Weird phone call of the day
Aug. 15th, 2006 06:38 pmSetting: dinnertime in the Kim-and-Neil household.
Ring ring!
Me to Neil: Grrr. Probably a parent. Can you pick up?
Neil, picking up the phone: (pausing) Okay, can I ask what this is about?
Neil hands the phone over to me, looking sheepish. Clearly caller hasn't passed a really good anti-annoyance check.
Me: Hello?
Caller: Hi, this is Tammi with the Dove Foundation. This call will only take 90 seconds of your time.
Me: (sighing internally) Okay.
Caller: Public surveys of parents and grandparents of children indicate that TV and movie ratings are becoming more lenient. What do you think?
Me: I'm not a parent. And I don't watch television.
(Note: except on DVD)
Caller: It doesn't matter. Hollywood controls most of the production for family feature films, and I'd like to know if you think that more funding should go towards movies that actual families can watch.
Me: I like dirty movies.
Caller: Well, but if you liked movies for families, don't you think more funding should go towards family feature films?
Me: What the heck do you mean, "family feature film"?
Caller: Such films as [no name movie] [no name movie] [no name movie]. These films were marketed directly to the public with no advertising money. Do you think I can call you back with your opinion at a later time?
So, apparently she wants me to fund unpopular movies that aren't good enough to have made Sundance (or I would've heard of them). Probably conservative movies.
Me: Um... no.
Click.
I am a "family feature film"'s worst nightmare. At least as they define "family." I mean, I liked Shrek and Cars and Toy Story and all sorts of violent family feature films.
Ring ring!
Me to Neil: Grrr. Probably a parent. Can you pick up?
Neil, picking up the phone: (pausing) Okay, can I ask what this is about?
Neil hands the phone over to me, looking sheepish. Clearly caller hasn't passed a really good anti-annoyance check.
Me: Hello?
Caller: Hi, this is Tammi with the Dove Foundation. This call will only take 90 seconds of your time.
Me: (sighing internally) Okay.
Caller: Public surveys of parents and grandparents of children indicate that TV and movie ratings are becoming more lenient. What do you think?
Me: I'm not a parent. And I don't watch television.
(Note: except on DVD)
Caller: It doesn't matter. Hollywood controls most of the production for family feature films, and I'd like to know if you think that more funding should go towards movies that actual families can watch.
Me: I like dirty movies.
Caller: Well, but if you liked movies for families, don't you think more funding should go towards family feature films?
Me: What the heck do you mean, "family feature film"?
Caller: Such films as [no name movie] [no name movie] [no name movie]. These films were marketed directly to the public with no advertising money. Do you think I can call you back with your opinion at a later time?
So, apparently she wants me to fund unpopular movies that aren't good enough to have made Sundance (or I would've heard of them). Probably conservative movies.
Me: Um... no.
Click.
I am a "family feature film"'s worst nightmare. At least as they define "family." I mean, I liked Shrek and Cars and Toy Story and all sorts of violent family feature films.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-15 11:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-15 11:52 pm (UTC)Nope. Not okay. My reaction to phone solicitations is generally the same as my reactions to spam -- even if I were considering your product, now that you've interrupted my day to give me a hard sell, I'm not doing what you want. If I want what you have to offer, I will now get it elsewhere instead.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-16 01:24 pm (UTC)"Um...sure. I'll walk in sometime later this week. What are the hours again?"
"[Hours]"
A week later, the phone rings. Red Cross again. Oh. Right. I was supposed to do something, wasn't I. After a month or so I'm finally overwhelmed with guilt and donate blood.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-16 03:15 pm (UTC)Now that we've moved to DC, we don't even have a land-line!
no subject
Date: 2006-08-17 05:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-17 11:56 am (UTC)http://www.dove.org/
no subject
Date: 2006-08-17 01:37 pm (UTC)And alas, the crazy organization appears to be well funded & profitable, for being a non-proft -- running expenses were $400K, and it had about $100K left over. For more bugging of people and stamping their logo on movies. Sigh.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-17 01:55 pm (UTC)