Printable View
CCBill has integrity with merchants. I've worked with CCBill and have deep respect for them. I have not worked with Epoch/Paycom.
We all know that, of all things, there is PLENTY of business in the processing world and enough to go around. Doesn't this all seem a bit greedy and heavy handed as it stands now? I'm sure as more information comes out opinions might change. Do you think this is good for our industry?
we don't actually know that what epoch did was underhanded. they have no agreements not to hire people who have or do work for competitors as long as they follow the law.
the truth is all we know is what was announced. the truth of what's behind all this - none of us really know.
i have worked with both ccbill and epoch and have found both companies to be ethical and great to do business with. hopefully everyone will come to an understanding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip
This is true... even if we look at this with no bias we can see a company that is taking moves to affect the stability and efficiency of another company in an industry where there are only 3 key players CCBill, Epoch, Verotel.Quote:
Originally Posted by basschick
The moves of hiring key employees from a competitor, WHILE they work for the competitor is an aggressive business tactic usually performed to get the upper hand in industries/sectors that are saturated with competitors. This isn't the case in the online adult processing sector.
A very telling comment CCBill made "Paycom, CCBill’s largest and most direct competitor, has apparently decided to compete with CCBill through corporate raids..."
Do you know what a corporate raid is?
---------------------
Corporate Raid:
A corporate raid is a business term, sometimes also referred to as breaking a company. It describes a particular type of hostile takeover in which the assets of the purchased company are immediately sold off (business liquidation). The target company essentially disappears in the process.
This can be a profitable exercise if the company holds disposable assets or liquid investments that are valued higher than the company's current market cap. Examples would include companies holding valuable land or equipment, while their stock price is too low due to market factors. After taking a "hit" on their stock price for whatever reason, companies can become targets for a leveraged buyout.
Examples of this is an insurance company whose "float" or "reserves" are larger than the market cap or a real estate company or trust whose real estate could be sold for a larger sum than what the market cap of the company is. Source and more info here
-----------------
From CCBills comments we can see that things have happened behind the scenes to dramatically undermine CCBills stability.
This is NOT good for our industry at all. As things stand now it seems a very aggressive, greedy, and unnecessary tactic to gain market share and destroy a company. What are your thoughts?
Sounds like a solid business plan to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirt
Take out the competition, have free reign in whatever field you work in.
Seems to have worked for Microsoft.
Regards,
Lee
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
Yes you and I have always disagreed on business practices, well not all practices, but the aggressive, or non paying ones.
Our industry is a small one and being aggressive, instead of playing well with others, isn't looked to kindly upon.
BTW the last thing our industry needs is a "microsoft" processor. Having only one processor means we'll be one processor away from not processing ;)
We were extremely disappointed with CCBill's mischaracterization of the facts and attempt to disparage Paycom's stellar reputation. There has been no corporate raiding. Paycom merely accomodated the requests of 2 employees looking to make a lifestyle change.
While their former employer tried to shackle them with onerous covenants not to compete legal counsel has determined that they are clearly unenforceable both in California and Arizona as the legal proceedings will confirm. Paycom has no interest in, or need for, any trade secrets. Paycom already knows all the players in the industry and our innovative technology such as the launch of our venture with MPA3 has no use for anything that CCBill has to offer. In compliance with applicable law, Paycom believes that every employee has a right to work wherever they want and when approached by talent such as Patrick Curran and David Salonic we are not willing to let draconian restraints on a person's right to work get in our way.
We believe that the best way to keep an employee is to have a great atmosphere, great product and a great company. We frankly cannot understand what it is that CCBill is really afraid of? Competition?
The Epoch Family
we don't know it's greedy or underhanded. we only know what ccbill says, which could be true but almost surely has spin. for all we know, patrick's aging mother lives here and he wanted to live by her or maybe he hadn't gotten a raise in 3 years. after thinking about this for a few minutes, i realized that i thought of over 20 reasons why patrick could have changed to another company.
and - not that we know it happened as this is only personal speculation - suppose that three years ago at a convention someone from epoch said to patrick "hey, if you're ever free, give us a call. we could use someone like you" and patrick started dreaming of beautiful socal weather.
personally i couldn't even think of taking sides here without knowing real details.
Exactly right.Quote:
Originally Posted by basschick
Its of no concern to me so long as my business isnt effected by anything and, as far as im aware, it isnt going to be at this moment in time.
I just hope things get resolved between Patrick and CCBill, would be a shame to ruin, what i would imagine has been a good personal and business relationship for many years over something as petty as this.
The reality of it is this, it'll never even make it to court, its just two processors flexing their muscles to see who has the biggest $0.02
Regards,
Lee
Agreed. I hope they get it settled before Gay Phoenix Forum, otherwise it will be a lil uncomfortable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
Quote:
Originally Posted by basschick
I totally agree... that's why I'm saying "as it stands now" and "I'm sure as more information comes out opinions might change."
We are all speculating here
I agree 100%Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
I'm with Verotel so I don't see any affect in sight, but you never know really.
Though I wouldn't be surprised if Verotel, CCBill and Epoch/Paycom weren't all linked in some fucked up way ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by basschick
Well.... both sides have their spinmeisters out in full force, that's for sure. And I think the use of the phrase "corporate raiding" was an emotional term picked by someone for the impact it would have, rather than out of factual basis... I mean, CCBill has a couple hundred employees. A VP of HR and some other guy that isn't in the public eye could hardly be described as so crucial that their leaving would put the company at risk of failure. Likewise, I suspect that Epoch's statement is, um, obfuscated somewhat by their position.
But... at the end of the day, regardless of whether Epoch approached the two employees or they approached Epoch, it was certainly not a "treat people the way you'd like to be treated" move. Not that I'd expect that in any business, particularly this one, but when these two companies are SOOOO visible and sooooo crucial to all of us in the online adult arena, I would expect at least a minimum level of professionalism... let's face it, both Epoch and CCBill are extrememly profitable. if Epoch knew that the employees they wanted to hire were under do-not-compete agreements, they could have approached CCBill and said "Look, they're going to leave, no way around that, so let's make this as painless as possible, avoid public drama, and let's buy out the non-compete. Likewise, CCBill could have said "This sucks, but let's avoid the nastiness, legal fees, and bad blood, and mediate this and avoid any drama."
I don't know who refused to come to the table, but somebody should have risen beyond pettiness and found a way to solve this without dueling lawsuits. It's incredibly wasteful of money and resources, and distracts management of both companies at a time when they should NOT be distracted.
Just giving this a bump.
This has been settled now, im waiting for someone at CCBill to post in here to let us know what happened however, as i suggested, it never made it to court :)
Regards,
Lee