"John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us> (05/26/91)
Today's copy of the {Boston Globe Magazine} has a feature article by
staff writer Nathan Cobb on 900 numbers. It discusses their history
and some of the controversy about them. The average 900 number,
something of a misnomer because there are a small number that get a
tremendous number of calls, gets 374 calls a week lasting 2.75 minutes
and costing $1.25 / minute. The largest category is sports, about
15%, followed by sex at 5 to 10%. Programs are commonly interactive,
i.e. the caller can select from a menu using touch-tone digits, and a
small but growing fraction have live people on the other end, ranging
from 1-900-BADGIRL to Tele-Lawyer. Lotus Development has 900 support
lines.
It says that only 10% of US households have ever called a 900 number.
According to a study commisioned by Saatchi & Saatchi, a large ad
agency, people call either because they're bored or they are afraid of
the unknown, the latter group calling various information numbers
because they feel deficient not having the most up-to-the minute
information. (I will omit any comparisons to people who spend 3 hours
a day reading net news, but I digress.)
At the end it reports that 900 numbers increasingly capture the
callers' numbers and translate them to addresses. According to Sprint
Gateways, the US Sprint 900 department, they are able "to identify the
names and addresses of the nine closest neighbors of the original 900
caller. With this information, additional qualified prospects can be
identified for database marketing efforts."
The author concludes: "I have seen the future and it's one in which
I'll pay for the privilege of becoming a sales lead."
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl