Omnipoint Marketing rip-off! Fraudulent contractual promises made in writing, then refused to deliver after payment. After weeks of delay, and no evidence by them proving their delivery claim ripoff Fort Lauderdale Florida

Omnipoint Marketing advertises that it can target email advertisements to very specific demographics. After a lengthy discussion, the sales department for Omnipoint sent a contract which specified in writing that 300,000 of our Talent Search Audition Notices would be sent to "music performers, ages 12-19". The delivery was to occur on a Tuesday or Wednesday, to the exclusion of all other days.

Based upon their Advertised (Telephone System) Response Rate of 4%-6%, we expected 12,000 to 18,000 respondents. After weeks of delay, and no evidence by them proving their delivery claim, and absolutely no perceptible response tracked in our website daily stats during the period of their alleged delivery, we complained. They agreed to resend, after they admitted, "we had a problem and accidentally sent it on the wrong list".

More delays followed, again with no perceptible responses tracked by our site. We complained again. They stated that the mailing was sent on the "weekend of July 4th". Not only is delivery on a holiday, contrary to the agreed delivery specifications, that it was on a weekend was a direct violation of their contractual obligation to deliver on Tuesday or Wednesday.

In a discussion with the president of the company, he admitted two additional violations of their agreement and advertised promises. First, that although the contract specified the broadcast go only to young teens "ages 12-19" - in fact the company had absolutely "no email addresses of any kind for anyone under the age of 18".

That was his explanation for his admission that only a few adults out of 300,000 responded (apparently in error) to the announcement that was addressed to adolescent teen musicians

Notwithstanding his companies admitted breach of the explicit demographic terms of the contract, negligence in their delivery practices and timeliness, the fraudulent inducement by his sales staff that the mailing would be delivered to 12-19 year olds, when in fact the company would not send to anyone under the age of 18, and that the response rate was statistically NON EXISTANT, in contradiction to the advertised rate of 4%-6%, he refused to refund the $500 that was paid in advance.

Repeated demands for a refund for services his company never intended to provide, have been fully ignored.

William
Forest Park, Illinois
U.S.A.