Brand.com

November 11, 2014This client did contract with Brand.com in June for a second tier article, as well as, paid distribution of that article, and paid distribution of an already existing articleThe goal of this client’s campaign was to have these articles outrank existing negative online content which relate to the clientAs the client has suggested this was a protracted Sale cycle as our Sales representative Sought to work on a Solution that met both the client's goals and budgetUltimately the client opted for a solution that entailed a second tier article and the additional services indicated aboveThe client opted for a lower priced option to try the service out.As was indicated by the account manager, the movement or ranking of content is controlled by [redacted] 's algorithmThis pertains to all content on [redacted] We cannot and do not, guarantee any specific outcome, or ranking of the articlesWe do advise our clients on what sites may provide the greatest exposure for their article's topicA top tier article is not always the best and right answer to ensure traffic to an articleThe subject may be too mundane or generic to a wider audience that visits top tier sitesConversely, a lower tiered site may actually drive more traffic to an article because the audience is better targeted in terms of region, gender, income, or any of many other demographics.Even since June 2014, Brand.com has partnership with a wide variety of publishers who partner with us So that we can commission articles to sites that have organic traffic to the target audiences our client’s want to reach.We wish to See all of our clients succeedWe represent the best way for our clients to get their story out to the audience they want to targetBrand.com delivered the services that this client agreed to when they contracted our servicesWe remain willing to continue to work with this client to further focus on the effective a distribution of content to publishers that meet the specific targeted audience they are trying to reach.Sincerely,Brand.com

January 8, Re: COMPLAINT ID [redacted] Dear *** ***, Please accept this response for the above referenced complaintThis client entered into a contract for our services in February The client did receive those services Regrettably, as the client states, the [redacted] ’s algorithm changed, resulting in an alteration in the results that appear when you search particular keywords This change impacted countless others who have an online presence, including this client At the time that changes occurred with [redacted] , the client agreed to a solution presented by Brand.com in line with the change in our business model, also related to the changes with [redacted] The client accepted the solution, and we delivered the services to this client As the dispute relates to a billing issue and is currently under review with the card issuer we are confident, along with the client, that a fair and equitable determination will be delivered Sincerely, Brand.com

November 11, 2014 Dear [redacted] ,Thank you for providing the above referenced case and giving Brand.com the opportunity to respond to this complaint. As I mentioned in our phone conversation, this complaint was previously sent to an email account of an employee no longer with the... company, which is why we are now responding to this case. We do take the concerns of our clients seriously and make every attempt to resolve any issues or concerns.This client contracted with Brand.com in July 2013 for the purpose of suppressing negative online information when you “ [redacted] " the client's name.The sales executivedid properly inform the client that the phone call was being recorded. In fact, all callers to our 800 number are greeted with a message that explicitly informs them that calls are recorded for quality and training purposes. Additionally, the Sales executive did promptly transfer this account to an account manager once the enrollment process was completed. This is the regular practice of Brand.com with all the new accounts. Once a new account has been transferred to account management the sole responsibility for those accounts belongs to the account management department. Brand.com produced digital content for the client; as well as, websites,upon which additional content was posted.All of this content was to aid in the client's campaign goal of suppressing negative online information. All of this content was published online prior to the end of July 2013. That is, prior to the end of the first full month that the client was enrolled with Brand.com. Prior to the Start of month two of the client's campaign, the Brand.com account manager made several attempts to contact the client via email and phone calls to discuss the month two campaign strategy. None of those attempts to contact the client were successful. Whenever a client is non-responsive, it is Brand.com's policy to pause or suspend the account and campaign(s) associated with it until further authorization to continue can be obtained from the client. Since this client was nonresponsive his account was paused with Brand.com. Two weeks following the last attempt to contact the client, August 15, 2013,and after the start of what would have been the second month of his campaign,the client requested that Brand.com provide additional content utilizing funds allocated to the first month of his campaign. This was not possible as those funds had already been allocated to the work which was completed for the first month of his campaign. Any additional work on the campaign required the client to provide additional funds. At that time, the client ceased communication with Brand.com. The client's account remained indefinitely suspended.Brand.com is not in the business of selling the domains purchased on behalf of its clients. Each domain that Brand.com purchases on behalf of itsclients automatically expires in twelve months, unless otherwise renewed with the domain vendor. This is a policy of the domain vendors and not Brand.com. Brand.com does not automatically renew domains on accounts that are suspended. Therefore, the domains created for this client automatically expired as the account status of this client was still indefinitely suspended at the time the domains expired. A check of [redacted] indicates that the domain the client claims was sold by Brand.com is indeed available for purchase. In July 2014, Brand.com attempted to re-engage this client to re-start his campaign. The client was only interested in taking over the hostingof the domains associated with his account. This client had a preexisting account with [redacted] , a different vendor than the one used by Brand.com to purchase the clients domains.In the best interest of the client, the original account manager was asked to contact the client.The client was informed of the specific information needed from the client to transfer the domains to his [redacted] account and to complete this transaction. This specific information has not been provided by the client. In September 2014, Brand.com's VP of Account Management and an account manager contacted this client to resolve the clients concerns. At the time of that cali, the client was informed that the domains had expired, butdid offer the client a good will gesture of reallocating his previously created digital content to a new domain on behalf of the client. The client was not open to that resolution and broke off Communication with Brand.com. In summary, this client received timely services while he was an active client with Brand.com. Indeed, the initial timeline to produce the content for the first month of his campaign was accomplished earlier than originally communicated to the client. Furthermore, Brand.com welcomes the opportunity to assist this client. As noted above, the domain that the client desires to host independent of Brand.com is currently available for purchase. As per our last contact with this client we are willing to reallocate the content produced on this client’s behalf to a new domain; however, re-engagement by the client is needed to fulfill this good will gesture. Brand.com is available to answer any further questions to assist the BBB in regards to this case. Sincerely, Brand.com

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the responseIf no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:
First, the services were not provided. If so they should provide proof of any article that they claimed to have created and where it is currently published on the internet and what search engines. They are admitting the *** change affected others as well...thus admitting their business model they were promoting did not work. In my professional business world if you do not provide a complete and satisfactory service or product then you own it and fix-it. You do not send a response that states as the one you got from them states. It is completely unacceptable for them to believe they are entitled to any financial gains when they in fact have failed to do what they proposed. They promised a solution but when confronted with the fact they had failed to deliver the services they had been paid for in advance. Their solution was to publish and support (3) articles at no expense to make up for the problem. I would like them to show you where these articles or for that fact any articles are today on the internet reflecting their work. Brand.com did not deliver and that solution certainly did not include them being authorized to bill my credit card account for an additional $4,when having been paid $2,to deliver services they did not provide and support in first place. The only thing I am confident of is that Brand.com committed FRAUD by way of internet and continued such FRAUD when they knowingly without authorization and had been contacted in writing to cease any billings on my credit card and also had been notified by *** *** of such. I would ask that they provide proof of where all this work of service is posted and supported by them and how it can be reviewed. It does not exist on the internet and certainly is not in any search engines with active links. Please note I have turned this matter over to the Attorney General (*** ***) and now I also will be filing a formal complaint with the Attorney Gerneral of Texas. I have given this group more than ample opportunity to correct the problem they created and do what they already should have done in way of crediting my account for any unauthorized billings. Their failure to resolve this matter is truly an insult to injury and I now intend to pursue this matter and see to it that justice is served and they are held accountable for their actions
I can only hope that you as an agency that is designed to protect consumers will be more demanding for them to provide any and all documentation and recorded conversations as they have stated they have. This will allow you to make a fair and correct determination.
Regards,
*** ***

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the responseIf no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because it does not address my specific complaint about Brand.com ("Brand"). This "form letter" response fails in every sense of the word. To reiterate my concern: I was promised by a Brand.com employee, Darius C***, that after purchasing one month of services for $3,500.00, no one would be able to find anything negative about me on any of the first three pages of a *** search, and that certain "assets" would be created to accomplish such. This simply never happened. No negative results were ever pushed back and there is no evidence of any asset created for me by Brand within the first pages of a *** search. It is interesting that Brand.com's extremely tardy response is signed "Brand.com" It is unfortunate that the person did not identify himself, but I can tell you that the fallacy and rubbish within the response is in direct contradiction to what two employees (one of whom is an executive) at Brand recently told me. Dan S***, News Media Strategist, admitted that C*** was terminated for unethical business practices and that he had been assigned to "clean up the mess" in cases such as mine where "the ball had been dropped." And Steve D***, Vice President, admitted that there is no evidence of assets created by Brand after I kindly asked him to point to just one item I received for $3,500.00. In other words, he admitted that I received nothing for my money. I am happy that the response to my initial complaint admits that all calls are recorded. These recordings will most certainly come in handy at a later date. I trust that Brand will preserve them (especially the ones with C*** prior to my submitting payment).I can promise, with ever fiber of my being, that this will not go away. I will exhaust every possible legal remedy. In fact, by the end of this month (November 2014), the highly detailed civil motion (accompanied with over 50-pages of e-mails and countless pieces of evidence backing up every point I mention within) will be formally filed. I have been working on it for months under the supervision of a New Jersey attorney who is also a member of the PA bar. Moreover, I am also working to finish a complaint to the PA Attorney General's office regarding Brand's business practices. Aside from the blatant, completely provable, breach of contract issues here, I am concerned that the elements of fraud have in fact been met, according to both PA and NJ statutes, which I will be addressing with full force as soon as my civil action is filed. Again, this is not going away. Brand should do the right thing which is refund my $3,payment in which I received nothing in return
Regards,
*** ***

December 17, 2014Dear *** ***,
Please accept this response for the above referenced complaint.This client entered into a contract for our services in February The client did receive those servicesRegrettably, as the client states, the ***'s algorithm changed, resulting
in an alteration in the results that appear when you search particular keywordsThis change impacted countless others who have an online presence, including this clientAt the time that changes occurred with ***, the client agreed to a solution presented by Brand.com.in line with the change in our business model, also related to the changes with ***.The client accepted the solution, and we delivered the services to this client.As the dispute relates to a billing issue and is currently under review with *** *** we are confident, along with the client, that a fair and equitable determination will be delivered.Sincerely,
Brand.com

November 11, 2014This client did contract with Brand.com in June 2014 for a second tier article, as well as, paid distribution of that article, and paid distribution of an already existing article. The goal of this client’s campaign was to have these articles outrank existing negative online...

content which relate to the client. As the client has suggested this was a protracted Sale cycle as our Sales representative Sought to work on a Solution that met both the client's goals and budget. Ultimately the client opted for a solution that entailed a second tier article and the additional services indicated above. The client opted for a lower priced option to try the service out.As was indicated by the account manager, the movement or ranking of content is controlled by [redacted]'s algorithm. This pertains to all content on [redacted]. We cannot and do not, guarantee any specific outcome, or ranking of the articles. We do advise our clients on what sites may provide the greatest exposure for their article's topic. A top tier article is not always the best and right answer to ensure traffic to an article. The subject may be too mundane or generic to a wider audience that visits top tier sites. Conversely, a lower tiered site may actually drive more traffic to an article because the audience is better targeted in terms of region, gender, income, or any of many other demographics.Even since June 2014, Brand.com has partnership with a wide variety of publishers who partner with us So that we can commission articles to sites that have organic traffic to the target audiences our client’s want to reach.We wish to See all of our clients succeed. We represent the best way for our clients to get their story out to the audience they want to target. Brand.com delivered the services that this client agreed to when they contracted our services. We remain willing to continue to work with this client to further focus on the effective a distribution of content to publishers that meet the specific targeted audience they are trying to reach.Sincerely,Brand.com

From: [redacted] <[redacted]>
Date: Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 5:55 PM
Subject: Re: You have a new message from the Revdex.com of Metro Washington DC & Eastern Pennsylvania in regards to your complaint #[redacted].
To: [email protected]
Cc: Customer Relations <[email protected]>
To Whom It May Concern:
Re:  Complaint No. [redacted]
Brand.com has fully remedied all issues I have previously complained about.  I am fully satisfied with the result.
Please confirm receipt of this e-mail.
Best regards,
[redacted]

January 8, 2015
Re: COMPLAINT ID [redacted]
Dear [redacted]...

[redacted],
Please accept this response
for the above referenced complaint. This client entered into a contract for our
services in February 2014.  The client did
receive those services.  Regrettably, as the
client states, the [redacted]’s algorithm changed, resulting in an alteration in the
results that appear when you search particular keywords.  This change impacted countless others who
have an online presence, including this client.  At the time that changes occurred with [redacted],
the client agreed to a solution presented by Brand.com in line with the change
in our business model, also related to the changes with [redacted].  The client accepted the solution, and we
delivered the services to this client. 
As the dispute relates to a billing
issue and is currently under review with the card issuer we are confident,
along with the client, that a fair and equitable determination will be
delivered.    
Sincerely,
Brand.com

[redacted] <[redacted]>
2:33 PM (2 hours ago)
to me, Customer 
Regarding Complaint...

[redacted]
Brand.com has fully rectified all issues I have previously complained about to the Revdex.com.  I am fully satisfied with the result, and Brand.com's Customer Relations Department.  
Sincerely, 
[redacted] 
[redacted]

November 11, 2014
Dear [redacted],Thank you for providing the above referenced case and giving Brand.com the opportunity to respond to this complaint. As I mentioned in our phone conversation, this complaint was previously sent to an email account of an employee no longer with the...

company, which is why we are now responding to this case. We do take the concerns of our clients seriously and make every attempt to resolve any issues or concerns.This client contracted with Brand.com in July 2013 for the purpose of suppressing negative online information when you “[redacted]" the client's name.The sales executivedid properly inform the client that the phone call was being recorded. In fact, all callers to our 800 number are greeted with a message that explicitly informs them that calls are recorded for quality and training purposes. Additionally, the Sales executive did promptly transfer this account to an account manager once the enrollment process was completed. This is the regular practice of Brand.com with all the new accounts. Once a new account has been transferred to account management the sole responsibility for those accounts belongs to the account management department.
Brand.com produced digital content for the client; as well as, websites,upon which additional content was posted.All of this content was to aid in the client's campaign goal of suppressing negative online information. All of this content was published online prior to the end of July 2013. That is, prior to the end of the first full month that the client was enrolled with Brand.com.
Prior to the Start of month two of the client's campaign, the Brand.com account manager made several attempts to contact the client via email and phone calls to discuss the month two campaign strategy. None of those attempts to contact the client were successful. Whenever a client is non-responsive, it is Brand.com's policy to pause or suspend the account and campaign(s) associated with it until further authorization to continue can be obtained from the client. Since this client was nonresponsive his account was paused with Brand.com.
Two weeks following the last attempt to contact the client, August 15, 2013,and after the start of what would have been the second month of his campaign,the client requested that Brand.com provide additional content utilizing funds allocated to the first month of his campaign. This was not possible as those funds had already been allocated to the work which was completed for the first month of his campaign. Any additional work on the campaign required the client to provide additional funds.
At that time, the client ceased communication with Brand.com. The client's account remained indefinitely suspended.Brand.com is not in the business of selling the domains purchased on behalf of its clients. Each domain that Brand.com purchases on behalf of itsclients automatically expires in twelve months, unless otherwise renewed with the domain vendor. This is a policy of the domain vendors and not Brand.com. Brand.com does not automatically renew domains on accounts that are suspended. Therefore, the domains created for this client automatically expired as the account status of this client was still indefinitely suspended at the time the domains expired. A check of [redacted] indicates that the domain the client claims was sold by Brand.com is indeed available for purchase.
In July 2014, Brand.com attempted to re-engage this client to re-start his campaign. The client was only interested in taking over the hostingof the domains associated with his account. This client had a preexisting account with [redacted], a different vendor than the one used by Brand.com to purchase the clients domains.In the best interest of the client, the original account manager was asked to contact the client.The client was informed of the specific information needed from the client to transfer the domains to his [redacted] account and to complete this transaction. This specific information has not been provided by the client.
In September 2014, Brand.com's VP of Account Management and an account manager contacted this client to resolve the clients concerns. At the time of that cali, the client was informed that the domains had expired, butdid offer the client a good will gesture of reallocating his previously created digital content to a new domain on behalf of the client. The client was not open to that resolution and broke off Communication with Brand.com.
In summary, this client received timely services while he was an active client with Brand.com. Indeed, the initial timeline to produce the content for the first month of his campaign was accomplished earlier than originally communicated to the client.
Furthermore, Brand.com welcomes the opportunity to assist this client. As noted above, the domain that the client desires to host independent of Brand.com is currently available for purchase. As per our last contact with this client we are willing to reallocate the content produced on this client’s behalf to a new domain; however, re-engagement by the client is needed to fulfill this good will gesture.
Brand.com is available to answer any further questions to assist the Revdex.com in regards to this case.
Sincerely,
Brand.com

Review: I contacted Brian N[redacted] and he's simply just the sales person. N[redacted] has pages and articles about him online and supposedly has vast experience. After pitching me for months, watching all the commercials I finally decided to give them a try. I paid them $5,500 for 1 article. Once we got started he transferred me to Dillon Y[redacted], which is a complete liar. They started back peddling saying that [redacted] changed it's algorithym. I paid to be in one of the highest tiered website. My article appeared on a lower tiered website I've never heard of. This did not move anything off of the [redacted] search as it was intended to do. Since I didn't get the article on the site I wanted and no results. They don't know what they are doing and are liars. Stay away.Desired Settlement: I want them to refund my $5500 for not posting on the websites I paid to be posted on.

Business

Response:

November 11, 2014This client did contract with Brand.com in June 2014 for a second tier article, as well as, paid distribution of that article, and paid distribution of an already existing article. The goal of this client’s campaign was to have these articles outrank existing negative online content which relate to the client. As the client has suggested this was a protracted Sale cycle as our Sales representative Sought to work on a Solution that met both the client's goals and budget. Ultimately the client opted for a solution that entailed a second tier article and the additional services indicated above. The client opted for a lower priced option to try the service out.As was indicated by the account manager, the movement or ranking of content is controlled by [redacted]'s algorithm. This pertains to all content on [redacted]. We cannot and do not, guarantee any specific outcome, or ranking of the articles. We do advise our clients on what sites may provide the greatest exposure for their article's topic. A top tier article is not always the best and right answer to ensure traffic to an article. The subject may be too mundane or generic to a wider audience that visits top tier sites. Conversely, a lower tiered site may actually drive more traffic to an article because the audience is better targeted in terms of region, gender, income, or any of many other demographics.Even since June 2014, Brand.com has partnership with a wide variety of publishers who partner with us So that we can commission articles to sites that have organic traffic to the target audiences our client’s want to reach.We wish to See all of our clients succeed. We represent the best way for our clients to get their story out to the audience they want to target. Brand.com delivered the services that this client agreed to when they contracted our services. We remain willing to continue to work with this client to further focus on the effective a distribution of content to publishers that meet the specific targeted audience they are trying to reach.Sincerely,Brand.com

Review: Brand.com, Inc., formerly [redacted]. (company registered in DE, office address registered in PA), did not provide the services agreed upon in the written and verbally agreed upon contracts which were made on or about July 2013. My complaint is not much different than several others the company had prior to changing their name and starting anew. For instance, the written contract states, among other things, "we will shroud his name so that Steve's past is very difficult to find online." This never happened. Additionally, I was verbally promised by Darius C[redacted] prior to signing the contract that all negative search results would be pushed off the first three pages. This never happened. I assume he is no longer with the company because he never answered another e-mail after I paid. Moreover, I found out that the line we were speaking on was being recorded in violation of PA state law which requires consent from all parties. We were halfway through the conversation when Mr. C[redacted] stated, "this call is recorded so my business partner can hear this call and he won't say anything against what I'm saying because everything I'm saying is 100% true". I practically transcribed our last conversation while we were talking and have countless e-mail communications which cannot be sent with this initial complaint. I have plenty of information to prove what I am saying and would be happy to provide it. In fact, my motion (and exhibits) is ready to be sent to the Special Civil Part of the Superior Court of [redacted] County, New Jersey, however, last-minute I thought it would be fair to give the company the opportunity to do the right thing. In summary, the services promised were not provided. The company did begin to create websites and content, however, they did it under the wrong keywords, not the keywords we agreed upon (the way my name is spelled in the negative results). I pointed this out to the campaign strategist (who was switched right in the middle of my campaign), but to no avail. Again, I have countless e-mails I would be happy to provide. Also, Brand.com sold (according to [redacted]) the domains I purchased and thus the content they began to create was deleted. Now I cannot acquire the domains which have my name within them (ex. stevesavacooljr.com)! I was told they would be mine, yet now they are owned by someone in another country! I tried to resolve my problems with Brand.com but was just bounced around to various employees because the ones I was dealing with kept leaving the company. Most recently I was communicating with Nancy Leo who stopped responding. I was completely and utterly ripped off.Desired Settlement: $3,500 reimbursement

Business

Response:

November 11, 2014Dear [redacted],Thank you for providing the above referenced case and giving Brand.com the opportunity to respond to this complaint. As I mentioned in our phone conversation, this complaint was previously sent to an email account of an employee no longer with the company, which is why we are now responding to this case. We do take the concerns of our clients seriously and make every attempt to resolve any issues or concerns.This client contracted with Brand.com in July 2013 for the purpose of suppressing negative online information when you “[redacted]" the client's name.The sales executivedid properly inform the client that the phone call was being recorded. In fact, all callers to our 800 number are greeted with a message that explicitly informs them that calls are recorded for quality and training purposes. Additionally, the Sales executive did promptly transfer this account to an account manager once the enrollment process was completed. This is the regular practice of Brand.com with all the new accounts. Once a new account has been transferred to account management the sole responsibility for those accounts belongs to the account management department.Brand.com produced digital content for the client; as well as, websites,upon which additional content was posted.All of this content was to aid in the client's campaign goal of suppressing negative online information. All of this content was published online prior to the end of July 2013. That is, prior to the end of the first full month that the client was enrolled with Brand.com.Prior to the Start of month two of the client's campaign, the Brand.com account manager made several attempts to contact the client via email and phone calls to discuss the month two campaign strategy. None of those attempts to contact the client were successful. Whenever a client is non-responsive, it is Brand.com's policy to pause or suspend the account and campaign(s) associated with it until further authorization to continue can be obtained from the client. Since this client was nonresponsive his account was paused with Brand.com.Two weeks following the last attempt to contact the client, August 15, 2013,and after the start of what would have been the second month of his campaign,the client requested that Brand.com provide additional content utilizing funds allocated to the first month of his campaign. This was not possible as those funds had already been allocated to the work which was completed for the first month of his campaign. Any additional work on the campaign required the client to provide additional funds.At that time, the client ceased communication with Brand.com. The client's account remained indefinitely suspended.Brand.com is not in the business of selling the domains purchased on behalf of its clients. Each domain that Brand.com purchases on behalf of itsclients automatically expires in twelve months, unless otherwise renewed with the domain vendor. This is a policy of the domain vendors and not Brand.com. Brand.com does not automatically renew domains on accounts that are suspended. Therefore, the domains created for this client automatically expired as the account status of this client was still indefinitely suspended at the time the domains expired. A check of [redacted] indicates that the domain the client claims was sold by Brand.com is indeed available for purchase.In July 2014, Brand.com attempted to re-engage this client to re-start his campaign. The client was only interested in taking over the hostingof the domains associated with his account. This client had a preexisting account with [redacted], a different vendor than the one used by Brand.com to purchase the clients domains.In the best interest of the client, the original account manager was asked to contact the client.The client was informed of the specific information needed from the client to transfer the domains to his [redacted] account and to complete this transaction. This specific information has not been provided by the client.In September 2014, Brand.com's VP of Account Management and an account manager contacted this client to resolve the clients concerns. At the time of that cali, the client was informed that the domains had expired, butdid offer the client a good will gesture of reallocating his previously created digital content to a new domain on behalf of the client. The client was not open to that resolution and broke off Communication with Brand.com.In summary, this client received timely services while he was an active client with Brand.com. Indeed, the initial timeline to produce the content for the first month of his campaign was accomplished earlier than originally communicated to the client.Furthermore, Brand.com welcomes the opportunity to assist this client. As noted above, the domain that the client desires to host independent of Brand.com is currently available for purchase. As per our last contact with this client we are willing to reallocate the content produced on this client’s behalf to a new domain; however, re-engagement by the client is needed to fulfill this good will gesture.Brand.com is available to answer any further questions to assist the Revdex.com in regards to this case.Sincerely,Brand.com

Consumer

Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because it does not address my specific complaint about Brand.com ("Brand"). This "form letter" response fails in every sense of the word. To reiterate my concern: I was promised by a Brand.com employee, Darius C[redacted], that after purchasing one month of services for $3,500.00, no one would be able to find anything negative about me on any of the first three pages of a [redacted] search, and that certain "assets" would be created to accomplish such. This simply never happened. No negative results were ever pushed back and there is no evidence of any asset created for me by Brand within the first 100 pages of a [redacted] search. It is interesting that Brand.com's extremely tardy response is signed "Brand.com" It is unfortunate that the person did not identify himself, but I can tell you that the fallacy and rubbish within the response is in direct contradiction to what two employees (one of whom is an executive) at Brand recently told me. Dan S[redacted], News Media Strategist, admitted that C[redacted] was terminated for unethical business practices and that he had been assigned to "clean up the mess" in cases such as mine where "the ball had been dropped." And Steve D[redacted], Vice President, admitted that there is no evidence of assets created by Brand after I kindly asked him to point to just one item I received for $3,500.00. In other words, he admitted that I received nothing for my money. I am happy that the response to my initial complaint admits that all calls are recorded. These recordings will most certainly come in handy at a later date. I trust that Brand will preserve them (especially the ones with C[redacted] prior to my submitting payment).I can promise, with ever fiber of my being, that this will not go away. I will exhaust every possible legal remedy. In fact, by the end of this month (November 2014), the highly detailed civil motion (accompanied with over 50-pages of e-mails and countless pieces of evidence backing up every point I mention within) will be formally filed. I have been working on it for months under the supervision of a New Jersey attorney who is also a member of the PA bar. Moreover, I am also working to finish a complaint to the PA Attorney General's office regarding Brand's business practices. Aside from the blatant, completely provable, breach of contract issues here, I am concerned that the elements of fraud have in fact been met, according to both PA and NJ statutes, which I will be addressing with full force as soon as my civil action is filed. Again, this is not going away. Brand should do the right thing which is refund my $3,500.00 payment in which I received nothing in return.

Regards,

Consumer

Response:

From: [redacted] <[redacted]>

Date: Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 5:55 PM

Subject: Re: You have a new message from the Revdex.com of Metro Washington DC & Eastern Pennsylvania in regards to your complaint #[redacted].

To: [email protected]

Cc: Customer Relations <[email protected]>

To Whom It May Concern:

Re: Complaint No. [redacted]

Brand.com has fully remedied all issues I have previously complained about. I am fully satisfied with the result.

Please confirm receipt of this e-mail.

Best regards,

Review: Back in March 2013 I contracted with Brand.com to advertise me. I was told that I would have several articles submitted to high end magazines like [redacted]. The first article submitted was in an obscure resume listing that was a free services.

I submitted the letter below without response.

Last letter submitted in May 2013

[redacted],

I have paid 3500. 00 and just do not see the value for what I have paid for. You mention that you were willing to put me in high end publications. I would like to make this final effort to resolve this matter with Brand.com. Since I have been charged would you be so kind to go ahead and publish me in the high end magazines you mentioned. I would like to have a win win resolution so I don't have to take further action.

Blessings

[redacted]Desired Settlement: To be published in high end magazines.

Consumer

Response:

Review: Brand.com advertises that they will remove or at least move any negative information on the internet so as to restore reputation. I spoke at length to a sales person who made many promises and I finally agreed to hire this company. Their system was not working (reportedly surprising to the sales person); I gave them my card number; they were to send me a contract to sign digitally, which didn't arrive. They did not followup, yet removed money from my account. I did not know they had removed money until 31 October; I checked with my bank after realizing they were a not going to perform. They removed $5000 from my account on Monday 28 October. (My bank reported today that they also set up that charge as recurring.) In addition to taking my money without benefit of contract, they were unable to honor their 24 hour availability (they indicated the person who was supposed to be available was moving), unable to make scheduled call, and unable to follow through on conversations. Upon realization that I had been scammed, I began on 31 October, requesting that they return my money. They have refused to talk to me, ignored me, put me off, and refused to provide me with contact information of any decision maker or legal counsel. I have continued requesting return of my dollars up to and including today. I've had one verbal conversation with a "supervisor" on Fri 1 Nov, who effectively told me off. (A recording of the conversation is available.) We agreed there was no trust (he even told me that "clients will say anything") yet finally said he'd get my money back by last Monday. Rather than returning my money, late Monday afternoon, he sent me an email offering additional services wherein he would be lead - after telling me off. I replied simply to return my money. It is aprx 6:00pm in Oregon, where I am, so aprx 9:00pm in Philadelphia. I am embarrassed by this situation -- by actually being talked into giving my card number without benefit of a contract. I very much hoped, as you can see by the $5000, that I would receive help and have instead have encountered this scam. Please help me get my money back.Desired Settlement: I want all of my money back. I have spent time visiting with attorney, police, my bank to pursue via fraud department... and at this point, am requesting no reimbursement for my time or costs. Simply return all my dollars. I have made requests to them that they return my money every day beginning 31 October.

Business

Response:

December 12, 2013

Dear **. [redacted]:

I represent Brand.com, Inc. We received the above-referenced Complaint from your office, filed by **. [redacted]. **. [redacted]’s complaint states that my client improperly charged her $5,000.00 on October 28, 2013. Please be advised that my client admits no wrongdoing and had the authority to charge **. [redacted] for ongoing services which were being rendered by my client. However, because the customer thereafter expressed her dissatisfaction, on November 15th we refunded **. [redacted] the $5,000 which she demands in the above Complaint. Enclosed please find a “transaction receipt” evidencing my client’s refund of the customer’s payment.

We request that your office close this file and restore my client’s Revdex.com rating as soon as possible. Please feel free to contact me and/or my client should you require any additional information regarding this matter.

Very truly yours,

Consumer

Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:

The response from Brand.com is dishonest. [redacted] indicates Brand.com had the authority to make this charge. That is not true. That would indicate they had a contract with me. They did not. And, if they would have simply said to trust their sales person's verbal representations, I would not have given them anything in good faith, as they requested, "hoping" they could help me. They said they would send a contract specifically explaining what they would do, how long it would take, and that I would not be charged until I executed the contract. They provided no contract and not only took $5000 from my account, they made it a recurring 5000/month charge! They had no authorization for any such thing!

In addition, to this dishonesty, [redacted]'s spin on the situation fails to admit my request for return of dollars was immediate. There were no "on-going services." Indeed, the information Brand.com indicated they could move several pages back on google, immediately became the first article and mysteriously see** to remain there.

[redacted] fails to mention that in addition to this complaint with the Revdex.com, complaints were filed with my bank's fraud department, the local police, the BCA, IC3, and both OR and PA Departments of Justice. All these complaints were made after it was imminently clear that Brand.com had no intention of responding to my requests to return all my money. Brand.com was notified of all these complaints, by me, on 9 November 2013. They still continued to ignore me.

The BCA (Business Consumer Alliance) upon receipt of my complaint reported to me that they found this circu**tance so grievous they immediately acted on it and spoke with Brand.com "at length" on the 15th of November. The BCA negotiated the return my money in response to my complaint to them. As is confirmed by the attachment [redacted] so proudly included with his correspondence, the return of my dollars was initiated was on that same day. (That was the day they initiated the transaction, not the day the money was received by my bank.)

[redacted] also fails to note that at the time I filed this complaint with your office, Brand.com had NOT refunded my money. There was zero correspondence from them concerning anything. He also fails to report that they did not return my money until they received correspondences from the multiple companies with whom I filed complaints. It is completely clear by the dates of all events that Brand.com immediately took my money, my request for return of dollars was immediate, and they would not have retuned my money without my filing appropriate complaints.

This was a scam.. They took $5000 from me, made it a recurring charge, and then refused to communicate with me. I sent emails requesting my money back every single day - and received no answers. I did not know they sent my bank a demand for a recurring charge, i.e., $5000 each month, until speaking with the fraud department at my bank. If not for the multiple complaints, my money would be gone... and perhaps several more months of their "recurring charge." As of this writing, I still have not heard directly from anyone at Brand.com.

[redacted] asks that his company's Revdex.com rating be restored. Please do not do that. People need to be aware that this company practices business in this manner. Their taking my money without contract, ignoring me, then returning my money in response to multiple complaints only does not equal good business practice.

Regards,