VO-BB - 20 YEARS OLD!

Bish

Once again Voices.com have tightened what you are allowed to say in your message to clients. There was the major outcry some months ago when they tried to make it difficult for client and customer to make direct contact. There was a major upset with the users and they backed down enough to appease the majority. Effectively it meant that you could not put direct contact details such as info@PeterBishopVO.com or a telephone number in your message or you would get a pop-up informing you that you were in violation of their terms of service. I, like many others, modified their signature line to include just a web site, which for the past few months has been fine.

The inclusion of the web site address (e.g. PeterBishopVO.com) now brings up the violation tag again. I really do hate any company that reverses an unpopular policy by popular demand and then tries to sneak it back in a few months later.

Oh well... just venting. I shall now write a less than polite letter to them (for all the good that will do me.)
_________________
Bish a.k.a. Bish
Smoke me a kipper... I'll be back for breakfast.
I will not feed the trolls... I will not feed the trolls... I will not feed the trolls... I will not feed the trolls.

Bill Roberts · Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:55 am Post subject:

Simple Fix....

Try 867.5309 Use the (.) in the number as a space!
Hope Jenny does not mind me using her number for an example.
_________________
-----
VO-BB Member # 764 (Dec 2009)

ballenberg · Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 5:08 am Post subject:

If Jenny had a problem, of course, there's always Beechwood 4-5789

Bish · Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 8:22 am Post subject:

Oh, sure enough, where there's a will, there's a way, and email addresses are going in all over the place as xxx (at) yyy.com (or whatever). The issue is not how to circumvent their little capture algorithm, it's the fact that they are once again trying to push and expand the "no direct contact" clause in the TOS after being resoundingly beaten about the head and upper body about it some months ago.

Their response then was conciliatory... now it seems it was two-faced.
_________________
Bish a.k.a. Bish
Smoke me a kipper... I'll be back for breakfast.
I will not feed the trolls... I will not feed the trolls... I will not feed the trolls... I will not feed the trolls.

Jason Huggins · Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 8:41 am Post subject:

It really bugged me too that they were doing that. I doubt most people would try to circumvent their job fee, but maybe they have had an issue with it. I'd be curious to see how the change affected their income from commission.

Bish · Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:00 am Post subject:

Here's some of what I wrote (it's all venting and pointless, but it gets it out of my system)...

Some months ago there was a major upset as you tightened the enforcement of your "no direct contact" policy. You backed away making conciliatory noises. Since then I have been unable to list my email in my messages, but have been able to use my web site. It now seems that I cannot use my web site either.

So, am I to understand that what you said before was totally disingenuous and that you just waited for another chance once the fuss had died down? Are you going to try and pretend (once again) that this is all "in order to give you, our customer, better service".

... and after the recent debacle with software changes that screwed the status reporting... and your total silence about it, you have once again proved how awful you are at customer service and communications.

Is it your intention to become the VO business equivalent of AT&T... because that's where you're heading. VOs use your services despite your business model, not because of it. You need to be aware of this... but I suspect you are, and don't really care.

I totally understand that this will have no effect and that the real answer is just to cancel my subscription... but Voices have provided me with valuable business leads worth many thousands of dollars... in the same way that AT&T and Cablevision are the only games in town for me... I have to use them and my only option is to try and make them better (bon chance). I am not in the business of cutting off my nose to spite my face.

I just don't like being taken for an idiot. I don't want to start playing some retarded cat and mouse game with them where their algorithm picks up "@" and ".com" and I use "(at)" and "(dot) com". It's childish, stupid and unprofessional.
_________________
Bish a.k.a. Bish
Smoke me a kipper... I'll be back for breakfast.
I will not feed the trolls... I will not feed the trolls... I will not feed the trolls... I will not feed the trolls.

Jason Huggins · Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:30 am Post subject:

I totally agree. If I hadn't found multiple repeat clients via (and now removed from) voices.com, I would ditch them. It has just been a good place to procure leads. If hired, I have always taken correspondence off voices.com simply because it is easier and more professional. I never signed a non-compete with Voices.com, so I only do the first job with them...then I move on. There are enough lowball clients to make voices.com money. They are just stepping over a dollar to pick up a nickel. It is a stupid battle to fight, as its easy to see if people are stealing jobs. The real way to fix it would be to REQUIRE voice seekers to complete or relist a job. Don't even allow the jobs to be removed without completion, and you will eliminate the ability to steal jobs. I just want to have real contact with clients instead of their lame system.

DougVox · Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 11:16 am Post subject:

Michael Schoen · Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 12:12 pm Post subject:

Doug,
I think the link you see is a requirement to place your own url on the P2P site.
_________________
http://MichaelSchoen.com

Bish · Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:06 pm Post subject:

Doug, yes, I know, but again I claim the loophole that this isn't a discussion about the principles of using P2P in your business model... just the underhand, disingenuous and shabby way this particular one treats its paying customers. So I claim "disgruntled customer" rights on this one Smile

There is also the underlying principle of wide and all-encompassing Terms of Service (currently hitting the headlines with Instagram) that actually claim rights to anything you post on a site etc. I'm not sure if Voices do that as I haven't gone through the ToS recently... but as they're in the habit of changing them without actually telling anyone, it wouldn't surprise me!

Blimey, I never thought Alex and V123 would seem like the good guys! Laugh

_________________
Bish a.k.a. Bish
Smoke me a kipper... I'll be back for breakfast.
I will not feed the trolls... I will not feed the trolls... I will not feed the trolls... I will not feed the trolls.

Gregory Best · Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 2:27 pm Post subject:

interesting
_________________
Gregory Best

greg@gregorybest.com

DougVox · Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 2:58 pm Post subject:

DougVox · Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 3:00 pm Post subject:

Bish · Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 3:26 pm Post subject:

OK... a reply was forthcoming. They thanked me for my "candid" message and then stated that this was part of the policy implemented back in August. They just hadn't finished implementing it until now. They likened their business to Elance, Guru and Odesk and all they ask is that a job that is posted on Voices.com, stays on Voices.com (this is something I have never had a problem with).

To clarify one point. They state, "If a client finds your direct contact information in your profile the are free to contact you that way." So, my email and web site details are now on there, and my response message will state that my contact details are in my profile.

Is this a stupid game of cat and mouse, or what?
_________________
Bish a.k.a. Bish
Smoke me a kipper... I'll be back for breakfast.
I will not feed the trolls... I will not feed the trolls... I will not feed the trolls... I will not feed the trolls.

todd ellis · Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 5:14 pm Post subject: