The New Kent Chronicle

Review: I first contacted this company the beginning of August, [redacted] told me the company was closed the whole month of August, thought that was a bit strange that a newspaper was closed for a whole month and would not be producing and delivering the paper. Much to my surprise on Sept 3 I received the newspaper in my mail, was wondering how they could be closed the whole month and could not work on an ad for me to advertise in the moth of sept, but yet the paper still came out.I contacted [redacted] again the beginning of Sept to get some pricing & size ideas of what they had to offer. After going back and forth, getting no where, I contacted her boss, [redacted] to give him the size ads I was interested in and some pricing. He did not respond to my email, he just forwarded it to [redacted]. She sent me the information I requested. I picked out the ad size and pricing that I wanted to start advertising beginning Oct. 16, 2013. I asked her did the prices include them creating my ad for me, she said yes. She gave me an email address to send a sample ad for them to work with. On Sept 21 I sent over an ad for them to work with and 9 days later I receive a "proof" and it was the same ad I had sent them with no changes or anything. I replied to the person sending the proof as well as sent [redacted] an email telling them I was disappointed to see that nothing had been done to my ad. I received no response from the person that was receiving my ad and [redacted] basically responded that the ad I sent was good enough to go forward with, with no changes needed. After all of this, I emailed **. [redacted] with my concerns to see if my ad was going to run and to let him know the problems I have been having & to ask if I could work with him, due too the fact I did not feel the rep, [redacted] & my company were not a good fit. I have made numerous emails and everytime I call up there all I get is the answering machine. To date, no calls or emails have been answered. I am getting very concerned about this business.Desired Settlement: I would like to receive the service my company deserves with advertising and be able to work with someone that will communicate the advertising needs of our company and work together in a proper business relationship.

Business

Response:

October 14, 2013

In reference to case [redacted] filed by [redacted]

Upon reviewing e-mails between the complainant and our advertising salesperson, I can only conclude that the entire matter is a misunderstanding that could have easily been resolved by a simple telephone call. Instead, all communication proceeded by way of e-mails, thus resulting in gray areas that oculd have been made clear by the more direct approach of a phone call. There has been no voice contact between parties, and for this, both sides are at fault.

When the complainant first contacted us on Aug. 4,2013, our ad salesperson supplied the complainant with contact information that included both business and home phone numbers. The complainant insisted on communicating by e-mail only and never offered a phone number. We viewed the complainant's daytime and evening phone numbers for the first time on Oct. 10, 2013 Revdex.com letter that notified us of the complaint. A phone number appeared on a sample ad e-mailed ot us by the complainant on Sept 21, but no contact was made from our office.

As to the complainant's allegation of receiving no response from calls and getting an answering machine every time the office was called, the complainant is at fault. At no time did she leave a message or return number even though our answering service encourages callers to do so. That's what an answering machine is for. Due to budget constraints, the Chronicle staff numbers just four employees, thus we do not have someone in the office monitoring or taking calls on an every day basis. And even though the complainant was supplied our ad salesperson's home phone number in an Aug. 5 e-mail, the complainant evidently chose to ignore that route.

The Oct. 10,2013 Revdex.com letter notifying us of the complaint refers in paragraph one to the complaint "expressing concern with a recent business transaction" and lists on page two a "Purchase Date" of 9/9/13. I must point out that to date, no transaction has been completed, no ads have been published, and no money has changed hands.

As for other allegations leveled by the complainant, especially those concerning how the Chronicle operates, I must say the complainant is entitled to her own opinion but not her own facts. Here are the facts:

The complainant alleges she was told the Chroncile was closed "the whole month of August." Not true, and I have the e-mail as proof. She was told that at the time of her e-mail, the Chronicle was closed until the last week of August, the next paper would be published Aug 29, and deadline for that paper was Aug 23. In the 20- year history of the Chronicle, the newspaper has taken a summer break every year so that all employees are on vacation at the same time. Due to our small staff number, it is impossible to stagger vacation time and still produce a newspaper. The summer break works well for us, and we have never received complaints in the past.

The complainant goes on all allege that she contacted me. I retired as editor/manager of the Chronicle in May. I remain as a co-owner but no longer take an active role in the day- to -day operation of the newspaper. The new editor, who forwards all matters involving advertising to the proper person of our staff, onitors my old e-mail account. Also, I have been out - of - state since May and did not return until last month. On Sept. 19, the complainant received and acknowledged recepit of information regarding ad size, cost, etc., from the ad salesperson named in the complaint. The complainant was told to send information specific to what she wanted to appear in the ad. On Sept 21, the complainant e-mailed a professionally produced, finished ad, but with no instructions regarding content. The ad looked great. Our staff reasoned that we could not improve the quality of the ad, thus staff resized the ad according to the size the complainant requested and a proof was e-mailed back. On Sept 30, the complainant responded by e-mail, saying she was "disappointed" that there were no changes to the ad, but again she failed to include any guidance as to how to proceed. The Chronicle is not an advertising agency that employs creative artistis to design original ads. We proceed to the best of our ability according to instructions provided by the advertiser. In this matter, we have received none. The complainant e-mailed on Oct. 7, asking to work with our other advertising salesperson. The next day, the same e-mail arrived on my old e-mail account asking to work with me. Any delay in responding was due to two reasons. First, staff was on deadline producing the Oct. 10 paper, and second, the other ad salesperson had a hospital procedure last week. In both the Oct.7 and Oct. 8 e-mails, the complainant requsted for us to publish the ad in the Oct 16 publication known as the Chronicle EXTRA. At that point, we considered the matter closed and planned to proceed with publishing the ad in the Oct 16 eXTRA. As I said earler, a simple phone call would have led to discussion that could have cleared up this matter. As to the complainant's, comments under "Desired Settlement," I content that our ad salesperson has gone beyond normal parameters in attempting to develop "a proper business relationship" with the complainant. The complainant writes that she prefers "to work with someone that will communicate the advertising needs or our company," but thus far, the complainant has faled to communicate those needs to us.