Response Received September 1, 2004

Delivered-To: cs_ccdc@customercaredotcom.com
From: "Nicholas Hillebran" <address removed for spam protection>
To: "Open Issues Response" <cs_ccdc@customercaredotcom.com>
Subject: Re: Follow-up to your letter
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 12:41:13 -0500

Dear Mr. Hoten:

The initial letter I sent to Harris Digital Publishing was via the 909 McGregor Rd. address. As for the possibility of an incorrected e-mail address, that is improbable. My initial e-mail contacts were sent via the contact page on netdetective2001.com.
I'm looking at netdetective2001.com. There is no email address listed anywhere that I can find. McGregor road is a private residence address and is not listed on any of our websites. However, the corporate address is listed on almost every site - undoubtedly the reason why your prior letters did not reach us is that they were not sent to the corporate address.

I would like to know which letter you received? I recently sent a letter out to the two addresses I now have on file (909 McGregor Rd. and 1392 South Woodland Blvd). The first letter I sent out (about a month or so ago) was a 5-page letter with an additioal 2-page questionarie (both viewable on www.knownothing.net/reports/netdetective.html).
The letter I received is addressed to John Stanley and dated August 27th. It begins "It has been ove rthreemonths... I have not received a five-page letter or questionnaire, however it would be inappropriate for me to fill out a questionnaire. I do accept feedback, however, and if you'd care to send it along I will review it for suggestions.

I have looked over the support site. It does explain some of the features better, but there is no link from netdetective2001.com to the support site. The current way netdetective2001.com is designed, it is deceptive trade practices and false advertisement. Even though HDP has a support site with some instances (such as background checks) explained, presale customers have no way of knowing about it. Currently, the frontpage of netdetective2001.com portrays NetDetective as a program where people can do instant background checks. After reading the complaints filed by many of not being satisfied and looking over the website (netdetective2001.com), I can see why. In the support site, it is covered the differance between an "unlisted" and an "unpublished" number. Another reason the support link should be on NetDetective2001.com.

Thank you for the feedback. Management will take your suggestions under advisement.

Another statement which is on your website is that NetDetective is "relied upon by law enforcement agencies." Can you please name a few of them? I see no reason for the use of it. Law enforcement has access to the NCIC as well as many other government/law-enforcement only access databases.
I do not have access to this information, as this web page was created several years ago. I will address with management whether it needs to be updated.

The next statement I would like to cover is the following:"You will very quickly become an expert Internet detective". I would have to say that is a false promise. Even with all of the links that NetDetective supposedly provides, without the skills of investigations and such, the databases are useless to someone simply wanting to "snoop" around. Furthermore, if a person does not fully understand the links, resources, databases, and how the information should be utilized, analyzed and compiled for an investigations, I have to once again say the resources cannot make a person an "expert" Internet detective. Becomming an "expert Internet detective" only comes about by hard work (or some can have the nack for it) and experience. Expertise cannot be obtained by utilizing one program.
It's moot to respond to a value statement such as this. Suffice it to say the program has provided help to users for many years.

There are a few statements which are quite borderline:

"You can start your own investigations in the next 60 seconds" - granted true. But you have failed to notify them that "starting" an investigation in 60 seconds and obtaining useful results in a short period of time is different. I can "start my own path to becomming a rocket scientist in 60 seconds", but does not mean that shortly you will see me working for NASA.
Again, a value statment. I acknowledge that you have a right to voice your opinion and welcome it.

"You will be able to do thorough and complete online investigations on yourself and almost anyone." - granted. But many think they will find this information freely. Once again, a link to the support website link would come in handy. I have always found it is best to be upftont with customers than to use the play of phrases. I do not doubt that HDP has sold over 1 million copies. But, the complaints lie in the situation when people do purchase the software and realize that what they got it not what was advertised on the website.
Perception is indeed everything. People do tend to want things fast and easy, so I will ask my team to review the verbiage as it relates to customer needs.

My final issue is the claim of being endorced by the "NAIPI". As I stated in my letter, the NAIPI was created the HDP/Jean Harris. Therefore, it is truly not a credible source for an "endorcement." And endorcement by a company whom makes a product is not valid. The website netdetective2001.com fails to menion the "origin" of NAIPI. Some might argue that the mentioning of the origin of NAIPI is not relevant, but in the case it is.
Good point. I believe this harks to the early days of the company. I'll look into it.

Overall, the response seemed almost a canned one and avoided many ot my concerns. As I mentioned in the letter, a complaint was filed with the Florida Attorney General's Office. In the complaint, a link to my report was sent as well as mention of the complaints people had filed with the BBB and RipOffReport.com.
Sorry about the canned tone - just the way I write ;). We will be glad to respond to any third-party letter in-kind. I would recommend, however, that if and when you file any complaint, that you forward my response as well to save time on the part of all parties.

Throughout this e-mail I have repeatedly mentioned the addition of the link to the support website as well as the rewording of the claims. The BBB report backs up what I have been saying all along. In the BBB report it stated that HDP has an unsatisfactory record because it seems that HDP has not tried to fiex the underlying cause of the complaints (deceptive trade practices as I call it).
Thank you again for your feedback.

That is basically all I will write in this e-mail. All of my questions were addressed in the 5-page letter as well as the claims in the 2-page additional attachment of the letter. If you are unable to view the letter and attachement via KnowNothing.Net, please feel free to reply and I will send them via an e-mail attachment.

I am requesting permission to post your previous response as well as any future responses. If I am denied permission, then I will simply post my summery of what was said instead of the actual e-mail I received.
Granted. For clarity, please do not edit or abridge the responses. At this time I will consider this matter closed but will follow-up on any third-party letters such as that of the Attorney General's office, etc. Please feel free to forward any additional feedback. However, to avoid an ongoing communication loop all future suggestions, while taken under advisement, may not be responded to directly. You and your readers may send suggestions directly to qa@customercaredotcom.com however, because the account is not checked on a regular schedule, support issues should continue to be sent via the support website.