Hi, everyone.

Thank you for joining

the second session of Verbit's virtual summit,

The Future of the Deposition Room.

We're excited to address some of

the digital initiatives that are

being used to help

court reporters and processes also today.

You can submit any of your questions

live through the Q&A feature here within Zoom.

We will be taking questions and address

them during the last 10 minutes of the session.

Now with that, I'd like to start the session.

We have David Blaze over here,

Chief Revenue Officer of CourtScribes,

who has actually a very unique way of

utilizing technology to do digital depositions.

David, would you like to introduce yourself?

Well, thank you. David Blaze.

CourtScribes is a really technology

focused digital court reporting agency in Florida,

Washington DC, and primarily on the East Coast.

We're big proponents of technology,

the digital process prior to the pandemic.

Some of the things that we

were doing previously seemed to be

a little bit more in vogue than they were in the past.

But very happy to share

at least some insights about what we've learned and what

we've seen with colleagues

and individuals here this morning.

I'd like also to turn it over

right now to Tony Sirna of Verbit.

Thank you, Leor and thank you,

David, for joining us.


Thank you. David, as Leor said you have

an interesting perspective not

only on how to deliver depositions,

but also what you think the future will be.

This presentation is going to focus

on what we've coined the future of the deposition,

reminiscent of deposition law.

Most likely they will be,

but more at that level.

This is a future forward conversation.

With that forward, let's go to the next slide.

Thank you.

Next slide, please? Let's go to the next slide.

What from your perspective

are the big shifts occurring due to COVID,

particularly as you guys

practice, which is a little unique?

If we can go to the next slide, [inaudible]

Well, thank you, Tony.

I think based upon some of the conversations

that we heard from this morning's sessions,

I think first and foremost that

remote depositions and the entire process of

being in this work from

home or work remotely is pretty much here to stay.

I think there is a tremendous amount of

uncertainty as to when the world might return to normal.

If anybody can even talk to me what

the new normal might be.

But I think the idea of

adapting to the current situation is

just without question something

that we all have to admit and start working forward.

I think that it's interesting

because from my perspective,

the judiciary itself seems to be adding

some legitimacy to this remote process.

We've heard stories about voir

dire being done remotely, about remote hearings.

I think in the earlier session,

you talked about the hundreds of thousands of hours or

at least the several thousands of hours of

hearings that have been done remotely.

The judiciary adds some legitimacy

and makes it a little bit more acceptable.

I think the idea of delay or

deny that it originally started in March or April,

everyone thought this would be a short-term.

I think there was a slow transition into

somewhat of a reluctant acceptance

that this process of doing remote depositions,

the process of not being able to go back to how things

were done previously begrudgingly came about.

Now I think we're starting to

see people being a little bit

more interested in making it work for that.

As experience has told us,

as people become more familiar with the process,

as people become a little bit more

comfortable with the tools that are out there,

that it is now not so much denial and delay,

but a utilization procedure.

I believe, and I think again,

there was some conversation about it this morning,

that the idea of digital reporters,

more now than ever

are going to start to becoming in vogue.

The idea of having a platform that

is very amenable to recording,

very amenable to remote deposition process,

and people in the industry who are

putting resources and tools into this mean

that the nature of

the business and the way that people in

the service side deliver

is going to have a pretty substantial transition.

I think we're already in the midst of that and it will

be really redefined as we go forward.

Thank you. Just a quick follow up to that.

In terms of temporary regulations

matching up the want for reality,

you've discussed this before,

are you meeting the remote notary laws or other laws such as that?

Do you think they're going to go permanent or it's

still wait and see?

Well, I think for the most part,

some of those temporary regulations,

let's talk about Florida,

Texas, California, and New York.

They were some of the first states that made adjustments

into how notaries can be utilized in Florida,

as long as the notary was in the state and as long as

a notary can see and hear the witness,

the notarization is considered valid.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe

Texas made the restriction somewhat

less strenuous. That a remote notary

will not impede some of these things,

and as I mentioned before,

with no real timeline of when these laws might,

say, be repealed, or where

these emergency enactments might be no longer extended.

But the longer and longer they are in place,

the longer and longer people are using them.

I think it's going to be harder and

harder to suddenly say,

"Hey, we're not doing that anymore."

I think there will be some adjustments and probably,

a lot of pressure to keep these temporary rules in

place because I really don't see

a solid reason as to why they shouldn't.

I don't think they impose a burden on anyone.

I think they facilitate what's generally recognized

as a need to be fluid in response.

I don't see there's going to be

a big push to take them back.

Thank you. Next slide, please.

So David, your slide,

but 95 percent in person to remote,

we switch that and we go back.

Is it proven to be a workable and

effective way of doing it?

It may not be ideal as you say.

But you want to just cover this a little bit?

Well, I think for the most part,

the idea of depositions

were always to be done in person is pretty self-evident.

That's what the industry was built

on and what the industry has been

doing for the past 30 or 40 years, for the most part.

There was a certain group of

people who would take a deposition remotely,

if it was a short telephonic or something

like that and then really overnight.

It's funny because I think that's a term that

people use, a little flippantly,

but I think in this instance it's pretty

appropriate. In less than four or five weeks,

what was generally a process of

95 percent in-person depositions with

maybe five percent remote participation

really shifted to almost,

I'll say five percent in-person depositions

and 95 percent remote,

I think is telling.

As I was saying before about

the laws and the way that

things are going to be changing,

I think when we look back two or three years from now,

that that could be a very pivotal moment on how

this industry really made a dramatic shift.

It's my prediction. Again, it's only my prediction and

my personal point of view that we're

probably going to see a little bit closer to

a 50-50 mix of

in-person depositions and remote depositions

for a number of different reasons.

One, because for the most part they function well.

There are a number of instances

where this remote deposition process,

particularly for shorter depositions,

where there's an EUO or something like that.

Whether it's an insurance type deposition or the like,

that the need to be cost effective,

the need to maybe engineer some cost, travel,

witness availability and the like.

So I think this is really going to be

an important recognition on

behalf of service providers to know that,

your fulfillment requirements are going to be different.

In the old days,

you would have a court reporter.

You'd give them the assignment.

They would go in the field and bring

everything back to the office, exhibits, but I think

this 50-50 mix is going to put

a little bit more responsibility

on behalf of the agencies.

To manage the interaction,

to manage the scheduling and to manage

the training and facilitation of exhibits.

So I think it's a key way of looking at your business,

see that it needs to adapt

much quicker than it maybe it has in the past.

Thank you for that. With that, you mentioned fulfillment.

Let's move on to that. Next slide, please.

What changes are you seeing in the way

the depositions are being fulfilled?

You have a couple of good points to this

so let's walk through the next few slides.

So if can go to the next slide, please.

Well, this first one is

probably the most significant

at least from my perspective.

That the idea of needing to

provide your service in that market,

I think its had a fundamental change,

because I look at our operations in Florida.

For the most part, CourtScribes

had a larger presence in South Florida.

We were challenged on a fairly regular basis to find

a digital court reporter that met

our standards up in the Florida Panhandle.

Up in the areas around Jacksonville from time to time.

Think about what it would be like in

San Francisco or markets like New York City.

Where the court reporters may or may

not need to be in those markets any longer.

With this new remote deposition,

a court reporter covering a New York City deposition,

doesn't have to be in New York City.

They could use their skills in Albany,

Buffalo, the Finger Lake Region.

Same thing with us in Florida.

Our CourtScribers in South Florida,

can now very effectively cover

depositions in the Florida Panhandle and

geography areas where it was always challenging

for us to get coverage and I

think that factor right there,

is going to be a big impact

on companies in this particular space.

The second bullet point and Tony,

you and I have talked about this from time to time that,

I believe that this could have a very big impact on

the price variability that we have seen

in the industry for the past 30 or 40 years.

The remote deposition process now

expands the geography pool of reporters for that market.

So scarcity, as it was before with

reporter availability in certain markets.

If we as agency owners and people in the business manage it

correctly can be engineered out of the process.

We've heard before and we've

talked about it and I've heard it

mentioned in this morning's sessions about

the court reporting shortage

and things of that nature but,

there's a huge impact that remote depositions

might be able to eliminate some of that scarcity.

Because now you don't need to have

your reporter in that particular market,

they just need to be within the state.

That means that, you don't have to have reporters right

there and it's impactful

and I think the long term

effect of that are going to be,

hashed out over the next 3,

6, 9 months or so.

But those two are

very important points in the fulfillment,

at least from our perspective.

Thank you. Great perspective.

Next slide please and I

think we've got a couple of more points here.

Again, you've discussed this before,

national notary,

faster innovation and investment in fixed real-estate.

Do you want me just to cover these points for a bit?

Yeah, if you will.

The idea of having a notary public

is essential to the swearing in process.

That's probably one of the major reasons.

There are certain states where that is

surprisingly one of the few real requirements

to be a court reporter,

that you have to have a notary public.

There's this pressure right now for remote notarization.

There's a process that's established for

you to do a remote notary.

I don't think it's too much of a stretch to think that

some way down the line there might be a standard.

There's certain markets where they have reciprocity.

Where a notary in New York for a federal jurisdiction is

viable and workable for New Jersey and vice versa.

That it could potentially

expand that a deposition notary or

a court reporting notary could in

theory be a national standard.

Now, I don't think it's imminent,

but I think it's a possibility and I

think it makes sense to keep an eye on it.

Maybe it's regional or certain markets or the like,

but that just makes

the talent pool a little bit more versatile.

The digital options are now viable.

I really believe that's going to lead

to much faster innovation.

I want to complement Verbit, right. You as a company have

been very aggressive in changing

your product mix and adapting to it,

and I think now that there's a lot

of interest in the space,

that there will be a lot more tools

available in the near term

for practitioners either on

the delivery side as

a court reporting agent or from a law firm side,

recognizing these tools and this work from home.

I also believe that for many companies,

the fixed assets in conference rooms might

be a huge liability and

might need to be looked at fairly stringently.

The idea of this large group

of attorneys coming to your offices,

so having enough facilities to accommodate them,

I think it's going to be

impacted certainly in the near term.

But I think that's going to be an issue that companies

need to re-evaluate, their investment in real estate.

Particularly if you buy into

the fact that the deposition profile

might wind up 50 percent in-person, 50 percent remote.

I think for the last few months,

the majority of those real

estate assets have been more of

a liability than an assets to court reporting companies,

and might impact how you

structure your leases and things going forward.

Next slide please. Just the

key takeaways then at this point,

what's your perspective from in terms of COVID.

Well, changes have occurred whether we like it or not.

I think that it's easy to say that

providers need to adapt from time to time.

I think there's opportunities for

smaller agencies to get into mix.

The old idea of you needed to be in

certain markets in order to service that market.

You needed to have real estate in

San Francisco to cover San Francisco.

You need to have a real estate in LA to serve LA.

You needed to have real estate

in New York City to serve New York City.

I think that may or may not be true any longer.

Smaller companies don't necessarily have to have

the big investment in order to compete in those markets.

What that also means too, is that

pricing models will have to adapt.

The whole idea of scarcity has changed,

at least in my humble opinion, right?

That there is availability now and I think that

the smart companies will try to adapt

and try to manage

that pricing structure a little bit more.

This is a chance for

the industry providers to

maybe make a little bit more money.

I think most of us have felt the pressure on pricing.

We've all tried to engineer costs out of it.

I believe that this change might give us a little bit of

an opportunity for arbitrage on

pricing that maybe we didn't have previously.

Thank you. With that,

we'll go into our next question,

our next topic. Next slide, please.

Potential big economic shift, fundamentally,

they have to be

serviced and you've got to remain competitive.

What are the new processes

to service proceedings and remain competitive?

Probably many of them are existing just repackaged a little bit,

and let's just go to a couple more of your

slides so you can expand upon that. Next slide, please.

Of course. Well, I put this in here because

everyone talks about the new process

to serve the deposition world,

and I chuckle sometimes because really,

the process isn't new at all.

When you look at the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

the idea of doing

audio or audio/video depositions

has really been around for quite some time.

It's one of the reasons that CourtScribes

is structured as a certain way,

but it really has been neglected and maybe often

overlooked process of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

I think that plays well,

because once you start to look at

the rules that they always existed,

it's not hard to imagine that this avenue,

this particular vehicle might get

a little bit more play in the marketplace.

Because the idea is there's no reason why we can't.

This wasn't a temporary fix to a scenario,

this was an option that for

whatever reason might have been overlooked for a while.

If you go to the next slide,

if you would jump to a little bit,

any party may designate how

a deposition and remote means,

again, have always been around.

I think this is a very important detail that

the rules making these

a little bit easier are really what are going to change.

Because as I said before,

the rules were there,

these temporary rules were maybe seen as a temporary fix.

But when you really kick back and

look at the basics that were there,

the mode was already approved.

The rules now have been adapted to make these easier.

I find it very difficult to think

that this whole process now is

going to be taken back

because the regulations support it,

the practices showing it that it's valuable and I

think the marketplace will say, "Hey, it works."

If you go to the next slide, please.

A couple of things for our services.

As I mentioned before,

agencies are a key player in this and for the most part,

I believe we have done a pretty good job

of educating the consumer,

the litigating attorney on

how to take advantage of these tools.

Looking out at the landscape,

I don't think there are many agencies that

haven't proposed, or done,

or undertaken some training sessions, some CLE sessions,

either on a large-scale basis,

or on a small-scale basis,

educating their clients on how to use these tools.

When you go back to what I'd said before about the delay,

hey, let's just push

everything because this will be over.

Then people realize, we can't delay everything forever,

let's dip our toe in the water and see if this works to,

"Hey, this process does seem to be fairly effective."

The courts are using it.

Depositions are being taken in almost every state

through various levels of sophistication and people are

realizing that, "Hey, it's effective."

What I see is that people are going to

start to get a little bit more in depth,

and what I see too is,

and Tony, you and I again have talked about this before.

This is almost the shift in retail.

If you look back to the environment

where people used to shop in

stores and nobody ever

thought that they would shop online.

The idea of finding something,

giving somebody your credit card at first was very foreign.

A few companies took advantage of it,

and I think over the course of several years,

maybe 5, 6 or 7,

I think every single retailer moved to

recognize that you have to have

some kind of online presence.

Now, I don't think there's a person who

thinks twice about buying something online,

giving their credit card,

and not actually going to

a store and feeling and touching that device,

and I think that's probably

the biggest similarity that we're seeing here.

Is that there was a way of doing things

previously that everybody was

comfortable with, it hasn't changed.

There was some particular element or

some particular moment that forced the dynamic to

change and everybody eventually

came out at the other side

with doing business the same way.

People are still buying goods,

people are still shopping,

but they're doing it online.

I think there's a lot of similarities to

our industry where people will take remote depositions,

they'll start to embrace it,

and the question that I still don't have

an answer for is what comes next?

Now that we've seen an industry that has

always been a little bit hesitant to change.

Now that there's all these outside forces that I

think there's a few things that have

happened that none of us might expect,

and that's going to make this

interesting from a number of different perspectives.

Great, thank you.

Just looking into considerations,

if we go to the next slide, please.

I guess you've talked about this before,

can you afford not to change or adapt?

It's really about managing

the client expectations and

then managing additional services in the mix.

With that said, a lot of this isn't new,

it's just changing the way it's working.

There's something to be aware of.

I wanted to go to the next slide,

which is, what are the technology changes to be aware of?

We've probably touched upon them

all in previous sessions,

but just because you have to apply these.

Let's go to the next slide please.

You say associates are going to be the driving force.

They grew up with technology,

and this is all that they want.

So you want to expand upon that a little more,

and how you see this fitting in going further.

Well, I think there's been talk for

several years about millennials

coming into the workforce.

But I really believe that that younger associate,

who's more fluent with FaceTime,

and Instagram, and all of these tools.

Because we've seen it, and I dare say that

most of the service providers that

are in the court reporter world have

seen that the younger associates have been coaches,

have been supporters to

their more senior partners and the like, right?

The IT departments have

been very key in supporting people.

But there are a substantial group of users who

I think are very fluent with this type of technology,

that they're the ones who grew up with computers,

they're the ones who are

fluent where their iPhone and things like that,

so moving their legal practice into

this digital program isn't strange for them.

I think it makes sense.

You look at the unexpected shift to this.

I think there's not anybody on this webinar who

probably hasn't participated in

some Zoom meeting at some point in time.

But Zoom is not the only platform that's out there.

Google Meet is one that we've seen

from our email platform, Microsoft Teams,

and I think Tony it was you who told me that

the state of Connecticut has

moved to that particular platform

as their interaction tool.

Cisco Webex, we've seen there are certain companies

that will not let their employees utilize Zoom.

Two that I know right off the bat are Wells Fargo,

and GEICO, and there's probably

a few other insurance companies

whose name escapes me now,

but what that means is that other platforms will

be rising up to fill this void.

I dare say that Microsoft,

Google aren't going to let Zoom

dominate this work from home platform for a long time.

And I believe that the purpose built tools,

we had a conversation with

vTestify early on as a purpose-built platform,

some of my colleagues have used

LiveLitigation and Remote Council.

These were tools that were already in place,

that were utilized maybe to a minimum standard,

but overnight became a go to platform,

I think speech to text is going to be

a big platform going forward.

Mobility, people operating from home,

I don't think there's many people who

really imagined that they'd

be working from home for four or five months from now.

But I've called people,

I know I liked that flexibility and that freedom,

to be able to work from home,

so what that means is that

the tools that enable people to be more effective,

will continue to develop,

will continue to be managed a little bit.

There are some document sharing tools.

We recently did a trial with Agile Law,

and I've spoken to a couple of

different reporters who've used it,

eDepoze has been around for

a long time and I think is an effective tool.

TrialPad is what I've heard of,

I'm not familiar with,

but I think all these tools that we're

in the background for a long time,

have had their tires kicked,

have had an incredible amount of usage,

have seen that there's a couple of

shortcomings and maybe a couple of areas

where their tools with some small tweaking,

can really be far more

effective than they were originally.

I think Zoom for the most part,

to quote a carpenter's turn was,

a screwdriver that you were using as a chisel.

It did the job, but it wasn't

meant to be used in the way that it is.

But I don't think it's a big stretch to

think that Zoom, Microsoft,

and Cisco can easily adapt their tools

to be far more useful in this environment.

I think once that happens,

the idea of remote depositions will be even

more prevalent because the tools will be better.

David, just if we can expand upon,

because I've heard this a lot in the client base

and I know there's been some concern with this,

exhibit handling this long established before that,

even with live depositions going to live notes.

So there's procedure set up for that,

but when you get to Zoom,

it's a little different animal of these so to speak,

how did you guys, Agile Law,

when you use that, can you tell us

a little bit about the trial,

you did, not the specifics,

but you had a very large number of participants.

There was a training period,

you call it a new way of handing out paper.

Can you give us a little bit about that,

because I thought it was a very good use case,

I thought it would be a great way to just

talk about how you moving

these tools forward in your practice.

I am more than happy to.

So this particular situation was in California.

There were three parties,

one plaintiff and two defendants in

a high profile class action that,

the trial was pretty much halted right in the middle.

So there was a lot of pressure to not keep

this trial at bay for the three and a half months.

Really, this goes back to what I said before,

using a screwdriver as a chisel,

Agile Law was a pretty well-designed tool to

do distribution of exhibits at a deposition.

So we spoke to the founders,

we had some back and

forth about what the tool could, and could not do,

and we were able with some discussions with the judge,

with the parties involved to give them

a road map as to how this trial could take place.

A couple of things had to happen.

One, we had to explain the limitations.

I think most people are comfortable with point and click,

most people are used to seeing web pages,

and tools that are very well designed,

and functional before they are released to the public.

The biggest challenge that we had was to

tell the people involved that A,

this tool has some limitations.

Recognizing what those limitations are,

and providing a way for

the end result is for the witness,

for the judge, and the participants to

share this high volume of documents.

We ended up having probably about

70,000 pages of exhibits that we were

dealing with that in the previous world were in

stacks of binders and

bankers boxes, you know what I mean?

So the education process took a while.

The idea of giving everybody a one hour training session,

and expecting them to be fluent in it,

we realized didn't work.

So we had a group session

where we told them what the limitations were.

We had individual sessions with the plaintiffs attorneys,

and the defense attorneys,

and then we announced it the day prior to the deposition.

I think that's a road model that

most people can understand.

I think that's what for the most part,

a lot of agencies have done with remote depositions.

The idea that people think they know it,

you give them some exposure,

you tell them how it works,

what the limitations are.

Because that's probably one of the biggest challenges,

being able to handle large volume of documents through

a screen share isn't as effective of just having paper.

That goes to the fact that the tools that are out there,

I think in their forms,

currently do a fair job.

But I think with a little bit of attention,

with a little bit of engineering,

they could be far more effective,

and it goes back to Microsoft, Cisco, Google.

These big companies who own

the real estate of technology and computers.

It's not hard to think that

a company like Microsoft might be able to

figure out how to share documents on

their own platform a little bit

more effectively than they have,

because if no one ever expected this to

be a longstanding part.

It's no longer temporary.

So I fairly believe that the tools

will develop fairly quickly.

Great, and thank you for that,

and thank you for sharing the

particular deposition experience you have with Agile,

I thought it was a great case study.

So we're going to head into a few questions,

I guess we'll go to the last slide here,

which is, what I'm hearing from you is that,

there are a number of existing tools today.

Maybe they're not fully ready for an explosion of use,

but they've been thrust into that

because of the situation we're in today.

Your proactive approach as many agencies

do is to work their clients through this, both through,

how you handle this current normal,

and how you adapt the technology,

and eventually technology's going to catch up based

upon the cases that you talked about.

So with that in mind,

there's a few questions because we'll have

another session coming up shortly thereafter this,

that I wanted to ask you,

and perfect timing for this question is,

and I guess this is a concern,

so you talk about Agile or Zoom

or any other technology out there.

How do you find out if it's acceptable,

in my state, in my area, in my jurisdiction?

Is there any limitation to using an Agile, for instance,

in deposition or other type

of proceeding, any restrictions?

Any way to find out if it's acceptable.

I think that's probably going to

be a tough, almost case-by-case basis.

I know that there are certain states

that have outlawed certain platforms,

I mentioned some usage.

Basically, I think the judge has a lot of discretion.

If you're dealing with a trial or so,

I think the judiciary wants cases to proceed,

I think there's a tremendous amount

of pressure to keep things moving.

I think a discourse

much like a stipulation between attorneys,

that if you noticed

the deposition that you're using these tools,

and you stipulate on the record that, "Hey,

we have this unexpected set of circumstances,

we're going to use these tools

and we can both agree that they're acceptable."

I think that's probably the best way to address it.

There's not many reasons that can be made why

you can't use web conferencing because it works.

There's not many reasons why some of these tools

shouldn't be used because they work.

I think the judges,

I think stipulations might be the most effective and

let's say least difficult way

to make sure this goes down,

because in arbitration and

mediation and things like that,

the rules are even less cumbersome

so that would be my recommendation.

Great. Another question here.

Let me just take a look at this.

Yeah, it's a pretty

good question where were coming off of.

Are there any type of deposition types or

proceeding types right now where what you're doing,

what we're talking about with digital and Zoom work best.

There are some where this is not going to work well.

Off the top of my head, there's a lot of

concern with criminal proceedings obviously,

because it's a much weighted issue.

But where are you finding this

fits best for the type of business you have to best fit?

Well, without too much. Yeah.


Think about the insurance depositions,

think about things like workers' comp cases,

EUOs, and things of that nature.

Short depositions that are two and three hours

long that don't have 15 parties participating,

that's going to be where some of

that 50-50 mix really comes into place.

We have had conversations with

some attorneys who without question say,

''I want to be in the room,

I want to see the witness.

I want to go back to

the old processes that I'm most familiar with.''

But I also think that there's

a substantial market for

these remote depositions in the insurance market,

workers' comp,

and maybe some straight-forward type applications

where the tools are effective.

Because you can see the witness,

you have the ability to pay and take care of all this.

As some of the exhibit sharing tools

improve and as people get more used to this,

that there will be a certain financial incentive as well.

Think about the fact that

you as an attorney don't have to

fly from Georgia to New York.

Think about the fact that you don't have to fly

your expert witness any longer or that

you don't have to drive four hours to

take a three hour EUO, and then drive back.

That there's going to be a strong financial incentive

and I'm not surprised that if

a couple of companies have already seen

that as being, ''Hey, it's effective.

It might not be optimum,

but the end result is essentially the

same and we've reduced our costs

for that deposition by

40 percent because of the travel and things like that."

That's a tough incentive to ignore in the long term.

Well David, we'll take this one more question,

but I actually its a very good question and

I'm going to paraphrase this a bit.

But it goes to the point that

court transcription or legal industry

is not a commodity business.

There's too much value, too much knowledge

and experience that has to go into it.

It's not like you go out shopping,

get the lowest price.

So that said, you talked about

arbitrage and the ability to

change of course geographically.

Does that change the quality of the product?

In other words, the value is still the value,

but the delivery mechanism could be done in

such a way that perhaps the price is a little different.

So either way,

to the risk or to the benefit, changing the technology,

changing the flow of going remote on price,

how do you ensure the value of

the product I guess and not

to commoditize it because

it really is very difficult to commoditize?

I believe that there are certain pressures that are

going be there no matter what happens.

As we alluded to before,

I've been in this business since

the late 1990s and I've always

felt the pressure from clients to deliver more for less.

They want the providers to be less expensive.

So it's up to the agencies really to look

at the tools that are out there in order to do it.

All of us in the industry,

I believe take great pride in delivering a great product.

I think there's a strong argument that can be

made that a reporter in Iowa

has the same quality and

same skills as a reporter might be in Miami,

but because of geographic restrictions

and because of market influences,

why does that skill set

pay so much more in Miami than it might in Iowa?

People can be very good.

Is there a quality difference

in the skill set by geography? I don't think so.

Now, think about the fact that if you have

a video recording and

you have perhaps an audio recording,

that you have a mechanism now that can almost guarantee

some time spent on

matching up the transcript with the audio.

I think that's a process that might have been overlooked,

but I think it's going to come into play more and more.

Because the idea that you can record a Zoom meeting,

that you can record a Cisco Webex.

That means that we as

providers might have to be a little bit more attentive,

but I have no doubt that we're able to do so because

the record's there and

we all want to produce a good product.

I think that's something that will be

addressed and will not be an issue.

I think some of the other features that are available

now might have bigger play

because the quality of the transcript,

I think is going to remain as good

or if not better than has been done previously.

Great. Well David,

I very much appreciate your insights and input.

You have a slightly different perspective,

your company is doing things slightly differently.

You've addressed some issues around difference in

geography and how that can play

into a more cost effective product

while keeping it and the use case of technology.

I very much appreciate

your time and sharing your insights on this.

To all the participants,

this recording will be

available to you shortly thereafter.

We will have a place for you to submit further questions,

which we're happen to answer.

But once again, David, I want

to thank you so much for your time

and insights and much appreciated, sir.

It was my pleasure. Thank you everybody, and good luck.

Thank you and thank you Leor.