The Official Merchant Services Blog would like to announce that Host Merchant Services has now added next-day funding to their already impressive line of services. Merchant services customers appreciate getting their deposits the next business day, as this is critical for funding payroll and inventory purchases for the week.
Merchants can now expect funding for MasterCard, Visa, and Discover transactions by the next business day, rather than within 48-72 hours, as is customary for other processors. All HMS Merchants can qualify. HMS long-term merchants will attain next-day funding, immediately upon request.
A merchant who currently has two day funding for example, would not see the money from a transaction processed at noon on a Monday, until Wednesday morning at the earliest, creating a 48-hour delay that could be the source of a merchants’ cash flow dilemma.
Any merchant that processes with Host Merchant Services and batches, or settles their terminal regularly in the evening, will receive those funds in their bank account by the next business day. Batching is the end-of-day or end-of-shift process in which the merchant balances and submits transactions for clearing and settlement. This allows executives to make quicker business decisions that impact their bottom line, as well as increase cash flow for the business.
Merchants should beware however that not all next day funding programs are created equal. While many companies claim to offer next day funding, merchant account providers have different capabilities and requirements resulting in very different times for fund dispersal.
Next day funding can benefit particular types of merchants like restaurants, principally when it comes to those that have heavy weekend volumes. For these merchants, next day funding can help them gain their weekend proceeds faster so they can be used to fund payroll and inventory purchases for the week. These restaurants would get their deposit for Friday, Saturday and Sunday activity on Monday instead of Tuesday, which is a very big cash flow benefit.
Host Merchant Services is always looking for ways to make it easier and more convenient to do business as well as provide added value in accelerating the growth of companies. With next day funding Host is enabling small business owners to improve their cash flow with faster funding of dollars earned through credit card sales. This corresponds with HMS’s ongoing goal to provide quality payment transactions solutions at the best price to merchants across the United States. Contact Host Merchant Services now to save money on your processing fees, as well as see your money a full day earlier than with other processors.
Today the Official Merchant Services Blog brings NFC technology back into the spotlight, with a look at a pilot program U.S. Bancorp is running in two test cities. The company, one of the nation’s more tech-oriented big banks, is joining the ranks of companies testing near-field communication (NFC) technology by pairing a rewards credit card with Apple Inc.’s iPhone in Salt Lake City, Utah, and Portland, Oregon.
It’s been a while since we discussed the technology surrounding Near Field Communication, or NFC, so lets take a moment to recap. NFC is a short-range high frequency wireless communication technology which enables the exchange of data between devices with a touch. This touch capability allows for sharing, pairing, and transaction capability between the NFC devices. A smartphone or tablet that is NFC capable can be used as a keycard or an ID card. The same device can also be used to make credit card payments.
U.S. Bancorp, based in Minneapolis is offering new holders of its FlexPerks Travel Rewards Visa Signature card a special sleeve for the iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S. The sleeve contains a microNFC chip, and an antenna that facilitates payments by communicating with contactless point-of-sale terminals. Unlike a small but growing number of smart phones running Google Inc.’s Android operating system, the iPhone does not have a built-in NFC chip. With the sleeve and U.S. Bank’s new Go Mobile app, cardholders will be able to use their iPhones to make purchases at any merchant location that accepts the contactless Visa payWave card.
Cardholders will receive the case free for participating in the test. The case also includes a battery that extends the iPhone’s charge time by more than 50%, a feature U.S. Bank says will appeal to frequent travelers. The card itself is free in the first year but afterward charges a $49 annual fee.
U.S. Bank, already has offered the FlexPerks card with a Europay-MasterCard-Visa (EMV) chip so that international travelers can use their cards easily in EMV countries, which is now most of the industrialized world. The new test is part of an effort to learn how consumers and merchants take to NFC, according to Dominic Venturo, chief innovation officer at U.S. Bank Payment Services.
Some major players in mobile payments, notably PayPal Inc., Square Inc. and Starbucks Corp., are using non-NFC technologies such as browser-based systems or 2-D bar codes. NFC is a high-capacity, fast technology, but skeptics cite its need for chip-equipped phones and POS terminals as reasons to use other technologies. And while still small considering that the U.S. has about 8 million card-accepting locations, Venturo says the number of locations capable of accepting NFC payments, is now up to about 300,000 and growing.
U.S. Bank picked Salt Lake City and Portland for the NFC testing because of their tech-oriented populations and previous experience with high-tech card or Internet systems. Salt Lake City, for example, is one of the two test cities for Isis, the NFC mobile-payments joint venture of AT&T Mobility, Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile USA. Also, the Utah Transit Authority, the Salt Lake area’s mass-transit system, already accepts contactless cards. Google, meanwhile, picked Portland as its first test site for Google Offers, a competitor of Groupon Inc.’s daily-deal offers now available in about 40 cities. U.S. Bank has no end date for the test and in fact considers it a limited rollout that may expand later this year.
This technology is being embraced by some major companies in the e-commerce industry for its ability to process credit card transactions. PayPal purchased Zong for just that reason. Visa invested heavily in mobile payments, as seen by their marketing plans for the 2012 Olympics. Google is making its Google Wallet and Google+ beta work toward that same vision of mobile payments made through NFC-based touch technology. Only time will tell if the future of NFC payments is in fact bright and as usual, Host Merchant Services will keep you up to date on any new developments.
This is the latest installment in The Official Merchant Services Blog’sKnowledge Base effort. We want to make the payment processing industry’s terms and buzzwords clear. We want to remove any and all confusion merchants might have about how the industry works. Host Merchant Services promises: we deliver personal service and clarity. So we’re going to take some time to explain how everything works. This ongoing series is where we define industry related terms and slowly build up a knowledge base and as we get more and more of these completed, we’ll collect them in our resource archive for quick and easy access.
E-Commerce
Today’s term is Electronic Commerce, or E-Commerce for short. E-Commerce is the process of using the Internet or computer networks in order to buy or sell information, services, or products. This includes all transactions involved in conducting business over the fore mentioned networks. The act of buying or selling over these networks allows for secure paperless transactions to happen electronically. It has also given many businesses the ability to expand from local and regional markets to national and global markets.
Initially E-commerce just involved business to business transactions over private networks, it wasn’t until the mid 1990′s that it became completely open to the public. These businesses were using Electronic Data Interchange (EDI), which was a transfer of electronic data from computer to computer and Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT), which was an electronic transfer of money from one computer to another in order to do business with each other. Doing business like this guaranteed that the transactions would be completed in a faster and less expensive way. Advancing computer networking capabilities led to the public use of the Internet and opened the doors of E-commerce to the world.
E-Commerce has a major impact on the markets that businesses can reach. Businesses now have the ability to reach a large global market allowing for a greater return on their product sales. Retailers can sell more of a particular product at a lower cost, as a result of business being done online and not by man power alone, which gives them the ability to lower prices and increase sales. Although we may take advantage of E-commerce and the ease it creates in our daily lives, its benefit to the global economy is always changing and ever-increasing as technologies continue to develop. Everyday we see new businesses from all over the world implementing E-commerce into their business strategies, resulting in the growth of a “global community”.
Host Merchant Services offers a variety of E-commerce solutions to fit your business, including HMS Express, our own cutting edge in house payment gateway. HMS is able to interface with most of the major Payment Gateways out there, including Authorize.net. We also offer unparalleled protection for all of our merchants in the form of our PCI Compliance Initiative.
Today the Official Merchant Services Blog brings you another update on the ongoing Interchange lawsuit settlement. We began talking about the possibility of ‘The Big Cash Comeback’ back when the settlement was first announced in July, and later we discussed the opposition to the settlement. Last week a federal appellate court denied a retailer’s appeal to review part of the controversial settlement in the massive credit card interchange case, clearing the way for the trial court to move toward final approval. At the same, the process of notifying the millions of merchants affected is getting under way.
Judge John Gleeson of the U.S. District Court in Brooklyn, N.Y., gave preliminary approval of the settlement on Nov. 9 and has set a hearing for next Sept. 13 to consider final approval.
Lawyers representing seven merchant trade groups as well as some individual merchants asked the Second Circuit Court to consider a narrow part of Gleeson’s preliminary approval, the provision of the settlement that releases defendants Visa Inc., MasterCard Inc., and some major banks from liability for interchange pricing policies. The provision is shaping up to be the key objection of the 1,200 retailers and trade associations since it would affect current and even future card-accepting merchants. This case, now seven years in the making, began when merchant plaintiffs accused the networks and banks of using anti-competitive practices in setting interchange rates.
Under the settlement announced in July by lawyers for both sides, the defendants will pay class merchants about $6 billion in damages, and Visa and MasterCard will provide another $1.2 billion in temporarily reduced interchange rates and ease up on certain rules, especially ones restricting merchants’ ability to add a surcharge for card transactions. In return, the networks want to be released from future court challenges by merchants regarding Interchange and network rules. The defendants also are paying about $550 million to a handful of large merchant plaintiffs that have now dropped their claims.
Judge Gleeson indicated that the standard for final approval is much higher than the one for preliminary approval, which means that the objecting plaintiffs still have some hope even though parts of the settlement already are going into effect or will be soon. For example, the networks have 60 days from Nov. 27, when the court entered Gleeson’s order implementing preliminary approval, to conform their rules to terms of the proposed settlement.
The district court meanwhile, is setting up the machinery to administer the settlement process. Gleeson appointed Kansas City, Kan.-based Epiq Systems Inc., a specialist in legal-systems administration and technology, to oversee notifications and related matters. That is no small task: the class settlement covers any merchant that has accepted Visa and MasterCard cards between Jan. 1, 2004, and late 2012. Experts estimate 6 million to 8 million affected merchants that must be notified. The settlement agreement also calls for merchant acquirers to assist in the notification process.
While we have discussed this settlement from different aspects previously, noting the advantages it would seem to give the Issuing Banks over merchants, the settlement seems to be proceeding along without much further adjustment or negotiation. Although it is not finalized yet, the dissenter’s cries seem to be going unheard, as they believe that the settlement protects the status quo more than anything, and will not change the way the networks set interchange. Host Merchant Services will keep you informed of all the latest news involving this landmark litigation.
Today the Official Merchant Services Blog explains why the controversial Interchange settlement is being considered for preliminary approval, despite the backlash from merchants and large corporations. We began talking about the possibility of ‘The Big Cash Comeback’ when the settlement was first announced, and later we discussed the opposition to the settlement.
Last week Judge John Gleeson said the controversial proposed settlement appears to meet the requirements for preliminary approval, however he also said he would hear merchants’ objections to the settlement as well. Lawyers had struck the settlement between the merchant plaintiffs and the bank defendants back in July.
“It seems clear that there is an expectation among some interested parties that the preliminary approval process should be more involved in this case than in the usual class action,” Gleeson, of U.S. District Court in Brooklyn, N.Y., wrote in an order setting the next hearing for November 9th.
The involved parties and observers alike agree that this is no ordinary case. The litigation involves merchants and merchant trade groups, some individually and some as a class, which sued Visa Inc., MasterCard Inc., and some large banks to challenge credit and debit card Interchange rates on antitrust grounds in 2005.
The proposed settlement would have the defendant’s pay $6.6 billion in damages and temporarily cut Interchange fees by $1.2 billion, as well as provide merchants with relief from some network rules. In return, the merchants would forgo the right to sue the networks in the future over interchange and rules. The general consensus is that the settlement gives too much to the networks and would bind millions of current and future card-accepting merchants to its terms.
Judge Gleeson acknowledged the controversy, stating that all objections will receive careful consideration by the court. The Judge also noted that the threshold for preliminary approval of a settlement is “meaningfully lower” than the standard for final approval.
Gleeson said, “Preliminary approval is appropriate where the proposal appears to be the product of serious negotiation and further appears to be within the range of possible final approval.” He later added: “I have reviewed the settlement agreement, and at first blush it appears to satisfy the threshold requirements for preliminary approval.”
While we have discussed this settlement from different aspects previously, noting the advantages it would seem to give the Issuing Banks over merchants, the settlement seems to be proceeding along without much further adjustment or negotiation. Although it is not finalized yet, the dissenter’s cries seem to be going unheard, as they believe that the settlement protects the status quo more than anything, and will not change the way the networks set interchange. Host Merchant Services will keep you informed of all the latest news involving this legal battle between the merchants and the card-issuing giants.
This is the latest installment in The Official Merchant Services Blog’sKnowledge Base effort. We want to make the payment processing industry’s terms and buzzwords clear. We want to remove any and all confusion merchants might have about how the industry works. Host Merchant Services promises: we deliver personal service and clarity. So we’re going to take some time to explain how everything works. This ongoing series is where we define industry related terms and slowly build up a knowledge base and as we get more and more of these completed, we’ll collect them in our resource archive for quick and easy access.
Today’s term is the Monthly Minimum Fee. This fee is one of the more confusing credit card processing fees because it’s not really a fee at all. A monthly minimum is more accurately described as a benchmark, or limit that may result in a fee, rather than as a fee itself. It indicates the minimum amount in fees that a processor will collect in any given month. If actual fees resulting from processing activity don’t meet or exceed the minimum amount, the processor will charge the difference in order to meet that minimum. For example, if a merchant has $50 in fees in a given month, and the account has a $75 monthly minimum on it, they will be charged an additional $25 in order to meet the monthly minimum.
Perhaps the most dangerous caveat with monthly minimums is that processors determine which fees count toward the minimum and which don’t. One processor, for example, may count all discount and credit card transaction fees toward the minimum while another may only count its discount rate.
Host Merchant Services differs from the competition in that it does not charge any type of monthly minimum fee for our merchant accounts. We do not discriminate against small business merchants that may still be growing, by charging them for not doing enough business. This is just another way that HMS differs from the competition, and excels in understanding customer needs.
This is part 2 of The Official Merchant Services Blog‘s rebuttal of this New York Times Op-Ed piece titled “What Wikipedia Won’t Tell You” written by Cary H. Sherman, chief executive of the Recording Industry Association of America, which represents music labels.
The Real Slim Shady
Mr. Sherman in his article goes on to accuse Wikipedia of spreading misinformation. He tries to find a smoking gun by suggesting the tech giants have an agenda of their own. He accuses them of bias in terms of the story they present, saying they are bending the truth and not being neutral. He even attacks media outlets that supported SOPA for not “taking advantage of their broadcast credibility to press their case.”
This is amazing. In a piece crafted specifically to present the RIAA’s very biased agenda that is featured in one of those media outlets thus stretching the New York Times’ already damaged credibility — lest we forget Zachary Kouwe, Maureen Dowd or Jayson Blair — Sherman accuses his opposition of doing the exact same thing he is doing. Keep in mind, his own executives were gloating about how well the music industry is doing in 2011. But here he is saying the industry is still being harmed by piracy and that Wikipedia is not telling you the whole story. Sherman simply seems to not be as familiar with how the internet works as his employee Duckworth is. To borrow the ever-popular phrase, he’s doing it wrong. He says, “Misinformation may be a dirty trick, but it works.” Not on the internet. People find you lying to them, or manipulating them, and they either make a mockery of you or turn you off. Sorry Mr. Sherman but in this instance, Citation Needed!
First World Problems
Mr. Sherman makes another fatal mistake with his article when he types: “The conventional wisdom is that the defeat of these bills shows the power of the digital commons. Sure, anybody could click on a link or tweet in outrage — but how many knew what they were supporting or opposing? Would they have cast their clicks if they knew they were supporting foreign criminals selling counterfeit pharmaceuticals to Americans? Was it SOPA they were opposed to, or censorship?”
Sherman is playing off of a stereotype about the twitter-age, or Net 2.0 –that everything is simplified and broken down into tiny bits of information. That the online citizen isn’t getting the full story is in fact that’s his main idea. But Sherman has forgotten net 1.0, and the strength of what Google, Wikipedia and all of that data really is. Somewhere between twitter campaigns with STOP SOPA avatars and Sherman’s own e-mail inbox is this huge collective database of information, which includes the exact language of the legislation as written. Every single piece Host Merchant Services has written on SOPA has included this link:
Many other articles that covered this topic throughout the past year have given links to all of the relevant data and text. It’s the internet Mr. Sherman. The information is just a click away. Many people not only had access to the bill, they also read it. And so their protest was based on the bill itself. Not on the oversimplification you suggest.
Young, Wild but Not Free
Mr. Sherman then takes a wild swing at all of the people who protested SOPA, suggesting some of them are criminals: “But others may simply believe that online music, books and movies should be free. And how many of those e-mails were from the same people who attacked the Web sites of the Department of Justice, the Motion Picture Association of America, my organization and others as retribution for the seizure of Megaupload, an international digital piracy operation? Indeed, it’s hackers like the group Anonymous that engage in real censorship when they stifle the speech of those with whom they disagree.”
So just because people don’t agree with your agenda, they’re hackers who support Megaupload and want free music? That’s the kind of rookie debate tactic that gets you ridiculed throughout the internet. It’s also misinformation and a huge distraction from the topic. The Megaupload arrest is separate from the SOPA debate. This is obvious. The arrest was made under the current law. The FBI was able to crack down on piracy using what is currently in place. That the federal government was able to successfully attack piracy under the laws currently in place would seem to weaken Sherman’s position. In fact data collected on the topic has shown that once the government moved past the Napster issue that Mr. Sherman was so quick to cry about in the opening portion of his article, piracy started to take a huge hit. In fact, that PDF from the IFPI has some compelling statistics about how much piracy dipped after Limewire was shut down. Apparently the current laws have a lot of teeth if law enforcement goes after the pirates and doesn’t waste time going after citizens or forcing search engines and payment network providers to police the internet.
U Jelly?
The last straw with Mr. Sherman’s terrible presentation of his organization’s biased agenda comes from his short and shallow rejection of the Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act (OPEN). This bill was drafted as an alternative to SOPA and PIPA. This bill was, excuse the irony, carefully devised by tech industry experts in the government — with an eye toward attacking online piracy but closing the wide open holes that the previous bills contained. The Official Merchant Services Blog helped break this story back in early December, with this blog, where we stated: “A bipartisan group of lawmakers have come out in support of a new law that has been proposed as an alternative to SOPA. Under this proposed legislation, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) would be given the power to investigate claims of copyright infringement on foreign websites. The proposal would also allow the ITC to issue cease-and-desist orders to foreign websites that willfully engage in copyright infringement. The lawmakers demonstrate some clever ingenuity here with this proposal by tapping the ITC for the job of piracy oversight. The ITC already investigates patent infringement complaints and can bar infringing products from being imported into the U.S.”
In short, OPEN is an alternative that was everything Sherman asked for in online piracy legislation that we never received with SOPA or PIPA. It was well researched. It deals with the issues. It has input from tech industry savvy and knowledgeable politicians that know what they’re doing. But Sherman’s misinformation sums up OPEN like this: “The diversionary bill that they drafted, the OPEN Act, would do little to stop the illegal behavior and would not establish a workable framework, standards or remedies. It has become clear that, at this point, neither SOPA, PIPA nor OPEN is a viable answer.”
Forget You
Again Sherman glossed over some important aspects of his own organization’s rhetoric. This article found at The Verge cites the RIAA’s opposition to OPEN and its support of SOPA. The article quotes RIAA Senior Executive VP Mitch Glazier as saying that the ITC “clearly does not operate on the short time frame necessary to be effective.” Glazer cites the delays in the RIM vs. Kodak case — filed in January 2010 but now expected to be ruled on in September 2012 — as a prime example. Glazier sees these delays as hugely damaging, saying that each day a piracy-facilitating website stays online can cost millions of dollars to “American companies, employees and economy,” and be “an ongoing threat to the security and safety of our citizens.”
So again, it’s a case of what Sherman isn’t telling you, while simultaneously suggesting it’s Wikipedia or Google that are obfuscating the issue. The biggest problem with SOPA and what helped get it killed in Congress was that it left things extremely wide open to interpretation. The biggest boon to OPEN is that it requires investigation. Yes, that absolutely does take time. Time needs to be taken. The RIAA doesn’t seem to care about the affects that can happen when a law goes into place allowing swift shut down of websites based on willy nilly complaints or the hidden agendas of competitors. In fact, this is what is wrong with the RIAA’s stance on piracy. They want what caused the protest in the first place. They want to be able to quickly shut down sites with little to no oversight on how the plug gets pulled. So when an alternative is proposed that works more at the a proper speed with investigation, careful consideration of the circumstances and oversight, the RIAA has to denounce that suggestion.
The RIAA keeps pushing for legislation that mirrors SOPA. In fact, this will be the third consecutive year that Senator Ron Wyden [D-OR] will defend our country against the immense loopholes and abusive traits that the RIAA crusades for — Wyden took a stand and singlehandedly curbed the Combat Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act of 2010 (S. 3804) in 2010, and then was at the forefront of halting PIPA this year in the senate. What Sherman is telling us isn’t anything revealing about Wikipedia. No. What Sherman is telling us is that no matter how many times the government tells him that these laws are poorly written and open for abuse, Sherman will keep pushing for this to go through.
Courage Wolf
Host Merchant Services and all other payment network providers have a vested interest in this legislation because they keep getting named in it. These laws keep coming up that require payment processors to be involved in the policing of online content. The issue is just as important to merchant services as the Durbin Amendment. And so The Official Merchant Services Blog is once again here to keep people informed about these developments. The RIAA is singing the same old song about Napster and Piracy trying to push some sympathetic buttons with the people, but at the same time attacking the overwhelming opposition to their agenda, calling them misinformed — and criminal. Suggesting that internet users don’t go beyond twitter messages in the depth of their awareness of issues that pertain directly to the future of their internet usage. And the entire time the RIAA is engaging in this shell-game of misinformation, they’re also gloating about how profitable they’ve been able to make digital music transactions. They claim they know the internet. But Mr. Sherman acts like he still thinks it’s a series of tubes. He might know it’s not a truck, but he’s still doing it wrong.
We’ll leave you with the same message we had days ago when Sherman’s employees were tweeting “DECLARE THAT!”
The bottom line is if Lady Gaga and Pitbull online sales are robust and legit, it’s probably time to back off the Online Piracy rhetoric.
The RIAA just won’t quit. They’re taken up the crusade to push for anti-piracy legislation once again, as seen in this New York Times Op-Ed piece titled “What Wikipedia Won’t Tell You” written by Cary H. Sherman,chief executive of the Recording Industry Association of America, which represents music labels. The content of the piece is incendiary, and that’s being kind. The RIAA is adamant about their stance on piracy and are pressing the issue in every outlet they can. To quote Digital Underground from their Sons of the P album — which currently is not available for legal purchase online due to holes in the DU library in various legit digital music resources — “Like Ice Cube says, Once Again it’s On.”
Everyday They’re Shufflin’
The Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect Intellectual Property Act were both killed in Congress — shelved because they were too wide open to abuse. The protest against these bills reached a collective crescendo when internet giants Wikipedia and Google and WordPress teamed up with a host of others for an internet blackout. When the largest source of internet information — and grade school kids’ favorite spot for help with their homework — goes dark and the search engine juggernaut that fuels the internet shines its spotlight on your bill, things have finally gotten serious. The U.S. citizens took notice of this blackout, and joined the internet in protest. And Congress heard the people and backed off this poorly written legislation.
But that hasn’t stopped the entertainment lobby. They went back to the drawing board and then returned mere weeks later with a new idea on how to combat online piracy. Unfortunately that new idea was the exact same idea as before. This was seen in the wishlist the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) released. The highlights of this list are essentially that the music industry wants pretty much the exact same things that were in SOPA, the same things that prompted the protest in the first place. A list of seven demands, which include the exact same far reaching calls for search engines and payment processors to police websites individually and be responsible to law enforcement for content they are indirectly connected to.
We’ll get back to this, but for now the point is the music industry felt the need to push for the same stuff that killed SOPA and PIPA. And that came right back to the forefront with Mr. Sherman’s opinion article in the New York Times. Essentially the RIAA wants a do-over and Mr. Sherman is here to tell us why that needs to happen.
Come At Me Bro
So today The Official Merchant Services Blog is going to try to put this issue in its place much like Blake Griffin did to Kendrick Perkins recently. Yes, we are going to Posterize the RIAA. Because the op-ed article indicates the RIAA has soft interior defense and can’t play man to man very well at all. First up we’ll start with the relative hypocrisy of Sherman’s ill-timed article found in this contextual relationship: Suggesting Wikipedia isn’t telling people everything, and then making this comment, “They knew that music sales in the United States are less than half of what they were in 1999, when the file-sharing site Napster emerged, and that direct employment in the industry had fallen by more than half since then, to less than 10,000.”
This is hypocritical because Mr. Sherman is leaving out some very pertinent information — which his employees were just recently bragging about on twitter. As we reported on January 31, the RIAA was excited about the IFPI wishlist because it had a series of statistics that showed the music industry is doing well with digital sales. The music industry claims Wikipedia is being deceptive and then suggests that they are still reeling from Napster, which was effectively scuttled back in 2002. They’re making a play for sympathy from an issue that happened almost a full decade ago, and yet they just got finished gloating about how successful they were this year!
Jonathan Lamy, senior VP of Communications for the RIAA, tweeted that paid subscription services rose 65 percent to 13.4 million in 2011. This tweet was in response to figures released by the IFPI which Lamy was excited to read. Lamy also tweeted that paid digital music services are active in 58 countries, generating $5.2 billion in revenues.
And then Cara Duckworth. The VP of Communications for the RIAA also cited the IFPI figures and then said: “W/more than half of all music sales coming from digital services, we know how Internet works. “Music=Innovation. Declare THAT. #CES #SOPA.”
What the RIAA isn’t telling you is far worse than what Wikipedia isn’t telling you. But Mr. Sherman isn’t about to concede facts when the agenda needs to continue to be pushed. The music industry is finally getting the hang of the digital market. Their own people brag that they know how the internet works. Declare that! But Sherman’s still waving the Napster suit in your face trying to claim that Wikipedia is obfuscating the issue.
It gets worse.
Born This Way
Sherman writes, “While no legislation is perfect, the Protect Intellectual Property Act (or PIPA) was carefully devised, with nearly unanimous bipartisan support in the Senate, and its House counterpart, the Stop Online Piracy Act (or SOPA), was based on existing statutes and Supreme Court precedents.”
The only thing in that statement that is rooted in the reality of what happened with SOPA and PIPA is that there was a lot of bipartisan work. Unfortunately, the work was bipartisan unity on finding problems with the so-called carefully devised legislation. Tech industry experts on both sides of party lines found the problems and holes in the legislation. As we reported on December 27, 2011, SOPA sparked unity in the federal government. And as we’ve written in our in-depth analysis, the bill was not very carefully devised at all. In that analysis we lean heavily on discussion from Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren [D-CA], an expert in the tech industry. We’ll highlight just a bit of Lofgren’s criticism of this bill, with questions raised: “Section 103 also allows a “portion of” a website to be deemed “dedicated to the theft of U.S. property,” regardless of the culpability of the website as a whole. Like many important terms throughout H.R. 3261, the precise meaning of these words is ambiguous, and will require years of expensive litigation to clarify. However, the plain meaning of the words seems to indicate that any large website could face a risk of termination by payment and advertising providers based solely upon infringing material contained in a single web page. ”
This is not carefully devised legislation. And as we eventually reported, the bill’s own sponsor admitted he did not fully understand the technical aspect of the bill and he backed off of it. Bill sponsor Lamar Smith is quoted in various media sources as saying: “I have heard from the critics and I take seriously their concerns regarding proposed legislation to address the problem of online piracy. It is clear that we need to revisit the approach on how best to address the problem of foreign thieves that steal and sell American inventions and products.”
Today The Official Merchant Services Blog dives right back into the fire with the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). We were kind of surprised to find out what this PC World Article had to say. Apparently the music industry is doing pretty good despite the issue of online piracy upon which SOPA hinges.
SOPA was shelved by Congress more than ten days ago, as we reported in our January 20 blog, but the lobby that fueled the bill is still pushing for federal government involvement in online piracy. In fact, much of the content of SOPA that caused the controversy has popped back up on a wishlist from the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) regarding what they think needs to be done to fight online piracy. The IFPI is a global group similar to the U.S.-based Record Industry Association of America (RIAA).
SOPA and PIPA Review
To recap what SOPA was about you can review our initial post about it from our November 20, 2011 blog. The Official Merchant Services Blog was out in front of this story and eventually the rest of the medial caught up with the impact that this House of Representatives bill and its twin in the Senate — the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) — were going to have on a variety of tech industry sectors, including Payment Network Providers. Host Merchant Services provides an in-depth analysis of SOPA here.
The Kids are All Right
According to the RIAA the music industry is outperforming other entertainment sectors in terms of digital sales. Jonathan Lamy, senior VP of Communications for the RIAA, tweeted that paid subscription services rose 65 percent to 13.4 million in 2011. This tweet was in response to figures released by the IFPI which Lamy was excited to read. Lamy also tweeted that paid digital music services are active in 58 countries, generating $5.2 billion in revenues.
Jumping into the tweets was another RIAA executive, Cara Duckworth. The VP of Communications for the RIAA also cited the IFPI figures and then said: “W/more than half of all music sales coming from digital services, we know how Internet works. “Music=Innovation. Declare THAT. #CES #SOPA.”
Throwing down the gauntlet, the RIAA is now essentially claiming that they have a viable working digital sales model that can exist on the internet. And yet still they pursue a lobby to crack down on piracy, and collateral damage that includes the internet and e-commerce.
Here’s a graphic detailing the top sales from 2011 according to the IFPI:
The Wishlist
The IFPI put out this PDF which details a very hardline stance on how to deal with Online Piracy. Perhaps the most entertaining aspect of this wishlist is that it essentially repeats the details of SOPA. According to the PCWorld article IFPI chief executive Frances Moore said record companies are building a business in digital music “in spite of the environment in which they operate, not because of it.”
Moore went on to say record companies are working with ISPs, search engines, governments, and law-enforcement agencies to reduce the number of illegal downloads and ensure that an ever-higher percentage of the music that is downloaded is bought legally. “Our digital revenues, at one-third of industry income (and now more than 50 per cent in the US), substantially surpass those of other creative industries, such as films, books and newspapers.”
So the IFPI establishes with facts and figures that the music industry is doing well on the internet. Digital Music services are getting traction, profits are rising and piracy is being challenged. The RIAA finds all of this so amazing and awesome that they go and re-tweet it to the world.
With all of this good stuff being said about digital music sales, why does the IFPI have a wishlist of demands to fight piracy that seem pretty much like the exact same thing SOPA wrote?
The Seven Demands
This arstechnica.com article goes into detail about the demands the IFPI has. The demands can be broken down to seven key elements:
Graduated response laws in which rightsholders can pass along notices about file-sharing to the accused party and possibly disconnect them from the internet.
Site blocking. The industry wants the ability to wall off infringing sites, however defined (yes, you read that right, they don’t currently define the criteria for being able to wall off the site), at country borders.
Search Engines need to help the industry. Search Engines need to remove links to infringing content that the industry identifies as well as prioritize links according to industry standards, not the engine’s own standards. Search Engines need to rank search results factoring legality or illegality into the ranking.
Payment Processors. Just like SOPA and PIPA, the wishlist also includes payment processors. Which is why The Official Merchant Services Blog is continuing its ongoing coverage of this topic. Payment Network Providers, Payment Processors, merchant services providers, whatever the entertainment industry wants to call us, are being targeted to police copyright infringement. It’s very strange. The IFPI wishlist demands processors cut off pirates voluntarily, much like SOPA tried to do. As the ars technica article states: “This was a theme of the recent Stop Online Piracy Act in the US, which originally featured a section encouraging companies like MasterCard to take unilateral actions against websites, and provided legal immunity for doing so. IFPI touts a deal with the City of London Police and credit card companies in which IFPI supplies the City of London Police with evidence that illegal downloads are being made available from an infringing site. The police review the evidence, verify its integrity and notify payment providers that their services should not be provided to such sites.”
Ad networks are being called on to cut off funds to suspected pirates as well. Even though some online advertising sites are themselves going through litigation for spams, scams and clickjacking.
Mobile operators need to get involved according to the IFPI wishlist. Because hey, why not? The IFPI’s paranoia suggests that outside the comfy confines of the U.S. where illegal downloaders just lazily go about swiping songs from their PCs, “piratical behavior increasingly takes place through phones and other mobile devices.”
And finally, the IFPI calls for increased litigation. Keep suing the big sites. The PDF report cites how much piracy dropped after Limewire was shutdown as the impetus to keep going after the big dogs in the world of online piracy. Compared to some of the other demands on this list, the final wish seems to be far more reasonable, logical and effective. Going after ad networks, especially those already mired in a legal quagmire of clicks and spam issues, might not do a whole lot in the war on piracy. Going after the big, popular piracy sites, though, might have an impact.
Where to go From Here?
It just seems tiresome that after all that went down with SOPA, PIPA, the internet blackout, and the controversy, the music industry just reloads and reuses the same exact talking points that got the laws killed in the first place. SOPA died because the things being asked for weren’t going to work. Banking on payment processors to police the internet was a bad idea. It still is a bad idea. This whole wishlist smacks of some old sitcom gag where a child asks one parent for a cookie, is told no, then goes and asks the other parent. The answer’s still no.
Payment Network Providers do not support online piracy. But the demands being given to them have loopholes where the Processor is being asked to shut down customers that are legitimate and not pirates, just on the whim of the entertainment industry.
And the real kick in the pants with all of this? At the exact same time the music industry makes this zealous push to continue to ask for wide open and ineffective legislation, they spend time gloating about how well they’re doing on the internet with legal, and apparently very profitable, digital transactions. All of course run through e-commerce sites supported by the same payment processors they are asking to shut down other customers at their fancy.
The bottom line is if Lady Gaga and Pitbull online sales are robust and legit, it’s probably time to back off the Online Piracy rhetoric.
Let the shopping season begin! Black Friday is here, and the traditional marker for holiday shopping is off to an unusual start for 2011. The Official Merchant Services Blog is taking today’s blog entry to give you a bit of a roundup on the event.
It Started Early
The first sign that this year’s Black Friday was going to be different than others was that it got started earlier than ever. Crowds lined up for midnight openings at Best Buy, Target, Kohl’s and Macy’s as retailers angled to get first crack at consumers’ tight holiday budgets. Wal-Mart opened even earlier at 10 p.m. and Toys ‘R’ Us started at 9 p.m. The Holiday Shopping season, as reported by The Official Merchant Services Blogpreviously, has been adversely affected by online shopping and e-commerce. Statistics show that shoppers — using the convenience of clicks over the late-in-the-year discounts of bricks — had been starting their holiday shopping as early as May and as late as August. The kicker being, Black Friday was potentially going to lose some of its draw. So this year retailers pushed and pushed and pushed, edging the event right into Thanksgving Day — well evening — itself.
Consumers Are Out in Force
Right now there are contradictory reports coming in about how successful this move was for retailers. One article from CNN suggests moving Black Friday into Thanksgiving was a success. The article quotes Tom Julian, president of Tom Julian Group, a retail consultancy in New York as saying: “Taking Black Friday into Thanksgiving Thursday has proven successful.”
The article then goes on to say: “Despite some backlash against such early store openings on Thanksgiving Day, the move seemed to pay off. At some Target stores, lines were more than twice as long as last year, according to the company. Men’s Angry Birds pajamas were one of the biggest sellers, along with televisions, game systems and cameras, spokeswoman Kristy Welker said.”
The article pointed out that lines at Sears, KMart, Macy’s and Toys’R’Us were all longer than previous years and business was ready to boom.
The Impact Might Not Be High
Despite the good numbers and fast start for Black Friday this article from CBSNews and its Early Show says that this year’s holiday shopping season could be a “bit of a bust.” The article takes a look at the big-picture of the economy and tries to see how even with a fast start, 2011’s Holiday Shopping Season could end up being a negative. The article stated: “this year, it might take more than one Black Friday to get retailers – and the U.S. economy – out of the red. Quijano added on ‘The Early Show,’ that while analysts project a 2.8 percent increase in Black Friday sales this year, that’s actually smaller than 2010, which saw a 5.2 percent boost.”
The article suggested consumers are wary and though they may be out in force, their shopping habits are more selective than usual: “In a national survey by the National Retail Federation, more than 50 percent of those who plan on shopping said they will wait to see if this weekend’s bargains are worth getting out and fighting for.”
And the article quoted Marshal Cohen, chief retail analyst of NPD group, a marketing research services firm as saying: “There is no stimulus package, there is no jobs program, there is no tax rebate that the president’s put on the table, so it’s really up to the consumer to go toe the line themselves.”
Black Friday: Is It Worth It?
That brings us to this Digital Trends article, which suggests that Cyber Monday — and overall the convenience and growing popularity of e-commerce itself — is going to really cut into retail shopping and Black Friday in a big way this year and in the coming years. The article states: “Not only have brick-and-mortar retailers felt the push of Cyber Monday sales, but some companies like Amazon and eBay are beating in-store retailers to the punch by opening for business Thanksgiving morning. The lure and ease of the Internet has also evolved e-commerce and altered the shopper’s frame of mind, which all might be heralding the end of Black Friday as we once knew it.”
The article puts it simply that the lines and the hassle of sidewalk and mall shopping on one day of the year doesn’t give enough value to consumers when stacked up against the ease of click shopping online. The deals aren’t big enough compared to what shoppers find online. And there just isn’t any fighting that needs to be done to get to the products. No one shoves you out of the way when you slide your mouse or type in a browser menu bar.
Don’t Forget Groupon
Beyond the convenience factor, there’s also the fact that the deals on Black Friday are not as compelling as they used to be. And that’s because sites like Groupon and Living Social have been consistently blitzing consumers all year long with deep discount savings day in and day out. The Holiday Shopping Season is no exception. And so now consumers have a lot more options than just standing in line at BestBuy at midnight fighting over an item. They can shop around on the web and find something that may save them more and avoid the line entirely.
In Conclusion
It looks like this year’s Holiday Shopping Season has gotten off to a strong start. Black Friday is nowhere near being “dead.” It’s just that the numbers indicate this may be a really good year for shopping overall. Because of that, despite an increase in sales this year Black Friday’s impact might still be getting watered down. In other words, yeah, the numbers will be up for Black Friday, but that could just be a byproduct of all numbers being up this quarter. Holiday Shopping booms all over. And Black Friday numbers benefit. But many still feel that e-commerce is going to continue to grow faster and faster, eating into brick-and-mortar retail numbers. The Bricks vs. Clicks battle still seems to favor the clicks.
Host Merchant Services, payment network provider of both retail processing services and an entire lineup of customizable e-commerce solutions tailor made to a merchant’s specific needs, is able to help you maximize your potential in both areas. We can help you navigate through the busy bustle of holiday shopping and find the transaction processing services that serve you best.
It just seems tiresome that after all that went down with SOPA, PIPA, the internet blackout, and the controversy, the music industry just reloads and reuses the same exact talking points that got the laws killed in the first place. SOPA died because the things being asked for weren’t going to work. Banking on payment processors to police the internet was a bad idea. It still is a bad idea. This whole wishlist smacks of some old sitcom gag where a child asks one parent for a cookie, is told no, then goes and asks the other parent. The answer’s still no.
