A friend of mine gave me the "National Do Not Call List" as an example of a government regulation that clearly addresses a "market failure". He points out that clearly, the market had failed in providing an effective mechanism for the consumer to block the telemarketers from intruding their homes (by phone). Legislation was justified in order to meet that consumer demand, thus, a good example of productive government intervention. How do you address that? Does anyone have a good refutation of this common interpretation of the "Do Not Call List"?
A friend of mine gave me the "National Do Not Call List" as an example of a government regulation that clearly addresses a "market failure". He points out that clearly, the market had failed in providing an effective mechanism for the consumer to block the telemarketers from intruding their homes (by phone). Legislation was justified in order to meet that consumer demand, thus, a good example of productive government intervention.
How do you address that? Does anyone have a good refutation of this common interpretation of the "Do Not Call List"?
fezwhatley:i know youre joking. but caller id should theoritically help put the telemarketers out of business, by essentially not even letting them in the door.
You assume people don't want to be marketed to. I have bad news for you. They do. The trick is selling them something that is relevant and has value to them. People love to buy stuff, they love to get a bargain (real or perceived) and they love to be catered to.
ya.
do we get free cheezeburger in socielism?
I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or not.
In a more free market, consumers would have more options to limit annoying calls, phone companies would have an incentive to assist them with that, and at the same time, the phone company would have a profit opportunity to connect their clients with people offering services by phone where the service offerer can get targeted lead data, and the telephone client is looking for value or a buying opportunity.
The reason why telemarketers have annoying tactics today is that there is not a free market.
liberty student: I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or not. In a more free market, consumers would have more options to limit annoying calls, phone companies would have an incentive to assist them with that, and at the same time, the phone company would have a profit opportunity to connect their clients with people offering services by phone where the service offerer can get targeted lead data, and the telephone client is looking for value or a buying opportunity. The reason why telemarketers have annoying tactics today is that there is not a free market.
Even with a don't call list, telemarketers just WON'T STOP CALLING!
Schools are labour camps.
eliotn:Even with a don't call list, telemarketers just WON'T STOP CALLING!
If there was a free market, a firm could offer to block all telemarketers. But it would probably come at a premium.
People like to complain, but how many would pay 10% more per month to stop telemarketers?
Freiheit: Until they start beaming crap into your brain!
Until they start beaming crap into your brain!
Like in the movie Batman Forever.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
i agree with your assumptions, youre not saying anything thats not very controversial. no disagreement here
liberty student: eliotn:Even with a don't call list, telemarketers just WON'T STOP CALLING! If there was a free market, a firm could offer to block all telemarketers. But it would probably come at a premium. People like to complain, but how many would pay 10% more per month to stop telemarketers?
I am sure that there are people that consider it very beneficial to be able to ignore telemarketers.
Still, before I read this thread, I could not fathom how telemarketers would stop annoying calls in a free market.
What I said is relevant to today, not exactly the free market, where even if you're on the don't call list, certain people will still call you.
eliotn:I am sure that there are people that consider it very beneficial to be able to ignore telemarketers.
Then there is a market for it.. See how I did that?
Seriously. On the bottom of my "care" list is telemarketers calling me. If it bothered me much I'd pay to rid of the nuissance. Get a state to "solve" the "problem" though? Not on your life...
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
liberty student: One more thing. As a marketer, the do not call list actually helps the firms with something to sell, by qualifying their lead databases. If I have a list of 150,000 phone numbers, and I can sort out the 35,000 on the Do Not Call List, then my sales team only has to make 115,000 calls, presuming that most of those 35,000 on the do not call list would have been difficult to sell, or unlikely to buy anything on the phone.... ...People who take positive action to avoid sales men and do not want to be sold are dead leads. So being able to clean those dead leads out of the lists, makes the lists higher quality, and thus more valuable. I suspect in a free market, firms would pay for the databases of "do not call" clients so that they can increase their performance per lead.
One more thing. As a marketer, the do not call list actually helps the firms with something to sell, by qualifying their lead databases. If I have a list of 150,000 phone numbers, and I can sort out the 35,000 on the Do Not Call List, then my sales team only has to make 115,000 calls, presuming that most of those 35,000 on the do not call list would have been difficult to sell, or unlikely to buy anything on the phone....
...People who take positive action to avoid sales men and do not want to be sold are dead leads. So being able to clean those dead leads out of the lists, makes the lists higher quality, and thus more valuable.
I suspect in a free market, firms would pay for the databases of "do not call" clients so that they can increase their performance per lead.
Good observation-- which would be true IF there were some type of barrier to entry for getting one's number on the list--say, some type of fee which the consumer would have to renew annually. The present system is essentially zero cost to sign up, and once on, the number stays on indefinitely until actively removed from it--which, I'm assuming rarely happens. As a result, I think the tendency is for the accumulation of vast amounts of numbers, a significantly large portion of which WOULD be viable leads from a marketer's point of view. A barrier to entry would shrink that portion substantially, and the resulting list would be a more or less accurate reflection of which leads would truly be the ones of low value.
Disclaimer: Layperson - don't assume anything I say on economics is true.
I have no idea what you are talking about.