Lo-call phone service
The Commission established a lo-call number which voters could call if they wanted a copy of the more detailed guide to the Treaty posted to them, or if they wanted further information on various matters. The Commission advertised this number, while the guide to the Treaty sent to all homes advertised both this and the Commission’s regular telephone number. A roughly equal number of calls was received by each.
The provider of the lo-call service provided a post-campaign analysis of calls received. It received 1085 calls in the course of the campaign, a small number given the extent to which the phone number was publicised. The most likely explanation is that voters had a huge number of alternative sources of information on the Lisbon Treaty. The Referendum Commission itself provided the guide delivered to every home, a well-advertised website, advertising in all media and free-to-air broadcasts explaining key elements of the Treaty. Campaigners with different points of view also published extensive material. In this context the relatively low number choosing to use a telephone line to seek information may not be surprising.
Just over 60 per cent of calls were from people seeking copies of the Commission’s extended guide to the Lisbon Treaty. In the more concise guide delivered to all homes, and in other publicity material, the Commission drew attention to the fact that it had published a more detailed guide. This guide was available through public offices, and also to people who called the phone line asking for it to be posted to them.
A further 25 per cent of calls were from people with specific queries which were resolved through a relatively brief conversation. The largest number of these concerned details of voting, polling times, who was eligible to vote, how to check the electoral register, etc. A small number were on specific aspects of the Treaty. The call centre staff were trained in answering a number of the more common questions concerning the Treaty and in most cases, these answers fulfilled callers’ requirements.
Just 3.3 per cent of callers had queries which had to be referred by call centre staff to others for resolution. These typically involved more detailed aspects of the Treaty. In some cases, the call centre staff obtained the information sought and phoned callers back. In a small number of cases Commission staff or staff from our communications advisers returned calls to explain specific issues.
The callers not fitting into the above categories included those with various complaints about the behaviour or statements of campaigners on different sides (over which the Commission has no jurisdiction) and a small number of people who wanted information e-mailed to them.
|
|
|