URGENT Possible Con

[allenion]

"We are calling as we are in partnership with google and we can get your site number one when someone searches for your keywords twenty four hours a day seven days a week." the holy grail !! perhaps we should all pack up and go home can they also guarantee that every visitor will spend loads of money and make me a millioniare

[OldWelshGuy]

Originally Posted by newapproach

Hi Guys

As the technical head at New Approach I am disappointed to find you slandering us like this.
The written word is libel not slander, slander is verbally communicated . Also in scotland it would be defamation not slander, nor libel.

We are a well established internet marketing company employing Google Certified Advertising professionals. Where is the proof then? there should be verifiable 'google certified' links on your site.

We offer a service to 1000's of clients who see the instant benefits of our service. No-one has said you are not!

We do not tie them into a contract, we take things month by month so they can cancel at any time. Again no-one has said otherwise.
We have a number of FSA regulated companies so we take compliance very seriously FSA complaince is about adverti content, nothing more nothing less. I own FSA registered companies. I have also carried out the SEo on the Norwich Union website for them. If you think I am lying about that then i can give yu my contact within Norwich union who will confirm this as fact.

and are probably the only company who record all phone calls as a verbal contract. Would this be the same contract that you said above you do not tie people into? Are you telling people in advance that conversations will be recorded?

If the customer does not see a traffic increase to their site, they cancel. It is a very simple arrangement between us and them. Again, no-one has said otherwise.

I do not appreciate us getting bad mouthed on the net when you do not fully understand our company. You are being badmouthed on the net, as a result of your companies actions.

We do not claim to be affiliated to google in any way shape or form so I suggest that the libellous comments end. FACT, 2 people independently have verified that you sales staff ARE misleading people, that they ARE claiming to have a special relationship with Google, in fact it appears that they are saying they are working on BEHALF of google.

Adwords can be used in many ways - we have ours and you have yours - lets leave it at that. LOOK! No One is questioning your ability as a company to help other companies, we ALL know how that PPC works, most of us carry out PPC campaigns for clients, it is NOT your ability that is being questioned here, it is your sales force integrity.

As the man in the nationwide ad says 'it doesn't work like that' . I don't think anyone hasquestioned the fact that what you do works, as most of us do it also. What IS at question is the FACT you appear to be breaking the LAW! Your sales staff ARE BREAKING THE LAW. They are LYING to customers. or at least have lied to the two people who have stated this as fact here.

My advice to you is to go to court for libel. You record all your conversations,so we can call those tapes as evidence, we can then see whether or not the chap that spoke to the member on here, claiming he was from google, then had 'done a deal' with google, is telling the truth.

here is my guess. You have either

1. A bent sales manager who is making a shedload of money

2. a bent sales person who doesn't give a toss for the company he works for as long as he gets his weekly commission cheque

3. An endemic problem that the company is unaware (unwilling to look at) whereby many sales staff are lying to clients in order to get the business, but as long as they are getting results then that is ok right? WRONG!

This is how it is. Client pays you £100 (for example) you spend £30 on ads, and keep the £70. now the client needs to know that they are doing this, else you are actually obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception. this is a CRIMINAL offence, and the police can (and will ) get involved.

[newapproach]

I think everyone is going a bit extreme on all this. There are plenty of customers out there so rather than fight between ourselves, lets just accept that my hat is a little blacker than your pristine white one!!!

[OldWelshGuy]

Originally Posted by newapproach

I think everyone is going a bit extreme on all this. There are plenty of customers out there so rather than fight between ourselves, lets just accept that my hat is a little blacker than your pristine white one!!!

Actually this goes WAY beyond white hat black hat what your salespeople who spoke to the people on here are doing is a CRIMINAL OFFENCE. It is called obtaining property by deception!

You simply can NOT lie to people in order to get their business, it is illegal to do so!

We are not 'fighting amongst ourselves' we are discussing allegedly ILLEGAL pbusiness practices!

So what have you done about the salespeople who spoke to the members here? I assume you HAVE investigated this? seeing as you record all conversations it is pretty easy to sort this out, and sack the liars that are bringing your company name into disrepute!

[OldWelshGuy]

To Newapproach:

Just so that you know I am not being a git, and to prove that what I am saying is fact, and that you ARE leaving yourselves open to investigation and prosecution (A company in Swansea have been done and the guy jailed fo r doing this with domain names)

Obtaining property by a deception

s15 TA68 states:
(1) A person who by any deception dishonestly obtains property belonging to another, with intent to permanently depriving the other of it shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years. (2) ...a person is to be treated as obtaining property if he obtains ownership, possession or control of it and 'obtain' includes obtaining for another or enabling another to obtain or to retain. (3) the s6 definition of intention to permanently deprive applies to the s15 offence.
By any deception

The deception must be the operative cause of the obtaining of property, and this is a question question of fact for the jury to decide, requiring proof that the victim would not have acted in the same way had he or she known the truth. snip> in MPC v Charles (1977) AC 177, a causal link was implied even though the victim admitted not considering the question ......

----------------------------- END

Do you see now the importance of sorting out your sales staff, and I hope that you understand that it is not white hat black hat, it is Blue hat with a badge on it and handcuffs with your name on, in their back pocket!

[TheeCommerceConsultant]

I think everyone is going a bit extreme on all this. There are plenty of customers out there so rather than fight between ourselves, lets just accept that my hat is a little blacker than your pristine white one!!!

So we just sit by and let your salesmen con people out of money for a service you blatantly can not offer (by deception)! I don't think so mate.

You have in this above statment confirmed that everything written about this company is not limited to the sales staff but is indicative of the management throughout.

That sir is an admission of guilt in my book and it is also sticking two fingers up to everyone at the same time. You have basically admitted in saying 'just accept that my hat is a little blacker' that you are deliberatly missleading people and you are fully aware of it and you don't give a sh...

Just remember karma, I will sleep easy tonight knowing that you will get yours sooner or later, I have seen it happen more than once to sh..s like you.

[KingPin]

Let's see how many clients you get when you openly admit that the company you work for practices black hat techniques.

I can tell you the answer right now.

Reminds me of latitude.

Best thing is, you have openly admitted on a public forum that the company you work for is not ethical.

KP

[OldWelshGuy]

Originally Posted by TheeCommerceConsultant

No it wasnt an email it was a hard nosed telesales operation, dont worry I am not interested it was just a heads up.

Luckily none of the operators I spoke to had a clue, but they still carried on even after I told them that google does not form that kind of alliance (as far as I am aware).

But by god were they pushy sales men. I am sure they will make a pot of cash of poor unsuspecting sods and suddenly dissapear.

Quoted this in case our friend deletes it again to cover his tracks

[BeckySharpe]

Hi Guys

Just looked in to let you know they're still playing the same game, http: //groups.google.co.uk/group/Google_Webmaster_Help-chit-chat/browse_thread/thread/8def650730f0cde3/5bd4170080c0218b?hl=en&- tho' with a large helping of abuse, too. Not very nice at all.

There's a space between http: and // - I had to disable the link to post it.

[rhyswynne]

This link is the link Becky posted.