OT: Free Stuff from British Gas


M

mart2306

You are starting to sound like someone that sees a personal advantage in
pestering people in their own homes, and using the equipment they have paid
for, just to try and make a monetary gain for yourself, and if the economy
has become dependant on unwanted spam telephone calls, then it will be a
very long time before it recovers.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
No, I don't ring people at home except on business when they have
ordered from me - and its the quickest way of resolving a problem.
Seeing as over 1100 of my customers are residential rather than
commercial, home is the only place I can contact them.
Most I've never rung. No need to without a problem to resolve.

However I am aware of the fact that cold calling is cost effective
(not the best cost efficiency but it does get new customers) - so some
people are responding to these 'spam' calls.
Many in my line of work do arrange to buy cold calling lists, or
arrange an agency to do the work for them. Can be less than 1% respond
positively (can be as high as 4%) - but what are those 1% worth over
their customer lifetime (literally if including legacies in the
marketing material)?

Economy makes money from:
People employed to ring
Call charges (hence profit) for telephone company
Sale of goods or services by company doing the calling
Customers for the company that can then be contacted later perhaps
with a greater chance of positive response (warm calling rather than
cold calling).

You and I may not like cold calling ourselves. But it works - and
unlikely to be altered much anytime soon.

Martin <><
 
Ad

Advertisements

H

Harry Stottle

You and I may not like cold calling ourselves. But it works - and
unlikely to be altered much anytime soon.
Is this just in your opinion, wishful thinking, or do you have a different
crystal ball to mine?

And if you dislike cold calling so much, why do you seem so keen on
researching its benefits, supporting its use, and possibly getting prepared
to impose it on those most at risk of being susceptible to it, (and the
least likely to know about the TPS in order to prevent it), namely the
elderly and infirm?
 
M

mart2306

Is this just in your opinion, wishful thinking, or do you have a different
crystal ball to mine?

And if you dislike cold calling so much, why do you seem so keen on
researching its benefits, supporting its use, and possibly getting prepared
to impose it on those most at risk of being susceptible to it, (and the
least likely to know about the TPS in order to prevent it), namely the
elderly and infirm?
Its a valid business tool.
It does generate new customers - something any company needs for
growth of its market share.
And who said anything about imposing it? In this country we have
freedom of choice in some things. Freedom to answer the phone or not.
Freedom to respond to what the person on the phone is saying or not.
Please, don't start trying to limit who can contact particular groups.

I'm not supporting its use either. I've no plans for running or
arranging a cold calling campaign.
I'm just saying it does work for business - so will keep being used.
Just like people keep coming to doors asking about changing energy
suppliers, getting roofing work done, getting kitchens fitted etc.
Just like companies (and charities) sending mail out to try and drum
up more customers or supporters.
They do it because while a lot of people don't respond, some do. It
works.

You may not like how it works. You may choose not to use whats being
offered.
Doesn't invalidate the method though.

Simply put, if you don't like companies ringing you, you can end the
call. Or not supply your details in the first place to be used by
anyone.
On the funny side of things, ever noticed when you buy a mobile on
contract they want your home telephone number? Ever known the mobile
company to ring it and check its valid? Or contact you on it?

Martin <><
 
H

Harry Stottle

Its a valid business tool.
It does generate new customers - something any company needs for
growth of its market share.
And who said anything about imposing it? In this country we have
freedom of choice in some things. Freedom to answer the phone or not.
Freedom to respond to what the person on the phone is saying or not.
Please, don't start trying to limit who can contact particular groups.

I'm not supporting its use either. I've no plans for running or
arranging a cold calling campaign.
I'm just saying it does work for business - so will keep being used.
Just like people keep coming to doors asking about changing energy
suppliers, getting roofing work done, getting kitchens fitted etc.
Just like companies (and charities) sending mail out to try and drum
up more customers or supporters.
They do it because while a lot of people don't respond, some do. It
works.

You may not like how it works. You may choose not to use whats being
offered.
Doesn't invalidate the method though.

Simply put, if you don't like companies ringing you, you can end the
call. Or not supply your details in the first place to be used by
anyone.
As I stated previously, most people now at risk from unsolicited telephone
calls are the elderly and infirm, and this also applies to doorstep callers
who will often intimidate elderly people just by their presence on their
doorsteps, making them more susceptible to purchase something they do not
want, or cannot afford, so your comment, <quote> don't start trying to limit
who can contact particular groups,</quote> seems very thoughtless and
uncaring to the needs of those most at risk, and the main reason why
regulations are needed to control the actions of those prepared to take
advantage of those vulnerable groups, just to make money for themselves.

Your attitude towards acceptable marketing methods seems to be typical of
the gutter end of the marketing industry, and your other comments like,
"Simply put, if you don't like companies ringing you, you can end the call",
smack of the typical 'I don't care how many hundreds I inconvenience or
upset, just as long as I make one sale' brigade. I purchased my telephone,
and pay for my telephone service for my convenience, not to provide a
marketing tool for anyone who thinks they have a right to take up my time,
and use my paid for service, to try and sell me their products or services .
Any doorstep seller that ventures onto my property is committing a civil
offence of trespass, so I don't accept that doorstep selling, or marketing,
is a valid business tool either, unless you think that salespeople are above
the law?
 
M

mart2306

As I stated previously, most people now at risk from unsolicited telephone
calls are  the elderly and infirm, and this also applies to doorstep callers
who will often intimidate elderly people just by their presence on their
doorsteps, making them more susceptible to purchase something they do not
want, or cannot afford, so your comment, <quote> don't start trying to limit
who can contact particular groups,</quote> seems very thoughtless and
uncaring to the needs of those most at risk, and the main reason why
regulations are needed to control the actions of those prepared to take
advantage of those vulnerable groups, just to make money for themselves.

Your attitude towards acceptable marketing methods seems to be typical of
the gutter end of the marketing industry, and your other comments like,
"Simply put, if you don't like companies ringing you, you can end the call",
smack of  the typical 'I don't care how many hundreds I inconvenience or
upset, just as long as I make one sale' brigade. I purchased my telephone,
and pay for my telephone service for my convenience, not to provide a
marketing tool for anyone who thinks they have a right to take up my time,
and use my paid for service, to try and sell me their products or services .
Any doorstep seller that ventures onto my property is committing a civil
offence of trespass, so I don't accept that doorstep selling, or marketing,
is a valid business tool either, unless you think that salespeople are above
the law?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Unless you claim to know better than individuals what is or is not a
good idea for them, don't try and limit who can contact them.
They can limit that themselves. You limit who can contact you and
allow others the courtesy of being able to make the same decision
themselves.
Who are you to make that decision for them? What legal right do you
have over whole groups of people?

There are already a number of regulations regarding both calling and
visiting people. Including cooling off periods.

My attitude towards common marketing methods are based on what
happens, not on what you would wish things to be like. Acceptable or
not, they are a valid method of attracting new business.
If you run a company or are involved in a campaign to get new
customers for your employer then you can take a moral stand against
methods you don't agree with.
Just don't expect the company to have the same growth, or even your
employer agree with you.
Your purchase and telephone and pay the bill for your convenience. You
don't have to accept the calls someone else makes. A simple
termination of the call takes you how many seconds?
I'm polite, I say 'no thank you' and put the phone down. Individual
choice.

If you don't want to provide a marketing tool, never give the number
out. Never be in a directory, never give permission to have the number
used.
Simple. But its your choice to give or withold your number.

Doorstep sellers are never done for trespass. Though I've yet to hear
of one refusing to leave a property or its grounds.
Under the law as it is, people can ring you if they have your number
or approach and knock on your door if outside your house. Nothing
currently to stop them.
Just because you don't like the law as it stands doesn't make their
actions illegal.

Martin <><
 
H

Harry Stottle

As I stated previously, most people now at risk from unsolicited telephone
calls are the elderly and infirm, and this also applies to doorstep
callers
who will often intimidate elderly people just by their presence on their
doorsteps, making them more susceptible to purchase something they do not
want, or cannot afford, so your comment, <quote> don't start trying to
limit
who can contact particular groups,</quote> seems very thoughtless and
uncaring to the needs of those most at risk, and the main reason why
regulations are needed to control the actions of those prepared to take
advantage of those vulnerable groups, just to make money for themselves.

Your attitude towards acceptable marketing methods seems to be typical of
the gutter end of the marketing industry, and your other comments like,
"Simply put, if you don't like companies ringing you, you can end the
call",
smack of the typical 'I don't care how many hundreds I inconvenience or
upset, just as long as I make one sale' brigade. I purchased my telephone,
and pay for my telephone service for my convenience, not to provide a
marketing tool for anyone who thinks they have a right to take up my time,
and use my paid for service, to try and sell me their products or services
.
Any doorstep seller that ventures onto my property is committing a civil
offence of trespass, so I don't accept that doorstep selling, or
marketing,
is a valid business tool either, unless you think that salespeople are
above
the law?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
<Martin wrote>
Unless you claim to know better than individuals what is or is not a
good idea for them, don't try and limit who can contact them.
They can limit that themselves. You limit who can contact you and
allow others the courtesy of being able to make the same decision
themselves.</Martin wrote>

Just which part of the elderly and infirm being vulnerable to these type of
callers are you having trouble understanding? They are vulnerable because
they either do not understand clearly what is being offered them, or more
likely, they are misled by the salespeople into buying something that is not
wanted, or they cannot afford. That same vulnerability also means that they
are sometimes unable to make decisions themselves that would prevent
unwanted callers, like registering with the TPS, or putting the phone down
when someone that rings them sounds nice, and that same vulnerability would
probably prevent them from being assertive to doorstep callers, hence the
reason why some need protecting, and why I am against such practices. The
type of salespeople using these methods know about the vulnerable, and a
good many are prepared to use that vulnerability to exploit them, as is
often reported on consumer type programmes like Watchdog, but you still fail
to see that there is anything wrong with it, as long as it helps someone
make some money out of them.
 
Ad

Advertisements

M

mart2306

<Martin wrote>
Unless you claim to know better than individuals what is or is not a
good idea for them, don't try and limit who can contact them.
They can limit that themselves. You limit who can contact you and
allow others the courtesy of being able to make the same decision
themselves.</Martin wrote>

Just which part of the elderly and infirm being vulnerable to these type of
callers are you having trouble understanding? They are vulnerable because
they either do not understand clearly what is being offered them, or more
likely, they are misled by the salespeople into buying something that is not
wanted, or they cannot afford. That same vulnerability also means that they
are sometimes unable to make decisions themselves that would prevent
unwanted callers, like registering with the TPS, or putting the phone down
when someone that rings them sounds nice, and that same vulnerability would
probably prevent them from being assertive to doorstep callers, hence the
reason why some need protecting, and why I am against such practices. The
type of salespeople using these methods know about the vulnerable, and a
good many are prepared to use that vulnerability to exploit them, as is
often reported on consumer type programmes like Watchdog, but you still fail
to see that there is anything wrong with it, as long as it helps someone
make some money out of them.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Elderly and infirm are vulnerable to a lot of things. Yet I don't see
you calling for them to be housebound permanently, denied televisions,
denied mail and denied family.
Accidents happen outside the house as well as in. TV advertising is
intended to get people buying. Direct mail is another common method of
getting customers. And family are in a better position to cajole,
threaten, intimidate and steal from an elderly or infirm person than
any cold caller.
Instead you focus on one method of contacting people and say that you
know better than them what is and is not acceptable contact.

Such arrogance.

Someone unable to make decisions can have an appointee, or someone
with power of attorney, or a court guardianship order.
Methods that have been in use for many years now to protect those who
CANNOT choose to protect themselves.

Why not go the whole hog, why not become prime minister yourself and
then try and get legislation passed that limits what can be done to
people in this country.
Oh wait, you'd also have to ban all advertising, all brochures and
other methods of getting people that you don't want to see become
customers of companies. Just think how you could screw the economy.

We already have a lot of consumer protection to protect people, allow
people to change minds, limit what companies can do to persuade and
even what can done in advertising.


You want to limit a current business practice that is done by many
companies, without problems. Go right ahead.
As I keep saying, I don't expect any changes.
Its too useful a method of getting new customers.

Come to think of it, when I stand up in front of a bunch of people at
a meeting and try and sell a charity, no-one in the room ever stands
up and says that xxx shouldn't hear this because she is infirm. Or
that yyy is elderly and shouldn't be put under pressure of what I'm
saying. It simply doesn't happen.
Instead people make their own minds up. Which I've got no problem
with.

Martin <><
 
H

Harry Stottle

Elderly and infirm are vulnerable to a lot of things. Yet I don't see
you calling for them to be housebound permanently, denied televisions,
denied mail and denied family.
Accidents happen outside the house as well as in. TV advertising is
intended to get people buying. Direct mail is another common method of
getting customers. And family are in a better position to cajole,
threaten, intimidate and steal from an elderly or infirm person than
any cold caller.
Instead you focus on one method of contacting people and say that you
know better than them what is and is not acceptable contact.

Such arrogance.
I think you will find arrogance much quicker by looking in a mirror.
You seem to think that you should be able to use any means possible, and at
anyone's expense, just to line your own pockets, and woe betide anyone that
disagrees with you, or with your methods. I have met many like you, usually
standing on my doorstep, trying to justify why a clearly displayed notice
asking them not to call has been ignored, then telling me they have a right
to trespass, that they are dyslexic and cant read the notice, that the
notice does not apply to them because they are not selling anything, that
they didn't see the notice, that they thought the notice might have been
left by a previous owner, etc. When I point out to them that they are lying
about the notice, and that they have also ignored my wishes, so why would
they expect me to trust anything they say about the products they are
promoting, they usually leave, although I have been known to argue with the
very stubborn and persistent

If anyone else is following this thread and is still undecided about cold
calling, all I can add is the regular advice given by consumer programmes
such as Watchdog, never agree to buy anything from anyone that knocks
uninvited on your door, or from anyone that cold calls you on the telephone.
If I was given the choice of following the advice given by Watchdog, or
following Martin's blinkered and biased advice about the saintly qualities
of cold calling companies, or their representatives, then there is no
contest, the Watchdog advice would be the one I would choose.
 
M

mart2306

I think you will find arrogance much quicker by looking in a mirror.
You seem to think that you should be able to use any means possible, and at
anyone's expense, just to line your own pockets, and woe betide anyone that
disagrees with you, or with your methods. I have met many like you, usually
standing on my doorstep, trying to justify why a clearly displayed notice
asking them not to call has been ignored, then telling me they have a right
to trespass, that they are dyslexic and cant read the notice, that the
notice does not apply to them because they are not selling anything, that
they didn't see the notice, that they thought the notice might have been
left by a previous owner, etc. When I point out to them that they are lying
about the notice, and that they have also ignored my wishes, so why would
they expect me to trust anything they say about the products they are
promoting, they usually leave, although I have been known to argue with the
very stubborn and persistent

If anyone else is following this thread and is still undecided about cold
calling, all I can add is the regular advice given by consumer programmes
such as Watchdog, never agree to buy anything from anyone that knocks
uninvited on your door, or from anyone that cold calls you on the telephone.
If I was given the choice of following the advice given by Watchdog, or
following Martin's blinkered and biased advice about the saintly qualities
of cold calling companies, or their representatives, then there is no
contest, the Watchdog advice would be the one I would choose.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Where have I ever said the cold calling companies have saintly
qualities?
Where have I given blinkered and biased advice?

Saying what is done because it works is hardly advising.

You have some sort of problem with a capitalist society?

Martin <><
 
H

Harry Stottle

You have some sort of problem with a capitalist society?
If that is the same capitalist society that has cost this country's
taxpayers tens of billions of pounds, by having to bail out, and practically
nationalise the banks after they have given away all the money we entrusted
them with, then I think everyone has a problem with a capitalist society at
the moment.
 
M

mart2306

If that is the same capitalist society that has cost this country's
taxpayers tens of billions of pounds, by having to bail out, and practically
nationalise the banks after they have given away all the money we entrusted
them with, then I think everyone has a problem with a capitalist society at
the moment.
The alternitive to bailing the banks would have been what?
Better? Or worse?

Just ask the ex-shareholders of Northern Rock. Just ask those with
company or private pension schemes, who tend to have money spread
throughout the stock market.

Martin <><
 
Ad

Advertisements

H

Harry Stottle

The alternitive to bailing the banks would have been what?
Better? Or worse?

Just ask the ex-shareholders of Northern Rock. Just ask those with
company or private pension schemes, who tend to have money spread
throughout the stock market.
Aren't you contradicting yourself here?
At first you seemed to be praising the capitalist system, then you write
about how the abuse of that same capitalist system almost totally wiped out
some shareholders savings, and nearly destroyed the private pension hopes of
many people in this country, which is exactly what I was pointing out. It
wasn't the capitalists that clubbed together to try and rescue the situation
that they had created, it was the Government using taxpayers money, and if
we had been relying on the capitalist system to pick up the pieces, we would
have been waiting a very long time. You do appear to be losing the plot now
Martin
 
M

mart2306

Aren't you contradicting yourself here?
At first you seemed to be praising the capitalist system, then you write
about how the abuse of that same capitalist system almost totally wiped out
some shareholders savings, and nearly destroyed the private pension hopes of
many people in this country, which is exactly what I was pointing out. It
wasn't the capitalists that clubbed together to try and rescue the situation
that they had created, it was the Government using taxpayers money, and if
we had been relying on the capitalist system to pick up the pieces, we would
have been waiting a very long time. You do appear to be losing the plot now
Martin- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
I live in a capitalist society.
With all its opportunities and problems. Never claimed to be praising
it - its merely what we have.
Are you just getting your daily exercise by jumping to conclusions or
do you sit down and make this stuff up?

You need to learn to differentiate between reality and what you want
things to be like.

The government used taxpayers money (whose else can it ever use?) to
prevent something that could be much worse.
They could have sat back and let the banks fail - but would that have
been better for you and I?

For whatever reason, we expect government to take action that benefits
us or at least doesn't make things worse for us.
Doing nothing and letting a bunch of banks fail wasn't an option - too
much of the economy (and the companies that employ workers) rely on
the banks.
You may have noticed the damage thats been done from banks not
lettings companies have credit? Think of that being far worse.
Never mind loss of tax revenues.

Martin <><
 
H

Harry Stottle

I live in a capitalist society.
With all its opportunities and problems. Never claimed to be praising
it - its merely what we have.
Are you just getting your daily exercise by jumping to conclusions or
do you sit down and make this stuff up?

You need to learn to differentiate between reality and what you want
things to be like.

The government used taxpayers money (whose else can it ever use?) to
prevent something that could be much worse.
They could have sat back and let the banks fail - but would that have
been better for you and I?

For whatever reason, we expect government to take action that benefits
us or at least doesn't make things worse for us.
Doing nothing and letting a bunch of banks fail wasn't an option - too
much of the economy (and the companies that employ workers) rely on
the banks.
You may have noticed the damage thats been done from banks not
lettings companies have credit? Think of that being far worse.
Never mind loss of tax revenues.
Martin, you are losing so much face that you are in danger of requiring a
face transplant.

You replied to something that I have previously written, which was
criticising your support of unsolicited phone calls and doorstep
salespeople, and you wrote <quote> You have some sort of problem with a
capitalist society? </quote>. This had nothing to do with my criticism of
unsolicited phone calls, so it was you that introduced the capitalist
element into the discussion, and the wording of that quote from you,
straight after my criticism, and therefore linking it to that criticism,
implies that your support for unsolicited phone calls is somehow linked to
your support of capitalism, otherwise why would you throw in a random
question such as "You have some sort of problem with a capitalist society?"

You keep repeating the points I was making, and which I agree with, that
capitalism has probably caused most of the problems that we are experiencing
today, but you still seem prepared to look on capitalism as something that
you seem to admire, and think others should aspire to, and anyone that
disagrees with your view has, in your own words,a "problem". As you are now
straying more and more away from the subject of unsolicited phone calls, and
seem to want to argue about anything else that comes into your head, this
will be my final comment on the matter.
 
M

mart2306

Martin, you are losing so much face that you are in danger of requiring a
face transplant.

You replied to something that I have previously written, which was
criticising your support of unsolicited phone calls and doorstep
salespeople, and you wrote <quote> You have some sort of problem with a
capitalist society? </quote>. This had nothing to do with my criticism of
unsolicited phone calls, so it was you that introduced the capitalist
element into the discussion, and the wording of that quote from you,
straight after my criticism, and therefore linking it to that criticism,
implies that your support for unsolicited phone calls is somehow linked to
your support of capitalism, otherwise why would you throw in a random
question such as "You have some sort of problem with a capitalist society?"

You keep repeating the points I was making, and which I agree with, that
capitalism has probably caused most of the problems that we are experiencing
today, but you still seem  prepared to look on capitalism as something that
you seem to admire, and think others should aspire to, and anyone that
disagrees with your view has, in your own words,a "problem". As you are now
straying more and more away from the subject of unsolicited phone calls, and
seem to want to argue about anything else that comes into your head, this
will be my final comment on the matter.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Oh good.
You really are amusing.

Martin <><
 
Ad

Advertisements

Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
British Gas hot deals (brand new) at EveryDaySale

Hey, I just passed by and wanna give a shout for the following deal from everydaysale:

Get an extra £100 trade-in on your old boiler at British Gas new product hot discount voucher.
 
Ad

Advertisements


Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top