Absolutely do NOT buy from TurnKeyWebTools.com

[tkwebtools]

I hope that you point them to this forum. You may interpret that as retaliation but you fail to understand we told him he did not qualify for a refund way before that. It was at that point that he made his forum posts evident to us. So, in fact he started his posts as retaliation after not getting his refund. At any rate, I wont sit here and argue with you because I can see from your previous posts that you obviously have your opinions. Perhaps if you ever run a software company as we do you will understand how things really work. You obviously don't know anything about us or the case in question. I will leave it at that.

Regards,
Chris T.
Turnkey Web Tools, Inc.
800.673.4898 x 101

[lordsmurf]

You obviously don't know anything about us or the case in question.

And you fail to give the "correct version" thereby assuming full agreement with the complaint.

edited due to following post

[tkwebtools]

This BS of online companies retaliating against customers is for the birds. You were seemingly perfectly willing to give a refund before finding a negative comment. It's your own fault he even left the negative comment, having taken so long to respond to a refund information ticket. I'd have to say this could almost be considered "refund extortion".

Maybe Mike lied to us? But you sure haven't given any different story. Just a defensive attitude.

You're supposed to apologize, suck it up, explain what went wrong (or give the version of truth you know), and then refunds are STILL optional. If you want to see somebody with zero business sense, look in a mirror.

You added more so let me respond... as I stated you don't know everything there is to know. You obviously been following the other forum posts closely but you fail to notice that we already explained our side of it. Six months later... a half of a year even, he requests a refund. We never stated at any point that he would get a refund, in fact it was only suggested that he fill out the request so it would be reviewed by someone higher up. That is what the delay was. We can wait 6 months and then be pressured to accept his refund but god forbid we make him wait a week to get a decision from a manager?

[lordsmurf]

POINT 1 - Explain why your tech "instructed" him to contact sales for a refund.

POINT 2 - Explain why you had him fax over a "letter of intellectual property destruction form".

Why would you do these two things when you were never willing to give a refund?

POINT 3 - What are we to think when we see statements that say (paraphrased) "we don't want to help you because you left negative feedback".

I don't have the full story, no.

But what more do I need, given these three key points of the situation?

I'm a reasonable person. I already said Mike didn't necessarily deserve a refund (14 days we the timeframe), and maybe he was impatient (you said he could not wait a week). I don't see any pressure on his end, however.

What possible conclusion can consumers come to when they see those THREE POINTS and read attitude-filled posts (from your company) on public forums. I have attitude right now, yes. But I'm not the one trying to sell something or deal with a customer problem. I can be Captain *******, Mr. John Q. Nobody, you cannot. (And I'm not taunting you, I'm calm in this post, awaiting a reply to why those THREE POINTS happened. Mostly pointing out that you're required to take the high road, or lie in the bed you're making.)

[tkwebtools]

POINT 1 and 2 are the same:

As I stated in my last post... "We never stated at any point that he would get a refund, in fact it was only suggested that he fill out the request so it would be reviewed by someone higher up. That is what the delay was."

POINT 3:

Mike has been threatening us since day 1.

"I have already discouraged others from doing business with your company. I would happily post otherwise, if someone should decide to care."

"I hope you're prepared for the biggest public relations problem you've ever seen and I'm not talking about just web forums either"

"Google your name 'turnkeywebtools' and you will find your foolishness in not refunding the $99 splashed all over the first page. Is this what you call business sense. I suggest you change your name as any smart webmaster will see these posts."

Are these the types of things you take to your local retailer when you want to get a refund from them? I think not, we were only responding to his threats and posts.

Also I have been nothing but polite in my posts. Perhaps you are reading to far into my replies.

Regards,
Chris T.
Turnkey Web Tools, Inc.
800.673.4898 x 101

[lordsmurf]

Okay. It still sounds odd, but I'll defer to your story.

While you're not required to explain yourself to others online, remember that truth/fact is the best defense. You didn't seem to do that until just now. Saying what you did, the whole "we won't help because you left a negative comment" is also something a reputable company would never do. For your own image, avoid that.

I nosed in here because I'm tired of seeing companies retaliate online. It's BS. Please don't be one of them, or even appear to be one.

I'll relent. Have a good day.

[gll99]

POINT 1 - Explain why your tech "instructed" him to contact sales for a refund.


POINT 2 - Explain why you had him fax over a "letter of intellectual property destruction form".

Why would you do these two things when you were never willing to give a refund?

POINT 3 - What are we to think we we see statements that say (paraphrased) "we don't want to help you because you left negative feedback".

I have no stake in this discussion but just my 2 cents as one who just happened to read this thread.

I have to admit that those are excellent points lordsmurf. Your point 2 is clearly distinct from the others and (to qualify in fairness), if true, then it is especially telling no matter what else was claimed to have or have not occurred or been said. It would seem that when a vendor demands that the buyer certify the destruction of a purchased item in lieu of a return, it would clearly imply that their request for compensation has already been approved since by then the item would have been destroyed. Otherwise why tell them to damage a product they rightfully could keep using even if it doesn't meet their primary requirements. It doesn't make sense and could appear like deliberate mischief. The dates of the correspondence could be revealing as to whether the request for certification of destruction was made after the company became aware of the negative posts by the complainant. In either case, just based on the request for this certification, IMO, 50% may not be the correct figure, this alone would make the company liable for a full reimbursement. If mischief on the part of the vendor could be proved, further compensation could potentially be in order.

A word of caution, given the nature of the net, there is a possibility that the user who claims to represent this company is an impostor. I only know of one Mr T ("Pity the Fool") . Tech support people often use a first name only but in my experience, company officials, business and sales contacts are eager to use their full names.


BTW) Note that my comments are based on point 2 being true and include a request for confirmation of destruction of the product by the vendor to the buyer.

[The1]

Point 1: Tech support suggested he request a refund. I doudt if tech support or the sales dept would have the authority to autherise a refund.
He applied for a refund, the refund was reviewed, and the refund was rejected.
That would seem to me to be good business practice.

Shutting down communication because a customer complains on a forum is becoming common practice.
I think alot of this has to do with ebay. Which if I'm not mistaken the company in question is apart of.

[lordsmurf]

Shutting down communication because a customer complains on a forum is becoming common practice. I think alot of this has to do with ebay. Which if I'm not mistaken the company in question is apart of.

It started with eBay, and retaliatory feedback. Small-timers are starting to act this way, and I definitely get the feeling it comes from their eBay days (before they had enough momentum to free themselves of the auction world). I may still write up a story on this topic (I won't necessarily use this company as an example, however). Other reporters are free to steal the idea. I'm more worried about bringing this shameful practice to light than I am in another byline.

Point 1: Tech support suggested he request a refund. I doudt if tech support or the sales dept would have the authority to autherise a refund.

That's generally only true of larger operations. Smaller ones are often the same few people multitasking. The person who sells is the same guy who does the tech call. They don't always have task-dedicated employees. More authority is often distributed pretty evenly at a smaller place. It's actually one of the benefits to working for a smaller business.

[The1]

THe guy employed to sell and do tech support, is not going to be the one who signs the cheque!

[SCDVD]

Even the US Government is issuing warnings about you.

http://nvd.nist.gov/nvd.cfm?cvename=CVE-2007-4597

Maybe you and your pals should consider another line of work.

[tkwebtools]

Even the US Government is issuing warnings about you.

Perhaps you should look at the version in question. RC 6 = Release Candidate. But that link has nothing to do with this conversation anyway since that is a vulnerability issue. Heck even the aforementioned VBulletin has vulnerability issues from time to time.

[thecoalman]

A release candidate isn't meant for production use for reasons just like that. It's not uncommon for software to have security issues especially prior to the "gold" release and even afterwards. You can point out security problems on just about any software title ever released.

[JohnnyMalaria]

Even the US Government is issuing warnings about you.

http://nvd.nist.gov/nvd.cfm?cvename=CVE-2007-4597

Maybe you and your pals should consider another line of work.

FWIW, if you do a search for "shopping cart" (sans quotes) at http://nvd.nist.gov/nvd.cfm you get 144 hits representing a large number of vendors of such software. 24 are in the last 12 months.