the social media people net66 review: scam 850

Good Morning All,

Yet more personal insults against our companies owners. This shows a lack of profesionalism.

We refuse to stoop to that low level of personal insults & low life mentality. We a re business, we condust ourselves profesionally and DO NOT have problems with customers calling us a "scam" neither do we have that problem from any regulatory body. Just a handful of people who post on here & personaly insults members of our organisation. Its plain to see from a neutral point of view that this is sad, and unjust speculation that is trying to be spread.

We will constantly remind people of what the advertising watchdog had concluded about us. Proving that some of the lies and comments on here are nasty & untrue opinions from people who are not even clients.

################################################################################
PLEASE BE AWARE THERE ARE EDITED DOCUMENTS & LIES PUBLISHED ON THIS FORUM, COMPALINTSBOARD.COM HAS OFFERED A "REPUTATION MANAGEMENT" SERVICE TO US FOR £2, 495 AND THE LONGER WE HAVE NOT PAID THE MORE MALICIOUS THE CONTENT GET ON HERE AND. WE HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE ANOTHER FORUM IS INVOLVED (badbiz) WHO IS JUST A PUPPET OF COMPLAINTSBOARD.COM AND THEY ARE NOW ASKING PEOPLE FOR INFORMATION IN DETAIL TO TSMP AND SELLING IT ON TO VARIOUS COMPANIES - ARRESTS HAVE BEEN MADE AND OFFENDERS ARE ON POLICE BAIL. IF ANYBODY IS UNSURE ABOUT US AS A COMPANY PLEASE HAVE A LOOK AT WHAT THE ADVERTISING WATCHDOG HAS TO SAY AS THEY ARE THE ONLY NEUTRAL SOURCE OF INFORMATION YOU FIND ONLINE.
################################################################################

________________________________________________________________________________
We would incourage any genuine customers to not give out personal data to any "data poachers" on this or any other site. It transpires some of the people on here who are claiming to "offer assistance" are under investigation form various organisations and we would urge people to listen to the advertising watchdogs conclusion as apposed to comments that are just defamatory.
________________________________________________________________________________

We have OVER 15, 000 (We are obviously not posting detailed information due to the some malicious individuals on here who are condusting in dispicable tactics to try to ruin our reputation.) social media clients and have had 21 genuine complaints.
That is 0.0014% of customers unhappy about the service.
If you are a genuine customer who is unhappy or wishes to lodge a complaint, please get in contact. Due to the amount of lies from non-customers & competitors please have your customer details ready.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Having to defend our ethics on a daily basis has now got beyond a joke. If we put a comer or full stop in the wrong place we are the victim of a tirade of abuse. If anybody who participates in these daily insults should not only be ashamed of themselves but should rethink the point they are trying to make. Why nit pick & wait for a company to make the smallest irrelevant mistake and jump on them with insults insinuating they are incompetent. We have been reported to every authority in the UK by most of you & they have all found us to comply with law.
We have worked with 200, 000 clients over the past 11+ years and we have always had fantastic feedback.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Also as long as people try to call us a "scam" and unethical we WILL continue to post details of the ASA regulation. Because neutral readers deserve facts not one person pretending to be 12's opinions & lies.
_________________________________________________________________________________

With regret we are forced to expose a few characters for their nasty tendencies, opinions & backgrounds so their wrongful claims against us can be treated with the level of belief they should - NONE AT ALL.

We may be biased, in that our organisation has been involved in business 11+ years & is now suddenly wrongfully accused of having no ethics & even "scamming". This has been a hard accusation to face as we are a family business, and our directors have taken a few insults personally and even resorted to defending their integrity themselves. Needless to say it has fell on deaf ears and accusations are constantly thrown in our direction.

We have no personal feelings either way, yes we think there is incredulous people commenting and lying on here, but on the whole we know the truth. So do our expanding clients base.

_________________________________________________________________________________

So, is The Social Media People a scam, are people right to group together to try to ruin the reputation of a company within a an organisation for 11+ years?

Let me provide some EVIDENCE not twisted words or opinions - EVIDENCE:

There was an add set up, the creator was never proven beyond reasonable doubt as the address & contact details did not match up and could have been set up anonymously by anyone. For this reason we will blank the web address, bout the info is readily available from the ASA:

ASA Adjudication on the-social-media-people-scam.co.uk
the-social-media-people-scam.co.uk

Date: 27 July 2011
Media: Internet (search engine)
Sector: Business
Number of complaints: 1
Complaint Ref: A11-154984
Ad
A Google sponsored search ad stated “Social media people scam net66-the social media people AVOID this company is a scam www.the-social-media-people-scam.co.uk.”

Issue
The Social Media People objected that the ad denigrated their business.

Response
www.the-social-media-people-scam.co.uk said the ad was produced by an individual who had worked for The Social Media People. He stated that the claims in the ad were true and that he intended to continue making similar claims on other sites.

Assessment
Upheld

The ASA noted that the complainant’s company was called The Social Media People and understood that any consumers searching for ‘Social Media People’ via Google would see the advertisers’ sponsored search ad appear alongside the search engine results. We considered that the ad was alleging that the Social Media People was a company running a scam and because we had not seen evidence to support that claim, we considered that that implication was disparaging to the complainant’s company. We therefore concluded that the ad denigrated The Social Media People.

The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) 3.42 and 3.43 (Imitation and denigration).

Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form.

_________________________________________________________________________________

I will also quote one of our directors responses in relation to this as it suits our view point perfectly:

I will refer back to the ruling of an ADVERTISING WATCHDOG for people to read & derive their opinions of us not anonymous, malicious & obsessed individuals.

Please read these details:

The ASA (Advertising Standards Authority) Says: "consumers searching for ‘Social Media People’ via Google would see the advertisers’ sponsored search ad appear alongside the search engine results. We considered that the ad was alleging that the Social Media People was a company running a scam and because we had not seen evidence to support that claim"

Who Are The ASA: The ASA is the UK’s independent watchdog committed to maintaining high standards in advertising for the benefit of consumers, advertisers and society at large. Visit this section for an introduction to the ASA, our remit, history and meet our senior team members.

*************************************************************************************************************
If you wish to call us a scam, please don't expect to be believed, complaints are fine, with the amount of customers we have we expect to have unhappy customers, but calling us a scam is different, not ethical & certainly NOT TRUE.
*************************************************************************************************************

We are available for contact For any body who is looking for answers, or is still unsure:

Tel: 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

Oh my God look at the state of you! You are utterly ridiculous how do expect any prospective customers to take you seriously with these silly posts!

"This shows a lack of profesionalism.

We refuse to stoop to that low level of personal insults & low life mentality"

ehmmm... Maybe read your earlier posts? And btw calling us all low lifes is quite personally insulting...

Lack of professionalism part just makes me laugh - seriously do yourselves a favour and stop posting nonsense LOL and YAWWWN!

17-08-2011: As Fran687 has so succinctly pointed out TSMP is FAR from professional (profesional!)
Here is more detail on the same:

The Public Relations Department at The Social Media People accuses contributors of a lack of professionalism.
A few examples of ‘a lack of professionalism’ from The Social Media People:
Quotes from, and comment about, Public Relations Dept. 17-08-2011:

1. “This shows a lack of profesionalism.”
– The writer can’t spell x1.

2. “We refuse to stoop to that low level of personal insults & low life mentality. We a re business, we condust ourselves professionally.”
- Can’t spell x3
- TSMP (including Public Relations) forgets it has hurled torrents of abuse and bad personal insults at several people.

3. “...DO NOT have problems with customers calling us a "scam" neither do we have that problem from any regulatory body.”
- Untrue. I’m a customer, and I call TSMP a scam (and so do others).
- No regulatory body would call a company a scam. They would use terms like: ‘criminal’, ‘fraudulent’, breach of regulations’, ‘failure to comply...’. Thus the phrase is irrelevant.
- Poor punctuation.

4. “Just a handful of people who post on here & personaly insults members of our organisation.”
- The writer can’t spell x1.
- The writer can’t construct a sentence x1.
- The writer can’t properly apply singular/plural x1.

5. “Its plain to see from a neutral point of view that this is sad, and unjust speculation that is trying to be spread.”
- No apostrophe.
- TSMP is not neutral – just as its critics are not neutral.
- The writer can’t construct a sentence. ‘unjust speculation’ is not ‘trying to be spread’, although (if you had a bias towards TSMPs position) you might write: “people are trying to spread unjust speculation.”

6. “We will constantly remind people of what the advertising watchdog had concluded about us. Proving that some of the lies and comments on here are nasty & untrue opinions from people who are not even clients.”
- The ASA ruling did not conclude that the comments on this forum were nasty or untrue; indeed ASA made no comment whatsoever about this forum.
- The ASA did not conclude that that the comments on this forum – or indeed the advert which was the subject of its adjudication – were made by people who are not clients of TSMP.
- The writer can’t construct a sentence x1.
- The writer uses very poor grammar.

7. “...COMPALINTSBOARD.COM...”
- The writer can’t spell.

8. “...MALICIOUS THE CONTENT GET ON HERE AND.”
- The writer can’t construct a sentence.
- ‘GET’ should be ‘GETS’: - ...AND. – a full stop after the conjunction?

9. “...WHO IS JUST A PUPPET OF COMPLAINTSBOARD.COM...”
- Unsubstantiated claim. TSMP might believe it (although I doubt it) but cannot justify ‘IS’.
- The writer uses ‘WHO’, but it should be ‘WHICH’.

10. “...ASKING PEOPLE FOR INFORMATION IN DETAIL TO TSMP AND SELLING IT ON...”
- The writer can’t construct a sentence.

11. “...ARRESTS HAVE BEEN MADE AND OFFENDERS ARE ON POLICE BAIL.”
- Unsubstantiated claim; and irrelevant to the preceding point.

12. “We would incourage any genuine customers...”
- The writer can’t spell.

13. “...and we would urge people to listen to the advertising watchdogs conclusion as apposed to comments that are just defamatory.”
- The writer omits an apostrophe.
- The writer can’t spell.
*- *A RARE accurate point is made! Readers should indeed take no notice of “comments that are just defamatory.” However points which are true are NOT defamatory – no matter how unpleasant it is for TSMP to see them. So take note of the myriad true points and documentary evidence, and pay no attention to those which are ‘just defamatory’.

14. “We have OVER 15, 000 (We are obviously not posting detailed information due to the some malicious individuals on here who are condusting in dispicable tactics to try to ruin our reputation.) social media clients and have had 21 genuine complaints.
That is 0.0014% of customers unhappy about the service.”
- WRONG! Despite 2 contributors pointing out the previous lie (or error?), TSMP continues to write inaccurate, misleading statements.
- The 15, 000 is unsubstantiated; but the 0.0014% is just plain WRONG.
- The writer can’t spell x2.
- The writer can’t construct a sentence.

The Social Media People has demonstrated in its most recent post, that even The Public Relations Department – which accuses others of being unprofessional, and is charged with protecting and rebuilding the destroyed reputation of the company – is unable to argue its case without multiple errors (lies), an inability to express itself with any clarity, and defamatory statements which it claims to abhor.
And don’t forget – even a child can use ‘spellcheck’.

Class act -- NOT. / Unprofessional -- YES. / Scam -- YES. / Customer calls it a scam -- YES.

Good Morning All,

Yet more personal insults against our companies owners. This shows a lack of professionalism and decency.

We would advise anybody with genuine evidence to substantiate some of the ludicrous claims made on here to make a complaints to the relevant authority. Constantly making the same claims on here about our ethics & trading practices are just proving them to be hollow claims. If there is any proof that we are half the things we are claimed to be we would have disciplinary action to answer to.

################################################################################

TO DATE, WE HAVE NEVER HAD ANY DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST ANY COMPANY WITHIN OUR ORGANISATION. WE HAVE BEEN REPORTED BY MALICIOUS LIARS ON HERE BUT AS AUTHORITIES DEAL WITH FACTS NOT SPECULATION NOTHING HAS EVER HAPPENED.

################################################################################

________________________________________________________________________________

We would incourage any genuine customers to not give out personal data to any "data poachers" on this or any other site. It transpires some of the people on here who are claiming to "offer assistance" are under investigation form various organisations and we would urge people to listen to the advertising watchdogs conclusion as apposed to comments that are just defamatory.

________________________________________________________________________________

We have OVER 15, 000 (We are obviously not posting detailed information due to the some malicious individuals on here who are condusting in dispicable tactics to try to ruin our reputation.) social media clients and have had 21 genuine complaints.
That is 0.0014% of customers unhappy about the service.
If you are a genuine customer who is unhappy or wishes to lodge a complaint, please get in contact. Due to the amount of lies from non-customers & competitors please have your customer details ready.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Having to defend our ethics on a daily basis has now got beyond a joke. If we put a comer or full stop in the wrong place we are the victim of a tirade of abuse. If anybody who participates in these daily insults should not only be ashamed of themselves but should rethink the point they are trying to make. Why nit pick & wait for a company to make the smallest irrelevant mistake and jump on them with insults insinuating they are incompetent. We have been reported to every authority in the UK by most of you & they have all found us to comply with law.
We have worked with 200, 000 clients over the past 11+ years and we have always had fantastic feedback.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Also as long as people try to call us a "scam" and unethical we WILL continue to post details of the ASA regulation. Because neutral readers deserve facts not one person pretending to be 12's opinions & lies.
_________________________________________________________________________________

With regret we are forced to expose a few characters for their nasty tendencies, opinions & backgrounds so their wrongful claims against us can be treated with the level of belief they should - NONE AT ALL.

We may be biased, in that our organisation has been involved in business 11+ years & is now suddenly wrongfully accused of having no ethics & even "scamming". This has been a hard accusation to face as we are a family business, and our directors have taken a few insults personally and even resorted to defending their integrity themselves. Needless to say it has fell on deaf ears and accusations are constantly thrown in our direction.

We have no personal feelings either way, yes we think there is incredulous people commenting and lying on here, but on the whole we know the truth. So do our expanding clients base.

_________________________________________________________________________________

So, is The Social Media People a scam, are people right to group together to try to ruin the reputation of a company within a an organisation for 11+ years?

Let me provide some EVIDENCE not twisted words or opinions - EVIDENCE:

There was an add set up, the creator was never proven beyond reasonable doubt as the address & contact details did not match up and could have been set up anonymously by anyone. For this reason we will blank the web address, bout the info is readily available from the ASA:

ASA Adjudication on the-social-media-people-scam.co.uk
the-social-media-people-scam.co.uk

Date: 27 July 2011
Media: Internet (search engine)
Sector: Business
Number of complaints: 1
Complaint Ref: A11-154984
Ad
A Google sponsored search ad stated “Social media people scam net66-the social media people AVOID this company is a scam www.the-social-media-people-scam.co.uk.”

Issue
The Social Media People objected that the ad denigrated their business.

Response
www.the-social-media-people-scam.co.uk said the ad was produced by an individual who had worked for The Social Media People. He stated that the claims in the ad were true and that he intended to continue making similar claims on other sites.

Assessment
Upheld

The ASA noted that the complainant’s company was called The Social Media People and understood that any consumers searching for ‘Social Media People’ via Google would see the advertisers’ sponsored search ad appear alongside the search engine results. We considered that the ad was alleging that the Social Media People was a company running a scam and because we had not seen evidence to support that claim, we considered that that implication was disparaging to the complainant’s company. We therefore concluded that the ad denigrated The Social Media People.

The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) 3.42 and 3.43 (Imitation and denigration).

Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form.

_________________________________________________________________________________

I will also quote one of our directors responses in relation to this as it suits our view point perfectly:

I will refer back to the ruling of an ADVERTISING WATCHDOG for people to read & derive their opinions of us not anonymous, malicious & obsessed individuals.

Please read these details:

The ASA (Advertising Standards Authority) Says: "consumers searching for ‘Social Media People’ via Google would see the advertisers’ sponsored search ad appear alongside the search engine results. We considered that the ad was alleging that the Social Media People was a company running a scam and because we had not seen evidence to support that claim"

Who Are The ASA: The ASA is the UK’s independent watchdog committed to maintaining high standards in advertising for the benefit of consumers, advertisers and society at large. Visit this section for an introduction to the ASA, our remit, history and meet our senior team members.

*************************************************************************************************************
If you wish to call us a scam, please don't expect to be believed, complaints are fine, with the amount of customers we have we expect to have unhappy customers, but calling us a scam is different, not ethical & certainly NOT TRUE.
*************************************************************************************************************

We are available for contact For any body who is looking for answers, or is still unsure:

Tel: 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

Oh Thomas McVey you are so predictable.

Your inability to answer such basic questions as to the unethical practice of your companies says more about you as an individual than it does about those who challenge you.

Your implied threats and abusive phone calls to clients, of which there is evidence abundant, confirms what a Scamming, Unprofessional Low Life you are, who would not know decency if it slapped you in the face.

You claim you are a reputable company, LOL what a pathetic statement to make when you claim you have 15, 000 clients in less than a year, have 6, 000 enquiries from business wanting your services a day? Yeh really, the more you come up with unsubstantiated figures, place irrelevances on web sites and make outlandish claims about your companies client list the more people can see you for what you are - A complete farce!

For anybody to contact you has to date resulted in them receiving abuse from you Tom McVey, so to offer a 0844 telephone number for people to call is only going to result in you Scamming more money from them!

The Social Media People is STILL posting its mistakes - or lies:

We have OVER 15, 000 (We are obviously not posting detailed information due to the some malicious individuals on here who are condusting in dispicable tactics to try to ruin our reputation.) social media clients and have had 21 genuine complaints.
That is 0.0014% of customers unhappy about the service.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Pointed out at least 3 times and they can't even be bothered to correct a simple arithmetical lie (error).

To say that 0.0014% is 21 in 15, 000 is wrong - and TSMP knows it - yet TSMP still chooses to publish it.

They treat readers of this forum (customers) just like they treat customers from whom they are still extracting money - with contempt!

To post a mistake once, is fair enough? To continually post the same mistake continually without an amendment or acknowledgement of their mistake a blatant lie? Come to your own conclusion!

Tom McVey treats all with contempt, including the likes of Companies House, Inland Revenue, and several other authorities as well as the law of the land, not to mention all of their current and previous scammed customers.

In reality if your expectations are low, then you will not be disappointed by the response from Tom McVey and TSMP - That is what they are counting on as well as people being too embarrassed to complain about that they have been caught out by a Mancunian Family with No Morals, No Integrity, No Honesty and No Decency - ### of the Earth SCAMMERS who give all self respecting business and individuals in Manchester a bad name!
http://badbiz.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/McVey-Family-run-The-Social-Media-People.png

Just noticed about 12 pages from this site have been removed! Possibly Tom McVey and his Public relations 'Team' removing all the pages of their repetitive ASA and their 'Director's' standard answer to any challenge?

19-08-2011: Yes, The Social Media People has removed almost all of its earlier posts written by its esteemed Public Relations Department - including most of those crowing about ASA etc. THAT has resulted in this forum going down from 30 pages to 18!

I wonder if Public Relations will now get the boot, or perhaps go on an all expenses paid holiday?

I'm sure TSMP had its reasons, but observers might conclude that TSMP realised that the posting, and repeated reposting of the same lengthy, poorly written, badly argued, embarrassing piece just made them look even more unprofessional than they already do.
Even the few they've left on the site still contain lies (or in TSMP speak 'little errors', 'unimportant details') like a 100fold mistake in the % calculation which has already been pointed out to them on at least 3 occasions.

(Will comments like this provoke new, even more crass, posts from TSMP?

But '...the ASA...'! LOL

'We would advise anybody with genuine evidence to substantiate some of the ludicrous claims made on here to make a complaints to the relevant authority. Constantly making the same claims on here about our ethics & trading practices are just proving them to be hollow claims. If there is any proof that we are half the things we are claimed to be we would have disciplinary action to answer to. '

sadly the real world isn't like this. Such organisations like to see that customers have exhausted the channels to seek a settlement of these problems with the company in question. Sadly, although we put our questions for evidence to you you have never once answered such a request and it seems impossible to extract anything meaningful from you. I cannot think of any normal company behaving in such a manner and we can draw only one conclusion.

Hello, test !

Hello, mark !

The new U.S. envoy in Afghanistan Ryan Crocker tells CNN in an exclusive interview Afghanistan has a tougher road ahead than Iraq in its path to stability due to the country's 30 years of war.

Two U.S. hikers detained in Iran on espionage charges have been sentenced to eight years in prison, state-run TV reports. They have 20 days to appeal their verdict.

Dinamo Fanbook создан в сотрудничестве с любимым хоккейным клубом Dinamo Rīga, который поддержал идею и помог ее реализовать.

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

21-08-2011: 1. The Magic of Numbers! - As presented by The Social Media People.

The Social Media People 1st Law of Statistics.
Law: ‘It doesn’t really matter what the customer is told because the numbers will be false or interchangeable – and they might not notice!’

Proof:
3, 075. When negotiating the agreement this customer is told there are 3, 075 Facebook Users in the Target Group
(Facebook term = ‘Estimated Reach’).
This became the agreed number of people to be targeted. (Age 16 to 20, All Male/Female, within 5 miles of BN41 1TE = 3, 075)

9, 174. When TSMP is required to prove to a bank that it provided the service, 9, 174 is how many PEOPLE it states received the advert.
(Remarkably it is exactly the same figure as the ‘number of impressions’, so that's one each..) - BUT it is NOT 3, 075!

1, 760. When, as supporting evidence, TSMP provides the bank (which might take its money away) with a report sheet from Facebook, the report states: “Target: This advert targets 1, 760 Users.” - BUT it is not 3, 075, nor 9, 174!
(Observation: TSMP has always denied the existence of, or refused to provide reports and statistics from Facebook.
Yet when it thinks the bank might take its money away, magically Facebook report sheets are available.
Doesn’t that mean they lied to the customer?)

117, 660. If an advert is created using Facebook’s system, using the same parameters as agreed between TSMP and me -
(Age 16 to 20, All Male/Female, within 5 miles of BN41 1TE), two points emerge:
a. It is impossible to create such an advert as Facebook uses city names, not postcodes.
b. Using ‘Hove’ as the city, Facebook shows (on [protected], 660 users in the Target Group (Facebook = ‘Estimated Reach’)
(A 100fold difference to what the Facebook Report states; something doesn’t add up!) - AND it is NOT 3, 075, NOR 9, 174, NOR 1, 760!)

So - any old number will do. After all it's only a customer; or at a later stage a bank, they're trying to dupe!
-

Like many of you, I paid TSMP for a month's advertising on Facebook, but luckily I cancelled the service in time before the end of the month, when I didn't receive a single enquiry from my chosen target area. Having followed this thread for a couple of months, I was thinking of contacting my bank to claim back my payment, but before I got around to doing this, the bank have actually written to me regarding the transaction, requesting that I complete a questionaire in order for them "to monitor the services provided by the merchant (Net 66 Web Services Ltd) and to ensure customer satisfaction." I can only assume by this that the bank must have already received numerous complaints from other customers about TSMP. The questionaire asks things like did you receive the service you paid for, would you use this firm again, with a space at the bottom to add your own comments. This is a positive developement as there are probably many businesses out there who may not realise they have been scammed and have just put it down to a bad advertising experience. If they receive a letter from their bank, it may make them sit up and think that maybe they didn't receive the service they paid for.

Hi Skin 80:
Sounds interesting - when the banks are contacting the customers.
Let's see what develops.

Yes, very interesting Tom. I've returned the questionaire and if my bank replies, I will post the outcome on here.

Skin Bo,

would be interested which bank this was.

Edsarn, it is Lloyds TSB.

Is anyone else finding it difficult to access the latter pages of this thread? I made 3 or 4 attempts last week before I realised I had to click on page 20 to get to the last page. And when I get an email notification that a new comment has been added, the link goes to a blank "Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage". I wonder if TSMP's repetitive posting of the same long message, then deleting some of them has caused some sort of glich in the system?

To Skin 80, and all users:
22-08-2011: Don't worry about the page access and numbering.
Up till a few days ago there were about 31 pages of content - all accessible.
Since then a lot of stuff has been removed which has resulted in the number of pages going down; initially to about 18, but now creeping back up to 20.
Currently there is no page content above that.

We can't KNOW why the posts were removed, but many of TSMP's embarrassing repetitions have certainly gone. There were some others from various contributors removed, but the reasons are not known.
I do know that the few of mine which have disappeared were not at my request.

Keep focussed on the main issues: The appalling business practices and non-existent honesty, integrity and ethics of The Social Media People/The Social Network Marketing Company Ltd./Net66 Web Services Ltd.

22-08-2011: Skin 80 tells us that Lloyds TSB wrote with the questionnaire about the services - or lack of - of Net66 (a money channel for TSMP).

I wonder if Lloyds TSB is the bank used by Skin 80, or Net66 - or both?
My own bank isn't Lloyds TSB, and as yet I haven't had the questionnaire, but I am hoping to recieve one.

Good Morning All,

We welcome customer feedback, and are happy to deal with any customer queries as we have repeatedly invited. The problem is we are getting a tirade of abuse from Non Customers trying to sway opinions of potential customers who may read comments on this forum.

Skin 80: If you have any issues please contact us with any apprehensions and/or issues. If you feel you did not receive the service you agreed to please get in contact. Customer service is paramount to us, and although reading this forum you may have concluded we are not an effective advertising company, we have facts figures and companies with billion pound turnovers regularly and effectively using our services.

As with advertising we can not guarantee results. We can guarantee we will provide the service as agreed and any bank and/or governing body can verify this.

The reason we are repeatedly posting the ASA's conclusion that: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CLAIMS WE ARE A SCAM.

We stand by our ethics and to call us a scam is basically calling the ASA a LIAR or Incompetent! -

We know who we'd believe!
________________________________________________________________________________
We would incourage any genuine customers to not give out personal data to any "data poachers" on this or any other site. It transpires some of the people on here who are claiming to "offer assistance" are under investigation form various organisations and we would urge people to listen to the advertising watchdogs conclusion as apposed to comments that are just defamatory.
________________________________________________________________________________

We have OVER 15, 000 (We are obviously not posting detailed information due to the some malicious individuals on here who are condusting in dispicable tactics to try to ruin our reputation.) social media clients and have had 21 genuine complaints.
That is 0.0014% of customers unhappy about the service.
If you are a genuine customer who is unhappy or wishes to lodge a complaint, please get in contact. Due to the amount of lies from non-customers & competitors please have your customer details ready.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Having to defend our ethics on a daily basis has now got beyond a joke. If we put a comer or full stop in the wrong place we are the victim of a tirade of abuse. If anybody who participates in these daily insults should not only be ashamed of themselves but should rethink the point they are trying to make. Why nit pick & wait for a company to make the smallest irrelevant mistake and jump on them with insults insinuating they are incompetent. We have been reported to every authority in the UK by most of you & they have all found us to comply with law.
We have worked with 200, 000 clients over the past 11+ years and we have always had fantastic feedback.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Also as long as people try to call us a "scam" and unethical we WILL continue to post details of the ASA regulation. Because neutral readers deserve facts not one person pretending to be 12's opinions & lies.
_________________________________________________________________________________

With regret we are forced to expose a few characters for their nasty tendencies, opinions & backgrounds so their wrongful claims against us can be treated with the level of belief they should - NONE AT ALL.

We may be biased, in that our organisation has been involved in business 11+ years & is now suddenly wrongfully accused of having no ethics & even "scamming". This has been a hard accusation to face as we are a family business, and our directors have taken a few insults personally and even resorted to defending their integrity themselves. Needless to say it has fell on deaf ears and accusations are constantly thrown in our direction.

We have no personal feelings either way, yes we think there is incredulous people commenting and lying on here, but on the whole we know the truth. So do our expanding clients base.

_________________________________________________________________________________

So, is The Social Media People a scam, are people right to group together to try to ruin the reputation of a company within a an organisation for 11+ years?

Let me provide some EVIDENCE not twisted words or opinions - EVIDENCE:

There was an add set up, the creator was never proven beyond reasonable doubt as the address & contact details did not match up and could have been set up anonymously by anyone. For this reason we will blank the web address, bout the info is readily available from the ASA:

ASA Adjudication on the-social-media-people-scam.co.uk
the-social-media-people-scam.co.uk

Date: 27 July 2011
Media: Internet (search engine)
Sector: Business
Number of complaints: 1
Complaint Ref: A11-154984
Ad
A Google sponsored search ad stated “Social media people scam net66-the social media people AVOID this company is a scam www.the-social-media-people-scam.co.uk.”

Issue
The Social Media People objected that the ad denigrated their business.

Response
www.the-social-media-people-scam.co.uk said the ad was produced by an individual who had worked for The Social Media People. He stated that the claims in the ad were true and that he intended to continue making similar claims on other sites.

Assessment
Upheld

The ASA noted that the complainant’s company was called The Social Media People and understood that any consumers searching for ‘Social Media People’ via Google would see the advertisers’ sponsored search ad appear alongside the search engine results. We considered that the ad was alleging that the Social Media People was a company running a scam and because we had not seen evidence to support that claim, we considered that that implication was disparaging to the complainant’s company. We therefore concluded that the ad denigrated The Social Media People.

The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) 3.42 and 3.43 (Imitation and denigration).

Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form.

_________________________________________________________________________________

I will also quote one of our directors responses in relation to this as it suits our view point perfectly:

I will refer back to the ruling of an ADVERTISING WATCHDOG for people to read & derive their opinions of us not anonymous, malicious & obsessed individuals.

Please read these details:

The ASA (Advertising Standards Authority) Says: "consumers searching for ‘Social Media People’ via Google would see the advertisers’ sponsored search ad appear alongside the search engine results. We considered that the ad was alleging that the Social Media People was a company running a scam and because we had not seen evidence to support that claim"

Who Are The ASA: The ASA is the UK’s independent watchdog committed to maintaining high standards in advertising for the benefit of consumers, advertisers and society at large. Visit this section for an introduction to the ASA, our remit, history and meet our senior team members.

*************************************************************************************************************
If you wish to call us a scam, please don't expect to be believed, complaints are fine, with the amount of customers we have we expect to have unhappy customers, but calling us a scam is different, not ethical & certainly NOT TRUE.
*************************************************************************************************************

We are available for contact For any body who is looking for answers, or is still unsure:

Tel: 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

22-08-2011: A comment from a genuine, if aggrieved customer. (NOT a Non Customer!)

I posted the other day concerning TSMPs novel use of arithmetic and statistics. Instead of presenting its version of why such varying figures are presented by TSMP, it just re-repeats another error/lie.
TSMP continues to prove that it just doesn't care what figures it produces if it thinks there is a possibility of getting away with it.
(An attitude which is repeated through every aspect of TSMPs operations.)
4 times now people have pointed out that 21 customers complaining amongst 15, 000 is 100 times MORE than TSMP claims.

21 in 15, 000 is 0.14%. It IS NOT 0.0014%.
But TSMP really doesn't give a toss. It treats readers of this forum just like it treats customers and the authorities - with utter contempt.

Good Morning All,

Forced, after yet more malicious lies & fabricated "evidence" to comment yet again. We would strongly advise anybody NOT to share information with people touting for information on these forums as even if they were genuine customers or ex customers 500+ negative comments, naming address phone numbers and names are worrying tendencies displayed and show signs of obsession. Which we all know is far from healthy.

Again if you are unsure you can read comments off people who have posted 100's of times on internet forums at all times of day & night. Or you can simply read the ADVERTISING STANDARDS AUTHORITIES conclusion of our business:

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CLAIMS WE ARE A SCAM.

As with advertising we can not guarantee results. We can guarantee we will provide the service as agreed and any bank and/or governing body can verify this.
We stand by our ethics and to call us a scam is basically calling the ASA a LIAR or Incompetent! -

We know who we'd believe!
________________________________________________________________________________
We would incourage any genuine customers to not give out personal data to any "data poachers" on this or any other site. It transpires some of the people on here who are claiming to "offer assistance" are under investigation form various organisations and we would urge people to listen to the advertising watchdogs conclusion as apposed to comments that are just defamatory.
________________________________________________________________________________

We have OVER 15, 000 (We are obviously not posting detailed information due to the some malicious individuals on here who are condusting in dispicable tactics to try to ruin our reputation.) social media clients and have had 21 genuine complaints.
That is 0.0014% of customers unhappy about the service.
If you are a genuine customer who is unhappy or wishes to lodge a complaint, please get in contact. Due to the amount of lies from non-customers & competitors please have your customer details ready.

________________________________________________________________________________

Having to defend our ethics on a daily basis has now got beyond a joke. If we put a comer or full stop in the wrong place we are the victim of a tirade of abuse. If anybody who participates in these daily insults should not only be ashamed of themselves but should rethink the point they are trying to make. Why nit pick & wait for a company to make the smallest irrelevant mistake and jump on them with insults insinuating they are incompetent. We have been reported to every authority in the UK by most of you & they have all found us to comply with law.
We have worked with 200, 000 clients over the past 11+ years and we have always had fantastic feedback.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Also as long as people try to call us a "scam" and unethical we WILL continue to post details of the ASA regulation. Because neutral readers deserve facts not one person pretending to be 12's opinions & lies.
_________________________________________________________________________________

With regret we are forced to expose a few characters for their nasty tendencies, opinions & backgrounds so their wrongful claims against us can be treated with the level of belief they should - NONE AT ALL.

We may be biased, in that our organisation has been involved in business 11+ years & is now suddenly wrongfully accused of having no ethics & even "scamming". This has been a hard accusation to face as we are a family business, and our directors have taken a few insults personally and even resorted to defending their integrity themselves. Needless to say it has fell on deaf ears and accusations are constantly thrown in our direction.

We have no personal feelings either way, yes we think there is incredulous people commenting and lying on here, but on the whole we know the truth. So do our expanding clients base.

_________________________________________________________________________________

So, is The Social Media People a scam, are people right to group together to try to ruin the reputation of a company within a an organisation for 11+ years?

Let me provide some EVIDENCE not twisted words or opinions - EVIDENCE:

There was an add set up, the creator was never proven beyond reasonable doubt as the address & contact details did not match up and could have been set up anonymously by anyone. For this reason we will blank the web address, bout the info is readily available from the ASA:

ASA Adjudication on the-social-media-people-scam.co.uk
the-social-media-people-scam.co.uk

Date: 27 July 2011
Media: Internet (search engine)
Sector: Business
Number of complaints: 1
Complaint Ref: A11-154984
Ad
A Google sponsored search ad stated “Social media people scam net66-the social media people AVOID this company is a scam www.the-social-media-people-scam.co.uk.”

Issue
The Social Media People objected that the ad denigrated their business.

Response
www.the-social-media-people-scam.co.uk said the ad was produced by an individual who had worked for The Social Media People. He stated that the claims in the ad were true and that he intended to continue making similar claims on other sites.

Assessment
Upheld

The ASA noted that the complainant’s company was called The Social Media People and understood that any consumers searching for ‘Social Media People’ via Google would see the advertisers’ sponsored search ad appear alongside the search engine results. We considered that the ad was alleging that the Social Media People was a company running a scam and because we had not seen evidence to support that claim, we considered that that implication was disparaging to the complainant’s company. We therefore concluded that the ad denigrated The Social Media People.

The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) 3.42 and 3.43 (Imitation and denigration).

Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form.

_________________________________________________________________________________

I will also quote one of our directors responses in relation to this as it suits our view point perfectly:

I will refer back to the ruling of an ADVERTISING WATCHDOG for people to read & derive their opinions of us not anonymous, malicious & obsessed individuals.

Please read these details:

The ASA (Advertising Standards Authority) Says: "consumers searching for ‘Social Media People’ via Google would see the advertisers’ sponsored search ad appear alongside the search engine results. We considered that the ad was alleging that the Social Media People was a company running a scam and because we had not seen evidence to support that claim"

Who Are The ASA: The ASA is the UK’s independent watchdog committed to maintaining high standards in advertising for the benefit of consumers, advertisers and society at large. Visit this section for an introduction to the ASA, our remit, history and meet our senior team members.

*************************************************************************************************************
If you wish to call us a scam, please don't expect to be believed, complaints are fine, with the amount of customers we have we expect to have unhappy customers, but calling us a scam is different, not ethical & certainly NOT TRUE.
*************************************************************************************************************

We are available for contact For any body who is looking for answers, or is still unsure:

Tel: 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

22-08-2011: The Social Media people condemns others – for the things that were pioneered by The Social Media People scam.

You can read for yourself the comments made just a few minutes ago by The Social Media People which once again attempts to divert attention from its multiple, repetitious errors and lies - some minor and some very serious.
TSMP Quote:
“We would strongly advise anybody NOT to share information with people... (making)... comments, naming address phone numbers and names comments, ...”

TSMP is contradictory in its advice - to the point of being ridiculous.
TSMP has regularly written condemning others for posting ‘sensitive’ information, and for being abusive about others; but has no compunction whatsoever in doing those things itself.

Only this morning TSMP was URGING a customer to share information with some body which fitted that description perfectly. Indeed that person/body which TSMP was urging someone to share information with was the pioneer, the VERY FIRST to post other people’s names, addresses and phone numbers.
Who was it that so carelessly and intentionally posted personal details in such a way? Who was it that was the very first to do this?
It was The Social Media People on 20 April 2011.

So the rule from TSMP is ‘Do as we say, not as we do.’

(EXAMPLES below. Steven Jackson, Director of Customer Service.
NOTE: ALL the ‘*****’ edits are mine, to protect the privacy of the people.
The original post clearly displayed the names, phone number and address details.)

Example 1: A letter from Subway head office in USA.

“... I look forward to hearing from you.
Very truly yours,
V****** ******* -Attorney
International Legal Department
Franchise World Headquarters, LLC”

Example 2: Details of correspondence with a UK customer of TSMP:

“... Entered by 2011-04-14:
Welcome call made and saved
Compliance call made to: s***** ****** 2011-04-14
Time: 2.30
Call Number: 019633****

The above details the initial contact we had, the below shows a fast & efficient turn around & proof of add:
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Your Facebook Advertisement : B****** ******use
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 16:30:35
From: The Design Team
To: s*******@*****.com

Hi S***** ******,
I can now confirm that your Facebook advert has gone live...”

- TSMP Quote: “We have OVER 15, 000 ... clients and ... 21 genuine complaints.
That is 0.0014% of customers unhappy about the service.”
> Wrong. And TSMP has so little regard for readers that it persists with this. It may have been an error at first. It’s been pointed out 5 times now, which makes it a lie.

- TSMP Quote: “...we have always had fantastic feedback.”
> Lie. Just look at this website – and others.

- TSMP Quote: “...wrongfully accused of having no ethics & even "scamming".”
> Correction – Rightfully accused of having no ethics & even “scamming”.

- TSMP Quote: “We are happy to deal with enquiries, and answer any questions or queries you may have.”
> Comment: I doubt that TSMP would be happy to do it, BUT certainly they don’t do it!
(a) TSMP and its associated companies have refused to respond to 3 DSARs. Response is a legal obligation. (Data Protection Act - request for information) (And in doing so broke the law 3 times.)
(b) TSMP twice failed to provide legally obligatory information on its company details when requested. (And in doing so broke the law twice.)

So, hidden within the jungle of repetitious rubbish, TSMP continues to make errors, tell lies and criticise others for doing what it has previously developed as a personal/company speciality – having no ethics.

And it can’t even effectively present its (fabricated) defence. No idea.

The Social Media People's ray of sunshine!

The transparently weak and false arguments presented by The Social Media People is now always disguised amongst the description of a single factual point which it can present in its favour - the ASA adjudication.
If I was TSMP I too would regard it as a godsend, as previous revelations about lies to customers, breaches of Intellectual Property regulations (other companies logos), faked 'Reviews', ripped-off articles breaching copyright on its 'Links', banks asking searching questions, and changes to its website brought about via ASA complaints etc, etc would be rather depressing for them without the little ray of sunshine of that single, lonely fact.
Heck - TSMP even changed its renowned Terms and Conditions following helpful advice from its arch enemy - BadBizforum.com. So they need that little ray of sunshine. Let's not begrudge it to them in such dark days. But the sun always goes down at the end of the day.

Please post the names and any other public information, like addresses, about the owners/employees of this company.

@The Social Media People Public Relations

You are a scam.

I'm writing up details of this fraud along with the owners/employees of "The Social Media People."
This will be sent to the authorities and posted to thousands of sites.

Hi reena.pradeep: Looking at your list of posts on this thread and others, I'm not sure if you are genuine.
Can you tell us a few details of your deal with TSMP, and what grievence you have please.
Thanks.

23-08-2011: 2. The Magic of numbers! As presented by The Social Media People.

The Social Media People 2nd Law of Statistics.
Law: “If the number of impressions sold is much greater than the number of users in the Target Group’ the advert will only be received by an indefinable proportion of them – but certainly not all.”

Proof:
Agreed ‘Target Group’ = 3, 075.
Agreed number of impressions = 7, 500
What proportion will receive the advert = Nobody can say. (TSMP can’t say; Facebook can’t say.)
Observation:
I can’t get to grips with this law of statistics.
If the number of impressions is over twice the number in the target group I would have thought (putting it simply) that each Facebook User in the target group would receive the advert at least twice (assuming of course that they log-in to Facebook that month).
Certainly The Social Media People didn’t contradict this in discussions whilst arranging to take my money.

If the 2nd Law of Statistics is indeed correct (and let’s face it, it MUST be because TSMP says so!), and only a proportion receive the advert, but no-one knows what proportion, ANY of the following estimates is the possible outcome of the campaign:
80% receive the advert x3
50% receive the advert x5
25% receive the advert x10
10% receive the advert x25
1% receive the advert x2, 500
1 person (0.0325%) receives the advert 7, 500 times.

I wouldn’t have bought a deal which was SO imprecise – or which might have gone to only a small proportion of the target group. Who’d pay £142.80 to advertise to 20 or 30 people?
-

23-08-2011: 2a. The Magic of Numbers! As presented by The Social Media People.

This is'nt another Law of Statistics devised by The Social Media People scam; more an observation on recent figures which featured there.

The Social Media People contracted to place 7, 500 ‘impressions’ of the advert to a ‘Target Group’ of 3, 075. I (naively) believed that all 3, 075 would therefore receive the advert.
Later on TSMP said not everyone in the Target Group would receive it (...?), and that the advert achieved 9, 174 impressions in the period. (I still can’t get my head around that?)

So how come (according to TSMP) the advert was received by 9, 174 people?

That means that (at most) only 33% of the carefully targeted (and paid for) impressions went to the Target Group. Which also means that at least 66% (6, 099 out of 9, 174 impressions) went to people who were not targets – and to whom the adverts should not have gone.

And that’s the ‘best case scenario’! If only 60% of my Target Group received the advert, then 80% of the people who did receive it were not in the Target Group! What the hell was I paying the ‘Facebook advertising specialists’ for? Certainly not ‘Targeted Advertising’.

Actually I’m not nearly as puzzled as I’ve made out.
The simple answer; the answer which covers ALL the above points, and many more, is that The Social Media People tells lies.

If TSMP tells lies to its customers, The Social Media People and all ‘The Family’ running the 'Family business' can be classified the same: they have no integrity, no ethics, no honesty - and can’t even produce consistent FAKE figures.
-

23-08-2011: There are lots of figures spread through the previous post – and someone may say: “He’s making allegations but there’s no proof.”

Item 1: - 3, 075 in the ‘Target Group’.
In a telephone conversation on 18 February I had a vigorous dressing down from ‘The Supervisor’, Cristina, which included reference to the number of people in the target group.
A transcript of the relevant part of that conversation demonstrates that the 3, 075 quoted in the previous post is correct. (C. gives an approximation. The reason I insisted [in the call/transcript] that it wasn’t right is because it wasn’t the exact figure; but it is certainly close enough to support the statement I made. And it did mean the figure was clearly repeated 3 times.)
(Recording available to support the transcript.)

Transcript:
TF: O.K. So tell me what was the number of people that were in the..., in the region of 5 miles from me then?
C: What were the number of people that were within 5 miles from yourself?
TF: Yes.
C: Was it a 5 mile radius you were targeting?
TF: Yes. What’s the figure that was given to me. What was it?
C: The figure that was given to you was roughly 3, 000 people within your targeted demographic and you thought that each of those would see the ad, and I explained to you that was not how it worked.
TF: No I know it wasn’t, but just what was the figure?
C: 3, 000 people is what you were quoted.
TF: You see the point I was making was that...
C: You were quoted 3, 000 people fitted your targeted demographic for your advert when you took the advert out.

Item 2: - 9, 174 ‘impressions’, and 9, 174 ‘people’.
The attached letter was sent to Barclays Bank by TSMP to support its claims that the service was provided. Both figures and descriptions are clearly shown.
P1, about half way down: ‘9, 174 impressions’.
P2, para. numbered 3: ‘9, 174 impressions’;
P2, para. numbered 4: ‘9, 174 people’.
(The text in the attached letter is clear enough to see the details; but, if anyone needs a clearer copy let me know.)

So TSMP’s own ‘Supervisor’ - Cristina, plus the important letter sent to the bank are the ‘proofs’ of the figures.

The document in the previous post is unedited. You may need to 'double-click' on the image to enlarge it.

24-08-2011: The Social Media People provides illegible/inaccurate documents –
even when responding to a bank enquiring whether it provided the agreed service.

Barclays Bank wrote to TSMP, acting on a ‘Chargeback’ claim submitted when TSMP failed to show it provided my Facebook advertising.

When TSMP replied to Barclays claiming it DID provide the agreed service, it sent:
a. An inadequate letter arguing its position.
b. Partially illegible and ‘blurred’ copies of highly edited documents.

The letter was published yesterday.
Here are the illegible documents, which are riddled with lies and contradictions.
(The versions you can see here are VERY difficult to read. THAT’s how the bank, and I, received them!
No changes have been made by me. - If anyone wants a full-size copy let me know.)

Could TSMP have deliberately sent illegible, highly edited documents because it had something to hide?
Could any of TSMP’s inadequate, rubbish response to the bank have contributed to the bank’s decision to get my money back for me?
Thank you Barclays.

24-08-2011: Lots of interesting developments last night at:

http://badbizforum.com/new-board/net-66-web-services-ltd/

From post #28 onwards. I didn't understand all of the technical stuff, but the overall relevance was clear enough.

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

Good Morning All,

In reference to the recent post, it appears that we have been proven to do what we say we do all along. We have had several un-successful attempts at hacking on our systems also.

########################################################################
BE VERY AWARE OF CRIMINALS ON HERE ASKING FOR YOU INFORMATION, TOM F HAS PROVED HE HAS NO RESPECT FOR THE LAW IN BREACHING COPYRIGHT LAW, SAME FOR BADBIZ WHO IS A CRIMINAL ON POLICE BAIL, ALSO THE SAME FOR THEIR LATEST SIDE KICK ON THEIR FORUM WHO IS A CONVICTED HACKER. WE HAVE ALWAYS PROVIDED A GOOD SERVICE AND HAVE HAD OUR REPUTATION TARNISHED BY THIS SMALL & INCOMPETENT CRIMINAL RING. WE URGE ANYBODY TO NOT DISCLOSE ANY INFORMATION TO THESE CRIMINALS AS THEY HAVE PROVED TIME AFTER TIME THEY HAVE NO REGARD FOR THE LAW.
########################################################################

The reason we are repeatedly posting the ASA's conclusion that: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CLAIMS WE ARE A SCAM.

Thats The Advertsing Watchdog, not a ring of criminals!

We stand by our ethics and to call us a scam is basically calling the ASA a LIAR or Incompetent! -

We know who we'd believe!
________________________________________________________________________________
We would incourage any genuine customers to not give out personal data to any "data poachers" on this or any other site. It transpires some of the people on here who are claiming to "offer assistance" are under investigation form various organisations and we would urge people to listen to the advertising watchdogs conclusion as apposed to comments that are just defamatory.
________________________________________________________________________________

We have OVER, YES OVER (More than) 15, 000 (We are obviously not posting detailed information due to the some malicious individuals on here who are conducting in despicable tactics to try to ruin our reputation.) social media clients and have had 21 genuine complaints.
That is 0.0014% of customers unhappy about the service.
If you are a genuine customer who is unhappy or wishes to lodge a complaint, please get in contact. Due to the amount of lies from non-customers & competitors please have your customer details ready.

________________________________________________________________________

Having to defend our ethics on a daily basis has now got beyond a joke. If we put a comer or full stop in the wrong place we are the victim of a tirade of abuse. If anybody who participates in these daily insults should not only be ashamed of themselves but should rethink the point they are trying to make. Why nit pick & wait for a company to make the smallest irrelevant mistake and jump on them with insults insinuating they are incompetent. We have been reported to every authority in the UK by most of you & they have all found us to comply with law.
We have worked with 200, 000 clients over the past 11+ years and we have always had fantastic feedback.

________________________________________________________________________

Also as long as people try to call us a "scam" and unethical we WILL continue to post details of the ASA regulation. Because neutral readers deserve facts not one person pretending to be 12's opinions & lies.
________________________________________________________________________

With regret we are forced to expose a few characters for their nasty tendencies, opinions & backgrounds so their wrongful claims against us can be treated with the level of belief they should - NONE AT ALL.

We may be biased, in that our organisation has been involved in business 11+ years & is now suddenly wrongfully accused of having no ethics & even "scamming". This has been a hard accusation to face as we are a family business, and our directors have taken a few insults personally and even resorted to defending their integrity themselves. Needless to say it has fell on deaf ears and accusations are constantly thrown in our direction.

We have no personal feelings either way, yes we think there is incredulous people commenting and lying on here, but on the whole we know the truth. So do our expanding clients base.

________________________________________________________________________

So, is The Social Media People a scam, are people right to group together to try to ruin the reputation of a company within a an organisation for 11+ years?

Let me provide some EVIDENCE not twisted words or opinions - EVIDENCE:

There was an add set up, the creator was never proven beyond reasonable doubt as the address & contact details did not match up and could have been set up anonymously by anyone. For this reason we will blank the web address, bout the info is readily available from the ASA:

ASA Adjudication on the-social-media-people-scam.co.uk
the-social-media-people-scam.co.uk

Date: 27 July 2011
Media: Internet (search engine)
Sector: Business
Number of complaints: 1
Complaint Ref: A11-154984
Ad
A Google sponsored search ad stated “Social media people scam net66-the social media people AVOID this company is a scam www.the-social-media-people-scam.co.uk.”

Issue
The Social Media People objected that the ad denigrated their business.

Response
www.the-social-media-people-scam.co.uk said the ad was produced by an individual who had worked for The Social Media People. He stated that the claims in the ad were true and that he intended to continue making similar claims on other sites.

Assessment
Upheld

The ASA noted that the complainant’s company was called The Social Media People and understood that any consumers searching for ‘Social Media People’ via Google would see the advertisers’ sponsored search ad appear alongside the search engine results. We considered that the ad was alleging that the Social Media People was a company running a scam and because we had not seen evidence to support that claim, we considered that that implication was disparaging to the complainant’s company. We therefore concluded that the ad denigrated The Social Media People.

The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) 3.42 and 3.43 (Imitation and denigration).

Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form.

_________________________________________________________________________________

I will also quote one of our directors responses in relation to this as it suits our view point perfectly:

I will refer back to the ruling of an ADVERTISING WATCHDOG for people to read & derive their opinions of us not anonymous, malicious & obsessed individuals.

Please read these details:

The ASA (Advertising Standards Authority) Says: "consumers searching for ‘Social Media People’ via Google would see the advertisers’ sponsored search ad appear alongside the search engine results. We considered that the ad was alleging that the Social Media People was a company running a scam and because we had not seen evidence to support that claim"

Who Are The ASA: The ASA is the UK’s independent watchdog committed to maintaining high standards in advertising for the benefit of consumers, advertisers and society at large. Visit this section for an introduction to the ASA, our remit, history and meet our senior team members.

*************************************************************************************************************
If you wish to call us a scam, please don't expect to be believed, complaints are fine, with the amount of customers we have we expect to have unhappy customers, but calling us a scam is different, not ethical & certainly NOT TRUE.
*************************************************************************************************************

We are available for contact For any body who is looking for answers, or is still unsure:

Tel: 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