ICCFA CAFÉ

Welcome To The ICCFA Café!

Find colleagues from around the world,
as well as a growing library of resources that have been collected by the ICCFA for more than 125 years. Discussions, commentaries and resources are being added all the time, so be sure to visit the Café every day!


Give us your opinion in the following polls.

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 https://www.memphisdailynews.com/news/2016/nov/30/5-killer-sales-call-mi...
Visit the section of the Dataman Group website dedicate to the Death Care Industry: http://www.datamangroup.com/lists-for-funeral-homes-and-chapels/

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?

 
 

bloggers