Direct Navigation: the Missing Metric

by Justin Hartland, Global Marketing Manager, CSC 

Given the amount of money companies spend each year on search engine marketing and affiliate programs, getting visitors to your website has never been so important. According to the market research firm Outsell Inc., in 2010 spending for online marketing surpassed even that of print advertising, soaring to a record $119 billion.

There are good reasons for this. For marketing departments, online spend is transparent and can be easily tracked and measured to show return on investment (ROI), something that can prove harder to do for other marketing activities. In fact, it’s quite simple to track a variety of online metrics, build reports with them and present the results to your management team.

However, there is one metric that is routinely overlooked by marketing departments: traffic driven through direct navigation.

First let’s examine what we mean by “direct navigation.” There are many ways for a person to find a particular website, including through search engines or by clicking a link in an email or banner ad. However, many Web users still make a habit of typing Web addresses (domain names) directly into their browser, also known as direct navigation. Findings from Forrester Research suggest that no less than 40% of Web users currently reach their content this way.

You may be asking, “What does this mean for my organization?” In short it means that one of the most obvious sources of Web traffic is being ignored by most companies. Many organizations have no idea how much direct navigation traffic their domain names drive to their websites, and even worse, many companies don’t even point their domain names to live sites.

In a recent study, CSC analyzed more than 200,000 domain names containing more than 100 brands. We found that nearly 50% of domains owned by brand holders did not point to a live site. On the other hand, 76% of branded domains registered to a third party did point to a live site. What is clear is that third parties know how to exploit the value of traffic driven to their domain names, whereas many legitimate brand owners who have registered domain names defensively have never bothered to set them up to garner traffic.

So how can corporations harness this “missing metric” and drive more traffic to their websites through direct navigation? CSC recommends taking these four simple steps:

Step 1 – Point Existing Domains

Gather a list of your existing domain names and run a report on them to show which point to live websites.

Step 2 – Identify Third Party registrations

People who register variations of your brand names do so because those variations drive traffic that can be monetized. Wise organizations will identify third party registrations, prioritize the list based on which names drive the most traffic, and take action against those third parties.

Step 3 – Identify Available Domain Names

Using strategic tools such as those provided by CSC, you can identify available domain names that will drive traffic to your sites.

Step 4 – Track, Track, Track

Once all the names in your portfolio point to live sites, monitor their traffic on a monthly basis. Understand which domain names are performing well. Allow underperforming names to lapse and redeploy those savings to your budget. With this information in hand, your marketing team can quickly measure the ROI your direct navigation efforts yield.

With more and more emphasis being placed on getting Web users to your websites, it’s important that you understand all the ways Web users reach you, including the missing metric—direct navigation.

About CSC

An ICANN-accredited domain name registrar since 1999, CSC is the trusted partner of more than half the 100 Best Global Brands (Interbrand^®) and the customer approval leader for domain name services (World Trademark Review, 2010). CSC offers an end-to-end solution for all corporate brand protection needs, from strategic domain registration and online monitoring to digital certificates and trademark screening. Visit www.cscglobal.com or call 800-927-9800 to learn more.

The Importance of Information Security

by Anthony Lopreto, CEO - Fynix Security Inc.

In today’s technical environment, organizations have become extremely dependent on their information systems.  Most companies consider their information systems the crown jewel of their business.  The public has become increasingly concerned about the proper use and protection of personal information.  As organizations increasingly rely on electronic information, the more criminals, terrorists, and hackers look to uncover ways to exploit that information. The cyber criminal was once motivated by mischievous actions and recognition; now their intent is to cause catastrophic damage, widespread leakage and monetary gains at the expense of your customers’ personal information.

Organizations need to fully understand their responsibility to protect information and the consequences if a breach were to occur.  Security breaches make the news on a regular basis.  Hundreds of incidents never make the news and go unreported. When a company or government agencies security is breached, it leads to the loss of personal information, trade secrets, confidential and other information.  These types of breaches can affect millions of data records, millions of people and clients, and can cost the organization millions of dollars as well as loss of business and reputation. 

Organizations can take several steps to help protect their information systems.  Many industries must adopt and abide by the requirements of the particular industry they are doing business in.  Most companies will voluntarily adopt a code of best practices in order to affirm their commitment to protect personal information.  The ISO 27002 is one of the most widely adopted standards used by organizations who are proactively taking steps to protect electronic information.  The ISO 27002 addresses the following categories we call domains:

·         Risk assessment

·         Security policy

·         Organization of information security

·         Asset management

·         Human resource security

·         Physical and environmental security

·         Communications and operations management

·         Access control

·         Information systems acquisition, development and maintenance

·         Information security incident management

·         Business continuity management

·         Compliance

The primary goal of these domains is to provide a secure information system environment while at the same time ensuring Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability (CIA).  Here are a few key benefits that following these standards provides:

·         Identifies and determines the value of all company assets

·         Comprehensively reduces the probability of unrecognized information security threats and vulnerabilities

·         Increases information security awareness throughout the organization

·         Centralizes the security objective by management into a clear and concise policy

·         Provides a strong foundation in order to build system specific security controls

·         Creates a generally acceptable practice and re-usable across multiple departments

·         Satisfies the requests of most partners/suppliers to substantiate information security controls without having to service individual enquiries or provide confidential information

·         Promotes the company image as a secure business partner

Adopting a standard such as the ISO 27002 can help minimize the risk and related consequences of an information security breach, as well as satisfy the requirements of service providers, vendors and partners.  Applied correctly, it can give your organization a competitive and marketing advantage over competitors who may not have a secure foundation.

                                    Anthony Lopreto - CoFounder and CEO - Fynix Security Inc.

                                    www.fynixsecurity.com

                                   

E-mail, The New Frontier

by John H. Bedard, Jr. - Bedard Law Group, P.C.

Are you considering an e-mail campaign in your arsenal of collection strategies?  Do you accept inbound e-mail from consumers?  Do you include e-mail addresses on your web site?  If you are a collector and not thinking about these things, you may be missing some opportunities.  You may also be overlooking some risk.  Although reported case law addressing e-mail in the context of consumer collections is scarce, the law is beginning to develop, albeit slowly.  Communicating with consumers via e-mail raises compliance challenges; however, these challenges are not insurmountable.  Here are some cases which discuss e-mail in the collection context:

Pacheco v. Joseph McMahon Corp., 698 F. Supp. 2d 291 (D. Conn. 2010).  In Pachecho, a collector sent an e-mail to a consumer to collect a debt.  Included in the body of the e-mail was the statement, “ . . . Your balance will be in excess of $2,000, before legal fees.  Give me a call. . .”  The e-mail did not include any profanity, was not abusive, and was otherwise courteous. Like most e-mail, the tone was informal and casual.  However, the consumer was located in Connecticut.  Connecticut law puts certain restrictions on the ability to collect attorney fees.  The consumer brought suit accusing the collector making misrepresentations about the debt because of the reference to “attorney fees” in the e-mail.   The court agreed, granting the consumer’s motion for summary judgment.  The court found that the reference to attorney fees was a false representation about “character, amount, or legal status” of the debt because under Connecticut law, attorney fees are restricted.  Stating that the consumer would be liable for attorney fees was false.

Silver v. Law Offices of Howard Lee Schiff, P.C., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76072 (D. Conn. July 28, 2010).  In Silver, the consumer hired an attorney after receiving communication from the collector.  Instead of calling the collector or sending a letter advising of attorney representation, the consumer’s attorney sent an e-mail to the collector.  The e-mail advised the collector that the consumer was now represented by counsel.  After the e-mail was sent, the collector called the consumer.  The call occurred at 6:09p.m. on the same day the e-mail was sent.  The collector did not open the e-mail until 6:30p.m., which is when the collector learned of the attorney representation.  The consumer sued the collector for contacting a represented consumer.  The court found no violation, explaining that the statute prohibits communication with the consumer if the collect knows or has knowledge of or can readily ascertain the attorney’s name and address.  Since the collector did not check his e-mail until 6:30p.m., he did not know or have knowledge of the attorney representation; therefore, the phone call did not violate the prohibition on communicating with represented consumers.  

Lakefish v. Certegy Payment Recovery Servs., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36475 (D. Or. Apr. 4, 2011).  In Lakefish, the collector sent a consumer the validation notice in writing.  In response, the consumer sent an e-mail to the collector requesting the name and address of the original creditor.  The validation notice requirement specifically includes a requirement to send the consumer “a statement that, upon the consumer's written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.”   The court found that the inbound e-mail from the consumer requesting the name and address of the original creditor was sufficient to trigger the collector’s obligation to respond or stop collecting.  Ultimately, the court found there was no violation of the validation request because the collector properly responded to the e-mail.

E-mail is ubiquitous in today’s economy.  Consumers and collectors alike want to communicate via e-mail.  It’s easy, low-cost, convenient, and to use a trendy buzz-word, it’s “green.”  The anachronistic FDCPA; however, creates compliance challenges which ultimately hurt consumers when collectors are reluctant to step into the 21st century e-mail world. Collectors should not undertake an e-mail campaign lightly.  It requires a thoughtful workflow plan, policies and procedures, and buy-in from the highest levels of the organization.  And of course, get your compliance people involved in the process!

John H. Bedard, Jr.

Bedard Law Group, P.C. 

2810 Peachtree Industrial Blvd., Suite D

Duluth, GA 30097

678-253-1871 ext. 244

jbedard@bedardlawgroup.com

New Registration Requirement in Texas

  

Senate Bill 17, entitled the Residential Mortgage Loan Servicer Registration Act, requires the registration of servicers of Texas residential mortgage loans.

A residential mortgage loan servicer is defined as a person or entity who a) receives scheduled payments from a borrower under the terms of a residential mortgage loan, including amounts for escrow accounts; and b) makes the payments of principal and interest to the owner of the loan or other third party and makes any other payments with respect to the amounts received from the borrower as may be required under the terms of the servicing loan document or servicing contract.

Although 3rd party debt collectors are implicitly included in this bill, there are exemptions from the registration fee and bonding requirement provided the applicant:

 - collects delinquent consumer debts owed on residential mortgage loans;

 - does not own the residential mortgage loans for which the applicant acts as a residential mortgage loan servicer; and

 - is a 3rd party debt collector that has filed a bond in compliance with Chapter 392.  

Should you have any questions or issues concerning this matter or should you wish to engage Cornerstone Support's assistance in obtaining specific state licenses or registrations, contact a Cornerstone Support licensing consultant today at 770-587-4595 or e-mail us at info@cornerstonesupport.com. 

3 Myths About Mergers & Acquisitions Involving ARM Firms

by Brian Greenberg, CEO of Greenberg Advisors

The idea of M&A conjures up a variety of images, sometimes involving private jets, limousines, and Swiss bank accounts. The fact is there are many commonly held, yet false, beliefs regarding M&A transactions, how they happen, and why some succeed while others fail. Having advised buyers and sellers for many years in M&A transactions in ARM and related sectors, we’ve observed a number of recurring misconceptions. In this article, we will address 3 of these “myths”, and explain why they aren’t usually true.

Myth #1: M&A is Bad for Employees.

Substantial anxiety can result when employees and executives learn that their company is considering a sale. This is understandable, as transactions can bring changes and uncertainty. It’s important to realize, however, that new ownership will often bring a host of benefits to a company’s employees. These advantages can include new capital to fund infrastructure investment and growth, in order to better equip employees for success. They can also include new ideas and expertise to aid in running the company more efficiently, which will ultimately provide greater opportunities to all. In addition, certain groups (such as institutional buyers) often put into place incentive programs, such as performance bonuses or stock options that enable employees to share financially in the benefits of the company’s growth and success, which is usually not the case for a closely-held company that is still owned by its initial founders.

Myth #2: All it Takes is a Few Calls to Get a Deal Done.

It generally takes many hundreds of calls, meetings, and follow-up efforts to close an M&A transaction, not to mention significant resources to prepare a firm for sale, and to create marketing materials, in order to get the attention of the right buyer. To find that buyer, for example, we’ve found that it typically requires making contact with dozens of potential buyers. To be clear, we are referring to groups that are pre-qualified in order to meet certain initial criteria and to have interest in ARM companies, as it’s important to limit any outreach in order to ensure maximum confidentiality, and to avoid wasting time with groups that aren’t a fit, based upon the seller’s requirements and needs. A filtering effect then occurs, where certain firms are not interested, other firms are not a fit for one reason or another, and still other firms may be interested but unable to finance a deal. This “outreach funnel” will lead to the right buyer, which is interested, proposes deal terms and a structure acceptable to both parties, and is able to finance the transaction. The odds for finding the best group by calling just a few groups, or by listening only to the groups that contact you, are extremely low. In the end, even after the right buyer is identified and the right deal is proposed, there is extensive information gathering, analysis, discussion, negotiation, financing, and documentation legwork required before a transaction will ultimately close. Taking a casual approach to the selling process will rarely result in success.

Myth #3: Confidentiality is Always Breached.

Deciding to sell your firm is never a decision to be taken lightly. For many owners who are contemplating a sale process, one of the major concerns is whether “word” will get out about the company being for sale and if so, what the impact might be to the company. For owners, it’s essential to make sure a sale process is kept confidential to avoid negative repercussions. In order to do this, it’s important to assess who you’re working with, and how the process will work. If you are hiring an advisor, ask around regarding their reputation for keeping information private. It’s also standard practice to have potential buyer candidates sign confidentiality agreements in order to legally compel them to keep quiet about the fact that your company is entertaining a sale. And while in our opinion it is completely unacceptable, word does sometimes leak out. However, this doesn’t have to happen, as illustrated by 2 substantial transactions in which we recently advised; the sales of National Asset Recovery Services (NARS) and TRAKAmerica. In both cases, 100% confidentiality was maintained all the way to the closing, as many of the industry’s most connected people later informed us they had no idea those deals were under consideration.

There are many more “myths” regarding M&A in ARM that we haven’t addressed here, but we hope that this article helps to dispel at least a few of them. M&A transactions can bring a host of benefits to owners, executives, and employees alike. While change tends to bring uncertainty and it’s important to cover your bases, it’s also important to factor in the positive benefits that can occur as a result of a well-executed M&A transaction.

To learn more about how to achieve the best results in your own M&A transaction, or to ask other questions, contact Shaun Tiwari at Greenberg Advisors at 301-576-4000 x2 or email stiwari@greenberg-advisors.com.

About Greenberg Advisors

Greenberg Advisors, LLC (www.greenberg-advisors.com) provides value-added strategic advice to clients in the Accounts Receivable Management and related Specialty Finance sectors worldwide. With 15 years of experience dedicated to this niche, and the completion of more than 75 Merger & Acquisition (M&A) and strategic advisory transactions, the firm's success is a result of its distinct client-first approach, deep sector expertise, and roll-up-the-sleeves hard work. Greenberg Advisors offers market-leading advisory services focused on M&A, Capital Raising, and Valuation, as well as a variety of analytical and planning services to assist clients in understanding and enhancing the value of their business. The firm’s two most recent closings involve representing a strategic buyer from outside the US in its search and acquisition of a US-based ARM firm, as well as raising a significant credit facility for a US-based debt purchaser.

The Rising Trend of Regulation

by Matt Pridemore, Vice President

Public opinion is generally driven by the media and negative press has defined so much of our industry for years. State lawmakers have continued to respond to this by making the collection industry one of the most strictly regulated white-collar industries in the US.

If your firm is directly contacting consumers, you are clearly on the radar of both predatory attorneys and the various state regulators. While there are still a number of possible statutory exemptions available to traditional consumer agencies and there are a number of states that still do not have a debt collection licensing requirement, that trend is quickly changing. Over the past few years a number of states that historically did not require a debt collection license have “closed their borders” and now require a debt collection license. There is a couple more states that have current legislation moving through their legislative bodies that if enacted will require a debt collection license.

Historically there have been other segments of our industry (collection attorneys and both active and passive debt buyers) that either through specific statutory exemptions or ambiguous statutory language were seemingly less regulated from a licensing perspective. These segments of our industry are no longer flying under the radar and in fact the majority of the regulatory opinions published in recent years relate specifically to them. The trend suggests that in the future all segments of our industry will be required to meet the similar licensing requirements.

Collection Attorneys:
Ten years ago you would be hard pressed to find a collection attorney that maintained a debt collection license in more than a few jurisdictions. Now through a series of legislative changes, regulatory opinions and other authoritative guidance more than twenty (20) states clearly require collection attorneys to obtain a debt collection license.

Debt Buyers:
While there have always been states whose statutory language specifically included debt buyers in their definition of a collection agency, it was not until the last few years that debt buyers have landed squarely on the radar of both predatory attorneys and state regulators. This increased exposure first affected “Active” debt buyers and more recently “Passive” debt buyers.

Active Debt Buyer – Both Purchase and Collect Themselves:
More than twenty-five (25) states require Active Debt Buyers to obtain a debt collection license.

Passive Debt Buyer – Purchase Accounts and Outsource all Collections:
States are clarifying their position as it relates to Passive Debt Buyers. Almost ten (10) states have issued opinion letters clarifying their state’s licensing statutes to include Passive Debt Buyers in the definition of a collection agency therefore requiring them to obtain a debt collection license.

Debt collection licenses are not the only licenses that debt buyers (both active and passive) should concern themselves with. Oftentimes the statutory regulations that govern the underlying asset apply to any subsequent purchaser. In other words, if a license was necessary to originate the loan in a particular state it is not uncommon for the debt buyer to be required to maintain the same license. Prior to purchasing a portfolio, it is imperative to review the underlying statutes that regulate the portfolio in question and understand what licensing requirements there might be.

Summary:
The point is that more regulation and stricter requirements are the rule and not an exception to the rule. We are not operating in a static regulatory environment and it is imperative that you know the new legislation and authoritative guidance and understand how it impacts you.

Potential Government Shutdown in Minnesota

Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton and the Republican-controlled Legislature are at odds over $1.8 billion in state spending for the upcoming two-year budget cycle.

The governor has proposed raising taxes on the wealthiest Minnesotans to support more spending in the coming biennium, but Republicans have rejected Dayton's plan. The Legislature passed a $34 billion budget with no tax increases, but Dayton vetoed it.

The Minnesota Constitution requires appropriations before the state can spend any money, and so far, only funding for the Department of Agriculture has been signed into law.

For services to continue at all other agencies and departments, Dayton and the Republican-controlled Legislature must come to a spending agreement by July 1, the start of the new fiscal year. If not, the state will face a government shutdown; as many as 36,000 state workers could be laid off.

Cornerstone Support has been monitoring this situation closely and working with the Minnesota Department of Commerce to understand its impact on the ARM Industry. Should a deal not be reached by July 1 all licensing activity at the Minnesota Department of Commerce both online (new collector registrations and renewals) and directly with a representative will cease. Please make sure that you have filed your renewal and have a current bond in place by June 30, 2011. If you are attempting to obtain a debt collection license in the state of Minnesota it is advisable to get the completed application to the state by June 30, 2011.

If you have any further questions please contact our staff directly at (770) 587-4595 or email us at info@cornerstonesupport.com.