Internet Traffic Management

Again Mr. [redacted] refused work and these continuous complaints have no merit. It is advised that Mr. [redacted] find other service departments to do business with. Its unfortunate, but the owner of the vehicle is responsible for repairs and cost of repairs not the facility in which he takes it. The cost of repairs are the responsibility of the owner of the vehicle not Texan GMC Buick.

[redacted] called the dealership and said that she was interested in purchasing the new [redacted] after all this and we agreed on a price and payment. After all our efforts to satisfy Miss D[redacted] she decided on a purchase and took delivery of her new vehicle. The evening she took delivery she stated that all was well. The next day she informed our service dept. that she did not want the new vehicle and that she was going to return it for her trade in vehicle. We decided to go ahead and with as per her wishes to back the deal out and return her to her trade in vehicle.

On December 15, 2015 the customer traded a leased vehicle and represented the payoff to be 18138.16 and signed a payoff verification sheet stating that if the payoff is greater than this amount that the buyer agrees to pay Texan the correct amount. The payoff is actually 22138.68. So actually the...

customer owes Texan the balance.

Mr. [redacted] came in on December 8, 2015 and requested from Aysa A[redacted] at Texan GMC Buick to have his cooling system diagnosed to see why they weren't working. Meanwhile the BDC center called Mr. [redacted] to see if he would be interested in trading his 2007 GMC [redacted], Mr. [redacted] stated that he...

would be buying 2 new vehicles in the near future, but he had a repair bill for replacing hoses on his 2007 [redacted] that he was not happy with and would like us to cover his bill if we wanted to sell him 2 vehicles. Unfortunately service and sales are two different departments and we are not obligated to cover repairs because a customer states that in the near future he will be purchasing additional vehicles. The estimate that Mr. [redacted] was charged was by the labor time guide plus the cost of parts that he approved by phone ( repair for the horns was declined, which he had originally told Aysa to repair when the vehicle was dropped off and was told by Aysa that we should get an estimate first for him to approve). Mr. [redacted] came in to pick up his vehicle after repairs were completed and expected the repair bill to be taken care of. Mr. [redacted] never spoke to the sales dept. about the purchase of 2 vehicles, only the BDC center.

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.  
The dealership is incorrect.  I have a copy of the two papers that I signed one stating the amount they were to payoff is $18,500 and the second one that they had me sign afterwards stating the lesser amount.  There is a recording of what happened which proves the events of this transaction as well.  I do not owe the money the dealership is claiming.  They owe me.  They should not be able to take advange of me as the consumer against a big corporatiin.  The payoff the dealership agreed to pay for my vehicle is $18,500.  This dealership is taking extreme advantage of a customer.  y never explain[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]
Regards,

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response.  If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me. I made an impulse decision to purchase a truck with far less features, due to frustration with all the issues with my truck. The financial details in this new purchase would have affected me financially and my credit down the road. My payments were higher for a longer period of time for a newer vehicle with less features. I decided I was done with [redacted] and returned their 2015 [redacted]. I am grateful they agreed to the return and release me from the contractual agreement. My 2012 [redacted] is covered shall any more issues arise I will simply have it repaired.

Again as the complaint states, we were to pay off $18,500.00. unfortunately the payoff is substantially higher than that amount which the customer was to be responsible for.

Review: Internet Traffic Management is a company that has set up a ponzi scheme Bank On Traffic. I purchased their advertising and it turned out to be fake traffic. I didn't know that the program was a scam until I saw that of over 100,000 visitors not 1 of them turned into a lead. So this was the obvious proof that all the traffic is fake.When confronting them with the fact that they are not sending real traffic to my websites, they said that they don't give refunds. They said that they could prove that the traffic was real, but they never did.Desired Settlement: If I don't get my refund I will report them to other organisations like the SEC who know how to deal with ponzi schemes.

Business

Response:

The following shall constitute Internet Traffic Management’s official response to the customer complaint included herein below for reference:

This customer accuses Internet Traffic Management (herein after the “Company”) of setting up a Ponzi Scheme and of delivering “fake” traffic. The sole basis of his complaint rests upon the fact that out of over 100,000 visitors to his website not one of them turned into a “lead”. Any conclusion that the traffic is fake based upon the number of visitors that converted to a lead is false. In reality, the fact that the customer’s website did receive over 100,000 visitors, according to the customer’s own words, is by itself substantial evidence that not only was the traffic real but that it was in fact delivered.

The Company, through its website www.bankontraffic.com, essentially sells Internet advertising traffic to its members. There are many types of Internet advertising traffic i.e. pop-ups, pop-unders, banner ads, etc. to name a few. Since its inception and up to the present date, the Company sells exclusively what is known as a ‘Soft Pop-Under’. This is an ad that when delivered to an Internet user (advertising target) who is browsing a website that is part of an advertiser network, opens up in a separate browser window underneath that user’s current open browser window. The content that is displayed within the soft pop-under window is pulled directly from the URL specified by the member (the advertised website) during the ad campaign set up process in the member’s area of bankontraffic.com. The advertising target typically sees the ad once he closes his current browser window thereby exposing the pop-under window. The ad’s delivery is counted as a ‘unique visitor’ to the advertised website upon its delivery to the advertising target’s computer in the form of a pop-under. These unique visitors are also referred to as ‘traffic’.

In this member’s complaint, he reports that he received “over 100,000 visitors”. The vast majority of these visitors is most certainly a direct result of the advertising campaigns he ran and the traffic that was delivered to his advertised website(s). The Company makes absolutely no representation, warranty, or guarantee of any kind whatsoever as to the effectivity of this or any other particular type of Internet advertising traffic. Furthermore, with regard to the advertising traffic it sells, the Company’s sole responsibility is to deliver the traffic in accordance with the selected targeting parameters to the URL specified by the customer. Obviously, the Company has no control over the content of the ad or its effectiveness in selling a product or a subscription or anything else as the content of the ad is provided exclusively and in totality by the member. This member’s complaint is analogous to an advertiser who purchases television spots to air his commercial then accuses the television station of delivering “fake commercials” because the ad did not result in a certain number of sales or in any sales. In fact, it’s even more absurd because a television station cannot prove that anyone actually saw the ad – it can only provide an estimate of the audience at a given time, whereas the Company can provide definitive proof that the ad was delivered to a specific computer at a specific IP address.

The Company does not offer refunds due to the fact that all members have full access to the bankontraffic.com website and to all of the information contained in that website for free prior to purchasing any product. There is a detailed FAQ section which describes the type of traffic that is sold by the Company. Members also have email access to support agents via a customer support system and dedicated support portal as well as a customer service telephone line. All members are encouraged to use these facilities to ask questions or seek assistance with absolutely no cost or obligation whatsoever. Most importantly, the Company is a reseller of Internet advertising traffic and buys the traffic in bulk high volume quantities from a third party wholesaler to fill the individual ad campaigns of its members. Once the ad traffic is delivered (used), it cannot be refunded either by the wholesaler or by the Company. The no refund policy and the rational underlying that policy is clearly stated in the Company’s Terms and Conditions to which all members must agree upon signup as a member.

It should also be noted here that virtually all aspects of any active advertising campaign set up through bankontraffic.com can be modified or edited at the request of the member and at no additional cost. This is to say that on any active campaign, the member can change the URL, the geographical target, the target niche market segment, and the rate of delivery. In fact the member can even cancel a campaign entirely and any unused traffic is credited back to his account. In addition to the foregoing, a member can access the delivery statistics of any active advertising campaign. Using the tool provided, for each ad campaign the member can see the 100 most recent IP addresses of the computers to which the pop-under ad was delivered.

Per our records, there are three completed advertising campaigns for this member as detailed below:

2014-03-25 http://clixxo.brainabundancefreetour.com ... 103,860…Worldwide

2014-01-08 http://ba.jensholvoet.com … 22,000…Worldwide

2013-07-08 http://thecuberevolution.com ... 65,000...USA - Central

He has received 190,860 website visitors to the above websites in aggregate.

Furthermore, this member interacted with customer support regarding advertising campaign related issues via the Company’s support ticketing system on six separate occasions – the details of which can be made available upon request. In general, his support requests involved various modifications to active campaigns. Our records indicate that these requests were fulfilled in both an accurate and timely manner.

We understand this member’s frustration with the apparent lack of “leads” resulting from his ad campaigns. However, experienced Internet marketers know that actual response rates to Internet ads of all varieties are often measured in 100ths of a percent and that the significance of an ad’s content in gaining the attention of the target and garnering a response cannot be overstated. The Bank on Traffic website has over 10,000 members and over the past year alone, has delivered over 200 million soft pop-under ads during the course of 8,640 individual advertising campaigns. The notion that the Company deliver’s “fake” traffic or is somehow a “Ponzi Scheme” is ridiculous on its face.

Director

Internet Traffic Management, Inc.

Subject: Customer Complaint

*CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE INFORMATION*

*Customer Information:*

*The details of this matter are as follows:*

*Complaint Involves:*

Product Issues

*Customer’s Statement of the Problem:*

Internet Traffic Management is a company that has set up a ponzi scheme

Bank On Traffic. I purchased their advertising and it turned out to be fake

traffic. I didn't know that the program was a scam until I saw that of over

100,000 visitors not 1 of them turned into a lead. So this was the obvious

proof that all the traffic is fake.When confronting them with the fact that

they are not sending real traffic to my websites, they said that they don't

give refunds. They said that they could prove that the traffic was real,

but they never did.

*Complaint Background:*

*Product/Service:* Advertising

*Purchase Date:* 6/12/2013

*Problem Occurred:* 6/12/2013

*Model:* Business Set

*Order Number:* 32129

*Name of Salesperson:*

*Purchase Price:* $665.00

*Disputed Amount:* $665.00

*Desired Settlement:*

If I don't get my refund I will report them to other organisations like the

SEC who know how to deal with ponzi schemes.

*Additional Comments from Consumer:*

-- [redacted]

*Information** Specialist*

Revdex.com serving Northeast California

3075 Beacon Blvd

West Sacramento, CA 95691

*S**tart With Trust®*

Consumer

Response:

I am rejecting this response because:

You didn't prove that BOT is not a ponzi scheme and I have never received any proof of real traffic, just numbers on a screen which mean nothing. I can easily plug my website into a traffic exchange program or revenue share hyip program and I'll also get "traffic".

I contacted the support hoping to get better results with the campaigns, but that didn't work. None of my website got any leads at all. It's impossible that out of more than hundred thousands of visitors, you don't even get 1 lead, unless you sell fake traffic. Still waiting on real proof and an overview of websites where my ads were hosted.

I have already reported BOT to the SEC. I also encouraged Revdex.com to investigate this program. I have also seen BOT posted on many hyip program forums, which I now understand are all people who join these illegal ponzi schemes.

Best regards

Business

Response:

Internet Traffic Management’s reply to complainant’s rejection of its response filed 7/14/14 (hereinafter “Initial Response”) is as follows:

Wikipedia defines a Ponzi Scheme as follows: ‘A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation where the operator, an individual or organization, pays returns to its investors from new capital paid to the operators by new investors, rather than from profit earned by the operator.’ Merriam-Webster similarly defines a Ponzi Scheme as ‘an investment swindle in which some early investors are paid off with money put up by later ones in order to encourage more and bigger risks.’

We would like to point out the complainant’s classic reliance upon an appeal to ignorance as part of his reason for rejecting our Initial Response to his complaint. The claim that BOT is a Ponzi Scheme because “You didn't prove that BOT is not a ponzi scheme” is a fallacy. With that said, and with reference to and within the context of the aforementioned common definitions of a Ponzi Scheme, it is the Company’s firm position that Bank on Traffic (“BOT”) is not a Ponzi Scheme because (1) BOT is not an investment and does not offer, sell, market or promote an “investment” or an “investment opportunity” of any kind or nature whatsoever nor does it seek investors. (2) ALL financial transactions between an individual member and the Company involves either (a) the sale of a product which the Company purchases at a wholesale cost from a third party and resells to a member at a retail price; or (b) a fee that is charged by the Company in exchange for either a service that it performs for a member or for a right or license that it grants to a member to access and/or use its property as clearly defined in the Company’s Terms and Conditions.

As we previously stated in our Initial Response, all members, at no cost or obligation whatsoever, are afforded access to the Company’s Terms and Conditions along with all of the information regarding the Company, the products the Company sells, and the mechanics by which the sales and services are sold and delivered by the Company. In addition, members are provided with various channels with which to seek assistance and answers to questions directly from Company personnel. Furthermore, members must agree to the Terms and Conditions PRIOR to the occurrence of any financial transaction between a member and the Company.

With regard to the complainant’s allegation of selling fake traffic, we stated in paragraph 6 of our Initial Response that a member can access the delivery statistics of any active advertising campaign. Using the tool provided, for each ad campaign the member can see the 100 most recent IP addresses of the computers to which the pop-under ad was delivered. It is important to add that although the Company provides the member with access to this tool, the delivery statistics data itself is actually provided by a third party on a near real-time basis and does not originate with the Company. For practical reasons this “proof of delivery” data is not archived by any traffic provider as it would entail the storage of IP addresses and other data for tens if not hundreds of billions of Internet ad deliveries around the world. (As far as we know, only the NSA has the capability of doing something like this.)

The wholesaler for whom the Company is a reseller has been in business for over 11 years, has an excellent reputation in the industry, services many other resellers and stands firmly behind its product and its delivery of the same. Should it be deemed useful or necessary in determining the legitimacy of this complaint, the Company is more than willing to confidentially provide to the Revdex.com the name and contact information along with the details of its account with the wholesaler.

Lastly, in his rejection message, the complainant states: “It's impossible that out of more than hundred thousands of visitors, you don't even get 1 lead, unless you sell fake traffic.” This statement is patently false. In fact, not only is it possible but it could even be probable that, depending on the particular nature of the advertised website, not a single “lead” will be captured regardless of the number of visitors directed to it. It is vastly irrational to conclude that the Company is selling fake traffic based solely upon this false premise.

In consideration of the fact that the complainant has based his complaint upon a fallacy and a false statement presented in the complete absence of any material evidence supporting his claims, there can be no other conclusion but that the complaint is baseless and that the complainant is not rightfully entitled to a refund. In fact, in our view the complaint borders on being an abject attempt by a frustrated Internet marketer to extort money from the Company and tarnish the Company’s reputation in the process.

Internet Traffic Management, Inc.

Consumer

Response:

I am rejecting this response because:

1. BOT is a fraudulent ponzi scheme because they offer "advertising packs" that double in value with the promise of a commission once they have finished. There is no retail activity within BOT (besides affiliates buying those packs) and all the commissions being paid out the affiliates are based on later incoming payments from new affiliates, which makes it a ponzi scheme.

2. A bunch of nice words don't prove that BOT sells real traffic. IP adresses can easily be faked. BOT continues to fail in proving where the traffic comes from and where the ads are being hosted.

3. I have also reported BOT to the FTC and filed a complaint with them.

I'm not giving up. I have nothing to lose since I already lost my money.

Regards