Call centre PR desperately needed

The Australian Direct Marketing Association (ADMA) has a Code of Practice which includes mandatory standards that members must comply with as a condition of membership.

In addition, there is the ADMA Call Centre Guidelines which provide industry benchmarks and guidance for organisations that use the telephone in their marketing strategy.

These Guidelines promote higher standards of good business practice in call centres.

• From a client standpoint, the Guidelines deal with a variety of issues that should be considered when choosing a call centre. In this way, they provide a useful tool in comparing and evaluating prospective suppliers.
• For managers in call centres, the Guidelines establish a framework against which to benchmark service offerings and differentiate call centres in the market place.

This is all good stuff. But there are a couple of problems.

• The vast majority of Australians do not know the Standards or Guidelines exist.
• And there are too many careless or ignorant phone marketers who do not follow them.

There needs to be some positive PR for call centres. Around 700,000 Australians depend on a call centre somewhere for their income. These people need some PR support to counter the negative publicity that often seems to be bubbling just beneath the surface.

Criticising the call centre industry seems to be an easy target whenever an editor needs a story. There is always a journalist available who can quickly run off a half-baked, exaggerated and often misleading article at the expense of an industry that is mostly trying hard to do the right thing.

There is no denying that there are some practitioners who do the wrong thing. They are rude on the phone. They are over pushy. And they break all the rules of good sales etiquette. But these people are very small in number. They are the ones who create the bad image for the industry.

The problem with the rotten eggs also is that they are not ADMA members and so they are not obliged to abide by the very carefully produced and balanced ADMA Guidelines. And they are the ones that journalists love to focus on.

The following piece is taken from a recent article in a major daily newspaper:

“Today, in the age of the pervasive telemarketer, answering the telephone too often means a battle to extricate yourself from a stranger, often calling from overseas call centres, hawking anything from health insurance to credit cards, or a charity pleading for a slice of your salary.

And while legislation is in place in countries such as Britain and the US, Australia is still way behind.”

The article then went into detail about the case of Primary School Principal, Vivien Smith. Apparently, Smith generally hangs up immediately when she realises the caller is a “nuisance telemarketer.”

"A few months ago, I could hear this young man start his pitch as I put the receiver to my ear and then just slammed the phone down. And then he rang straight back, absolutely livid that I'd dared to hang up on him. I hung up on him twice more and on the fourth time he rang back - I'd gathered by this time that his name was James - I said to him 'James, you've got better things to do than harass people.' He was a little surprised - and then, to my own amazement, he got me talking!"

Smith didn't buy what young James had to offer, but her experience shows how persistent these people can be. And how effective.”

This is not an isolated piece of journalism, yet readers of ccmanager know only too well that the sort of case represented here does not reflect the daily work they are involved in. Extreme cases are not at all indicative of the quality work we do. But it seems that the general public doesn’t know that.

The call centre industry desperately needs some positive PR to show people the true picture.