eTargetMedia.com, LLC  – Florida | Notice: Ripoff Report VIP Arbitration Decision: A neutral and independent Arbitrator has determined that the following Report contained one or more false statements of facts. The false statements have been redacted as ((Statement REDACTED as false pursuant to Ripoff Report VIP Arbitration)).

We have only just learned about the negative report posted anonymously on this website on Friday, October 22, 2010.Our company, eTargetMedia.com, Inc., has been in business since 2003 providing online and offline marketing and advertising services.As members of the Direct Marketing Association (DMA) and the Mobile Marketing Association (MMA), we follow industry best practices.We enjoy a great number of long-term relationships with local and national customers including advertising agencies and brokers, both large and small, and take great care and pride in our customer service. Therefore, it is with great dismay that we find ourselves having to counter an anonymous negative posting and false accusations.

While we cannot be absolutely certain of the identity of the complainant, we are fairly confident that we know who it is given the timing of the posting and the comments.We can therefore provide a summary of the steps and services we took with this particular customer.While the steps we took and the level of service we provided to this particular customer were above and beyond what was required of us, we are committed to providing the best possible service and are always prepared to take extra steps for all our customers.

If the complainant is who we believe it is, we feel compelled to point out that she had unrealistic expectations from the start.As everyone knows, marketing and advertising are dependent on a number of different factors and as such can yield uncertain results.Not only did this particular customer not want to accept this fact but she also didnt seem to understand what was required of her in terms of creative copy or what the process was for running a proper email campaign even after it was explained to her in detail.Our staff bent over backwards and did everything possible (as described below) to walk her through the process but when she didnt immediately get the desired response from the campaign, she demanded a full (and immediate) refund. In an attempt toaddressour customers concernsas soon aswe becameaware of them, we quickly responded to her refund requestwith questions including how she was gauging the results of the campaign, but she never responded to any of our questions.When we reminded her that our contract clearly pointed out that we didnt and couldnt guarantee the results of any advertising campaign and that there were no refunds, she asked us what the cost would be to resend only to those recipients who had clicked on the emails.Then, without waiting for an answer from us, she apparently lashed out at our company by posting negative and untrue comments about us online. We could and would have provided her with a make-good campaign at no additional charge but she never gave us the opportunity to do so.

During the testing process for this particular customers campaign, our staff spent a considerable amount of time going back and forth with her, explaining what was needed to proceed with an email deployment. Our technical team spent three days communicating with this customer until we actually got an approval from her for the campaign to deploy. Originally, she decided to use a TXT version for the email creative. She revised the text copy several times and we sent email retests each time she sent a revision. A couple of days after the revising and testing of the TXT creative, the client decided to use an HTML creative instead which she also revised several times and which we retested each time she made a revision.We even rushed this deployment as she wanted to deploy the same day that the HTML email test was approved. We did not charge this customer anything extra for the added time with all of the retests.We provided this level of service to her as part of the customer service we are always willing to provide.The campaign deployed late in the day on Tuesday, October 19, 2010 and the client asked us for full refund by Thursday, October 21^st without giving the campaign ample time to be deployed or acted upon by the recipients.

On Thursday, October 21, 2010, the customer complained via email that there has been no spike in visitors and demanded a full refund by noon the following day.We provided the customer with a tracking report showing an excellent open rate of 19.9% and advised that there were multiple factors that could affect the overall success of a campaign including the Offer, Timing, and the Call-To-Action. We also asked the client what type of tracking tool she was using to register traffic on her website but she never responded with that information. We let the client know that we were unable to guarantee conversions and that per the signed agreement, we didnt provide refunds.

The next afternoon, Friday, October 22, 2010, we received an inquiry from this particular customer asking about the cost of doing a follow-up email just to those recipients who had clicked through.That night, after close of business, we received a request from the customer for an updated tracking report.Since our staff had already left for the day, we followed-up with her first thing Monday morning and provided her with the requested updated tracking report.We did not hear back from her.Apparently, she had already posted her negative report on this website, preferring that route instead of working towards a mutually acceptable solution with us.

Sincerely,

eTargetMedia.com, Inc.