Attempts to divide an industry: the following is reprinted from the American Teleservices' Associations e-newsletter, eConnections (February 24, 2004).

It's been three weeks since the ATA announced that it would proceed to seek legal relief for our members relating to the national DNC registry. We have received numerous calls and e-mails of thanks (which are greatly appreciated), as well as a few inquiries to explain our decision (which are justified and appreciated as well). I've listened to arguments supporting the decision and those who have conveyed concern relating to such pursuit. I am not surprised by any of the feedback and welcome the dialog--it is necessary for such dialog to occur in order to develop a proper strategy for our industry. And, it is just this debate that occurred prior to our decision to confirm that we will proceed.

Of all the commentary, both individual and in the press. I was only surprised once--that was to read an editorial claiming there are "good guys," and thus implying that there are "bad guys" in this fight representing our industry. I believe this type of divisive language is prevalent throughout our society and the reason that political campaigns are more about mudslinging than honest debating of position differences. However, I was disappointed to see this type of public divisiveness in print, attempting to divide an industry that needs to be unified by drawing false conclusions and using inappropriate descriptives.

To fully disclose, I spoke with the individual who wrote the editorial in the Los Angeles Times prior to print. He informed me of his position and was looking to seek comment that would confirm that he was "correct" in his position that telemarketing was basically evil. He recognized that his own company used it--and needed it--but he doesn't report to the subscription department. I know that he was disappointed that I didn't deliver the tidbit he was looking for. When he used the unfortunately popular sound bite, "Why do you want to call people who don't want to be called?," I explained that we are pursuing and protecting consumer interests by allowing consumers choice and giving them the right to determine what products and offers they want to hear about. I asked why he would support no choice for consumers and stymie competition. I thought his comment was interesting and worth understanding because it gives insight to the fact that consideration by those outside of our industry has only been given at surface levels. The editor stated that consumers do have two choices: to be removed from all telephone marketing or to be included.

I think that sums up the gap in the FTC/FCC's debate quite well. It's a poor definition of competition. I went on to inquire that if that is truly choice, then why didn't we stay with Henry Ford's idea of the black Model T? Wasn't that enough choice for everyone? If you want to drive, you have a choice of a black Model T or nothing. Why did society and our capital markets evolve to provide consumers with choice? And, why do the European and U.S. governments pursue Microsoft? Why is it not good enough to choose Microsoft's operating system and software or nothing? If consumers don't like these options, they can use a bike and not own a computer--is that truly choice? (He stated that he never considered that and thought it was a good point; however, it didn't seem to make it into his editorial).

I know that marketers around the country are concerned about the long-term implications of the appellate court's classification of commercial speech, and we all should be. This case has evolved to be an issue involving the rights and definition of commercial speech for all direct marketing. ATA's winning of such a case means that consumers win. The current ruling is precedent for direct marketing limitations in the future and consumers benefit from direct marketing in the forms of competition and lower prices.

The ATA's decision was based on feedback from our members, from call center operators to the Fortune 500, and counsel, after several extensive discussions via phone and in person. Our board informed our executive director of our decision and the reason for the decision. There are no "bad guys" in this fight, just an industry trying to protect consumer choice and consumer employment. Let's not forget that millions of those "consumers" whom the press likes to refer to support their families through our industry. That's the reason that members of Congress are not surprised by our decision. Many actually stated that they would expect that the course would continue even before the final decision was made. And, you would be surprised by the number of members of Congress who express private concern about the impact of this legislation. The ATA continues to work its plan, which includes both a Congressional as well as a legal strategy. By introducing Congressional representatives to our members and providing them with insight regarding alternatives to the current law, we continue to gain support. Our legal course provides the opportunity to have the current law reconsidered.

Lisa DeFalco, Chair

American Teleservices Association (ATA)

A Letter From ATA Chair Lisa DeFalco