Offshore Outsourcing & Scammer
Blog about offshore outsourcing and scammer in the outsourcing industry
Scammer: SHR Solution - shrsolution.org - Vikram Pratap Singh
by Rudolf Faix Tuesday, September 8, 2015 5:39 AM

LinkedIn profile graphic of Kashyap BhattThe "Scammer: Vikram Pratap Singh - SCISOLUTIONS.US, ALDIABLOS.US, ALDIABLOS.COM and SHRSOLUTION.ORG" is still active and tries to sell dreams to call centers. For offering these dreams he likes to get a dream charge, sorry he calls it consultancy charges, of INR 300,000 (~US$ 4,488.80). It looks like the scammer needs urgent a lot of money!

Until now Vikram Pratap Singh did not get it that the personal computer is nearly 40 years old and that in the civilized countries are for this reason no form filling projects available. All forms are getting generated from computers and there are no forms which need to get manually filled. Additional are consumer data protected by the law in the traditional outsourcing countries and the fines for breaking this law are very high so that not one company will take the risk and would outsource (not onshore and not offshore) their data processing. Health and bank data are very sensible data and have additional a special protection from the law in the traditional outsourcing countries.

Typical for each scammer is that he cannot show his face in his LinkedIn profile. The reason for this is very simple - the scammer does not like to provide a manhunt picture by himself.

The email from shrsolution.org:

From: Kashyap Bhatt [mailto:kashyap.bhatt@shrsolution.org]
Sent: Monday, September 07, 2015 1:11 PM
To: 'Kashyap Bhatt' <kashyap.bhatt@shrsolution.org>
Subject: Health Insurance Form Filling

 

Hello,

We are outsourcing company located in Ahmedabad . We also have existence in country such as USA, UK, Singapore and cities in India.

We have a tie up with client in US, UK, Canada, Australia and we can outsource their process to you.

In some of these processes we are the direct client located in India and take sole responsibility for your payment.

We charge you a consultancy fee for the processes that are given. All processes are genuine and free of risk.

Awaiting your reply.

Please see details of the project.

Health Insurance Form Filling

 

Project Description:

  • Payout = INR 20 Per Form (Inclusive ST)
  • Work load: 4000 forms/ Week For 1 Slot
  • Weekly Payment.
  • The forms need to be filled in to the software that will be provided.
  • The type of data needed to fill would be from an image or a PDF file.
  • Training will be provided online/onsite (Onsite training travel and other charges to be borne by the centre).
  • 1 Slot = 10 seats.
  • Contract Period : 11 month
  • Submission period: 6 days
  • QC Report: 5 day
  • Consultancy charges : 3,00,000/-INR

      Feel free contact me for any queries.

Thanks & Regards,
Kashyap Bhatt
+91 70960 25070
SHR Solution
Skype : kashyap.bhatt26

The email headers:

Delivered-To: l.b.christiansen@gmail.com
Received: by 10.140.20.228 with SMTP id 91csp1330143qgj;

        Mon, 7 Sep 2015 04:11:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.60.63.41 with SMTP id d9mr14124791oes.17.1441624293557;
       Mon, 07 Sep 2015 04:11:33 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <kashyap.bhatt@shrsolution.org>
Received: from host.aldiablos.com (host.aldiablos.com. [207.7.84.85])
       by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d5si3090941oer.56.2015.09.07.04.11.24
       (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
       Mon, 07 Sep 2015 04:11:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of kashyap.bhatt@shrsolution.org designates 207.7.84.85 as permitted sender) client-ip=207.7.84.85;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;
      spf=pass (google.com: domain of kashyap.bhatt@shrsolution.org designates 207.7.84.85 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=kashyap.bhatt@shrsolution.org;
      dkim=fail header.i=@shrsolution.org
Message-ID: <55ed70e5.053c3c0a.dfe6.ffffe3e2SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com>
X-Google-Original-Message-ID: <001201d0e95d$e61c2960$b2547c20$@bhatt@shrsolution.org>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=shrsolution.org; s=default;
               h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:Subject:To:From; bh=yF8LvM59SYISCTn1O+X1NmYw7JMpfwXrjcGJfh+ikeQ=;
      b=Qd0/VanbbG9yIwgprByCvMiagKxOSJfloFW8m5GqHL1HKJ12Cx2IHrSMz7jZ8o8BZFEv5HnG8ta9P7f4Qv9S2vIfiRSpLW0F46kox3FhRNOq5DUrWIOuDvCpd6vH8S/lzbT3eXWgJfnvyA4ucDV4PWHjOuJ/GPYv16jW3tq98dw=;
Received: from [115.115.150.237] (port=54323 helo=ABADEKaushikG)
               by host.aldiablos.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.85)
               (envelope-from <kashyap.bhatt@shrsolution.org>)
               id 1ZYuKL-0007MI-05; Mon, 07 Sep 2015 07:11:15 -0400
From: "Kashyap Bhatt" <kashyap.bhatt@shrsolution.org>
To: "'Kashyap Bhatt'" <kashyap.bhatt@shrsolution.org>
Subject: Health Insurance Form Filling
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 16:40:31 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
               boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0013_01D0E98B.FFD46560"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AdDkrNmCOKLefxifQtyWWbnWVV30zA==
x-cr-hashedpuzzle: ADXO AVW+ BVSH BpFn Crb7 DJhq DZXe DeTF DxZz F1XE GTb1 GXjf Gh5p IM6n Jhrb KQ7w;1;awBhAHMAaAB5AGEAcAAuAGIAaABhAHQAdABAAHMAaAByAHMAbwBsAHUAdABpAG8AbgAuAG8AcgBnAA==;Sosha1_v1;7;{A037348E-73F7-4DCA-99E8-A2911CC0D1E6};awBhAHMAaAB5AGEAcAAuAGIAaABhAHQAdABAAHMAaAByAHMAbwBsAHUAdABpAG8AbgAuAG8AcgBnAA==;Mon, 07 Sep 2015 11:10:00 GMT;SABlAGEAbAB0AGgAIAAgAEkAbgBzAHUAcgBhAG4AYwBlACAAIABGAG8AcgBtACAARgBpAGwAbABpAG4AZwA=
x-cr-puzzleid: {A037348E-73F7-4DCA-99E8-A2911CC0D1E6}
Content-Language: en-us
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host.aldiablos.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - gmail.com
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - shrsolution.org
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: host.aldiablos.com: authenticated_id:kashyap.bhatt@shrsolution.org
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-EsetId: 37303A296EDFC361637664

The actual domain registration data from shrsolution.org:

Domain Name: SHRSOLUTION.ORG
Registry Domain ID: D168825547-LROR
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.godaddy.com
Registrar URL: http://www.godaddy.com
Update Date: 2015-05-31T12:27:25Z
Creation Date: 2013-05-30T15:00:02Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2016-05-30T15:00:02Z
Registrar: GoDaddy.com, LLC
Registrar IANA ID: 146
Registrar Abuse Contact Email: abuse@godaddy.com
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.4806242505
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited http://www.icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited
Domain Status: clientUpdateProhibited http://www.icann.org/epp#clientUpdateProhibited
Domain Status: clientRenewProhibited http://www.icann.org/epp#clientRenewProhibited
Domain Status: clientDeleteProhibited http://www.icann.org/epp#clientDeleteProhibited
Registry Registrant ID: CR144307266
Registrant Name: Registration Private
Registrant Organization: Domains By Proxy, LLC
Registrant Street: DomainsByProxy.com
Registrant Street: 14747 N Northsight Blvd Suite 111, PMB 309
Registrant City: Scottsdale
Registrant State/Province: Arizona
Registrant Postal Code: 85260
Registrant Country: United States
Registrant Phone: +1.4806242599
Registrant Phone Ext:
Registrant Fax: +1.4806242598
Registrant Fax Ext:
Registrant Email: SHRSOLUTION.ORG@domainsbyproxy.com
Registry Admin ID: CR144307268
Admin Name: Registration Private
Admin Organization: Domains By Proxy, LLC
Admin Street: DomainsByProxy.com
Admin Street: 14747 N Northsight Blvd Suite 111, PMB 309
Admin City: Scottsdale
Admin State/Province: Arizona
Admin Postal Code: 85260
Admin Country: United States
Admin Phone: +1.4806242599
Admin Phone Ext:
Admin Fax: +1.4806242598
Admin Fax Ext:
Admin Email: SHRSOLUTION.ORG@domainsbyproxy.com
Registry Tech ID: CR144307267
Tech Name: Registration Private
Tech Organization: Domains By Proxy, LLC
Tech Street: DomainsByProxy.com
Tech Street: 14747 N Northsight Blvd Suite 111, PMB 309
Tech City: Scottsdale
Tech State/Province: Arizona
Tech Postal Code: 85260
Tech Country: United States
Tech Phone: +1.4806242599
Tech Phone Ext:
Tech Fax: +1.4806242598
Tech Fax Ext:
Tech Email: SHRSOLUTION.ORG@domainsbyproxy.com
Name Server: NS1.ALDIABLOS.COM
Name Server: NS2.ALDIABLOS.COM
DNSSEC: unsigned
URL of the ICANN WHOIS Data Problem Reporting System: http://wdprs.internic.net/
>>> Last update of WHOIS database: 2015-09-07T22:00:00Z <<<

Update Jan. 18, 2017: Links for the domain shrsolution.org and to the host.aldiablos.com removed as they don't exists anymore.

 

The Marketing Source - Robbie Middleton - sent a bad joke instead of a proof
by Rudolf Faix Monday, September 7, 2015 1:57 AM

In each of the articles about the Caribbean Cruise Line (CCL) – Virtual Voice Technology (VVT) is getting found that the center is guilty by themselves if they are accepting the conditions from The Marketing Source. Business is a risk and not a sandpit where nothing can happen. Even in the email from Robbie Middleton is stated gets found that this campaign “is a VERY tough campaign with tight margins”.

The campaign gets offered as none voice campaign where the agent does not need to speak. That is nothing else than a misleading promotion, because if we take a look at the article “FTC Statement Virtual Voice Technology - CallAssistant, L.C. - submitted by The Marketing Source - Vance Vogel” then we can read that the agent is free in his choice to speak or playing prerecorded messages. The background of the FTC-rule is that it has to be a life agent to be available that the live agent has to speak with the called one if a recording is not available for answering a specific question. It will be seldom happen, but it can happen.

The statement that only Lars is offering the CCL campaign is not correct. Robbie Middleton has simple forgotten that he is offering the campaign at BPO Friends by himself too. Everybody can be sure that other companies have voice systems too, which are conform to the FTC rules.  TMS is not the only company, which has access to such a system. It is only used as an argument for their rip-off. US$ 200/week system costs + VoIP (up to $ 275) for 12 seats (24 connections) are nothing else than profiteering.

We have built for an Austrian satellite TV broadcaster a similar system with click to dial, manual selection of prerecordings and a few more features like play and win, live quiz, dating, shopping, etc. in a multi-language system (German, English, French, Spanish, Polnish), for € 1,450 (~US$ 1,615) including server hardware. This system has assigned 2,200 phone numbers, on this system are working 250 agents and a few full automated services like every 50th caller goes live into the studio, each 100th caller is winning a price, etc. at the same time.

It is not forbidden to make a bad deal. Everybody, who accepting a bad deal, is guilty by himself if he lose money in such a case. It is only from a company expected to recognize a good and a bad deal. If a company defends such a bad deal then such a company is in my opinion very suspect and there seems to be a reason why they are defending such a bad deal. Mostly is the reason that they are earning by themselves.

The construction of the included proof from the email shows more that it is a fake instead of a proof.  I think that CCL and TMS have enough experience in front of the law court collected to know how a proof has to look like. In this case the proof consists of pictures (one company header, and one picture for each “invoice” line), which seems to be from different sources. Such a construction is nowhere accepted as a proof for anything. All necessary parts for an official invoice are missing. It seems even to be a secret to whom the invoice got sent.

In a fair and transparent business is it usage that as soon as a customer likes to use his own or rented systems has the customer to pay the bill for it. How the customer makes his calculation in this case is the problem of the customer and not the problem of the service provider. Already the promotion of the campaign is misleading because there is written “The base rate is $ 2.25 per transfer with additional performance incentives based on quality” (BPO Friends - Robbie Middleton, .pdf (187.38 kb)). In such a case the rate cannot be lower than $ 2.25 for the >60 seconds transfer, but if we take a look at the document VVT CPD Explanation.docx (17.84 kb) we see that the base rate can be lower too.

The email from Robbie Middleton in reaction to my article "Slavery offer: CCL VVT none Voice or Semi-Voice campaign - The Marketing Source - Vance Vogel":

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 6:05 PM, Robbie Middleton <rmiddleton@themarketingsource.com> wrote:

Rudolph,

What your source neglected to tell you is that there is a list of requirements VVT sends centers at the time of campaign implementation and VVT makes NO claims that this is an easy campaign at any time.  VVT does not even recruit centers at all.  Every center VVt have has either approached VVT via word of mouth or through Lars.  Lars is the ONLY approved broker for the VVT campaign.  VVT actually tell the centers that this is a VERY tough campaign with tight margins and very clearly state all charges.  99% of all center that fail, do so because they do not follow our guidelines.  It is absolutely, positively cheaper and easier to dial using the centers own VOIP and dialer, unfortunately this is ILLEGAL per the TCPA laws as well as infractions of the Telemarketing Sales Rule that would undoubtedly occur if the call centers were not regulated.    TMS and/or VVT receives no profit Login and VOIP charges.  I have copied the most recent invoice for logins associated with 4 centers Lars has referred and feel free to confirm the same with the company that invoices us as well as Lars.  This is the actual amount deducted from the centers commissions and not a penny more.  You can see that VVT IS CHARGED $10/login.  VVT pre-pays this expense on behalf of the centers so they do not have any up-front expense of their own.  VVT provides Leads, VOIP and Logins so they can LAUNCH without investing ANY of their own money.    VVT then deducts this Login and VOIP expense from the centers earned commissions.  There is no charge for leads.  We disperse the amount VVT loads each for VOIP each week evenly amongst all centers based on their percentage of total logins.  We do not profit from this expense either.  Regarding “CPD” and what your source failed to tell you is that VVT is paid by the cruise line on a CPD (Cost Per Deal) basis.  Each centers quality is tracked separately and a quantitative measure of quality is attached to their transfers in terms of “CPD”.  We cannot let centers send calls “at will” with no concern for quality as many of them (even with the CPD +/- structure in place) send calls with no customer on the line, transfer answering machines, transfer customers that requested DNC, etc….. I will send you the complete VVT launch e-mail just as I would a prospective center so you can see the truth.  The fact that VVT must implement so many rules and guidelines is indeed most unfortunate, but don’t let your source fool you into thinking we are “screwing” them.  Rules and guidelines are in place to adhere to all applicable laws and to protect VVT from unethical centers.  We have centers that have been doing the campaign for more than 3 years now and while it isn’t easy, it CAN be profitable when guidelines are adhered to. 

The above email had the following five pictures included as shown belown: 

Invoice header of SunBridge Systems
One line of the invoice from Sunbridge Systems
Another line of the invoice from Sunbridge Systems
Another line of the invoice from Sunbridge Systems
Another line of the invoice from Sunbridge Systems

The invoice header seems to be a fake because I did not find until now one IT company frome the U.S.

  • where the office phone number is hidden for privacy reasons from the public phone directory

  • where the office phone number is assigned to Google voice

  • where tel2name.com gives the result: 727-753-9323 - Deane Arteaga Wisteria Cir New Port Richey, Florida instead of Sun Bridge Systems LLC.

  • which writes their own domain name in the heaer of the invoice wrong
    (subbridgesystems.com instead of sunbridgesystems.com)

  • which needs to hide the ownership of their domain behind a privacy service

  • which makes since 2 years and 5 months promotions at her homepage for their registrar Godaddy

  • which has since 2 years and 5 months a homepage with the amazing content
    Screenshot from the homepage of sunbridgesystems.com

  • Buzzfile.com says about SUN BRIDGE SYSTEMS LLC:
    Sun Bridge Systems is located in Oldsmar, Florida. This organization primarily operates in the Business Services, nec business / industry within the Business Services sector. This organization has been operating for approximately 2 years. Sun Bridge Systems is estimated to generate $ 49,000 in annual revenues, and employs approximately 1 people at this single location.

SUN BRIDGE SYSTEMS, LLC is really a company and is listed at Floridas Department of State Division of Corporations (.pdf (119.20 kb)). The company got founded on March 11, 2013 at 5520 Rio Vista Dr., Clearwater, FL. 33760 (Link, .pdf (43.19 kb)) and relocated on April 1, 2014 to 518 Lakewood Dr., Oldsmar, FL 34677 (Link, .pdf (3.30 kb)).

Interesting is that LookUpBear (.pdf (118.69 kb)) tell us that the company SUN BRIDGE SYSTEMS, LLC is listed "under the heading Construction/Contractors which includes businesses that may offer home improvement construction, home construction, roofers, manufacturing of building materials". I know that we all would search for a telcommunications company in exactly this category!

Screenshot from the entry Sun Bridge Systems, LLC from LookUpBear

Update Jan. 18, 2017: Link to http://bpofriends.com/profiles/blogs/vvt-free-cruise-non-voice-process removed as it already returns error 404 - not found.

FTC Statement Virtual Voice Technology - CallAssistant - from Vance Vogel
by Rudolf Faix Saturday, September 5, 2015 2:32 AM

Mr. Vance Vogel, CEO and founder of The Marketing Source, has submitted together with an explanation that they are using CallAssistant instead of Avatar systems, the following statement of the FTC from September 11, 2009 (I have only removed the page breaks):

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580
Federal Trade Commission
Division of Marketing Practices
September 11, 2009

Dear Mr. Bills:

You have requested an informal staff opinion as to the applicability to 2008 amendments to the Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”) to a particular technology used by CallAssistant, L.C.(“CallAssistant”). The amendments at issue impose new restrictions on the use of prerecorded messages in telemarketing. 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(1)(v); 73 Fed. Reg. 15204 (Aug. 29, 2008).

Specifically, these amendments require, as of December 1, 2008, that any outbound telemarketing call that delivers a prerecorded message include: (1) if the call could be answered in person by a consumer, an automated interactive voice and/or keypress-activated opt-out mechanism that the call recipient can use at any time during the message to assert a Do Not Call request pursuant to § 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(A); and (2) if the call could be answered by an answering machine or voicemail service, a toll-free telephone number that the call recipient can use to assert a Do Not Call request pursuant to § 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(A). Additionally, as of September 1, 2009, the amendments prohibit any outbound telemarketing call that delivers a prerecorded message unless the seller has obtained from the recipient of the call an express agreement, in writing, that evidences the willingness of the recipient of the call to receive calls that deliver prerecorded messages by or on behalf of that seller and includes such person’s telephone number and signature.

As described in your letter, CallAssistant uses technology that enables its calling agents to interact with the recipient of a call using his or her own voice or by substituting appropriate audio recording of a response. According to your letter, when used to place outbound telemarketing calls, this technology works as follows:

A live agent using the System places a call to a consumer and hears the consumer greeting. In response to the greeting, the agent may elect to speak to the call recipient using his or her voice, or may press a button to play an appropriate recorded script segment. After the agent’s response, the agent listens to the consumer customer’s reply. After listening to the consumer’s reply, the live agent again chooses whether to speak to the call recipient in his or her own voice, or another recording. At all times, even during the playing of any recorded segment, the agent retains the power to interrupt any recorded message to listen to the consumer and respond appropriately.

In adopting the 2008 amendments, the Commission 1 recognized that in the future prerecorded message might eliminate the objections that prompted the adoption of the these rules and justify exemptions permitting interactive prerecorded messages:

[T]he Commission notes that it is aware that the technology used in making prerecorded messages interactive is rapidly evolving, and that affordable technological advances may eventually permit the widespread use of interactive messages that are essentially indistinguishable from conversing with a human being. Accordingly, nothing in this notice should be interpreted to foreclose the possibility of petitions seeking further amendment of the TSR or exemption from the provisions adopted here.

73 Fed. Reg. 51180 (Aug. 29, 2008).

Furthermore, according to your description, “live agents hear every word spoken by the call recipient, and determine what is said” in response. A single agent always stays with a call from beginning to end.

You seek an opinion as to whether the amended TSR provisions on the use of prerecorded messages in telemarketing apply to CallAssistant’s calls that employ the technology summarized above. Based on the description of the technology included in your letter, the staff of the Federal Trade Commission has concluded that the 2008 TSR amendments cited above do not prohibit telemarketing calls using this technology if the calls that otherwise comply with the TSR and other applicable law. The 2008 amendments at 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(1)(v) prohibit calls that deliver a prerecorded message and do not allow interaction with call recipients in a manner virtually indistinguishable from calls conducted by live operators. Unlike the technology that you describe, the delivery of prerecorded messages in such calls does not involve a live agent who controls the content and continuity of what is said to respond to concerns, questions, comments – or demands – of the call recipient.

In adopting the 2008 TSR amendments, the Commission noted that the intrusion of a telemarketing call on a consumer’s right to privacy “may be exacerbated immeasurably when there is no human being on the other end of the line.” 73 Fed. Reg. at 51180. The Commission observed that special restrictions on prerecorded telemarketing messages were warranted because they “convert the telephone from an instrument for two-way conversations into a oneway device for transmitting advertisements.” Id.1 Consequently, in Staff’s view, the concerns about prerecorded messages addressed in the 2008 TSR amendments do not apply to the calls described above, in which a live human being continuously interacts with the recipient of a call in a two-way conversation, but is permitted to respond by selecting recorded statements.

Nevertheless, the use of such technology in a campaign to induce the sales of goods or services, or charitable donations is “telemarketing” under the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6106(4), and therefore must comply with the Rule’s other requirements and prohibitions. In particular, the technology must connect an outbound telephone call to a live agent within two seconds of the call recipient’s completed greeting. 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(1)(iv). The agents making calls using this technology must disclose the purpose of the call, the identity of the seller, make other required disclosures, and comply with other TSR provisions preventing deceptive and abusive conduct. Id. §§ 310.3 and 310.4.

Please be advised that this opinion is based exclusively on all the information furnished in your request. This opinion applies only to the extent that actual company practices conform to the material submitted for review. Please be advised further that the views expressed in this letter are those of the FTC staff. They have not been reviewed, approved, or adopted by the Commission, and they are not binding upon the Commission. However, they do reflect the opinions of the staff members charged with enforcement of the TSR.

Lois Greisman
Associate Director
Division of Marketing Practices

 In short - the system Virtual Voice Technology is only legal if:

  • a live agent hears the called party from the greeting until the hang-up or transfer.
  • an agent is active in the line within 2 seconds the called party has finished his greeting.
  • the live agent is free in his choice to speak with the called party or playing prerecorded messages.
  • if the live agent is playing prerecorded messages he needs to have a possibility to stop the playback.
  • the Telemarketing Sales Rules (TSR) does not get changed.

 

Slavery offer: CCL VVT none Voice or Semi-Voice campaign - The Marketing Source
by Rudolf Faix Thursday, September 3, 2015 9:38 AM

This campaign offer is not a scam, but in summary is it even worse than a SCAM because the client likes even to earn from the call center. But the centers are guilty by themselves, if they are accepting the conditions in the contract. Each business owner need to know what he is doing and he is responsible for his own decision.

The client is Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc. located at 2419 E Commercial Blvd Ste 100, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308-4042, website http://www.bahamascruiseregistration.com. By taking a look at the website of the U.S. Better Business Bureau (BBB) then we’ll find about the Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc. that there have been during the last 3 years 1,253 complaints closed with the BBB from which have been 335 during the last 12 months. Already this shows which kind of business this company is running and how they are handling their customers. You’ll find at the site a government action too, which you can find in my article “FTC and ten state attorneys general take action against political survey robocallers pitching cruise line vacations to the Bahamas”.

Responsible for this campaign is The Marketing Source, Inc. located in 12551 Indian Rocks Rd. Suite 2, Largo., FL 33774 with owner Vance Vogel. A Robbie Middleton is promoting this campaign and makes the billing for this campaign. I don’t know if the conditions for this campaign got invented from the Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc. or from The Marketing Source, Inc. It does not really matter, but these conditions are a simple rip-off for the call centers which are working for them:

  • The center is requited to use their CallAssistant System. The center has to pay $10 per week and per connection. The center is required to have at least 10 agents where each agent needs to handle 2 connections at the same time.
    That does not sound very much, but it is at least $200 per week and the center does not really get something for it. My opinion is that profiteering because the phone system itself has a value of around $500 - $600 and the CallAssistant system can only get used for the CCL campaign. This one which likes that this system has to get used has to pay for it. The call center has no benefit from it.

  • CPD (Cost Per Deal) factor (see the Word document VVT CPD Explanation.docx (17.84 kb))
    The CPD reduces or increases the payout for the successful transfer. Already the name proves the cheat. The client does not have any costs per deal as the center gets billed for usage of their systems and for the VoIP minutes. Whether Caribbean Cruise Lines neither The Marketing Source is able to give an explanation for these costs per deal. With other words they like to make money from the call center.

    The costs per deal are even getting increased (lower payout for the center) for the following conditions:
    • Transferring a call where no customer was on the line
      Each cold called customer will hang up if he needs to wait too long for a transfer. In this case is not the call center which is transferring the call guilty

    • Transferring a call where the customer was not interested
      That depends on the mood of the agent which is picking up the line during the life transfer too and cannot get controlled from the sending center.

    • Transferring a call where the customer did not have a credit or debit card
      If the agent which picks up the line is not friendly or says the wrong words, I'll say that I have no credit cards too even if I have said before that I have one. Such a case can get proved by listening the recordings of the sending center only.

    • Transferring a call where mandatory recordings were not played
      If the CallAssistant system is good instead of quick and dirty programmed, then the transfer would not be possible if the mandatory recordings were not played.

    I have seen by myself that additional to the above rules is the transfer counter working wrong. It are getting 40% more transfers counted as really happened and it are getting calls transferred without any action of the agent. All this failures seems to have the only purpose to minimize the payout of the call center.

  • The center is to required to buy VoIP from them
    Together with the other facts is this behaviour strange, because this one, which pays for it has to be able to chose the provider to buy from. As The Marketing Source Inc. and/or the Caribbean Cruise Lines Inc. are showing at the points above that they even try to earn by profiteering from the call centers are even here only end user prices billed and not reseller prices.

By taking a look at the website of Caribbean Cruise Line Inc. (http://www.bahamascruiseregistration.com/) we see that their business model is not a trusted one and in not conform with any fair trading standards. At Google are getting a lot more complaints about the Caribbean Cruise Line Inc. found. I list here only a few. At Cruise Critic we can find that the passengers have to participate at a five hours timeshare presentation. At CBS news you can read how their customer get handled and your lead destroyed at the call center you’ll transfer the customer. Some of their methods are getting described at the Rip-Off Report, Complaints Board and Jim Walker’s Cruise Law News. Even at the customer reviews of the U.S. Better Business Bureau are 75% reporting a negative experience, 66.67% will not recommend and 33.33% are undecided in recommending this company.

You see how the Caribbean Cruise Lines Inc. is handling their customers. Think about it how you will get handled from them as their supplier! A result can be looking like the following weekly billings sent out from The Marketing Source – Robbie Middleton:

Screenshot about payments to the call center of Krishna Varma

Everybody which is working with such a company like Caribbean Cruise Lines Inc. need not wondering himself if the shit from them is coloring themselves too! A business which has during the last 3 years in average 1.15 complaints to get handled per day from the U.S. Better Business Bureau is fighting for the last cent until a government institution will force them to pay. A serious business will avoid to get listed in such a way at the U.S. Better Business Bureau.

Brokers are getting paid from their client to find call centers doing their campaigns and for this the broker are not asking if the center can make profit or not. Scammers like Omer Ali - Oceanspace Innovative service pvt Ltd are offering this campaign against an up-front fee of 2 Lakhs (INR 200,000 ~ US$ 3,014). You can now calculate yourself that in the case you get the campaign from the scammer and you make some little earnings with this campaign that you'll need years for getting your up-front fees back.

Domain registration data from themarketingsource.com:

Domain Name: THEMARKETINGSOURCE.COM
Registry Domain ID: 1502506868_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.godaddy.com
Registrar URL: http://www.godaddy.com
Update Date: 2014-06-13T14:33:04Z
Creation Date: 2008-06-26T18:43:43Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2017-06-26T18:43:43Z
Registrar: GoDaddy.com, LLC
Registrar IANA ID: 146
Registrar Abuse Contact Email: abuse@godaddy.com
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.4806242505
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited http://www.icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited
Domain Status: clientUpdateProhibited http://www.icann.org/epp#clientUpdateProhibited
Domain Status: clientRenewProhibited http://www.icann.org/epp#clientRenewProhibited
Domain Status: clientDeleteProhibited http://www.icann.org/epp#clientDeleteProhibited
Registry Registrant ID:
Registrant Name: Vance Vogel
Registrant Organization: The Marketing Source, Inc
Registrant Street: 12551 Indian Rocks
Registrant City: Largo
Registrant State/Province: Florida
Registrant Postal Code: 33774
Registrant Country: United States
Registrant Phone: +1.7272167773
Registrant Phone Ext:
Registrant Fax:
Registrant Fax Ext:
Registrant Email: admin@themarketingsource.com
Registry Admin ID:
Admin Name: Vance Vogel
Admin Organization: The Marketing Source, Inc
Admin Street: 12551 Indian Rocks
Admin City: Largo
Admin State/Province: Florida
Admin Postal Code: 33774
Admin Country: United States
Admin Phone: +1.7272167773
Admin Phone Ext:
Admin Fax:
Admin Fax Ext:
Admin Email: sales@themarketingsource.com
Registry Tech ID:
Tech Name: Vance Vogel
Tech Organization: The Marketing Source, Inc
Tech Street: 12551 Indian Rocks
Tech City: Largo
Tech State/Province: Florida
Tech Postal Code: 33774
Tech Country: United States
Tech Phone: +1.7272167773
Tech Phone Ext:
Tech Fax:
Tech Fax Ext:
Tech Email: sales@themarketingsource.com
Name Server: NS8047.HOSTGATOR.COM
Name Server: NS8048.HOSTGATOR.COM
DNSSEC: unsigned
URL of the ICANN WHOIS Data Problem Reporting System: http://wdprs.internic.net/
>>> Last update of WHOIS database: 2015-09-01T7:00:00Z <<<

Update September 5, 2015: Vance Vogel from The Marketing Source sent a statement from the FTC under which conditions prerecorded messages are allowed to getting played. This statement can get found in the article "FTC Statement Virtual Voice Technology - CallAssistant, L.C. - submitted by The Marketing Source - Vance Vogel"

Update September 7, 2015: Robbie Middleton from The Marketing Source sent a statement. This statement can get found in the article "The Marketing Source - Robbie Middleton - sent a bad joke instead of a proof"

 

Is the use of the Avatar technology in the U.S. illegal (Robocalls)?
by Rudolf Faix Tuesday, September 1, 2015 7:36 AM

FTC RobocallsIf the main and only purpose of the software an illegal action then this software is illegal. In the case of the Avatar system is service legal because at the site from the Federal Trade Commission are listed a few cases where Robocalls are allowed:

Some prerecorded messages are permitted — for example, messages that are purely informational. That means you may receive calls to let you know your flight’s been cancelled, reminders about an appointment, or messages about a delayed school opening. But the business doing the calling isn’t allowed to promote the sale of any goods or services. Prerecorded messages from a business that is contacting you to collect a debt also are permitted, but messages offering to sell you services to reduce your debt are barred.

Other exceptions include political calls and calls from certain health care providers. For example, pharmacies are permitted to use prerecorded messages to provide prescription refill reminders. Prerecorded messages from banks, telephone carriers and charities also are exempt from these rules if the banks, carriers or charities make the calls themselves.

As you see in the above statement are legal and illegal purposes for Robocalls available. Illegal is this technology for making business (promoting any goods or services) in the United States of America. That the Avatar technology is a Robocall technology gets found out by reading the judgement from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas Houston Division, Civil Action No. H-13-2777, Case 4:13-cv-02777 from January 28, 2014 (.pdf). In this case Flowroute got sued to conspire with Avatar because: "Flowroute’s VoIP services, and employing Flowroute’s Calling Name Management Service ('CNAM-MS') to alter the caller’s identification as it appeared on Plaintiff’s cellular phone." Like expected had this case a positive end for Flowroute. The same way like Flowroute is Avatar only a service provider and is not responsible for the misusage of their products from their customers.

At Federal Trade Commission - Consumer Information - What to do if you get a Robocall explains the FTC attorney Kati Daffan in here video and in the first paragraph of the transcription what is a Robocall:

If you have a telephone, robocalls may be ruining your day. I'm Kati Daffan, an attorney at the Federal Trade Commission. If you answer the phone and hear a recorded message instead of a live person, it's a robocall. If the recording is a sales message and you haven't given your written permission to get calls from the company on the other end, the call is illegal period.

Playing pre-recorded messages or compile manually pre-recorded messages live will remain to be a prerecorded material and is never the same like speaking to a live person. There is no way to foresee all possibilities during a call. For this reason a live speaking agent cannot get replaced.

A short description of the Avatar system is that a call center agent is playing prerecorded messages to the called ones. The messages are getting selected depending on the answers from the called ones. With other words the called one does not speak with a real agent and for some questions are even no prerecorded answers available. Only if the called one is interested in the offer he gets transferred to a real person. One agents handles normally two calls at the same time. I think everybody knows the result of mulittasking.

Avatar is promoting their services as "Lead Generation without the accent". From my own experience and from the experience of my customers is it in the German speaking area of Europe (Austria, Germany and a part of Switzerland) not important to speak without an accent to make a sale. Much more important is it to adjust your own communication within splits of a second to the same level as your presumptive customer is using. A joke during the communication at the right time can be an ice breaker. This cannot get done by using prerecorded messages. Already the first impression a sales person is making can lead to a good business or to a total loss.

Avatar Technologies Phl, Inc. is providing their services only B2B and for this reason they need not warn about the misusage of their product. From business owners is it expected that they know the law in their country and in the country they are serving. For a consumer are the offered services not from any interest. For this reason they need not warn them about the illegal use of their products.

The FTC is challenging the DEF CON community to create a tool that people can use to block and forward unwanted robocalls automatically. Forwarded calls will go to a honeypot — a data collection system that researchers and investigators can use to study the calls. See the contest descriptions and the winners of the 2015 Robocalls: Humanity Strikes Back Contest.

Look at the videos where an attorney from the FTC explains the illegal Robocalls.

Clark-et-al.-v-Avatar-Technologies-Phl-Inc.-et-al.-Decision.pdf (128.96 kb)

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Blog Rudolf Faix

Filter by APML

AboutMe

I'm since more then 35 years in the computer business (programming and technical support) and using the Internet since it has started. Since 2002 I'm programming solutions for Asterisk and since 2004 I'm in the call center industry.

Disclaimer

All data and information provided on this site is for informational purposes only. I make no representations as to accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any information on this site and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use. All information is provided on an as-is basis and is only representing my own opinion. By browsing or using content from this site you accept the full legal disclaimer of this website.