I don't want to turn this blog into a venting forum (so what I just add a "Rants" category, you might ask) -- but let me rant a bit about one of my favorite whipping boy -- telemarketers. This morning, I picked up our house phone to be greeted by "Please hold the line for a moment while we maximize our calling throughput and eventually get our chance to rile you". I thought about just hanging up on the spot -- I really dislike automated dialing systems that call a whole bunch of people to throw them in a queue. Now I know there is the off-chance that the message I will be getting is worth being put on hold for a few seconds so that I can do my part to make the organization more efficient. But what's the likelihood of that?
Still, I thought that I would hang on so that I could vent my frustration when the caller came on the line. Again, does this serve any useful purpose? I've gone back and forth on whether to complain to the front-line of telemarketers, who are not powerless but who are, in some ways, following orders from those up above (who are shielded from the vents of irate recipients of calls.) But I decided that I would politely express my complaint about automated dialing.
When the caller finally came on, it did seem like a legitimate item of business directed at my fellow housemate. After taking down the number, I then said that automated dialing systems were obnoxious to the those on the receiving end. The caller, who didn't seem to pick up my frustration, proceeded to explain the mechanics of the system and how it increases their efficiency. Fortunately for me, I wasn't as irate as I normally could be in this type of situation; I calmly and courteously did get my point across. The caller told me that a lot of others have been complaining too, which I hope means that the company will get the message to be more considerate.
Now I wanted to dignify my rant by weaving in appropriate references from around the Web to bolster my argument and place the rant into a larger community context. However, I should better things to do than to construct such a tightly-woven narrative. So I just list a bunch of links that I found to be interesting as I looked for greater context on the Web:
- Confessions of an ex-telemarketer: "Like most telemarketing firms, we used a computerized and automated dialing system. It would speed-dial hundreds of phone numbers a minute, wait for a line to pick up, and shunt the call to the first-available operator... except for when all of the operators were already on other calls, in which case it would leave the person there saying "Hello? Hello? Hellooooooooooo?" into dead air and make them wait for their turn to be REALLY annoyed."
- I used the term "whipping boy" in my description above though I could probably find a better phrase. I went looking for definitions of "whipping boy" to understand exactly what I'd be implying by using the term. From The Phrase Finder: It used to be the practise in some cultures that the nobility could not be touched and when they committed a crime that warranted physical punishment it was delegated to an unfortunate victim - the whipping boy. The OED says: "A boy educated together with a young prince or royal personage, and flogged in his stead when he committed a fault that was considered to deserve flogging." There is a similar defintion in the hyperdictionary. (I didn't even know about the wiktionary before this serendipitous search.) By using the term "whipping boy" then, I seem to suggest that telemarketers are only scapegoats, undeservingly bearing the sins of someone else. Maybe there is something to that....
- Hang up on telemarketers -- for good. "Telemarketers have long violated federal law by using automatic dialing systems to ring more victims than they have operators to handle. Now the FTC finally seems determined to kill this practice with tougher enforcement so you won’t have to “wait to be annoyed,” as Catlett put it." [via telemarketer blocking]