• Report: #881787
Complaint Review:

Netmark SEO

  • Submitted: Sat, May 12, 2012
  • Updated: Fri, November 09, 2012

  • Reported By: Julie — Puyallup Washington United States of America
Netmark SEO
2265 E. 25th St. Building A Idaho Falls, Idaho United States of America

Netmark SEO Netmark Essentials We paid them $7k/month for nothing and they ended up hacking our website illegally in the end when we went with someone else. They have no idea how to help companies fix their SEO problems. They are j Idaho Falls, Idaho

*Consumer Comment: Netmark a Rip Off


*REBUTTAL Owner of company: Company Rebuttal

REBUTTAL BOX™ | Respond to this Report! | Consumer Comment

What's this?
Corporate Advocacy Program

Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

What's this?
What's this?
Is this
Ripoff Report
About you?
Ripoff Report
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

Does your business have a bad reputation?
Fix it the right way.
Corporate Advocacy Program™

Set the record straight:
Arbitration Program

SEO Reputation Management at its best!

Netmark is a SEO / Internet marketing company that was paid and responsible for our website presence on Google, Yahoo & Bing.

We released Netmark a few weeks back (4/29/12) and sent them a notice of termination for non-performance. 

Yesterday, 5/10, when accessing our website, we received a "404 error". This happens when the website breaks, malicious code injected or someone goes into the site to harm it. Immediately we phoned our hosting company, HostGator. They ran a scan and did not find malicious code. We asked our new SEO company if they were in the website (all pass codes were changed when we terminated Netmark, except one in Joomla that we didn't know about until this happened yesterday).

The new SEO company had not accessed and nobody at work has access, but me, the owner. I asked HostGator to review the usage/user logs to see which IP address gained access. They found an IP address in Idaho was responsible for the website hack and Netmark is located in Idaho. Also, Netmark had the administrator pass code and this was the section that was hacked. We have no other vendors in Idaho and nobody knew the administrator pass code, but Netmark and I.

We are seeking legal action as we have logs that prove their IP address was inside the administrator section and that shows they purposely took down/hacked our site. 

We will seek damages and the help from court.

Leading up to the termination, the following are the events that lead up to terminate Netmark. 

Netmark is in breach of our agreement for failing to provide monthly reports on ranking, including
communication on what was being done to regain our position after going from page 1 of Google to pages and pages deep for the keywords we ranked for. Netmark has not performed what they were paid and contracted and asked to complete.

Josh Dalton, COO of Netmark also made an extremely inappropriate comment when asked why he failed to submit data he himself offered that same day. Josh made a comment about someone he knows who was making $30k/month with a similar business (weight loss) as ours. The comment was very odd and out of place for the conference call my partner and I requested after 3+ weeks of no communication on why we lost ranking (pg. 1 to pg. 10) on 2/27/12.

During the conference call on April 2nd, my partner and I commented that if we have a site that is not ranking, then it doesnt make sense to spend $7,750/month for SEO work. Josh requested we
send the total revenue for the prior year, and total patients served. This would provide data needed, which he called Lifetime Value of a Client. Josh said if he received that day, he could send us (same day). The data was easily provided same day and sent to Alan and Josh.

During the 4/2/12 conference call with Josh, Alan and my partner and I, Josh stated that he agreed that he should have spoken to us sooner when we lost ranking, and said he was committed to keeping us informed on what was happening to turn around our ranking. He promised he
would have our ranking back within 60 days, putting it at May 11th.

We didnt hear back from Josh, although a few emails were sent asking where the Lifetime Value of a Client as along with steps being taken to fix the website ranking. Josh continued to have one excuse after another. After 3 weeks of nonsense, we demanded a conference call last week of April. Alan set this up with Josh, himself, my partner and I for 4/26. During the conference call, Josh stated he was wrong about the strategy being deployed by Netmark and went on to say you shouldnt feel bad, as many other clients of ours have also lost their ranking. Josh claimed that the links that were being built were stopped by Netmark on April 9th as Google continued to devalue the links built by Netmark as soon as 4/9/12. What was Netmark doing from 4/9 to 4/29?

Therefore, no strategy for reversing and fixing what Netmark was clearly paid to accomplish was discussed or performed. In addition, two emails were sent to Alan Call after ranking was
lost on requesting a reclusion with Google. Both Alan and Josh disagreed, although Googles policy on such is clear that if a website which ranked well before, suddenly loses rank, they can request reclusion.

Josh remarked that the data was never submitted to him. When I explained that not only was the data provided same day, but Alan Call and I met on the data for 30 minutes that week. Josh
then commented you didnt send me the data as you were afraid I would know how
much money you are making on this weight loss medication and you thought I would open a competing business.  Josh obviously has no idea what we offer in terms of service, doctors, nurses, nutritionists and the like. 

That remark that is not only unprofessional, but is considered a breach of Netmarks fiduciary responsibility as our SEO vendor and is considered harassment. 

The following week, they hacked our site and took off the content of the home page creating a "404 error". 

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 05/12/2012 10:03 AM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/netmark-seo/idaho-falls-idaho-83404/netmark-seo-netmark-essentials-we-paid-them-7kmonth-for-nothing-and-they-ended-up-hacki-881787. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.

Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on Netmark SEO

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Search Tips
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?
0Author 2Consumer 1Employee/Owner
Updates & Rebuttals

#1 Consumer Comment

Netmark a Rip Off

AUTHOR: Florida Electrician - (United States of America)

Get Real , you guys think you are going to get away with cheating me out of 11,000.00 , i run a small electrical contracting company in Florida And Pennsylvania , i use Netmark for over 6 months , this company thinks i am going to let them cheat me out of 11,000.00 trust me don't use them 
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#2 General Comment


AUTHOR: aabchoice - (United States of America)

As a small business owner they preyed upon. Paying over $2/mo for some bogus burst option. Having another company monitor who saw no coding changes and movement in the rankings were worse than when I arrived.  Reports promised stopped being sent and excuses by an Aaron Edgel were fast and furious and later then my emails were ignored. Thanks to this report I have at least changed my accounts access information to make it more difficult to do harm.

I do believe they will do try to do this and am extremely grateful for this report. I will update this later with the new company I will be hiring, as I am confident they will do much better. It is unfortunate that in these struggling economic times they act more like terrorist trying to bring the economy down rather that helping a business to grow and hire people. This is a strike at the heart of the American Economy. A theft from small business capital for a short term gain on their part and the destruction of lives.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#3 REBUTTAL Owner of company

Company Rebuttal

AUTHOR: netmark - (United States of America)

Its unfortunate that we have a former customer who feels as this one does. Being an agency with thousands of happy customers, our primary commitment is to giving each and every customer the very best service possible. As I was personally involved, I saw first hand how tirelessly our marketing teams worked on this customers campaign. I wish they felt differently about the outcome, but I harbor no ill will and only wish them the very best.

As the CEO, I take complaints about our firm very seriously. For this reason, I fully investigated all of this customers complaints about our agency. I will refute their specific accusations below, but I am in no way trying to demean or shame them. I will not use names as they have. I will keep their identities anonymous and simply refer to them as the customer, they, them, and their.

It is also not my intent to substantiate any of their accusations simply by responding to this complaint. My sole intent is to provide additional information that our former customer omitted so that each person reading this article can draw his or her own conclusion about this situation with more complete information. I have refuted the customers 8 main points below:

1. The customer claims that one of our engineers hacked their website after they canceled their services with our firm. This is absolutely untrue and the claim is unsubstantiated. To date, Ive never been given any evidence to support this. 
Given previous circumstances, Im surprised the customer would be so quick to accuse us of hacking their website. While servicing this customer before cancelation, they asked our engineers to help fix at least one other website hack. At the time, their content management system was several years out of date, making them very vulnerable to hackers. For this reason, I am not surprised they were hacked at least one other time.

2. The customer claims that during the service period, our agency failed to provide them with regular campaign updates. Over a period of approximately 80 working days (the duration of their campaign), our project management system recorded 51 updates to the customer. During this same time period, 61 phone calls were placed between the customer and our firm. This number does not include phone calls made with personnel cell phones and/or home phones that we are not able to track.

3. During the service period I was able to speak with the customer on three separate occasions. The first phone call occurred on 03/15/12. The purpose of the phone call was to review Google's recent algorithm changes and to discuss the details of the customers SEO efforts prior to hiring Netmark. In their complaint above, the customer makes no mention of the other SEO agency they fired prior to hiring Netmark. This was due to ranking losses they sustained in Google before hiring our firm.

4. The second phone call occurred on 04/02/12.  The customer began the conversation by stating that it had been over a month since we last spoke. I reminded the customer that our last phone conversation was just two weeks prior. It was during this conversation that the customer claims I made a comment about another customer earning $30k/month. This came as a result of the customer repeatedly asking that I make specific recommendations based off of the customers ROI. I was not able to make a recommendation with the limited information I had at the time. Instead, I stated that our firm had other customers in the same industry doing very well, and I referred to their successes.

The third phone call occurred on 04/26/12. It was during this conversation the customer claims that I made an inappropriate comment. Im confident that this comment would not have been interpreted as such had the customer not hung up the telephone before I could finish my thought. During our call, the customer again requested specific recommendations requiring an ROI analysis. Because I had not received the required information from our customer to do this type of analysis, I again could not make a recommendation. In order to make this type of a recommendation, our firm needs to be given several financial details about the customer and their products. 

Because the customer had not given us the necessary information to perform such an analysis, I commented that customers sometimes dont like sharing this type of sensitive information with third parties, but before I could finish, the customer hung up the telephone. If allowed to continue, I would have recommended that we sign a special NDA for these situations that would have given the customer additional piece of mind, i.e. we would not use the information for our own gain, or the gain of others.

5. The customer stated that they demanded a phone call after three weeks of nonsense on April 26th. I dont understand this comment. April 26th was just after I received an email from the customer, which stated: "Thank you very much for the explanation and hard work to turn this around." Obviously the customer felt our firm was doing a good job. The only time I was ever made aware that the customer was dissatisfied with our agency was during our last conversation on April 26th, in their last comment right before they hung up.

6. The customer claims we discontinued work on 04/09/12. Again this is untrue. Our project management system shows that none of our services discontinued on April 9th. Further, as shown in point 5 above, the customer sent me an email after April 9th expressing gratitude for our hard work. They would not have sent this email had the work been halted.

7. The customer refers to an internal disagreement regarding Googles actions. I am not aware of this disagreement so I cannot respond.

8. The customer claims I stated that I was wrong about the strategy. Again, I never made this comment or one like it.

My response covers the main points in our customers complaint above. Thank you for taking the time to read my response. Unfortunately, because of another article recently posted online, it would appear that since writing this complaint, our former customer has already hired and fired another SEO agency. They are in a tough situation and I sympathize with them. Hopefully they can find an agency that can help them to regain their former rankings and experience a lot of future success.
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?