 "Photo: Miko Walczuk")
You hear a ring and make a dash towards the phone, hoping whoever is calling does not hang up. After answering, a second passes until you hear:
“Hello, this is (insert politician’s name) calling to talk to you about my campaign for the upcoming (fill in seat) ... “
That’s all I really know about these “robo-calls” because that’s around the time I hang up.
It’s an election year, so expect to receive a bunch of phone pitches for votes. The most effective robo-calls trick people into listening to see if the voice is real, allowing enough time for a politician’s automated voice to state their name.
And surprisingly, 50 percent of people listen to the whole message, according to an Oct. 31, 2008, Newsweek article. The other 50 percent hang up within 10 seconds of answering robo-calls. Half of the robo-calls are played out on answering machines.
Much easier than having people make the phone calls, politicians use robo-calling to cut costs, with each call costing about 7 cents. The calls can quickly reach a span of people; some telemarketing companies are able to make 700,000 calls an hour.
But research found that robo-calls have no effect on voters, according to the Newsweek article. Some argue that robo-calls, while potentially effective if used right, have a detrimental effect if over- or misused. During the 2000 election season, Al Gore accidentally woke up thousands of West Virginia voters at 2:30 a.m.
Supporters of robo-calls argue they are protected by the First Amendment, and that robo-calls are a cost-effective way to reach a lot of people.
And telemarketing is profitable. According to telemarketing.com, in 2009 it will have become a $480 billion industry.
In September of last year, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) made automated telemarketing illegal. Customers could report violators at donotcall.org and the companies behind the message could be hit with a $16,000 fine for every illegal call.
The FTC did not, however, make it illegal for politicians, poll conductors, charities and “informational” calls from businesses, such as the vet reminding you to give your cat his flea medicine.
Some politicians feel disadvantaged without robo-calls because their opponents gain more name recognition over them. Some voters don’t have the time to learn about every politician on the ballot and end up basing their vote on what they do know, which sometimes may be whoever’s name they remember hearing.
I know that whenever I answer a robo-call I mentally note the politician’s name, not for their political views, but because they bothered me. A politician who calls the house of an on-the-fence voter during dinner time could lose the entire family’s vote.
Politicians, and others who use robo-calls, should consider the possible harmful effects, such as annoying the person who answers the phone, that are barely balanced out by any support that they gain. Instead of making robo-calls, politicians should use the money for another commercial on prime-time TV or a string of radio ads, or better yet, donate the money to a good cause.
