the social media people net66 review: scam 850

Darina Mary: By all means make contact, as those of us sharing information have found it helpful. (See 'personal message').

Also see: http://badbizforum.com/the-social-network-marketing-company-ltd/the-social-network-marketing-company-ltd-pending-investigation/

Anyone who has views and conclusions about the qualities (?) of The Social Network Marketing Company Ltd trading as The Social Media People should ensure that they also advise any local or national trade bodies with which they are associated.e.g. The Driving Standards Agency (regulates and informs driving schools), hotel associations, hairdressing associations, Chamber of Commerce, other small business groups etc.)

If anyone has fallen foul of the Social Media People please report it as fraudulent activity here:
https://secure.crimestoppers-uk.org/ams.form.anonymous.asp
The more people that report the dealings of The Social Media People as Fraudulent then the Police will take it seriously.

Steven,

On one of the sites you posted the first post in response was this

'Well calling the site a scam wasn't a good start. Try putting attention to the customer who feels they were wronged, and maybe they, themselves, can have it removed.' This is exactly where you have completely failed.

You really don't get it it do you. There is only one real complaint on here so talk of competitors is absolute rubbish. The complaint is the offering of a month's trial that turns into a rolling contract for which you then take money from people's bank accounts without consent in many cases because it was expressly forbidden or without knowledge because a verbal rambling during your 'compliance call' didn't express this clearly or didn't mention it all. This is at best a very sharp and unscrupulous practice at worse it is what we are all calling it on this board.

As far as evidence is concerned you haven't actually provided anything. Zilch. Zero. Didley squat.

By the way, are you saying you have no one working for you called Ashleigh?

You say you are taking on 2000 clients a month - that's 24000 a year Steve - that is a phenomenal number. well done. There will be plenty more that will find this board then. But you were quoted recently saying you had 12, 000 customers on your books. Care to explain?

Once again, the non-existent Steven Jackson tries to defend the indefensible.
Quote: “They are also sent, AND forwarded a link to AND verbally referred to the terms and conditions.”

At the relevant time (i.e. the time of the agreement by telephone and before a contract is completed):
1. I was NOT sent a link to T&Cs.
2. No link to T&Cs was sent to me.
3. It is possible that the T&Cs were referred to in the ‘Compliance Call’ – but that in itself is insufficient to ‘complete a contract’.

Subsequently, but too late, an ‘Order’ document was provided to me ONLY after repeated requests, AND OVER 5 weeks AFTER it should have been received. It clearly demonstrates that it could not have been received by me at the correct time – BECAUSE TSMP entered my email address wrongly!
Despite pointing this out to the company in private AND subsequently publishing it on this forum TSMP just falls back on the lame excuse ‘He’s a liar.’

I was repeatedly lectured, by Cristina and Grace amongst others, that a link to T&Cs is on EVERY invoice.
No – NEVER on mine.

Customer. Facts. Evidence.
NOT competitor. NOT assertions. NOT bluff. NOT lies.

Finally – perhaps TSMP could benefit from some ‘Reputation Management’. Better still, why not just run an honest business. There’s a novel idea.

(Documents and telephone conversations available.)

If The Social Media People disputes the genuine nature of the 2 documents published (above) they should remember that the offer has been made to allow them to publish EVERY Document, and EVERY telephone conversation between them and me - a genuine but aggrieved customer.
The FACT is (sorry, I'm confusing TSMP by offering FACTS again!) is that they have not done so. Their reluctance so far to take up this offer (challenge?) might lead people to think they have something to hide.

(Genuine email, with ORDER embedded, 16-02-2011; attached.
Wrong email address for TF, wrong post code, wrong pricing, etc.
Order should have arrived 05-01-2011; but it aarrived, after pestering, on 16-02-2011)

Pathetic business practices.

How many customers received an ORDER document of the same format as, or similar to mine, as previously posted?

When did it arrive? Did it arrive ‘automatically’, spontaneously – or not?

TSMP emphasised to me that the ORDER was generated automatically; so IF mine had contained the correct email address it should have come through properly at the correct time. (i.e. the very beginning, 5 January for my deal.)

So everyone else will have received the document, without chasing it, right at the start of their agreement? Yes?

Hey Jackson McVey Barker Smith Tom Steven Johnathon. You rekon you will answer questions, How about prove who you really are with your birth certificate you liar. They are not ex employees they are no companies trying to get you to buy REPUTATION MANAGEMENT your out and out ### liars. You try to get people to back down with your threats and intimidation it didn't work though did it you little ###? You stated you have videos of my wife in porno films lets see it then ###. You never know Gracie might be in one or two also. You assume that everyone is wrong and your right the assumption that Stephen Phillip Jones is going to crush your little scam outfit. buddy. Everything you have mentioned so far as been a complete pack of lies. lets see what you got pal . And I will gladly return the favour 500 fold. For those of you who know me will also know that this company of Mcveys is all but dead a burried. WHAT SCAM WILL YOU COME UP WITH NEXT McVEY? check out this thread http://badbizforum.com/the-social-network-marketing-company-ltd/the-social-network-marketing-company-ltd-pending-investigation

Big News about The Social Media People, If you want to hear about it email via my contact form at http://badbiz.co.uk/contact

edsarn, has hit the nail right on the head mr jackson or should i say mcvey. why dont you just listen to what people are saying! your shabby company just tricks people into rolling contracts that they have no idea they are getting into, dont you think if it is such a few % of your thousands of customers that are unhappy you would like to put it right with them. whats more like the truth is only a few % have found these sites, like myself, but as time goes on more will, so warm regards to you!

I will expose you ALL - LIARS hey bring on your so called evidence then. You would know wouldn't you that anyone can fake an image using photoshop or other images. I am a rapist you claim I suggest you write your real name address and contact details via a private message and you can either then remove your false and derogatory comments or face losing everything you own. I don't think you have the courage to do that. Claiming people are Rapists and Pedophile's have to be the worst you can come up with. Its a shame Tom McVey using another name I will expose you ALL - LIARS has sent messages to at least 10 people demanding them to prove they are not Steve Jones. how sad are you. You also claim issues that a person that does not exist "Steve Jackson" is messing around with your wife what a laugh. you are. Tom Steven Johnathon Jackson Barker-Smith McVey no-one is listening to your crap & lies no matter what Screen Name you use.

Yes, I emailed the BadBiz address, and what I heard was certainly worth it. That's great news Stephen Phillip Jones.
http://badbiz.co.uk/contact

Steven,

I have to admire the way you attempt to turn everything on its head but never succeed

What are these accusations and protestations that are so unfair? Always banging on about liars You create a lot of hot air about this, but as I said above, we have only one real beef. The rolling contract and the pursuit of customers. If it is only an infinitesimal number of people that are saying this, and you were a genuine, bone fide meg business as you claim, you would right these off as not worth pursuing for the aggravation it cause and the publicity it is generating for you. I know you couldn’t agree with that because your ‘business model’ seems to be precisely that of and obscure verbal contract in which details about the contract may or may not be given in your compliance call. (By the way ‘compliance call’ is the term used by your company not mine so why you say ‘as you put it’ I don’t know. Compliance has a special connotation which I am sure if used when you made the call would get people slamming the phone down. )
You will know that the law is less clear about business to business verbal contracts, but perhaps not as unclear as you would like. It is this that you try and take advantage of. I certainly received none of the things you claim and you staff never budged in their insistence that we had ‘ we have all the calls taped’. This is obviously not for our security but to threaten the weak into thinking they haven’t got a case. What kind of customer service is that – abysmal. There was no ‘I’m sorry to hear that let’s see what we can do to sort this out’ -just a flat denial. As for helping people with their queries that was certainly not the case with me.
Terms and Conditions – yes you began to quote them once I had asked for my money back.
Another piece of rubbish you come out with is that people are asking for their money back ‘because the ad didn’t work’ No they are not. Everyone who has participated in your scheme knows the score. If you are in business you know that advertising is hit and miss and for you to suggest that we don’t realize this is frankly insulting. I would think we all wrote that initial amount off to see if it worked. We did not have an expectation that it would definitely work. Is that perfectly clear. No, we are pissed off because you then tried to claim more money from our accounts. This then calls into question whether the first ad actually went up which is a perfectly logical thing for the normal punter to do. He or she then begins to feel that they have been had. When they get the reaction we all have had from you – then the scam word comes to mind. I think I would imagine every one of us feel that way to a greater or lesser extent.

I see the phrase ‘reputation management’ being used now. This does have the pre-requisite of a reputation to manage in the first place which is not yet established in your case.
That less than 0.3% figure – what does that represent exactly. As I said above you seem to quote fantastic figures, figures that you or anybody else can verify and range from 12, 000 to the ongoing 24, 000. It’s all humbug mate and you know it. You know what they say about complaints figures, don’t you Steve. Look it up.
The bottom line is who has a great big nose and whose pants are on fire? It certainly isn’t us steve.

checked version!

Steven Jackson,

I have to admire the way you attempt to turn everything on its head but never succeed

What are these accusations and protestations that are so unfair? Always banging on about liars You create a lot of hot air about this, but as I said above, we have only one real beef. The rolling contract and the subsequent pursuit of customers. If it is only an infinitesimal number of people that are saying this, and if you were a genuine, bone fide mega business as you claim, you would write these off as not worth pursuing for the aggravation it causes and the publicity it is generating for you. I know you couldn’t agree with that because your ‘business model’ seems to be precisely that of an obscure verbal contract in which details about the contract may or may not be given in your compliance call. (By the way ‘compliance call’ is the term used by your company not mine so why you say ‘as you put it’ I don’t know. Compliance has a special connotation which I am sure if used when you made the call would get people slamming the phone down. )
You will know that the law is less clear about business to business verbal contracts, but perhaps not as unclear as you would like. It is this that you try and take advantage of. I certainly received none of the things you claim and your staff never budged in their insistence that we had ‘ we have all the calls taped’. This is obviously not for our security but to threaten the weak into thinking they haven’t got a case. What kind of customer service is that – abysmal. There was no ‘I’m sorry to hear that let’s see what we can do to sort this out’ -just a flat denial. As for helping people with their queries that was certainly not the case with me.
Terms and Conditions – yes you began to quote them once I had asked for my money back.
Another piece of rubbish you come out with is that people are asking for their money back ‘because the ad didn’t work’ No they are not. Everyone who has participated in your scheme knows the score. If you are in business you know that advertising is hit and miss and for you to suggest that we don’t realize this is frankly insulting. I would think we all wrote that initial amount off to see if it worked. We did not have an expectation that it would definitely work. Is that perfectly clear. No, we are pissed off because you then tried to claim more money from our accounts. This then calls into question whether the first ad actually went up which is a perfectly logical thing for the normal punter to do. He or she then begins to feel that they have been had. When they get the reaction we all have had from you – then the scam word comes to mind. I think I would imagine every one of us felt that way to a greater or lesser extent.

I see the phrase ‘reputation management’ being used now. This does have the pre-requisite of a reputation to manage in the first place which is not yet established in your case.
That less than 0.3% figure – what does that represent exactly. As I said above you seem to quote fantastic figures, figures that you or anybody else can verify and range from 12, 000 to the ongoing 24, 000. It’s all humbug mate and you know it. You know what they say about complaints figures, don’t you Steve. Look it up.
The bottom line is who has a great big nose and whose pants are on fire? It certainly isn’t us steve.

Great post Edsarn, exactly sums up my feelings and view of the situation.

FACTS. Facts about The Social Media People’s pathetic inability to get things right.

Let’s have another go at presenting some facts for The Social Media People (and its supporters) to ignore, or dismiss as lies!
I have previously posted documents proving that The Social Media People failed to record my details correctly, and failed to send me an ‘Order’.
Now, here is proof that The Social Media People ‘got it wrong’ – in several ways - in a Final Demand for payment.
On this ‘Final Demand’ (attached), and relating to Terms and Conditions, it states: “terms and conditions... A link to which was attached to all invoices sent to yourself from our company.”
NO. NEVER did an invoice include such information. (See previous posts for example)

I will publish further examples based on this Final Demand, relating to (a) Preview, (b) Report.
Several documents, which clearly prove that statements in the attached ‘Final Demand’ [protected]) are wrong, will be published at:
http://badbizforum.com/the-social-network-marketing-company-ltd/the-social-network-marketing-company-ltd-pending-investigation/msg927/

The question is: Are the amazingly high number of wrong statements made by The Social Media People errors? Or are they lies?

Whichever is true, no-one would be wise to trust The Social Media People with their money or their business.

The same 'Final Demand' [protected]) but with main text a bit larger.

1. More proof documents relating to the risible business practices of The Social Media People.

2. Some interesting 'financial/payment route' information.

Both at: http://badbizforum.com/the-social-network-marketing-company-ltd/the-social-network-marketing-company-ltd-pending-investigation/new/

Perhaps in his rush to write his most recent rants the non-existent Steven Jackson failed to spot some real proof, from a real, but rather miffed, customer.
The proofs, on this forum and on BadBiz clearly prove how dreadfully TSMP runs a business (?). And the 'proofs' are documents produced by the company itself.
Is The Social Media People so ashamed of the documents it produces that it can't bare to read or discuss them?

Would The Social Media People care to address any of the facts recently presented?

Remember how, some time ago the offer was made to publish every document and phone call relating to TSMP and me. Well, several are now appearing, but not from TSMP.
A cynical person might conclude that The Social Media People has a lot to hide; and that is why it never addresses a factual, provable statement or critcism.

Steve Jackson aka...

When you called someone a pedophile unsubstantiated be any evidence ( now that is real libel, isn't it steve?), I think you gave up any pretence of taking the moral high ground and speaking the truth - but we know that already.

Steven Jackson,

Tell me if this is true. We all appreciate that you have never answered one question on here though.

It is a clause apparently on your payment gateway, i.e. the people who process your money, amongst its TOC and specifically forbids you to do

d) businesses that employ cold-calling tactics, pressure sales or unsolicited outbound telemarketing;

But, Steve, that is exactly what you do do as we can all testify on here.

Care to comment?

Steven Jackson who is Tom McVey there is no such thing as a one sided conversation when you call with a blocked number and threaten someone. Your messages reveal what your really like. . But your threats of defaming me and threats of violence will only cause you more injury. The blocked number is all about the Social Misfits real address located in Greater Manchester and not London which was confirmed to me by the Police.

Something a little more interesting are your payment gate I had a little chat with them today and they were very interested in what I had to say.

You should forget Badbiz, who provides you with a convenient way of avoiding dealing with any of the issues raised here and you should actually answer some of these question put to you on this board. How many times have your written

'WE WILL CONTINUE TO EXPOSE THESE GENUINE SCAMMERS EVERYDAY' when you have actually done no such thing.

Extra! Extra! Read all about it! the Social Media People presents a FACT

Did you notice the novel element in the post from TSMP? It contained a fact!
They commented “ You have had a few documents from us, how have we not done our job?”

Absolutely right: I did get some documents. Well done TSMP for presenting a fact. I am impressed!
And several of the documents have been presented here, on this forum, by me – not TSMP. So you can see the quality of the product for yourselves.

You all know that there is a ‘BUT...’ coming, don’t you?

BUT - How did they not do their job?:
All the important documents I received:
Were LATE. Not delivered when originally agreed/promised.
Were only delivered after being requested by me; often several times.
Were riddled with errors and omissions; and there were many contradictions. (And some of those errors were critical to the deal being carried out correctly.)

So when the facts are presented does TSMP come out smelling of roses, or immersed in sh..., shomething else?

Judge for yourselves.

(I will address other points in the post (e.g. concerning the bank) soon, but don’t have a lot of time this evening.)

TSMP Quote: "AGAIN HAVE A LOOK AT HARD EVIDENCE... "

Just look at the documents produced by TSMP and sent out to unwitting customers.
The company's documents are HARD EVIDENCE. They are also hard-luck - for the company that consistently and outragiously 'gets it wrong'.

You decide whether it is by accident or design.

Tom McVey’s ‘Rogue Trader’ company regularly calls me a liar, but they know it's untrue. They have the evidence, proving the documents I publish are genuine, if rubbishy, TSMP products.
It is possible, but unlikely, that Tom McVey and The Social Media People mob believe (quote): “‘We have tried to reason with you Mr. Faulkner but you hear what you want.” But it’s more likely they are just attempting to make others think I am isolated and ‘out of touch’.

Perhaps they believe a director of the company impersonating a solicitor, and threatening me with slander charges is ‘reasoning with me’
.
The FACT is; the TRUTH is, that I ‘hear’ what many report to me.
I listen to the legal advisors I’ve consulted.
I listen to the feedback from Companies House, Advertising Standards Authority, Trading Standards, Police.
I listen to the famous ‘Blue Chip Clients’ who reply to me saying that their brands and logos are used illegitimately by The Social Media People.
I listen to: Stormbringer8, scambuster 2, pingpong, Edsarn, Runaway6, Phoenix Knight, myownname, Little76, UTH, humphrey my dog, Notstupid69, rednals, Fleet Trainer, suellen dainty, iockus, SCAMSOCIALMEDIAPEOPLE, little76, joe54, Chickens123, Silly Me 123, Naive and annoyed, I HATE SOCIAL MEDIA PEOPLE, JANESARAH, Darina Mary, Gets Better All The Time, BadBiz.
And with many of those I have shared information and documents. We all know they are GENUINE CUSTOMERS.

There is total consistency from all directions:
The Social Media People: No integrity. No honesty, No ethical behaviour. No good business practices. Rubbish documents.
RUBBISH ARGUMENTS! NO CREDIBLE DEFENCE of their despicable behaviour. RUBBISH COMPANY.

More FACTS – and questions.
A genuine document recently sent out to customers of The Social Media People. (Edited to protect recipient's identity)

The ‘Monthly Report’

1. Question:
Are Copyright and Intellectual Property regulations adhered to?
Is ‘Facebook’ so comfortable about Tom McVey's business that it approves the use of its logo on TSMP documentation?
I would need to be convinced – independently and verifiably; and by someone other than TSMP – before I believe that.

2. Scenario:
(a) A customer never sees their ‘live advert’;
(b) They know no-one who has seen their ‘live advert’;
(c) They see no response to their ‘live advert’ (new customer contacts, website traffic);
(d) MOST IMPORTANT - They are not provided with independent, verifiable proof that their advert was run.
Is it reasonable to question, or be suspicious as to whether the agreed service was delivered?

3. Question AND Answer:
Does the 'Monthly Report' comply with Companies Act Law? Answer : No.

This genuine document provided by The Social Media People fails to provide the necessary information.

Dear Steve

Maybe I can help.
What proof do you require to admit that your company has acted unethically?

Regards UTH

The Social Media attempts to take the moral high ground by challenging me about not answering a question posed by them! What a joke! It is pathetic.
1. I have already stated that I will address that point – and I will.
2. But, to be fair, so far I have not answered that 1 question.
To be quite frank, I can’t be bothered to go back and count up all the questions posed to TSMP by myself and other customers; but if we look at the scoreboard (and we are VERY generous to TSMP) it will look a bit like this:
‘Unanswered questions from TF and other customers to TSMP’ = >30
‘Unanswered questions from TSMP to TF’ = 1
So it looks like relegation for the Manchester team!

Cheers Tom

I just called them and thought they we're extremely helpfull. I would encourage any other genuine customers who have what they believe is a genuine case to also contact them.
I have also informed my professional body who I hope will warn their other members.

Regards uth

I seem to recall that several weeks ago The Social Media People suggested that anyone who doubted their integrity, honesty etc should report them to ASA, Trading Standards etc, and see how far they got.
Now, people are certainly doing just that: and the more the better.

So it will be interesting to see, now that more and more are taking such steps, how things pan out.

The Social Media People’s ‘Monthly Report’ – late, unverifiable and useless.

Further to earlier posts, I promised to publish the documents to and from The Social Media People relating to its failure to provide information at the right time, and then attempt to hide the fact of its failure.

In a separate post I will publish a series of emails concerning the 'Monthly Report'.
(Copies of the 'Monthly Report' and ‘Final Demand’ are attached here.
(Notes and editing leave all necessary original information intact.))

The Social Media People’s ‘Monthly Report’ – late, unverifiable and useless.

Early on in the dealings, it was made clear that 3 days before the end of the period I would receive a Report on the performance of the advert.
In my case that would mean that it needed to be with me on 2nd or 3rd February.

04-02-2011: I sent a cancellation, and asked for the Report which had not arrived.
07-02-2011: TSMP responded to my cancellation email, stating that the Report had been
sent on 02-02-2011, but could be sent again. (Yet I had not received it.)
07-02-2011: I replied to the email, once again requesting the Report, and something arrived very soon afterwards.
However - this did not rectify the situation. Was this the Report?
Apparently it was. This was the much heralded ‘Monthly Report’.

It was a figure (9, 174) - printed out on a document:
1. From a company which did not exist
2. From an email I could not contact
3. Which had my address (post code) wrong
4. Advising me of a false location for Terms & Conditions
5. It was unverifiable through any independent source, nor even with the (non-existent) company which provided it.
It was of no use or value. It was rubbish.

22-02-2011: A ‘Final Demand’ email was received.
One of the key points made was “On 02-02-2011 you received your monthly performance report to let you know how your advert had performed.”
Note that IT DID NOT say: ‘... a report was sent but you didn’t receive it’. Neither did it say ‘... a report was sent, but although you claim not to have received it, we can assure you it was sent on time.’ – nor any variation on that theme.
It stated “ you received your monthly performance report...”
WRONG. And they knew it was wrong because there had been several emails and telephone calls about it.

Once again The Social Media People fails in its honesty, efficiency and business practices.
FACTS are presented. The FACTS of documentation produced by The Social Media People. Once again FACTS prove who tells the truth - and who does not.

The documents were attached to a fresh message/post, but seem to have been delayed somewhere within the Complaintsboard system. They will appear soon - I hope!
Summary of 'delayed post': The Social Media People fails again - with proofs.

Is The Social Media People ashamed of the posts it submits to ComplaintsBoard.com?

About 8 to 9 days ago we saw a couple of posts under the fictitious identity 'Steven Jackson' (of The Social Media People) which have now disappeared.
One was a softly, softly message to DarinaMary, and the other a familiar rant about liars, reputation management, competitors etc.

Does anyone know why The Social Media People is now so unsure of itself that it posts, then removes posts?

Perhaps I'll re-post those from a few days ago so we all have a permanent record of the rubbish peddled by Tom McVey and his mob.

Important detail regarding the payment pathway used to process customers' card payments. If you wish to ensure that unapproved payments do not leave your card/bank account this may be part of the answer. Have a look and see if it is relevant to you, at:
http://badbizforum.com/the-social-network-marketing-company-ltd/the-social-network-marketing-company-ltd-pending-investigation/

hellow everybody...welcome in the world of money...so don't miss the oppurunity...
www.hamaraabollywood.com is totally genuien company...recently this comnay launched product gallaray where you can buy any brand product directly...so hurry uppp...certain your top poistion...otherwise u will miss the opporunity...

joining 3500
monthly income -2000
reward 300
sponsor-400 per month
call me at: [protected]

vivekchoudhary

I should get your butt out of here

Hi Edsarn:

Whilst I thoroughly agree with your sentiment (previous message) about the spam message earlier today, don't you think it is interesting to note the wonderful similarity of semi-literate writing style, between the post from 'vivekchoudhary' and The Social Media People! Viewed in that light it could be regarded as 'a little light relief'.

And then back to the main issue - the dreadful, inefficient, dishonest dealings of
Rogue Company 'The Social Media People' and Directors Tom McVey and Neil McVey.

Remember they choose to represent their company by posting as the oh so easily ridiculed, semi-literate, disingenuous, fictitious, 'Director of Customer Service, Steven Jackson'.
If he is their 'acceptible face' what are the real people like?