n3vrmind said:
.... so they take up your time to invade your privacy and sell your details to other companies that'll bother you, i dont have any guilt in being mean to the person on the other end.
I don't have any guilt about that either. If someone rings me at home to sell me something, I don't want it regardless of what it is or how good a deal they think it is. I simply don't want to be pestered at home PERIOD.
So, anyone doing it risks a mood-dependent response. At best, they're going to get a terse "not-interested" and a hang-up without waiting for a response. And if they catch me at the wrong time, it's going to be an explicit, x-rated, anatomical and expletive-laden analysis of their parentage .... or lack thereof. And if I can make their day a bit more miserable in the process, I regard that as objective achieved.
There is also a certain double glazing company that, having repeatedly and unsuccessfully tried to get them to stop pestering me, were the recipients of a legal snottygram from my lawyers informing them that unless a written affirmation that no such further calls would be undertaken was received within 7 days, they would be pursued in civil court for harrassment each and every time such a call was received. And I meant it, too. They must have believed me, as I got my letter and, would you believe, not ONE more call from that company.
I'm sure some people will read this and think that threatening legal action is either excessive, or an empty threat. It was neither. I seriously object to this marketing technique, because when such calls are made despite frequent objection, including several written objections, the message is clear - they aren't prepared to acceed to what is not only my clearly expressed wish to be left alone, but my legal right to be. So, I attack the very principle of this type of direct marketing, which is that it is only worthwhile if the cost per call is small, since the percentage hit rate is certainly small. Companies KNOW many people don't like it at all, but they blithely and arrogantly disregard that and do it anyway, including to people who have made their objections patently clear.
So what happens to their marketing costs if calling the wrong person lands them in court every time?
I'm convinced they ignored requests not to be called either because they couldn't be bothered to follow it up, or because the cost of doing so was unattractive. So I made the cost of not doing so even more unattractive. It worked a treat.