Print the value of index0
  • Report:  #682870

Complaint Review: Strategic Media

Strategic Media Strategic Media ,Advantage Indoor Advertising, could care less about their customers once they get your signature. Clearwater, Florida

  • Reported By:
    RM — Palm Harbor Florida United States of America
  • Submitted:
    Sat, January 15, 2011
  • Updated:
    Wed, April 27, 2011

First, I want to say that I did not want to have to write this report. But, every time I write a factual review of my situation on Merchantcircle, Strategic Media has it removed. Writing this report was my last option. They can't have this one removed :)

Here's what happened:

I had rented a small shop in Clearwater, and wasn't making much money. The last thing that I wanted to do was sign up for an expensive advertising program.

One day, the owner of Strategic Media (strategic-media-inc.com) - Chuck Nelms, strolled into my shop. He rambled on for a few minutes about how good his advertising program was. I said to him, and I quote "I can't afford this". He stared at me for a moment, and said, "Ok, we'll trade off in work. You can pay me $100 a month for six months, and the remaining balance we will trade off in work".

I told him that I might not even be able to afford that. I asked him a very specific question at that point. I said him "If I can't keep my shop open, and I close my doors, do I have to worry about you coming after me for a balance I can't pay?"

He replied "No. If you close your doors, I won't have any way to come after you anyway". Those were his exact words - I'll never forget that. I can't prove it - but if he's going to lie about it in court - it really says a lot about his character.

I called Strategic Media on several occasions to tell them that their advertising wasn't working at all. Their "advertising" is a billboard style ad in bathroom stalls. I should have known it wasn't going to work, but I bought into his spiel.

What angered me was the fact that Strategic Media didn't even try to help me improve the effectiveness of the ads. In fact, on one occasion, when I called and told a representative that the ads weren't working at all, his response was "Well you signed the contract". What kind of lowlife response is that? Sure. I signed the contract, but he could have made a good faith effort to keep his customer happy.

I understand the concept of personal accountability. I should have told him that I wasn't interested and kicked that creep out of my shop. But, I also believe that the contract was unconscionable. In addition, they never even once asked me for any services for that trade-off. I offered, but they never took advantage of it.

Let's get this straight. They tell me that they'll do a trade-off for the balance, but then never ask for any of my services. Then they file a lawsuit for the whole balance? All they had to do was get my phone to ring, and I probably could have come up with the lousy $600. But they didn't care, they had my signature.

So, after struggling with keeping my shop open, I eventually closed it. Admittedly, I had not paid Strategic media the $600, but I was struggling just to pay my apartment rent. Even if I had the money (which I don't), I don't feel that I should pay them. But, I would be happy to pay them. H*LL, I would pay them gladly if they did one thing for me - make a legitimate effort to bring me new business. But they haven't done that. They put up a few flyers in bathroom stalls and then tried to collect several thousand dollars. Whatever happened to working for your money?

Moving on......

I did some research on Strategic Media's past. Well, it turns out that they make their living doing to others what they are doing to me. They dupe people into signing up for their useless advertising campaign, and when they can't pay their exorbitant fees, they sue them. That's how they make their money. See for yourself. Google Pinellas County Clerk of Circuit Court and look up Strategic Media. You'll see a long list of companies and individuals that they have sued. And some of those defendants are big companies & banks. They'll probably threaten me after reading this. But my message is out there, regardless. Now, you know what I know about Strategic Media / Advantage Indoor Advertising.

They're wasting their time by trying to sue me. I have no assets, no cash, no house, no car - just debt. To go after someone who is that financially crippled is, well, silly. They're not hurting me - there's nothing they can take from me. But, again, I'd be happy to pay them, if they could get my phone to ring so that I could generate new sales.

Do you know what I want to get out of this?

I would like Strategic Media to admit that they were wrong. Do the right thing. Chuck Nelms should say to me "Yes, I shouldn't have led you to believe that there would be no recourse if you didn't pay your balance, but I would like to keep you as a customer, let's find out why the advertising didn't work for you while we work out a payment plan that we can both agree on".

Chuck Nelms of Strategic Media can still do the right thing here. He can still work with me toward a solution that is fair to both parties. If he decides to do so, I will be more than happy to reflect that on here in the form of an update.

Look - every company deserves a second chance. Now it's up to Strategic Media to decide whether or not they want that second chance. If Chuck Nelms works with me toward a resolution that we both find to be satisfactory, then I will be sure to document that on here accordingly. Maybe they'll do the right thing, but that remains to be seen.

1 Updates & Rebuttals


RM

Palm Harbor,
Florida,
United States of America

Advantage Indoor Advertising / Strategic Media Update

#2Author of original report

Wed, April 27, 2011

So as I expected, Chuck Nelms owner of Advantage Indoor Advertising / Strategic Media never tried to work with me. But I think I did a pretty good job in court today. It cost him $700 in legal fees to collect $600. Personally, I'd pick a new law firm! Geez!

I'll be filing bankruptcy soon anyway. So he won't be able to write off the total amount he was hoping to win. He also huffed and puffed about the ripoff report. If he had nothing to hide, he should have just responded to the report. The fact that he didn't makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Anyway, I caught Chuck in a lie on the stand. Unfortunately, I didn't have a document handy to prove it, but I uploaded it here for all to see. I'm not going to bother paying the $281 appeals fee, screw it, I'm planning on filing bankruptcy anyway but just decided to let Ol' Chucky rack up some legal fees first. It's the least I can do for the way he screwed me over.

You should have seen how mad he was when I started asking questions - he was red as a beet. Priceless moment. Too bad the court didn't have one of those caricature artists. But I don't think they bring colored pencils with them anyway. Budget cuts, you know?

So, what lie did I catch Chuck in? Well, I asked him if he knew my email address. He said he did not. Well, then how do you explain the email I received from his Director of Operations - Bonnie Brantley (see attached document). I'm kicking myself for not having that with me, he probably would have been held in contempt for lying outright on the stand like that. Oh well. The truth is known here, that's what matters.

So then you should have seen his loyal assistant - Sean Connelly. Sporting a hair-do that looked like something out of a bad 80's film, this guy takes the stand. He goes on to say how he would quickly address any customer concerns because...  "customer service is his number one priority."

I said "Really?, ok. So how many times did you call me?"

He said he called several times to collect the overdue balance. I then asked "Ok, so every time you called, it was because of that balance"? He said yes.

I then said to Sean "So you never called once to see how the advertising was working". This statement, which he walked right into, showed that he is not concerned about customer service. He is concerned with doing whatever Chuck Nelms tells him to do. You can see his blind obedience to Chuck in his demeanor - it was quite humorous. All Sean needs now is a hump on his back. Yes master. I hope Chuck doesn't beat him or anything.

I'd bore you with the rest of the details, but the bottom line is: Chuck spent $700 in legal fees to collect $600, not the $1700+ he thought he was going to collect. So who's the real loser here?

Respond to this Report!