Brickyard Marketing

To Whom It May Concern: This letter is to serve as our formal response to a complaint filled by [redacted] TrainingIn the complaint, [redacted] Training references an official start date of 6/7/and that revenue lost totaling $14,from August 2013-December were the result of our errorsThis information is entirely inaccurate and can be supported by many correspondence exchanges between our organizations On 5/13/13, [redacted] remitted the deposit for a custom e-commerce site (Invoice [redacted] included)E-commerce websites require a considerable amount of client involvement to provide all product images, descriptions, and contentThe time to complete a project of this scope is almost entirely contingent on the client’s responsiveness to our requests for contentThroughout the development process, we were provided with a contact, from Willig Concepts, a third party firmWillig Concepts, as well as members of the [redacted] team, were continually unresponsive to our requests for information to complete the siteIn most cases, it took more than business days to receive a responseIn many cases, we never received a responseAdditionally, [redacted] could not provide us with appropriate log in credentials to sync their [redacted] payment processing account with the websiteUltimately, these delays pushed the website launch date out to October 26, The basis of this complaint is revenue lost due our website performance from August 2013-December [redacted] had a previous website with [redacted] from July until October (domain history included)Due to the fact we did not control that site, we do not have an exact date when it was terminated, but we do know from historical Internet records and our correspondence with [redacted] Training that it was somewhere between October 15th and October 22nd This means that our development process could not have impacted [redacted] Training’s revenue from August through at least mid-October Additionally, [redacted] did not contract Brickyard Marketing for Internet marketing servicesContracting a provider to build a website versus contracting them to improve search engine rankings are two separate productsWe approached [redacted] about Search Engine Optimization services, which they declinedHad the previous website still been live upon the launch of our site, we would have processed redirects from his old extensions to our new onesUnfortunately, once a website is pulled down by another provider, this is not possibleIn addition, there is no way of guaranteeing that this process would have maintained the previous search engine rankings as any website change can positively and/or negatively impact placementWe have no way of controlling [redacted] from pulling down the previous site, nor could we expedite the development process due to [redacted] Training’s lack of responsiveness [redacted] also addressed in their complaint they paid for emails and only received Our service is not providing emailsWe set up emails with [redacted] for the client for a fee of $75.00, which includes creating up to emailsThe included invoice [redacted] shows the product description of up to emailsIn our efforts to create this account, we found that [redacted] already had an account with [redacted] ***Once an account is created, it cannot be recreatedIt can only be modified with administrator accessWe provided [redacted] with this information on October 8th and 9th to try to obtain administrator access (see included email) On October 10th and 21st we were provided with two accounts for administrator access, both of which did not have the appropriate access levelsWithout administrator access, we were unable to create the [redacted] accountsUpon discussing this decision, they agreed for us to create the three accounts using an alternate and reputable email provider, [redacted] We provided [redacted] Training with a fully functioning, custom, e-commerce websiteWe trained their team to make updates and editsThe CMS this website was built in is WordPress, a commonly used and easily modified website platformThe implementation of a full-time website specialist to make basic updates to a preexisting and functional site was an excessive and frivolous business decision, especially since they already had an employee on staff prior to our relationship termination We did ultimately sever the relationship with [redacted] on November 6, 2014, due to several ongoing issues (see included email) [redacted] contracted us to do another site for them: [redacted] They provided the design and content from another site, SmartIndiana.com, and led us to believe it was their site too that we were recreatingOn August 7, 2013, we received a DMCA Takedown Notice for copyright infringementIt was determined the case was copyright infringement and the website needed to be suspendedCopyright infringements jeopardize our company server and all of our clients’ websites, not just the client receiving the infractionThis is a very serious violation in our industry [redacted] knowingly jeopardized our company by copying the website of a competitor and past business partner (See attached email) [redacted] demanded a daily phone call with our Lead Pay Per Click analyst to discuss their campaign performanceWe provide monthly reporting feedback to all of our clientsWe are not positioned as a company to meet the demands of daily meetings with individual clients to discuss a monthly campaignThis was not a commitment we made to [redacted] during any communication and could not be met by our company [redacted] continued to send website requests after the website was approved by them and launched that were outside of the initial scope of the projectThis was an ongoing issue throughout the development processIn several instances, we redid work because of differing opinions within their organizationUltimately, we trained [redacted] to make product updates and revisions going forward as this was not included in our project scope With [redacted] Training, as with all clients, we want their business to be successfulThe scope of this project far exceeded the budgeted amount the client paidWe did our best to accommodate their requests, but ultimately the best decision for both companies was to part waysWe’re very surprised and disappointed by the erroneous and fabricated complaints they have filed with the Revdex.comThere are no valid points within their complaint that warrant or justify any type of punitive damages Sincerely, [redacted] Chief Operating Officer Brickyard Marketing

Dear Sir or Madam, We have reviewed Mr***'s response to our counter response to his claims [redacted] has address an entirely separate set of claims in his counter responseWe appropriately addressed and provided supporting documentation to validate our stance on each of his previous claimsWe will provide our responses to these new claims to try to resolve this matter amicably Just as Mr [redacted] referenced we told him in October in his claim, our team did not take down his previous site with [redacted] Our site was not 100% complete, which means there would be no benefit to us pulling down his prior siteThis would create unwarranted pressure on our team to focus entirely on his project to get a replacement site up quicklyAs a full service marketing firm, we're responsible for project management of several projects simultaneouslyThis makes it very difficult for our web support team to drop all projects to focus on one, which is what we did in this situationAs soon as we learned that the previous website was down, our team made completing the project the highest priorityWe had staff members in the office past 11:PM to complete the site and launch it in an effort to minimize the downtown [redacted] experiencedAdditionally, it is not standard process for any firm to "take down" another marketing firms websiteTypically, DNS settings are changed, which can take time to propagate and the sites seamlessly transferPulling down a site happens from within the hosting companies development team, which was [redacted] at the time Mr***'s claims that our team did not make calls is inaccurate, especially once we knew that his email was downOur team does follow up each phone call with an email, which may be the emails referencedOur lead designer for this project did relocate to Arizona in August This did not cause a delay on this site until OctoberAs previously provided, we had a very difficult time getting content and information from their team to complete this projectWe were provided with a contact at a third party firm, Sarah Willig, whom either failed to respond to requests at all or was considerably delayedIf necessary, we can provide many supporting emails to substantiate this claimIt would take days and sometimes weeks to get responses for informationClient involvement is imperative when building a website because we cannot create content and images for their products and servicesFailure to provide this information would cause delays with any firm building a website As previously responded to, we made several attempts to create a [redacted] business email accountThese are created for $for up to emailsUnfortunately, [redacted] had previously has an account with [redacted] preventing us fro creating a new oneWe asked for the appropriate access to create the account several times (supporting documentation provided in our previous response), but [redacted] could not provide this informationThey provided several different log in credentials, all of which we invalidWe provided the steps to take to gain access, but this must be done with the client [redacted] will not provide a third party (Brickyard Marketing) with another companies log inAfter all efforts were exhausted to create a [redacted] email we created a [redacted] emailThough we did set up their emails with [redacted] , we would be happy to refund the $email set up fee to resolve this element of their complaint [redacted] has never asked us for their website files for the [redacted] websiteWe contacted them upon receiving the violation and did not receive any return phone callsThe DMCA had already found the true owner of the website content to be [redacted] This is not a violation we have the ability to refuteIt is a legal requirement to pull the site down or have our entire server legally shutoffWe would be happy to transfer the domain [redacted] into an account established by [redacted] to allow them to own the domainWe have no use for itAdditionally, we would be happy to provide all website files associated with [redacted] [redacted] is free to place them on their own hosting account outside of our serversThis will limit the liability of the content to them and their new hosting providedPrior to receiving this response, Mr [redacted] has not once asked us to put the site up, transfer the domain or requested any website files Our goal is to resolve this matter efficientlyUnfortunately, many of the claims Mr [redacted] has made are erroneous, inaccurate and unsubstantiatedWe've provided supporting documentation to refute each of his claimsThis supporting documentation validates our stance and why we're unwilling to provide Mr [redacted] with financial compensationAn owner of our organization, [redacted] ***, reached out to [redacted] about our concerns with how the relationship was progressingWe never received a responseThis would have been the appropriate time to address these concerns and issuesAs far as we were aware, this was resolved until we received the Revdex.com complaint several months laterAs previously stated, we would be happy to refund $for the email set up fee, transfer the domain [redacted] into their account and provide all website files for [redacted] This will allow Mr [redacted] to host this site somewhere else

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below Upon review of Anna Yano's response, it is apparent that Brickyard Marketing is not willing to accept any responsibility with their shortcomings with the [redacted] website Infinistorm still hosts our [redacted] website, and it's fully functional [redacted] contacted [redacted] regarding our old [redacted] website Infinistorm stated they did not take down the website, it was taken down by somebody else in October of Mysteriously when we would go to the [redacted] admin login page, WordPress login would appear We asked the employees at Brickyard multiple times if they took it down, but they repeatedly denied it If [redacted] were to take the website down, they would have taken down [redacted] as well When our old website was wiped out, Brickyard slapped together a shell website that neither finished nor fully functional The staff at [redacted] repeatedly asked the Brickyard staff to call us due to our old email failing to deliver messages properly They would continue to send emails instead of call for a request When we would reach out and call for the status of something, they would respond that they sent an email It caused time lapses because Brickyard couldn't listen to us and just pick up the phone Additionally, we asked for our representative [redacted] from Brickyard come out and meet with us, he refused We were down for days waiting for our website developer to finish relocating to Phoenix The lack of communication was Brickyards, no ours The [redacted] staff went out of their way to provide Brickyard with whatever login and passwords they wanted to the best of our ability We did make many requests for the website to be fixed because it was unfinished and unsatisfactory Not just little details, but major flaws such as registration not working properly, entire classes missing from the website, and missing course descriptions The "training" for WordPress was minutes via phone on how to navigate the registration, nothing more The email that was provided was a free service offered by our domain host, [redacted] Giving us free emails vsthe we purchased is a far cry from what was ordered They couldn't figure out [redacted] , and that became our fault We had to pay an additonal $to upgrade to business email which was what we should have received in the first place We did have to hire a website specialist to make the unfinished shell website function as intended once Brickyard ended our relationship It took months of her hard work to get our internet sales back up, which was a direct result of the website being taken down before it was supposed to In response to the SMRT website; Brickyard was well aware of what was being done, and also that [redacted] owned the copyrights for SMRT Instead of coming to us regarding this issue, they took the website down We actually own SRMTIndy.com, and would like to have what is our back If they found it to be such a violation, it didn't stop them from contracting with us to make our new [redacted] website I also find it contradictory that we didn't contract for marketing, but we used the pay per click marketing provided by Brickyard In Response to Brickyard claiming we continued to send website requests after the website was approved, that is erroneous and fabricated We never approved it, and they threw whatever they had in place of our old website once it mysteriously "disappeared" and then didn't want to finish it to ***'s satisfaction [redacted] is and will continue to be successful We have been successful because we provide quality service expected by our customers [redacted] holds Brickyard Marketing to the same standards The facts in this matter are that Brickyard dropped the ball with [redacted] and instead of working with us to resolve the issue, they walked away at the worst time leaving a mess behind Sincerely, [redacted] Director

To Whom It May Concern:
This letter is to serve as our formal response to a complaint...

filled by [redacted] Training. In the complaint, [redacted] Training references an official start date of 6/7/2013 and that revenue lost totaling $14,423.03 from August 2013-December 2013 were the result of our errors. This information is entirely inaccurate and can be supported by many correspondence exchanges between our organizations. 
On 5/13/13, [redacted] remitted the deposit for a custom e-commerce site (Invoice [redacted] included). E-commerce websites require a considerable amount of client involvement to provide all product images, descriptions, and content. The time to complete a project of this scope is almost entirely contingent on the client’s responsiveness to our requests for content. Throughout the development process, we were provided with a contact, from Willig Concepts, a third party firm. Willig Concepts, as well as members of the [redacted] team, were continually unresponsive to our requests for information to complete the site. In most cases, it took more than 10 business days to receive a response. In many cases, we never received a response. Additionally, [redacted] could not provide us with appropriate log in credentials to sync their [redacted] payment processing account with the website. Ultimately, these delays pushed the website launch date out to October 26, 2013. 
The basis of this complaint is revenue lost due our website performance from August 2013-December 2013. [redacted] had a previous website with [redacted] from July 2009 until October 2013 (domain history included). Due to the fact we did not control that site, we do not have an exact date when it was terminated, but we do know from historical Internet records and our correspondence with [redacted] Training that it was somewhere between October 15th and October 22nd.  This means that our development process could not have impacted [redacted] Training’s revenue from August 2013 through at least mid-October. 
Additionally, [redacted] did not contract Brickyard Marketing for Internet marketing services. Contracting a provider to build a website versus contracting them to improve search engine rankings are two separate products. We approached [redacted] about Search Engine Optimization services, which they declined. Had the previous website still been live upon the launch of our site, we would have processed 301 redirects from his old extensions to our new ones. Unfortunately, once a website is pulled down by another provider, this is not possible. In addition, there is no way of guaranteeing that this process would have maintained the previous search engine rankings as any website change can positively and/or negatively impact placement. We have no way of controlling [redacted] from pulling down the previous site, nor could we expedite the development process due to [redacted] Training’s lack of responsiveness. 
[redacted] also addressed in their complaint they paid for 10 emails and only received 4. Our service is not providing emails. We set up emails with [redacted] for the client for a fee of $75.00, which includes creating up to 10 emails. The included invoice [redacted] shows the product description of up to 10 emails. In our efforts to create this account, we found that [redacted] already had an account with [redacted]. Once an account is created, it cannot be recreated. It can only be modified with administrator access. We provided [redacted] with this information on October 8th and 9th to try to obtain administrator access (see included email).  On October 10th and 21st we were provided with two accounts for administrator access, both of which did not have the appropriate access levels. Without administrator access, we were unable to create the [redacted] accounts. Upon discussing this decision, they agreed for us to create the three accounts using an alternate and reputable email provider, [redacted]. 
We provided [redacted] Training with a fully functioning, custom, e-commerce website. We trained their team to make updates and edits. The CMS this website was built in is WordPress, a commonly used and easily modified website platform. The implementation of a full-time website specialist to make basic updates to a preexisting and functional site was an excessive and frivolous business decision, especially since they already had an employee on staff prior to our relationship termination. 
We did ultimately sever the relationship with [redacted] on November 6, 2014, due to several ongoing issues (see included email).  
[redacted] contracted us to do another site for them: [redacted]. They provided the design and content from another site, SmartIndiana.com, and led us to believe it was their site too that we were recreating. On August 7, 2013, we received a DMCA Takedown Notice for copyright infringement. It was determined the case was copyright infringement and the website needed to be suspended. Copyright infringements jeopardize our company server and all of our clients’ websites, not just the client receiving the infraction. This is a very serious violation in our industry. [redacted] knowingly jeopardized our company by copying the website of a competitor and past business partner (See attached email). 
[redacted] demanded a daily phone call with our Lead Pay Per Click analyst to discuss their campaign performance. We provide monthly reporting feedback to all of our clients. We are not positioned as a company to meet the demands of daily meetings with individual clients to discuss a monthly campaign. This was not a commitment we made to [redacted] during any communication and could not be met by our company. 
[redacted] continued to send website requests after the website was approved by them and launched that were outside of the initial scope of the project. This was an ongoing issue throughout the development process. In several instances, we redid work because of differing opinions within their organization. Ultimately, we trained [redacted] to make product updates and revisions going forward as this was not included in our project scope. 
With [redacted] Training, as with all clients, we want their business to be successful. The scope of this project far exceeded the budgeted amount the client paid. We did our best to accommodate their requests, but ultimately the best decision for both companies was to part ways. We’re very surprised and disappointed by the erroneous and fabricated complaints they have filed with the Revdex.com. There are no valid points within their complaint that warrant or justify any type of punitive damages. 
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Chief Operating Officer
Brickyard Marketing

Dear Sir or Madam,
We have reviewed Mr. [redacted]'s response to our counter response to his claims. [redacted] has address an entirely separate set of claims in his counter response. We appropriately addressed and provided supporting documentation to validate our stance on each of his previous claims. We will provide our responses to these new claims to try to resolve this matter amicably.
Just as Mr. [redacted] referenced we told him in October in his claim, our team did not take down his previous site with [redacted]. Our site was not 100% complete, which means there would be no benefit to us pulling down his prior site. This would create unwarranted pressure on our team to focus entirely on his project to get a replacement site up quickly. As a full service marketing firm, we're responsible for project management of several projects simultaneously. This makes it very difficult for our web support team to drop all projects to focus on one, which is what we did in this situation. As soon as we learned that the previous website was down, our team made completing the project the highest priority. We had 3 staff members in the office past 11:00 PM to complete the site and launch it in an effort to minimize the downtown [redacted] experienced. Additionally, it is not standard process for any firm to "take down" another marketing firms website. Typically, DNS settings are changed, which can take time to propagate and the sites seamlessly transfer. Pulling down a site happens from within the hosting companies development team, which was [redacted] at the time.
Mr. [redacted]'s claims that our team did not make calls is inaccurate, especially once we knew that his email was down. Our team does follow up each phone call with an email, which may be the emails referenced. Our lead designer for this project did relocate to Arizona in August 2013. This did not cause a delay on this site until October. As previously provided, we had a very difficult time getting content and information from their team to complete this project. We were provided with a contact at a third party firm, Sarah Willig, whom either failed to respond to requests at all or was considerably delayed. If necessary, we can provide many supporting emails to substantiate this claim. It would take days and sometimes weeks to get responses for information. Client involvement is imperative when building a website because we cannot create content and images for their products and services. Failure to provide this information would cause delays with any firm building a website.
As previously responded to, we made several attempts to create a [redacted] business email account. These are created for $75.00 for up to 10 emails. Unfortunately, [redacted] had previously has an account with [redacted] preventing us fro creating a new one. We asked for the appropriate access to create the account several times (supporting documentation provided in our previous response), but [redacted] could not provide this information. They provided several different log in credentials, all of which we invalid. We provided the steps to take to gain access, but this must be done with the client. [redacted] will not provide a third party (Brickyard Marketing) with another companies log in. After all efforts were exhausted to create a [redacted] email we created a [redacted] email. Though we did set up their emails with [redacted], we would be happy to refund the $75.00 email set up fee to resolve this element of their complaint.
[redacted] has never asked us for their website files for the [redacted] website. We contacted them upon receiving the violation and did not receive any return phone calls. The DMCA had already found the true owner of the website content to be [redacted]. This is not a violation we have the ability to refute. It is a legal requirement to pull the site down or have our entire server legally shutoff. We would be happy to transfer the domain [redacted] into an account established by [redacted] to allow them to own the domain. We have no use for it. Additionally, we would be happy to provide all website files associated with [redacted]. [redacted] is free to place them on their own hosting account outside of our servers. This will limit the liability of the content to them and their new hosting provided. Prior to receiving this response, Mr. [redacted] has not once asked us to put the site up, transfer the domain or requested any website files.
Our goal is to resolve this matter efficiently. Unfortunately, many of the claims Mr. [redacted] has made are erroneous, inaccurate and unsubstantiated. We've provided supporting documentation to refute each of his claims. This supporting documentation validates our stance and why we're unwilling to provide Mr. [redacted] with financial compensation. An owner of our organization, [redacted], reached out to [redacted] about our concerns with how the relationship was progressing. We never received a response. This would have been the appropriate time to address these concerns and issues. As far as we were aware, this was resolved until we received the Revdex.com complaint several months later. As previously stated, we would be happy to refund $75.00 for the email set up fee, transfer the domain [redacted] into their account and provide all website files for [redacted]. This will allow Mr. [redacted] to host this site somewhere else.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.  Upon review of Anna Yano's response, it is apparent that Brickyard Marketing is not willing to accept any responsibility with their shortcomings with the [redacted] website.  Infinistorm still hosts our [redacted] website, and it's fully functional.  [redacted] contacted [redacted] regarding our old [redacted] website.  Infinistorm stated they did not take down the website, it was taken down by somebody else in October of 2013.  Mysteriously when we would go to the [redacted] admin login page, WordPress login would appear.  We asked the employees at Brickyard multiple times if they took it down, but they repeatedly denied it.  If [redacted] were to take the website down, they would have taken down [redacted] as well.  When our old website was wiped out, Brickyard slapped together a shell website that neither finished nor fully functional.  
The staff at [redacted] repeatedly asked the Brickyard staff to call us due to our old email failing to deliver messages properly.  They would continue to send emails instead of call for a request.  When we would reach out and call for the status of something, they would respond that they sent an email.  It caused time lapses because Brickyard couldn't listen to us and just pick up the phone.  Additionally, we asked for our representative [redacted] from Brickyard come out and meet with us, he refused.  We were down for 10 days waiting for our website developer to finish relocating to Phoenix.  The lack of communication was Brickyards, no ours.  The [redacted] staff went out of their way to provide Brickyard with whatever login and passwords they wanted to the best of our ability.
We did make many requests for the website to be fixed because it was unfinished and unsatisfactory.  Not just little details, but major flaws such as registration not working properly, entire classes missing from the website, and missing course descriptions.  The "training" for WordPress was 20 minutes via phone on how to navigate the registration, nothing more.  
The email that was provided was a free service offered by our domain host, [redacted].  Giving us 3 free emails vs. the 10 we purchased is a far cry from what was ordered.  They couldn't figure out [redacted], and that became our fault.  We had to pay an additonal $80 to upgrade to business email which was what we should have received in the first place.  
We did have to hire a website specialist to make the unfinished shell website function as intended once Brickyard ended our relationship.  It took months of her hard work to get our internet sales back up, which was a direct result of the website being taken down before it was supposed to.
In response to the SMRT website; Brickyard was well aware of what was being done, and also that [redacted] owned the copyrights for SMRT.  Instead of coming to us regarding this issue, they took the website down.  We actually own SRMTIndy.com, and would like to have what is our back.  If they found it to be such a violation, it didn't stop them from contracting with us to make our new [redacted] website.  I also find it contradictory that we didn't contract for marketing, but we used the pay per click marketing provided by Brickyard.
In Response to Brickyard claiming we continued to send website requests after the website was approved, that is erroneous and fabricated.  We never approved it, and they threw whatever they had in place of our old website once it mysteriously "disappeared" and then didn't want to finish it to [redacted]'s satisfaction.
[redacted] is and will continue to be successful.  We have been successful because we provide quality service expected by our customers.   [redacted] holds Brickyard Marketing to the same standards.  The facts in this matter are that Brickyard dropped the ball with [redacted] and instead of working with us to resolve the issue, they walked away at the worst time leaving a mess behind.  
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Director

Dear Sir or Madam,

We have reviewed Mr. [redacted]'s response to our counter response to his claims. [redacted] has address an entirely separate set of claims in his counter response. We appropriately addressed and provided supporting documentation to validate our stance on each of his previous claims. We will provide our responses to these new claims to try to resolve this matter amicably.

Just as Mr. [redacted] referenced we told him in October in his claim, our team did not take down his previous site with [redacted]. Our site was not 100% complete, which means there would be no benefit to us pulling down his prior site. This would create unwarranted pressure on our team to focus entirely on his project to get a replacement site up quickly. As a full service marketing firm, we're responsible for project management of several projects simultaneously. This makes it very difficult for our web support team to drop all projects to focus on one, which is what we did in this situation. As soon as we learned that the previous website was down, our team made completing the project the highest priority. We had 3 staff members in the office past 11:00 PM to complete the site and launch it in an effort to minimize the downtown [redacted] experienced. Additionally, it is not standard process for any firm to "take down" another marketing firms website. Typically, DNS settings are changed, which can take time to propagate and the sites seamlessly transfer. Pulling down a site happens from within the hosting companies development team, which was [redacted] at the time.

Mr. [redacted]'s claims that our team did not make calls is inaccurate, especially once we knew that his email was down. Our team does follow up each phone call with an email, which may be the emails referenced. Our lead designer for this project did relocate to Arizona in August 2013. This did not cause a delay on this site until October. As previously provided, we had a very difficult time getting content and information from their team to complete this project. We were provided with a contact at a third party firm, Sarah Willig, whom either failed to respond to requests at all or was considerably delayed. If necessary, we can provide many supporting emails to substantiate this claim. It would take days and sometimes weeks to get responses for information. Client involvement is imperative when building a website because we cannot create content and images for their products and services. Failure to provide this information would cause delays with any firm building a website.

As previously responded to, we made several attempts to create a [redacted] business email account. These are created for $75.00 for up to 10 emails. Unfortunately, [redacted] had previously has an account with [redacted] preventing us fro creating a new one. We asked for the appropriate access to create the account several times (supporting documentation provided in our previous response), but [redacted] could not provide this information. They provided several different log in credentials, all of which we invalid. We provided the steps to take to gain access, but this must be done with the client. [redacted] will not provide a third party (Brickyard Marketing) with another companies log in. After all efforts were exhausted to create a [redacted] email we created a [redacted] email. Though we did set up their emails with [redacted], we would be happy to refund the $75.00 email set up fee to resolve this element of their complaint.

[redacted] has never asked us for their website files for the [redacted] website. We contacted them upon receiving the violation and did not receive any return phone calls. The DMCA had already found the true owner of the website content to be [redacted]. This is not a violation we have the ability to refute. It is a legal requirement to pull the site down or have our entire server legally shutoff. We would be happy to transfer the domain [redacted] into an account established by [redacted] to allow them to own the domain. We have no use for it. Additionally, we would be happy to provide all website files associated with [redacted] is free to place them on their own hosting account outside of our servers. This will limit the liability of the content to them and their new hosting provided. Prior to receiving this response, Mr. [redacted] has not once asked us to put the site up, transfer the domain or requested any website files.

Our goal is to resolve this matter efficiently. Unfortunately, many of the claims Mr. [redacted] has made are erroneous, inaccurate and unsubstantiated. We've provided supporting documentation to refute each of his claims. This supporting documentation validates our stance and why we're unwilling to provide Mr. [redacted] with financial compensation. An owner of our organization, [redacted], reached out to [redacted] about our concerns with how the relationship was progressing. We never received a response. This would have been the appropriate time to address these concerns and issues. As far as we were aware, this was resolved until we received the Revdex.com complaint several months later. As previously stated, we would be happy to refund $75.00 for the email set up fee, transfer the domain [redacted] into their account and provide all website files for [redacted]. This will allow Mr. [redacted] to host this site somewhere else.

To Whom It May Concern:

This letter is to serve as our formal response to a complaint...

filled by [redacted] Training. In the complaint, [redacted] Training references an official start date of 6/7/2013 and that revenue lost totaling $14,423.03 from August 2013-December 2013 were the result of our errors. This information is entirely inaccurate and can be supported by many correspondence exchanges between our organizations. 

On 5/13/13, [redacted] remitted the deposit for a custom e-commerce site (Invoice [redacted] included). E-commerce websites require a considerable amount of client involvement to provide all product images, descriptions, and content. The time to complete a project of this scope is almost entirely contingent on the client’s responsiveness to our requests for content. Throughout the development process, we were provided with a contact, from Willig Concepts, a third party firm. Willig Concepts, as well as members of the [redacted] team, were continually unresponsive to our requests for information to complete the site. In most cases, it took more than 10 business days to receive a response. In many cases, we never received a response. Additionally, [redacted] could not provide us with appropriate log in credentials to sync their [redacted] payment processing account with the website. Ultimately, these delays pushed the website launch date out to October 26, 2013. 

The basis of this complaint is revenue lost due our website performance from August 2013-December 2013. [redacted] had a previous website with [redacted] from July 2009 until October 2013 (domain history included). Due to the fact we did not control that site, we do not have an exact date when it was terminated, but we do know from historical Internet records and our correspondence with [redacted] Training that it was somewhere between October 15th and October 22nd.  This means that our development process could not have impacted [redacted] Training’s revenue from August 2013 through at least mid-October. 

Additionally, [redacted] did not contract Brickyard Marketing for Internet marketing services. Contracting a provider to build a website versus contracting them to improve search engine rankings are two separate products. We approached [redacted] about Search Engine Optimization services, which they declined. Had the previous website still been live upon the launch of our site, we would have processed 301 redirects from his old extensions to our new ones. Unfortunately, once a website is pulled down by another provider, this is not possible. In addition, there is no way of guaranteeing that this process would have maintained the previous search engine rankings as any website change can positively and/or negatively impact placement. We have no way of controlling [redacted] from pulling down the previous site, nor could we expedite the development process due to [redacted] Training’s lack of responsiveness. 

[redacted] also addressed in their complaint they paid for 10 emails and only received 4. Our service is not providing emails. We set up emails with [redacted] for the client for a fee of $75.00, which includes creating up to 10 emails. The included invoice [redacted] shows the product description of up to 10 emails. In our efforts to create this account, we found that [redacted] already had an account with [redacted]. Once an account is created, it cannot be recreated. It can only be modified with administrator access. We provided [redacted] with this information on October 8th and 9th to try to obtain administrator access (see included email).  On October 10th and 21st we were provided with two accounts for administrator access, both of which did not have the appropriate access levels. Without administrator access, we were unable to create the [redacted] accounts. Upon discussing this decision, they agreed for us to create the three accounts using an alternate and reputable email provider, [redacted]. 

We provided [redacted] Training with a fully functioning, custom, e-commerce website. We trained their team to make updates and edits. The CMS this website was built in is WordPress, a commonly used and easily modified website platform. The implementation of a full-time website specialist to make basic updates to a preexisting and functional site was an excessive and frivolous business decision, especially since they already had an employee on staff prior to our relationship termination. 

We did ultimately sever the relationship with [redacted] on November 6, 2014, due to several ongoing issues (see included email).  

[redacted] contracted us to do another site for them: [redacted]. They provided the design and content from another site, SmartIndiana.com, and led us to believe it was their site too that we were recreating. On August 7, 2013, we received a DMCA Takedown Notice for copyright infringement. It was determined the case was copyright infringement and the website needed to be suspended. Copyright infringements jeopardize our company server and all of our clients’ websites, not just the client receiving the infraction. This is a very serious violation in our industry. [redacted] knowingly jeopardized our company by copying the website of a competitor and past business partner (See attached email). 

[redacted] demanded a daily phone call with our Lead Pay Per Click analyst to discuss their campaign performance. We provide monthly reporting feedback to all of our clients. We are not positioned as a company to meet the demands of daily meetings with individual clients to discuss a monthly campaign. This was not a commitment we made to [redacted] during any communication and could not be met by our company. 

[redacted] continued to send website requests after the website was approved by them and launched that were outside of the initial scope of the project. This was an ongoing issue throughout the development process. In several instances, we redid work because of differing opinions within their organization. Ultimately, we trained [redacted] to make product updates and revisions going forward as this was not included in our project scope. 

With [redacted] Training, as with all clients, we want their business to be successful. The scope of this project far exceeded the budgeted amount the client paid. We did our best to accommodate their requests, but ultimately the best decision for both companies was to part ways. We’re very surprised and disappointed by the erroneous and fabricated complaints they have filed with the Revdex.com. There are no valid points within their complaint that warrant or justify any type of punitive damages. 

Sincerely,

Chief Operating Officer

Brickyard Marketing

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.  Upon review of Anna Yano's response, it is apparent that Brickyard Marketing is not willing to accept any responsibility with their shortcomings with the [redacted] website.  Infinistorm still hosts our [redacted] website, and it's fully functional.  [redacted] contacted [redacted] regarding our old [redacted] website.  Infinistorm stated they did not take down the website, it was taken down by somebody else in October of 2013.  Mysteriously when we would go to the [redacted] admin login page, WordPress login would appear.  We asked the employees at Brickyard multiple times if they took it down, but they repeatedly denied it.  If [redacted] were to take the website down, they would have taken down [redacted] as well.  When our old website was wiped out, Brickyard slapped together a shell website that neither finished nor fully functional.  

The staff at [redacted] repeatedly asked the Brickyard staff to call us due to our old email failing to deliver messages properly.  They would continue to send emails instead of call for a request.  When we would reach out and call for the status of something, they would respond that they sent an email.  It caused time lapses because Brickyard couldn't listen to us and just pick up the phone.  Additionally, we asked for our representative [redacted] from Brickyard come out and meet with us, he refused.  We were down for 10 days waiting for our website developer to finish relocating to Phoenix.  The lack of communication was Brickyards, no ours.  The [redacted] staff went out of their way to provide Brickyard with whatever login and passwords they wanted to the best of our ability.

We did make many requests for the website to be fixed because it was unfinished and unsatisfactory.  Not just little details, but major flaws such as registration not working properly, entire classes missing from the website, and missing course descriptions.  The "training" for WordPress was 20 minutes via phone on how to navigate the registration, nothing more.  

The email that was provided was a free service offered by our domain host, [redacted].  Giving us 3 free emails vs. the 10 we purchased is a far cry from what was ordered.  They couldn't figure out [redacted], and that became our fault.  We had to pay an additonal $80 to upgrade to business email which was what we should have received in the first place.  

We did have to hire a website specialist to make the unfinished shell website function as intended once Brickyard ended our relationship.  It took months of her hard work to get our internet sales back up, which was a direct result of the website being taken down before it was supposed to.

In response to the SMRT website; Brickyard was well aware of what was being done, and also that [redacted] owned the copyrights for SMRT.  Instead of coming to us regarding this issue, they took the website down.  We actually own SRMTIndy.com, and would like to have what is our back.  If they found it to be such a violation, it didn't stop them from contracting with us to make our new [redacted] website.  I also find it contradictory that we didn't contract for marketing, but we used the pay per click marketing provided by Brickyard.

In Response to Brickyard claiming we continued to send website requests after the website was approved, that is erroneous and fabricated.  We never approved it, and they threw whatever they had in place of our old website once it mysteriously "disappeared" and then didn't want to finish it to [redacted]'s satisfaction.

[redacted] is and will continue to be successful.  We have been successful because we provide quality service expected by our customers.   [redacted] holds Brickyard Marketing to the same standards.  The facts in this matter are that Brickyard dropped the ball with [redacted] and instead of working with us to resolve the issue, they walked away at the worst time leaving a mess behind.  

Sincerely,

Director