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.
Good afternoon readers,
I am forced YET AGAIN to post to make sure anybody who may read this understands the difference between fact & opinion. There are many many accusations on here of scam, scam fraud this & that.
I am not going to stoop to the level of personal insults as others on here have, nor threaten to give out personal details including address's, we have something we were brought up with - DECENCY. I will simply post facts, if narrow minded people keep insinuating that the ASA are not competent enough to identify scams then I invite if not urge them to report us to the necessary authorities & we will comply, as far as we can see anybody hiding behind an anonymous name & offering to give out address's and making malicious insinuations is to be avoided and ignored. All we can do is present facts, we are aware Tom Faulkner is obsessed, 200+ comments says that. But beware of violent insinuations from people, there is no place for that on here, nor anywhere, I for one am disgusted!
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.
I have invited any genuine customers with questions or apprehensions to myself direct so we can deal with efficiently & speedily. 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.
I must state I can not emphasise enough my regret that we are 24 pages full of accusations & insinuations. As a family business we have pride in our work and business ethics. For more than the past decade we have endeavoured to provide the highest level of service possible and we have received some fantastic feedback built long lasting business relationships with people we are proud to have worked with. We have shared many happy memories with many good people but, with regret, of late we have been forced to fend off some horrible accusations and, admittedly, we have had to stoop down a level or two. Please do NOT believe some of the lies on here, to read some of them you would think we were criminals. We never said that we have kept 100% of our customers happy 100% of the time, but we HAVE gave 100% and nothing less, judge us on our results NOT on peoples opinions, which for all you know could be fabricated lies.(and based on what the ASA have concluded it looks as though thats exactly what it is!)
01-08-2011: The Social Media People has enough time on its hands to dish out a few old insults, and to 'cut and paste' a post which has already (largely) appeared at least twice before in the last couple of days. But not enough time to post some simple facts about a business process the company performs every day. Issuing a VAT INVOICE.
It doesn’t matter too much – except in further confirming TSMPs fear of facts which might compromise its hollow claims of good business practices, honesty, ethics etc.
Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs has some information on its website at:
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/vat/managing/charging/vat-invoices.htm#2
Will TSMP claim that HMRCs VAT authority is lying?
From the HMRC website:
What a VAT invoice must show
A VAT invoice must show:
• an invoice number which is unique and follows on from the number of the previous invoice - if you spoil or cancel a serially numbered invoice, you must keep it to show to a VAT officer at your next VAT inspection
• the seller's name or trading name, and address
• the seller's VAT registration number
•.the invoice date
• the time of supply (also known as tax point) if this is different from the invoice date - see below
• the customer's name or trading name, and address
• a description sufficient to identify the goods or services supplied to the customer
For each different type of item listed on the invoice, you must show:
• the unit price or rate, excluding VAT
• the quantity of goods or the extent of the services
• the rate of VAT that applies to what's being sold
• the total amount payable, excluding VAT
• the rate of any cash discount
• the total amount of VAT charged
There is an option for companies retailing goods or services at less than £250 to have a ‘Simplified VAT Invoice; but that wouldn’t apply as TSMP isn’t retailing – but anyway, TSMP would still be shown to be incapable of consistently producing such VAT Invoices.
Simplified VAT invoices
If you make retail sales and you make a sale of goods or services for £250 or less including VAT, then when a customer asks for a VAT invoice, you can issue a simplified VAT invoice that only needs to show:
• the seller's name and address
• the seller's VAT registration number
• the time of supply (tax point)
• a description of the goods or services
Why is this relevant? It relates to VAT Invoices issued by TSMP. Everyone who has received one can see how much - or how little - of what is required by the VAT man appears in TSMP VAT Invoices.
It made me laugh (well - once I'd got over the anger!) that when I asked TSMPs Accounts Department for a correct VAT Invoice they asked me: "What would you like to be included?"
When I said that they should already know, or be able to find out, they asked me again to list what they needed to include.
The resulting VAT Invoice still failed to satisfy the VAT requirements.
Tom Faulkner, I am surprised that TSMP did not quote you the ASA when you asked for the correct VAT invoice! lol.
The ASA incidently only said, and I quote '...had not seen evidence to support that claim...' and as such found the Google Adwords campaign for www.the-social-media-people-scam.co.uk '...to be disparaging to the complainant’s company..'
Tom McVey you may wish to use a dictionary, Oxford English is quite a good one, to see exactly what disparaging means "showing or expressing disapproval or contempt"
That is a mile away from stating that your companies are not a scam!
But hey, when did reality count in any discussions with you or your companies, or REAL Facts? Conveniently ignored and unanswered when questioned. Unprofessional to the hilt.
02-08-2011: Hi Informer28:
I didn’t know until recently that when ASA gets a complaint it gives the ‘offending party’ every opportunity to put things right without public knowledge or scrutiny. If the ‘offender’ complies with what it’s told no-one else ever knows there was a complaint.
So an outsider MAY notice changes – to a website for instance – but wouldn’t know WHY the changes had been made.
However, as in the recent ‘adjudication’, if the person/company which is the subject of a complaint says “No, I’m not changing it.” The ASA has no alternative but to go through he process and ‘adjudicate’ against them.
So all credit to that ex-employee; he/she wanted to let the world know that The Social Media People is a scam, and stood by their word. Unfortunately it also meant the adverts were taken down.
At least it’s shown that when a crumb of fact seems to support TSMP they will use, and re-use it. All other facts – those which are more difficult to face up to - are ignored or ‘smokescreened’.
It is a bit of a farce though because if you enter a search term for something say they say they do, for example, Facebook advertising, TSMP are actually nowhere to be seen. Strange that. Only by entering their URL or their title will they actually show up. Of course you also get their detractors with this. for a company that relies on cold calling and pressure selling having a prominent website probably isn't the best idea perhaps.
camilla4785 No your wrong again
Edsarn
Your assumption I feel is extremely valid and factual.
As part of Tom McVey's group their 'sister company Net66 is supposed to be a web design and SEO specialist company that is at the cutting edge of technology, but they can't get their newby company TSMP's site even ranked on Google! I wonder why? perhaps either competing with 743, 000, 000 results for Facebook advertising is beyond their ability? or they do not want to be found? or both?
Evidently, according to their site, TSMP are now trading in:
Tel: +[protected]
Email: info@thesocialmediapeople.com
80 Broad Street 5th Floor
New York City
10004 UNITED STATES - An Office Block which does not have them registered there or even known off!
www.thesocialmediapeople.fr
Email: info@thesocialmediapeople.fr
Boulevard de Sebastopol
75001 Paris - A PO BOX ADDRESS at a post office. It's the only post office in Europe that's open 365 days a year, 24 hours a day.
www.thesocialmediapeolpe.nl A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IN THE MIDDLE OF A HOUSING ESTATE
Email: info@thesocialmediapeople.de
Elst, Gelderland
Arnhem
Netherlands 6661ZW
An illusion of grandeur without a shadow of doubt. Not bad though for a office in the back street of Piccadily railway station Manchester, which a night doubles as a known street walkers paradise for the ladies of the night!
Not bad for a company Incorporated 23/09/2010 with no account details registered at Companies House, if their illusions were true! Easy enough to check. Like their London address, a PO box address! Deny that one McVeys, or are you going to quote the ASA?
Why? because they continually use smoking mirrors for the benefit of deciet and general dishonesty of all that they come into contact with; if they were to put as much effort into being an organisation which is professional, ethical, customer orientated, provide a legitamate service and have integrity I am sure they would have legitimate clients who would be shouting from the rafters as to what a good group of companies they are! But where are they? Out of 12-14k companies on their books, as they claim, surely they could get a few literate ones to back them up? Or is the case that facts are too much of a hinderance and to be ignored as with the law of the land by the MvVeys?
The fulcrum does not swing in their favour.
Good afternoon readers,
For the love of god you would think angry small minded people trying for 4+months with over 2000+ negative comments would have understood there opinions are NOT TRUE and given up by now.
The facts are: We are a business, its a competitive industry & as we are head & shoulders above any other company we are resented. We provide an amazing return on investment for clients and invite anybody to get in contact to see for themselves.
If you listened to any of the comments defaming us on here you would think we are an outright scam with a mountain of evidence to easily prove it, wouldn't you. Why not make up your own mind...
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.
I have invited any genuine customers with questions or apprehensions to myself direct so we can deal with efficiently & speedily. 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.
I must state I can not emphasise enough my regret that we are 24 pages full of accusations & insinuations. As a family business we have pride in our work and business ethics. For more than the past decade we have endeavoured to provide the highest level of service possible and we have received some fantastic feedback built long lasting business relationships with people we are proud to have worked with. We have shared many happy memories with many good people but, with regret, of late we have been forced to fend off some horrible accusations and, admittedly, we have had to stoop down a level or two. Please do NOT believe some of the lies on here, to read some of them you would think we were criminals. We never said that we have kept 100% of our customers happy 100% of the time, but we HAVE gave 100% and nothing less, judge us on our results NOT on peoples opinions, which for all you know could be fabricated lies.(and based on what the ASA have concluded it looks as though thats exactly what it is!)
I'm glad there aren't 24 pages of complaints or accusations against my company, but a wise Director that knew the complaints were unfounded would not have stooped to respond in the first place, and in time the unfounded accusations would have died off. But that hasn't happened has it Mr Mcvey, because you are not a 'wise' director, and the complaints are not unfounded. What's more people will continue to hound you for the rest of time on this thread, because whilst you continue to rip people off, there are good decent people out there that will continue to try and warn others from falling victim to your scamming lies and theft. So buckle up Tom mcvey and enjoy the ride. We are here to stay.
Yeh! You were right Informer28 - straight back to the single fact they can use the ASA adjudication.
They can't even be bothered to respond to specific points now they've found 'Cut & Paste'.
And - at mid morning today 'Cut & Paste' meant keeping in "Good afternoon..." Maintaining the typical level of accuracy.
As well as grammatical errors, it would appear that Tom McVey also has a problem with English Comprehension, or is it the case 'If I shout loud enough people will listen to me and ignore everybody else'? I wonder if that works in court? Umh!
03-08-2011: The Social Media People caves in to ASA.
TSMP has repeatedly told us over the past few days about the ASA being SO important as an arbiter of ‘legal, decent, honest & truthful’ (ASA motto).
Perhaps as angry opponents of The Social Media People scam, our distaste for the recent adjudication can be tempered with a different angle on the ASA.
TSMP feels ASA is really important and influential. That’s why it’s crowing about it.
But it cuts both ways - Following recent complaints to ASA, The Social Media People caved in to ASA’s insistence that false and misleading ‘claims’ are removed or changed.
BEFORE ASA intervention - Website ‘Home’ page - http://thesocialmediapeople.co.uk
“We are market leaders in internet advertising and marketing. ... We can provide a market leading return on investment.
... led the way in the industry from new & groundbreaking SEO tactics to record ROIs on marketing campaigns.
... we have managed over a million ad views on the world's largest social network and have managed over £1m of ads ...”
AFTER ASA intervention - Website ‘Home’ page:
“We specialise in internet advertising and marketing. ... We provide competetive rates of return on investment.
... used the the very latest methods in this fast moving industry utilising new & and exciting SEO tactics to achieve ROIs on marketing campaigns.
... we created advertising on the world's largest social network and have managed succesful ads ...”
Conclusion:
The Social Media People was using misleading and false claims on its website.
(Attached: 1 page from a recent submission to ASA)
Is it possible to have untrue opinions and to also realise that as stated by Tom McVey?
Good Afternoon All,
Allow us to introduce ourselves, we are the public relations team at The Social Media People.
After months of negative press from individuals, and various comments insulting the integrity & trading practices of the company we will now be responding to GENUINE CUSTOMERS ONLY. If you are scare scaremongering with non-truths & lies it will be drowned out with truth & facts from us.
For Example
Tom Faulkner:
Have a look at his post from just last week:
29-07-2011: The Social Media People breaches confidentiality?
Anyone who has had dealings with ASA knows that when they correspond they require complainents to maintian details of communications as confidential - and not be re-transmitted. Only when what they term 'an Adjudication' is made is the process publicly apparent. Thus quoting the ASA statement (if its true?) breaches that confidentiality. Something not new to the antics displayed by TSMP.
Paired with his recent statements, something doesn't add up about this individual. His ethics & viewpoints are interchangeable. He is also very closely affiliated with Steve BadBiz Jones, who is even more obsessed about trying to ruin our reputation that Mr. Faulkner.
_________________________________________________________________________________
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.
_________________________________________________________________________________
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: 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
All this could be easily avoided.
TSMP When you cold call someone why don't you ask them for their email address if they appear interested in your services.
If you are given the email address send them your terms and conditions outlining exactly what your service is: how long their contract is for and when and how they can cancel. Ask them to email (a tick box) their understanding of what is being contracted and on receipt of that email then telephone them to take their money - for the terms which have or have not been agreed.
This seems a fair and proper way to run a business and would in future prevent many people from entering into a contract without knowing what they were doing, thus resulting probably, in a lot less complaints. Almost every business works in a manner which asks for their customers to acknowledge understanding of what they are undertaking. No contract will ever stand up if the terms have not been agreed. Agreement is not a default from a verbal statement. If people do not like yours T & C's they will not use your company. If they do then fair play.
Hi MontyC,
Can you please reply to the message we have sent so we can investigate your case. We will gladly look into your case if you have an issue or would like to request any further information.
_________________________________________________________________________________
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.
_________________________________________________________________________________
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: 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
Tsmp
Why not simply answer the question from MontyC as from what I can gather it is pretty much what we have all thought.
I don't have a 'case' just read these posts and you seem to be getting nowhere. Would suggest though that you stop quoting the ASA thing as this seems only to address one of very many issues. Please don't paste it again in response to this I don't think it adds any value or counts for google hits or anything.
[protected]: The Social Media People fails to comprehend.
TSMP keeps quoting ASA because it’s the one crumb of defence that they’ve so far found; but it is also a weapon that can be used against them.
By trying to accuse me of breaching confidentiality The Social Media People has tacitly admitted the truth of the statements about ASA disciplining them!
The Social Media People picks up a point to attempt to show that I breached confidentiality.
TSMP quoted my comment:
"Thus quoting the ASA statement (if its true?) breaches that confidentiality. Something not new to the antics displayed by TSMP." It then concluded that my previous post breached confidentiality, with the comment: "His ethics & viewpoints are interchangeable."
What TSMP has failed to take into account is that the report I published was written by me - not ASA. I don't think I can be in breach of confidentiality when publishing my own document. And since, in these circumstances, ASA doesn’t report back to me, I can conclude what happened without revealing what ASA told me – because it didn’t tell me anything! (I explained the process before, but we can’t expect TSMP to have read or understood how it works!)
Further, I only pointed out details of the TSMP website existing just before I sent my report, and a while afterwards. It would be an absolutely amazing coincidence if TSMP had chosen to change exactly the words and phrases complained of within days of the complaint to ASA – but I suppose it's possible - if you also believe in the tooth fairy.
Here's another installment:
TSMP website - ‘Websites’ page.
BEFORE complaint to ASA:
“...one of our qualified designers...”
AFTER complaint to ASA:
“...one of our experienced designers...”
Just the one point on that page, but it shows that TSMP admits it does not have ‘qualified designers’ as it claimed. Perhaps ‘experienced’ equates to ‘work experience’ designers.
Document relating to previous post:
camilla4785, or should I say TSMP. A Fulcrum is a static point at which things are usually measured, for example weighing scales.
Am I implying that I am intelligent? Intelligent enough to see through the smoke screen produced by TSMP and all their various logins, like all the pseudo names that they have used on this site e.g bogus solicitors, directors and supposed clients.
Now signing on as The Social Media PR department just adds to the illusion that TSMP wishes to project, a large successful pan global organisation. They wish!
Pipe dreams Mr McVey, you are a scammer, and your companies are unethical, unprofessional, with no integrity. You lie about your companies whereabouts, Ignore basic business legislation and even submit false records to Companies House!
Would a legitimate company act in such a manner? I think not, and the vast majority of people who have had the misfortune to have dealings with you and companies feel the same. Why is that?
But hey ho, not to worry you just continue to quote the ASA and ignore the REAL FACTS!
Seconded!
Hi Mr. Faulkner & others,
Our response of you contradicting yourself was based on your statement:
"TSMP feels ASA is really important and influential. That’s why it’s crowing about it.
But it cuts both ways - Following recent complaints to ASA, The Social Media People caved in to ASA’s insistence that false and misleading ‘claims’ are removed or changed."
With an overwhelming emphasis on:
"Following recent complaints to ASA, The Social Media People caved in to ASA’s insistence"
...NOT on any changes made to our website, which, as one of the people who probably views it on a daily basis probably would have noticed these changes quite some time ago. Yet again another twist on facts trying to insinuate there was "ASA insistence" without any knowledge or proof - something it appears you compose most of your comments on. Mistaking your opinion with fact makes you look like a cretin Mr.Faulkner. Please please please, with all your spare time that you appear to have, stop, an take an unbiased check on things. We are NOT a scam, the person who seems to pull your strings like a puppet Steve Jones is a compulsive liar who has never started any legal proceedings out of ethics, they have all been personal reasons because people have pointed out he has very little intelligence. Why would somebody who appears to really care & preach moral obligations work for the company he does, threaten to rape a young girl and be involved in harassment cases with the police. It is plain to see you have formed an opinion and gone that far with it you have lost the original point you are now fixated on trying to point out any mistake made by anybody at TSMP, its OK for us, we will humour you its our job. We get paid to do it. You seem to have no motive apart from Steve Jones pulling your strings. He has also now commented as we write this, in his latest alias "informer28" which it doesn't take genius to ascertain it's him.
Earlier on this page a poster: camilla posed the question:
informer/steve-- a fulcrum is a fixed instrument, it does not swing EVER. you know, you use it with a lever. its sp funny how you try to sound so intelligent, , hahaha but always show how illiterate and uneducated you really are.?
Informer28 responded - DIRECTLY AS STEVE JONES:
camilla4785, or should I say TSMP. A Fulcrum is a static point at which things are usually measured, for example weighing scales.
Am I implying that I am intelligent? Intelligent enough to see through the smoke screen produced by TSMP and all their various logins, like all the pseudo names that they have used on this site e.g bogus solicitors, directors and supposed clients.
That essentially dis-credits everything informer28 has said.
A few choice ones are:
I'm here in the UK, and Steve from Bad Biz is abroad on holiday, Nice to see you back on the Island Steve.
Steve (in his Villa) so he says.
Why should you believe this man to have multiple Id's & logins because it was proved beyond reasonable doubt in the past. Also he has made a comment as "The Social Misfits are ###"
Who became a menber on: Jul 22, 2011 & entered his location as Spain. Coincidence? I think NOT.
http://www.complaintsboard.com/panel.php?action=profile&id=783462
In which he says nasty things and shows his TRUE nasty colours, have a read of his comments:
" you are ###" "its like your on Crack Cocaine or Heroin" also "your nothing more than a drug addict that shags his sister" even "Tom McVey ###ed his sister when she was 12 years old, That makes him a Peadofile you bad little ###er you" and even as far as "Your friend died in vain"
He uses the phrases "you bad little ###er you" and "go and crawl back under the stone you come from" and "Everyone avoid this company like the plague" very obscure insults and terminolgy. His speach pattern & sentance structure is IDENTICAL to Steve Jones.
Have a look at a few of his recent tweets:
@WilmotC There are some complete ###s out there that use the name Wilmot I do notice everyone avoids you like the Plauge 4 followers haha
&
@WilmotC Wanker go back under the stone where you came from.
Again, this chap has so much previous for creating other identities he probably doesnt know who he is.
_________________________________________________________________________________
The only reason this individual being such a ### & and using all these identities is to identify why there is 25 pages on here. Tom Faulkner, who I have never spoken to & have only became acquainted with his comments today I do believe to actually have at least some morals, so it beggars the question?
Why is he agreeing constantly with this ### and recently became an admin on his forum before it was banned? We have our suspicions but are waiting for the police to have the final say.
_________________________________________________________________________________
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 can confirm camilla4785 has no affiliation with us & never has done. He/she seems to know a lot about Steve Jones, we have only had the mis-fortune of meeting him recently (not in person obviously, I don't think he ever leaves the house - unless its to the police station for whatever crimes he is under investigation for)
He has mentioned ex-wife's names & his workplace which we did not know anything about untill it was publicly announced.
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: 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
As an argument against my statements, what possible relevance does TSMP’s comment have: “probably would have noticed these changes quite some time ago.”?
It doesn’t matter if the changes were this morning, last week, or last month; if they followed the submission of a complaint to ASA, and are the same points made in the complaint, people might reasonably conclude there is a link between the two events.
Based on the claims made in the preceding TSMP post, it would appear that TSMP expects us to believe it spontaneously decided to weaken its website content, in all the same places as a recent ASA complaint identified.
Wow – TSMP really does believe in the Tooth Fairy – and imagines that others do to.
03-08-2011: ASA Complaint submission on The Social Media People
Here is another page of the ‘complaint’. Amazingly the recent changes on the TSMP website also coincide EXACTLY with the submission to ASA.
The spontaneous changes, even down to individual words, TSMP made to its website at the time the ASA was processing a complaint are truly miraculous.
However, the end result is that TSMP has reduced or weakened its claims on the website. Its such a humble, self effacing company.
Website ‘Advertising’ page.
BEFORE ASA complaint:
With 12 years online experience... We have a proven track record on budgets from £99 to £500K, and from 1man operations to Blue chip clients.”
Google: “... we have been market leaders... ”
Why consider us?: “... Our 12 years of online experience ... “
AFTER ASA complaint:
“With 11 years online experience... We have a track record on budgets from £99 upwards, from 1man operations to companies offering national coverage.
Google: “... we have been promoting businesses... ”
Why consider us?: “... Our over 11 years of online experience ...”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IY-LQ4kFaa8
The above You Tube video is very interesting - have a look at it, it speaks volumes!
When I say it speaks volumes, I can only assume from watching the video that the telephone calls are from someone at TSMP who appears to be a Solicitor called Jonathan Barker Smith or similar sounding name (Tom McVey sounds a similar name!)
So, what kind of 'advertising' is that?
tom mcvey, you are a complete and utter ### head, you never answer any straight forward questions people ask you, i dont care about asa who ever that is, you tricked me into a rolling contract with you, you just kept taking that money off my card when i told you to stop, you just kept telling me about terms and bloody conditions and then threatening me with legal action if i didnt continue to pay up, you know what GOOD OLD YELLOW PAGES, ! at least you know where stand
Does anyone know if The Social Media People's Public Relations Department shares the same suite of offices as Customer Relations; at 4th Floor, Albany House, 324/326 Regent Street, London W1B 3HH?
Does anyone know if The Social Media People's recorded VAT address is still at Rammon House, 1 Portugal Street East, Manchester, M1 2wx?
Does anyone know if The Social Media People needs an appointment made if an interested party wishes to inspect the company documents at the official place for inspection - 1 Portugal St East, Manchester, M1 2WX
Does anyone know why a letter sent to the official, 'Registered Office Address' of The Social Media People, at 4th Floor, Albany House, 324/326 Regent Street, London, W1B 3HH - gets reurned marked 'Not Known Here'?
Good Morning Readers,
Again there seems to be plenty of verbal abuse hurled at us over night. It still begs the question, if we are a "scam" & do all these illegal & unethical things we are accused of daily why have we being trading for so long & so successfully. If you think we are unethical or unlawful, report us to the relevant authorities.
Thats why we have laws, governing bodies and independent adjudicators.
Its what makes this country great. We have authorities to investigate claims made by people. Obviously there has been many many claims made against us, yet there has been no punishments or repercussions.
Q. - Why would people continue to call us every name under the sun on forums everyday? Why not just let the relevant authorities deal with it.
A. - Because they are false claims. We Have so many clients & are so well known because we provide a fantastic service. We have thousands of happy customers.
_________________________________________________________________________________
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: 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
Some 90 days ago I made a couple of posts on this board to the effect that the TSMP were not a company to deal with. It seems from correspondence put up recently that several other posters were accused wrongly of being 'iockus' and of putting these so called libelous posts up. Steven Jackson also phoned me, getting the number by deduction perhaps after all else failed and while I offered to listen to Steven Jackson (as he continually offers to do on here but now in the person of Tom McVey) and latterly Grace Elizabeth of TSMP I have to report that the exercise has been quite futile.Rather than a clean break and no hassle they are still accusing me of many things and still trying to charge me for advertising I have not had. They acknowledged my cancellation in March but denied it was valid (and said it was ten days late - a common theme?) because I had challenged the fact that I had signed up for a rolling contract rather than just coughing up.
Just for the record,
Last week McVey asked me, by the messaging service, to contact him personally to discuss and hopefully sort out any problems I may have had with his company.
I replied very politely to his request explaining all the problems I have had.
Sadly, but not unexpected, no reply.
He should spend less time writing pages of rubbish, and more time trying to make his customers happy.
What address is the newly formed 'Public Relations Department' based at may we ask?
Well... You'd think The Social Media People Public Relations would be slightly less childish and unprofessional than the now silenced Tom McVey but sadly not the case. They also lack the same basic grasp of the English language and a similar dislike to an apostrophe... Funny that. It's clearly just a company (or person under god knows how many aliases) that likes a bit of an argument. My advice to all you scammed (Yes, SCAMMED, Social Media People!) by these FRAUDS is to just cancel your card, ignore the volatile ### they send you and sleep easy at night knowing they can't touch you.
Good Afternoon,
We can confirm many readers of this post have got in touch & have had resolutions to their issues. If you say were a scam were this, were that, you will be put as low priority. If your unhappy fair en0ugh, it doesn't mean you have been ripped off. Especially now we see proof we are not a "scam" or anything like unethical (well from advertising watchdogs not from posters on here) it kind of spells out the problems we are having.
Also as previously mentioned, if you have participated in verbally abusing the companies ethics do not expect to be acknowledged. We make a reasonable attempt with everybody but for those who continuing accuse the company of nasty acts & other such insinuations, please do not expect to ask questions and get answers.
Its a two way thing. Also in terms of childish and unprofessional we find that to be ridiculous, we are here to delegate & to speak to any genuine customers, although we have fast learned there are none.
Just a bunch of angry people spreading some malicious lies.
_________________________________________________________________________________
In response to Janette, for the record,
You have sent an invoice in to us by accident I presume Tom Faulkner has contacted you in an attempt to "offer advice" about dealings with us. And the invoice is a different company! Its not even us.
Yes you were contacted and after a long period with no reply we presumed you had your wires crossed, you certainly have not messaged our director Mr. McVey on here.
_________________________________________________________________________________
We have over 15, 000 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: 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