ComplaintsforThe Silver Linings Group

• Initial Complaint

  04/26/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Product Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  WL (Client) contracted SL for ************ (SM), consult, creation, IG/FB posts, ****** Ads, FB Ads, Monthly Newsletter, website build, link ********* w/sign-up link on the website. Contract effective 6/1/2022 Complaints 1. Breach Deliverables 58% received SLs contract 5 SM posts on IG/FB per week for (1) social account/business creation of all written content & assistance sourcing third party graphic content. Creation of original, branded social media graphics, infographics, etc. for SM (max/4month)SL contracted to deliver 89 posts within 15 weeks. SL provided 52 posts; 58% of agreement ofirst post 7/26/22; 0 posts 6/1/22 to 7/25/22 2. Breach advise on creation of video series & any other original content; < 50% received oSL created 1 reel oWL provided pictures, SL did not consult, edit or create additional reels 3. Breach Analytics and performance report at the end of each month (metrics determined at the beginning of working relationship) + end of every quarter 0% received 4. Breach "creating and sending one branded newsletter per month. 50% received oNo Newsletters June or July 5. Breach Work that is outside scope of work will be billed hourly, with client approval, at $45-$55/hour. SL billed WL $225 to link ********* to website tab & 1 email. Incorporating tab, should be included in web fee. If considered outside the scope of work a link set-up and 1 email would take less than hour and cost no more then $55 Breaches damaged business start-up, social media growth, quality/consistency of online representation. Analytical/metric reports could have provided feedback for the development of more effective campaigns. SL recommended additional ********************* as a remedy. SL billed and received payment(s) for $6,690 for SM services, $2,000 for building website, and $225 to link the ********* account to the website email sign-up page, + one email. SL received $9,090. WL seeks $4,545 refund due to 50% deliverables received and damage

  Business response

  05/01/2023

  White Lotus/Lotus House was a client for 4 months and came to ** seeking website creation, social media management, and email marketing. We had a great working relationship and no complaints were raised throughout our work together. The client had been working to open a ***-based acupuncture and holistic health space and since our work starting in June of 2022, the opening was postponed countless times until our work stopped in late September 2022. 

  
  We started by creating the clients website - in which she expressed she was very happy with. We delivered the first round of contractually agreed-upon content to her towards the third week of June, as promised. The client was happy with the content but asked that we not post until the business website was live. We held on content for the coming weeks until the website was complete, and until the business was technically open. Behind the scenes, we continued creating additional content, and working on email newsletters (which were also created but then we were asked to hold on sending them out), and doing a lot of engagement with the community trying to boost visibility for this new business. The client was fully aware that we were not posting the content we had created, as she asked ** not to. 

  This went on for a couple of months and once the client started running paid ads, we recommend she pause those ads until the business was open which we allowed her to do without adhering to our normal 2-week cancellation policy for any changes or reductions in scope. Throughout this time we continued to give strategic guidance, including visiting her office in *** to take photos of her space, shoot video content, and take photos for social media. 

  The client allowed ** to start posting content late towards late July/early August and was very pleased with how everything looked and came out. We had bi-weekly meetings to go over things and get updates from the client that were very productive. We also sent out newsletters teasing the grand opening to her community, and finally she allowed ** to send emails that stated you could make an appointment, but again, her license kept getting postponed. 
  

  In mid-September 2022 the client reached out letting ** know that due to budget reasons, she would no longer be able to work with **. We wrapped up our work together at the end of that month, and the client happily stated When circumstances change, it would be great to revisit contracting SL for social media services again.  Everyone did a great job and it has been a pleasure working with you and your staff. 

  
  We were never notified of any dissatisfaction throughout our time working together, and we did adhere to everything that we were able to do based on what was outlined in our scope of work.

  
  

  Customer response

  05/04/2023

  Better Business Bureau:
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# ********, and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because

  The ** complaint is for SLs breach of contract due to deliverables not met, analytical reports not received, and false pricing. 

  **s review of SLs contracted deliverables was made after the contract was terminated on 9/13/22. The review was completed in order to assess the outcomes of IG/FB posts, website completion, and newsletters developed by SL during the 15 weeks of the contracted agreement, of which cost $9,090. It was during this review that SLs breach of contract was discovered. Along with false pricing, SL delivered 58% of IG/FB posts, 50% of newsletters, 1 reel, and 0 analytical reports.  
  
  The complaint does not take issue with the website of which ** paid SL $2,000. The complaint includes false pricing for the $225 charge for a task that took no more than 1 hour, which should have been a $45 to $55 hourly fee for out of work scope tasks, as written in the contract. 
  
  There is no clause in the contract indicating  a 2-to-4-week initial delay of SLs responsibilities of weekly posting.  
  
  SLs onboarding introduction material (which was received after the contract was signed), changed the initiation of the posting date from the commencement date of contract (6/1/22) to a 2 to 4 weeks delay after the commencement date. This change was made without consent of ** and conflicts with the contracted agreement. This breach in contract is reflected in SLs first post which was received on 7/25/22, approved on 7/25/22, and posted on 7/26/22. This is a full 8 weeks after the contract began; ** did not approve this delay in posting.  
  
  ** did not delay the posting of IG in order to coordinate with the ** website going live.
  ** did not delay the monthly newsletter email blasts to coordinate with the ** website going live. 
  
  SL took pictures for a total of 1 hour during the 15 weeks of contracted agreement. 2 pictures were used as content for posts and 0 reels were edited with the pictures taken. ** provided digital pictures, written content, as well as pictures, graphs, and videos from the following ** accounts: *****, ****** *****, and ********** ** had full access to these accounts and edited 1 reel. 
  
  In addition, ** sent SL a facial acupuncture marketing kit on 8/17/22 that ** purchased and had the rights to use. SL did not use the material for posts, newsletters, and did not edit any reels from the content. 
  
  SL provided 0 monthly analytic reports for the duration of the contract. 
  
  My license nor the opening of the clinic effected SLs contracted agreement for IG/FB posting, newsletters, reel edits, or analytical reports. 
  
  These breaches in contract adversely effected **s time, resources, and financial efforts to build a strong social media platform with consistent content. ** is seeking a refund of $4,545. 
  

   

   

   

   

  In order for the BBB to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above.

  
  Sincerely,
  
  *****************************
  
  
  
  
   
  

  Business response

  05/30/2023

  We did not provide false pricing - everything we billed was based on our contractual agreement, and any outside-of-scope work was approved by the client prior to her getting billed. 

  
  Our contract and scope does not require ANY reels each month it simply states a maximum of no more than 4 per month, therefore we did not breach that deliverable. We delivered what we were able to deliver based on the clients current state of business.

  
  The task the client was billed $225 for took more than 1 hour and nowhere was it stated that it would take 1 hour, that was the clients wrongful assumption. The client also approved this work for the $225 outside of scope charge, BEFORE we completed it. We quoted her $300-$350 which she approved, and we billed her LESS than that. 
  We delivered the appropriate amount of content to the client throughout the duration of the working relationship, as clearly outlined in our contract and scope of work. 20 posts/month which she was emailed each month. Whether she did or did not approve content was out of our control, and again continued to get delayed due to her opening and/or license issues. She has since then deleted all content from her social media, but I have provided  screenshots of everything we did send to her. 

  
  WLs physical business location was NOT open, so the client asked that the posting be delayed. I have sent various screenshots of when various content was delivered to the client. We never post without client approval, which we did not get until July.

  
  RE: the photoshoot --> We did this out of wanting to support the client and it was not outlined in the contractual agreement - this could have been a large outside of scope charge that we did NOT bill for. There was nothing in our agreement about SLG coming to *** to take content each month, or at all. We did a LOT of work that was out of scope, without charge, including also support on branding and logos. 

  
  RE: content the client purchased from another practitioner --> No where in our contract or scope is it listed that we are required to post content that the client previously purchased. We advised her that some of it looked too stock, and off-brand, considering it was from another practitioner. Even though the client purchased these photos and their rights, we did not recommend posting other peoples work. Again, this was not a breach of scope or deliverables but strategic advice on our side, and one that the client had no issues with at the time. 

  
  I have sent screenshots of metrics we were able to provide after posting for 30 days - as mentioned, we are unable to give a metrics report if the client has not approved posting. This was not due to a lack of effort or work on our side, but the client not approving content going live.

  
  We actively advised ******** on scaling certain efforts back as her opening continued to get delayed. We also did various things outside of scope to help her get her business off the ground, and support her as a business owner. We take our clients, their work, and their success very seriously and always do as much as we can to ensure their success. 

  
  Throughout our duration of work together we upheld everything that we were able to that was outlined in our scope of work and contract. 

  Customer response

  06/05/2023

  I understand that the BBB is not a legal agency and cannot force a business to give a refund. I understand that the BBB does not have authority as a non profit to investigate or ask more of the business and that the BBB serves as mediators to attempt to facilitate a conversation between consumers and businesses and that the BBB is a neutral 3rd party.
  

  I would like a legal agency such as Consumer Protection Agency.

  Thank you for your consideration,

  *****************************

*Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business. ↩