<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Channel accounting</title>
	<atom:link href="http://greatemancipator.com/2009/07/09/channel-accounting/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://greatemancipator.com/2009/07/09/channel-accounting/</link>
	<description>A discussion point on electronic government performance</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 08:40:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: greatemancipator</title>
		<link>http://greatemancipator.com/2009/07/09/channel-accounting/#comment-486</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[greatemancipator]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Jul 2009 20:02:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://greatemancipator.com/?p=681#comment-486</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Interestingly a lot of private sector businesses stopped accepting cheques early in 2008 due to the limited number they claimed they were taking, this included Marks &amp; Spencers and Tescos (less that 2% of their trade).

Earlier on, in 2007, according to the BBC - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6429903.stm - BT had started charging £4.50/quarter for bills paid by cheque, which was claimed to be recouping the cost of processing, whilst Virgin were said to charge £5 for the service. Hence I would imagine a cost of £5 might approximate two years on.

Mick]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interestingly a lot of private sector businesses stopped accepting cheques early in 2008 due to the limited number they claimed they were taking, this included Marks &amp; Spencers and Tescos (less that 2% of their trade).</p>
<p>Earlier on, in 2007, according to the BBC &#8211; <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6429903.stm" rel="nofollow">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6429903.stm</a> &#8211; BT had started charging £4.50/quarter for bills paid by cheque, which was claimed to be recouping the cost of processing, whilst Virgin were said to charge £5 for the service. Hence I would imagine a cost of £5 might approximate two years on.</p>
<p>Mick</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rich</title>
		<link>http://greatemancipator.com/2009/07/09/channel-accounting/#comment-484</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rich]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2009 08:00:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://greatemancipator.com/?p=681#comment-484</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#039;d be interested in any figures on the cost of accepting/handling/processing cheques or cash.  We charge our residents £2 for a Blue Badge and I&#039;ve got a pet theory that it costs us more than £2 to accept/handle and process it - I&#039;d love some links to any research which may relate to this.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;d be interested in any figures on the cost of accepting/handling/processing cheques or cash.  We charge our residents £2 for a Blue Badge and I&#8217;ve got a pet theory that it costs us more than £2 to accept/handle and process it &#8211; I&#8217;d love some links to any research which may relate to this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Grant</title>
		<link>http://greatemancipator.com/2009/07/09/channel-accounting/#comment-483</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Grant]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2009 01:12:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://greatemancipator.com/?p=681#comment-483</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[One of the oddities is that many websites still funnel people to call rather than do transactions on the web. My insurance company does this; so I have to repeat name and complex policy numbers over the phone rather than just enter them on an online form.

I recently had my car stolen; police websites advise people to report it in person to the local station or ring the local station rather than encourage people to use the web or even to call a call-centre. That leads to the cost of a person standing their to write down the details rather than just accept it electronically. I had to define locations in words; but could well have pointed to the location on a google map which would have helped with geo-spatial analysis.   

Even if it is fairly obvious that web is cheaper per transaction than phone which in turn is cheaper than face-to-face, I would still offer one caveat; the simplest less-interactive transactions such as yearly re-registering of my car can and do take place on the web. Its the more difficult edge cases ; (such as my stolen car) or similar that require more interaction and thus take place over the phone or face-to-face. Thus the type of transaction and complexity of the transaction may also impact the cost per transaction over different mediums.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One of the oddities is that many websites still funnel people to call rather than do transactions on the web. My insurance company does this; so I have to repeat name and complex policy numbers over the phone rather than just enter them on an online form.</p>
<p>I recently had my car stolen; police websites advise people to report it in person to the local station or ring the local station rather than encourage people to use the web or even to call a call-centre. That leads to the cost of a person standing their to write down the details rather than just accept it electronically. I had to define locations in words; but could well have pointed to the location on a google map which would have helped with geo-spatial analysis.   </p>
<p>Even if it is fairly obvious that web is cheaper per transaction than phone which in turn is cheaper than face-to-face, I would still offer one caveat; the simplest less-interactive transactions such as yearly re-registering of my car can and do take place on the web. Its the more difficult edge cases ; (such as my stolen car) or similar that require more interaction and thus take place over the phone or face-to-face. Thus the type of transaction and complexity of the transaction may also impact the cost per transaction over different mediums.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

