FATTEN YOUR ONLINE PROFITS WITH DROP SHIPPING...Written by Thom Reece
<© Copyright 2003-05 Thom Reece All rights reserved.Drop shipping, for those who are unfamiliar with it, is a system whereby you promote products of a particular manufacturer, take orders directly, and manufacturer/source handles all inventory and fulfillment functions for you. In a nutshell, here is drop-ship system: The benefits of this arrangement are probably obvious: - No inventory cost to you.
- Substantially higher profits to you over what most regular affiliate programs allow.
- The ability to quickly set-up inexpensive, highly targeted, niche or mini-sites to test and promote diverse products.
This process has been around for years and has been responsible for many highly successful mail order dealer relationships in past. Many of top catalogers and other direct response marketers, have been using this system to increase profits for decades. If you have ever ordered a high priced item from a mail order catalog and been told that product was being shipped from factory... then you have experienced drop shipping first hand.Drop shipping is, I believe, a virgin un-tapped storehouse of profits for todays internet marketer. On-line directories exist which reveal essential contact information for drop shippers of over 2,000,000 products and 4,000 brands. Most legitimate drop ship sources will require that you have a state tax reseller number in order to approve you to sell their products and give you wholesale pricing you are looking for. Beware of any drop ship source which requires you to pay a fee in order to become a drop-ship dealer... or requires a membership. These are generally organizations which make their money selling "drop ship licenses"... and are, for most part, scams. Legitimate drop shippers and factory sources never charge you any fees other than actual shipping costs of products you sell. Another caveat... always make sure that you have a written agreement with source factory that you own customer! The factory or drop ship source should agree in writing not to solicit your customers in any form. This is very important to you. Your customer list is one of your most important assets. If factory you are dealing with balks at this request... use another source who will agree. Almost every conceivable type of product is available from a drop shipper willing to ship products in single units under your companies name. Pick your interest area... electronics, consumer products, agricultural & industrial products, office equipment & supplies, hobby gear, recreational / sporting goods, clothing, furniture, etc. The list of available products from drop shippers is almost endless.
| | Sarbanes-Oxley: Old Dog, New TeethWritten by Gerald Czarnecki
The failures we have seen in quality and integrity of financial reporting in corporate America are clear evidence that something was awry. It is responsibility of corporate boards, managements, public accounting firms and regulatory agencies to put confidence back into financial statements issued by our society’s most significant entities. Although some would argue that Sarbanes Oxley went too far, it is also now evident that government action and use of enforcement muscle was required, if for no other reason than to move toward rebuilding public trust. There is no doubt that Sarbanes Oxley, and in particular, Section 404, has increased expense of doing business for public corporations; however, this is neither a new mandate, nor a superfluous one. All parties engaged in this process have previously ignored mandate, and must now accept reality, and get past complaining. A little history…back in 1977, Congress of United States passed a piece of legislation commonly known as Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). That law is well know for mandating American corporations regulated by Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) be prohibited from making any type of corrupt payments to agents of governments or corporations in foreign countries. The civil and criminal penalties were quite onerous, and most corporations changed their practices in order to avoid those penalties. The action taken by FCPA in 1977 was often characterized as most extensive application of federal law to regulation of business since passage of 1933 and 1934 securities acts. In light of reports that American corporations were “greasing” government officials in a number of countries, Congress had acted decisively in order to restore reputation of American business and eliminate improper payments to foreign governments, politicians and political parties. A seldom-remembered aspect of that legislation was that same corporations were mandated to “devise and maintain a system of internal accounting controls sufficient to provide reasonable assurances that…transactions are recorded as necessary to…permit preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles or any other criteria applicable to such statements, and…to maintain accountability for assets” This requirement got a great deal of press when law was first passed, and many articles were written on how new law would transform way corporations managed and way public accounting firms audited. This was true for a short time, but business world slipped back into its previous lack of concern for controls, and public accounting firms conveniently allowed that slippage. Pressure for firms to maintain cost-effective (generally meaning lean) operations and pressure from firms to keep down auditing fees, caused corporations and audit firms to be at best, permissive in regards to compliance with FCPA mandate. In effect, act had no teeth. All of sanctions imposed were focused on punishing illegal payments, not for a failure to comply with internal controls mandate. For 25 years, Congress, SEC, public companies and public accounting firms essentially ignored a mandate in large measure because there was little or no enforcement action for a failure to comply. The academic leaders in accounting profession have know for some time that there was a need to strengthen systems of internal controls. In 1985, Treadway Commission was asked to identify what caused fraudulent financial reporting and to make recommendations to reduce its incidence. The Commission's report included specific recommendations for management and boards of directors of public companies, public accounting profession, SEC and other regulatory and law enforcement bodies, and academics. The Commission made a number of recommendations that directly addressed internal control. Importantly, commission focused on control environment, codes of conduct, competent and involved audit committees and an active and objective internal audit function. It also called for sponsoring organizations to work together to create a framework for establishing and evaluating systems of internal controls. The result was creation of Committee of Sponsoring Organanizations of Treadway Commission (COSO), which issued a report that outlined principles for an effective system of internal controls.
|