|
At the time of writing, the ink is drying on a Senate Standing Committee report on the recent hearing into the ramifications from extending the Do Not Call Register Act (DNCR Act) to include, most notably, business numbers. Despite many weighty representations from industry, predictably the very first of the recommendations made is that the bill to amend the Act as described be passed, unchanged.
I am not really surprised by that outcome, but I am disappointed.
Proposed amendments to the DNCR Act were first flagged early in 2009 purportedly as a response to concerns from small business about loss of productivity from unwanted telemarketing calls. However, while we understand the annoyance factor associated with some of these calls, it has been our contention that the proposed changes would be at the expense of legitimate B2B calls, incurring costs to business that greatly outweigh the benefits. So since the appearance of the Do Not Call Register Amendment Bill 2009 on the regulatory landscape, ADMA has worked to throw light on these far-reaching adverse consequences in the hope that the Federal Government would see sense and seek balance.
To this end, we commissioned an exhaustive Access Economics impact study for submission to the Senate committee. This found, in part, that the likely consequences would include:
- Suppressed innovation – new entrants to the market with no existing business relationships will have limited capacity to contact prospects.
- Hindered competition – businesses for which the phone is one of the few or only viable means of promoting goods and services will be restricted in marketing alternatives.
- Loss of revenue – there will be a flow-on effect to the economy as restricted trade leads to unquantifiable loss of revenue.
ADMA has also been concerned that the real price tag of compliance has been oversimplified and under-estimated, meaning those sought-after benefits to productivity would end up being eclipsed by costs. Put simply, an expanded DNCR Act will mean every business person will have to check the Do Not Call Register every time they want to make a business call to a business or government number, unless they have consent – a significant expense in itself. Number washing would also constitute only one component of costs, with the establishment and maintenance of compliance systems representing an even greater outlay.
There is also strong evidence from our members that their understanding of the scope of proposed amendments is inadequate and in some cases the intention to comply is limited. Many businesses mistakenly believe their activities will not fall under the provisions of the Act or think complaints will not be made against them if they do call numbers on the DNCR. But as the action taken against non-complying businesses since the establishment of the DNCR will attest, the Australian Communications and Media Authority is a well-resourced and diligent regulator with the power, and the goal, of imposing substantive fines on those who do not fall into line.
The problem lies in the definition of telemarketing in the DNCR Act. It reads:
“... calls made from one business to another for the purpose of offering to supply, provide, advertise or promote goods, services, land or a business or investment opportunity or to solicit donations.”
Just think about this for a moment. Are you business development manager? If so, how many times do you make calls to set up appointments to show your company’s wares? Have you a small business and need to do likewise? In the latter case, the very people the Act proposes to protect will be disadvantaged and will need to establish expensive compliance records.
So great has been the haste to get the extension across the line that a Regulatory Impact Study, which could not have failed to bring these issues to light, was never conducted – part of the reason why ADMA commissioned its own. In the headlong rush to make populist changes to legislation, the true price business will pay has ended up being glossed over. There is a clear, overwhelming case for applying the brakes here – one which was made in every single submission to the Senate committee from the business community and other industry associations too. But it is a plea which, for the moment, has fallen on deaf ears.
Back to Marketing Update home page |
