Talk:Cold calling/Archives/2012

Fix the citation or remove it?

Someone should either fix the citation to the book _Never Cold Call Again_ or it should be removed. Alternatively, it could be placed in a "Criticism of Cold Calling" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stariki (talk • contribs) 20:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Merging with Telemarketing

Cold calling should not be merged with telemarketing. They are entirely different animals.

Cold calling is a technique or a skill set that is used by many professionals besides telemarketing.

Telemarketing is a sub-set of job functions that use cold calling techniques.

For example - when a professional head hunter is cold calling he/she is targeting specific people for employment opportunitites. There is no money required from the candidate at any point in the relationship. This is just one distinctive difference between the types of cold calling. Another is that the same head hunter is often making cold calls to many people in a company as they work to discover where the targeted talent is located, what their names are, their phone extensions etc,. These cold calling skills are similar to the social engineering skills used by modern hackers/crackers.

Further, as the article mentions, the "calling" aspect is not unique to telephoning. Door-to-Door sales is a kind of cold calling. Nor is Telemarketing always cold calling, when you have requested information about a type of service, you might be called by several companies (telemarketed to) but they are not cold calling since you requested the information. No merge. -- Isogolem 21:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the merge tags from both articles, since no one seems to support the merger. If someone tags them again, they need to explain why on the talk page. IrisWings 21:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Bias toward Cold Calling

The page attempts to invalidate the argument that cold calling may be ineffective and argues that it is effective when done properly; however, this is a biased argument and both sides of the story should be presented neutrally. This is written in the style of a sales trainer or author who is attempting to discredit competing authors who state that cold calling is ineffective.

No citation is given for the statement that cold calling generates quality sales leads when studies have shown the opposite to be true.

I removed the term words "cannot handle the rejection of cold calling" from the phrase "some sales people [cannot handle the rejection of cold calling] and have concluded that it is ineffective....."

Merge from Door-to-door

I think Door-to-door is a subset of cold calling. It would be better to have a subsection for DTD in this article. -- Isogolem 20:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Door to door is canvasing, not cold calling. Door to door has best practices which are not at all similar to those of cold calling. bhoward@klpz.com

"Cold calls can annoy..."

I deleted this line near the top of the article (anonymously, because it was a quick edit and I didn't think it could possibly be contested) because it was poorly written, clearly NPOV, and uncited (and more or less uncitable). I received a message on my talk page informing me that it was, in fact, my change that made the article biased. My edit has been reverted. Needless to say, I strongly disagree, and am seeking consensus on my original edit. Marvose (talk) 14:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The way it's written right now "cold calls can annoy. . . regarded as timewasting" does strike me as kind of NPOV; that being said, there should be some discussion in the article (shouldn't be too hard to find a source) of the view that cold calls are annoying and a waste of time, as this is a fairly commonly-held view. evildeathmath 15:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your input. While I agree completely, the line as it stands is unusable. If one can find multiple sources to back up the claim, it should read something like "Several surveys have shown that recipients of cold calls find them intrusive and unwelcome", with several citations immediately following. Blanket statements like "[cold calls] are regarded as timewasting [sic]" and "can annoy" are weasely, biased, and cannot be substantiated. Again, on a personal level, I completely agree with the statement, but we must not use wikipedia to air our personal opinions, no matter how confident we are that they're shared by a majority of our peers. Marvose (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC).

WP:WEASEL is a rule of thumb - it leaves room for exceptions. Finding references online that aren't highly POV (usually in favour of cold calling) is going to take a while - it's possible, but there's a lot of chaff to sort through. Autarch (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The argument that the difficulty of finding references that support an unsubstantiated claim is reason to leave such a claim in an article is patently absurd. Regarding the weasel words exception, please clarify exactly which exception criterion applies and how. I can't make any of them fit. Lastly, I should point out that removing the claim as it stands makes the article less biased. The line currently makes the article biased against cold-calling.

Marvose (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for requesting a third opinion. I have to agree with Marvose (talk · contribs), that any information that is not verifiable should be removed. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Without evidence to support the claim, it should be removed. (EhJJ)^TALK 22:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. You both wrote "NPOV" when I think you meant "POV" or "not NPOV". (EhJJ)^TALK 22:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion

In the name of Solomon, I have come to offer my infinite wisdom in order to help resolve this contentious matter. In reviewing the circumstances it occurs to me that the issue is a question of 1) wording and 2) citations. I don't find it necessary that a survey is needed to establish that cold calling is annoying, I think this is an example of common knowledge and a view that is widespread and shared among most people. A source would be helpful to ground the assertion however, so here is an article from a reliable source [1]that calls telemarketing cold callers "one of the most loathed marketing techniques of the modern age" in the lead sentence. I think that this citation is more than adequate to support reasonable language stating that this marketing mechanism is not widely enjoyed. Please work out the appropriate language amongst yourselves. In the name of Solomon, I ChildofMidnight, have spoken. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I mostly agree with my third opinion writing competitor colleague, but emphasize that "reasonable language" must be used. (EhJJ)^TALK 23:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both very much for sharing your thoughts. Regarding ChildofMidnight's link and point, I think it's important not to blur the line between telemarketing and cold-calling; yes, all telemarketers are cold-callers (as far as I know), but not all cold-callers are telemarketers. This is not a trivial distinction. For example, at the print shop where I work, our salesmen regularly make cold calls to companies who'd likely need commercial printing. They (the salesmen) are not telemarketers, their calls are specifically targeted at those who'd likely be interested in their services, and their calls are, not infrequently, welcome. Our shop is not unique in this regard, and it's a common practice in other fields as well. (and for the record, no, I'm not one of those salesmen and have no horse in this race). I guess my point is that the offensive line would be better rewritten and placed in the telemarketing article. And, look, right there in the top of the page: "Telemarketing has come under fire in recent years, being viewed as an annoyance by many."Marvose (talk) 01:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a new issue that you raise, is it not? An interesting point. The title of the citation I used refers to cold calling, but I recognize the distinction you are making for business to business cold calling and it is important. I see no need to exclude either part of the cold calling world. In addition to a reasonable bit about people being annoyed at dinner by cold callers, the role of business to business cold calling can certainly be included. Any break from work is welcome and who doesn't like to chat with the good folks from Dunder Mifflin? You could even provide the contrast you've provided, all sourced of course, to illustrate the point. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

If someone wants to write the ultimate cold calling article, I wish them godspeed. Me, all I wanted to do was delete one little line. Since the majority seems to sort of agree that it's unacceptable as is, I'm going to sort of delete it again. Thanks again for the input .Marvose (talk) 03:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)