the social media people net66 review: scam 850

But Tom (McV):
You've already admitted - on this forum and in phone calls with me - that the 'YouTube' phone messages are genuine.
Are you calling yourself a liar? Shall I publish the phone calls? Do I have your permission?

Of course, Tom McVey KNOWS they are genuine - because it's his voice pretending to be other people when making the threats.

The Social Media People has accepted and admitted that the phone messages are genuine, so people should listen and judge for themselves.

26-08-2011:
...And there are also lighter moments when the situation can raise a smile.
Several readers were puzzled recently when the page content and posts of this forum suddenly went down from 31 to 18, and there were various theories and suspicions about why.

I had a chat with the guys at ComplaintsBoard.com and it seems that The Social Media People's posts had triggered the 'Spam Filter' and had thus been taken down.
Poor old TSMP Public Relations. It did such a good job that it drove even a computer into boredom and action to relieve the tedium.

So now we can officially say not only that The Social Media People is a scam. But...
The Social Media People is a SPAM!

The posts (or some) may re-appear after review at CB.

Thousands upon thousands? Your having a laugh! More like a thousand if they are lucky, yes that is 1000 SEO clients for a SEO company who is at the forefront of SEO and internet technology for the last 11 years that does'nt even come up on the 1st page of Google under 'SEO Manchester' or 'SEO Companies Manchester' where they have been based for the last 11 years, some quality SEO there!

Oh Pinocchio Tom McVey, has daddy let you exaggerate the abilities of your companies a little? Let alone the number of clients you have?

Now that everybody is in no doubt that TSMP, previously The Social Network Marketing Company, previously Facebook-Ads are all part of Net 66 based in Manchester; It will not just be Trading Standards, the Baliffs, ASA, The Bank, Inland Revenue and all and sundry knocking your door but Court Injunctions as well!

"The house is a tumblin in" Oh dear, how sad, what a shame!

That's not very many after 12 years of successful trading and thousands upon thousands of happy customers?

As TSMP / Net 66 were not prepared to '...Due to an extremely high level of contact, and attempted poaching of business we are no longer displaying our existing clients to new customers If you are interested in our services please contact our Sales Staff direct on [protected]..'

If you are interested you might like to peruse the attached which is in the public domain, a sample listing of their clients, who unknowingly are assisting TSMP /Net 66 gain their ranking on google, although they are not really doing anything for them other than scamming them each month for a phantom service!

Is this a scam?

Answers on the back of o postage stamp please.

It would appear that TSMP and Co. are trying to back track and cover some of their illusion?

Although they may have given quite a paper-chase to date; all their deceit is documented and verifiable!

Unethical, deceitful, dishonest, amoral, fraudulent, scamming... just a few words that are correctly associated with TSMP, Net66 and the McVeys!

24-08-2011: Last week London; this week Scamchester; next week - who knows?

Last week:
The Social Network Marketing Company Ltd trading as The Social Media People Company Registration No 7407320 Vat No [protected] Registered in England and Wales Registered Office: Office 404, 4th Floor, Albany House, 324/326 Regent Street, London, W1B 3HH

This week:
The Social Media People is a trading brand of Net66 Web Services Ltd Registered in England and Wales Reg No [protected].
Registered office c/o Purcell & Co Accountants, 204 Mauldeth Road, Manchester M19 1 AJ

Looks like they’ve finally realised that they are in Scamchester, so they won't have those long commutes every day to try to find out where in London they were supposed to be!

I hope the 'over 15, 000 customers' have all had a letter explaining the change, 'cos there'll be trouble if they're not informed.
-
-

The Social Media People will insist their system was hacked, because it makes them the victim, and gives them something to shout about.

Perhaps customers should consider this - If it was SO easy to access their systems how secure are customer's personal and bank details?
Any responsible company would have at least SOME security on its systems, but no, TSMP just doesn't give a toss.
For The Social Media People customers are, after all, a disposable item.

No Integrity. No Ethics. No Honesty. No decent Business Practices. And - No Security.
Form a queue to sign up as a customer and hand over your money. "You can trust us. We're the McVeys."

Hello All,
My name is BlinkBrian aka Brian Martin of Blink-Group. The reason I have signed up to this forum is to defend myself against a certain Tom McVey of ‘The Social Media People’. He has said that they have had un-success hack attack against their system last night.
However I can assure you, being someone who can hack and has successfully hacked previous systems and been convicted for it. I no longer unethically hack systems. What I did do was find a directory which wasn’t secured admin66.co.uk/admin and then there were two sub folders net66 and another.
I clicked on it and it showed up price listings. Which BadBiz administrator also found. I DID NOT ATTEMPT TO HACK THERE SYSTEM.

24-08-2011: Double standards are the 'Gold Standard' for The Social Media People.

It’s really quite funny that The Social Media People Scam claims:
"...TOM F HAS PROVED HE HAS NO RESPECT FOR THE LAW IN BREACHING COPYRIGHT LAW..."

This from a company which:
* At this very moment is blatently breaching copyright law in multiple ways on its website 'Links' pages. It recently removed some of the offending articles when it was rumbled, but others remain. See the FACTS - as evidenced on the TSMP website TODAY. (at 11.15am).
* Had fake reviews on its website which were removed when one of the famous businesspeople who’d been falsely credited with a review took action.
* Ripped off the Intellectual Property of several large corporations and was forced to remove their logos from its website, through pressure from them and the ASA.
* AND TSMP published two bits of private correspondence between itself and (a) a major corporation, and (b) an aggrieved customer; thus breaching Data Protection laws.

If I have breached copyright I’m a mere amateur when compared to the Masters of the Crime – The Social Media People.
Virtally every time Tom McVey makes a synthetically indignent claim it is SO easily countered or disproved that he makes himself look a fool, on top of being a liar.
-

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

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/

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.

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

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.

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: 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?
-

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.

@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.

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

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.

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.

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: 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,

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: 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.

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.

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?

Skin Bo,

would be interested which bank this was.

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

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

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.

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!
-

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

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

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.

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.

Hello, mark !

Hello, test !

'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.