Remember that time no one responded to a proposed change in law that could spell the end of outbound marketing?

Less than 9 weeks to go. You need to act now or it will be too late.

Many of you may have seen the latest consultation released by OFCOM, many of you haven't - and this is exactly the issue. If you haven’t the details are here, you need to read it and you need to take in the context of what is being proposed here (it is 84 pages long and may take some time to digest):

OFCOM Consulation

If the proposed changes go through they will most likely have a crippling effect on the outbound marketing industry. 

Suggested changes could include:

• The ability to take enforcement action where a caller makes more than three abandoned calls (up to ￡2m).
• A complete ban on Silent Calls with a zero tolerance policy
• Reducing the allowed drop call rate from 3% either to a lower percentage or a flat number in a given 24 hour period
• A ban on AMD (Answer Machine Detection)
• A ban on Local Number Presentation (Localised CLI)
• A cap on the amount of times you can call a client
• Defining the times your allowed to call clients
   

OFCOM have said that they received very little input from companies these changes will affect, so are currently not able to accurately assess the financial damage the proposed changes will cause to businesses. They’ve also made their suggested changes based on the little evidence they’ve received.

We’ve highlighted some of the statements (listed below) where a lack of input from the industry has led to conclusions that may impact the industry in a hugely negative way. 

4.5 This assessment was carried out using the evidence we have available to us from consumer and industry research like that referred to in section 2 above, responses to our call for inputs and information we hold from complaints and enforcement cases. Some parts of this evidence carry greater weight than others.

4.6 In particular, the industry research data may be less robust than the consumer research due to the low sample sizes for certain questions and a potential risk of bias by respondents when asked about potential cost or efficiency impacts (for example, of operating at different ACR levels). We have no way of verifying the accuracy of the data. This means that our ability to assess the impacts on industry (based on agent utilisation and agent costs), particularly efficiency impacts (i.e. of operating at different ACR levels) is limited.

4.7 Accordingly, despite our best efforts in gathering data to assist our assessment, there are considerable information or evidence gaps. In light of this, we put limited weight on the quantitative results treating them only as an indication of the magnitude and direction of any impact a potential policy change may have on the industry. We consider them as part of our overall, and at this stage, provisional, assessment of what, as a matter of public policy, our section 131 policy should focus on

4.42 We recognise that there could be costs to organisations stemming from a reduction or removal of the use of AMD in light of the revised policy. We do not consider that it is appropriate to fully incorporate these costs into an impact assessment, given that the effect of the 2010 policy is that silent calls are examples of misuse and organisations should already have taken steps to minimise the volume of such calls that they generate. We have nevertheless attempted to understand what the impact on organisations might be of our proposed change and how this compares to the likely benefits, recognising that it may not be appropriate to reflect the full extent of the costs.

4.43 Ofcom’s impact assessment guidelines indicate that where possible we will attempt to quantify impacts. For this proposal, however, there is significant uncertainty around the quantification of several of the inputs which would feed into a quantified impact assessment, particularly in relation to costs to organisations. Nevertheless, we have attempted to complete a quantified assessment by identifying the threshold for efficiency impacts at which costs would outweigh benefits and then comparing the limited evidence that we do have on costs and efficiencies against this threshold.

4.44 We do that by considering the way industry may respond to our proposal, taking into account the reduction of harm those responses might produce, and making such assessment as we can of the possible costs to calling organisations. That leads us to provisional view that there is plausible scope for the benefits to outweigh the costs but, even if they do not, the costs are justified by the need to give proper effect to the statutory prohibition of persistent misuse passed by Parliament.

4.45 Among organisations carrying out out-bound dialling activities, there would be limited or zero cost impact if they do not currently use AMD. As to those who do currently use AMD, we do not know exactly how many organisations there are. However, the industry research suggests that three quarters do not use AMD (as just over a quarter of 94 respondents reported that they did). The responses to the call for inputs also indicated that some organisations (four respondents) still used AMD, but fifteen did not. Of the twelve respondents to the industry research who provided more detailed information on their use of AMD, six stated that they used it all the time, with the other six limiting its use (i.e. turning it off and on).

4.50 We then turn to assessing costs to organisations. As noted above, we have some evidence on the degree of costs that might be incurred, but there is significant uncertainty. We review this evidence in detail below, but first calculate the cost impact threshold at which the reduction in harm from the policy would exactly equal costs to organisations.

4.56 If organisations decide to cease their use of AMD to avoid generating silent calls, it is not clear what the efficiency impact will be since we do not have robust evidence on the level of AMD efficiencies. The evidence we do have is as follows.

4.61 What this means, in summary, is that we have seen little reliable evidence on the degree to which the ability to use AMD can generate efficiencies for calling organisations. As such, we consider that the question of efficiencies from this activity remains unclear. This appears to be different to the situation for making abandoned calls, where there is some evidence of material efficiencies, although with uncertainty around the range (see paragraphs 4.94- 4.105 below).

There is only a very small window for you to act and to have input before the changes are made. OFCOM have consistently stated they have little evidence on the impact the changes will have. Now is the time to present that evidence via the link below. You only have until the 10th of February 2016 to respond.

How to Respond

A lack of input from the outbound marketing industry has led to these changes being suggested. A lack of input now will see the changes implemented over the course of next year. We know of many companies this will effect financially, if this includes you - you need to let OFCOM know how and by how much. If you don't, they'll assume it won't affect you and the changes will proceed as planned.