Posted by ikando on 11/5/13 2:29pm
Msg #491425

I'm on Linked-In, and so is XYZ

Within the last four days, in addition to the press releases they've been distributing, they've also signed up to all the notary forums that I'm on in Linked-In. When one considers that Google uses all that for ranking, it's obvious their marketing is expanding. Although nothing is set as yet, it's only a matter of time before it is considered the absolute by those who only read the headlines and don't dig further.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 11/5/13 3:47pm
Msg #491435

Re: I

I think they're also monitoring discussions on various issues. [For some reason, the subject line has been deleted. No idea why.]

Reply by Christine/OK on 11/5/13 4:51pm
Msg #491442

As Hugh calls it . . . lurking [which I love :D lol] there

have been several colleagues that I stay in touch with whom are in direct contract with Phillip Browne at XYZ and these individuals are advocating that notaries voices/input/perspective is integral to this evolving process.

The feedback that several [regrettably, not able to divulge my sources] received is that input will be accepted in the future from the notary signing agents/notaries.

It could be marketing as Karen theorizes, or it could be that their increased presence is a means to gather as much data/input via lurking that they can for the SPW meetings.

The old adage 'The walls have ears" is germane in this instance and many others.

Reply by MikeC/TX on 11/5/13 5:18pm
Msg #491447

Re: As Hugh calls it . . . lurking [which I love :D lol] there

"The feedback that several [regrettably, not able to divulge my sources] received is that input will be accepted in the future from the notary signing agents/notaries."

"In the future" is too fuzzy and too late - that input should have been requested at the start of the process. Instead, an organization that claims to represent notaries quietly got together with the companies that regularly use those notaries, in order to develop a set of "standards" that will do NOTHING for notaries and will in fact support the worst practices of some of the players in the industry.

For example, there's nothing that addresses actually paying for services rendered, but there IS a "standard" that prohibits renegotiating fees if the hiring party lies about the size or details of the loan package.

At the very least, they should have put these out to their membership as PROPOSED standards and asked for comments. Better would have been to have several NSAs - people who actually do this work and would have to live with the standards - as members of this "working group". I think it's a fair question to ask whose side they are really on...

Reply by Christine/OK on 11/5/13 6:43pm
Msg #491462

Mike - agree w/you 100%. We are MAJOR players in the role

to be fulfilled. No input from the key player reveals a lack of professionalism.

Anyone who tells me that they will gather my input 'in the future' demonstrates a complete and total lack of respect.

It is completely unacceptable to all of us . . .

Smacks of dictatorships, lining their own pockets, and only looking out for their own best interests.

If we are truly CRITICAL to the loan process as a certain organization advocated recently in their publication, they sure have a strange way of showing it. :-(

Reply by JanetK_CA on 11/5/13 7:43pm
Msg #491470

Re: Mike - agree w/you 100%. We are MAJOR players in the role

In my opinion, this is just one more blown opportunity for the NNA to win us back. It wouldn't have taken too much effort to include at least some consideration of the interests of those of us who actually do this work. I remain open-minded to returning to the fold of membership if they ever decide to change their focus - and I'd bet there are many thousands of others who would agree. Unfortunately, by their actions, they continue to demonstrate who they consider their real constituency.

Sadly, they keep alienating more and more of the people they should be trying to serve - and attract to membership - so they have to keep coming up with more and more schemes to replace them (and the revenue their membership would provide.)

Again, jmho.

Reply by Christine/OK on 11/5/13 8:17pm
Msg #491474

So True, Janet! Interestingly their self-drafted press

release, see CarolF's post above states:

"The SPW tapped" XYZ "as an expert advisor and non-voting member. "

The president and vice-president of the group are BOTH XYZ employees for goodness sake. Someone please explain how that works for a group to tap the service of a company who are already prez and veep? Hmmm

This confirms what Anne McBride has been sharing on the LinkedIn forums regarding the comments XYZ employees are making to her with respect to their opinion of their clients [notaries and signing agents], which is quite derogatory.

The press release drafted by XYZ goes on to state: The XYZ organization "is the leading professional authority on the American Notary office and is dedicated to educating, serving and advocating for the nation’s 4.4 million Notaries."

If they were serving and advocating for us, at a minimum the following questions have gone unanswered:

1. What is "the American Notary office" that they are an authority on? Sounds like double-speak.
2. Why are we not contributors to the group efforts of the SPW?
3. Why was the voice/input of the Signing Agents not sought out prior to issuing edicts, press releases, etc?
4. If we are CRITICAL to the process [their words from the XYZ publication], how in good conscience can they proceed?

This appears to be a two-legged stool . . . about to topple over.

Also of importance at the top of the press release: " Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release. "

Reply by MikeC/TX on 11/5/13 4:45pm
Msg #491441

They obviously have someone who understands how SEO works

as well as what to do with social media. Now if they could only figure out how to actually help notaries...