.co.uk   wrote:
> 
> > Chris Dent  wrote:
> >>
> >>> Anyone with a modicum of comepetence should have been able
> >>> to weed out your questionnaire - what should concern the
> >>> researchers much more are people like my partner who, if she
> >>> feels that she has the time, makes a point of providing
> >>> plausible but completely wrong information.
> >>>
> >>> I suppose the statisticians would argue that these people
> >>> cancel each other out?
> >>
> >> That's the theory, yes.  My goodness, what devotion your wife has to
> >> spend so much time on 'fooling' researchers.  Do your family fall
> >> about laughing when results are published to suggest that, for
> >> example, 49% of people think yes about something and you secretly
> >> know the real answer is 48.5%?  It must be a real gas...
> >
> > You really think that's there's only a few people out there giving
> > random or purposely wrong replies?
> 
> There may well be some who go a bit further like in this audio clip 
> http://dailycupoftech.com/2006/10/17/telemarketer-revenge/ (admittedly this 
> refers to telemarketing rather than market research - but could easily be 
> adapted)

The very fact that a recent ad campaign (for some brand of tea, was it?)
involved a woman saying `your call is important to us' and putting the
handset down next to a tinkling child's toy and walking away suggests that
marketing departments do know that cold-calling of any kind is despised by
the general population.  The whole point of the ad was to allow us to
idenfify with her and hence use the product.
-- 
SAm.

Chris Dent  wrote:
> tinnews@isbd.co.uk wrote:
> > You really think that's there's only a few people out there giving
> > random or purposely wrong replies?
> 
> In general yes but it depends.  One of the problems with the polling 
> that failed to predict the 1992 general election result is believed to 
> be that, feeling mean about it, people did not wish to own up to 
> researchers that they were going to vote Conservative.  People have said 
> the same thing about US Presidential election polling but another body 
> of opinion just says the Republicans simply cheated last two times.
> 
> Frankly, it a lot easier to simply not take part, isn't it?

Yes, but that wouldn't give the gratification of screwing up the
pollster's statistics would it?  As everyone keeps telling you it's
*intensely* annoying and thus one wants to get ones own back.

-- 
Chris Green

Chris Dent  wrote:
>   You're welcome to your view but should have some appreciation that it 
> is not the mainstream one.

Evidence?

-- 
Chris Green

In article , Sam Nelson
 wrote:

> The very fact that a recent ad campaign (for som