APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2009-04 > 1239305963


From: "Craig R. Scott, CG" <>
Subject: Re: [APG] Ancestry Expert Connect process protocol
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 15:39:23 -0400
References: <49DE3992.7090306@ancestralmanor.com>
In-Reply-To: <49DE3992.7090306@ancestralmanor.com>


One exception to the Misc-1099 flag for huge numbers, when compared to W-2s
in the same company is publishers and royalty payments.

For a subcontractor and non-employee compensation the annual reportable is
$600 or greater.

For an author obtaining royalty compensation the annual reportable is
$10.00.

It is a most expensive situation to live with, but that is what the law is
at the moment. Much like filing zero quarterly sales and use tax reports in
twenty-three states.

C.

On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Sharon <> wrote:

> Todd,
>
> I continue to wear my systems engineering hat and peel the onion of the
> Ancestry Expert Connect proposal.
>
> Let's take a look at the system design.
>
> You have mentioned that your folks think they can provide payment
> processing every two weeks instead of once a month. You have also said
> that you think you will be ready to show screen shots of the interface
> at the end of this month.
>
> Those statements are red flags for a transaction processing and project
> management system - supposedly more sophisticated than a marketplace
> venue where fees are advertising "real estate" rental.
>
> Whether Ancestry chooses to hold payment processing for a period for
> their own reasons or not, if the system does not have the capability to
> trigger the payment to the service provider's account instantaneously,
> it is not a reliable design.
>
> The reason that Ebay bought Paypal is because their own payment system
> was broken. Once the erroneous design was implemented, they could never
> figure out how to fix it. Paypal had it's own problems, but secure
> payment processing was and still is their business corner and their
> strength. Paypal was able to even swallow the Verisign credit card
> gateway business with comparative ease. [oops ... newsflash - some poor
> Ebay seller's Paypal account was just compromised for two weeks by
> fraudulent transactions pouring money into his Paypal account. Now
> there's a twist on what hackers will do for kicks!]
>
> In any case, when Ebay then "upgraded" their internal billing system,
> Ebay made the same mistake they had in their payment system and created
> a havoc that took six months to settle out. An army of lawyers backed by
> billions of dollars muscled away the class action suit. Ancestry does
> not have that kind of muscle.
>
> For all of Google's innovations, the problems with their Google Checkout
> system a full one year into their "Beta" were amazingly basic. Their
> support people didn't understand the internals of a system that had
> queues and triggers to process financial transactions. Amazing responses
> to missing transactions were along the lines of "That can't be
> happening." I even got sandbox versions of the software and posted test
> transactions, and they still couldn't figure it out for months. It was
> free credit card processing so it was worth experimenting. But even
> billions of dollars in resources doesn't guarantee a good system design
> when shifting from a massive search engine paradigm to a simple
> transaction processing system.
>
> Screen shots to illustrate the implementation of how the Ancestry Expert
> Connect system will work makes me wonder if the system will be a
> "reusuable software" approach based on what Ancestry already uses in
> other parts of the service - just a different front end and back end. By
> the end of this month, you are only one month away from launch - and yet
> the screens aren't even in Beta testing yet. Amazing.
>
> Since the proposal announced in November was a completely different
> approach, and you clearly have spent several months talking with people,
> that hasn't left much time for system design.
>
> So what's between the screen shot design and the payment system?
>
> You said on April 8:
> "We spoke with dozens of independent professionals and with a number of
> organizations. We heard varied and sometimes inconsistent opinions about
> how best to approach elements of the service. However, we heard two main
> concerns clearly and consistently - 1) the need to distinguish between
> professionals vs. other providers, and 2) the importance of properly
> setting client expectations about what they may or may not receive as a
> result of the professionals efforts."
>
> Do you have a variety of test cases and customer illustrations for each
> of the 5 transaction types to demonstrate how the Ancestry Expert
> Connect system is designed to satisfy those rather general goals?
>
> Since Ancestry Expert Connect is inherently both a transaction
> processing system and a project management system, particularly since
> the communications trail would be an integral part of any dispute
> resolution, have you have any kind of granularity for project milestones
> that actually demonstrates an understanding of the research process?
>
> I am a bit confused about how the 50%/100% marks could actually work
> with the redefinition of the project. But that also goes back to my
> previous assertion that a retainer and payment for a research plan needs
> to be fully paid before the work begins.
>
> Does Ancestry Expert Connect have any tools that would support the
> project management function?
>
> Is there anything at all that Ancestry Expert Connect has done to model
> the research process?
>
> When you said "We heard varied and sometimes inconsistent opinions about
> how best to approach elements of the service." - were you referring in
> part to what might have appeared to be a variation in research and
> client relations style?
>
> The bottom line is I am probing what Ancestry Expert Connect provides
> other than a targeted marketplace venue and justifying the 15-25% fee?
>
> I see Lorenzo Mellon-Reyes's online postings when he was with Elance. He
> demonstrates an attentive customer service response to questions and
> complaints, not as a policy maker, but as a support person.
>
> Todd has certainly been willing to listen and participate in these
> discussions.
>
> So I will test Todd's good humor even further and challenge him to use
> some cases studies to test whatever the existing system design is. I
> have 5 case study overviews in my previously mentioned 2004 APGQ
> article. I will send the article to Todd in a separate email, and to
> anyone else who would like to read it. My challenge to Todd is to take
> those overviews and dummy up test cases for your system process - as you
> might imagine the cases would proceed within the framework of your
> system design.
>
> When I think more about the current 5 transaction types in Ancestry
> Expert Connect proposal, I see a sort of staid insurance/banking
> industry type of hierarchy - a limited linear flat view of the world of
> genealogical research.
>
> You might as well have a peek at the real world. Others might provide
> case study overviews also.
>
> But the more layers I peel from this onion, the more I realize that
> Ancestry Expert Connect has got the model inside out. Relatively
> speaking the number of genealogical experts is a rarity compared to that
> multi-million unique visitor base. Yet Ancestry Expert Connect wants
> the expert to pay them to use the expert's good name and also provide on
> the job training. Hmmm.
>
> Researchers, as defined by the Ancestry Expert Connect model,
> particularly in the escalating transitional genealogist sector, are
> looking for more educational opportunities. Hmmm.
>
> Why wouldn't it make sense for Ancestry Expert Connect to actually
> provide an educational and mentoring service by paying experts to train
> the people who sign up as researchers. There's a win-win. Other
> businesses call it network marketing. Sales through networks of teams
> where the "train the trainers" starts at the top and grows the business.
>
> For those who worry about the competitive impact from Ancestry or
> developing a wider base of more experienced researchers, I think you are
> underestimating how much your experience and results standout. In fact,
> here we have months of free consulting to Ancestry and there's still a
> virtual quizzical look.
>
> My thanks to Judy for pointing out the inflated unique visitor
> contribution by changing the Rootsweb URLs. I forgot about that. I
> wondered why the revenue wasn't tracking. I'll go back and look at my
> file on comparative industry stats and also look again at the numbers
> for the last decade.
>
> Thanks to Craig for providing stats on his marketplace experiences.
> However, I think we ought to give Ancestry the benefit of the doubt on
> whether they can implement something other than a subscription/content
> model. Those venture capitalists are still behind in the ROI for the
> last decade, unless they just plain wrote some off and changed the
> baseline. So Ancestry has to do something new. There are a number of
> reasons why the customer base can go through another erosion cycle.
>
> Thanks to Debby for bringing up the copyright and work for hire issue. I
> also understand Larry's straddle on "don't tell me how to run my
> business" versus how he views that particular issue. We are dipping into
> just some of the agency issues also.
>
> Since the late 1980s when (now late) Senator Moynihan targeted
> professional contract placement services, the IRS errs on the side of
> statutory employees versus independent contractors. Anything that
> Ancestry does that exerts control over the relationship extending beyond
> a marketplace venue weighs heavily on the side of statutory employee.
> That means witholding and W2s - or heavy penalties at later date. It
> probably takes about 6 months to get an official specific opinion from
> the IRS. But I'll bet that there are systems in place that put
> examination flags on a large number of 1099's issued by the same
> company. The IRS wants to convert 1099s to W2s :)
>
> Sharon Sergeant
>
>
>
>
>
>
> .
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in
> the subject and the body of the message
>



--
Craig R. Scott, CG
President & CEO
Heritage Books, Inc.
100 Railroad Ave., Ste. 104
Westminster, MD 21157
410 876-6101


Visit www.HeritageBooks.com

This thread: