If you are in any doubt about awareness of the phenomenon, my search for the phrase found around 15,000 references on the internet. It seems as if the practices of companies making outbound calls have got worse over the last 12 months.
Although silent calls have grabbed the headlines there have also been many incidences of automated calling, poorly targeted campaigns and breaches of the Telephone Preference Service code.
Quite rightly consumers are up in arms and their guardians in the press are publishing regular damning stories. According to the Brookmead Silent Calls Research 2005, approximately 32% of British households with a telephone have registered with the TPS. People receive an average of six silent calls a month and 37% feel unacceptably inconvenienced by them.
This is not just a UK problem; there is an even longer trail of consumer dissatisfaction in the US and as a result they have a tighter set of controls and more punitive measures.
It may come as a surprise to some that we in the contact centre industry are also deeply frustrated with the poor practices of a tiny minority. It only takes one bad apple to spoil the whole market and regrettably this is the case at present.
If the problem is not addressed quickly and severely we will all be the losers -- consumers included.
Outbound calling is a legitimate and beneficial communication method -- it only becomes a nuisance when it is delivered badly. The result of failing to address the problem will be yet more consumers choosing to become ex-directory, registering with the TPS and becoming less responsive to outbound calling.
Thankfully, Ofcom is reinforcing its stand by starting investigations into the telemarketing practices of two companies and five telemarketing companies () and this is surely the right approach.
It is only by having a clear set of rules and by strictly enforcing them that we can clean up the market as a whole and give consumers the confidence they need.
Silent calls are a completely controllable measure for the outbound practitioner -- they are not an accidental result.
They are a function of the use, or rather misuse of predictive dialling techniques. Most high-volume outbound telemarketers will use some form of dialler to improve efficiency. It takes time to key a telephone number accurately and to listen to ring tone and therefore any technology which can eliminate wasted time is welcome.
Diallers do "exactly what it says on the tin" -- they dial telephone numbers, attempt to eliminate answering machines and unanswered calls and only give telemarketing agents live people to speak to.
Predictive dialling attempts to take this a step further; it dials ahead of when an agent is available by working out the probabilities that they will be free by the time the call is connected.
A silent call is simply a symptom of getting the maths wrong. Predictive diallers are not "black box" solutions, campaigns are controlled carefully and therefore where silent calls occur they are the result of human intervention, not merely a freak of electronics.
Managers control the number of calls that are predicted and sadly some use aggressive predictive dial measures in an attempt to achieve higher call volumes.
This is where the regulations need to be more stringent. The DMA guidelines are for a silent call rate of not more than 5%, that telemarketers can not withhold their number (so that the recipient can call back) and that the return call is free of charge.
A target of 5% is exactly that. Over-eager telemarketing managers will try and achieve as close to 5% as they can and as a result they will sometimes inevitably get it wrong.
In the US the regulation recognises that there needs to be a tolerance. There will always be a risk of silent calls with predictive diallers but the guidelines need to allow for occasional error rather than set a target to aim for.
If you have an opinion on this or any other issue raised on Brand Republic, join the debate in the .