Unregistered Carriers on 10/28/2009 - 1828
Unregistered Carriers on 10/30/2009 - 1821
I noticed today that we have registered over 1,000 carriers this month for 2009 UCR registration. That, in turn, led me to wonder what the numbers looked like for all 14 months to date. Keep in mind that these numbers are just for IL carriers we registered here in Illinois and doesn't include carriers who registered at the UCR site. Here are the numbers:
September 2008 - 4,899
October 2008 - 2,549
November 2008 - 1,418
December 2008 - 2,699
January 2009 - 959
February 2009 - 396
March 2009 - 489
April 2009 - 704
May 2009 - 595
June 2009 - 730
July 2009 - 637
August 2009 - 631
September 2009 - 985
October 2009 - 1,040
I'm still trying to figure out what to make of these numbers, but I think it's interesting that we bottomed out in February and then started picking up steam again in March. This just happens to coincide with the start of the UCR5000 project, which, you may recall, started on March 17, 2008.
So what happened upon the initiation of the UCR5000 project?
One thing did NOT happen - we never did send a mass follow-up mailing per se. In fact, the one thing we started doing in earnest was paying more attention to UCR - using numbers and specific names - and applying a steady amount of "pressure" to the whole area of unregistered carriers.
More specifically, we can identify four primary reasons why this resurgence in registration happened: 1) increased enforcement - both here in Illinois and in other states 2) the initiation of our email effort, which started with Kathy hand-crafting mass emails, and evolved to the UCR-Link Emailer 3) Bill tackling the Unregistered Carrier List and making literally thousands of calls to unregistered carriers and 4) solicitation and registration of new USDOT carriers. (We now consistently carry an 85% registration rate of new USDOT carriers, which has resulted in several thousand registrations since the beginning of 2009).
When all is said and done, I think these numbers point to the idea that if a state did one large mailing and stopped there, they may have missed a ton of carriers who, for whatever reasons, didn't register during the "first wave". Perhaps there's a case - a very real REVENUE case - to be made for persistence!
Friday, October 30, 2009
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Different UCR Approaches - Part 6
Unregistered Carriers on 10/27/2009 - 1829
Unregistered Carriers on 10/28/2009 - 1828
WE’LL REGISTER EVERYBODY WHO SHOULD BE REGISTERED
This is the last UCR approach I will write about in this series.
Essentially, this approach says that we will not assume that everybody who should be registered under UCR can be found on a current Federal - or even State - list.
Here's an example:
The other day, one of our officers went to a grain elevator right smack dab here in the middle of the state. The officer was told by the elevator owner that virtually all of the grain that was sold to that elevator was loaded on a rail car and shipped out of state. Therefore, anybody who brought grain to that elevator using a "commercial vehicle" - grain truck, semi, etc. - was a candidate for a USDOT # and a UCR registration. The officer went right down the waiting line of grain trucks and tractor-trailers and handed out warnings and UCR packets to everybody in line.
When these farmers subsequently called in to pursue the issue of registration, they pleaded their respective cases for "exemption":
"I don't leave the state"
"I'm not for-hire"
"I've got farm plates"
"I don't own the grain when it leaves the state"
"I only haul the grain about a mile"
"Nobody's every asked me for this before"
"This is taxation without representation"
When they were finished, we got them a DOT# and registered them - all of them!
The point is this: we would have never encountered these "interstate motor carriers" if one of our officers had not gone to the elevator to see who was showing up there. They're not the kind of folks who normally show up on our "radar" - MCMIS, Unregistered List, etc. - because they don't even have a USDOT number.
Let me quickly add that I don't think these folks were trying to skirt the law. I think they genuinely thought that they couldn't possibly qualify for these programs.
The point here is that WE had to go find THEM. And this is an approach that's way over and above "I'll register whoever shows up".
Is it a better or worse approach? I don't know - I'm just discussing approaches. But if people's expectations are set along the lines of the more involved approach, one can certainly understand disenchantment with the other types of approaches.
Unregistered Carriers on 10/28/2009 - 1828
WE’LL REGISTER EVERYBODY WHO SHOULD BE REGISTERED
This is the last UCR approach I will write about in this series.
Essentially, this approach says that we will not assume that everybody who should be registered under UCR can be found on a current Federal - or even State - list.
Here's an example:
The other day, one of our officers went to a grain elevator right smack dab here in the middle of the state. The officer was told by the elevator owner that virtually all of the grain that was sold to that elevator was loaded on a rail car and shipped out of state. Therefore, anybody who brought grain to that elevator using a "commercial vehicle" - grain truck, semi, etc. - was a candidate for a USDOT # and a UCR registration. The officer went right down the waiting line of grain trucks and tractor-trailers and handed out warnings and UCR packets to everybody in line.
When these farmers subsequently called in to pursue the issue of registration, they pleaded their respective cases for "exemption":
"I don't leave the state"
"I'm not for-hire"
"I've got farm plates"
"I don't own the grain when it leaves the state"
"I only haul the grain about a mile"
"Nobody's every asked me for this before"
"This is taxation without representation"
When they were finished, we got them a DOT# and registered them - all of them!
The point is this: we would have never encountered these "interstate motor carriers" if one of our officers had not gone to the elevator to see who was showing up there. They're not the kind of folks who normally show up on our "radar" - MCMIS, Unregistered List, etc. - because they don't even have a USDOT number.
Let me quickly add that I don't think these folks were trying to skirt the law. I think they genuinely thought that they couldn't possibly qualify for these programs.
The point here is that WE had to go find THEM. And this is an approach that's way over and above "I'll register whoever shows up".
Is it a better or worse approach? I don't know - I'm just discussing approaches. But if people's expectations are set along the lines of the more involved approach, one can certainly understand disenchantment with the other types of approaches.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Different UCR Approaches - Part 5
Unregistered Carriers on 10/26/2009 - 1873
Unregistered Carriers on 10/27/2009 - 1829
WE’LL REGISTER ALL MCMIS ACTIVE INTERSTATE CARRIERS
Yesterday, we talked about registering the UCR Universe List. Today, we're talking about registering all MCMIS active interstate carriers? What's the difference? It's simple - and huge! The difference is that crazy little one-year activity filter we discussed.
In order to be in the UCR Universe, a carrier not only has to be an "active interstate carrier", but they also have to have an inspection, a crash, an MCS-150 update or a UCR registration in the past 12 months.
When you take away the one-year filter, you now have a whole bunch of MCMIS carrier records that show active interstate carriers, but carriers that show no activity within the last year. And there are a lot of 'em! In Illinois, we have about 20,000 Universe carriers - and about 10,000 more carriers without any activity in the past year!
These "unfiltered" carrier records represent several different possibilities:
1) They may indeed be active interstate carriers who have essentially been operating under the FMCSA radar.
2) They may be companies that are no longer in business but which were never "de-activated" by the Feds.
3) They may be carrier records that are mis-classified.
I'm sure there are other possibilities. The important thing to consider about pursuing these records is that they represent a much lower likelihood of UCR registration precisely because they have no activity in the past year.
The Feds would love for a State to pursue these carriers in order to clarify the status of these records. Our experience to date, unfortunately, has been that we end up de-activating far more of them than we end up registering. So, while we don't consider the effort to have been wasted, we find it's far less productive to pursue this group than to spend our time pursuing the UCR Universe carriers.
Unregistered Carriers on 10/27/2009 - 1829
WE’LL REGISTER ALL MCMIS ACTIVE INTERSTATE CARRIERS
Yesterday, we talked about registering the UCR Universe List. Today, we're talking about registering all MCMIS active interstate carriers? What's the difference? It's simple - and huge! The difference is that crazy little one-year activity filter we discussed.
In order to be in the UCR Universe, a carrier not only has to be an "active interstate carrier", but they also have to have an inspection, a crash, an MCS-150 update or a UCR registration in the past 12 months.
When you take away the one-year filter, you now have a whole bunch of MCMIS carrier records that show active interstate carriers, but carriers that show no activity within the last year. And there are a lot of 'em! In Illinois, we have about 20,000 Universe carriers - and about 10,000 more carriers without any activity in the past year!
These "unfiltered" carrier records represent several different possibilities:
1) They may indeed be active interstate carriers who have essentially been operating under the FMCSA radar.
2) They may be companies that are no longer in business but which were never "de-activated" by the Feds.
3) They may be carrier records that are mis-classified.
I'm sure there are other possibilities. The important thing to consider about pursuing these records is that they represent a much lower likelihood of UCR registration precisely because they have no activity in the past year.
The Feds would love for a State to pursue these carriers in order to clarify the status of these records. Our experience to date, unfortunately, has been that we end up de-activating far more of them than we end up registering. So, while we don't consider the effort to have been wasted, we find it's far less productive to pursue this group than to spend our time pursuing the UCR Universe carriers.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Different UCR Approaches - Part 4
Unregistered Carriers on 10/23/2009 - 1833
Unregistered Carriers on 10/26/2009 - 1873
WE’LL REGISTER UCR UNIVERSE CARRIERS
We’re probably all familiar with the phrase “UCR Universe Carriers” by now, but let’s review briefly just to make sure.
The UCR “Universe” came about when the UCR Board needed to take a stab at figuring out which carriers might actually be counted on to register under UCR.
Since UCR is driven by the USDOT number, the Board decided that MCMIS, the database that holds information related to USDOT numbers, would represent the best possible data source in which to start looking for said carriers.
Since MCMIS also contains information on a lot of entities that are 1) exempt from UCR registration (owner-operators and intrastate-only carriers, for example) or 2) no longer active but still showing active, a set of filters had to be established that would point the Board at the carriers with the highest actual likelihood of registering.
The Board decided that filters for this “UCR Universe” should be as follows:
Carriers must be shown in MCMIS as Active Interstate Carriers (all separate pieces of data)
Carriers must also have had a crash, an inspection, an MCS-150 update or a UCR registration in the past twelve months.
For states that focus on the UCR Universe List (like IL), it doesn’t mean that we don’t register other carriers or that we don’t go looking for new carriers. The list functions more as a registry of “hot UCR leads”.
Here are two things that states that focus on the UCR Universe List have to keep in mind.
First, the map is not the terrain. The UCR Universe list is a set of database records that may or may not represent real live, breathing, active carriers.
Second, the UCR Universe List only represents carriers that have acquired USDOT numbers. A carrier can’t be in MCMIS without one. If a carrier has never gotten a USDOT number, they’re not in MCMIS – but that doesn't mean they don't need to get a USDOT number and register under UCR. These are the carriers that enforcement frequently encounters before anybody else does and sends to us for registration.
Unregistered Carriers on 10/26/2009 - 1873
WE’LL REGISTER UCR UNIVERSE CARRIERS
We’re probably all familiar with the phrase “UCR Universe Carriers” by now, but let’s review briefly just to make sure.
The UCR “Universe” came about when the UCR Board needed to take a stab at figuring out which carriers might actually be counted on to register under UCR.
Since UCR is driven by the USDOT number, the Board decided that MCMIS, the database that holds information related to USDOT numbers, would represent the best possible data source in which to start looking for said carriers.
Since MCMIS also contains information on a lot of entities that are 1) exempt from UCR registration (owner-operators and intrastate-only carriers, for example) or 2) no longer active but still showing active, a set of filters had to be established that would point the Board at the carriers with the highest actual likelihood of registering.
The Board decided that filters for this “UCR Universe” should be as follows:
Carriers must be shown in MCMIS as Active Interstate Carriers (all separate pieces of data)
Carriers must also have had a crash, an inspection, an MCS-150 update or a UCR registration in the past twelve months.
For states that focus on the UCR Universe List (like IL), it doesn’t mean that we don’t register other carriers or that we don’t go looking for new carriers. The list functions more as a registry of “hot UCR leads”.
Here are two things that states that focus on the UCR Universe List have to keep in mind.
First, the map is not the terrain. The UCR Universe list is a set of database records that may or may not represent real live, breathing, active carriers.
Second, the UCR Universe List only represents carriers that have acquired USDOT numbers. A carrier can’t be in MCMIS without one. If a carrier has never gotten a USDOT number, they’re not in MCMIS – but that doesn't mean they don't need to get a USDOT number and register under UCR. These are the carriers that enforcement frequently encounters before anybody else does and sends to us for registration.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Different UCR Approaches - Part 3
Unregistered Carriers on 10/22/2009 - 1831
Unregistered Carriers on 10/23/2009 - 1833
Approach #3 - WE’LL REGISTER ALL CARRIERS WHO “SHOW UP”
When I talk about states who “register all carriers who ‘show up’”, I am referring to states who believe their job is to wait until carriers “show up” - whether by walking in, by mail or by fax - to take care of compliance. These states do not feel any particular need to go out and “beat the bushes” for carriers - which is the real point of distinction here - because the only carriers they normally deal with come to them.
Take, for example, agencies that, in addition to UCR, also handle IRP (and, to a lesser extent, IFTA). The IRP folks know that their carriers can’t even get out on the road without coming to them. They have the benefit of registering these same carriers for UCR when they come to take care of IRP compliance.
But even many agencies who don’t handle the traditional “they have to come to us” programs have this same approach. “We don’t go out and look for business – business comes to us. If they don’t come to us, we don’t think much about them.”
It has a certain appealing ring to it, right? And if you’ve never had to “generate business” for a living, it makes a ton of sense. Business know that if you open the doors and just wait for the customers, you'll be closing the doors before long.
Personally, I think it raises one of the most interesting questions I’ve encountered lately – what, exactly, is the role of government in this case? Go find ‘em – or wait for them to find you?
Industry has obviously been banging the “States need to go find the carriers” drum hard. The Feds seem to think the States are, for the most part, doing enough.
Either way, I have a couple of issues with this approach.
First, this approach turns a relatively “blind eye” toward everybody who doesn’t “show up”.
“I don’t know if there’s anybody else out there or not - my only job is right here.” OK, we’ve got that. But your agency is responsible for making UCR work in your state. Chances are good that your agency asked for the program.
But, because some of the definitions are different between programs like IRP/IFTA and UCR, the agency that does one program may not even be thinking about other carriers that fit UCR definitions but do not fit IRP/IFTA definitions. So … everybody isn’t inherently going to be coming to you.
For example, what if I work in the IRP section? Are carriers who operate vehicles between 10K and 26K pounds going to show up at my IRP agency? Probably not. So, who will cause these carriers to get a USDOT number and register them for UCR? Nobody. Do you really think that one or two mailings are sufficient to bridge that gap?
And, if that same state is low on enforcement resources – or if those enforcement resources are mostly focused on issues other than UCR – that state could be teeming with potential UCR candidates that will probably never register. Heck, despite your one or two letters, many of them will still never have heard of UCR.
Second, it dramatically increases the likelihood of under-collecting UCR revenue.
If I’m short of revenue, my main recourse appears to be: I guess I’ll just sit here and wring my hands - and hope more people show up. Good luck with that! Sometimes, you just have to go out and find the money. We have a lot more recipient states than donor states. Maybe it’s time to consider another approach.
Third, you may have an "artificially high" registration percentage.
I say "artificially high" because if you only UCR register carriers who come to you for plates - you SHOULD have a high UCR percentage. But it may not be a representation of how many of your state's carriers should be registered especially if you have weak roadside enforcement. I'll talk more about this concern in upcoming posts.
Next time, I’m going to talk about “Registering the UCR Universe Carriers”.
Unregistered Carriers on 10/23/2009 - 1833
Approach #3 - WE’LL REGISTER ALL CARRIERS WHO “SHOW UP”
When I talk about states who “register all carriers who ‘show up’”, I am referring to states who believe their job is to wait until carriers “show up” - whether by walking in, by mail or by fax - to take care of compliance. These states do not feel any particular need to go out and “beat the bushes” for carriers - which is the real point of distinction here - because the only carriers they normally deal with come to them.
Take, for example, agencies that, in addition to UCR, also handle IRP (and, to a lesser extent, IFTA). The IRP folks know that their carriers can’t even get out on the road without coming to them. They have the benefit of registering these same carriers for UCR when they come to take care of IRP compliance.
But even many agencies who don’t handle the traditional “they have to come to us” programs have this same approach. “We don’t go out and look for business – business comes to us. If they don’t come to us, we don’t think much about them.”
It has a certain appealing ring to it, right? And if you’ve never had to “generate business” for a living, it makes a ton of sense. Business know that if you open the doors and just wait for the customers, you'll be closing the doors before long.
Personally, I think it raises one of the most interesting questions I’ve encountered lately – what, exactly, is the role of government in this case? Go find ‘em – or wait for them to find you?
Industry has obviously been banging the “States need to go find the carriers” drum hard. The Feds seem to think the States are, for the most part, doing enough.
Either way, I have a couple of issues with this approach.
First, this approach turns a relatively “blind eye” toward everybody who doesn’t “show up”.
“I don’t know if there’s anybody else out there or not - my only job is right here.” OK, we’ve got that. But your agency is responsible for making UCR work in your state. Chances are good that your agency asked for the program.
But, because some of the definitions are different between programs like IRP/IFTA and UCR, the agency that does one program may not even be thinking about other carriers that fit UCR definitions but do not fit IRP/IFTA definitions. So … everybody isn’t inherently going to be coming to you.
For example, what if I work in the IRP section? Are carriers who operate vehicles between 10K and 26K pounds going to show up at my IRP agency? Probably not. So, who will cause these carriers to get a USDOT number and register them for UCR? Nobody. Do you really think that one or two mailings are sufficient to bridge that gap?
And, if that same state is low on enforcement resources – or if those enforcement resources are mostly focused on issues other than UCR – that state could be teeming with potential UCR candidates that will probably never register. Heck, despite your one or two letters, many of them will still never have heard of UCR.
Second, it dramatically increases the likelihood of under-collecting UCR revenue.
If I’m short of revenue, my main recourse appears to be: I guess I’ll just sit here and wring my hands - and hope more people show up. Good luck with that! Sometimes, you just have to go out and find the money. We have a lot more recipient states than donor states. Maybe it’s time to consider another approach.
Third, you may have an "artificially high" registration percentage.
I say "artificially high" because if you only UCR register carriers who come to you for plates - you SHOULD have a high UCR percentage. But it may not be a representation of how many of your state's carriers should be registered especially if you have weak roadside enforcement. I'll talk more about this concern in upcoming posts.
Next time, I’m going to talk about “Registering the UCR Universe Carriers”.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Different UCR Approaches - Part 2
Unregistered Carriers on 10/21/2009 - 1841
Unregistered Carriers on 10/22/2009 - 1831
Yesterday, we talked about doing the least amount possible. Today, we're going to discuss:
WE’LL REGISTER UNTIL WE HIT OUR CAP
Obviously, this can only happen in a state that is looking forward to actually hitting their cap – which is clearly the exception rather than the rule these days. More power to you on hitting that cap! But we need to talk.
This approach – like Approach #1 - is perfectly understandable from the standpoint of the state adopting this approach. Why continue to collect revenue that you can’t keep? Heck with that!
But this approach flies in the face of a - no, make that THE - central premise of UCR participation – if Donor States don’t keep collecting after they’ve hit their cap, then many Recipient States are doomed to remain in a deficit situation. We’re in this together, folks!
Consider the plight of a small state that has a legitimate entitlement of $2MM dollars.
Suppose that even if every carrier in their state registered - that's EVERY CARRIER (100% Registration) - they would only collect $1.5MM from their own carriers. Where does the other $.5MM come from? You guessed it - you!
“That’s not my problem” says the state taking this approach (you). Au contraire, mon frère! (That’s French for “What are you thinking???”) It is, in fact, your problem. You … and every other Donor State.
If your state is considering the "We'll keep collecting until we hit our cap" approach, consider how you will feel about this same issue if you don’t hit your cap next year. I predict that you will pray like crazy that all those Donor States will keep collecting money so that you will keep getting checks from the depository generated from the excess collections of – you know who - those wild and crazy Donor States!
Tune in tomorrow for Approach #3 - "We'll Register Everybody Who Shows Up At Our Door."
Unregistered Carriers on 10/22/2009 - 1831
Yesterday, we talked about doing the least amount possible. Today, we're going to discuss:
WE’LL REGISTER UNTIL WE HIT OUR CAP
Obviously, this can only happen in a state that is looking forward to actually hitting their cap – which is clearly the exception rather than the rule these days. More power to you on hitting that cap! But we need to talk.
This approach – like Approach #1 - is perfectly understandable from the standpoint of the state adopting this approach. Why continue to collect revenue that you can’t keep? Heck with that!
But this approach flies in the face of a - no, make that THE - central premise of UCR participation – if Donor States don’t keep collecting after they’ve hit their cap, then many Recipient States are doomed to remain in a deficit situation. We’re in this together, folks!
Consider the plight of a small state that has a legitimate entitlement of $2MM dollars.
Suppose that even if every carrier in their state registered - that's EVERY CARRIER (100% Registration) - they would only collect $1.5MM from their own carriers. Where does the other $.5MM come from? You guessed it - you!
“That’s not my problem” says the state taking this approach (you). Au contraire, mon frère! (That’s French for “What are you thinking???”) It is, in fact, your problem. You … and every other Donor State.
If your state is considering the "We'll keep collecting until we hit our cap" approach, consider how you will feel about this same issue if you don’t hit your cap next year. I predict that you will pray like crazy that all those Donor States will keep collecting money so that you will keep getting checks from the depository generated from the excess collections of – you know who - those wild and crazy Donor States!
Tune in tomorrow for Approach #3 - "We'll Register Everybody Who Shows Up At Our Door."
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Exploring Different UCR Approaches - Part 1
Unregistered Carriers on 10/20/2009 - 1867
Unregistered Carriers on 10/21/2009 - 1841
As I indicated yesterday, I'm going to do a series of posts on different State approaches to UCR.
Approach #1 - LET’S DO AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE
This approach is more understandable than might be apparent at first blush. It doesn’t mean “Let’s do next to nothing.” It means “Let’s do as little as we have to do so that people can't say that we're not doing anything.”
There are a variety of legitimate reasons why agencies might take this approach.
Maybe the agency is not getting much UCR money.
Some states are NOT getting millions of dollars in UCR revenue. In fact, some states aren’t getting enough revenue from the program to pay for setting up a decent UCR program ... if you figure that a "decent program" includes Registration, Administrative Enforcement and Roadside Enforcement.
Maybe the agency just doesn’t have enough internal resources.
In some cases, revenue isn't the problem, but States just don’t have the headcount to do much – especially in this economy. “I’ve got two people – and, in addition to UCR, those two people also have to accomplish X, Y and Z!”
Maybe the agency doesn’t know much about the UCR program.
In some cases, the program has shifted from one agency to the other. Maybe the first agency knew a lot about UCR, but the second agency has inherited the program without inheriting the people who understood the history or the objectives of the program – but they’re too proud or too whatever to ask for help. Maybe they don't even WANT the program - but got stuck with it anyway.
There are probably more reasons why "Let's do as little as possible" might be the approach of choice for a State, but these three give you an idea of why it may not a totally unreasonable or irresponsible approach.
Would we be better off without states that take this approach? I don't think so. That would just turn them into non-participating states --- which, in my opinion, is even worse. I think we'd be much better off trying to either 1) help them increase their performance or 2) get them to allow somebody else to take over where they leave off. I realize there's no precedent for that yet, but it's probably in everybody's best interest to explore the issue more.
Tomorrow, I'm going to discuss states who take the approach, "We're only going to register carriers until we hit our cap."
Unregistered Carriers on 10/21/2009 - 1841
As I indicated yesterday, I'm going to do a series of posts on different State approaches to UCR.
Approach #1 - LET’S DO AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE
This approach is more understandable than might be apparent at first blush. It doesn’t mean “Let’s do next to nothing.” It means “Let’s do as little as we have to do so that people can't say that we're not doing anything.”
There are a variety of legitimate reasons why agencies might take this approach.
Maybe the agency is not getting much UCR money.
Some states are NOT getting millions of dollars in UCR revenue. In fact, some states aren’t getting enough revenue from the program to pay for setting up a decent UCR program ... if you figure that a "decent program" includes Registration, Administrative Enforcement and Roadside Enforcement.
Maybe the agency just doesn’t have enough internal resources.
In some cases, revenue isn't the problem, but States just don’t have the headcount to do much – especially in this economy. “I’ve got two people – and, in addition to UCR, those two people also have to accomplish X, Y and Z!”
Maybe the agency doesn’t know much about the UCR program.
In some cases, the program has shifted from one agency to the other. Maybe the first agency knew a lot about UCR, but the second agency has inherited the program without inheriting the people who understood the history or the objectives of the program – but they’re too proud or too whatever to ask for help. Maybe they don't even WANT the program - but got stuck with it anyway.
There are probably more reasons why "Let's do as little as possible" might be the approach of choice for a State, but these three give you an idea of why it may not a totally unreasonable or irresponsible approach.
Would we be better off without states that take this approach? I don't think so. That would just turn them into non-participating states --- which, in my opinion, is even worse. I think we'd be much better off trying to either 1) help them increase their performance or 2) get them to allow somebody else to take over where they leave off. I realize there's no precedent for that yet, but it's probably in everybody's best interest to explore the issue more.
Tomorrow, I'm going to discuss states who take the approach, "We're only going to register carriers until we hit our cap."
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
What Did UCR Participating States Agree To Do?
Unregistered Carriers on 10/19/2009 - 1891
Unregistered Carriers on 10/20/2009 - 1867
In the interest of brevity, I'm not going to spend time exploring the subtle nuances of our respective Participation Agreements. I'm going to cut to the chase and say that from a "States aren't doing enough" performance standpoint, States agreed to do two things in their Participation Agreement: register carriers and enforce the UCR program.
The enforcement issue has been pretty well vetted. I would argue that the States are doing quite a bit, but I don't intend that to be a provocation. "Quite a bit" may not equate to "enough" - but then "enough" has never really been defined.
States enforce at least two different ways: administrative and roadside. Administrative enforcement varies depending upon the agency administering the UCR program. Most agencies withhold whatever they can withhold - plates, tags, authorities - if a carrier has not registered for UCR. Roadside enforcement varies from State to State depending on resources, laws, etc. Again, this issue has been hashed and rehashed. No need to go into it here.
What I'd really like to get to is the subject of UCR registration. In my opinion, when we signed our respective Participation Agreements, I think we each agreed to do an "honorable" job of UCR registration in exchange for our "entitlement" funds. I believe that we agreed to be responsible for doing our part. The question has become, "What, exactly, did we agree to be responsible for?"
I'm going to hazard an attempt to define our responsibilities under UCR. It goes something like this:
I believe we are responsible for registering ALL carriers that the rest of the states are counting on us to register - whether they be in our own state, in non-participating states or in Mexico or Canada.
ALL of them! Too ambitious? Personally, I don't think so. Can we accomplish that? No, at least not in the literal sense. But from the standpoint of establishing responsibility, I think it's accurate. I know that very few states would agree with me - in fact, it's entirely possible that nobody agrees with me. But as we deviate from that lofty goal of total registration, it becomes a "slippery slope". And we will definitely act differently if we are trying to register ALL of them than if our goal is to register most, some or a few of them.
Over the next few days, I will discuss a variety of approaches that States appear to be taking with regard to their registration responsibilities under UCR. They are not judgments. They are not critiques. They are merely observations that I hope will be helpful in evaluating our collective registration effort ... at a time when our collective registration effort is "under fire".
Tune in tomorrow when I will explore the first of these approaches: Let's do as little as possible.
Unregistered Carriers on 10/20/2009 - 1867
In the interest of brevity, I'm not going to spend time exploring the subtle nuances of our respective Participation Agreements. I'm going to cut to the chase and say that from a "States aren't doing enough" performance standpoint, States agreed to do two things in their Participation Agreement: register carriers and enforce the UCR program.
The enforcement issue has been pretty well vetted. I would argue that the States are doing quite a bit, but I don't intend that to be a provocation. "Quite a bit" may not equate to "enough" - but then "enough" has never really been defined.
States enforce at least two different ways: administrative and roadside. Administrative enforcement varies depending upon the agency administering the UCR program. Most agencies withhold whatever they can withhold - plates, tags, authorities - if a carrier has not registered for UCR. Roadside enforcement varies from State to State depending on resources, laws, etc. Again, this issue has been hashed and rehashed. No need to go into it here.
What I'd really like to get to is the subject of UCR registration. In my opinion, when we signed our respective Participation Agreements, I think we each agreed to do an "honorable" job of UCR registration in exchange for our "entitlement" funds. I believe that we agreed to be responsible for doing our part. The question has become, "What, exactly, did we agree to be responsible for?"
I'm going to hazard an attempt to define our responsibilities under UCR. It goes something like this:
I believe we are responsible for registering ALL carriers that the rest of the states are counting on us to register - whether they be in our own state, in non-participating states or in Mexico or Canada.
ALL of them! Too ambitious? Personally, I don't think so. Can we accomplish that? No, at least not in the literal sense. But from the standpoint of establishing responsibility, I think it's accurate. I know that very few states would agree with me - in fact, it's entirely possible that nobody agrees with me. But as we deviate from that lofty goal of total registration, it becomes a "slippery slope". And we will definitely act differently if we are trying to register ALL of them than if our goal is to register most, some or a few of them.
Over the next few days, I will discuss a variety of approaches that States appear to be taking with regard to their registration responsibilities under UCR. They are not judgments. They are not critiques. They are merely observations that I hope will be helpful in evaluating our collective registration effort ... at a time when our collective registration effort is "under fire".
Tune in tomorrow when I will explore the first of these approaches: Let's do as little as possible.
Monday, October 19, 2009
What Is A UCR State's "Real" Responsibility?
Unregistered Carriers on 10/16/2009 - 1901
Unregistered Carriers on 10/19/2009 - 1891
I'm not going to keep doing the Pre-Add/Post-Add thing I referred to in my last post because it gets a little confusing, but I would like to point out that we added 62 new carriers over the weekend, which essentially "nullified" a great registration total on Friday. So far in October (11 work days), we have registered 673 carriers and taken in $51K.
This week, I'd like to share some observations about a participating state's responsibilities under the UCR program. Before I do, I'd like to once again point out that I see very few right or wrong answers regarding this issue, so I'm certainly not trying to point fingers or find fault. It's just a discussion.
We've all heard the mantra "the States aren't doing enough". But how do we know? Who defined "enough"? And, more importantly, how did they define it? Do any two of us - industry or state - even agree on a definition of "enough"?
Meanwhile, some UCR programs sit in DMV's, some in PUC's, some in Revenue Departments, some in DOT's ... and each of those types of agencies has its own definition of "enough" as it pertains to getting their constituents into compliance. Some of these entities conduct more than one program under their respective roofs(?) - IRP, IFTA, UCR, Intrastate Authority, MCSAP, etc. Some entities, like us, had never dealt with private carriers at all until UCR.
All of this is the backdrop for tomorrow's discussion - a litany of current and potential "attitudes" about UCR. I think you'll find that all of these "attitudes" have some merit. You might also find, as I have, that your own State's "attitude" might make sense for you, but not for other states.
Unregistered Carriers on 10/19/2009 - 1891
I'm not going to keep doing the Pre-Add/Post-Add thing I referred to in my last post because it gets a little confusing, but I would like to point out that we added 62 new carriers over the weekend, which essentially "nullified" a great registration total on Friday. So far in October (11 work days), we have registered 673 carriers and taken in $51K.
This week, I'd like to share some observations about a participating state's responsibilities under the UCR program. Before I do, I'd like to once again point out that I see very few right or wrong answers regarding this issue, so I'm certainly not trying to point fingers or find fault. It's just a discussion.
We've all heard the mantra "the States aren't doing enough". But how do we know? Who defined "enough"? And, more importantly, how did they define it? Do any two of us - industry or state - even agree on a definition of "enough"?
Meanwhile, some UCR programs sit in DMV's, some in PUC's, some in Revenue Departments, some in DOT's ... and each of those types of agencies has its own definition of "enough" as it pertains to getting their constituents into compliance. Some of these entities conduct more than one program under their respective roofs(?) - IRP, IFTA, UCR, Intrastate Authority, MCSAP, etc. Some entities, like us, had never dealt with private carriers at all until UCR.
All of this is the backdrop for tomorrow's discussion - a litany of current and potential "attitudes" about UCR. I think you'll find that all of these "attitudes" have some merit. You might also find, as I have, that your own State's "attitude" might make sense for you, but not for other states.
Friday, October 16, 2009
UCR - TWTWTW
Unregistered Carriers on 10/15/2009 - 1904
Unregistered Carriers on 10/16/2009 - 1861 (Pre-Adds)
Unregistered Carriers on 10/16/2009 - 1901 (Post-Adds)
TWTWTW - That Was The Week That Was - TW3. Remember that old TV show? In truth, I never actually watched the show - I just thought the title was cool. And this has definitely been an interesting week. Not only did we get to do a couple of Live Meeting sessions about UCR - new technology, a chance to reach some folks who might need assistance , etc. - but, here in Illinois, we also registered a BUNCH of carriers.
I added an extra statistic to the post today in order to highlight what I've been saying about the "cornucopia of registrations" (see yesterday's title) we've been experiencing. Notice that I show both a "Pre-Adds" number and a "Post-Adds" number. Iteris runs the daily "Registration Percentage" report that most of us are familiar with very early each morning. That report gives us the "Pre-Adds" number. Then, at some point after they update that report, the Feds send them more data - new USDOT numbers, etc. - and the unregistered number for each state changes. 40 carriers got added back to Illinois' number after the report was run this morning. 40!!! So, even though we registered more than 60 carriers again yesterday, our Unregistered List went down by a whopping three carriers! Actually, that's very cool, but when you're trying to "get to zero", it's a challenge! A good challenge, though.
By the way, not that I'm watching this number closely or anything, but we are only 378 registrations behind California as of this morning. Unlike a couple of months ago, I now feel strongly that we'll catch them - unless, of course, they actually find out about this game and bury me! Competitions are so much easier when only one side knows about them!! The beauty of a silly competition like this, however, is that it motivates me to find new, more effective ways to get better. So, thanks to states like California, Maine (and a few others!), we're evolving a great set of tools and processes that I'm hoping will benefit everybody one of these days.
Have a great weekend!
Unregistered Carriers on 10/16/2009 - 1861 (Pre-Adds)
Unregistered Carriers on 10/16/2009 - 1901 (Post-Adds)
TWTWTW - That Was The Week That Was - TW3. Remember that old TV show? In truth, I never actually watched the show - I just thought the title was cool. And this has definitely been an interesting week. Not only did we get to do a couple of Live Meeting sessions about UCR - new technology, a chance to reach some folks who might need assistance , etc. - but, here in Illinois, we also registered a BUNCH of carriers.
I added an extra statistic to the post today in order to highlight what I've been saying about the "cornucopia of registrations" (see yesterday's title) we've been experiencing. Notice that I show both a "Pre-Adds" number and a "Post-Adds" number. Iteris runs the daily "Registration Percentage" report that most of us are familiar with very early each morning. That report gives us the "Pre-Adds" number. Then, at some point after they update that report, the Feds send them more data - new USDOT numbers, etc. - and the unregistered number for each state changes. 40 carriers got added back to Illinois' number after the report was run this morning. 40!!! So, even though we registered more than 60 carriers again yesterday, our Unregistered List went down by a whopping three carriers! Actually, that's very cool, but when you're trying to "get to zero", it's a challenge! A good challenge, though.
By the way, not that I'm watching this number closely or anything, but we are only 378 registrations behind California as of this morning. Unlike a couple of months ago, I now feel strongly that we'll catch them - unless, of course, they actually find out about this game and bury me! Competitions are so much easier when only one side knows about them!! The beauty of a silly competition like this, however, is that it motivates me to find new, more effective ways to get better. So, thanks to states like California, Maine (and a few others!), we're evolving a great set of tools and processes that I'm hoping will benefit everybody one of these days.
Have a great weekend!
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Californicopia
Unregistered Carriers on 10/13/2009 - 1964
Unregistered Carriers on 10/15/2009 - 1904
Sorry you didn't hear from me yesterday. I tried all day to write a UCR blog post, but the site was unavailable. We're here now, though, so let's get started.
On July 17, 2009, I wrote about my "My Secret Stretch Goal" - which was to register more Illinois carriers than California registered California carriers because they were - and still are - in first place.
Specifically, I wrote:
"California has registered 18,023 carriers as of this morning's Iteris report. We have registered 16,074 - so we're 1,949 registrations behind them. But they still have a pool of 10,165 unregistered carriers, while we only have 3,006. You can see the problem. Even I register all of my unregistered guys - my "getting to zero" goal - I'll only have a total of 19,000 UCR registrations. CA only has to register another 1,000 guys to beat me. As I said, it's just a fun goal anyway. The more carriers we all register, the better."
So, here we are three months later ... and the numbers are intriguing --- at least to me!
As of this morning, CA has registered 19,203 carriers - EXACTLY 1,000 more carriers than they had on July 17th - and IL has registered 18,799 carriers, so we're only 404registrations apart vs. 1,949 in July. That's cool all by itself. But ... the amazing thing is that we've still got 1,904 unregistered carriers left! And we've deactivated a lot of guys since July.
Let's summarize the intriguing part: we've registered 2700+ carriers since July 17th, but we've only reduced our Unregistered List by 1100 carriers. That's a differential of 1600 carriers in 90 days! And, if you have been following this blog, you know that there's no sign of a letup. We registered 80 carriers yesterday - and only reduced our U/L by 60. That's becoming a daily event!
What a country!!!!
Unregistered Carriers on 10/15/2009 - 1904
Sorry you didn't hear from me yesterday. I tried all day to write a UCR blog post, but the site was unavailable. We're here now, though, so let's get started.
On July 17, 2009, I wrote about my "My Secret Stretch Goal" - which was to register more Illinois carriers than California registered California carriers because they were - and still are - in first place.
Specifically, I wrote:
"California has registered 18,023 carriers as of this morning's Iteris report. We have registered 16,074 - so we're 1,949 registrations behind them. But they still have a pool of 10,165 unregistered carriers, while we only have 3,006. You can see the problem. Even I register all of my unregistered guys - my "getting to zero" goal - I'll only have a total of 19,000 UCR registrations. CA only has to register another 1,000 guys to beat me. As I said, it's just a fun goal anyway. The more carriers we all register, the better."
So, here we are three months later ... and the numbers are intriguing --- at least to me!
As of this morning, CA has registered 19,203 carriers - EXACTLY 1,000 more carriers than they had on July 17th - and IL has registered 18,799 carriers, so we're only 404registrations apart vs. 1,949 in July. That's cool all by itself. But ... the amazing thing is that we've still got 1,904 unregistered carriers left! And we've deactivated a lot of guys since July.
Let's summarize the intriguing part: we've registered 2700+ carriers since July 17th, but we've only reduced our Unregistered List by 1100 carriers. That's a differential of 1600 carriers in 90 days! And, if you have been following this blog, you know that there's no sign of a letup. We registered 80 carriers yesterday - and only reduced our U/L by 60. That's becoming a daily event!
What a country!!!!
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
The UCR Business is (Too) Good!
Unregistered Carriers on 10/08/2009 - 1881
Unregistered Carriers on 10/13/2009 - 1964
Do you remember late last week when I only had 1881 carriers on my Unregistered List? And then, do you remember in the last post when I told you we had already registered 393 carriers so far in October? Imagine my surprise, then, when I came in this morning and found that we now have 1964 unregistered carriers! Somehow, we added 83 more carriers to our Unregistered List over the long weekend! And most of those 83 carriers were new USDOT numbers! Go figure! We heard from a walk-in customer today that one of our IL state troopers went on local radio and announced that the state police were going to start sitting on grain elevators and writing tickets, so that may have caused another rush. At any rate, we're getting lots more new carriers in here - business is definitely good!
Meanwhile, as incredible as it sounds, we are now only 518 registrations behind California. Not very long ago (August or so?), it was 1500! We have now registered a whopping 18,646 Illinois carriers, with California sitting at 19,164. And I have a strange feeling that we are going to add a lot more new USDOT numbers and UCR registrations before the year is over. Look out, CA!
Unregistered Carriers on 10/13/2009 - 1964
Do you remember late last week when I only had 1881 carriers on my Unregistered List? And then, do you remember in the last post when I told you we had already registered 393 carriers so far in October? Imagine my surprise, then, when I came in this morning and found that we now have 1964 unregistered carriers! Somehow, we added 83 more carriers to our Unregistered List over the long weekend! And most of those 83 carriers were new USDOT numbers! Go figure! We heard from a walk-in customer today that one of our IL state troopers went on local radio and announced that the state police were going to start sitting on grain elevators and writing tickets, so that may have caused another rush. At any rate, we're getting lots more new carriers in here - business is definitely good!
Meanwhile, as incredible as it sounds, we are now only 518 registrations behind California. Not very long ago (August or so?), it was 1500! We have now registered a whopping 18,646 Illinois carriers, with California sitting at 19,164. And I have a strange feeling that we are going to add a lot more new USDOT numbers and UCR registrations before the year is over. Look out, CA!
Saturday, October 10, 2009
UCR October-to-Date
I've been reflecting on the week just past. No, make that the nine days just past - specifically 10/1 thru 10/9.
We've already registered 393 carriers (revenue - $28,481) in October. There have been only seven business days so far in October, which gives us an average of 56+ registrations a day at an average of over $70 per registration - and that's with no registrations over $231. At this rate, we'll do over 1,000 registrations of Illinois carriers this month and generate over $70,000 - with no special mailings or heroic efforts.
This past week, I made an informal presentation to Bill Leonard using a Webinar tool called Live Meeting. With Live Meeting, a person in New York (Bill) can be looking at the desktop of a person in Illinois (Me) while the person in Illinois (Me) demonstrates different stuff to the person in New York (Bill) - and, potentially, a dozen of their closest associates (You). We're just getting started with the tool, but I can already foresee the ability to demonstrate (and maybe even record) some UCR "best practice" tools and techniques for groups of State folks. It's pretty exciting stuff. Stay tuned for more on that subject.
We've already registered 393 carriers (revenue - $28,481) in October. There have been only seven business days so far in October, which gives us an average of 56+ registrations a day at an average of over $70 per registration - and that's with no registrations over $231. At this rate, we'll do over 1,000 registrations of Illinois carriers this month and generate over $70,000 - with no special mailings or heroic efforts.
This past week, I made an informal presentation to Bill Leonard using a Webinar tool called Live Meeting. With Live Meeting, a person in New York (Bill) can be looking at the desktop of a person in Illinois (Me) while the person in Illinois (Me) demonstrates different stuff to the person in New York (Bill) - and, potentially, a dozen of their closest associates (You). We're just getting started with the tool, but I can already foresee the ability to demonstrate (and maybe even record) some UCR "best practice" tools and techniques for groups of State folks. It's pretty exciting stuff. Stay tuned for more on that subject.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Tools of the UCR Trade - Part 6
Unregistered Carriers on 10/08/2009 - 1881
Unregistered Carriers on 10/09/2009 - 1868
New USDOT Carrier Solicitation
------------------------------
I know that people are tired of hearing me talk about this, but I still believe that States that monitor, solicit and CAUSE new USDOT carriers do better at UCR. Wait a minute, Dave, did you say "cause" new USDOT carriers? Yep, that's what I said! Let's talk about that for a minute. Some UCR agencies are really lousy - at least if you look at the registration percentages - at registering new USDOT carriers. Other UCR agencies are very good. Others still have very small numbers of new USDOT carriers.
Consider these factors:
If your state doesn't enforce UCR on the road, I'm betting that you are not going to discover a lot of carriers who need, but don't have, USDOT numbers. What's the connection to UCR? You've got me - there are thousands of guys who should have USDOT numbers who have been running around for years without being asked for one. That's not a new law - mid-1980's to be exact. This is particularly true for carriers who are exempt from interstate authority. If you do actively enforce the UCR program, for whatever reasons, you will "cause" plenty of new USDOT numbers.
Who looks at carriers between 10K and 26K pounds? IRP and IFTA don't. But if your state does road enforcement, you know there are lots of those guys who need USDOT numbers in that group. You're just not going to find them if you're sitting in the IRP or IFTA office, that's all. But a little road enforcement - and a little word of mouth - will "cause" lots of new USDOT numbers.
And, after you "cause" them to get a DOT number, you register them right on the spot! As I've mentioned in other posts, we actually help carriers get USDOT numbers here in our office because we know that they will also register for UCR before they leave. I need to point out here that we are not restricted to waiting for their USDOT number to show up on SAFER or in the Indiana system as your state may be, but that's just a formality anyway. It just means that you can't finish the registration/upload process until the next day. I can't remember a single instance where we proactively registered a guy and they were stopped before SAFER knew about it. We would, of course, vouch for the guy if that ever happened.
On another note: we are now only 555 registrations behind CA and closing fast!
Have a great weekend!
Unregistered Carriers on 10/09/2009 - 1868
New USDOT Carrier Solicitation
------------------------------
I know that people are tired of hearing me talk about this, but I still believe that States that monitor, solicit and CAUSE new USDOT carriers do better at UCR. Wait a minute, Dave, did you say "cause" new USDOT carriers? Yep, that's what I said! Let's talk about that for a minute. Some UCR agencies are really lousy - at least if you look at the registration percentages - at registering new USDOT carriers. Other UCR agencies are very good. Others still have very small numbers of new USDOT carriers.
Consider these factors:
If your state doesn't enforce UCR on the road, I'm betting that you are not going to discover a lot of carriers who need, but don't have, USDOT numbers. What's the connection to UCR? You've got me - there are thousands of guys who should have USDOT numbers who have been running around for years without being asked for one. That's not a new law - mid-1980's to be exact. This is particularly true for carriers who are exempt from interstate authority. If you do actively enforce the UCR program, for whatever reasons, you will "cause" plenty of new USDOT numbers.
Who looks at carriers between 10K and 26K pounds? IRP and IFTA don't. But if your state does road enforcement, you know there are lots of those guys who need USDOT numbers in that group. You're just not going to find them if you're sitting in the IRP or IFTA office, that's all. But a little road enforcement - and a little word of mouth - will "cause" lots of new USDOT numbers.
And, after you "cause" them to get a DOT number, you register them right on the spot! As I've mentioned in other posts, we actually help carriers get USDOT numbers here in our office because we know that they will also register for UCR before they leave. I need to point out here that we are not restricted to waiting for their USDOT number to show up on SAFER or in the Indiana system as your state may be, but that's just a formality anyway. It just means that you can't finish the registration/upload process until the next day. I can't remember a single instance where we proactively registered a guy and they were stopped before SAFER knew about it. We would, of course, vouch for the guy if that ever happened.
On another note: we are now only 555 registrations behind CA and closing fast!
Have a great weekend!
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Tools of The UCR Trade - Part 5
Unregistered Carriers on 10/07/2009 - 1873
Unregistered Carriers on 10/08/2009 - 1881
Working The Phone ... Proactively
---------------------------------
As mundane as "working the phone" sounds, it is vital for somebody to be contacting carriers - particularly the larger carriers - to make sure they get registered. Why? It's not necessarily what you might think - more revenue. In many cases, the UCR registration form gets sent to "somebody" in the organization, but frequently,it's not the right "somebody". Usually, a follow-up phone call can establish who "manages the trucks" and the real contact work can begin.
While all of us in Illinois talk on the phone all day long, one of our staff members, Bill, has the specific assignment of contacting the largest unregistered carriers to make sure they get the message. Every week or so, we sort the current Unregistered List to see who's still on the list and to see if new larger carriers have been added via a "sideways" addition ... or for any other reason why a carrier with 30 power units would just "pop up" on our list. Over time, Bill has also deactivated a lot of carriers as a result of trying to contact them and then subsequently researching them and finding that there is no sign of life.
Nothing highlights the fact that these listings are merely MCMIS records - and not necessarily "real live carriers" - than this "working the phone" process. We've deactivated hundreds of these "carriers". And remember - a deactivation is as good as a registration when it comes to the Unregistered List!
Unregistered Carriers on 10/08/2009 - 1881
Working The Phone ... Proactively
---------------------------------
As mundane as "working the phone" sounds, it is vital for somebody to be contacting carriers - particularly the larger carriers - to make sure they get registered. Why? It's not necessarily what you might think - more revenue. In many cases, the UCR registration form gets sent to "somebody" in the organization, but frequently,it's not the right "somebody". Usually, a follow-up phone call can establish who "manages the trucks" and the real contact work can begin.
While all of us in Illinois talk on the phone all day long, one of our staff members, Bill, has the specific assignment of contacting the largest unregistered carriers to make sure they get the message. Every week or so, we sort the current Unregistered List to see who's still on the list and to see if new larger carriers have been added via a "sideways" addition ... or for any other reason why a carrier with 30 power units would just "pop up" on our list. Over time, Bill has also deactivated a lot of carriers as a result of trying to contact them and then subsequently researching them and finding that there is no sign of life.
Nothing highlights the fact that these listings are merely MCMIS records - and not necessarily "real live carriers" - than this "working the phone" process. We've deactivated hundreds of these "carriers". And remember - a deactivation is as good as a registration when it comes to the Unregistered List!
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Tools of the UCR Trade - Part 4
Unregistered Carriers on 10/06/2009 - 1907
Unregistered Carriers on 10/07/2009 - 1873
OK - back to the Tools of the UCR Trade.
Today, I'd like to talk about the eMailer. You have already heard me talk about how we're using the eMailer during the current registration year. But that's during the tail end of a registration year.
Think about this: we are coming up on a new registration year. As you know, we have 20,000+ carriers here in Illinois. About 40% - or 8,000 of them - have email addresses. What if we could email 8,000 of our 20,000 carriers and direct them to the Indiana site to register? First, we figure that saves us about $8,000 in renewal mailing costs. Eight thousand dollars!!! Next, some of them will self-register as a result of the link that's in the email. More savings. Finally, we can regulate how many emails go out every day. This means that we can send, for example, 500 emails a day for 16 days - the eMailer works Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays without complaining (unlike Kathy, who whines about working Monday through Friday) - so we can effortlessly control the flow of emails and mitigate the work load a little.
What's not to like about that? Oh, and I forgot to mention the most important thing about the emailer: if the carrier doesn't register within 15 days, we send them another email every 15 days until they DO register! Is that a thing of beauty, or what??? Thank you Chris and Cody!!
Unregistered Carriers on 10/07/2009 - 1873
OK - back to the Tools of the UCR Trade.
Today, I'd like to talk about the eMailer. You have already heard me talk about how we're using the eMailer during the current registration year. But that's during the tail end of a registration year.
Think about this: we are coming up on a new registration year. As you know, we have 20,000+ carriers here in Illinois. About 40% - or 8,000 of them - have email addresses. What if we could email 8,000 of our 20,000 carriers and direct them to the Indiana site to register? First, we figure that saves us about $8,000 in renewal mailing costs. Eight thousand dollars!!! Next, some of them will self-register as a result of the link that's in the email. More savings. Finally, we can regulate how many emails go out every day. This means that we can send, for example, 500 emails a day for 16 days - the eMailer works Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays without complaining (unlike Kathy, who whines about working Monday through Friday) - so we can effortlessly control the flow of emails and mitigate the work load a little.
What's not to like about that? Oh, and I forgot to mention the most important thing about the emailer: if the carrier doesn't register within 15 days, we send them another email every 15 days until they DO register! Is that a thing of beauty, or what??? Thank you Chris and Cody!!
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
"We Interrupt This Discussion of UCR Tools ..."
Unregistered Carriers on 10/05/2009 - 1918
Unregistered Carriers on 10/06/2009 - 1907
I know you were anxiously awaiting my discussion of UCR Tool #4 - the Emailer - and I will get to that discussion in my next post.
In this post, however, I would like to share with you a couple of observations about Registration Numbers and Registration Percentages.
Sometimes, it is evident that different states are fighting different battles in the area of registration numbers and percentages - and yet we treat the discussion as one. Take, for example, the situation where I am trying (in my juvenile, competitive way) to overtake Maine as the highest registration percentage state.
Let's compare the numbers and percentages for the last month:
In the last month, Maine has registered 28 carriers and reduced their unregistered carrier list by 6. Their percentage has increased from 92.5% to 92.76
Meanwhile, we have registered 1,150 carriers and reduced our unregistered list by 263 (remember all those new USDOT number we issued???) and increased our registration percentage from 88.85% to 90.63%.
As I said, with all due respect to Maine, we are not fighting the same battle.
Please understand that I am not being critical of Maine. One could argue, however, that they have done a better overall job of registering their carriers because their percentage is higher - and that would mask what I believe is one heck of an effort going on here in Illinois.
By the way, speaking of my juvenile, competitive spirit, we only trail California by 659 registrations as of this morning! The dream lives on!!
Unregistered Carriers on 10/06/2009 - 1907
I know you were anxiously awaiting my discussion of UCR Tool #4 - the Emailer - and I will get to that discussion in my next post.
In this post, however, I would like to share with you a couple of observations about Registration Numbers and Registration Percentages.
Sometimes, it is evident that different states are fighting different battles in the area of registration numbers and percentages - and yet we treat the discussion as one. Take, for example, the situation where I am trying (in my juvenile, competitive way) to overtake Maine as the highest registration percentage state.
Let's compare the numbers and percentages for the last month:
In the last month, Maine has registered 28 carriers and reduced their unregistered carrier list by 6. Their percentage has increased from 92.5% to 92.76
Meanwhile, we have registered 1,150 carriers and reduced our unregistered list by 263 (remember all those new USDOT number we issued???) and increased our registration percentage from 88.85% to 90.63%.
As I said, with all due respect to Maine, we are not fighting the same battle.
Please understand that I am not being critical of Maine. One could argue, however, that they have done a better overall job of registering their carriers because their percentage is higher - and that would mask what I believe is one heck of an effort going on here in Illinois.
By the way, speaking of my juvenile, competitive spirit, we only trail California by 659 registrations as of this morning! The dream lives on!!
Monday, October 5, 2009
Tools of the UCR Trade - Part 3
Unregistered Carriers on 10/02/2009 - 1930
Unregistered Carriers on 10/05/2009 - 1918
Tool #3 - The "Troll List"
Today's UCR tool is what we lovingly call the "Troll List". Not the kind of troll that lives under the bridge and jumps out at unsuspecting travelers, but more like "trolling", or searching, for stuff.
Essentially, the Troll List generates UCR applications out of our system every day to potential UCR carriers that have been added to or changed in our system since the last time we "trolled" for them - usually the day before.
The Troll List is important because it relieves us of the burden of trying to figure out who has been contacted about UCR and who hasn't. At the same time, the Troll List ensures that everybody gets contacted at least once. This is particularly crucial for "sideways" additions which are much harder to keep track of than new USDOT number additions.
The Troll List criteria is fairly simple: if there's been a change to the DOT number field - usually a DOT number added - and they haven't registered for UCR (we sometimes do both at the same time: get them a DOT number and register them for UCR), we send them a letter and an application.
This tool has evolved - and is still evolving - from the days when we were using the Troll List to look for people who were likely candidates for UCR - exempt carriers, etc. It's also a great follow-up tool for solicitation emails that didn't result in a UCR registration.
Speaking of UCR emails, tomorrow I will discuss the UCR-Link Emailer - one of our favorite UCR tools here in Illinois.
Unregistered Carriers on 10/05/2009 - 1918
Tool #3 - The "Troll List"
Today's UCR tool is what we lovingly call the "Troll List". Not the kind of troll that lives under the bridge and jumps out at unsuspecting travelers, but more like "trolling", or searching, for stuff.
Essentially, the Troll List generates UCR applications out of our system every day to potential UCR carriers that have been added to or changed in our system since the last time we "trolled" for them - usually the day before.
The Troll List is important because it relieves us of the burden of trying to figure out who has been contacted about UCR and who hasn't. At the same time, the Troll List ensures that everybody gets contacted at least once. This is particularly crucial for "sideways" additions which are much harder to keep track of than new USDOT number additions.
The Troll List criteria is fairly simple: if there's been a change to the DOT number field - usually a DOT number added - and they haven't registered for UCR (we sometimes do both at the same time: get them a DOT number and register them for UCR), we send them a letter and an application.
This tool has evolved - and is still evolving - from the days when we were using the Troll List to look for people who were likely candidates for UCR - exempt carriers, etc. It's also a great follow-up tool for solicitation emails that didn't result in a UCR registration.
Speaking of UCR emails, tomorrow I will discuss the UCR-Link Emailer - one of our favorite UCR tools here in Illinois.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Tools of the UCR Trade - Part 2
Unregistered Carriers on 10/01/2009 - 1933
Unregistered Carriers on 10/02/2009 - 1930
Tool #2 - Daily Change List
---------------------------
You may recall that a few months ago, we purchased an inexpensive software tool (the name escapes me at the moment but it cost us $39, I think) that compares two Excel spreadsheets. Why did we buy that? Because if we run the UCR-Link Unregistered List for today, save it, then run the Unregistered List tomorrow and save it, we can compare the two lists and create the Daily Change List. Actually, you can run lists anytime and compare them (we sometimes do a couple lists a day), but the main point is that we create a change list for two different points in time and compare them. Because we run our own system, we make sure that everybody that has been "added" to in the change list is in our system. We try to make sure that everybody who was "deleted" in the change list can be accounted for through the reconciliation process and we try to make sure that everybody whose information is "different" from the last list is modified in our system.
The Daily Change List helps us to keep track of every single carrier who comes and goes from our Unregistered List and helps us feed the Troll List, which we'll talk about in the next post.
Unregistered Carriers on 10/02/2009 - 1930
Tool #2 - Daily Change List
---------------------------
You may recall that a few months ago, we purchased an inexpensive software tool (the name escapes me at the moment but it cost us $39, I think) that compares two Excel spreadsheets. Why did we buy that? Because if we run the UCR-Link Unregistered List for today, save it, then run the Unregistered List tomorrow and save it, we can compare the two lists and create the Daily Change List. Actually, you can run lists anytime and compare them (we sometimes do a couple lists a day), but the main point is that we create a change list for two different points in time and compare them. Because we run our own system, we make sure that everybody that has been "added" to in the change list is in our system. We try to make sure that everybody who was "deleted" in the change list can be accounted for through the reconciliation process and we try to make sure that everybody whose information is "different" from the last list is modified in our system.
The Daily Change List helps us to keep track of every single carrier who comes and goes from our Unregistered List and helps us feed the Troll List, which we'll talk about in the next post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)