Hellopeter.com - more than meets the eye.

[Chatmaster]

Something else that bothers me is the compliments on Peter's site. How many of those are posted by the company employees themselves? What procedures does peter have in place to ensure honesty there? I know it is impossible to keep false testimonials out, but does he at least log the IP on a post or do some kind of confirmation?

[RKS Computer Solutions]

I doubt it, word of mouth is still the best manner in which to achieve status, but what to do when your clients are not the chatty type? I've received referrals by word of mouth from corporates, but those people still don't tend to go posting about it on the net where the majority of society can see it...

[RKS Computer Solutions]

Hey CM, I recall something being mentioned beforehand about companies pulling that trick... can't find the link now...

I just posted a link to this thread on the wetpaint wiki, let's welcome new members into the discussion.

[Chatmaster]

Funny to see the amount of Anonymous users and then RKS pops out

[RKS Computer Solutions]

problem with anonymity is that it can be abused... The guy who responded on my post for instance, seems to be a MrWireless who posts on mybroadband but when asked about his involvement in a message regarding owners of mybroadband hiding behind their internet names, he still hasn't responded...

** this person could have only referred to the certain post...

I have my companies best interest at heart, why would I want to hide behind anonymity? It affects each and every one of us running a small business, if I have to put my name out there and be a voice, then so be it... If you can't go into the outside world and make your comments with your name attached, I reckon you should rather just keep quiet...

Or am I wrong CM?

[Chatmaster]

I agree with you completely. I hate it when someone hides behind anonymity. Besides your response is in good taste and reflects good on your reputation.

I would like to quote the following email i received from Peter yesterday.

I launched Hellopeter.com seven years ago. It was the first time a site of this nature had been created anywhere in the world – brand new, unique… basically, a glorified blog site before blog sites came into being. With one huge difference: companies could Respond to Comments on the site by paying an annual subscription fee (which also includes a whole lot of other benefits).

As with any innovation, there was opposition. How can you expose complaints about my company to the public? How dare you, Peter Cheales, you’re a dead man. I’m buggered if I’m going to respond to my customers, they’re talking a load of bull (all real emails).

Then big companies cottoned on to the idea. Hang on a sec. Real world research houses charge a fortune to survey our customers and obtain feedback, much of it artificial. If this site works and gives us our feedback “straight from the horse’s mouth�, unsolicited at less than 1% of what real world research companies charge, can we turn it to our advantage?

Maybe we can educate our customers and everyone else with our Supplier Responses. Turn those complaints into compliments… And so began the arduous audits by companies to determine the validity of Hellopeter.com. What’s to stop a competitor from writing a damaging comment? What happens if an employee writes a favourable comment about his/her own company? What happens if there’s a blatantly untrue comment, or if it contains swearing, racist remarks etc?

Verifications, checks and balances were installed; together with swear word filters and real live editors. The site exploded and shifted from an epidemic to a pandemic. Millions of hits a month, thousands of comments a day, hundreds of subscribers, 399 on the dot!

And still the odd threat, lawyer’s letter, abusive email and crank call. That is, until I wrote my last newsletter to you (Well, well, well...), in which I cited companies that I don’t believe were playing fair: 19 threats, 7 lawyers’ letters, 53 venomous emails, and a smear campaign on various blog sites, radio shows and online dictionaries precipitating another massive surge in visitors to Hellopeter.com! On the flip side, we received thousands of notes of support from you and for that we’re truly grateful.

It transpires that the hate mails, like the lawyers’ letters and smear campaigns, were precipitated by staff within the companies I wrote about! Point being that initially the companies audited the site, now it’s the other way around.

and

The question is, if a company doesn’t comply with certain rules of Hellopeter.com, do we prevent it from being a Company Who Responds? The argument ‘for’ is obvious. The argument ‘against’ is that if we do, then NONE of your problems will be addressed, which defeats the purpose of the site.

One thing I know for sure: by far the vast majority of you use this site in the manner for which it is intended: to write constructive complaints when you feel the need to, and have the courtesy to offer Compliments to the Companies Who Respond when they’re resolved. And for that, I thank you all so much.

It tells us how he feels about his site, and probably that he is genuine in his intentions. I really trying to keep myself neutral about Hellopeter.com as far as possible, although I am irritated about the way he bends facts and blatantly lie about stats. The aforementioned also cause me to doubt many of his words and do not know what to believe and what not.

[RKS Computer Solutions]

One major problem I have with Peter and his BS, is the fact that nowhere is there a clear set of rules for charging a company in a certain sector...

I've now put my name out there, and if Peter is the kind of guy that bothers to read what is written about him and his company in the media, he will now know off me and my company.

What stops him from making a false claim about me, and charging me whatever he so wishes to reply because he can? I'm not saying that he will make false claims, but it is pretty obvious that if he attacks companies in his newsletters because of them not wanting to pay for his service, that he would be inclined to make sure other forms of bad media about him is dealt with in a similar fashion...

What stops Peter form tagging my company for future reference and if any complaints do come in against my company, make sure that I pay the heaviest fee possible because I was the one who put my name out there and had the balls to put a name to my post?

I don't know Peter from a bar of soap, but I'm pretty sure our paths are going to cross before too long, and when that day comes, and he tries to charge me his fees, I'm not too sure what the outcome will be...

One thing will be for damned sure though, I refuse to pay some exuberant fee to clear my name from a system which is not open for inspection from the outside, and can be misused as have been proven in the past.

PS -- Thanks for the compliment CM, appreciate it!

[Dave A]

Well if you choose not to pay, you will definitely not be alone! It's a fairly long list.

I think that maybe the main thing is that people understand exactly what that list means. I used to think it was companies who gave bad service and didn't give a damn. Now I see that it as companies who choose not to pay to respond.

In similar vein, there is at least one company on that Companies who do respond list that provides the most shocking service, so that list isn't necessarily too much in the way of assurance either.

[duncan drennan]

I used to think it was companies who gave bad service and didn't give a damn. Now I see that it as companies who choose not to pay to respond.

There is the whole key to this issue, and also its solution. The message is that "Companies who don't respond" are bad - anyone who doesn't pay gets grouped together with a bunch of companies who possibly don't give a damn. Most users are unlikely to ever know or realise how the response setup and payment works.

The solution is quite simple - make it blatantly clear what a company on that list is. They are simply not paying clients of Peter. If he makes this clear (no matter the change in perception) I think his problems will go away. Would he be willing to do this? I have my doubts.

[bullfrog]

The solution is quite simple - make it blatantly clear what a company on that list is. They are simply not paying clients of Peter. If he makes this clear (no matter the change in perception) I think his problems will go away. Would he be willing to do this? I have my doubts.

Like you said, he probably won't make that fact clear as it would mean that he loses some of his power. Some business owners would rather pay the fee and respond than be perceived as a non caring or bad business. If everyone knows what that list is it would mean that more companies would stand up to it because they and the users of the site know that it doesn't mean that the company is bad. He would lose his power and his earning potential as his visitors will know that his list means nothing.

That is the reason that I believe that as a consumer and business owner that it becomes my duty to make this known to people. It's only to expose the truth. I hate the fact that someone is making money by lying and being dishonest and have a firm belief that people like that should get what's coming to them!