National Geographic Head Games
Mar. 14th, 2005 09:46 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
truepennySo, we recently got a subscription to National Geographic, taking the next slithery step down that long slippery slope toward turning into our own aged relatives. (The shelves of old National Geographics are de rigeur.)
Today, we get the inevitable telemarketing call: they're sending a Free World Map (trust me, you can hear the capitals) and a video--the Best of National Geographic or something like that--"which you are under no obligation to buy" yada yada.
I interrupt, and the ensuing exchange goes like this:
What fascinates me about this is the patently false assertion that I would be in "complete control" (and, yes, that really is what she said). You're sending me something I've just said I don't want, which I will then be obliged (no obligation my ass) either to buy--when we've already established I don't want it--or to send back to you. You know and I know, National Geographic, that the point here is that once you send it to me, it's easier for me to pay you (for something--everybody sing along now--I DON'T WANT) than to deal with the hassle of sending it back. You're pulling the strings to see if I'll dance, National Geographic, and I fail utterly to see how this correlates to my being in "complete control" of anything whatsofreakingever.
Another hint: if the customer is in "complete control," then "no" means "no." Jesus H. Polaroid Christ, it's no wonder we have so much trouble with the concept of consent in this country when marketing and commercials and the capitalistic mindset we're saturated with from birth tells us that "no" means "try harder."
I feel like a circus poodle protesting indignantly that I don't like jumping through hoops. Nobody's listening, and I'm a POODLE for crying out loud! Who's going to take me seriously anyway?
I shall make a tiny put-upon growl and go sulk.
Today, we get the inevitable telemarketing call: they're sending a Free World Map (trust me, you can hear the capitals) and a video--the Best of National Geographic or something like that--"which you are under no obligation to buy" yada yada.
I interrupt, and the ensuing exchange goes like this:
TRUEPENNY: No, thank you, I'd prefer not to receive that.
TELEMARKETER [sounding disappointed]: Keep in mind, you'd be in complete control of--
TRUEPENNY [crossly]: I'd still prefer not to receive that, thank you.
TELEMARKETER [sounding like she's on the verge of tears]: All right, ma'am. Thank you.
TRUEPENNY hangs up, wishing again for the good old-fashioned telephones where you could slam the thing down and get some visceral satisfaction out of it.
What fascinates me about this is the patently false assertion that I would be in "complete control" (and, yes, that really is what she said). You're sending me something I've just said I don't want, which I will then be obliged (no obligation my ass) either to buy--when we've already established I don't want it--or to send back to you. You know and I know, National Geographic, that the point here is that once you send it to me, it's easier for me to pay you (for something--everybody sing along now--I DON'T WANT) than to deal with the hassle of sending it back. You're pulling the strings to see if I'll dance, National Geographic, and I fail utterly to see how this correlates to my being in "complete control" of anything whatsofreakingever.
Another hint: if the customer is in "complete control," then "no" means "no." Jesus H. Polaroid Christ, it's no wonder we have so much trouble with the concept of consent in this country when marketing and commercials and the capitalistic mindset we're saturated with from birth tells us that "no" means "try harder."
I feel like a circus poodle protesting indignantly that I don't like jumping through hoops. Nobody's listening, and I'm a POODLE for crying out loud! Who's going to take me seriously anyway?
I shall make a tiny put-upon growl and go sulk.
