FCC Considering Banning Transfer of Online Consent Forms(tcpaworld.com)
tcpaworld.com
FCC Considering Banning Transfer of Online Consent Forms
https://tcpaworld.com/2023/02/23/closing-the-lead-generator-loophole-fcc-considering-banning-transfer-of-online-consent-forms-and-other-critical-changes-and-i-warned-you/
221 comments
And there’s a trivial solution for the lending tree scenario (I’m making a big leap of faith that consumers really want txt spam from a dozen different lenders)
Instead of handing off customer contact info to a dozen different lenders, they can send the loan request to the lenders, and the lenders can send their offers back to lending tree who can then send it to the customer since the customer only authorized lending tree to contact them. Ideally lending tree would consolidate the responses so instead of a dozen txt messages, the customer receives a single one from lending tree.
Instead of handing off customer contact info to a dozen different lenders, they can send the loan request to the lenders, and the lenders can send their offers back to lending tree who can then send it to the customer since the customer only authorized lending tree to contact them. Ideally lending tree would consolidate the responses so instead of a dozen txt messages, the customer receives a single one from lending tree.
The other wrinkle is that vendors don't want the broker to control the relationship. They want to have it themselves. So a big part of why companies like Lending Tree can exist is because they sell the leads and don't have to do the work of being a CRM.
They don't have to give up control, if the offer is appealing they can consent to further contact.
In their minds, if they do not have contact info they do not own the relationship. If the broker has that, the broker owns the relationship. Making an offer through a broker means making an offer where they do not own the relationship.
In short - you are defining control differently than they do and coming to a different conclusion. You can do that, but expect vendors to be unmoved by it.
In short - you are defining control differently than they do and coming to a different conclusion. You can do that, but expect vendors to be unmoved by it.
I think 6510 was proposing that the broker would present the smorgasbord of offers to the client, and after the client selects an offer, the lender would get the client's contact information. The lender would own their relationship after the client consents to that solitary relationship.
I understood what 6510 was proposing. My point is that the lenders consider this to be them not owning the relationship and it requires the broker to do all the CRM work. Neither sees the smorgasbord approach as good for them.
Could it be done that way? Sure! This just comes with the caveat that finding lenders willing to do it might be harder and they would likely pay less per-lead. So a higher volume would be required to make financial ends meet for the broker, who also is now developing and deploying more sophisticated software in addition to the whole sales funnel and marketing operation.
You may be thinking "Gee, this is great for everyone except the customer". Yes, it is. It sucks for the customer who gets spammed by a dozen lenders.
Could it be done that way? Sure! This just comes with the caveat that finding lenders willing to do it might be harder and they would likely pay less per-lead. So a higher volume would be required to make financial ends meet for the broker, who also is now developing and deploying more sophisticated software in addition to the whole sales funnel and marketing operation.
You may be thinking "Gee, this is great for everyone except the customer". Yes, it is. It sucks for the customer who gets spammed by a dozen lenders.
It would filter down the leads to a much smaller number of much greater quality (as people showed an interest in their specific product and access to their info is more exclusive) The budget would stay the same as would the number of customers. I think they should welcome the money saved on competitive harassment. You kinda had to do it because everyone else was doing it.
Right. Lenders and brokers want to exploit the customer for maximum profits. They do not want to respect customers, because they might make a little less money and it might take a bit more effort. The customer does not like that behavior, but an unregulated market rewards the worst actors so the customer cannot find what they would really want and is forced to settle. The FCC is supposed to protect the customer and regulate the market in this situation.
> expect vendors to be unmoved by it.
There's a large part of me that doesn't care what the vendors think. Their attitude toward potential customers is a not insignificant part of the problem.
There's a large part of me that doesn't care what the vendors think. Their attitude toward potential customers is a not insignificant part of the problem.
control is all they have though. Big banks are behind the scene doing all the real work. All the people you talk to are doing is getting a contract signed. There are enough steps that this is valuable work that needs a lot of customer service (which is why big banks outsource it to 'independent' entities), but in the end nobody can actually give you a better rate/extra costs from the banks and credit unions already near you. The rate you care about is decided by your credit score and the current market. The closing costs are somewhat competitive, but they are in the end small.
I suppose if you have really bad credit these places might find someone willing to do a risky loans (at really bad interest rates) while the local banks and credit unions won't talk to you at all. However overall the places buying leads don't have anything to offer.
I suppose if you have really bad credit these places might find someone willing to do a risky loans (at really bad interest rates) while the local banks and credit unions won't talk to you at all. However overall the places buying leads don't have anything to offer.
Yup. Too few people understand that almost all of these companies are solely loan origination and loan servicing.
They are not providing the capital, they are not making money through interest. They have almost no control over the rates they offer you.
They make money when a borrower signs a new loan agreement (origination) and by collecting the payments the borrower owes and passing them along to the real lender (servicing).
If you're wondering why your mortgage company used to keep calling you telling you to refinance (and some still are, even with the higher rates), it's because that's another loan origination for them - another payment. They don't care that you save long term on the interest, they want the payment for closing a new loan.
Same for loan consolidation (ex: consolidate your auto/credit debts!) style pitches. They're ONLY interested in originating a new loan, because that's how they get paid.
----
Basically - these guys don't have anything other than you, the borrower.
They're not selling you a loan, they're selling you to real lender, which is almost always the large government backed mortgage lenders (Freddie/Fannie).
This is why they jump to call you, or text you, or harass you. They are out there fishing for new borrowers to make money.
They are not providing the capital, they are not making money through interest. They have almost no control over the rates they offer you.
They make money when a borrower signs a new loan agreement (origination) and by collecting the payments the borrower owes and passing them along to the real lender (servicing).
If you're wondering why your mortgage company used to keep calling you telling you to refinance (and some still are, even with the higher rates), it's because that's another loan origination for them - another payment. They don't care that you save long term on the interest, they want the payment for closing a new loan.
Same for loan consolidation (ex: consolidate your auto/credit debts!) style pitches. They're ONLY interested in originating a new loan, because that's how they get paid.
----
Basically - these guys don't have anything other than you, the borrower.
They're not selling you a loan, they're selling you to real lender, which is almost always the large government backed mortgage lenders (Freddie/Fannie).
This is why they jump to call you, or text you, or harass you. They are out there fishing for new borrowers to make money.
This is already a thing in the leadgen space it's called RTB. Tree has likely simply figured out that it's more profitable to sell the data multiple times.
Hot leads are very valuable, especially in the pay-per-call space. Every single one of those calls the GP is complaining about likely "reached duration" and paid out to Tree. Hehe.
Hot leads are very valuable, especially in the pay-per-call space. Every single one of those calls the GP is complaining about likely "reached duration" and paid out to Tree. Hehe.
Sausage factory goes brrrrrrr
I ve worked in an equivalent of lending tree. Literally no one in our company, no one, cared about loans. We were a marketing front for banks, spoke only to banks, optimized "funnels" to, well, funnel the poor souls to them, whatever the law allowed us to do. I had never met any sort of "lending expert" in that company, only SEO experts, data miners, adwords optimizers, former bank marketing managers, email copywriters, javascript programmers, etc.
I work in a bank now, and we can calculate interest rate, understand consumer default profiles, calculate acceptable risk ratio for our own capital, all those stuff that have to do with loans.
Point is, you cannot expect an externalized marketing department to do what you suggest. They dont care about borrowers one bit, lending is not their jobs. Banks just want to start a relationship with people and send whatever they can to whomever present an email adress, and they ll pay their marketing guys by the amount of converted leads.
I work in a bank now, and we can calculate interest rate, understand consumer default profiles, calculate acceptable risk ratio for our own capital, all those stuff that have to do with loans.
Point is, you cannot expect an externalized marketing department to do what you suggest. They dont care about borrowers one bit, lending is not their jobs. Banks just want to start a relationship with people and send whatever they can to whomever present an email adress, and they ll pay their marketing guys by the amount of converted leads.
The other trivial solution is to just list all the vendors that the customer could potentially deal with and give them the ability to select the ones they'd like to receive offers from. Yes, there's less potential overall revenue there, because less leads means less revenue for lead generation companies, but it's still better than the footgun they're currently being presented with.
That's how a mortgage broker works. It would probably require a lot more staff to operate that way.
That’s how it typically works in the UK, probably because of GDPR.
Might not stay that way now the EU laws are potentially getting ripped up.
Might not stay that way now the EU laws are potentially getting ripped up.
That's not how it works in the UK and not because of GDPR.
Currently, organisations can claim both consent and legitimate interests as a legal basis so it is already possible to take my data from somewhere, pass it to other people and have those third-parties contact you.
"Legitimate Interests" was presumably some attempt to allow things like research and things that hadn't been thought of elsewhere but this leaves a nasty loophole that is already being taken advantage of.
In fact, some cookie consent banners, if you click "options", disable the consent tickbox by default but leave "legitiimate interests" ticked in some kind of dark pattern to imply that "we'd rather have your consent but we don't need it".
Currently, organisations can claim both consent and legitimate interests as a legal basis so it is already possible to take my data from somewhere, pass it to other people and have those third-parties contact you.
"Legitimate Interests" was presumably some attempt to allow things like research and things that hadn't been thought of elsewhere but this leaves a nasty loophole that is already being taken advantage of.
In fact, some cookie consent banners, if you click "options", disable the consent tickbox by default but leave "legitiimate interests" ticked in some kind of dark pattern to imply that "we'd rather have your consent but we don't need it".
UK GDPR under threat? Do you have a link?
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=retained+eu+law
(GDPR is UK's implementation of an EU directive, the kind of law that the Retained EU Law bill seeks to get rid of.)
(GDPR is UK's implementation of an EU directive, the kind of law that the Retained EU Law bill seeks to get rid of.)
Thanks for the link. In this case, the Data Protection Act 2018 is the UK's implementation of GDPR. GDPR is the EU regulation.
I don't see anything in there that would revoke the DPA, though. It even requires DPA-compatibility at one point, so to avoid recursion I imagine it won't be for that purpose.
I don't see anything in there that would revoke the DPA, though. It even requires DPA-compatibility at one point, so to avoid recursion I imagine it won't be for that purpose.
I knew I remembered something else. There's also
https://www.itpro.co.uk/policy-legislation/data-protection/3...
https://www.itpro.co.uk/policy-legislation/data-protection/3...
When I was shopping for car insurance a few months ago, I used the Burner app to give temporary phone numbers to each vendor.
Allstate called before I had even completed the online application, and proceeded to call at least once a day until the number expired.
Geico called once.
Progressive didn't call at all. AND they were cheapest. You can guess who I went with.
Allstate called before I had even completed the online application, and proceeded to call at least once a day until the number expired.
Geico called once.
Progressive didn't call at all. AND they were cheapest. You can guess who I went with.
Instead of going by price alone, take a look at how easy or difficult the claims process is… for any kind of insurance. You don’t want a carrier who drags its heels or refuses to pay on some technicality when you make a claim. I have a good source for this data, but am hesitant to share since i don’t want you thinking I’m biased.
I recently had the displeasure of filing claims with Progressive. An insured party of theirs was transporting my vehicles and the hauler crashed. Totalled my car and did a number on my wife's. Took 5 months to get my wife's car fixed and a check for my car. We were told multiple times my wife's car was repaired only to immediately, as in before I drove off, things wrong with or omitted from the repair. I hope to never deal with Progressive again. Scumbags as far as I was concerned. I was damn close to involving lawyers and or police in the matter. It should not take 5 months to cut a check for a totalled car. Sorry for the rant. Fuck Progressive.
I have a survey link in my inbox from Progressive with the subject "Follow-up on your recent claim" for a minor accident where their insured was at fault. It's been 4 months since the accident. Progressive denied my claim, so I filed a claim through my policy with Liberty Mutual. My car is not fixed. Progressive sucks.
Counter-point, I moved from Liberty Mutual because when I switched from a heavy pickup truck to a cheaper compact SUV with more safety features, my rate went UP, against all reason. Multiple customer service agents refused to look into why that was the case. I got quotes from four other companies -- the most expensive quote was still 1/2 the price Liberty Mutual was giving me. The plan I went with was 1/3rd the price. I'm saving $3,000 a year. And Progressive hasn't spam called me even once.
Everyone seems to have horror stories about ALL the companies out there.
Everyone seems to have horror stories about ALL the companies out there.
> the most expensive quote was still 1/2 the price Liberty Mutual
Likely because of the intense advertising they do. Every other YouTube as is liberty mutual for me. I have had Amica for years and have no horror stories. They are great, and offer an annual dividend.
Likely because of the intense advertising they do. Every other YouTube as is liberty mutual for me. I have had Amica for years and have no horror stories. They are great, and offer an annual dividend.
I’ll pile on with a Progressive story - my car was hit while parked in a parking garage. The other party admitted fault but my insurer (Progressive) ended up paying for the repair after they hashed it out with the repair shop and the offending drivers’ insurer, Allstate.
Fast forward a few months and I get my renewal letter in the mail - my 6-month premium went up 47% for no particular stated reason. I’m basically ending up paying for the repair over the course of the next year and a half.
I’m currently in search of the highest deductible, lowest premium insurer I can find, because I’m never going to file a claim again unless a car is a near total loss.
Fast forward a few months and I get my renewal letter in the mail - my 6-month premium went up 47% for no particular stated reason. I’m basically ending up paying for the repair over the course of the next year and a half.
I’m currently in search of the highest deductible, lowest premium insurer I can find, because I’m never going to file a claim again unless a car is a near total loss.
Progressive prices that way. Not all insurers do. Some will just drop you with an accident others have grace periods.
With car insurance, it’s all about price in most states. You should be shopping annually if you want to optimize for price. That may vary in a place like New Hampshire or Florida that is more lax from a regulatory perspective - cheap insurance there may be too cheap.
Age, car, history, address tend to matter. As a boring 40 something, I’m paying less for $0 deductible, $1M limit insurance than I did for a 100/300 $2500 deductible 10 years ago. If you drive a Tesla, live in Brooklyn and have moving violations, forget it.
With car insurance, it’s all about price in most states. You should be shopping annually if you want to optimize for price. That may vary in a place like New Hampshire or Florida that is more lax from a regulatory perspective - cheap insurance there may be too cheap.
Age, car, history, address tend to matter. As a boring 40 something, I’m paying less for $0 deductible, $1M limit insurance than I did for a 100/300 $2500 deductible 10 years ago. If you drive a Tesla, live in Brooklyn and have moving violations, forget it.
Happened to me, too. Wife's car got rear-ended by a delivery truck at an intersection and the car was totaled. Mysteriously, our rate basically doubled the next cycle. I called them multiple times about why the price went up so much, especially since my wife wasn't at-fault. They just said that's the price and there was nothing I could do. Switched providers to Safeco and haven't had any issues with any claims or random price hikes since.
FWIW I've had 2 at-fault fender-benders over the last 6 years with Progressive and my insurance has gone down by 5-10% over that time (for some reason adding a second motorbike lowered the entire premium instead of raising it). YMMV insurance pricing is really weird, location specific, and imo designed to be difficult to predict.
I don't understand how your insurance ended up paying when the other driver was insured, and admitted fault.
Some states allow for really awful insurance programs.
Florida allows minimum coverage as low as $10k in liability. They also like collecting fees and are very lax in enforcement for passenger cars for plates, etc. Thats why you’ll see hooptie mobiles with Florida plates all over the place.
Florida allows minimum coverage as low as $10k in liability. They also like collecting fees and are very lax in enforcement for passenger cars for plates, etc. Thats why you’ll see hooptie mobiles with Florida plates all over the place.
If someone doesn't have high coverage you can sue them directly. The reason most people have a million in coverage as the when it is that high it is really hard to convince the courts your damages are more that. Plus if they actually are your liability is so much that you will never be able to pay up. Lawyers will always ask for the maximum liability even if they actual costs you should owe is more than that because insurance can pay, but you cannot anyway so it isn't worth. However if their liability coverage is only $10k it is worth sueing them for a million - insurance will pay $10k, they will then have to figure out how to get the rest - which basically means it ruins their life.
This is why you need to have enough insurance. If you make a mistake (odds are you will), you want enough money such that you can pay off whoever you wronged without it killing the rest of your life.
This is why you need to have enough insurance. If you make a mistake (odds are you will), you want enough money such that you can pay off whoever you wronged without it killing the rest of your life.
You have high limits if you have assets. Typically, someone who is foolish enough to carry $10k liability has no meaningful assets.
Saving a few bucks with car insurance is rolling the dice with your 401k!
Saving a few bucks with car insurance is rolling the dice with your 401k!
I’ve always just found all insurance companies terrible and self-serving and just learned to go with the cheapest possible. My ceiling collapsed in two different houses and both insurance companies called it an act of God and that they couldn’t help me. So I had to fix it myself. Many stories like this in my life. Insurance is largely legalized extortion money unless your house burns down or you total your car. For those type cases every company is the same in my opinion.
Instead of going by price alone, take a look at how easy or difficult the claims process is…
A bit of a market failure there if the insurance being purchased is only or primarily liability.
A bit of a market failure there if the insurance being purchased is only or primarily liability.
I don’t understand your comment. Can you explain?
If I buy collision insurance (that pays if my car is damaged) then I care about how good the claims process is. If I buy liability (that pays out if I damage you or your car) then the claims process doesn’t matter to me.
Thankfully I've never had to make a claim, and I hope it stays that way!
When you need it, you don’t want to deal with a company that’s not responsive.
Sure, but given that they almost all seem to suck roughly equally, with the exception of consistently high ratings for USAA (which I can't get) I might as well go with an affordable one AND the one that didn't harass me with spam calls.
Amica. They consistently get great ratings. And it’s not limited membership like USAA. They are owned by the policy holders, like a credit union. Not publicly traded so the shareholder pressure is absent.
Second Amica. They've been great for me. I've never filed an auto claim with them, but I did have a pretty serious homeowner's insurance claim (leaky pipe from another condo in my building which illegally didn't have insurance). They didn't question any of it, didn't drop me, and didn't raise my rate.
I'll remain all about price. The only thing I need car insurance for is to meet the legal requirements for car insurance. So price is the only thing that matters.
But I have a bad taste in my mouth about the insurance industry in general, so color me jaded.
But I have a bad taste in my mouth about the insurance industry in general, so color me jaded.
How do you actually do that?
Most I've seen is just terrible ancedata.
Most I've seen is just terrible ancedata.
If you call a poll of 56,000 consumer reports readers anecdata, then you should stick with what you have for insurance. Anyway as I posted elsewhere:
This is a good starting point, but not the only one:
https://clark.com/insurance/car-insurance/best-auto-insuranc...
No affiliate links and no kick backs taken by Clark Howard.
This is a good starting point, but not the only one:
https://clark.com/insurance/car-insurance/best-auto-insuranc...
No affiliate links and no kick backs taken by Clark Howard.
That is pretty interesting. I have USAA but from time to time I look for a better price. I drive the base trim of the cheapest car Honda has ever marketed in America, just 3000 miles a year, and in 35 years of driving have never had a claim of any kind or a ticket. But I still pay $125/mo for this service, which strikes me as crazy. It's nice to know that if I ever have a claim I will get award-winning service, I guess?
I've had to deal with USAA for insurance claims a couple times. Every single time, without fail, has been amazing. It really feels like they care, and want to help. Plus, in my experience, their rates are good. Well worth it if it's an option for you.
Family member works for USAA and really likes it there. I can attest they truly do care for their employees and customers.
You might want to look at your levels of coverage and adjust to better suit your risks. I have USAA as well, and pay less than that for a truck I drive 25k miles/year. That includes comprehensive (and a not pristine driving and claims record).
There are a lot of different levers that affect insurance pricing. Are you paying for comp? If your car is a beater, maybe you shouldn’t.
I'd love to look at the data!
This is a good starting point, but not the only one:
https://clark.com/insurance/car-insurance/best-auto-insuranc...
No affiliate links and no kick backs taken by Clark Howard.
https://clark.com/insurance/car-insurance/best-auto-insuranc...
No affiliate links and no kick backs taken by Clark Howard.
I’ve noticed this more and more - I half filled out a contact us form on a company site and got an email as if I had submitted a few minutes later.
Talk about dark patterns! Now I never put my email/phone until I am to hit submit (or maybe I should continue as normal to know the scammy companies).
Talk about dark patterns! Now I never put my email/phone until I am to hit submit (or maybe I should continue as normal to know the scammy companies).
Lending tree and a ton of other companies in that space are just lead gen, they couldn't care less about you as long as you fill in their form and they can then resell the data to other companies. Who in turn, if they can't make a buck on you will sell it to someone else in order to try to recoup some of their expenses.
The fact that you fill in a form signals 'intent to buy' and that makes those leads worth a lot of money. The only way they can make that work is if they sell the lead as soon as possible after you've filled it out because of the competitive nature of the market. So that's exactly what they do: sell it to multiple parties at once. It's a terrible model and one of the reasons why as soon as some online calculator is broken up into multiple steps I already know where it's headed: the last form will ask for my email address to mail the offer to and my phone number for verification. I simply abandon the process at that point, and I hope their funnel analysis tells them that story a million times a day.
The fact that you fill in a form signals 'intent to buy' and that makes those leads worth a lot of money. The only way they can make that work is if they sell the lead as soon as possible after you've filled it out because of the competitive nature of the market. So that's exactly what they do: sell it to multiple parties at once. It's a terrible model and one of the reasons why as soon as some online calculator is broken up into multiple steps I already know where it's headed: the last form will ask for my email address to mail the offer to and my phone number for verification. I simply abandon the process at that point, and I hope their funnel analysis tells them that story a million times a day.
That’s not the only way, they can make that work, it’s the way they’ve chose. That’s why it’s a terrible model.
Trip planning sites may sell leads to companies, but they don’t have to for the system to work. They have taken a different route to getting you a deal on a product.
Trip planning sites may sell leads to companies, but they don’t have to for the system to work. They have taken a different route to getting you a deal on a product.
> [businesses] couldn't care less about you as long as you [provide revenue]
That's...not specific to leadgen.
That's...not specific to leadgen.
That cynical take is false. Many businesses care about their customers, as if you care for them they will come back again and again, while if you don't they will leave.
Lead generation firms care about their customers - but their customers are not the users, it is the people buying the leads. This disconnect is why they don't care.
You get the same problem at ad supported companies (news, social media...). For a long time news papers had careful public policies in places to separate the editorial side from the ad side, so they could be independent. Many advertisers hated it because the editors they were paying did things against them - but they put up with it because those editors brought in the readers of the ads. That has broken down in the modern age though.
Lead generation firms care about their customers - but their customers are not the users, it is the people buying the leads. This disconnect is why they don't care.
You get the same problem at ad supported companies (news, social media...). For a long time news papers had careful public policies in places to separate the editorial side from the ad side, so they could be independent. Many advertisers hated it because the editors they were paying did things against them - but they put up with it because those editors brought in the readers of the ads. That has broken down in the modern age though.
It would be nice of course if this actually applied to the sale of the data, and not just consent to contact. But then that would hurt banks and credit rating agencies, which regulators wouldn't dare piss off, so the FCC goes for roundabout regulations like this one, which treat the symptom but not the underlying cause.
FCC has different jurisdiction from FTC. It's in the name.
If the state of email providers and software companies (google / apple) have created features around getting you off mailing lists then you know that this is a problem. I agree with the FCC and they have been very aggressive about other things like robocalling .
OP: "...on subjects beyond the scope of the original consent"
That drastically changes the meaning of the title.
The one-at-a-time request is from an outside advocacy group Public Knowledge ( which calls itself a "free expression" group, but doesn't want free expression for advertisers... ")
> I'll give you leads for customers, but you have to call them fast before my other customers do!"
Why is incentivizing prompt customer service bad, or any kind of scheme? Competition drives better performance.
That drastically changes the meaning of the title.
The one-at-a-time request is from an outside advocacy group Public Knowledge ( which calls itself a "free expression" group, but doesn't want free expression for advertisers... ")
> I'll give you leads for customers, but you have to call them fast before my other customers do!"
Why is incentivizing prompt customer service bad, or any kind of scheme? Competition drives better performance.
So they would now have to step up and act as a broker. – What, no, I just wanted to sell this lead, I'm innocent! /s
I think this is one of those cases where if the "lead generation" industry died in a fire I would be okay with that.
At Google there was a poster that read, "For every search there is the perfect Ad" and someone had written on it, "most times that is no ad at all." which lasted for maybe a week and a half before it was taken down.
So often there is no "value" to the person doing the action, the "value" is between the web site and the people who want to get information about you.
At Google there was a poster that read, "For every search there is the perfect Ad" and someone had written on it, "most times that is no ad at all." which lasted for maybe a week and a half before it was taken down.
So often there is no "value" to the person doing the action, the "value" is between the web site and the people who want to get information about you.
At Getty Images there was a meme printout of an angry cat someone put on the wall in the brake with a caption “I haz a disappoint in you,” I think pertaining to leaving the coffee pot empty.
Someone came along and added a note “do you have appropriate permission to reproduce this image?” And if I recall, both parts stayed up indefinitely.
Someone came along and added a note “do you have appropriate permission to reproduce this image?” And if I recall, both parts stayed up indefinitely.
Oh that is fabulous.
I agree, but with a small exception.
There is value in saying "here's the number of a guy I know and trust". Curating options is valuable. Basically you need to be a honest broker: https://tedgioia.substack.com/p/how-i-became-the-honest-brok...
There is also value in preparing leads with good information, filtering out tire kickers, and abstracting marketing or billing away. Some people want to work on their craft without thinking about SEO and the like.
For example, I work with people I trust to take over when the information on my website is not enough. "This is all I know. If you need a lawyer, call Fiona, she helped me a lot and I trust her advice". For some of the people I recommend, I get a kickback. As I see it, everyone in this transaction gains something.
There is value in saying "here's the number of a guy I know and trust". Curating options is valuable. Basically you need to be a honest broker: https://tedgioia.substack.com/p/how-i-became-the-honest-brok...
There is also value in preparing leads with good information, filtering out tire kickers, and abstracting marketing or billing away. Some people want to work on their craft without thinking about SEO and the like.
For example, I work with people I trust to take over when the information on my website is not enough. "This is all I know. If you need a lawyer, call Fiona, she helped me a lot and I trust her advice". For some of the people I recommend, I get a kickback. As I see it, everyone in this transaction gains something.
> For some of the people I recommend, I get a kickback.
Do you disclose this?
Do you disclose this?
Well "lead generation" is about matching "needers" with "suppliers".
Eg., suppose a pipe breaks, you search for plumber, you find a plumber. That search is a lead generator for that plumber.
That search is "free", by intuition, kinda destroys our sense of value in lead generation, right? Google should NOT be free for that plumber; the plumber should be paying quite a lot for the service.
Suppliers of services need a system which allocates demand, right? Indeed, customers need a system of finding suppliers.
Eg., suppose a pipe breaks, you search for plumber, you find a plumber. That search is a lead generator for that plumber.
That search is "free", by intuition, kinda destroys our sense of value in lead generation, right? Google should NOT be free for that plumber; the plumber should be paying quite a lot for the service.
Suppliers of services need a system which allocates demand, right? Indeed, customers need a system of finding suppliers.
I much prefer organic plumber results than ad. So google should be free for the plumber.
The best result is almost never the ad. And in the rare situation where there ad is the best result, it’s an inefficiency because the poor plumber is paying for an unnecessary ad.
We’re hitting a point where we always get shitty plumbers because they have good ads and don’t need to be good plumbers. Or even worse, most plumber ads are just lead generation where I get some random plumber driving 90 minutes because they bought the lead and responded first.
I’d rather be in a world where the search surfaced the best plumber. Not some arbitrating middleman sucking value away from the plumber and the person with a backed up toilet.
The best result is almost never the ad. And in the rare situation where there ad is the best result, it’s an inefficiency because the poor plumber is paying for an unnecessary ad.
We’re hitting a point where we always get shitty plumbers because they have good ads and don’t need to be good plumbers. Or even worse, most plumber ads are just lead generation where I get some random plumber driving 90 minutes because they bought the lead and responded first.
I’d rather be in a world where the search surfaced the best plumber. Not some arbitrating middleman sucking value away from the plumber and the person with a backed up toilet.
I hate to break it to you but the SEO industry is as big as advertising generally and organic results are heavily gamed. As it relies a ton on link building and many of those links are paid for it's hardly the meritocratic process many think it is.
You've missed my point.
The search itself has to be paid for; the search itself is lead generation. The search is the "middle man".
Who is paying for google search?
The search itself has to be paid for; the search itself is lead generation. The search is the "middle man".
Who is paying for google search?
Is there a service out there I can pay to let me look through a list of curated plumbers that do not pay the service to be listed? See the comments of other users of the service, star ratings etc. Plumbers that get complaints get dropped. I'd definitely pay for that if I didn't already know someone.
In my US state, plumbers are contractors governed by a contractor's board that keeps records about complaints. Always look up a contractor with the regulatory board. It's even free.
> Google should NOT be free for that plumber; the plumber should be paying quite a lot for the service.
But that makes the service into an ad. The last thing I'm going to do is take any recommendations from someone who is being paid to give recommendations.
But that makes the service into an ad. The last thing I'm going to do is take any recommendations from someone who is being paid to give recommendations.
Google's value prop is that high quality results are free, and low quality results for dumb people go on the ad ghetto.
Without that, they lose the users thst drive revenue.
Without that, they lose the users thst drive revenue.
I’m having a really hard time, feeling sorry for these folks.
I get a ton of spam texts, every day. Not quite as bad as the spoofed robocalls, and a mere shadow of the email spam I get (which suddenly exploded, so I guess they figured out how to get past the low-level gatekeepers).
The legit folks sell you to the non-legit folks, then say “I’m not responsible for what they do with it!”
I get a ton of spam texts, every day. Not quite as bad as the spoofed robocalls, and a mere shadow of the email spam I get (which suddenly exploded, so I guess they figured out how to get past the low-level gatekeepers).
The legit folks sell you to the non-legit folks, then say “I’m not responsible for what they do with it!”
Even the "legit" text message spammers can get bent. This guy is acting like those poor little insurance companies don't have any other way to advertise to me, because they just want me to have better insurance, out of the goodness of their job-creating hearts.
AT&T has to be among the worst. These jagoffs would send me no fewer then three texts at all hours of the day or night to simply tell me there was nothing with my account. No exaggeration: They would badger me repeatedly to say that my bill auto-pay had succeeded... and then that I could save $5 by signing up for auto-pay... and some other inexcusable nonsense.
I logged every call I made to them, during many of which they swore they'd stop it. Eventually they started claiming that they couldn't. I had to block AT&T's number on my phone.
How execrably stupid do they have to be to send "everything's fine" texts over and over and over instead of, at the very most, sending an E-MAIL?
I logged every call I made to them, during many of which they swore they'd stop it. Eventually they started claiming that they couldn't. I had to block AT&T's number on my phone.
How execrably stupid do they have to be to send "everything's fine" texts over and over and over instead of, at the very most, sending an E-MAIL?
Why does that mostly seem to be a problem in the US?
I'm from a first world country in Europe and I can count the number of spam calls I got over the years on one hand (literally 2).
Same goes for spam texts (3).
For legal reasons my phone number could be found on the open web for years.
With a fairly wealthy population (by world standard) and a language spoken by ~100 million people there should be ample opportunities to spam people.
Yet even my parents whose number were listed in the phone book get maybe 1 or two spam calls per year
I'm from a first world country in Europe and I can count the number of spam calls I got over the years on one hand (literally 2).
Same goes for spam texts (3).
For legal reasons my phone number could be found on the open web for years.
With a fairly wealthy population (by world standard) and a language spoken by ~100 million people there should be ample opportunities to spam people.
Yet even my parents whose number were listed in the phone book get maybe 1 or two spam calls per year
I live in The Netherlands. I'm called approximately 3 times a week by numbers I don't recognize. Recruiters, telemarketeers and scams. All alike. I've just stopped answering numbers I don't recognize, because it's pointless anyway. If they don't reach out in another way, it wasn't important.
For me there's two big offenders: KPN and AD. They each tend to call once a week. Recruiters cold-calling is indeed pretty common.
Amount of scam calls I've ever received can be counted on the fingers of a single hand. There was this time that scam texts (usually trying to impersonate either a bank or PostNL) were common, but I haven't received one in quite a while.
Most disturbing were the energy company salespeople that would actually ring the door, and somehow knew _exactly_ how large my consumption was.
Amount of scam calls I've ever received can be counted on the fingers of a single hand. There was this time that scam texts (usually trying to impersonate either a bank or PostNL) were common, but I haven't received one in quite a while.
Most disturbing were the energy company salespeople that would actually ring the door, and somehow knew _exactly_ how large my consumption was.
FWIW I've been in NL for a little under 2 years and got a fresh Dutch number when I arrived, and I have received zero spam calls. Even after registering my business with the KVK and entering my number into the public record -- when I did that in the states it generated a lot of spam. To be fair, I am reluctant to give out my number to businesses, so perhaps that has saved me from the typical experience.
I think it’s because the US is rich and we all speak the same language and there’s 300 million of us. So if you’re going to spam, you spam in a target rich environment.
Europe is rich, but you have to spam in 20 languages so you’ll make less money.
Europe is rich, but you have to spam in 20 languages so you’ll make less money.
Also, there's almost no legal downside to doing it in the US.
Spanish here, me and most people I know get weekly spam calls and phishing attempts. I suspect the reason we receive them and some people don't is that our phone numbers appeared in one or more data breaches these scammers are using.
Having Android block or flag spam calls automatically was a godsend, even nontechnical people are looking into that feature now.
Having Android block or flag spam calls automatically was a godsend, even nontechnical people are looking into that feature now.
Spam texts are not really a thing here in Norway, either.
I do get three to four phonecalls from spoofed UK numbers every month. I havn't picked up for a year or so, but last time I did, it was a fake "Microsoft Support" scam.
I do get three to four phonecalls from spoofed UK numbers every month. I havn't picked up for a year or so, but last time I did, it was a fake "Microsoft Support" scam.
Taking my phone number out of gule sider fixed the Microsoft scam calls for me.
> Why does that mostly seem to be a problem in the US?
Because we loudly and openly tell everyone we are a very gullible people. It's all over the news, what with "stolen elections", etc.
Because we loudly and openly tell everyone we are a very gullible people. It's all over the news, what with "stolen elections", etc.
Probably a combo of many things making it hard to run businesses predicated on getting people to sign on the line that is dotted no matter what.
Also stuff like credit stores not being as much of a thing meaning that there's not really a whole gamut of offerings. If everyone is offering roughly the same rates there's not much of a business for shopping around
Also stuff like credit stores not being as much of a thing meaning that there's not really a whole gamut of offerings. If everyone is offering roughly the same rates there's not much of a business for shopping around
> Why does that mostly seem to be a problem in the US?
GDPR outlawed large parts of that.
GDPR outlawed large parts of that.
What makes you say this is largely a US problem?
If the so called legit folks sell you, then they are not legit.
I’m trying to find the downside here.
The author clearly thinks that business can only exist if you annoy the prospect until they buy to make you go away. There are other, more customer friendly business models.
The author clearly thinks that business can only exist if you annoy the prospect until they buy to make you go away. There are other, more customer friendly business models.
> annoy the prospect until they buy to make you go away.
It works for turning on my wifi even when I don’t want to. There are so many settings I enable just to make the nagware go away.
I only access google properties through chrome for this same reason. There’s no way to tell google “I know that chrome exists, I don’t like it, I’m comfortable with my browser.” other than just using chrome.
It seems to me that so many companies are sure of themself so much that no one would ever choose not to do the thing they want. Or they’ve decided they don’t care that it sucks, they’ll do it anyway to make money.
It works for turning on my wifi even when I don’t want to. There are so many settings I enable just to make the nagware go away.
I only access google properties through chrome for this same reason. There’s no way to tell google “I know that chrome exists, I don’t like it, I’m comfortable with my browser.” other than just using chrome.
It seems to me that so many companies are sure of themself so much that no one would ever choose not to do the thing they want. Or they’ve decided they don’t care that it sucks, they’ll do it anyway to make money.
It is possible to nuke the "use Chrome" and similar nags via uMatrix or a CSS stylesheet manager, by selecting and removing / setting "display: none !important" the specific elements.
Not that the behaviour isn't Annoying As Eff and anticompetitive to boot.
Not that the behaviour isn't Annoying As Eff and anticompetitive to boot.
Donate to one political campaign and suddenly you'll be getting text solicitations from all over the country every election cycle. F that, I want this regulation.
You actually don't even have to donate to get on these lists. I contacted my reps, both worthless shit-bags, about various issues over the years and have been on their lists ever since. I get junk mail telling me how they voted and how they intend to vote, spam calls from their party looking for donations, etc. The motherfuckers are like a bad disease that flares up around election time though some of the bastards seem to campaign constantly. This is why I use a fake name gmail account though google keeps trying to get me to give a real phone number to be able to access my junk mail. Not gonna happen. If that shit was important to me they would already have my number.
Someone mistyped a number somewhere and now my phone number is associated with a random person. Every election cycle I start getting texts that I never consented to and I have no recourse because it's always a different number and seemingly different organization sending the texts.
Same here. Some startup ceo misentered my phone number somewhere and now I get a few calls and texts a week looking for Jonathan and trying to buy accounts receivables or loan money.
It’s frustrating and there’s no way to get off their list. It’s always new companies too.
I’d pay $5 each for an AI honeypot that just occupies their time by talking with them and emailing them to waste their time until this becomes unprofitable.
It’s frustrating and there’s no way to get off their list. It’s always new companies too.
I’d pay $5 each for an AI honeypot that just occupies their time by talking with them and emailing them to waste their time until this becomes unprofitable.
I wouldn't get your hopes up, I'm sure there'll be an exemption for political activities...
Very likely since with the Do Not Call Registry (that already exists), there are exemptions for political campaigns, charities, debt collection, and a few other things.
https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/national-do-not-call-regis...
https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/national-do-not-call-regis...
I door knocked for a candidate and had their campaign manager mark me as deceased in the main party db. No more texts.
Door knocking is even better than text spam at getting me not to vote for a candidate.
I actually prefer door knocking. Sure it’s a greater inconvenience. But it’s much rarer than text. It’s also neat to see people who are passionate about something enough to walk around and knock on doors.
The exception is when they have paid knockers instead of volunteers. It’s so sad for the people and the candidate who thinks that somehow helps their chances.
The exception is when they have paid knockers instead of volunteers. It’s so sad for the people and the candidate who thinks that somehow helps their chances.
I can easily block political text spam. Last election cycle I don't think any made it through to me. On the other hand one of the local political parties and candidates affiliated to them or the state party sent 4 door knockers to my house.
It’s like this buying products too. I buy one thing, and suddenly that’s free license to email me whenever the company feels like. Often, it seems it doesn’t even matter if you click the “no marketing” checkbox, or sometimes there isn’t one at all.
Yeah, I'm afraid the political spam is free. I get tons of stuff, from the Republican party in particular which is frankly kinda odd given the downwards-trending-graph that is the overlap in our values.
Most of the spam makes me even less likely to vote for that person.
Many of them want me to click on Columbian links. For American politics. And, I presume, enter stuff about my political beliefs into the other end. … yeah, no thanks?
Most of the spam makes me even less likely to vote for that person.
Many of them want me to click on Columbian links. For American politics. And, I presume, enter stuff about my political beliefs into the other end. … yeah, no thanks?
I liked Trump and voted for him. I donated to his campaign. I also signed up for his email blasts which turned out to be a horrible idea. I "successfully unsubscribed" probably more than 5 times before blocking the address, as well as receiving campaign emails from other obviously associated parties. Never again.
I am unclear what the complaint is here - it seems to be implying that the author thinks that me providing my contact details to one company _should_ be a valid reason that an unrelated company should be able to contact me, and that somehow a "lead generator" is anything other than that?
I get that there are people who's business model is buying contact information and claiming the sellers of that information gained a blanket consent to spam that contact, but I don't know a single person - who doesn't make money from spamming people - who has ever wanted that.
I also appreciate the euphemism of "lead generation" rather than spammer.
I get that there are people who's business model is buying contact information and claiming the sellers of that information gained a blanket consent to spam that contact, but I don't know a single person - who doesn't make money from spamming people - who has ever wanted that.
I also appreciate the euphemism of "lead generation" rather than spammer.
The thrust of the article seems to be “we had a good thing going, some of you took it too far, and I TOLD YOU if you kept taking it too far we’d all lose our good thing, and now look at what you’ve done”.
For what it’s worth, whenever one of those “lead generator”-type calls gets past my filters, I take their number and the number of whatever company they’re advertising and sign both of them up to a bunch of those lead generator websites
For what it’s worth, whenever one of those “lead generator”-type calls gets past my filters, I take their number and the number of whatever company they’re advertising and sign both of them up to a bunch of those lead generator websites
> For what it’s worth, whenever one of those “lead generator”-type calls gets past my filters, I take their number and the number of whatever company they’re advertising and sign both of them up to a bunch of those lead generator websites
Don't the spammers spoof innocent people's numbers? If so, you're probably punishing someone unrelated.
Don't the spammers spoof innocent people's numbers? If so, you're probably punishing someone unrelated.
Scammers do, but I would be surprised if any of these companies do. It sounds like they're "legit" by the letter of the (current) law if not the spirit, which is why they would care about the FCC banning this. The scammers' operations are just plain illegal.
“ Don't the spammers spoof innocent people's numbers? ”
Oh, they do? I wasn’t aware this was a thing. I’ll only sign up the business from now on.
Oh, they do? I wasn’t aware this was a thing. I’ll only sign up the business from now on.
oh yeah, the whole STIR/SHAKEN thing is because calls and sms are essentially email: the sender just includes metadata saying who they are. Without any additional work you can a given call/message can claim to be whoever you want. This would be fine if carriers actually required it to be correct, but intrinsically if a call comes in to your carrier from another carrier your carrier has to trust the originator actually enforced this. But there are carriers whose primary market is "marketing companies", and so they are not ... careful ... about ensuring the originator isn't spouting nonsense. The FCC just recently told all major US carriers that they were required to drop connections from a couple of such carriers.
I'm sure there's a more complexity in how this actually all works in the real world, but this is my basic high level understanding of it.
I'm sure there's a more complexity in how this actually all works in the real world, but this is my basic high level understanding of it.
Yep. I've received spam texts purportedly from my own phone number before.
Many use phone number validation/verification services that know if it's a personal or business number.
I can assure you that there are many "lead generation" companies that will happily sell businesses data to other businesses for "calling".
I’d personally like to see the FCC proposal enacted and am willing to see the valuable uses lost to make sure the bad uses are indefensible.
But the “good uses” actually had been a win for small and local businesses. With too much real and fake content online for directories to be practical, lead generation sites became a successor to the yellow pages for a lot of small businesses.
Users look for a masseuse or roofer, fill out a qualifier form at a lead generation site operated by a tech company, and the business operators who may not even have a website can qualify the lead and submit a pitch.
They weren’t perfect and are still subject to abuse, but they were a working solution for a lot of people who weren’t going to (and don’t really need to) build an impressive website and marketing strategy.
But like I said, stuff happens and times change, so if that system gets tossed for the sake of all the adjacent abuse, so be it. I’m sure some new technique will fill the underlying niche.
But the “good uses” actually had been a win for small and local businesses. With too much real and fake content online for directories to be practical, lead generation sites became a successor to the yellow pages for a lot of small businesses.
Users look for a masseuse or roofer, fill out a qualifier form at a lead generation site operated by a tech company, and the business operators who may not even have a website can qualify the lead and submit a pitch.
They weren’t perfect and are still subject to abuse, but they were a working solution for a lot of people who weren’t going to (and don’t really need to) build an impressive website and marketing strategy.
But like I said, stuff happens and times change, so if that system gets tossed for the sake of all the adjacent abuse, so be it. I’m sure some new technique will fill the underlying niche.
Companies could still do that, except they'd have to act as a broker instead of just sending leads to every single contractor they have on their list.
Instead they'd have to send information to the contractors, the contractors would have to submit quotes or whatever information back, then the "lead generator" would send said info to the customer in one email, text, etc. that the customer could then call/opt-in to calls with specific contractors.
Instead they'd have to send information to the contractors, the contractors would have to submit quotes or whatever information back, then the "lead generator" would send said info to the customer in one email, text, etc. that the customer could then call/opt-in to calls with specific contractors.
I assumed from tone that the article was surprised/happy it was happening, but I’m gonna be honest I only skimmed enough to read what the three proposals were.
These are fantastic changes. I can’t wait. If public support is needed seems like that wouldn’t be hard to drum up.
These are fantastic changes. I can’t wait. If public support is needed seems like that wouldn’t be hard to drum up.
No, the author is a lawyer specializing in defending companies accused of spamming.
His public position, probably mostly genuine, is that there are good guys and bad guys and he helps protect the good guys from getting hit with tools meant for the bad guys.
Here, he laments that the good guys might get screwed by upcoming regulation and need to speak up and make sure there are carve outs for them.
His public position, probably mostly genuine, is that there are good guys and bad guys and he helps protect the good guys from getting hit with tools meant for the bad guys.
Here, he laments that the good guys might get screwed by upcoming regulation and need to speak up and make sure there are carve outs for them.
I’ve had the fun of working with the “but we are the good ones“ kind of spammers before.
Sigh.
Thanks.
Sigh.
Thanks.
He works for an "industry" that entirely in the schlepping, hording, repackaging and re-schlepping private information for profit.
Disincentivizing this niche of marketing and driving companies to invest and build their own effective leads generators in-house is better for literally everyone but lawyers in the "leads generation industry."
Disincentivizing this niche of marketing and driving companies to invest and build their own effective leads generators in-house is better for literally everyone but lawyers in the "leads generation industry."
> His public position, probably mostly genuine, is that there are good guys and bad guys
Yes, and I think he's genuine about that. That's how he sleeps at night.
But the reality is that there are bad guys and worse guys.
Yes, and I think he's genuine about that. That's how he sleeps at night.
But the reality is that there are bad guys and worse guys.
So from his point of view there is a meaningful difference between two groups of spammers, when both of them are just spammers.
The OP doesn't appear to be complaining. The conclusion of the article is basically that the field is full enough of bad actors to justify drastic action like this.
That's kind of missing the point. The article is up in arms that companies which only want to spam you with legitimate products (in a product category similar to whatever you signed up for) won't get to do so, because of those bad actors, the multi-vertical spammers and scammers. OP is complaining that the industry brought this upon themselves by failing to self-regulate and stop the bad actors in time to avert regulatory attention.
The reality of course is that all text message spammers are bad actors, just less bad than the worst of the worst. It is probably is true that failure to self-regulate is what brought this down on the industry, but the industry as a whole deserves it and everyone will be happy to see it gone, except for the unscrupulous handful who make a profit off of it.
The reality of course is that all text message spammers are bad actors, just less bad than the worst of the worst. It is probably is true that failure to self-regulate is what brought this down on the industry, but the industry as a whole deserves it and everyone will be happy to see it gone, except for the unscrupulous handful who make a profit off of it.
I think the author also wants to get the proposed regulation modified before it goes into force, to make it weaker. Of course I want the opposite: it should be made stronger rather than weaker.
The article defends parts of spammers as legitimate industry that for now remains legal in USA.
Hopefully it will change.
Hopefully it will change.
Good. The text message harassment I have been getting is awful and I wish nothing short of a swift death to the “lead generation industry”. They’re the reason why my default ringtone for non-contacts is silent.
How do you set that up on iPhone?
iPhone is easy: Settings -> Phone -> Silence Unknown Callers: On
> Caught in the middle are the innocent companies trying to sell their legitimate products to interested consumers. They want no part of fraudulent leads
Ah, yes. The innocent companies!
Like those that lapped up ill-gotten leads from Facebook until consumers could actually choose not to have their habits collated and sold off.
Companies will look the other way so long as the leads are cheap enough and result in sales.
Ah, yes. The innocent companies!
Like those that lapped up ill-gotten leads from Facebook until consumers could actually choose not to have their habits collated and sold off.
Companies will look the other way so long as the leads are cheap enough and result in sales.
While I appreciate the enthusiasm of the "Czar" the fact of the matter is the industry has had decades to "self police". Let the whole industry burn to the ground- it earned it.
I'm curious about examples in which industry self policing has actually worked in favor of customers. My intuition is that in an unregulated environment, incentives are the only thing that matters, and if one shop has a competitive edge by not observing some industry self police, it'll come out ahead and drive the alternatives to extinction. Perhaps the closest thing to this is to not be so extortive as to draw attention from regulators, but that's really just the incentive of going as far as possible before consequences. It seems this particular industry has miscalculated the position of the fine line.
Does the IEEE count?
There is an ethical way to market products which relies on transparency to the audience and not tricking or repurposing leads for secondary purposes. Blocking more of these shady tactics makes it easier to do the right thing and requires you to build marketing programs for and around people who actually want your offering.
One of the problems that I can see in building that marketing program for those who really want the service or product is that many of these transactions are one time transactions in that at the conclusion of the transaction, the customer no longer has a need for or interest in that service or product and so they are effectively a dead lead. Continuing to contact "potential customers" to sell them something they don't need will always be seen as an annoyance. There has to be a process for customer contact info to be scrubbed from the lists once a transaction has been completed.
For example if I contact someone about long-distance transport of a vehicle I end up with dozens of calls and emails from companies claiming to be drivers all of whom will do it for the lowest price. Over time I select one of these companies or find another somewhere else. However, it can take months for the contacts to taper off with the email spam being the last thing to shut down. It is obvious that you only need to contact one company thru their website in order to get on the list of potential customers so they all sell contact info to each other. The last time I got an email reminding me that they are ready to transport my vehicle it had been two years since that vehicle was transported to me. This stale contact info has to be a drag on the system somewhere. I just mark all as spam and forget about it.
For example if I contact someone about long-distance transport of a vehicle I end up with dozens of calls and emails from companies claiming to be drivers all of whom will do it for the lowest price. Over time I select one of these companies or find another somewhere else. However, it can take months for the contacts to taper off with the email spam being the last thing to shut down. It is obvious that you only need to contact one company thru their website in order to get on the list of potential customers so they all sell contact info to each other. The last time I got an email reminding me that they are ready to transport my vehicle it had been two years since that vehicle was transported to me. This stale contact info has to be a drag on the system somewhere. I just mark all as spam and forget about it.
Totally agree. Problem is that a lot of industries got way too used to shady practices. Especially online.
I think the other problem, more serious I think, is that shady practices make more money. I like to think in the long term honest practices make more money from lifetime customer value, but cynically fear that from a profit maximization standpoint shady results in most money for the industry.
And while we’re at it, can we ban companies from sending me marketing email just because I used my credit card to buy something from you in your store.
I feel like it’s square that’s driving this. I’ll buy a coffee or something small and immediately be signed up for that businesses email list. No consent, no option not to be emailed. Just automatically marketed to bc I swiped my card at their checkout.
I feel like it’s square that’s driving this. I’ll buy a coffee or something small and immediately be signed up for that businesses email list. No consent, no option not to be emailed. Just automatically marketed to bc I swiped my card at their checkout.
> I feel like it’s square that’s driving this.
Square is who got me to stop using credit cards to buy things.
I bought something at a Square terminal, and opted for no receipt. The next time I bought something at a square terminal, I noticed that they had my email address prefilled in their "email my receipt" selection.
I'd never given them my email address. I was pissed. What followed was a week of harassing Square to try to get them to delete their records about me. They eventually said they did, but I don't know if they were truthful because I stopped using my card, so couldn't check.
Square is who got me to stop using credit cards to buy things.
I bought something at a Square terminal, and opted for no receipt. The next time I bought something at a square terminal, I noticed that they had my email address prefilled in their "email my receipt" selection.
I'd never given them my email address. I was pissed. What followed was a week of harassing Square to try to get them to delete their records about me. They eventually said they did, but I don't know if they were truthful because I stopped using my card, so couldn't check.
Recently I've kind of felt like it's Twilio & similar that are driving this, because they have made tools for this kind of mass spamming of texts and calls widely accessible. I'm sure it's a very complex web of factors, incentives, etc. The question is are there any small and focused areas that regulators can target to clamp down on the problem. And the mass call/texting providers like Twilio seem like a promising possibility to me. I get so many spam calls and texts that it has basically rendered the traditional phone system completely useless.
As someone (biased) who has worked at Square, it is not Square (now Block) driving this. They are too distracted with cross-subsidizing Bitcoin daydreams to be focused on benefitting SMBs.
How sure are you? I was pretty sure square was the responsible party when I got spam emails from a coffee shop as well.
I wonder how much they paid a branding agency to come up that ingenious rebranding.
I love how it's framed as destructive to the "lead generation industry".
it is nuts how salespeople view themselves. they're the heroes who drive business, they're the backbone of the economy, etc.
anyone negatively impacted by the banning of online consent forms is doing shady shit in the first place.
it is nuts how salespeople view themselves. they're the heroes who drive business, they're the backbone of the economy, etc.
anyone negatively impacted by the banning of online consent forms is doing shady shit in the first place.
I mean sales and marketing at every company I've ever worked is who is paying my salary at the end of the day so I find it hard to disparage them, they're the garbage men and women who turn stuff I build into dollars.
There are straightforward and transparent ways to do sales. Or you can be shady.
Not to mention that bad actors pretty much force the hand of the good ones to be more aggressive or use the same methods, or else they suffer with less sales.
There are no downsides to killing the bad actors here.
There are no downsides to killing the bad actors here.
Marketing needs to generate leads and sales needs to sell.
But the idea that regulating spam calls and online consent transfer is the leads apocalypse is laughable.
But the idea that regulating spam calls and online consent transfer is the leads apocalypse is laughable.
> they're the heroes who drive business
Here's a thing about people -- we all consider ourselves the heroes of our own stories. It's just human nature.
Here's a thing about people -- we all consider ourselves the heroes of our own stories. It's just human nature.
I hear what you are saying, but with regards to:
<< they're the backbone of the economy
In US selling is absolutely the backbone of the economy. Granted, it is often selling crap and/or bs, but it is still selling.
All that said, 'lead generation industry' is not sales. Sales is people who use those leads. I just want to make sure we are clear on the distinction.
<< they're the backbone of the economy
In US selling is absolutely the backbone of the economy. Granted, it is often selling crap and/or bs, but it is still selling.
All that said, 'lead generation industry' is not sales. Sales is people who use those leads. I just want to make sure we are clear on the distinction.
> In US selling is absolutely the backbone of the economy.
Just because harassment is involved in much of our economic transactions doesn’t mean that people wouldn’t buy stuff in a world without harassment. It’s just like cutting in line: all it does is change who gets first (for the worse), it doesn’t impact the flow of traffic overall.
Just because harassment is involved in much of our economic transactions doesn’t mean that people wouldn’t buy stuff in a world without harassment. It’s just like cutting in line: all it does is change who gets first (for the worse), it doesn’t impact the flow of traffic overall.
Right. Selling is selling.
This guy and his mantra for saving the "leads generation industry" is comedy. Or marketing. I'm not sure which.
This guy and his mantra for saving the "leads generation industry" is comedy. Or marketing. I'm not sure which.
> In US selling is absolutely the backbone of the economy.
you're right; I forgot that it is impossible for money to change hands without a salesman in there somewhere.
you're right; I forgot that it is impossible for money to change hands without a salesman in there somewhere.
Former employee at Assurance IQ, the company from the article.
One of our data scientists determined that the sketchy lead sales were a net negative to a customer’s lifetime value. Assurance IQ kept doing it because it makes (less) money faster.
It built a whole marketplace around this junk: https://www.gonectar.com
The former CEO did it to make quick money. Current leadership sticks with it out of ineptitude.
Something like 12 out of the last 13 quarters were unprofitable.
One of our data scientists determined that the sketchy lead sales were a net negative to a customer’s lifetime value. Assurance IQ kept doing it because it makes (less) money faster.
It built a whole marketplace around this junk: https://www.gonectar.com
The former CEO did it to make quick money. Current leadership sticks with it out of ineptitude.
Something like 12 out of the last 13 quarters were unprofitable.
Wow I get they earn their money that way.. but it’s relying on clearly unethical tactics that are obviously undesired by society but not necessarily illegal yet. this really shows how regulations are required because otherwise people will do stuff like that.
As someone who manages code that sends out legitimate text messages for operational purposes, this is a good thing. By lowering the potential of spam situations, this will hopefully make legitimate text message sending easier to manage.
Isn't SMS considered insecure?
Operational doesn't mean confidential. Sometimes reliability is the most important thing. For example sending a message to parents that school will be closed due to snow.
Reliably getting the message to the correct recipient?
I just have a bone to pick with all this software using phone numbers as ID or notifications. Send an email where we can filter it or if you must, do an app with notifications I can tune to my liking.
I just have a bone to pick with all this software using phone numbers as ID or notifications. Send an email where we can filter it or if you must, do an app with notifications I can tune to my liking.
Is SMS considered reliable?
My kids’ school sends email, SMS, in-app, and phone (configurable by me, except for emergency notifications, which seem to either tree or hit them all).
SMS is almost always the one I see first, but they seem to use it as just one layer in a reliability sandwich.
SMS is almost always the one I see first, but they seem to use it as just one layer in a reliability sandwich.
My experience is that it is about 98% of the time.
Every once in a while, someone will send a text that takes multiple days to get to me, but that's about the only glitch I see.
Every once in a while, someone will send a text that takes multiple days to get to me, but that's about the only glitch I see.
Yes, there are a bunch of hoops to jump through if your businesses need to send out a lot of texts. If you have a 8xx number, there are even more strict rules.
For years, we were able to get away with email to sms addresses but they have become undependable as the carriers are blocking them more and more; likely because of the amount of spam going out.
For years, we were able to get away with email to sms addresses but they have become undependable as the carriers are blocking them more and more; likely because of the amount of spam going out.
I apparently got signed up for some company on my work email and now I get a series of emails from some B2B company. I unsubscribe. Next day, another company. Unsubscribe. Next day, another company.
Its trivial, but it's so fucking annoying that I've visualized doing violent things as I hit unsubscribe.
Its trivial, but it's so fucking annoying that I've visualized doing violent things as I hit unsubscribe.
I especially love the cold contact B2B emails which I ignore, only to have a follow up email some weeks later to the effect of "I'm just following-up on the email I sent you previously...", as if I had actually ever expressed interest in doing business with them. If they were being honest the email would read "You probably deliberately ignored and deleted my previous email, but I'm hoping you're in that very low percentage of people that if I send this 'follow-up' email, maybe you'll be interested".
The volume is low enough for now that I still add each sender's domain to our Exchange online's mail flow rules to block with a rejection message to the effect of "The recipient has deliberately blocked cold contact messages from senders such as yourself. Please remove the recipient from your mailing lists.". It brings me great satisfaction to know that going forward system f-off messages are being sent to these people with zero extra effort, or even knowledge on my part.
The volume is low enough for now that I still add each sender's domain to our Exchange online's mail flow rules to block with a rejection message to the effect of "The recipient has deliberately blocked cold contact messages from senders such as yourself. Please remove the recipient from your mailing lists.". It brings me great satisfaction to know that going forward system f-off messages are being sent to these people with zero extra effort, or even knowledge on my part.
I went to a Gartner conference one year because my work paid for it. RIP my work inbox ever since. my email has been sold and sold over and over again.
Gartner tells you what you probably already knew them sells your information.
Gartner tells you what you probably already knew them sells your information.
With the companies I've run in the past, I've set up temporary email addresses for all of my employees going to them, just because of this.
The email addresses are removed a couple of weeks after the conference ends, which gives everyone time to give their actual email addresses to anyone who contacts them that they want to keep talking with.
The email addresses are removed a couple of weeks after the conference ends, which gives everyone time to give their actual email addresses to anyone who contacts them that they want to keep talking with.
>Going to be a bunch of long faces at LeadsCon this year.
I have no idea why but I laughed out loud at this sentence.
LeadsCon? Really?
I have no idea why but I laughed out loud at this sentence.
LeadsCon? Really?
Might as well call it ConCon for what it really is.
Oh my god, tickets are a non-refundable $2k apiece. I think you might be right
Or FREE if you connect your Facebook account, add your phone number, and sign up for their newsletter. They promise that they won't spam you, ever! (They can't speak for everybody who they sell your info to, though. They're not mind readers.)
Is it OKAY if we make you fill all those out now anyway, or REMIND ME LATER?
Dialog Box:
[ Surrender To The Marketing Dept. ]
[ Maybe Later ]
[ Show Me Less Dialogs Like This* ]
* Surrenders to the marketing department.
[ Surrender To The Marketing Dept. ]
[ Maybe Later ]
[ Show Me Less Dialogs Like This* ]
* Surrenders to the marketing department.
Well I was thinking in terms of how the “lead generation industry” cons people into giving up their numbers to be spammed.
Glengarry Glen Ross
A bit of a ramble, but: There is something fundamentally broken about connection (messaging, email, phone, whatever) information being cloneable. Either a) the identifier of the channel by which you contact me requires something from your identity to use, so it can't be used by other people, or b) there is no core address, they are all tear-off contacts (analagous to a TCP session, I guess?) I suppose you would message the main core address, but it just sends a redirect to a new channel. New channels have low reputation by default, and if you delete it (because the other end shared it, or whatever,) they have to get a new tear-off and start over.
Good. Do this for political spam next.
This whole ecosystem is in the process of changing.
Here is a tidbit of insight: https://support.twilio.com/hc/en-us/articles/4405850570267-N...
Here is a tidbit of insight: https://support.twilio.com/hc/en-us/articles/4405850570267-N...
Hm. I’m skeptical that an industry-provided solution is going to solve spam; I’ll believe it when I see it.
For serious the last Election Day resulted in me getting a shit ton of BS text messages, all structurally the same, and all without any valid contact information.
I responded to a Democrat text that I would never ever vote democrat again if this didn’t stop. It stopped.
Keeping in mind that "Joe jobs" are not exactly unheard-of in politics, of course.
I got daily spam texts from the republican party telling me how John Fetterman was going to doom Pennsylvania to communism. I live in Massachusetts, assholes!
I got essentially the same thing for both parties - stylistically:
identical hyperventilating, identical style, identical badly cropped photos, and url to a path inside an otherwise empty godaddy domain, redirecting to act blue fundraising in some cases similar republican ones in others.
It was very clear that one organization was doing both sides
It was very clear that one organization was doing both sides
This gives me hope for the future. I’m ok with shutting down the “honest leads” along with all the others as those are few and far between.
I had a neighbor who owned a common .com for housing construction that was top seo and all it did was collect your info and sell the lead. I had actually used it before I met my neighbor and hated it. He ran it in the least scammy way possible, but it still boiled down to having a bunch of contractors call and email me and the experience was bad.
I think phone calls should be run like apple does push notifications. Someone who doesn’t care (apple) confirms you want them and provides a simple way to turn them off when you no longer want them.
I’ve had very few spam push messages and never two from the same org as I just block them.
Texts and calls should be similar. Agreeing to be contacted by one vendor and then getting stuff forever from anyone that vendor sells to is ridiculous.
I had a neighbor who owned a common .com for housing construction that was top seo and all it did was collect your info and sell the lead. I had actually used it before I met my neighbor and hated it. He ran it in the least scammy way possible, but it still boiled down to having a bunch of contractors call and email me and the experience was bad.
I think phone calls should be run like apple does push notifications. Someone who doesn’t care (apple) confirms you want them and provides a simple way to turn them off when you no longer want them.
I’ve had very few spam push messages and never two from the same org as I just block them.
Texts and calls should be similar. Agreeing to be contacted by one vendor and then getting stuff forever from anyone that vendor sells to is ridiculous.
Lmao spam callers on suicide watch.
It’s absolutely hilarious seeing the begging and the coping from this guy as he desperately tries to persuade us that consumers need fraudlent call centres to live their lives. Nah, I think I’m alright thanks.
It’s absolutely hilarious seeing the begging and the coping from this guy as he desperately tries to persuade us that consumers need fraudlent call centres to live their lives. Nah, I think I’m alright thanks.
popcalc(1)
This is great! I’m looking forward to similar regulation for email spam.
Terms and conditions forms online are such a joke.
We thought the ancients were cruel and heartless but here we are signing forms we cannot comprehend and using them as a basis for denying people legal protections.
We thought the ancients were cruel and heartless but here we are signing forms we cannot comprehend and using them as a basis for denying people legal protections.
The demise of unsolicited calls and texts cannot come soon enough. Ideally they would be tarred, feathered, and quartered, but I’ll settle for just putting them out of business.
How many times have you seen a company with a privacy policy saying something like, "we value your privacy, we'll never sell your data" and also having a clause about sharing your data with companies they already do business with? Oh, they're not selling your data, they're sharing it. It's such an obvious loophole buried under gobblygook language.
I find this part the most interesting. How do I easily sue companies for TCPA violations?
> There’s another problem too– professional plaintiffs (and their lawyers) exploit the abuses in the industry and fill out forms by the barrelful to set up TCPA lawsuits. These days it is REALLY hard to tell the difference between lead fraud and litigator fraud until you are deep into a case.
Burn it all to the ground.
> There’s another problem too– professional plaintiffs (and their lawyers) exploit the abuses in the industry and fill out forms by the barrelful to set up TCPA lawsuits. These days it is REALLY hard to tell the difference between lead fraud and litigator fraud until you are deep into a case.
Burn it all to the ground.
Two months ago, evidently someone put my number on some online form somewhere. I now get multiple messages/calls a day, addressed to "Lora", offering to help her with everything from insurance, to counseling/therapy, to public assistance, to rental properties. In the last 2 weeks, the calls are all Spanish-speaking.
My # is on the do not call list. Guess how much that helps...
Different situation: 2 years ago, I needed to move across the country. My dad decided to help and so he put my phone # into a website to give you a quote for moving. I was instantly inundated by calls from multiple moving companies, all of which sounded "off", all from that one form. (BTW, several of these companies were out of Florida. Just do a quick online search for florida moving company scams.) As a final note, it was cheaper to rent a truck from Penske and hire a friend to drive it the 1,000 miles. And, in case you care, Penske was $1,000 less than U-Haul and had better guarantees... I strongly recommend them!
My # is on the do not call list. Guess how much that helps...
Different situation: 2 years ago, I needed to move across the country. My dad decided to help and so he put my phone # into a website to give you a quote for moving. I was instantly inundated by calls from multiple moving companies, all of which sounded "off", all from that one form. (BTW, several of these companies were out of Florida. Just do a quick online search for florida moving company scams.) As a final note, it was cheaper to rent a truck from Penske and hire a friend to drive it the 1,000 miles. And, in case you care, Penske was $1,000 less than U-Haul and had better guarantees... I strongly recommend them!
I'm having trouble coming up with any reason my response to this should be anything other than "Hallelujah!"
As a consumer, this seems great for me.
How does this guy sleep at night?
Great.
What I really want is mandatory opt-in to be able to contact me.
Unknown numbers get to send a single standard length SMS, carrier embeds the full legal name and, for businesses, legally registered mailing address, and I can choose whether to accept. If I don't, no other contact from that number is connected to my phone. Ever.
I can also report the message as unsolicited and every company's unsolicited contact stats are made available to regulators.
What I really want is mandatory opt-in to be able to contact me.
Unknown numbers get to send a single standard length SMS, carrier embeds the full legal name and, for businesses, legally registered mailing address, and I can choose whether to accept. If I don't, no other contact from that number is connected to my phone. Ever.
I can also report the message as unsolicited and every company's unsolicited contact stats are made available to regulators.
That's already the law (except for politicians), which is why this article is about a rule change to the kind of consents that are valid.
Less harassment, I’m all for it
I have been objecting to third party consent dialogues for some time. It seems like a cheap cop out. Who manages my consent of the third party consent dialogue provider to store my consent? Yet another third party? See the problem? An honest website will keep the data itself and not share consent info with an unrelated third party. Users deserve at least that much.
Lead generation means selling my name to other businesses. I want my cut.
If I get a call, email, or text from a business that bought my name, they need to include payment in the message of the same amount they paid the lead generator, whether I end up using their service or not. If not, their message goes straight to the spam folder and I never see it.
You gotta pay to bypass my filter.
If I get a call, email, or text from a business that bought my name, they need to include payment in the message of the same amount they paid the lead generator, whether I end up using their service or not. If not, their message goes straight to the spam folder and I never see it.
You gotta pay to bypass my filter.
"TAKE ME OFF YOUR LIST AND NEVER CONTACT ME AGAIN." - burn this into your brain and state it as quickly as you can next time you get one of those "Mr. AA-JV, I'm calling to tell you about a worrying situation with your PC .." calls.
Works every time. They know what it means.
Works every time. They know what it means.
I'm always torn between this and the advice that any response just validates for them that there's a real person behind the contact info and therefore it's definitely valuable to keep spamming.
I've had it work effectively in the past. I once had the guy waiting for 10 minutes while I found my 'password', which he was eager to have me read to him over the phone. You can imagine what it was. :) His response: "you bloody bastard, I <expletive> <expletive> mother .. "<CLICK>
My solution is just to play an extremely loud and annoying tone over the phone (such as a siren sound), not only do they hang up extremely quickly. They never call again.
Please, fix the text color - it’s so light it’s unreadable on a phone screen without major fidgeting.
Thank god
I honestly don't understand how this isn't already a thing. The bit about Lending Tree struck a chord with me. I tried it once. I expected offers on the screen. Instead, I immediately received text messages, emails, and phone calls from multiple lenders at the same time. I was furious at every one of them.
> Caught in the middle are the innocent companies trying to sell their legitimate products to interested consumers. They want no part of fraudulent leads or fraudulent lawsuits. They’re just trying to help someone buy a home or get car insurance.
No, not innocent. "Hey, I've got a get rich quick scheme! I'll give you leads for customers, but you have to call them fast before my other customers do!" Nothing innocent about that. You sign up for that, you know exactly what you are doing, and you know damn well it's wrong.