Menu
Login
firstly they try to sell you either Google search engine optimization or Facebook advertising.. be warned you will not receive either ...what will happen is ...they sneakily attempt to get you on a rolling contract which takes 30 days written notice to cancel by then you've probably already paid a whopping £500 for something that might cost £20 to do your self . These people will then threaten you will all sorts of stuff including personal debt collectors and legal action if you should cancel your debit / credit card ...
these say they work in london have a po box address in london but are really a manchester out fit with 2 adresses
/removed/
more info on him to follow...
The complaint has been investigated and resolved to the customer’s satisfaction.
On a lighter note:
Please see
http://www.complaintsboard.com/thumb.php?messup=651&src=tempbig_d97f0.jpg&wmax=170&hmax=176
We understand Tom McVey!
Public Relations Team@ The Social Media People, you are the 'wordsmiths' for TSMP? Although the terminology, spelling mistakes and mathematical mistakes and general lack of written English question whether in fact Tom McVey is using a 'Team' as his latest online pseudo name.
A real blunder in TSMP's first paragraph above. I quote:
'..advertising watchdog AKA somebody/something...'
Tom McVey, do you mean ASA? or if not please advise as to what the AKA are, thank you!
It ultimately say's it all when TSMP's 'professional' public relations team can not even get the correct Acronym for the organisation that they freely miss quote to any challenge to their business practices regardless of relevance!
Lack of professionalism me thinks! lol
The SMP only seem to be capable of copying and pasting one post which is about the adjudication that went their way - or so they like to think. I had to write to the ASA as I couldn't believe this decision. However, it seems that the SMP have no real grounds to use this as a victory.
So it may be of interest that I was so incensed by the ASA adjudication in favour of the the SMP that I protested strongly. I suggested that they had not considered properly the activities of the SMP and the way they performed their business. These activities were not revealed in this advert, merely alluded to in a sponsored Google Ad which means some poor soul paid for the ad. I suggested that this ad could have been placed by anyone as the ASA had not been able to ascertain who, in fact, placed it. The ASA replied that ‘the remit of the ASA does not extend beyond advertising claims in advertising media, and we cannot deal with any issues regarding trading practice’ This means that the many issues that vex many on this board are beyond the remit of the ASA. They go on ‘we would strongly urge any consumers with any concerns about a business or its trading practices to contact Trading Standards about this matter.’
In short and regarding the ad itself, the ASA had asked for supporting evidence for the claim made in the offending advert, as that is what is required under the advertising code. ‘In this case no evidence was forthcoming, nor indeed was any comment or detail regarding the workings of the TSMP and the ways in which the advertiser considered that they were running a scam. Because we had not seen evidence to support the claim in the Google sponsored link, we had no option but to uphold the complaint…and the reason the ASA Council upheld the complaint is due to a lack of supporting evidence from the advertiser’. It is very odd that the ‘advertiser’ who, it was stated by the ASA defiantly stated that they would continue to post this advert but actually offered nothing whatsoever to back up his claim.
I think everyone can see that this decision does not consider the matters the SMP says it does, nor could it investigate them under their terms of reference. It does not clear them but merely asked for the ad to be removed by the offending advertiser – whoever that might be!
My letter also addressed other issues to do with the SMP regarding its use of intellectual property in the form of company logos. They say that ‘We note your comments about the use of logos on the Social Media People’s website. I understand that the matter is already being looked into and will therefore pass your concerns to our Complaints team.’ Subsequently, Justine Grimley, Complaints Executive, ASA has just replied to me. 'we have added your comments to our ongoing investigation into claims on this advertiser’s website.'
It is clear from this correspondence that the ASA can only look at advertising claims made by companies or individuals. In the instance of the adjudication, they did not look any further than the claims made in this sponsored link and nothing was forthcoming in the way of comment or evidence.
It in no way exonerates the SMP as the ASA can only act on evidence given to them. It does seem strange that someone would be so annoyed as go to the trouble to pay for an advert and then offer no evidence or comment to support their claims in this advert when pressed to do so.
Furthermore, the ASA is still investigating the SMP regarding other complaints – ones we are familiar with and which have brought successive changes to their website because they have been found out so it is amazing that they are crowing on this website about the adjudication as if they are virtuous and good and indeed blemish free.
Dream on!
And wait for it '...The ASA..'
resilwood you eloquently state what I feel the majority of discontented already know; although TSMP/Tom McVey will 'hang' onto displaying a misquote in the hope that people are swayed - A fools errand! It reiterates the contempt TSMP/Tom McVey express towards it's customers and ex clients by ignoring all legitimate concerns and criticism, both positive and negative.
A suggestion was made that in fact TSMP placed the adwords campaign themselves so to achieve an ASA ruling so that they could 'crow'? I personally feel that it was an ex employee from various conversations I have had with said exemployee! Regardless it is not worth the paper it has been written on and does not address any of the real concerns with regard to the abysmal business practices that TSMP engage i.e No Integrity, No Honesty, No Morals, No Service, etc.
01-09-2011: The Man With 3 Voices at The Social Media People’s scam – in under 2 minutes.
These recordings give a powerful insight into the absence of ethics and integrity of The Social Media People – Net66. They are particularly valuable as TSMP has admitted on this forum that they are genuine – so no arguments the genuine nature of them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XVv4_Ewl4M
In 2 short telephone messages there are at least 9 premeditated lies spoken by TSMPs Director.
Threats and harassment are the 'meat' around the lies.
The messages last approximately 108 seconds; so there is about 1 lie every 12 seconds.
No honesty (Lies). No Integrity (Pretends to be other people.) No ethics (Intimidates customers.) No accuracy (intimidates the WRONG customer). No ‘guts’ (Hides behind ‘withheld’ phone numbers & aliases.)
Bonus track: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WOJFDvPcOU -
Although the voice sounds familiar there are no 'Credits' available as this caller is 'Anonymous'!
-
01-09-2011 - 1. Data Controllers. The I.C.O. confirms that The Social Media broke the law x2.
A while ago I wrote that The Social Media People (and associated McVey companies) were not registered as ‘Data Controllers’ which is a legal requirement for such organisations. (‘Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations’, and ‘Data Protection Act’)
The Information Commissioner’s Office has (on 25-08-2011) now confirmed that The Social Media People had broken the law in that respect, but since 17 August they have now registered, for the first time, as Data Controllers no further action will be taken on the matter. (New Registrations: Net66 - Z2811470; TSNMC - Z2811561)
I imagine that TSMP and Net66 paid £35.00 per company, as for companies with less than 250 employees that’s the charge. (However, as TSMP has claimed to have over 600 employees perhaps it was honest enough with ICO to pay the £500.00 charge.)
(It is worth noting that The Social Network Marketing Company Ltd. (remember all those lies about ‘London’ and ‘Regent Street’ etc) is registered as a Data Controller at Portugal Street East. Manchester.)
01-09-2011: - 2. DSARs. The I.C.O. confirms that The Social Media broke the law a further x3.
More in relation to ICO and The Social Media Peoples lawbreaking:
A while ago I wrote that the Social Media People (and associated companies) had failed to respond to DSARs, which is a legal requirement. (Data Protection Act, Section 7)
The Information Commissioner’s Office has (on 25 August) now confirmed that The Social Media People (and associated companies) broke the law 3 times by not responding to DSAR’s.
Although TSMP companies returned a couple of cheques to me demanding VAT – a tax which IS NOT due on such statutory charges – the payments have been re-submitted to the companies, as I think they are in dire need of the £20.00. And they will now be thrilled to comply with the law and send the information.
I still don’t have the DSARs but await with excited anticipation their arrival.
01-09-2011:
One aspect of TSMP/Net66’s recent Registration as Data Controllers which should alarm readers, is that until 16 August 2011 the companies were operating WITHOUT such Registration (and Registration IS a legal requirement).
That means that however well – or however badly – the companies were storing and using your personal data, bank details etc, they were ‘below the radar’ of the official body overseeing the security and appropriate us of people’s personal information.
Why did they not register before being forced to?
We’ll probably never know, but my guess is that they couldn’t be bothered, and also thought they’d save the huge fee of £35.00 per company. They’d reason that the money is better in their pockets, than the government coffers!
Or just possibly, as TSMP has frequently said to me: "It was just a little mistake!"
Tom Faulkner
Some might think you are 'nit picking' at the 'mistakes' which is certainly the case of TSMP/Tom McVey however, if anybody reads your comments which contain factual information with regard to the law breaking that said TSMP/Tom McVey & Co engage', it leaves little doubt to anybody who has a grain of sense as to whom is telling the 'porkies' and who is telling FACT!
So to all, read Tom Faulkners' posts, listen to the Utube recordings, digest and then read the remainder of this particular site and if your gut reaction, logical reaction do not come to the firm conclusion that TSMP/Tom McVey and his criminal close family are not the controllers of a Blagging, Scamming, Criminal group of companies I, and all affected (including LLoyds TSB) will be extremely surprised and wish to know why not?
Picking nits could be regarded as a sensible thing to do. There will be less lice!
02-09-2011: The Social Media People – ‘Little Mistakes’!
What SHOULD happen when a VAT Invoice is ‘spoiled’ (produced with errors)?
VAT regulations say that if a VAT Invoice is ‘spoiled’ it should be kept on file (for possible inspection when VAT requires). A ‘new’ (replacement) VAT Invoice should be issued to the customer, with a new sequential number.
And - What happens if you ask TSMP for a VAT Invoice for the amount it claims you owe?
TSMP produces it 4 times (before giving up) –
- ALL with the same VAT Invoice number.
- ALL with different mistakes.
- On the final version it changes the amounts and total to come up with the WRONG Total.
- Also on the final version it magically changes it to a ‘Pro forma’ invoice.
- On early versions Brighton is in Bristol?!
- Even TSMP’s own address changes?!
- And ALL that after asking ME for advice on how to do it, and having been provided with (most of) the information.
How many mistakes is O.K?
When would a ‘reasonable’ customer, or objective observer, decide that there was something seriously wrong in the company?
02-09-2011: The Social Media People – ‘Little Mistakes’!
What happens when you agree to a deal with The Social Media People?
TSMP completes the details of the Order- but gets your address and email address wrong! (As well as various additional errors.)
You have no way of knowing this because (despite the law insisting otherwise) TSMP doesn’t send you the Order.
Mine was obtained a couple of weeks AFTER I had cancelled the deal, when TSMP wanted to prove me wrong about some points.
All it proved was that TSMP made ‘little mistakes’.
02-09-2011: The Social Media People – ‘Little Mistakes’! (Legal Dept 1)
What happens if you become a bit ‘uppity’?
TSMP sends you ‘heavy-duty’ emails, supposedly from its ‘Legal Department’.
The Head of the Legal Department gets facts wrong and writes in a style so un-businesslike – so unlike any legal notification you’ll ever see – that it is clear that the emails are just meant as threats.
And the ‘Head of Legal Team’ is a fictitious character.
TSMP doesn’t have the courage, the ‘guts’, the ethics or integrity to send an email in the name of a real person.
02-09-2011: The Social Media People – ‘Little Mistakes’! (Legal Dept 2)
What happens if you become a bit ‘uppity’?
More unconvincing legal crap.
02-09-2011: The Social Media People – ‘Little Mistakes’!
What happens if you make a request for information about the company, which it has a legal obligation to provide within 5 days?
Absolutely nothing!
02-09-2011: The Social Media People – ‘Little Mistakes’!
What happens when TSMP sends a ‘Final Demand’ 3 weeks after it’s been notified that the deal was cancelled?
TSMP tells lies.
TSMP clearly stated that the link to Terms and Conditions was on ALL invoices. (You can see in earlier posts in this series that T&Cs link WAS NOT on the invoices.)
The company had previously been advised (and it had acknowledged) that certain information had not been provided at the right time. On the ‘Final Demand’ it lists items against dates which it knew were false.
TSMP knew various things had been delivered late, or information wasn’t where it should have been, but insisted the opposite in the Final Demand.
How many 'little mistakes' are allowed before you small a rat?
02-09-2011: The Social Media People – ‘Little Mistakes’!
What happens when a bank asks TSMP to prove it provided the agreed service, or risk having Lloyds TSB (TSMPs bank) pay the money back to the customer because TSMP failed in its contractual duty?
TSMP tells lies.
When the deal was set up TSMP agreed to distribute the advert ‘within a 5 mile radius of BN41 2TE’
(See para 5 in email from Nicola)
When TSMP told the bank about the deal it claimed distribution to people ‘that live in Hove’ (which is NOT the same)
Facebook systems have a minimum radius of 10 miles.
So – NOT Hove; and NOT 5 miles – so NOT true.
How many ‘little mistakes’?
How much honesty? How much ethics? How much integrity? How good are the business practices?
02-09-2011: The Social Media People – ‘Little Mistakes’!
What happens when the ICO checks whether TSMP and Net66 are properly, legally registered as a Data Controllers?
It finds they are NOT, and ‘advises’ them to register; which TSMP and Net66 promptly do.
02-09-2011: The Social Media People – ‘Little Mistakes’!
What happens when ICO checks to see if TSMP/net66 should have complied with their legal obligation on requests to comply with DSARs?
ICO finds that they should have, and tells them to get their finger out.
-
02-09-2011: The Social Media People – ‘Little Mistakes’!
What happens when TSMP prepares a VAT Invoice for a customerin Glasgow?
TSMP doesn’t know what currency is legal tender in the UK.
TSMP gets the customer’s address wrong.
TSMP can’t fit all its information on the page, so the customer doesn’t get the T&Cs link which TSMP claims is on every invoice.
02-09-2011: The Social Media People – ‘Little Mistakes’!
What happens when TSMP prepares a VAT Invoice for another customer?
TSMP decides that even though it IS registered for VAT, it will claim not to be. (Naughty!)
02-09-2011: The Social Media People – ‘BIG Mistakes’!
What happens when TSMP decides it wants to ‘put the frighteners on’ out-of-line customers?
It fakes-up a Customer Service Director, a ‘Legal Agent, and a ‘solicitor’ to phone customers as a method of frightening, harassing and subduing them.
The ‘characters’ are lies; and what’s said is lies.
Listen to 2 minutes worth, which tell such a powerful story: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XVv4_Ewl4M
-
02-09-2011: The Social Media People – ‘Little Mistakes’!
What happens if TSMP needs some authoritative content for its website?
TSMP trawls the internet, finds an article with some quality about it, replaces the author’s name with its own ‘signature’ and copyright attribution, and publishes it on http://thesocialmediapeople.co.uk (‘Links’ pages).
Did someone say honesty, integrity, ethics, ASA?
02-09-2011: The Social Media People states: "We post facts NOT opinions riddled with unethical comments..."
No - The Social Media People posts opinions (its own, obviously) and ONE fact (misquoted).
Others post statements from their own experience and often backed up with documentary evidence. That combination equals evidence, proof and FACTS (in the pleural).
TSMP is so ASHAMED of the documents it produces, so EXPOSED by them, that it can't even bare to comment on them. So why should they complain when others come to their own conclusions - which are usually that TSMP is patently avoiding the issues.
One issue is the recorded telephone messages which TSMP has acknowledged are genuine. Have a listen and assess them for yourself. The FACTS in the recordings are that the characters AND the statements are virtually ALL lies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7qgNVBFff8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2LafoXZ274
-
03-09-2011: The Man With 3 Voices at The Social Media People gang – in under 2 minutes.
These recordings give a powerful insight into the absence of ethics and integrity of The Social Media People – Net66.
They are particularly valuable as TSMP has admitted on this forum that they are genuine – so there should be no arguments about the genuine nature of them.
It seems like TSMP isn't keen on people hearing them, so instead of YouTube, try this:
1a. Paste this URL into your browser: http://badbiz.co.uk/2011/09/the-social-media-people-aliases-in-telephone-threats/2-message-aliases-plus-anon-clip-20april13june-20-08-2011-v2-64kbps/
1b. Then click on the ‘link’ title: ‘The Social Media People threats in telephone messages. 20-04-2011’.
2. OR, paste this URL into your browser and the audio should be directly accessed:
http://badbiz.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/2-Message-Aliases-plus-ANON-clip-20April13June-20-08-2011-v2-64Kbps.wma
In 2 short telephone messages there are at least 9 premeditated lies spoken by TSMP’s Director.
Threats and harassment are the 'meat' around the lies.
The messages last approximately 108 seconds; so there is about 1 lie every 12 seconds.
No honesty (Lies). No Integrity (Pretends to be other people.) No ethics (Intimidates customers.) No accuracy (intimidates the WRONG customer). No ‘guts’ (Hides behind ‘withheld’ phone numbers & aliases.)
Blog: http://badbiz.co.uk/2011/09/the-social-media-people-aliases-in-telephone-threats//
-
03-09-2011: ‘Mr Anonymous’ shows concern about Trading Standards interest in The Social Media People.
Although the voice sounds familiar in this recording, there are no 'Credits' available as this caller is 'Anonymous'!
The anonymity is also used to make further threats and insinuations.
1a. Paste this URL into your browser: http://badbiz.co.uk/2011/09/the-social-media-people-aliases-in-telephone-threats/4-anon-13-06-201110minedit-only-28kbps/
1b. Then click on the ‘link’ title: ‘Mr Anonymous on 13-06-2011. The Social Media People 10 min edit’.
2. OR, paste this URL into your browser and the audio should be directly accessed:
http://badbiz.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/4-ANON-13-06-201110minedit-ONLY-28Kbps.wma
Blog: http://badbiz.co.uk/2011/09/the-social-media-people-aliases-in-telephone-threats//
-
TSMP / Tom McVey appears to have a new incarnation 'www.badbiz.co.uk SCAM' where Tom McVey pens all irrelevances in an attempt to side track people from the real issue on this site:
The appalling business practices of TSMP / Net 66 who are an unethical, unprofessional, dishonest scamming group of companies who are currently being investigated by their own bank due to the question of association with a scamming company, have had visits from Trading Standards, contravened Copyrights, claimed to be trading from London, Paris, New York (sounds like a 'Trotter' to me) when in fact they are and have always been trading from their offices in Manchester. Claimed to be trading as a business for 11 years and are at the cutting edge of technology. There written English is less guttural than their spoken English, although flawed in content, logic and flow.
Openly breaking the law with regard to data handling, copyright infringement and up until last week they were illegally billing all their customers from a company which was at arms length from TSMP and on the face of it had no association, namely Net 66 (which their bank advised them that the portal they were using would be closed unless they rectified the situation - hence the now 'open' association with Net 66 on their site and T&C's)
What does this mean to all TSMP's previous and current clients? Well they can legally claim all their monies back from TSMP/Net 66! I will post over the weekend how you all can do this!
03-09-2011: The reputation of The Social Media People with banks.
Where do multi-national banks turn for verification of companies' status etc?
I recently made a successful reclaim of The Social Media People charges through my bank - Barclays.
I'd also asked the bank to explain the set-up and links between TSMP and Net66 (which was the payment route for my money).
I wanted to understand how/why companies could take payments in certain ways, and how 'dodgy' this case might be.
What method do you think Barclays used to demonstrate the shady side of The Social Media People/Net66s set up?
Barclays Bank PLC, multi-national corporation sent me a 'proof source' to explain things.
Barclays Bank PLC sent me a 'link' which would explain everything I needed to know.
Barclays Bank PLC sent me the following link as the 'proof source' (have a look yourself): http://badbiz.co.uk/2011/07/net-66-web-services-ltd-mixed-up-in-scam/
Some may remember that a while back The Social Media People stated that the verdict of a bank is a reliable judgement on the truth or otherwise of customers claims for refunds; and that the ‘opinions’ of customers on this website were less trustworthy.
So if Barclays gets my money back for me, AND Barclays sends me a 'proof' that TSMP and Net66 is a scam – it must be true.
03-09-2011: To - TruthIsNowTold
You're right to try to take up the 'offer' from TSMP, which repeatedly makes that promise. I hope that you get a satisfactory response.
If you do I hope that: a. It answers your questions. b. You will share any information you can about what you learn. c. You'll let us know if TSMP does not live up to its promise.
In your 'post' you haven't asked TSMP any questions to be answered, but perhaps you're going step-by-step. (Certainly many others HAVE asked questions which remain unanswered.)
Judging by past experience you won't get the answers on this public forum, but let's hope that TSMP can break new ground and do that too.
Good luck.
03-09-2011:
The issue on this thread is The Social Media People and it's appalling business practices, dishonesty, and non-existent ethics and integrity.
www.b.co.uk.S: I have received your personal message and am considering the matter. In the meantime why not deal with your issues on the appropriate thread. (Which I'll keep checking over the next few days.)
As you seem to be a 'neutral' on this thread (title: the social media people net66 - Complaints scam), why not listen to the recordings of telephone messages, and give us your objective assessment as a detached 3rd party, of the lies and threats made by The Social Media People.
(The links were posted by me earlier today, about 8 posts before this one.)
I guess people will be interested to see how you assess things.
04-09-2011: All you need to know about The Social Media People premeditated lies - in just 2 minutes.
Recordings of telephone messages.
1a. Paste this URL into your browser: http://badbiz.co.uk/2011/09/the-social-media-people-aliases-in-telephone-threats/4-anon-13-06-201110minedit-only-28kbps/
1b. Then click on the ‘link’ title: ‘Mr Anonymous on 13-06-2011. The Social Media People 10 min edit’.
2. OR, paste this URL into your browser and the audio should be directly accessed:
http://badbiz.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/4-ANON-13-06-201110minedit-ONLY-28Kbps.wma
04-09-2011: All you need to know - Correction! Telephone Message lies in this post; Anonymous caller in previous post.
These are the links for the telephone messages. The previous post relates to an 'Anonymous' telephone call.
1a. Paste this URL into your browser: http://badbiz.co.uk/2011/09/the-social-media-people-aliases-in-telephone-threats/2-message-aliases-plus-anon-clip-20april13june-20-08-2011-v2-64kbps/
1b. Then click on the ‘link’ title: ‘The Social Media People threats in telephone messages. 20-04-2011’.
2. OR, paste this URL into your browser and the audio should be directly accessed:
http://badbiz.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/2-Message-Aliases-plus-ANON-clip-20April13June-20-08-2011-v2-64Kbps.wma
Good Morning All,
It appears after hundreds of comments from the same individuals that they will not rest until we close the business. Well unfortunately for you, we have no intention. We provide a fantastic service and can confirm contrary to ridiculous insinuations, we are NOT under investigation from any authorities. If half of the accusations made on this forum were true then we certainly would not be trading. Comments are only made on here to unfairly discourage people from spending money with us, and seen as we have well known credible references then it doesn't affect us in the slightest.
Anybody who is unsure after reading personal insults at employees of our organisation and questions against our ethics can answered by reading the ASA's conclusion:
http://www.asa.org.uk/ASA-action/Adjudications/2011/7/the_social_media_people_scam, -d-, co, -d-, uk/SHP_ADJ_154984.aspx
Thank you for ongoing support from all of our clients, very much appreciated. We have had several questions and enquiries from clients. This is something we appreciate, and invite. Please be careful of what you might read from un-verified sources and annonymous people online.
The reason we are repeatedly posting the ASA's conclusion that: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CLAIMS WE ARE A SCAM.
Thats The Advertsing Watchdog, not a ring of criminals!
We stand by our ethics and to call us a scam is basically calling the ASA a LIAR or Incompetent! -
We know who we'd believe!
________________________________________________________________________________
We would incourage any genuine customers to not give out personal data to any "data poachers" on this or any other site. It transpires some of the people on here who are claiming to "offer assistance" are under investigation form various organisations and we would urge people to listen to the advertising watchdogs conclusion as apposed to comments that are just defamatory.
________________________________________________________________________________
We have OVER, YES OVER (More than) 25, 000 (We are obviously not posting detailed information due to the some malicious individuals on here who are conducting in despicable tactics to try to ruin our reputation.) social media clients and have had 21 genuine complaints.
That is 0.0014% of customers unhappy about the service.
If you are a genuine customer who is unhappy or wishes to lodge a complaint, please get in contact. Due to the amount of lies from non-customers & competitors please have your customer details ready.
________________________________________________________________________
Having to defend our ethics on a daily basis has now got beyond a joke. If we put a comer or full stop in the wrong place we are the victim of a tirade of abuse. If anybody who participates in these daily insults should not only be ashamed of themselves but should rethink the point they are trying to make. Why nit pick & wait for a company to make the smallest irrelevant mistake and jump on them with insults insinuating they are incompetent. We have been reported to every authority in the UK by most of you & they have all found us to comply with law.
We have worked with 200, 000 clients over the past 11+ years and we have always had fantastic feedback.
________________________________________________________________________
Also as long as people try to call us a "scam" and unethical we WILL continue to post details of the ASA regulation. Because neutral readers deserve facts not one person pretending to be 12's opinions & lies.
________________________________________________________________________
With regret we are forced to expose a few characters for their nasty tendencies, opinions & backgrounds so their wrongful claims against us can be treated with the level of belief they should - NONE AT ALL.
We may be biased, in that our organisation has been involved in business 11+ years & is now suddenly wrongfully accused of having no ethics & even "scamming". This has been a hard accusation to face as we are a family business, and our directors have taken a few insults personally and even resorted to defending their integrity themselves. Needless to say it has fell on deaf ears and accusations are constantly thrown in our direction.
We have no personal feelings either way, yes we think there is incredulous people commenting and lying on here, but on the whole we know the truth. So do our expanding clients base.
________________________________________________________________________
So, is The Social Media People a scam, are people right to group together to try to ruin the reputation of a company within a an organisation for 11+ years?
Let me provide some EVIDENCE not twisted words or opinions - EVIDENCE:
There was an add set up, the creator was never proven beyond reasonable doubt as the address & contact details did not match up and could have been set up anonymously by anyone. For this reason we will blank the web address, bout the info is readily available from the ASA:
ASA Adjudication on the-social-media-people-scam.co.uk
the-social-media-people-scam.co.uk
Date: 27 July 2011
Media: Internet (search engine)
Sector: Business
Number of complaints: 1
Complaint Ref: A11-154984
Ad
A Google sponsored search ad stated “Social media people scam net66-the social media people AVOID this company is a scam www.the-social-media-people-scam.co.uk.”
Issue
The Social Media People objected that the ad denigrated their business.
Response
www.the-social-media-people-scam.co.uk said the ad was produced by an individual who had worked for The Social Media People. He stated that the claims in the ad were true and that he intended to continue making similar claims on other sites.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA noted that the complainant’s company was called The Social Media People and understood that any consumers searching for ‘Social Media People’ via Google would see the advertisers’ sponsored search ad appear alongside the search engine results. We considered that the ad was alleging that the Social Media People was a company running a scam and because we had not seen evidence to support that claim, we considered that that implication was disparaging to the complainant’s company. We therefore concluded that the ad denigrated The Social Media People.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) 3.42 and 3.43 (Imitation and denigration).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form.
_________________________________________________________________________________
I will also quote one of our directors responses in relation to this as it suits our view point perfectly:
I will refer back to the ruling of an ADVERTISING WATCHDOG for people to read & derive their opinions of us not anonymous, malicious & obsessed individuals.
Please read these details:
The ASA (Advertising Standards Authority) Says: "consumers searching for ‘Social Media People’ via Google would see the advertisers’ sponsored search ad appear alongside the search engine results. We considered that the ad was alleging that the Social Media People was a company running a scam and because we had not seen evidence to support that claim"
Who Are The ASA: The ASA is the UK’s independent watchdog committed to maintaining high standards in advertising for the benefit of consumers, advertisers and society at large. Visit this section for an introduction to the ASA, our remit, history and meet our senior team members.
*************************************************************************************************************
If you wish to call us a scam, please don't expect to be believed, complaints are fine, with the amount of customers we have we expect to have unhappy customers, but calling us a scam is different, not ethical & certainly NOT TRUE.
*************************************************************************************************************
We are available for contact For any body who is looking for answers, or is still unsure:
Tel: [protected]
Email: publicrelations@thesocialmediapeople.co.uk
We are happy to deal with enquiries, and answer any questions or queries you may have.
Regards
Public Relations Team
@ The Social Media People
Good morning Tom McVey
You and your companies are being investigated by Trading Standards, do you not remember the visit you had from them?
Your Bank has circulated questionnaires with regard to the 'service' you provide to existing and previous clients?
The ASA advised you to remove ficticious blue chip clients that you had on your web site as 'references'.
The list goes on and on, but you Tom will as always be in denial, placing your head in the sand and being the obnoxious individual that you are.
i received text message from [protected] and tall me that i won 250.000 pound from nokia MEGA JACKPOT NOKIAPRO42@LIVE.COM +[protected] FOR CALL
I too have sent a Personal Message to TruthIsNowTold. He/she may or may not publish it, but it was an offer to provide any available information from my (a customer's) perspective.
It looks like TruthIsNowTold has been nominated as Grand Jurer or Judge, which is amazing for such a recent recruit.
Perhaps his/her interest will move things on.
Katrine
'The ones we have had issues with have misunderstood what they have agreed to.'
However you wish to present yourself this is utter rot.
When your salesperson is told quite clearly, when they are making the so called compliance call to take details and explain the deal, that the month trial is all that is wanted and you are certainly not interested in a rolling contract it is your salesperson, who misunderstands or chooses to misunderstand and then ignore what is said to them. The fact that this transaction is verbal actually means that you tend to ignore ANY disputed version of the sale that isn't in your favour.
So trying to dress this up as a misunderstanding together with your faux offers of help when you mean nothing of the sort is just more of the same.
i would call scammer guard. They are reputable company that helps with these exact situations! [protected]
Morning All,
We have repeatedly asked customers to get in contact as customer service is iomportant to us.
With regards to:
"When your salesperson is told quite clearly, when they are making the so called compliance call to take details and explain the deal, that the month trial is all that is wanted and you are certainly not interested in a rolling contract it is your salesperson, who misunderstands or chooses to misunderstand and then ignore what is said to them. The fact that this transaction is verbal actually means that you tend to ignore ANY disputed version of the sale that isn't in your favour."
If you are a customer please get in contact and we can sit down and listen to your call together. We also converse and establish why you are so unhappy and hopefully rectify the situation.
This is something we have done with all unhappy customers. We have repeatedly invited people to contact us to gain a resolution if they have a problem. However, it seems people are more interested in defaming our name as one individual has made over 500 negative comments about us and gone as far to ring around customers to try to put them off using our services. Luckily enough as we provide a good service they have ll been contacting us and explaining what an underhand unethical and to be blunt shameful tactic. You would have thought that in 2011 people would have had a bit of decency.
Obviously we are not going to name this individual and we have no doubt he will have no remorse for his actions as in his own mind he may see his actions as acceptable. Whilst we prefusely object to any insinuationbs that we trade unethicaly we appreciate frustration suffered and can only invite all parties to contact us direct.
It is with regret we have been forced to repeated the ASA ruling in our favour. But we find defending our integrity is met with dis-belief, personal insults and even threats. if not personal threats certainly threat of reporting us to authorities and trading bodies etc. Which is something we agree with. This is why wer have refered to an investigation by a governing body. We resperct and adhere to the law. As the company is ran by human beings there have been experiences that we have learned from.
We respect companies and individuals rights to be di-satisfied with a product or a service but there is a lot of claims on this forum which are unfair. Company directors have been subject to personal insults and the whole companies ethics have been attacked. If we were genuinely a scam then we would not still be trading and would be under investigation from almost every single trading body.
The reason these claims are repeatedly made is to put off would be customers from spending any money with us. This is why we repeatedly refer to the ASA as people will believe an impartial governing body over an aangry opinion all day long.
Having said that we are still keen to receive feedback and opinions from customers and have repeatedly requested unhappy customers to get in contact.
Regards
Public Relations Team
@ The Social Media People
The customer on this forum who's made most comments is me. Check for yourself and you will see that the total is less than 300. so there seems to be an inaccuracy in the figures presented by TSMP. Not a new phenomenon.
I have frequently published easily verifiable facts - as in this post - but TSMP seems to have difficulties presenting facts and cohesive arguments.
If TruthBeTold wants any facts - along with evidence to support them - I will gladly oblige.