Skip to main content

A cold call press release

I get a lot of press releases. Many of them are sensibly related to books, science or technology, but some seem a little off the wall. In fact I got one the other day that had more than a hint of spam email about it. There was something about the way that it was phrased that suggested that English wasn't the author's first language, even though the name at the bottom implied a UK origin.

It didn't start auspiciously. 'Dear Editorial,' it said. I can just about understand 'Dear Editor', as I do sometimes style myself editor of, but this mode of address seemed to suggest I was an inanimate object.

However, this didn't matter too much if the content was spot on. What exciting new development would it reveal?

A study has shown that cold calling is becoming customary, according to a group of consumers.

What? Cold calling is becoming customary? What does that mean? Could it be that rather than say 'Good morning', the custom is now for these consumers to cold call one other?

Apparently this statement is true because companies are carrying out their direct marketing while understanding the consumer's best interest. 'How so,' I hear you ask, while marvelling at the wording. Because these companies are honouring 'Do-not-call' lists and as a result, they are increasing their reputation as direct marketers.

First of all this is a very strange statement. It seems to be saying customers who opt out of receiving cold calls think more of direct marketers because the marketers don't make irritating phone calls. But surely, if you opt out, you don't think of the direct marketers at all. Unless they are the evil kind who contact you even when you have opted out. I certainly don't find myself thinking, on a quiet, call free afternoon, 'Gosh, those direct marketers are more reputable than they used to be.' And I certainly don't think 'I wish they would start calling me.' All this really says is that not having cold callers makes you feel good. Probably not what they intended.

More significantly, there is no context whatsoever for this 'study'. We don't know:
  • What 'cold calling becoming customary' means
  • How many consumers were asked
  • What kind of consumers were asked (Did they all work for cold calling companies?)
  • Where this study took place
  • What methodology the study used
  • Or anything else that demonstrates whether the study has any value
Even TV commercials for hair products do better than this. (In the interest of fairness, the press release did have a link to a web page for, erm, another press release that did contain some data on the 'study', which turned out not to be a study at all, but rather a survey of 1430 consumers. We don't find out what questions were asked, or how this 'panel' of consumers was assembled.)

Is it just me, or is it ironic that a press release that suggests cold calling is getting better proves a particularly unhelpful unsolicited communication? Back to the drawing board, guys.


Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Mirror, mirror

A little while ago I had the pleasure of giving a talk at the Royal Institution in London - arguably the greatest location for science communication in the UK. At one point in the talk, I put this photograph on the screen, which for some reason caused some amusement in the audience. But the photo was illustrating a serious point: the odd nature of mirror reflections. I remember back at school being puzzled by a challenge from one of our teachers - why does a mirror swap left and right, but not top and bottom? Clearly there's nothing special about the mirror itself in that direction - if there were, rotating the mirror would change the image. The most immediately obvious 'special' thing about the horizontal direction is that the observer has two eyes oriented in that direction - but it's not as if things change if you close one eye. In reality, the distinction is much more interesting - we fool ourselves into thinking that the image behind the mirror is what's on ou