On 10/11/22 we ordered 8 million Solo Ads/Email Campaign (+ ad creative service) and 8 Million Solo Ads/Email Campaigns (qty 5).
Quality Ads Marketing offers a “min. 40,000 Click Guaranteed” for each order of 8 Million Solo Ads Sent 7 Times. See https://www.qualityadsmarketing.com/copy-of-rent-consumers
For our order, our guarantees were:
1. 48 million emails would be sent 7 times (336,000,000 total emails sent)
2. Our target audience (Men, ages 31-64, interested in lawn & garden, in the US, Canada, UK, Australia, and New Zealand).
3. Min. 40,000 Click Guaranteed per 8 million x 6 campaigns = 240,000 Clicks Guaranteed.
4. Campaign date: 10/19-11/01/22. The campaign was to be completed in total over these 14 days.
During the ordering process, Q.A.M. gathers targeting information and promises all emails sent are to the buyer's chosen target audience (no exceptions). See https://www.qualityadsmarketing.com/copy-of-solo-ad-5-million-form
While no conversion rate guarantees are made by Q.A.M, we were assured multiple times (via email and phone, see Ex 1) that the size of our campaign, professional ad creation, and chosen landing page would put us, at a minimum, at or above industry standards. Thus, although no numeric conversion rate guarantees were made, the expectation was set that the campaign should yield “some results”, i.e., convert some clicks to subscribers. With the choice to structure such as large campaign, Michael Pinder, “Email Marketing Specialist,” all but guaranteed “results” (> 1 conversion out of 336,000,000 emails sent to our target audience).
Reason For Refund Request
Failure to produce the promised 240,000 clicks during our 14-day campaign: Only produced between 19,764 -35,022 unique visitors over the 14-days (<15% of the promise).
Failure to present sufficient evidence that the email addresses were targeted: Sent a physical thumb drive by USPS for our review. None of the leads had the correct category, i.e., they were not targeted as promised.
Failure to produce sufficient evidence that the clicks recorded were real: Q.A.M. uses Cutt.ly for third-party statistics. We used Click Meter as a fourth-party verification & accuracy of statistics. Our landing page is hosted on Get Response which also provides statistics. Our stat sources drastically underreport the number of clicks reported by their chosen third-party verification source, Cutt.ly. None of the stat sources agree or are even close compared to Cutt.ly. Added to this, we consulted with Michael Pinder on the setup and flow of the ad copy to the lander. The ad copy & lander were in sync.
Why would an ad copy produce a reported 53,619 clicks, but a landing page (that looks exactly like it) fails to produce one conversion? The product was a free book in exchange for the visitor's email address. It defies all probability and industry performance standards.
Conclusion & Desired Resolution
The drastic underperformance of the campaign (the portion of clicks that we did receive), combined with the physical evidence presented on a thumb drive, along with the Law of Big Numbers (336,000,000 sent emails), suggests that the clicks received were fraudulent in some way. It is not our intent to speculate, nor is it constructive to do so. But it is beyond all probability and rationale to believe that a legitimate, targeted email solo ad campaign, carried out by “20-year professionals,” would yield no conversions (0% conversion rate).
Our final conversion rate numbers were 0 conversions /53,619 clicks (based on Cutt.ly).
We did not receive 85%+ of the clicks promised.
Q.A.M. refused our email requests to provide evidence that their targeting was accurate and real. But they did prove that their email lists were inaccurate (not targeted).
Lastly, there is no evidence, outside of Cutt.ly statistics which have been proven to be inaccurate, that the few clicks received were legitimate (clicks coming from solo ads them or their chosen source created). But there is a very strong suggestion that these few clicks received were not quality or carried out by real human beings fitting our demographics & interests. The evidence strongly suggests as much.
Nothing we received from “Quality Ads Marketing” was “quality.”
Quality Ad Services Reviews
On 10/11/22 we ordered 8 million Solo Ads/Email Campaign (+ ad creative service) and 8 Million Solo Ads/Email Campaigns (qty 5).
Quality Ads Marketing offers a “min. 40,000 Click Guaranteed” for each order of 8 Million Solo Ads Sent 7 Times. See https://www.qualityadsmarketing.com/copy-of-rent-consumers
For our order, our guarantees were:
1. 48 million emails would be sent 7 times (336,000,000 total emails sent)
2. Our target audience (Men, ages 31-64, interested in lawn & garden, in the US, Canada, UK, Australia, and New Zealand).
3. Min. 40,000 Click Guaranteed per 8 million x 6 campaigns = 240,000 Clicks Guaranteed.
4. Campaign date: 10/19-11/01/22. The campaign was to be completed in total over these 14 days.
During the ordering process, Q.A.M. gathers targeting information and promises all emails sent are to the buyer's chosen target audience (no exceptions). See https://www.qualityadsmarketing.com/copy-of-solo-ad-5-million-form
While no conversion rate guarantees are made by Q.A.M, we were assured multiple times (via email and phone, see Ex 1) that the size of our campaign, professional ad creation, and chosen landing page would put us, at a minimum, at or above industry standards. Thus, although no numeric conversion rate guarantees were made, the expectation was set that the campaign should yield “some results”, i.e., convert some clicks to subscribers. With the choice to structure such as large campaign, Michael Pinder, “Email Marketing Specialist,” all but guaranteed “results” (> 1 conversion out of 336,000,000 emails sent to our target audience).
Reason For Refund Request
Failure to produce the promised 240,000 clicks during our 14-day campaign: Only produced between 19,764 -35,022 unique visitors over the 14-days (<15% of the promise).
Failure to present sufficient evidence that the email addresses were targeted: Sent a physical thumb drive by USPS for our review. None of the leads had the correct category, i.e., they were not targeted as promised.
Failure to produce sufficient evidence that the clicks recorded were real: Q.A.M. uses Cutt.ly for third-party statistics. We used Click Meter as a fourth-party verification & accuracy of statistics. Our landing page is hosted on Get Response which also provides statistics. Our stat sources drastically underreport the number of clicks reported by their chosen third-party verification source, Cutt.ly. None of the stat sources agree or are even close compared to Cutt.ly. Added to this, we consulted with Michael Pinder on the setup and flow of the ad copy to the lander. The ad copy & lander were in sync.
Why would an ad copy produce a reported 53,619 clicks, but a landing page (that looks exactly like it) fails to produce one conversion? The product was a free book in exchange for the visitor's email address. It defies all probability and industry performance standards.
Conclusion & Desired Resolution
The drastic underperformance of the campaign (the portion of clicks that we did receive), combined with the physical evidence presented on a thumb drive, along with the Law of Big Numbers (336,000,000 sent emails), suggests that the clicks received were fraudulent in some way. It is not our intent to speculate, nor is it constructive to do so. But it is beyond all probability and rationale to believe that a legitimate, targeted email solo ad campaign, carried out by “20-year professionals,” would yield no conversions (0% conversion rate).
Our final conversion rate numbers were 0 conversions /53,619 clicks (based on Cutt.ly).
We did not receive 85%+ of the clicks promised.
Q.A.M. refused our email requests to provide evidence that their targeting was accurate and real. But they did prove that their email lists were inaccurate (not targeted).
Lastly, there is no evidence, outside of Cutt.ly statistics which have been proven to be inaccurate, that the few clicks received were legitimate (clicks coming from solo ads them or their chosen source created). But there is a very strong suggestion that these few clicks received were not quality or carried out by real human beings fitting our demographics & interests. The evidence strongly suggests as much.
Nothing we received from “Quality Ads Marketing” was “quality.”