Yes, and therein lies the problem. Let me paint the picture.

Joe Shmoe is working 10 hours a day calling merchants trying to convince them to switch processors. 1 out of every 50 people listen to Joe and decide to send over a statement. Joe was telling the truth about saving them money (we can always save money, that's just how this industry works, every processor has the same exact costs therefor we can always do it for a cheaper markup than the next guy). 1 out of the 10 people that send Joe the statement believes him enough to sign up the account with him. They sign up, they are happy with savings then Joe continues.

Now here is the problem. Because of how long it takes Joe to get the account, he is FORCED to charge as much as he can get away with charging. Otherwise Joe cant make a living. If Joe could offer DIRT CHEAP pricing but close more business then Joe would do just that.

Why does there have to be a catch? The market is the reason why the market is unhappy in the first place. For example, if I were to say (like I did) give me your account and ill pass along the costs plus a $50 fee. I know i'm going to save you money over what you are paying now. I literally KNOW that I will. (assuming you are doing typical business volume). I also know I will keep your account forever because nobody will beat that rate EVER. Problem is that if I cant get more people to agree to this then its not worth it for me the sales guy to offer it. The only thing I can do, what i'm forced to do, is charge as much as I can get away with charging as it relates to the MARKETS competition.

So what is left to do really? Do we try to change the market or do we just spend more money on advertising so that we can get in front of more people and charge whatever we can get away with charging? I have always leaned more towards changing the market as that is what benefits the consumer. Thoughts?