the social media people net66 review: scam 850

ok these LYING crooks will try to sell you facebook advertising for £140 + for 10000 impressions ...this sounds alot until you do it yourself ...they also say they are paying for both impressions and click throughs...NOT TRUE
ITS AN EITHER OR OPTION, so i set up both myself ..
an impression campaign cost me just £1.75 (one pound seventy five PENCE) for 13095 impressions
and a pay per click campaign cost me £6 for 39056 impression with 6 click though, , , this all happend in a 24 hour period,
they claim it takes a month to do this ...utter rubbish
they also claim they do not receive detailed reports ...RUBBISH AND MORE LIES ...facebook have just one program for advertising and the reports are very detailed so in fact they probbably do not even place a single advert for you .
p.s if you want to find these crooks try 192.com

I was cold called by The Social Media People - Uk, offering to coordinate facebook advertising for my small business. Seemed a bit high pressure to me, website was a bit flimsy, so i hesitated. When they enquired why i was hesitant i said that i was not convinced they were a legitimate company - they started to get nasty. After some independent research (will post details later after they are out of business) - evidence presented itself that this company is not what they say they are. ! BEWARE - SOCIAL MEDIA PEOPLE - UK - ARE A SCAM !

We're an Irish based business and have just been approached by this outfit. Our phone was answered by a more mature member of staff who admittedly wouldn't know much about Facebook.

We decided it wasn't for us but when this was explained to their "Regional Sales Manager (UK/Ireland)" when she rang back for the third time in fifteen minutes, she got very aggressive and quite abusive. They should stick to selling SNAKE OIL.

Like other complainants, I was cold called and agreed to a month's trial advertising for my B and B on Facebook. The salesperson said I'd get thousands of hits and it would cost around £100.00. I didn't receive a copy of the advertisement as promised and began to detect a whiff of snake oil. I then emailed the Social Media Group to say I wasn't going ahead with the agreement, gave my reasons and said I'd cancelled my card payment. Within minutes, an email from their "Fraud Control Department" threatened me with police action and accused me of fraud. Their "fraud controller" Caroline Stephenson said the legal cooling off period would not apply as this was a business to business transaction. It' was not of course, but still their threats continued.
These people are truly venomous and to be avoided at all costs. Besides, anyone can post their own ads on Facebook for around £20.00 per month.

regarding the stephen jackson comment - I too contacted subway headquarters and they acknowledged they have NO involvement with the social media people

I think that the Customer Service Director's' protestations might look more convincing if spelling and grammar were attended to. It would be in-accurate to say there are mistakes in every line - but there are very, very many, including errors in his own company name/address AND phone number! Or will Mr Jackson correct me?

Contrary to the story above by Steve Jackson the Subway email came from the Subway UK Marketing department not a Branch. He doesn't say why Subway want their logo removed. There is a suspicion that the actual SMP business is based in Manchester (see other thread) The advertising they offered us was centred on a 50 mile radius of Manchester city centre about a 100 miles away. Difficult for us to check the ad went live. Given that the ad - I really could have done this myself - is actually a link to your own website it is interesting that Google Analytics showed no traffic generated from the Facebook site whatsoever.

The company registration is given below. The registrant also owns a web design company in Manchester. Note that the name of the company was changed only last year from Facebook-Ads. Mr Jackson seems to come from Manchester.

Doing the appropriate research is just what we are doing Mr. Jackson.

If you look at the company web address you will see a different one from that given by Jackson above. The Regent Street address is another address with numerous business affiliations but the socialmediapeople doesn't seem to one of them . The Portland Street address uses a PO Box and check out this site to view another's description of the address
http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/02031373689

Name & Registered Office:
THE SOCIAL MEDIA PEOPLE LTD
204 BURNAGE LANE
MANCHESTER
ENGLAND
M19 1AJ
Company No. [protected]

Status: Active
Date of Incorporation: 23/09/2010

Country of Origin: United Kingdom
Company Type: Private Limited Company
Nature of Business (SIC(03)):
None Supplied
Accounting Reference Date: 30/09
Last Accounts Made Up To: (NO ACCOUNTS FILED)
Next Accounts Due: 23/06/2012
Last Return Made Up To:
Next Return Due: 21/10/2011
Previous Names:
Date of change Previous Name
29/11/2010 FACEBOOK-ADS LTD

Domain name:
thesocialmediapeople.co.uk

Registrant:
admin

Registrant type:
Other UK Entity (e.g. clubs, associations, many universities)

Registrant's address:
Unit 2412 PO BOX 6495
London
W1A 6US
United Kingdom

Registrar:
LCN.com Ltd [Tag = LCN]
URL: http://www.lcn.com
Domain name:
thesocialmediapeople.co.uk

Registrant:
admin

Registrant type:
Other UK Entity (e.g. clubs, associations, many universities)

Registrant's address:
Unit 2412 PO BOX 6495
London
W1A 6US
United Kingdom

Registrar:
LCN.com Ltd [Tag = LCN]
URL: http://www.lcn.com

Lovely. But there is more up to date information regarding this.
The company 'The Social Network Marketing Company Ltd trading as The Social Media People changed its 'Registered Address (Companies House) a few weeks ago. The Regent Street adress is the new one. I suspect that the change was related to the desire of the company to give the impression that it is London based.
Previously the Registered Address was in Burnage, Manchester (as described by 'iockus') - where several other companies owned/run by the same Directors are also registered.
At around the same time as the change of Registered Address the company added some previously 'missing' detail to its website 'Terms and Conditions. The 'missing' detail was information required by Companies Act legislation for all Limited companies to be within the law on websites etc. It may have been prompted by an enquiry/instruction to The Social Media People from Companies House - but that is conjecture.

Unfortunately I'm one of this company's advertising service victim. I have purchased their service through phone, but never received any written terms and conditions, just wonder, with the consumer right act, will I be able to argue that they did not fulfil the basic requirement of the service contract by providing terms and conditions to consumer and required a chargeback on my payment from credit card? They sent me an invoice for the 1st month payment, and with footer on the letter saying terms and conditions on website, but the website address was incorrect and truncated anyway (rather than thesocialmedia people they suddenly were called the socialmarketingcompany something...)The also claimed they received my letter to cancel the service late, one week after I posted it first class letter to their POBox address in London, and threaten to pass on this to debt collector for 2nd month payment. What a scammer! Any advice to me?

I am interested in what you are doing 'little76' I have had the same experience.

I have been looking at these messages for a while. Call it a hobby!
This one’s a mess! But it is unusual for a ‘bad-mouthed’ company to respond, and it means we can see both sides of the argument.
The ‘complainers’ give a bad impression of The Social Media People.
The Social Media People defends itself against unwarranted attack.

Form your own opinion by checking things out.
1. The company spokesman says:
“In fact, if you visit our website you can see the clients we currently have on board, in line with the ASA regulations, it is illegal to claim affiliation with any companies that may not be associated to you. Ask yourslef this:
DO YOU THINK A COMPANY THAT IS A SCAM WOULD HAVE CLIENTS SUCK AS: SUBWAY, REVOLUTION, BAIRSTOW EVES, MENKIND LTD, BAGUETTE EXPRESS & EURO DEBT? NEITHER DO WE, THATS WHY WE LIST THEM!”
The Social Media People is proud to show its list of corporate clients as evidence of its credibility.
And I guess that the clients would be pleased to confirm their satisfaction with the services of The Social Media People. After all, they allow the use of their logo on its website.

So its easy - Contact companies listed as clients of The Social Media People and let them know that their supplier is under attack. Ask them to lend their good name and company reputation to fend off unjustified claims against the company they are ‘affiliated’ with.
(Usually it would be the Marketing or Legal Department which is in charge of the use of its Intellectual Property [Trade Mark].)

2a. The Advertising Standards Authority, as mentioned by the company spokesman, will be able to confirm how the rules governing use by one company of another company’s Registered Trade Mark is allowed, and not misleading, as long as owner of the Trade Mark has given its permission.
2b. Additionally there is The Intellectual Property Office at:
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/pro-lawpractice.htm .

3. Trading Standards, Manchester will not take action concerning companies which are undertaking their business activities in a legal, professional way. So there is no point in contacting them at:
Tel: [protected].45am to 5pm)
Email: trading_standards@manchester.gov.uk
http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/manchester/

4. Another source of factual information is Companies House at: www.companieshouse.gov.uk
Example:
The spokesman says:
“The Social Media People UK Ltd was established by a Father & Son partnership over 12years ago and the honesty, integrity and ethical business practice is as prominent today as it was then.”

You’d like to check that? - And it would factually support the spokesman’s claim about how long the company has been established.
At no cost you can look at the relevant documents on the Companies House ‘Webcheck’ section:
http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/bd020129d0170fb3ca05c5e87d633e5f/wcframe?name=accessCompanyInfo,
Search for The Social Media People UK Ltd. (Or any other company name.)
Click on the number at the left hand side of the chart.
You will see the details of the company, including the ‘Date of Incorporation’.
Additional info can also be seen by clicking on the ‘Order Information’ tag at the right; some more info can be purchased at very low cost.
(Note: Only properly ‘Incorporated’ companies are shown. If a company is not ‘Incorporated’ it can’t use the ‘Ltd’ tag.)

You could check out lots of things if you’ve got the time –
OR you could phone the spokesman on the telephone number he has given, and ask him about it all.

What a very unusual comment from the spokesman at Companies House, which normally provides financial information only about British companies. It is odd that the spokesman could vouch for the honesty and integrity of The Social Media People. Or perhaps he knows them personally?

I was approached by these people. The call made me think they were Facebook. Indeed now that I have learned that they were calling themselves Facebook-Ads Ltd they seem very fishy to me. Anyway I was told by someone called Shane Pearson that the company was legitimate, and to prove it I just had to look at their client list. I spoke to someone at the head office of TaxAssist Accountants, who said they have never advertised with the Social Media People and that they have asked them several times to remove their logo from their website. I decided not to have anything to do with this company.
Thank you for your warnings, these people do not seem to be very nice at all.

I did not intend to infer a 'spokesman from Companies House. The comment refers to the 'company spokesman' - of the company under discussion. I am sorry if that was not clear. Or is runaway6 having a joke at my expense; naughty!

Clarity- so important in company information, so lacking in your contact with me. First a female salesperson stated, not inferred, that she was from Facebook and making a one off advertising offer to people in my region. I bought one month's advertising for approximately £100.00. But the advertisement, if it ever existed, did not make its way to Facebook or to my email account. When I tried to cancel the agreement, I was threatened with fraud, police and bailiffs. Oh, I forgot libel. But Mr Jonathan Barker Smith, who claimed in a telephone message to act as legal counsel for The Social Media Group, is very difficult to locate.
Me, I'm off to the Advertising Standards Authority. This is not an inference. It's a fact.

Hi Runaway6, they haven't got that nasty to me yet, but I suspect soon. Not sure what I should do now, but already typed up a formal letter to complaint to them and ask them for proof of advertisement. Anything else I can do?

O...did the search HobbyHouse suggested, the have another company registered number...

THE SOCIAL NETWORK MARKETING COMPANY LTD
4TH FLOOR OFFICE 404 ALBANY HOUSE
324/326 REGENT STREET
LONDON
ENGLAND
W1B 3HH
Company No. [protected]

Status: Active
Date of Incorporation: 14/10/2010

Country of Origin: United Kingdom
Company Type: Private Limited Company
Nature of Business (SIC(03)):
None Supplied
Accounting Reference Date: 31/10
Last Accounts Made Up To: (NO ACCOUNTS FILED)
Next Accounts Due: 14/07/2012
Last Return Made Up To:
Next Return Due: 11/11/2011

So.
1. Has anyone tried phoning Mr Jackson on the number he gives - [protected]?
I did. I tried several times - and it is 'Not in Service'.
Why would an executive of the company give us the wrong number?

2. Has anyone looked at Companies House Records?
I did. It seems that 'The Social Media People UK Ltd' does not exist, and never has!
So the statement: “The Social Media People UK Ltd was established by a Father & Son partnership over 12years ago and the honesty, integrity and ethical business practice is as prominent today as it was then.” - is a bit puzzling?
If you were very charitable, as I am, you might think that perhaps it was a small mistake in the company name. (The executive gets his company name wrong? Derrrr!) So I had a look at similar sounding companies for the answer.

The Social Media People Ltd. - Ah, that might be the one we are looking for!
No! Although owned by the same directors THAT was only Incorporated on 23-09-2010 (as FACEBOOK-Ads Ltd); with the name changed to 'The Social Media People Ltd. on 29-11-2010 - a whole 5+ months ago.

Or what about 'The Social Network Marketing Company Ltd. (trading as The Social Media People)'?
Nope. That one was Incorporated 14-10-2010. 7 months - things are looking better! You've guessed it - same directors.

Ah, but there is Net 66 Web Services Ltd. to save the day! Incorporated 15-10-2009! Wow. That one has now been there for 18 months or so; but not 12 years. Same directors - anyone surprised?

O.K. then, but is it a father and son partnership?
Well, it might be, since both male directors share the same surname. Hooray! Something that (might be) correct.

Funnily enough, yet another company also has a director with that surname.
Net 66 Ltd. Incorporated on 22-02-2011, has a female director with the same surname as the ones above.

Not looking too good for the 'customer service Director's credibility on this evidence. Perhaps he was having a bad day?!

He stated " ... honesty, integrity and ethical business practice is as prominent today as it was then..."
Perhaps it is. Perhaps we shouldn't question such things.
But did he say 'HIGH LEVELS of honesty, integrity etc...?
No. So perhaps he wants us to insert our own adjective, ranging somewhere between 'superlative' and 'non-existent'.
And cleverly, Mr Jackson made no claim for 'accuracy' at that point.

Does anyone have any news from the 'Client' companies with which The Social Media People is 'affiliated'?
I'm a bit tired after all my investigations and I can't do that - today.

To Steven Jackson - After being very upset about the way your customer service/cancellations department have treated me I decided to look up other complaints on the internet and have found this site. How surprised (or should I say not suprised) I was to find that other customers are being treated in exactly the same way as myself ! I feel I have been conned out of £218 plus VAT, I have not had a single click back from the advertising onto my site when I cancelled with 10 days to spare I was told you had not received the letter in time and therefore I owed another £99 + VAT, the mistake I made was that I sent the letter first class post and I did not send it by recorded delivery. Will you be in the office on Monday, I would very much like to speak to you?

Hello everyone, my name is Tom Faulkner.
I have been watching the site for some time and now wish to make my contribution.

I am a customer of ‘The Social Network Marketing Company Ltd trading as The Social Media People’ (Registered Address since 17 March 2011: 4th Floor Office 404, Albany House, 324/326 Regent Street, W1B3HH).
The company will not dispute that I am a genuine (if not a popular) customer.
Some visitors/contributors to this forum will recognise me, as I have been in touch with several of you for a while now.

I ‘signed up’ (with The Social Media People) on or about 5 January 2011, so my ‘case’ is continuous from then until now. This seems to be a longer time span than many who’ve posted here.
As most of the relationship between the company and me precedes the comments made on this site (& others) it hasn’t been influenced by the views expressed here.

I feel that my experience could be described as ‘typical’ of dissatisfied customers (or near customers); but it does not represent a ‘typical HAPPY customer’.
It would be better for others to judge. I am obviously biased.

I wish to offer a suggestion to enable all interested parties to view ‘real’ information, rather than forming their conclusions from the ‘comments’ of others, and of the company.

What does ‘The Social Media People’ have to gain or lose from what I propose?
There is nothing to lose, and everything to gain for the company, as this will be hard evidence of a real case – just what Mr Jackson so strongly desires.

What do I have to lose?
I might be exposing myself to the world as a complete idiot, naive businessman, and dishonourable individual.
What do I have to gain? I guess that even if people agree with my side of the discussion, I’ll still look like an idiot! So I don’t gain much at all.
I am willing to risk that; to enable others to judge the ‘rights and wrongs’.

So what do I propose?
Both I and The Social Media People will ‘publish’, for public scrutiny, EVERY communication which has passed between us.
The company records telephone calls – so they can be included for people to listen to. (Although it’ll be very boring listening to me droning on & on!)
The company has all the emailed and posted letters from me, and their responses.
Here, on this forum, I urge, and grant them permission to ‘publish’ all documents/recordings relating to my case.
If there is anything they don’t have, I will supply my copies where they exist.
Others can then assess for themselves what conclusions to draw.

What a great way for the company to launch its proposed forum for customers.
– As long as it is very soon. (Or we might need to use a different forum.)
The company uses the terms ‘openness, honesty, integrity, fairness, good business practices’ etc. Here is a chance to put those things into practice.
If the company feels that this proposal would be too expensive, or too technically difficult for them to undertake it should let us know.
I am prepared to do it if they won’t.

What do readers think about this?
What does The Social Media People think?

Let's go for this. I can post the abusive email from Caroline Stevenson threatening police action. I can also post a transcript of the voicemail message from another of their silver tongued operatives threatening libel.
And let's ask The Social Media People to post proof that their Facebook advertising campaigns do exist and have been displayed on Facebook pages.

I spoke to Facebook and they said that they do not advocate any third party resellers of their ads. If the service that the Social Media People is genuine then why doesn't Steve Jackson put us in touch with their account manager, because surely if they have as many clients as he has claimed, the social media people would in turn be a massive client of Facebook itself, and thus surely Facebook would advocate on behalf of a genuine client?

Facts, facts, facts.
Yes that would be nice.
It is good to see that the company is keen to concentrate on facts.

Something to consider for everyone: If you were running a business,
and wished to demonstrate to customers that your business is well run;
for how many days or weeks would you provide 'your old number' - a 'Not in Service' telephone number?
Surely you'd quickly notice that the number of telephone calls was lower than it had been a while before?

Quote: ..."WE HAVE CHANGED THE CUSTOMER SERVICE NUMBER RECENTLY, WE CAN NOT GET THE SAME NUMBER, BUT WE HAVE GOT IT TO BE JUST 1 DIGIT DIFFERENT"

Here is a very simple question which the company should have no difficulty with, so let's give it a go:
Please will Mr Jackson tell us how recently the number changed from [protected]?

The precise date would be nice, but if that's not available, let's not be too demanding:
it should be easy enough to say roughly when it changed:
e.g. Was it at the end of April or early May?
Was it a week or so before 19/20 April when Mr Jackson made his first 'post'?
Or would it have been in March, which I don't think is particularly recent, but perhaps others might also say 'recent' for something which occurred 6 to 10 weeks ago?
But I'm getting off the point: Was it 'recently changed' in May, April or March - or when?

The answer would help re-assure any sceptics that the company wants to rely on facts;
AND that as a provider of a "fantastic, direct targeted marketing at its best", it has the facts at its fingertips in such a demanding and dynamic marketplace. That certainly IS something customers and prospective customers desire.

I am sure Mr Jackson is a busy man, but he has managed to correct some of the earlier errors of telephone number and the correct name of his company. (One cheer for Mr J?)
[But he's not yet answered the question of how long ago his telephone number changed. (Subtract half a cheer!])
Things would be much neater if he also corrected the address of his own Customer Service Headquarters.
You'd have thought that as he goes in and out of that office every day, or very regularly at least, he would realise that it is Albany House - not Albana.
Have none of his staff noticed and pointed it out? And an earlier 'post' on this forum highlighted that there was a mistake.
Small details, yes. But people's confidence in the company will be influenced one way or the other by such attention to detail from a Director of the company.

How low can you go. It seems you could happily walk under a caterpillar while carrying an umbrella.
Your post is beneath contempt. If The Social Media People provided the service it promised, and we paid for, none of us would have made any statements against you.
PS. Have you ever considered taking a course in basic grammar, punctuation and spelling?

Things ARE hotting up aren't they.

But I am pleased that Steven Jackson has now promised to tell us when the number changed.

Quote: "PS. Hobby Horse, I will enquire to the exact date as to when our number was changed. It is a central switchboard number. As customer service agents we have direct line's and departmental numbers we usually give to clients."

Yes, yes, yes - I know it is just a detail - but he will tell us. That is great

Mr Jackson has responded to my proposal in colourful, if irrelevant terms.
He has proved that I speak the truth - I'm not popular with the company! (The feeling is mutual.)

And he has done me a great favour!

Mr Jackson has made many statements - but I think he's missed a trick! The most effective, conclusive, 'proveable' method to destroy the credibility of someone he infers is as 'nasty' as me, is to take up my proposal to PUBLISH EVERYTHING.

Apparently there is a recording of me identifying myself as 'Elemental' - PUBLISH THAT TOO. (YouTube would do.)
(I don't know why it would be so terrible to be Elemental. I've read the 'posts' and they seem quite mild to me.)

But what's the favour he's done me?
I paid for an advert for which there's been no verifiable evidence it ever appeared. Now he has at least provided me with some 'complimentary' free advertising, by publicising my website. Driving lessons anyone?

Having been re-introduced to this debate by the company spokesman, let me address some facts, and pose some questions. This should satisfy him and the company, which wants facts not falsehood; and Hobby Horse who also seems to want facts (in very fine detail by the look of it!). I won’t argue with the idea that facts will indeed enable others to judge for themselves.
In the earlier posts I mentioned that Steven Jackson had errors in his own company name, address and phone number. This is now confirmed as a fact.
It is not a trivial fact.
(Keep in mind that in his posts Mr Jackson, represents his company as a Director - not the new office boy - and makes serial errors of fact - not just grammar! His excuse is that he was, to coin a phrase ‘tired and emotional’. Not good enough.)
1: Is the company or Steven Jackson registered to use the company name ‘The Social Media People UK Ltd’? Yes/No.
1.1: Will the company confirm whether it is legal or illegal to use a Ltd company name without being registered to do so? (Companies Act; Section 1197) Yes/No.

I also previously referred to changes in the company’s registered office address and website.
2.1: On or near 17 March 2011 did the company change the registered office address from Burnage, Manchester M19 1AJ to the new one at Regent Street, London W1B 3HH? Yes/No.
If this is true, it may or may not be relevant, but it is legal to do so.
2.2: Within 1 week of that change, did the company make changes to the website to include the new Registered Office Address, and Place of Registration (England and Wales)? Yes/No.
2.3: Is it a fact or a fallacy that to be within the law a Ltd company must disclose the full company name, company number, registered office address and place of registration on its website? (Section 82-84 Companies Act2006 (in conjunction with Statutory Instrument 2008/495)) Fact/Fallacy.
2.3a: Prior to the changes on the website, was the company complying with the law, or not? (Before the changes the registered office address and place of registration were not included.) Yes/No.
2.3b: Even after the changes there is a mistake [protected]) in how it presents the information. (A small, but telling point given Mr Jackson’s recent, serial, ‘little errors’.)
Between 28 February 2011 and before the first changes to Registered Office Address and website, did Companies House contact the company to raise any matters related to the subsequent changes? Yes/No.

If these questions are answered (as opposed to us having our attention diverted by yet more new assertions by Steven Jackson) we may begin to get an insight into (quote) “the honesty, integrity and ethical business practice” of The Social Network Marketing Company Ltd trading as The Social Media People, and all its associated companies run by the same Directors.
If we ARE diverted, and the questions are not answered will people make any judgement as to the reasons?
There are many more questions to ask – and facts to introduce - but I’m sure everyone has had enough for the moment.

Hi. As Mr Jackson hasn't actually reply to me directly, I think... As a customer who paid £99 + VAT, £20 + VAT for activation, can I request a proof of my advertisement on Facebook. Facebook Advertisement will send confirmation to customer when we placed the advertisement. Can I have the proof send to me then? I'm happy to enclose my company name here if you can confirm you will publish this information on this website. Full analytical report that I have received from Social Media People is as follow:

The Social Media People would like to thank you once again for choosing us to be part of your marketing
strategy. Below, please find the amount of adverts (impressions) you have received during the course of this
month.
If the amount of adverts (impressions) is greater than what was given at the beginning of your month, no
extra cost has been incurred.
* Facebook is the second most viewed site online.
* 1/3 of the whole UK population is on Facebook.
* 50% of Facebook users return daily.
* Facebook advertising is the most targeted advertising platform online.
* Your clients, customers, employees and recruits are all on Facebook.
Your advert generated 7, 924 impressions to your targeted demographic.

Is this just a make-up piece of information? I received 102, 539 impression for less than £9 for running the ads myself and I got lot more information than just his. Have you just paid £0.01 from the £99 I paid you to do so?

O...why does Social Media People keep on getting delayed post from customer when it comes to cancellation, Joe54, I have got the same experience as you did. Maybe due to the fact that they are using POBOX address in London, but office in Manchester? Surely there is not so many coincidence of delayed 1st class mail by ROYAL MAIL.

Does anyone know, what is the legal way of claiming back our honest money, if Social Media People failed to provide customer with the promised service (any sort of proof...)?

Having read the earlier post from little76 I though it might help if people could see a report.
The posted image shows enough detail to be useful, but if anyone needs a better quality, please let me know.

NOTE: The image shows exactly what the report contained. There has been no editing.

1. The Report should have been sent 3 days before the end of the period. It only arrived after the end, and after being requested.
2. The Report is from Facebook Ads Ltd. - the defunct name of the company now known as ‘The Social Media People Ltd.’
3. The wrong post code is used.
4. The website link at the bottom is a ‘broken link’ ie no website linked to it now nor when received.
5. The email address of the sender is a ‘no-reponse email’ so no-one can be contacted by that route.

Comment:
a. Does the use of the heading ’Facebook-Ads Ltd’ contravene s 1197 Companies Act 2006.?
b. Does the omission of: full company name, company number, registered office address, place of registration contravene Section 82-84 Companies Act 2006 (in conjunction with Statutory Instrument 2008/495?
c. As the document is composed ‘in-house’ it provides no independent verification of performance.
d. When questions were asked, and a report ‘as provided by Facebook’, requested. I was told that Facebook does not allow its report to be re-distributed to the client.

More soon!

O Mr Jackson, my account manager, "Lauren" has quit her job at your company without informing me, she didn't even border to tell me her last name... hence I have no chance to make my formal complaint. I phoned to query about my account on 4 May 2011 but was told that my account has been cancelled and they cannot pull up my details. So why am I still being chased for 2nd month of payment, for an account that doesn't exist? I also received email to chase for payment today, after 1 month of cancelling my contract with you, business must be good so the team took a month to email me... I'm a bit confused... Should have gone to specsaver before reading your company's Terms and Conditions, that doesn't exist following the link on the invoice your company has sent me...They also asked me to send in my complaint letter to Complaint Department, Suite 2412, PO BOX 6945, West End, London W1A 6US. So, is this a real office, strong advertisement team in Albany House or this address? Any dedicated personnel I can speak to in person?

Speak to Grace,
She supposedly works in the legal department for the company, although why a reputable and honest company selling honest goods or services should have need of a legal department i have no idea!
Her telephone number is [protected] (more smoke screens - you might think it is a London based number and it is, but its on a redirect back to the north of England - Manchester I suspect).
Yes suellen I am amazed that Mr Jackson holds the post of Director, this is a great achievement for somebody who is illiterate. Elemantal as for your comment about Mr Jackson claiming that he was tired and emotional as an excuse for his illiteracy I think the phrase he used was 'tired and running high on emotions' which sounds more like a lyric from a Chris De Burgh song than the response from a high flying corporate executive.

I see Mr Jackson dare not rise to my challenge of declaring their account manager with Facebook, because Facebook have never heard of them.

Hi all,
I have read all your stories with great interest as I have also been a victim of this company's dubious practices.
I too was cold called & agreed to take out a one month trial advert for facebook advertising at a cost of £99 + £20 for artwork copied from my website.
At this point I was happy with the artwork & the service that I had received.
During the time that the advert was hopefully? shown, I found out that I could advertise directly with facebook for far less so decided not to continue after the end of the trial period.
The next time that I heard from the company after the monthly report was to inform me of a payment confirmation.
I contacted my accounts manager (Ashleigh) to inform her of their mistake. This is where it all started to turn nasty. I was informed that I had in fact taken out a monthly rolling contract & that I had to give 30 days written notice to cancel this.
I explained that I only had the one month advert & have e-mails to confirm this but they don't seem to think this matters. I explained that I will be taking this further to be told that this would be fraud etc etc & that the rolling contract was explained to me during a compliance call that was recorded. I recall this call but certainly not that I was agreeing to a rolling contract which I wouldn't have agreed to had I been aware of it. I have asked for a copy of this call but have been told that I would have to pay a charge of £10 for this which at the moment I am unwilling to pay.
On advice I have stopped them taking further payments from my card & given The Social Media People the written notice.
The next time that I had contact from them was a month later when Morgan from the cancellations team e-mailed to inform me that they are unable to complete the cancellation due to my account being in arrears & that I have 7 days to clear the arrears or my account will be passed onto the collections team.
I called Morgan today who said the same as Ashley & that the account wouldn't be closed until the arrears are paid.

I plan on getting some legal advice tomorrow & would really appreciate any advice that any of you may have.
Regards to all

If you are a members of the Federation of Small Business (FSB) They have a free legal advice line.

Website changes - What an excellent idea!

I see that The Social Media People has removed the ‘Our Clients’ list from the website. ( http://thesocialmediapeople.co.uk/clients.php )
This will indeed protect their corporate clients from mischievous approaches by the disgruntled customers, and competitors.

It is a shame though, that The Social Media People is: ‘no longer displaying our existing clients to new customers’.
Existing customers will need no re-assurance as to the level of quality of services they receive. People who may be considering new business would have their confidence boosted by seeing an ‘A List’ of corporate clients.

A question: On the website I notice the statement: ‘For existing clients or to learn more about us, login to your account’
1. For existing clients: What facility is available for existing customers to achieve this ‘log-on’?
2. To learn more about the company: The reader would not have an account to log-in to. What do they do?

And while website things are in mind, will Steven Jackson update us of when the promised ‘blog for clients’ will be on the website. It is now getting on for a month since this great facility was promised.

Finally – Mr. Jackson, don’t forget you promised to let us know when the telephone number changed from : [protected] to [protected]. What news?

Whoops - Yes, we do indeed 'all make mistakes'!
The closing question on the last line of my earlier message should be:
Finally – Mr. Jackson, don’t forget you promised to let us know when the telephone number changed from : [protected] to [protected]. What news?

I’m still not sure whether Hobby Horse is supporting The Social Media People (the only one who does!) – or whether there is a heavy dose of sarcasm in his ‘posts?!
However, by accident or design, he has posed some interesting questions; which should be answered.
This would clarify things for customers, and further support “the honesty, integrity and ethical business practice” of The Social Media People.
My interpretation of the situation is less positive than that of H.H. The result though, looks the same whichever side you take.

Is there, or is there not, a facility on the website: ‘For existing clients, or to learn more about us, login to your account’?
If not, the company’s very own website is further evidence of a dreadful level of planning/skill, in-efficiency or poor business practice.
If there is, the company has failed to help its customers easily find it.
Either way would any casual observer be impressed?

Let no-one forget that this company, and its sister organisation ‘Net66 Web Design Services Ltd’ trade on delivering high levels of skill and expertise with advertising, website design and operation.
Previously Steven Jackson has made important errors of fact (and good taste). Now, if the website is failing to offer the facility it directs customers towards, it can be seen that such ‘errors’ are endemic within the company.
‘Would you buy a used car from this ...’ - or indeed any advertising or other service?

Hey! How is THAT for action?
Both another post from Mr Jackson AND action on the website.

Regarding the website:
Earlier today there was no facility for clients to log in, but now – there is!.
One in the eye for doubters!?

But, if it works, how does it work? Imagine:
- I’m someone searching to advertise on Facebook.
- I search, and find this website. http://thesocialmediapeople.co.uk/clients.php
- I’m curious and want (website text) “to learn more about us, login to your account”
- How do I log-in to an account which does not yet exist?
True, there is the suggestion to phone in, but that conflicts with the instruction above.
(Website text)
“If you are interested in our services please contact our Sales Staff direct on [protected]”
Sales Staff? DIRECT? - [protected]?

So it now appears that the very busy ‘Customer Services Headquarters’, who’s phone number was so recently changed to [protected], will be inundated with telephone calls for the Sales Staff on its DIRECT LINE [protected]. (And Mr Jackson has described in eloquent terms that he and his Customer Services team are very busy.)
To see which department answers [protected] I telephoned earlier today.
The first time the phone rang for over 1 minute before I hung up.
The second time the phone was answered:
When I said “Is that The Sales Department/” The person who answered the call (to ‘Sales Staff direct’ line) responded, “ It’s not, no. They are actually in a different office. Can I take your name and number and get someone to give you a call back?”
So, it’s the DIRECT LINE to the Sales Staff, but The Sales Staff are in a different office?

Call me old fashioned, but in my experience a Direct Line goes to a specific person or department.
A line which serves Customer Services Headquarters, Sales Staff, General Enquiries, London Office, Manchester Office might be called (Ooh let’s think?) A SWITCHBOARD!

Earlier, someone wondered if I was supporting The Social Media People. Well, I may have been neutral, but now I think I have decided which version of the story I come down on.
It seems that the customers were right all along!

P.S: We still don’t know when the Customer Service Headquarters number was changed to [protected]. Notwithstanding his most recent contribution Mr Jackson promised to tell us. Any news Mr Jackson? 

Steven - You obviously haven't got any idea of who your 'REAL' Customers are. It shocks me to see people can actually defend this organisation. I also worry for the customers that have been mis sold this service and the staff that are working under the directors that are trying to make an honest living but have no clue of what is going on due to the structure of the company. In one month, how many different people did you all speak to? And how long did it take for someone to get back to your emails? I sent an email on the 4th to cancel my 'trial month' and it took my 'account manager' two days to reply...fantastic account management if you ask me! Suprisingly enough the date they replied was the date my next months payment was due...any coincidence?

Anyway, I thought my dealings were over with the social media people until I received an email this morning saying that they hadn't received my cancellation letter on time (surprise surprise...seems a common trend) and for that reason I owed them TWO months payments as my last one didn't go through...THANK GOD! Apparently my letter took 6 days to reach the office whereas another letter I sent at the same time only took 1 day to arrive at it's destination...again what a funny coincidence?

Did anyone else see Watchdog last night? When is it next on?

To adapt an expression used by a President of The U.S.A.: Mr. Jackson, you're no Richard Branson!
Possibly the one thing you’ve said with which anyone might agree is that people should study the facts and make their own mind up.
THAT is why so many customers are presenting so many FACTS.

My previous post presented several factual questions. It also stated:
"If these questions are answered (as opposed to us having our attention diverted by yet more new assertions by Steven Jackson) we may begin to get an insight into (quote) “the honesty, integrity and ethical business practice” of The Social Network Marketing Company Ltd trading as The Social Media People..." etc

Your response has helped all readers to further ‘reality check’ their opinion of The Social Media People.
You could have denied the points raised in the questions relating to legal matters. End of story.
You didn’t. Once again you tried to cast a smokescreen to obscure valid questions which deserve an answer.
Your synthetic indignation fools no-one. Your company would be better served if it did not respond at all.

Organisations like the government body ‘Companies House’ would rather go to great lengths to persuade an errant Ltd. company to comply with regulations, than go to court.
But that would negate the offence. Leniancy does not excuse or invalidate a charge.

Despite your rantings, all readers (and most are indeed real customers) already know the qualities of The Social Media People. Because most are honest people with little or no experience of dealing this sort of situation, it may take some time; but they will find a legal way to obtain redress. Or at least to end the misery of their association with your company.
It is to your advantage that they are naive in this setting, and present their case/fight their corner/defend themselves with logical argument and reason. In most walks of life people are reasonable. But an illogical response to reasonable and reasoned argument will confuse them.
A less than honourable company would know that and use it to its advantage.
You ARE dealing with reasonable, but frustrated, angry, egregious people who are trying to find a solution in a hostile environment. I am sure they will find their solution.

Finally, to comment on a new post from ‘Chickens 123’
I am sure that The Social Media People knows exactly who its real customers are. Have you noticed that Mr Jackson and his colleagues are anxious to attend to their NEW customers, and deny the possibility that ‘complainers’ have a legitimate case.
Q. What is the difference between a ‘NEW customer’ and a ‘long established customer’ like Chicken 123?
A. NEW customers don’t know what we know. Poor things.