Conveyance Marketing Group

Conveyance Marketing Group, LLC ("CMG") has received your letter dated July 29, regarding its relationship with [redacted] ***, LLC (the “Customer")This letter shall comprise our formal response to that letter and to the allegation made by the CustomerStated simply, the Customer's complaint defies the evidence in this case, and CMG strongly disagrees with the Customer's version of events described in her statementThe Founder and Chief Marketing Officer of CMG, met the Customer on February 24, 2015, at a marketing eventThey had a number of conversations about the Customer's prospective business and how CMG might be able to assist in marketing that businessThe Customer signed a contract with CMG on March 26, 2015, for various services (the “Contract")The Customer hired CMG to perform market research, develop a website, and to develop and manage the social media tactics to market the businessShe committed to pay CMG $1,for the research; $for the website, paid with a $deposit and monthly payments of $300; and $per month for social media managementThe Customer paid her deposit on the website and half of the research fees at the time she signed the contract, with the understanding that the remainder of the research fees would be invoiced at a later dateOver the course of the relationship between the Customer and CMG, the Customer has timely made all of her monthly payments and has properly reimbursed CMG for expenses incurred on her behalfDespite being invoiced on April 15, 2015, for the remainder of the fees for the research services in the amount of $500, that invoice remains outstandingThe Customer's complaints relate solely to the website development workThe terms of the Contract called for a single design consultation and up to two design revisionsThe Contract contemplates services outside of its defined scope and articulates that such services are subject to the then-current hourly rate charged for such servicesThis is a standard CMG contract for website developmentThe parties met for the first time on March 17, In that meeting, we discussed concepts, images and overall designWe met again on March 26, the day the Contract was executed to further discuss the designCMG created a project plan and shared it with the Customer on March On April 1, after the completion of the website survey by the Customer, which is part of the initial website design process, we met for a third time, this time having detailed discussions about the website design, navigation and contentAt this meeting, the Customer gave detailed instructions to CMG regarding her desires for how the website should look and performAt the conclusion of this meeting, CMG had a firm understanding and visual sketch of what it believed to be the Customer's thoughts and desires for the websiteAs it turned out, those desires and the instructions about them were subject to a great deal of change as time went onAfter the initial design was presented, the Customer sought input from a number of outside persons (friends, marketing consultants, IT professionals, health care providers, etc.), seeking input on the design, and she changed her mind often about what she wanted or otherwise sought services from CMG outside the scope of the contractBy April 29, the Customer was able to review a full design, and she indicated that she liked itHowever, by May 13, the Customer was asking for a major design overhaul, all while indicating, “I am not sure what I'm looking for." On May 21, she had changed her mind again, asking for additional design changes, inconsistent with her instructions from just eight days priorShe again approached CMG with additional design changes on June 1, June 8, June 10, June 17, June 26, and June The changes on June and June 29, in particular, represented fundamental changes to the website structureAt this point, in connection with one of these changes, the Customer admitted that she was “stuck" about what she wanted Although CMG was within its rights under the Contract to charge the Customer for all of the design changes after the first two, it was clear to the CMG staff that due to the Customer's indecisiveness as well as her own admission of memory impairment, this project represented an opportunity to mentor and strategically focus this small business, so CMG made the decision to not charge her for the extra workDespite the great number of change requests caused only by her own inability to get comfortable with her decisions, the Customer started to indicate her displeasure with the progress of the project in early JulyShe stated that she was getting frustrated that she couldn't view the design, but due to the structural design changes requested by the Customer, the link to view the website prior to June was not accessible because the website was in complete redevelopmentOnce the Customer asked CMG about transitioning the project to another developer altogether, CMG ceased working on the project and focused solely on trying to negotiate a resolutionAt this point, according to the project managementsoftware used by CMG, the project is percent completeThe backend functionality and the database are fully developed, and the only remaining work to be done is to place the client-provided content on the web pagesCMG is in possession of only one page of content from the Customer, which was placed in the websiteAlthough CMG wanted to bring the Customer's payments to the point where she had paid a similar proportion of the total value of the Contract, which would have required approximately $from the Customer, CMG offered to reduce that payment, so long as she paid the outstanding $invoice for the research services that she never paid from April With that final payment, CMG would release all of the files to herAs a matter of business practice for a contract dispute, CMG retained counsel for the purpose of providing advice and representation in connection with this matter, to ensure that CMG is in compliance with the Contract and its legal obligationsThe suggestion that CMG's intention in retaining counsel was an act of aggression or was done to “bully" the Customer is simply untrueWhile CMG has been very patient and supportive while the Customer worked through inconsistent business strategies, we are overall very disappointed by our experience with the CustomerIt is clear from these facts, all of which are supported by documentary evidence, including email communications and contemporaneous notes from personal meetings, that CMG has not only complied with the terms of its contract with the Customer, it has, in fact, exceeded its obligations by not charging her for the great amount of extra work performedNaturally, CMG is interested in resolving this matter, but we are disinclined to return any money to herRather, we believes that we have made a fair offer to allow all parties to move forwardThis offer, presented in July, simply asked for payment of the outstanding $invoice from April 15, 2015, for research services, and CMG would release all the website filesIf you have any questions, please feel free to contact me directlyConveyance Marketing Group [redacted] , Southeast | Leesburg, VA || ###-###-#### www.conveyancemarketinggroup.com

Conveyance Marketing Group, LLC ("CMG") has received your letter dated July 29, regarding its relationship with [redacted] ***, LLC (the “Customer")This letter shall comprise our formal response to that letter and to the allegation made by the CustomerStated simply, the Customer's complaint defies the evidence in this case, and CMG strongly disagrees with the Customer's version of events described in her statement.The Founder and Chief Marketing Officer of CMG, met the Customer on February 24, 2015, at a marketing eventThey had a number of conversations about the Customer's prospective business and how CMG might be able to assist in marketing that business.The Customer signed a contract with CMG on March 26, 2015, for various services (the “Contract")The Customer hired CMG to perform market research, develop a website, and to develop and manage the social media tactics to market the businessShe committed to pay CMG $1,for the research; $for the website, paid with a $deposit and monthly payments of $300; and $per month for social media managementThe Customer paid her deposit on the website and half of the research fees at the time she signed the contract, with the understanding that the remainder of the research fees would be invoiced at a later dateOver the course of the relationship between the Customer and CMG, the Customer has timely made all of her monthly payments and has properly reimbursed CMG for expenses incurred on her behalfDespite being invoiced on April 15, 2015, for the remainder of the fees for the research services in the amount of $500, that invoice remains outstanding.The Customer's complaints relate solely to the website development work.The terms of the Contract called for a single design consultation and up to two design revisionsThe Contract contemplates services outside of its defined scope and articulates that such services are subject to the then-current hourly rate charged for such servicesThis is a standard CMG contract for website development.The parties met for the first time on March 17, In that meeting, we discussed concepts, images and overall designWe met again on March 26, the day the Contract was executed to further discuss the designCMG created a project plan and shared it with the Customer on March 28.On April 1, after the completion of the website survey by the Customer, which is part of the initial website design process, we met for a third time, this time having detailed discussions about the website design, navigation and contentAt this meeting, the Customer gave detailed instructions to CMG regarding her desires for how the website should look and performAt the conclusion of this meeting, CMG had a firm understanding and visual sketch of what it believed to be the Customer's thoughts and desires for the websiteAs it turned out, those desires and the instructions about them were subject to a great deal of change as time went on.After the initial design was presented, the Customer sought input from a number of outside persons (friends, marketing consultants, IT professionals, health care providers, etc.), seeking input on the design, and she changed her mind often about what she wanted or otherwise sought services from CMG outside the scope of the contract.By April 29, the Customer was able to review a full design, and she indicated that she liked itHowever, by May 13, the Customer was asking for a major design overhaul, all while indicating, “I am not sure what I'm looking for." On May 21, she had changed her mind again, asking for additional design changes, inconsistent with her instructions from just eight days priorShe again approached CMG with additional design changes on June 1, June 8, June 10, June 17, June 26, and June The changes on June and June 29, in particular, represented fundamental changes to the website structureAt this point, in connection with one of these changes, the Customer admitted that she was “stuck" about what she wantedAlthough CMG was within its rights under the Contract to charge the Customer for all of the design changes after the first two, it was clear to the CMG staff that due to the Customer's indecisiveness as well as her own admission of memory impairment, this project represented an opportunity to mentor and strategically focus this small business, so CMG made the decision to not charge her for the extra work.Despite the great number of change requests caused only by her own inability to get comfortable with her decisions, the Customer started to indicate her displeasure with the progress of the project in early JulyShe stated that she was getting frustrated that she couldn't view the design, but due to the structural design changes requested by the Customer, the link to view the website prior to June was not accessible because the website was in complete redevelopmentOnce the Customer asked CMG about transitioning the project to another developer altogether, CMG ceased working on the project and focused solely on trying to negotiate a resolution.At this point, according to the project managementsoftware used by CMG, the project is percent completeThe backend functionality and the database are fully developed, and the only remaining work to be done is to place the client-provided content on the web pagesCMG is in possession of only one page of content from the Customer, which was placed in the websiteAlthough CMG wanted to bring the Customer's payments to the point where she had paid a similar proportion of the total value of the Contract, which would have required approximately $from the Customer, CMG offered to reduce that payment, so long as she paid the outstanding $invoice for the research services that she never paid from April With that final payment, CMG would release all of the files to her.As a matter of business practice for a contract dispute, CMG retained counsel for the purpose of providing advice and representation in connection with this matter, to ensure that CMG is in compliance with the Contract and its legal obligationsThe suggestion that CMG's intention in retaining counsel was an act of aggression or was done to “bully" the Customer is simply untrue.While CMG has been very patient and supportive while the Customer worked through inconsistent business strategies, we are overall very disappointed by our experience with the CustomerIt is clear from these facts, all of which are supported by documentary evidence, including email communications and contemporaneous notes from personal meetings, that CMG has not only complied with the terms of its contract with the Customer, it has, in fact, exceeded its obligations by not charging her for the great amount of extra work performed.Naturally, CMG is interested in resolving this matter, but we are disinclined to return any money to herRather, we believes that we have made a fair offer to allow all parties to move forwardThis offer, presented in July, simply asked for payment of the outstanding $invoice from April 15, 2015, for research services, and CMG would release all the website filesIf you have any questions, please feel free to contact me directly.Conveyance Marketing Group [redacted] , Southeast | Leesburg, VA || ###-###-#### www.conveyancemarketinggroup.com

[A default letter is provided here which indicates that the business has not responded to you directly. If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:
At this time, I have not been contacted by Conveyance Marketing Group regarding
complaint ID ***I have also contacted the credit card company that I used to pay them to pursue reimbursement for the services that were not renderedThis case is still being processed
Regards,
*** ***

Conveyance Marketing Group, LLC ("CMG") has received your letter dated July 29, 2015 regarding its relationship with [redacted], LLC (the “Customer"). This letter shall comprise our formal response to that letter and to the allegation made by the Customer. Stated simply, the Customer's complaint defies the evidence in this case, and CMG strongly disagrees with the Customer's version of events described in her statement.The Founder and Chief Marketing Officer of CMG, met the Customer on February 24, 2015, at a marketing event. They had a number of conversations about the Customer's prospective business and how CMG might be able to assist in marketing that business.The Customer signed a contract with CMG on March 26, 2015, for various services (the “Contract"). The Customer hired CMG to perform market research, develop a website, and to develop and manage the social media tactics to market the business. She committed to pay CMG $1,000 for the research; $4600 for the website, paid with a $1000 deposit and monthly payments of $300; and $500 per month for social media management. The Customer paid her deposit on the website and half of the research fees at the time she signed the contract, with the understanding that the remainder of the research fees would be invoiced at a later date. Over the course of the relationship between the Customer and CMG, the Customer has timely made all of her monthly payments and has properly reimbursed CMG for expenses incurred on her behalf. Despite being invoiced on April 15, 2015, for the remainder of the fees for the research services in the amount of $500, that invoice remains outstanding.The Customer's complaints relate solely to the website development work.The terms of the Contract called for a single design consultation and up to two design revisions. The Contract contemplates services outside of its defined scope and articulates that such services are subject to the then-current hourly rate charged for such services. This is a standard CMG contract for website development.The parties met for the first time on March 17, 2015. In that meeting, we discussed concepts, images and overall design. We met again on March 26, the day the Contract was executed to further discuss the design. CMG created a project plan and shared it with the Customer on March 28.On April 1, after the completion of the website survey by the Customer, which is part of the initial website design process, we met for a third time, this time having detailed discussions about the website design, navigation and content. At this meeting, the Customer gave detailed instructions to CMG regarding her desires for how the website should look and perform. At the conclusion of this meeting, CMG had a firm understanding and visual sketch of what it believed to be the Customer's thoughts and desires for the website. As it turned out, those desires and the instructions about them were subject to a great deal of change as time went on.After the initial design was presented, the Customer sought input from a number of outside persons (friends, marketing consultants, IT professionals, health care providers, etc.), seeking input on the design, and she changed her mind often about what she wanted or otherwise sought services from CMG outside the scope of the contract.By April 29, the Customer was able to review a full design, and she indicated that she liked it. However, by May 13, the Customer was asking for a major design overhaul, all while indicating, “I am not sure what I'm looking for." On May 21, she had changed her mind again, asking for additional design changes, inconsistent with her instructions from just eight days prior. She again approached CMG with additional design changes on June 1, June 8, June 10, June 17, June 26, and June 29. The changes on June 17 and June 29, in particular, represented fundamental changes to the website structure. At this point, in connection with one of these changes, the Customer admitted that she was “stuck" about what she wanted. Although CMG was within its rights under the Contract to charge the Customer for all of the design changes after the first two, it was clear to the CMG staff that due to the Customer's indecisiveness as well as her own admission of memory impairment, this project represented an opportunity to mentor and strategically focus this small business, so CMG made the decision to not charge her for the extra work.Despite the great number of change requests caused only by her own inability to get comfortable with her decisions, the Customer started to indicate her displeasure with the progress of the project in early July. She stated that she was getting frustrated that she couldn't view the design, but due to the structural design changes requested by the Customer, the link to view the website prior to June 17 was not accessible because the website was in complete redevelopment. Once the Customer asked CMG about transitioning the project to another developer altogether, CMG ceased working on the project and focused solely on trying to negotiate a resolution.At this point, according to the project managementsoftware used by CMG, the project is 52 percent complete. The backend functionality and the database are fully developed, and the only remaining work to be done is to place the client-provided content on the web pages. CMG is in possession of only one page of content from the Customer, which was placed in the website. Although CMG wanted to bring the Customer's payments to the point where she had paid a similar proportion of the total value of the Contract, which would have required approximately $600 from the Customer, CMG offered to reduce that payment, so long as she paid the outstanding $500 invoice for the research services that she never paid from April 15. With that final payment, CMG would release all of the files to her.As a matter of normal business practice for a contract dispute, CMG retained counsel for the purpose of providing advice and representation in connection with this matter, to ensure that CMG is in compliance with the Contract and its legal obligations. The suggestion that CMG's intention in retaining counsel was an act of aggression or was done to “bully" the Customer is simply untrue.While CMG has been very patient and supportive while the Customer worked through inconsistent business strategies, we are overall very disappointed by our experience with the Customer. It is clear from these facts, all of which are supported by documentary evidence, including email communications and contemporaneous notes from personal meetings, that CMG has not only complied with the terms of its contract with the Customer, it has, in fact, exceeded its obligations by not charging her for the great amount of extra work performed.Naturally, CMG is interested in resolving this matter, but we are disinclined to return any money to her. Rather, we believes that we have made a fair offer to allow all parties to move forward. This offer, presented in July, simply asked for payment of the outstanding $500 invoice from April 15, 2015, for research services, and CMG would release all the website files. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me directly.Conveyance Marketing Group [redacted], Southeast | Leesburg, VA 20175 || ###-###-#### www.conveyancemarketinggroup.com

[A default letter is provided here which indicates that the business has not responded to you directly.  If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:
At this time, I have not been contacted by Conveyance Marketing Group regarding complaint ID [redacted]. I...

have also contacted the credit card company that I used to pay them to pursue reimbursement for the services that were not rendered. This case is still being processed.
Regards,
[redacted]

Conveyance Marketing Group, LLC ("CMG") has received your letter dated July 29, 2015 regarding its relationship with [redacted], LLC (the “Customer"). This letter shall comprise our formal response to that letter and to the allegation made by the Customer. Stated simply, the Customer's complaint defies the evidence in this case, and CMG strongly disagrees with the Customer's version of events described in her statement.
The Founder and Chief Marketing Officer of CMG, met the Customer on February 24, 2015, at a marketing event. They had a number of conversations about the Customer's prospective business and how CMG might be able to assist in marketing that business.
The Customer signed a contract with CMG on March 26, 2015, for various services (the “Contract"). The Customer hired CMG to perform market research, develop a website, and to develop and manage the social media tactics to market the business. She committed to pay CMG $1,000 for the research; $4600 for the website, paid with a $1000 deposit and monthly payments of $300; and $500 per month for social media management. The Customer paid her deposit on the website and half of the research fees at the time she signed the contract, with the understanding that the remainder of the research fees would be invoiced at a later date. Over the course of the relationship between the Customer and CMG, the Customer has timely made all of her monthly payments and has properly reimbursed CMG for expenses incurred on her behalf. Despite being invoiced on April 15, 2015, for the remainder of the fees for the research services in the amount of $500, that invoice remains outstanding.
The Customer's complaints relate solely to the website development work.
The terms of the Contract called for a single design consultation and up to two design revisions. The Contract contemplates services outside of its defined scope and articulates that such services are subject to the then-current hourly rate charged for such services. This is a standard CMG contract for website development.
The parties met for the first time on March 17, 2015. In that meeting, we discussed concepts, images and overall design. We met again on March 26, the day the Contract was executed to further discuss the design. CMG created a project plan and shared it with the Customer on March 28.
On April 1, after the completion of the website survey by the Customer, which is part of the initial website design process, we met for a third time, this time having detailed discussions about the website design, navigation and content. At this meeting, the Customer gave detailed instructions to CMG regarding her desires for how the website should look and perform. At the conclusion of this meeting, CMG had a firm understanding and visual sketch of what it believed to be the Customer's thoughts and desires for the website. As it turned out, those desires and the instructions about them were subject to a great deal of change as time went on.
After the initial design was presented, the Customer sought input from a number of outside persons (friends, marketing consultants, IT professionals, health care providers, etc.), seeking input on the design, and she changed her mind often about what she wanted or otherwise sought services from CMG outside the scope of the contract.
By April 29, the Customer was able to review a full design, and she indicated that she liked it. However, by May 13, the Customer was asking for a major design overhaul, all while indicating, “I am not sure what I'm looking for." On May 21, she had changed her mind again, asking for additional design changes, inconsistent with her instructions from just eight days prior. She again approached CMG with additional design changes on June 1, June 8, June 10, June 17, June 26, and June 29. The changes on June 17 and June 29, in particular, represented fundamental changes to the website structure. At this point, in connection with one of these changes, the Customer admitted that she was “stuck" about what she wanted. 
Although CMG was within its rights under the Contract to charge the Customer for all of the design changes after the first two, it was clear to the CMG staff that due to the Customer's indecisiveness as well as her own admission of memory impairment, this project represented an opportunity to mentor and strategically focus this small business, so CMG made the decision to not charge her for the extra work.
Despite the great number of change requests caused only by her own inability to get comfortable with her decisions, the Customer started to indicate her displeasure with the progress of the project in early July. She stated that she was getting frustrated that she couldn't view the design, but due to the structural design changes requested by the Customer, the link to view the website prior to June 17 was not accessible because the website was in complete redevelopment. Once the Customer asked CMG about transitioning the project to another developer altogether, CMG ceased working on the project and focused solely on trying to negotiate a resolution.
At this point, according to the project managementsoftware used by CMG, the project is 52 percent complete. The backend functionality and the database are fully developed, and the only remaining work to be done is to place the client-provided content on the web pages. CMG is in possession of only one page of content from the Customer, which was placed in the website. Although CMG wanted to bring the Customer's payments to the point where she had paid a similar proportion of the total value of the Contract, which would have required approximately $600 from the Customer, CMG offered to reduce that payment, so long as she paid the outstanding $500 invoice for the research services that she never paid from April 15. With that final payment, CMG would release all of the files to her.
As a matter of normal business practice for a contract dispute, CMG retained counsel for the purpose of providing advice and representation in connection with this matter, to ensure that CMG is in compliance with the Contract and its legal obligations. The suggestion that CMG's intention in retaining counsel was an act of aggression or was done to “bully" the Customer is simply untrue.
While CMG has been very patient and supportive while the Customer worked through inconsistent business strategies, we are overall very disappointed by our experience with the Customer. It is clear from these facts, all of which are supported by documentary evidence, including email communications and contemporaneous notes from personal meetings, that CMG has not only complied with the terms of its contract with the Customer, it has, in fact, exceeded its obligations by not charging her for the great amount of extra work performed.
Naturally, CMG is interested in resolving this matter, but we are disinclined to return any money to her. Rather, we believes that we have made a fair offer to allow all parties to move forward. This offer, presented in July, simply asked for payment of the outstanding $500 invoice from April 15, 2015, for research services, and CMG would release all the website files. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me directly.
Conveyance Marketing Group
[redacted], Southeast | Leesburg, VA 20175 || ###-###-####
www.conveyancemarketinggroup.com