Comments on: Robocall

By: Thudfactor » Every rose has its thorn

Thudfactor » Every rose has its thorn — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 12:49:29 +0000

[...] excited. But unfortunately it also marks the beginning of Robocall season: [Jeffrey] Fournier, whose company serves hundreds of local, statewide and national campaigns, [...]

By: Surfing the Luminiferous Ether » Blog Archive » Robo-caller, meet Asterisk. And then go to a special circle of hell.

Tue, 07 Nov 2006 02:13:23 +0000

[...] However, there’s clearly a reason why these calls get made. Somebody has to believe that they’re effective, which means that they’re either effective or cheap. Thudfactor says that a robo-call is only five cents per call, though I’ve also heard figures between one and two cents per call. No wonder they’re so depressingly common. The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) says that [t]he most effective way of getting a new voter is the in-person door knock by a peer; the least effective is an automated phone call. Canvassing costs $11 to $14 per new vote, followed closely by phone banks at $10 to $25 per new vote. Robocalls mobilize so few voters that they cost $275 per new vote. (These costs are figured per vote that would not be cast without the mobilizing effort.) [...]

By: Karan

Karan — Sat, 30 Sep 2006 23:24:37 +0000

I had no bad account issues…After I wrote this, I told this story to my friend and she told me that this was a phishing scheme that was uncovered by our Attorney General office.

By: thudfactor

thudfactor — Sat, 30 Sep 2006 13:08:18 +0000

Yockel:

Anyways, with respect to effectiveness, it stands to reason that automated calls are ineffective by themselves. In the context of a comprehensive campaign, however, they can amplify other efforts (signage, canvassing, earned and bought media).

How do you know this? Do you have metrics? Is it possible that they *depress* other efforts? How do you know what the net effect of these calls are?

Use every tool that you can afford. You win by going all out, not by quitting.

I’d agree with that, but it needs to be the appropriate tool. If the tool is ineffective — or worse, detrimental (as I suspect robocalling is) — then clearly there’s a better place to spend your money. In place of clear metrics to the contrary, that’s just a marketing message.

By: Yockel

Yockel — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 13:00:35 +0000

Actually, the callers know exactly how many people hang up. The software measures that.

Ideally, one places automated calls during the work day and leaves messages on answering machines. In that case, operators will not know who finishes listening to messages. I always do but I am also a political junky.

Anyways, with respect to effectiveness, it stands to reason that automated calls are ineffective by themselves. In the context of a comprehensive campaign, however, they can amplify other efforts (signage, canvassing, earned and bought media).

Voters are always complaining. They also complain about direct mail and threaten canvassers with firearms. Woe to the candidate who hopes to win by ending her campaign.

Use every tool that you can afford. You win by going all out, not by quitting.

By: thudfactor

thudfactor — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 10:26:58 +0000

Sometimes legitimate companies do go that route for collections, but it’s not smart; nothing worse than getting an angry threatening collections call from a robot when your account is current and paid up…

By: Karan

Karan — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 06:22:41 +0000

I agree 100% I received a call from one robot caller that was the worst ever….some obscure message saying that I needed to call xxx-xxx-xxxx to resolve an issue with my account.
I suspect it was that Nigerian guy so I never did spend my dime to call him back.