Hi All,

I couldn’t find this on the site, and it has been bothering me for a while.....
I’ve been in the industry driving development and use of a Ofcom compliant product for a number of years, and have seen so many answers on this subject it is difficult to keep track.

We’ve all seen Ofcom change their mind sporadically, and we’ve had to implement algorithms to meet both Ofcom, and even our clients differing demands based on their end client’s views.

All the following examples are based on a 24hour period, with the contact centre obliged to keep the resultant abandonment rate below 3%
Don’t get me started (yet) on if this is calculated per data source, per marketing campaign or per contact centre!

My recent experiences are as follows;

1. This generally appears to be the most common understanding.
The number of calls abandoned / (The number of calls answered + The number of calls abandoned).


2. Driven by a large corporate who have had first-hand experience of the Ofcom corrective hand....
The number of calls abandoned / The number of calls answered.


3. I have today in my hand a letter from Ofcom that appears to have calculated abandonment as
Number of calls abandoned / ((Number of calls answered – Number of declared answer-phone contacts) + The number of calls abandoned)


If anyone thinks the last one is new to the world... this letter is early 2007!

I’m raising the question as I’d personally like to stay on the right side of Ofcom, and keep my clients there too!
There appears to be a change in understanding of Ofcom guidelines from everyone I talk to.

Making the change to the reports, and algorithm etc is about 5 minutes work – No problem. The effect on call-centre performance however is going to be far more significant than the 5% vs 3% fun and games.

A massive factor here is hidden in the formula – “Declared” answer-phone contacts. I admit that the “declared” word is mine, but how else can you call it? You certainly can’t be 100% of what is an answer-phone and what isn’t.

Let’s put some numbers in. Ignore No answers, Bad Numbers and Engaged results etc.... – And to keep us on subject for a bit... Let us assume no AMD is in use!

A total of 100 calls result in the call being connected.
64 are answered by Mr or Mrs Smith, and the call handler carries out the given task.
33 more are answered by Mr.& Mrs. Smiths’s favourite Binatone Answering Machine.
3 more are connected but are unfortunately abandoned with no Agent available to take the call.

Standard Abandonment calculation
3/(64+33+3) = 3%

Ignore the second calculation version for now

Ofcom calculation
3/((64+33-33)+3) = 4.5%

Two points of discussion using this as an example.
a) If of all the calls answered, 1/3 are an answer-phone then law of averages tell us that 1/3 of all abandoned calls must have been answer-phones.

Surely then 1/3 can then be ignored leaving us with the Ofcom style calculation
(3 – (1/3 x 3)) / ((97-33)+ (3 – (1/3 x 3))) = 3% [ok just over 3%]

Or easier to read
2 / ((97-33)+2) = 3.03%

b) Two different diallers will have two different values for “Declared” answer-phones. AMD can be flexed to be highly speculative on declaring an abandoned call and answer-phone. Agents might suddenly find it very difficult to find the “Answer-phone” button on their agent script... etc

Surely it would be best for everyone if Ofcom stuck to what is Technically possible to enforce as a common playing field?
It is technically beyond question when a call is connected. Either it is.... or it isn’t – No ambiguity.

Deciding if it is an answer-phone or not.... well that is a massively grey area, with our without AMD.

Any views / experiences of this out there?

Hi

Having seen the last post I thought I would alert you to an event being run by the DMA and TPS and thought it may be of interest. Frank Phillips of OFCOM will be attending and presenting so this could be your opportunity to hear the answer straight from the horses mouth so to speak.

this link has the full details of the day and how to book http://www.dma.org.uk/training/evt-article.asp?id=4468

further details below.

Elaine

THE SUSTAINABLE FUTURE OF TELEMARKETING
Free one day conference – exclusive to TPS licensees and DMA members

An unmissable one day conference with industry experts and regulators, which will provide up to the minute guidance on Ofcom compliance, best practice guidelines and current trends which will shape the future direction of telemarketing.

At this conference you will:

Understand current/emerging Ofcom regulations and guidelines affecting call centre technology including CLI, AMD and recorded messages and the practical measures needed to achieve compliance and avoid substantial fines.
Improve your understanding of current consumer attitudes towards telemarketing as revealed by the latest authoritative research undertaken for the 2009 TPS Brookmead Report.
Learn how the combination of regulatory environment, compliance and best practice are likely to influence future strategies for the use of outbound calling as part of the marketing mix.
Who should attend:

Consumer marketing directors/managers
Operational directors/managers of call centres
Compliance Managers
Anyone with executive responsibility for telemarketing from financial services, charities, home improvements and debt collection companies
Date: Tuesday 31 March 2009
Time: 9.30am - 4.45pm
Venue: Wellcome Collection Conference Centre, 183 Euston Road, London NW1 2BE
Cost:
This is a free event, places are limited

CPD: 4 hours, 50 mins cpd hours can be claimed by CIM and IDM members
For the full programme of the event, please click here.

HOW TO BOOK
Online: Follow this link to book online. https://www.conferenceonline.com/index.cfm?page=booking&object=conference&id=13521&categorykey=6F0FBF60-8685-4819-8F90-8CC93DF5FC6A&clear=1
Email: catherine.gibbon@dma.org.uk
Phone: Catherine Gibbon on 020 7291 3355


BOOK ONLINE

PROGRAMME
For the full programme of the event, please click here.

THE DIRECT MARKETING ASSOCIATION LTD TEL 020 7291 3300 EMAIL: INFO@DMA.ORG.UK

Thanks for the info Elaine,

I look into getting someone there, although I don’t hold up much hope for obtaining and unequivocal answer.

I know that there have been a few people in the industry looking for clarification for some time. I have access to about 40 contact centres, most with access to dialling services in other parts of their business. On a poll I took relatively recently, all of them reported back that their other solutions calculate abandonment using the same formula.

Technically this is not challenge for us, however I don’t like the idea of introducing ambiguity into the industry in general, as it would be tempting for some suppliers to 'creative' in their systems which could easily see them abandoning greater than 3% of calls being (using the current calculations) but less than 3% using this calculating method it appears Ofcom may be using.

Best regards

What is called above a standard abandonment calculation is actually a variant of the ‘all calls measure’ which Ofcom ruled against in 2006, and which the DMA ruled against as far back as the 1990s in their own code of practice. It is amazing to hear it still being discussed.

The Ofcom measure, like the DMA before it, is a measure based on live calls. The Ofcom letter and the content referred to, define the standard; there are no others.

Ofcom also make it clear in the 2008 Statement that abandoned calls may be adjusted downwards to allow for the fact that some such calls will actually be answering machines.

Ofcom’s express view is that all this is very clear to anyone who can be bothered to read their latest Misuse Statement, and they are right. They also seem to be quite clear that anyone who chooses to try and come up with their own standards, which lead to more abandoned calls than is allowable under their Statement, are outside their rules.

There is no need of course to do this. We have hundreds of customers in this country and abroad who have shown that it is possible to get great dialing performance, whilst sticking to the sensible standard that Ofcom have pioneered.

Anyone who has any doubts on the rules – then rather than draw your own interpretation, not a bad idea to talk to Ofcom direct, or fell free to talk to us at Sytel. Ofcom are very approachable. Better this than being non-compliant and the risks that go with that.

Hi Michael,

I’m reasonably certain I saw a published report written by yourself some years ago on this very subject.

I sought clarification from Ofcom, unfortunately without much progress.
I have read every report, news item, Ofcom public review finding, and was one of the first people to assure the DMA that CLI presentation was not an issue, and have always been completely in favour of it being mandatory.

I completely agree with you about performance. We find it is usually possible to operate with 80% productive time on a campaign with 60 second average talk time, and maintain circa 1.5% abandonment.

Hopefully it wasn't meant personally, as I'd take exception at the inference that I can’t be bothered to read Ofcom’s latest Misuse Statement.


Unfortunately I believe you may have missed my point entirely, so I probably have not been clear.

I am seeking the view of how others understand and interpret “abandoned calls may be adjusted downwards to allow for the fact that some such calls will actually be answering machines”.
I am venturing that this statement brings a level of ambiguity that may be exploited by some, which without changing Ofcom’s intentions, could be completely removed.

Firstly I assume, but can obtain no confirmation that this phrase effectively means,(e.g) if 50% of calls answered are determined to be answer-phones, then it stands to reason 50% of the abandoned calls were answer-phones, and can thus be discounted from the calculation. – Please feel free to correct me here, as its the clarity I’m looking for; However if the answer is “No”, can you please shed any light on why.

By my calculations, and using the above logic, no matter what the dialling result set is, the two formula (1&3 in my first posting) return the same % result.

I’m raising the issue as one formula is 100% automatically enforceable with the telecoms ISDN code results, where as the other permits different AMD and scripting applications to skew the reported number of answer phone call outcomes in favour of the person collating the data for the reporting purposes.

In my view this is fundamentally flawed, and as it happens, probably entirely unnecessary. The reason I raise these question is that I assume that if I don’t understand it, I assume I am missing something.

I couldn't agree more about your statement on productivity. 80% productive agent time per hour on a campaign with 60 second average call length and 35% contact rate is easily achievable and remain circa 1.5% abandonment.

While all dialling solutions are not equal, high agent productivity has far more to do with good pro-active dialler management and data maintenance.

That said, I hear the Sytel Algorithm is excellent, and as it did take 10,000's of man-hours to produce the flexibility required by our in-house specification, potentially we could have completed development quicker by licensing your technology.

Best regards

Dear all,

A very nice lady at Ofcom has given me the pointers to the clarification required. She has also promised to give the reply in writing so I'll post it when it turns up.

Current regs: September 2008
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/persistent_misuse/statement/misuse_statement.pdf

I thought I had read this but it appears, I'd missed a key point by looking too closely at the complications concerning AMD.

Paragraph 2.5
The ‘abandoned call’ rate formula is: abandoned calls (x)/(abandoned calls (x) + calls passed to live operator (y)) x 100/1.

This is exactly the formula we have been using at Ultra for some years, and the one I proposed as correct at the commencement of this thread.

I can only assume you were thinking of a different formula Michael - perhaps where some dialling equipment used to count the calls dialled and not just the ones answered?

Use of AMD is a whole different kettle of fish! My interpretation from re-reading the regs is that Ofcom are (correctly) cynical about any manufacturer claiming greater than 95% accuracy and thus suspect anyone using AMD will be breaching their guidelines.

Note that this is just my opinion, but my interpretation is that they will insist the AMD accuracy claims are proven by the users - which is exceptionally hard to do.

Best regards

Darren