Unilever Consumer Services

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made
by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me This company really needs to test the food items before putting them out on the market The boullion was just too salty I love salt, but this was too much salt! Love your products, you just need to hire csr's with consideration If you had csr's with this, a Revdex.com complaint would not have needed to be filed! Review the responses I received from your company
Regards,
*** ***

The consumer, [redacted] did not contact us directly. Upon hearing of her complaint, she was sent 4 complimentary/free coupons for Klondike multi bar packages. The coupons were processed on May 11, 2016.

In response to [redacted]'s complaint, she was sent one full value replacement coupon on September 15, 2014. As she has requested a product refund, a check in the amount of $3.00 was sent out to her today, October 8, 2014.

[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.]
Better Business...

Bureau:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
However, the response only mentions 1 product, but I had issue with 2. 
Regards,
[redacted]

We called and left the consumer a message to contact us. In the meantime a refund check for the requested amount has been sent.

[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 is partially satisfactory to me. I do not, however, agree with their response for two reasons. My question was not answered as to if this was a quality control issue or if they have reduced the amount of chocolate in their Klondike Bars, since it is MUCH thinner than it used to be and certainly not the way it is advertised or pictured. They also said that I did not contact them directly. I tried many times but the website contact form would not work and I could never get through by phone without being cut off.
Regards,
[redacted]

Review: I contacted Dove about their defective products. [redacted] PROMISED a refund AFTER I sent them the information they requested on June 11th. They have yet to make good on their promiseDesired Settlement: 68.99

Review: Purchased this product as I had in the past, without a problem. The latest purchase, the product was overly salty. When I contacted Knorr, I did advise them I did not have phone service, only Internet. When a response was received from Knorr, I was told to call. I responded back to them I did not have a phone and did not receive any response from them. When I contacted the parent company, Unilever, the response I received back was a song and dance about how 'they' make sure a product is safe. The product I purchased was not safe, this product was overly salty and all I wanted was for the company to reimburse me for the product purchased.Desired Settlement: This company has a number of products that are good. This particular one is NOT!

Business

Response:

In response to [redacted]'s complaint, she was sent one full value replacement coupon on September 15, 2014. As she has requested a product refund, a check in the amount of $3.00 was sent out to her today, October 8, 2014.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. This company really needs to test the food items before putting them out on the market. The boullion was just too salty. I love salt, but this was too much salt! Love your products, you just need to hire csr's with consideration. If you had csr's with this, a Revdex.com complaint would not have needed to be filed! Review the responses I received from your company.

Regards,

Review: I recently sprayed Axe Body Spray under my arm after a shower and the next day I noticed a bad rash under my arm, well after 3 days, it got worse and swollen so I went to seek medical attention. Doctor's told me I received a chemical burn and due to a infection, I would need to be tested for MRSA, so now my arm looks discolored and disgusting and I have to take antibiotics for infection. I contacted the CEO but the situation was completed passed to someone else.Desired Settlement: Take care of its consumers who are damaged by their products.

Review: Purchased case of diet citrus green tea & white tea rasp-berry flavor tea at Walmart, 2/26/14 at [redacted]1 for $4.98 each, $9.96. In each of these cases there was a bottle w/a lid that couldn't be removed from the bottle, even when trying to cut the top off the plastic bottle w/a carving knife so that the lid had to be punctured in order to remove the contents. If this is Lipton's effort to promote the competitors' product, it's working! This has happen-ed to me in the past w/Lipton & is an incredible dis-play of lack of quality control! Apparently management is taking all profits & equipment is not being kept in superior condition to prevent such ridiculous default.Desired Settlement: The replacement of the 2 bottles I was cheated out of. I'm on a fixed income & don't have the time/stamina to fight my way into a bottle of tea. I can't afford to throw out a product because I can't get into a bottle. If Lipton doesn't have adequate quality control, that shouldn't be visited on the consumers. Lipton needs to be responsible for the product they sell to the public & when it's subpar, they need to be responsible. That's why I took the trouble to fight my way into the bottle.

Consumer

Response:

THIS HAS BEEN RESOLVED, THEY CALLED ME AND SENT ME COUPONS FOR FREE PACKS,

Review: I had a contract with one Unilever's affiliates as a business. They sell ice cream through two companies, melodee and good humor. We sold their merchandise and they did not service our contract for two years. Now there is some kind of change in ownership and they offered a new contract without any recourse for negotiations. They simply came in and said take it or leave. They have not provided service in two years. According to the original contract as long as we sell their product, we can keep their display. Now they want the display. We want to keep the display and use their service. But, they must start us at the point they left. Two years ago, we feel they should have serviced this contract. Not now with a take it or leave attitude because they have changed ownership.Desired Settlement: We want to keep the display and the ORIGINAL pricing policy that was given under our Original contract.

Review: I entered a Sweepstakes sponsored by Unilever during 2012. The sweepstakes was the Dove Men + Care Fan Bowl Photo Challenge. The entry dates were 9/26/12 to 10/3/12. I was deemed the winner of the week 4 challenge. The prize was Two (2) tickets to a sponsor-selected 2013 college football game with a ARV of $950.00. I was emailed the winning paperwork and required to return it to the judging agency ([redacted]) by December 12, 2012. I returned the paperwork in a timely manner and my win was verified. Here is a link to the Official rules of the contest: http://www.dovemencare.com/fanbowl/?site=desktop&page=officialrules. I enter many contests/sweepstakes and most fulfill the prizes within a 6-8 week time period. My prize for this contest was not fulfilled until December of 2013 approx. a year after returning the required paperwork and being verified as a winner. Since the prize did not include travel I email the judging agency ([redacted]: Attn: [redacted]) several times to check on the status of fulfillment. I was notified by the judging agency the prize would be (2) tickets to the Vizio Rose Bowl to take place on January 1, 2014. Nearly another month passed by and I finally received the prize via UPS overnight delivery service on 12/19/13 tracking number [redacted]. Once receiving the tickets I quickly realized that the ARV of $950.00 as per the Official Rules of the contest had not been honored. The Tickets I received had a ARV of $300.00 considerable less than what was stated in the Official Rules for the Prize that I had won. Included with the tickets were (2) wristbands for entrance into the Hospitality tent of the event. I contacted the Hospitality company and the (2) wristbands had NO VALUE associated with them. I had completed a federal 1099 form for $950.00. I immediately contacted the Judging agency [redacted] & Unilever the sponsor as to this issue & spoke with Unilever's Consumer relations dept. they both refuse to fix this matter.Desired Settlement: As stated above the ARV of my prize was to be $950.00. After speaking with [redacted] of Unilever Consumer Services on 12/23/13 & [redacted] of [redacted] of the judging agency on the same date. Both parties display an unwillingness to bring this matter to a close. They both told me that their solution to this issue was to NOT send my 1099 to the IRS since the prize issued only had a value of $300, And that even though the Rose Bowl Ticket's face value was only $300 ($150 each ticket) & the value of the prize issued was well under the ARV of the prize listed in the Official rules of the contest that I entered, Rose Bowl tickets had an "Implied" value of much more. That statement does not hold true and is a "Breach" of the Official Rules of the contest. My desired settlement is for Unilever to issue a Check, Gift Card or other prize with a value of $650.00. This would the balance of the ARV of the original prize. I feel that I have acted in good faith and tried to settle this matter.

Business

Response:

Thank you for your letter dated February 21, 2014 regarding ID [redacted]. We are the promotion agency that administers sweepstakes for Unilever. We have been conducting sweepstakes and games on behalf of clients for 50 years and are experts in the field of promotion. Unilever has asked us to respond to your letter. We will address the issues raised in the order presented.

1. As the consumer outlined, he was confirmed as the winner of two (2) tickets to a sponsor

selected 2013 college football game (travel to/frorn game not included) with an approximate retail value of $950. The sponsor-selected college football game was on January 1, 2014. The consumer was advised that the tickets to this game will not be available until approximately two (2) weeks prior to the game since the tickets are not printed until after the two teams playing are determined. The teams were officially determined on December 8, 2013. The tickets were delivered to the winner on December 19, 2013 as soon as they were available.

2. The $950 approximate retail value (the “ARV ”) of the two (2) tickets listed in the official rules is not representative of the $150 face value printed on the tickets. Due to demand for these tickets, there is a significant premium added to the face value of the tickets by vendors and brokers. The tickets were purchased by us on October 3, 2013 for the sum of $513.18 each, totaling $1,026.37 which is slightly more than the ARV listed in the official rules. Please note, the rules were drafted prior to the date of purchase, before we knew the exact cost of the tickets.

We trust we have addressed your concerns.

Consumer

Response:

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:

Revdex.com – [redacted]

New Jersey

Re: ID [redacted]

I received the response from Unilever And I “Reject” the

response on the following grounds:

The “ARV” of the prize as per the official rules was to

be $950.00. The fact that the Sponsor/Judging Agency chose to purchase the

tickets from a third party ticket broker/vendor instead of having an agreement

in place with the event organizers to insure that the prize issued had the “ARV”

of $950 should not be held against me. I believe that the test that should be

applied here would be if I were to have purchased the tickets on my own for the

“ARV” listed in the official rules, each ticket would have cost me $475.00

each. The tickets issued by the Sponsor/Judging Agency had a face value of $150

each. The higher priced tickets that were supposed to be issued would have

resulted in better seats for the event and would have satisfied the

requirements of the official rules for this sweepstakes, thus the fact that the

Sponsor/Judging agency paid a higher price to the ticket broker does not

release them from following the official rules of the contest. I believe this

is the same test that a mediator and or judge would use to decide this matter.

Actual value of the tickets and not the “perceived significant premium value”

should be applied here. The official rules did not mention that a lesser actual

valued prize would be issued due to the tickets having a “premium value” added

due to demand for the event. In addition the official rules did not state that

a third party ticket broker/vendor would be used. The use of these

brokers/vendors was the choice of the Sponsor/Judging agency, thus the higher price

paid for the $150 tickets was the Sponsor/Judging agency’s sole decision, and

should not release them from adhering to the official rules. In the

Sponsor/Judging agency’s response Counsel stated that the official rules were

drafted prior to the date of purchase but being in business for 50 years and

being “experts” in the field of promotion if there were changes to the official

rules an addendum and or revision to the official rules should have been issued

and there was no such addendum or revision submitted by the Sponsor and or

Judging agency.

The sweepstakes required “skill” by taking a quality

photo and much time and effort on my behalf to go out and gather “votes” from

family and friends in order to be deemed a winner. It is very disappointing

that the Sponsor/Judging agency choose to breach the official rules and issue

and undervalued prize. I have acted in good faith in trying to resolve this

matter with phone calls and emails to both the Sponsor and the Judging agency.

No solution was achieved thus I was forced to file this Revdex.com complaint in an

additional effort to resolve this matter. I have filed a complaint with the New

Jersey Attorney General’s office against the sponsor and will do the same with

the New York Attorney General’s office against the judging agency in the coming

days. My complaint with The Attorney General’s Office will be based on fraudulent

business practices I feel that this is a classic “Bait & Switch” situation.

I will continue to pursue this matter until I am made whole and I have not

ruled out legal action against the Sponsor and Judging agency. I am still

hoping & praying for a suitable solution to this matter.