For some businesses, receiving a single ring from a customer’s phone and then nothing is no longer an occasional frustration, but has become a daily operating problem. As call-blocking and spam-labelling become more aggressive, even legitimate teams find themselves unable to reach customers. This creates a major challenge for organizations that rely on outbound calls for support, scheduling, sales, reminder calls, and follow-up calls. The difficulty is not necessarily due to how frequently a team is making calls; rather, it is due to the manner in which the team is calling, which is now viewed as high-risk by both carriers and analytics systems.
Making Too Many Calls in a Short Amount of Time Using Minimal Caller Information
A frequent mistake made by teams is to view outbound calling as a volume-based endeavor. A team will upload a list of contacts, begin dialing, and hope that sufficient numbers of contacts will answer. While this method appears to be efficient on paper, it typically causes carriers to flag these calls.
If a large number of calls are sent out within a short amount of time (e.g., using multiple numbers or failing to include a clear caller ID), these calls can begin to be flagged. Prior to the customer hearing a single word, he/she may see “Spam Risk” displayed on his/her phone. Even if the call was regarding a valid matter related to an appointment, invoice, or service request, the customer is more likely to ignore the call.
A more effective method is to call customers more slowly and deliberately. Call pacing is important. Consistency in the numbers being called is also important. Organizations must ensure that their caller information is correctly set up and that the customer has a reason to anticipate the call.
Disregarding Customer Consent and Recent Contact Timing
Another area of concern is that organizations are contacting customers without paying adequate attention to their consent, timing, and prior contact. For example, a customer who completed a form three weeks ago is not the same as a customer who requested a callback twenty minutes ago.
When organizations disregard this distinction, the answer rate drops and the complaints increase. The likelihood of a customer blocking the call, reporting it, or stopping trusting the organization increases when the customer receives a call during dinner from a number that he/she does not recognize.
Process plays a significant role here. Calls should be associated with the most recent activity, explicit consent, and reasonable time frames. An TCPA compliant calling assistant enables organizations to establish the structure of their outreach based on these rules, reducing the risks associated with the call and enabling the customer to perceive the call as anticipated.
Using Scripts That Lack Specificity
Even if a customer answers a call, the initial communication can still fail to capture the customer. When a flat script is used to immediately transition into a pitch, it often sounds identical to the type of robocall that people are trained to avoid.
You can tell the difference in the first 10 seconds. A weak opening often comes across as overly general and distant. However, when the opening references something specific (i.e., a service request, a missed appointment, etc.), it establishes legitimacy based on relevance.
Teams should view their scripts as frameworks, not cages. Clarity is the objective; forced, polished language is not. Typically, a brief and direct opening works better than an attempt to create an overly formal opening.
