Latest Articles & Activity on the Website

Telemarketing Tip:

datadale's picture

Telemarketing Tip:
Don’t talk too much on a sales call – You have two ears and only one mouth for a reason

According to Lori Turner-Wilson, CEO and founder of RedRover Sales & Marketing Strategy, you have two ears and only one mouth for a reason. And that is to ask high-impact questions of your prospect and listen intently – since it demonstrates that you have more interest in your prospect’s needs than your own, which improves trust and increases the likelihood of advancing the sale.

A Dataman Group Telemarketing List gives marketers entrée into businesses and homes. Success with telemarketing depends on many variables, including the list (and Dataman Group’s telemarketing lists are A++), the script and preparedness of the caller.

Read more of Lori’s post on Telemarketing mis-steps at
Visit the section of the Dataman Group website dedicate to the Death Care Industry:

Breaking through the Cyber Monday Clutter

datadale's picture

I got so many emails today for Cyber Monday buying deals, my inbox was out of control….and I basically deleted them all.

What I did not get inundated with was mail, which gave me an opportunity to look at each piece I received.

There were 2 pieces from etailers that actually drove me to their Cyber Monday websites where I placed my on-line super sale orders. Obviously, they used the right list to find me!

There were also 2 pieces from non-profits who timed their mail to hit the day before Giving Tuesday, again with the goal of driving me to their websites for an end-of-year gift.

Nowadays, smart marketing blends different channels. One channel is no longer enough to break through the clutter.

Frequency is important in marketing….and remailing brings results

datadale's picture

I get alot of questions about remailing. To remail or not to email.

I always tell my clients who have done well with a particular campaign to remail. Some of my clients say, “I can’t mail again — I just sent a mailing last month!”

C’mon, do you remember what you received in the mail last month? Last week? What about yesterday?

As David Ogilvy once said, “You’re not advertising to a standing army. You’re advertising to a passing parade.”

Bottom line – people who don’t need you one week might need you the next. If you’re happy with your list , offer and creative, take that same mail piece and mail it again .

If you got a good response the first time around, you will on the remailing, too.

Expelled From College - the Electoral College

Bob Fells's picture

Why We Vote

[Note: This essay is one in a continuing series by ICCFA executive director Bob Fells focusing on various issues in our federal government. Although the subjects are political in nature, the approach is bipartisan in outlook, at least so far as that is humanly possible. The goal of each essay is not to persuade the reader to adopt a particular political viewpoint or party, but to illustrate why a knowledge of the system is important to protect our businesses, our homes, and our families.]

Expelled from College - the Electoral College

The first presidential election that I felt personally involved in was back in 1960 with the Kennedy-Nixon campaign. I was ten years old and my sister had actually met JFK at Idlewild Airport in New York (later renamed Kennedy Airport under sad circumstances). So that link made the election very personal for me. Actually, the first election that I have memories of date back to 1956 when Dwight Eisenhower was seeking a second term and Adlai Stevenson was running against him.

No, I wasn’t a child prodigy to take notice of such a historic event. My memory is simply walking with my mother on Election Day to the local public high school that served as our voting precinct. I asked mom who she was voting for and she said, “Mr. Stevenson.” This boggled my little mind because it seemed logical to me that mom should vote for President Eisenhower to be President, right? I posed this question to mom and she answered simply, “I think that Mr. Stevenson will do a better job than Mr. Eisenhower.” This satisfied my curiosity and it also served as my very first political conversation.

Fast-forward sixty years (but who’s counting?) and we have just lived through the most contentious election that I can remember. Oh, for the congenial days of Mr. Eisenhower and Mr. Stevenson when nobody got too excited over who won or lost. Today we live in the Age of the Sore Loser who protests the election results, not because of fraud or deception, but simply because their guy didn’t win. Why didn’t the Stevenson supporters think of that! Worse, the Vice President-Elect takes his family to a hit Broadway show only to be booed by members of the audience and lectured by members of the cast. What did Mr. Pence do to deserve such treatment? It appears that his offense was to win the election fair and square.

This is all unchartered territory for our nation. Our legendary peaceful transfer of power suddenly may not be peaceful any more. The only post-election event that I find predictable is the threadbare discussion of why we need to dismantle the Electoral College and just go with the popular vote. That’s a very good idea – if you live in New York, California, and maybe Texas. If you live in less populated states, then don’t bother voting because those big states will decide the election for you. The concept of the Electoral College is to give the small town voter the same clout as his big city cousin in Manhattan. Also, the college is not new. It is part of our Constitution, in Article II to be exact, and dates from 1787. Its purpose then and now is to “level the playing field” so the big guys don’t control the election.

This doesn’t stop people from misstating the purpose of the college. Atlantic magazine, for example, opines that the Electoral College was meant “to stop irresponsible people” like Mr. Trump apparently, from being elected. Really? That’s as ridiculous as taking to the streets to protest an election only because your candidate didn’t win. Oh well, they’re doing that too. The fact is that presidential elections would likely become unholy messes if they were based on ballot counts. Who can forget the election of 2000 in Florida where new words entered the English vocabulary such as “hanging chads?” Apparently, a lot of people have forgotten or are too young to have known about the 2000 election. Multiply that sorry situation by fifty states and we would have the next best thing to anarchy, and the larger the state population-wise the larger the problem.

It is a fact that Mrs. Clinton won the popular vote fair and square but our system of electing a president doesn’t depend on the popular vote because it is a flawed method due to significant flaws in the tabulation process of which Florida 2000 remains Exhibit A. Personally, I am much more troubled at the prospect of a candidate winning the Presidency without obtaining a majority vote. This happened most recently in the 1990s - twice! Bill Clinton won the 1992 election with only 43 percent of the popular vote. This means that 57 percent of the voters wanted somebody other than Bill Clinton to be their president. Yet nobody took to the streets and protested. As a nation we collectively said, “Congratulations, Mr. President-Elect,” and wished him well. Things weren’t much better in 1996 when President Clinton won only 49 percent of the popular vote. So here we had a president serving two terms and never once getting a majority of the popular vote. That probably makes a better argument for dumping the Electoral College than the 2016 results but with politics, one’s perspective depends on whose ox is being gored at the moment.

Speaking of being gored, Al Gore perhaps had every right to feel that he should have been declared the winner in 2000. No matter how you felt about that outcome, it should serve as a textbook case of why we do NOT want the popular vote to determine our presidents, at least not directly. And we certainly don’t want the Supreme Court stepping in, as it did in 2000, to decide our presidential elections. Almost always, the popular vote matches the Electoral College vote but, as we know, there are exceptions. And as the saying goes, it is the exception that proves the rule.

The irony with the 2000 election is that Mr. Gore could have lost Florida and still have become president – if he simply carried his home state of Tennessee. Every presidential candidate wins their home state, win or lose the election. Even Mr. Mondale won his home state in 1984, though he lost all of the remaining 49. It was Mr. Gore’s defeat in his home state that actually cost him the election. Mr. Bush could have won the popular vote in Florida by a landslide but Mr. Gore would have been the next President had he carried his home state.

The argument for abolishing the Electoral College reminds me of the once-popular movement for term limits to end the practice of “career” members of Congress. At first blush, term limits sounded like a terrific idea, but the details got in the way. When voters figured out that term limits could hurt them by forcing the retirement of their senior member of Congress whose clout brought home lots of federal funding, the idea died a swift death. Likewise, abolishing the Electoral College would sooner or later create a quagmire of disputes over ballot validity and the irrelevance of states with small populations.

Finally, the other controversy with the Electoral College involves the legalism that the electors from each state who actually elect the president are not bound by the outcome of the voting in their respective states. In other words, if Candidate A wins in State X, the electors can legally cast their votes for Candidate B. To me, this is a huge flaw in the college that ought to be remedied but never is. The official standard answer to this concern is, “Oh, they won’t do that.” If they ever do DO that, the 2016 election results may provide the encouragement never seen before. The question then is that in order to change this loophole, should we decide by popular vote?

What If They Held an Election for President and Nobody Showed Up?

Bob Fells's picture

Why We Vote

[Note: This essay is one in a continuing series by ICCFA executive director Bob Fells focusing on various issues in our federal government. Although the subjects are political in nature, the approach is bipartisan in outlook, at least so far as that is humanly possible. The goal of each essay is not to persuade the reader to adopt a particular political viewpoint or party, but to illustrate why a knowledge of the system is important to protect our businesses, our homes, and our families.]

What If They Held an Election for President and Nobody Showed Up?

If I had a time machine and could only use it only once, I would zoom ahead fifty years just to see what History has to say about the 2016 Presidential Election. Will it be known as the “Year of The System is Rigged” or perhaps it will be remembered as the election where regardless of who won, We the People lost? Only Time will tell but in the meantime I offer my thoughts on what many folks regard as a bad joke or evidence that this great nation has begun its decline. But don’t look for any Pollyanna bromides from me. The situation is very serious but then so was World War II.

The title of this essay is a riff on a silly bit of profundity from the 1960s. The original quote was, “What if they held a war and nobody came?” My reaction a half century ago was “Huh?” But now that I am older and wiser and have seen much more of the world, my reaction today to this nifty little question is, “Huh?”

As I outlined in my “Washington Report” column in the current issue (August/Sept) issue of ICCFA Magazine, the two political parties have the same two-part strategy for winning on Election Day. The first part of the strategy is obvious: persuade as many people as possible to vote for my candidate. You don’t need to be a political science major to know that one. But the second part of the strategy is less obvious: to discourage people who won’t be voting for my candidate from voting at all. Right now, you’re probably thinking, “Huh?” Let me explain.

Everybody knows that there are not enough committed Democrats or Republicans to win the election for their candidate. In fact, the election will be decided by the independent voters who could care less about party affiliation. They are the swing voters who will elect either Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Trump. Let’s not kid ourselves, the party faithful will be voting come hell or high water, even if they have to crawl on their hands and knees to the polling place. Yes, they will encourage others to vote as well, but they will also seek to discourage those from voting for their opponent. Here’s how that works and there are several tactics:

1.) The “Don’t Waste Your Time” ploy: you normally don’t vote but feel strongly this year about one of the candidates. Unfortunately for me, it’s not my guy (or gal). If I can’t get you to vote my way, maybe I can get you to just stay home so you won’t be helping to elect the opposition. I will encourage you not to waste your time voting. I mean what is your measly one vote going to do? Surely you have better things to do with your time. So go with your gut instinct and don’t bother voting. After all, both candidates are damaged goods and that way you can’t be blamed no matter who wins, or so I’ll try to persuade you.

2.) The “Laugh Your Way Out of Voting” ploy: the late night talk show hosts are experts with this one. They ridicule the candidates so audiences get the impression that the candidates are just clowns and we, no surprise here, shouldn’t waste our time voting for them. I used to enjoy political humor at the expense of both parties but now I ask where do all these jokes leave us? They leave us discouraged and perhaps deciding not to have anything to do with the election. Again, this is good if you’re not voting for my guy.

3.) The “What’s in It for Me” ploy: Since at least the mid-1960s members of Congress have been promising constituents that they will benefit from government largesse if they just vote for that candidate. Often it takes the form of bringing projects to the state for jobs, or personal benefits based on an individual’s circumstances. This is why Term Limits failed because senior members of Congress who “brought home the bacon” would step down and be replaced by somebody else who would channel the “bacon” to their state instead. When voters realized that Term Limits were a two-edge sword, the idea died the death of a dog. This also explains why certain senior members of Congress who would be long-retired in any other profession are still showing up for work.

4.) The “Absentee Voting” ploy: Since it’s perfectly legal, encouraging people to vote by absentee ballot has become an increasingly popular election strategy. It’s easy to qualify – I’ve done it myself – since you only have to say there is a reasonable likelihood that you will be unavailable to vote on Election Day (out of town, sick, in the hospital, etc.) and so you want to vote now instead. Back in the day, absentee ballots were not counted until all the election day ballots had been counted and they rarely changed the outcome of an election, whether local or national. But when strategists realized that many people who intended to vote stayed home on election day because it was raining or too cold or too hot, absentee voting suddenly became an important tool in winning. So if you are “iffy” about showing up on election day, find out where you can vote in advance by absentee ballot. You will only be encouraged to use this method of voting by people who think you’re voting for their guy. Think of it as a political version of preneed.

5.) The “Federal Government is so Huge that It Doesn’t Make Much Difference Who is the President” ploy: Lots of people think up this excuse for not voting all by themselves. But you only have to look at our last two presidents, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, to realize the huge consequences their actions had on our nation and on all of us as individuals. Executive Orders are actually laws that a president can issue all by himself and without the consent of Congress. There are limitations to the actions a president can take through Executive Orders but a challenge must go to the Supreme Court and that third branch of our government is not known for its speedy response to litigation. So as a practical matter, the president can make his own laws that will be in effect for a certain length of time before corrective action can be taken, if it’s ever taken. Also, Executive Orders can be repealed by the new president signing a new Executive Order rescinding the previous one. So the point here is that the president can and does yield a great deal of influence that can affect each of our lives. If you don’t vote, regardless of your opinion of the candidates, you are letting other people decide your fate.

A good fallback position in deciding who to vote for, especially if you dislike both candidates, might be to shed any feelings of self-dealing and ask the age old question, “Which person is best for the nation?” That may sound like something you’d hear in a high school civics class but it’s a legitimate question. As long as George Washington or Abraham Lincoln aren’t running this time around, we need to parse what’s on the ballot. I have my own idea of who I may vote for – and if you don’t agree then let me urge you to stay home on Election Day! :)

Empty Nester - Lead generation Tips

datadale's picture

Many members of the Death Care Industry market to Empty Nesters

They are an excellent target for cars, vacations, theater, concerts & sporting events, electronics, restaurants, health & country clubs, philanthropic causes and financial services.

Many empty nesters have focused on financial planning and have made plans for charitable giving or pre-need arrangements.

When it comes to reaching out to empty nesters (defined as 55-64 years old / no kids at home), remember these key facts:

• Empty nesters spend 18 minutes a day reading mail
• 26% have responded to an item of mail in the last 12 months
• 39% say they are comfortable living on their present income
• 64% agree they would feel less in control without printed copies of important documents
• 74% agree you should take responsibility for your own financial security after retirement.

For more information about Empty Nesters go to:
For info about the top Lead Generation Lists in the Death Care Industry go to:

What are the best times to post on Facebook?

datadale's picture
facebook_416x416.jpg10.15 KB

People log in to Facebook on both mobile devices and desktop computers, both at work and at home. How it's used depends heavily on the audience.

According to Quick Sprout, the best time to post on Facebook is 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday. Other optimal times include 12:00–1:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays and 1:00–4:00 p.m. on Thursdays and Fridays.

Engagement rates are 18% higher on Thursdays and Fridays, and weekdays from 1:00–4:00 p.m. tend to see the highest click-through rates. On Fridays, Facebook use spikes by 10%.

The worst times to post on Facebook are weekends before 8:00 a.m. and after 8:00 pm, according to SurePayroll's research.

BTW - According to Neil Patel, Quick Sprout’s social media blogger, since people tend to be happier on Fridays you should post funny or upbeat content to match your audience's mood.

For more information, go to the Dataman Group website at