Travis Reid, President
Loews Cineplex Entertainment
711 5th Ave
New York, NY 10022-3111
Phone: 212-833-6200
Fax 212 -833-5420
Online feedback form

February 21, 2003

States Offer a New Spam Solution

Marketers love spam. Not only can they send out millions of ads per hour, they can do so at little cost to themselves since they pay for nothing more than the list of e-mail addresses they purchase and an Internet connection. Most of the cost associated with spam is actually borne by the advertising recipients and the Internet providers who carry the unwanted messages through their systems.

The only thing that might deter spammers is boosting their cost of doing business. The State of Washington allows recipients of UCE (unsolicited commercial e-mail) to sue spammers in court, but few Netizens have the wherewithal to decipher forged e-mail headers and track down the miscreants.

Two states are proposing a more straightforw ard system to fighting spam: "do not e-mail" lis ts that mirror the "do not call" lists that have reduced telemarketing calls in more than 20 states. The first do-not-e-mail list was proposed in Missouri in October 2002, and Colorado Representative Ray Rose (R-Montrose) introduced the second such measure in late January 2003.

Said Missouri State Rep. Chuck Graham, who cosponsored House Bill 228, "Consumers should be able to protect themselves from these unwanted intrusions, much as they can with telemarketing calls under the 'No Call' law."

Colorado House Bill 1200 would allow residents to add their e-mail addresses to a government-ma intained database and make it illegal for marketers to send spam to those addresses. Citizens who receive spam after signing on to the database would be able to sue the sender in civil court for actual damages, court costs, attorney fees, and $10 per message. The possibility of dinging a spammer for ten dollars hardly makes a lawsuit worthwhile and doesn't seem much of a deterrent, but Internet service providers would also be able to sue spammers for sending UCE through their systems – and since ISPs are burdened with millions of spam each day, a lawsuit decided in their favor could cost a spammer big time.

Colorado's proposed do-not-e-mail list is by no means perfect. As wit h many do-not-call lists, such as the FTC's proposed system already covered on BadAds, the Colorado bill provides citizens with only limited privacy protection since non-pr ofit organizations, political groups, and companies with a "prior business relationship" can still send unsolicited ads by e-mail.

More importantly, the Colorado attorney general thinks the bill would be too costly to implement and almost impossible to enforce, especially with the number of spammers located outside the U.S.

On the other hand, Missouri AG Jay Nixon is wholeheartedly in favor of a do-not-e-mail list. "Many of the spam messages are not from reputable or legitimate businesses, adding the problem of fraudulent schemes to the burden of receiving unwanted and unsolicited e-mails. When we reduced telemarketing calls made into Missouri by vigorously enforcing the No Call law, we also saw complaints to our office about telemarketing fraud cut in half. An anti-spam law could help reduce fraud perpetrated over the Internet as well," said Nixon in an article on InternetNews.com.

If you welcome the idea of a do-not-e-mail list, contact your state legislator and ask hi m or her to introduce such a measure in your state. For reference, you can direct them to the Colorado measure (PDF format / downloadable format) and Missouri House Bill 228.

And while you're writing, drop a line to Rep. Ray Rose, Rep. Chuck Graham, and Sen. Wayne Goode, who will introduce the do-not-e-ma il bill in the Missouri Senate, and thank them for introducing these measures. Legislators should always be encouraged when they respond to the cries of citizens.

February 18, 2003

Now Showing – Anger and Frustration

If you contributed to the record $9 billion of movie tickets sold in 2002, then you probably also saw another record in the making last year: greater numbers of ads before movies than ever before. As Time reported in its December 2, 2002 issue, National Cinema Network, which places ads on a third of movie screens in the U.S., increased its prefilm commercial sales by 48 percent in 2002. During the summer, when t icket sales reach their peak, movie theater owners can earn as much as $4 million over five weeks.

The article by Heather Won Tesoriero and Kate Carcaterra quoted Todd Siegel, senior vice president of sales and marketing for Screenvision, which places ads on 14,000 screens, as saying, "Advertisers are always trying to deliver a message in an uncluttere d environment to an attentive audience."

Theater owners and advertisers realize that they risk driving customers away with intrusive ads. As Alex Bogusky, creative director for the advertising agency that created prefilm ads for BMW, told Time, "It's a very delicate place to advertise.... People have paid money to go see a film. You can do real harm. You show up as an uninvited guest."

Uninvited and unwelcome – yet until moviegoers complain in larger numbers, the advertising will only worsen in the future. In addition to writing to the theater owners that sell advertising space (contact information for which is available on the BadAds movie page), moviegoers need to complain to the advertisers themselves.

A new Web site launched in December 2002, Didn't I Already Pay for This Movie?, provides contact info for companies advertising on movie screens in the Washington D.C. area. The site's creators, Boo and Hiss, invite BadAds visitor s to submit names of companies advertising on screens in your town so that they can add those offenders to their boycott list.

Don't stew in silence when the lights go down and the ads go up. Rise up and complain, to both the theater owner and the companies placing the ads. Then t ake your business elsewhere. Sooner or later, these folks will get the message.

February 11, 2003

Telemarketers Sue for the Ri ght to Bother You

People hate telemarketing. You know it, we know it, everybody knows it, even the telemarke ters themselves know it – but that doesn't mean they're going to leave you alone.

In response to the Federal Trade Commission's proposed "do not call" list in December 2002, the Direct Marketing Association (DMA), the American Teleservices Association (ATA), and six individual telemarketing companies filed suit against the FTC in two jurisdictions in late January.

Under the FTC's proposed system, citizens who don't want to receive s ales pitches by phone would place their names and numbers on an "opt out" list, and telemarketers who call those numbers would be fined up to $11,000 per call. To avoid fines, telemarketers would need to purchase revised lists quarterly and purge the listed phone numbers from their databases.

The DMA and ATA bizarrely claim that the creation of such a list would violate free speech laws and discriminate against an industry that employs thousands since as many as 60% of U.S. households would likely sign up. They also argue that consumers are already protected by 27 existing state-run "do not call" lists, in addition to a national list maintained by the DMA.

These arguments don't hold up to a moment's scrutiny. The existence of "do not cal l" lists in 27 states does nothing for citizens living in the remaining states. Neither does the DMA's opt out list since adherence to the list is voluntary and not all telemarketers belong to the DMA. Furthermore, the FTC's proposed system is hardly "discriminatory" – the government has long regulated any industry's activity when it negatively affects the health and freedom of citizens.

The industry's attempt to misuse free speech rights is even more outrageous. Why should a company's efforts to advertise in an intrusive manner trump the right of an individual to not be b othered in his or her home? The First Amendment right to free speech does not grant a company license to invade my residence a gainst my will.

Jack Russell nicely summarized the absurdity of the telemarketers' defense in an essay in the Inquirer: "Rather than suing to protect their right to target an unwilling population, DMA members might examine why their chosen form of marketing is so ineffective in the first place and address the relevant problems. If the vast majority of consumers do not wish to be contacted via telephone in the ways and methods you are using to do so, it would make sense to find alternative ways of contact, or at the least, to tweak the ones you already use."

Th at we even need opt out lists demonstrates how twisted our priorities are. Companies should have no right to advertise to individuals in their homes without their permission. No telemarketing calls, no mass mailed postcards, no spam – nothing.

The FTC's proposed "do not call" list is already weak in that non-profit organizations, political groups, and companies with an "established business relationship" would still be able to call with sales pitches, but it's a first step. The House Energy and Commerce Committee approved funding for the FTC registry in January, despite pa st threats from committee chairman Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-LA), and H.R. 395 – the bill containing funding specifics – will now be considered by the full Congress.

Here's what you can do:

1. Write to your Senators and House Representative and ask them to support H.R. 395.

Senate (Choose a state on the pulldown list for contact information.)

House of Representatives (Enter your nine digit ZIP code, or choose your rep's na me on a pulldown list.)

2. Write to the FTC and express your support for the proposed "do not call" list.

Catherine Harrington-McBride
Bureau of Consumer Protection
Federal Trade Commission
CRC-240
600 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, D.C. 20580
cmcbride@ftc.gov
Details about the system

3. Write to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and ask the agency to support a no-call list identical to the one proposed by the FTC. H.R. 395 requires the FCC to complete a no-call plan of its own within 180 days of the bi ll's passage, and then work with the FTC to eliminates inconsistencies between the two plans. Even though the FTC's system isn't perfect, it should relieve those citizens currently plagued by telemarketers and lay groundwork for future efforts to enhance citizen privacy.

Secretary Michael Powell
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, D. C. 20554
Online feedback form (reference "CG Docket No. 02-278, CC Docket No. 92-90" in your comments)

4. Razz telemarketers who think they have the right to bother you against your will. The first five contacts are for organizations that filed suit against the FTC in federal court in Oklahoma, while the final three are responsible for the suit in Colorado's federal court.

Direct Marketing Association
H. Robert Wientzen, President & CEO
212-768-7277
presiden@the-dma.org

Infocision Management Corp.
Gary Taylor, President and CEO
330-670-5074
garyt@infocision.com

U.S. Security, Inc.
Rick Ratliff, President
405-947-3377
rick@USSecurit y.c om
(U.S. Security, a dealer of ADT home protection systems, paid $5,000 in fines in 200 2 for violating Kentucky's "No Call" list. Two other ADT dealers each paid $10,000 in fines. Details.

Chartered Benefit Services, Inc.
Richard C. Gallagher, Chairman, President and CEO
847-797-8500
jobs@charteredbenefit.com

Global Contact Services
Brian Helton, Vice President Operations
304-877-5180
brian.helton@gcsagents.com

American Teleservices Association
Jason Clawson, Executive Director
877-779-3974
jason@moinc.com

Mainstream Marketing Services, Inc.
Vic Weese, President
800-379-3438
vweese@boldercalls.com

TMG Marketing, Inc.
1600 Stout Street
Denver, CO 80202
720-904-1288

February 7, 2003

Back to the Main Page