The Week of April 8th in Review

Posted on April 13, 2013 Written by Leave a Comment

By Paul Pannone

After a two-year investigation eWedNewz broke the story on the wedding charity, Wish Upon a Wedding, investigating allegations and assertions against the charity’s founders and how the organization is managed. This newZ source has stepped up our investigation looking into people who gave their time and abandoned the organization after a relatively short period.

Disillusioned ex-participants and volunteers are hesitantly coming forward telling eWedNewz their stories but are stopping short of going public. Some major wedding industry figures are giving their version of what happened in the Wedding Water Cooler but, oddly, have not come forward. This newZ source has determined that some are under a confidentiality agreement prohibiting them to speak freely.

An ongoing eWedNewz poll so-far shows 57% of respondents say Wish Upon a Wedding is a good concept managed poorly. 20% feel it’s a bad idea run by thieves, resulting in a 77% disapproval rate. 6% say Wish Upon a Wedding  is a very well-run, worthy cause. 14% of replies so-far say they’ve never heard of the organization but will be following the story.

 

eWedNewz

All Rights Reserved

2013

Filed Under: Anti Fairy Dust, Breaking Newz, eWedNewz, eWedNewz Exclusive, General News, Hall of Shame, Ongoing Story Coverage, Ongoing Story Investigation, The Week in Review, Wedding Charities, wedding industry, Wedding Marketing Scams, Wedding planners, Wedding Water Cooler Tagged: , , ,

The Week of April 1st in Review

Posted on April 6, 2013 Written by Leave a Comment

 

By Paul Pannone

Wedding industry crooks took cover this week, put on notice as the battle for the Gold heated up. Onlookers watched as Samantha Goldberg pummeled Marni Gold, assuring her it’s nothing personal and that other Wedding Scam Artists can expect more of the same. Since announcing her new show Samantha Goldberg told eWedNewz of plans to expose the antics and false claims made by wedding industry professionals who have allegedly taken money and not given the expected results and value to victims.

Another meeting in New York to discuss the  progress of fighting online pirates raised concerns among media members who felt the war is far from won.

New data release by IBISWorld says wedding spending will increase in the next five years in selected categories; all except the men’s formal wear rental business. As the business shrinks a greater percentage of rental units are taken by the Men’s Wearhouse tuxedo division– while the rest of the tuxedo business wastes time and resources fighting one another.

 

 

eWedNewz

All Rights Reserved

2013

Filed Under: Anti Fairy Dust, Data, eWedNewz Exclusive, General News, Hall of Shame, Men's formal wear, Ongoing Story Coverage, Ongoing Story Investigation, Paul Pannone, Press Release, The Groom, The Internet, The Week in Review, tuxedos, Uncategorized, Wedding planners Tagged: , , , , , ,

The Week of January 21st in Review

Posted on January 27, 2013 Written by 3 Comments

By Paul Pannone

The wedding business continues to reel from allegations claiming the business is laden with unscrupulous practices by vendors who up-sell clients and qualify their pockets by the very car they pull up with. An ongoing poll shows 2/3 of replies says there is good and bad in the wedding industry, just like any other business. 22% feel strong enough to say the wedding business is not crooked, while 12% say it is crooked.

eWedNewz digs deeper in the weeks and months ahead to expose possible causes for the allegations including wedding marketers who teach the art of deception to vendors entering the business. Members of the Wedding Water Cooler continue to give their insight to the story.

The American Bridal and Prom Industry Association, ABPIA, announced a new creative campaign to help retailers fend off the growing problem of online piracy and sale of inferior wedding dresses to American consumers. Steve Lang, president of the group, outlined the campaign and how his fight using all available legal means is starting to have an impact.

 

 

eWedNewz

All Rights Reserved

2013

Filed Under: Anti Fairy Dust, bridal, Bridal Dresses, Bridal Shops, eWedNewz, eWedNewz Exclusive, Hall of Shame, Ongoing Story Coverage, Ongoing Story Investigation, Paul Pannone, The Internet, The Week in Review, Uncategorized, wedding industry, Wedding planners, Wedding Water Cooler Tagged: , , , , , , , ,

ABPIA Launches New Ad Campaign | Invites The Wedding Industry to Unite

Posted on January 24, 2013 Written by 2 Comments

By Paul Pannone

After a week of divisive controversy that besmirched the reputation of the wedding business, President of the ABPIA, American Bridal and Prom Industry Association, Steve Lang, decided it’s time to start uniting instead of dividing. Lang watched the controversy from the sidelines while quietly implementing necessary checkpoints and roadblocks to help his part of the business; gowns.

A new Creative Ad by the ABPIA unveiled this week will help rally wedding boutiques and bridal stores to help the fight against internet piracy.

The path to the current information is well-documented thanks to Lang’s outstanding job of keeping this newZ source informed with updates for the public but equally as important, behind-the-scene background so we could fully understand the story.

Here is the latest update from Lang and the ABPIA:

It is with great pleasure to report to you today as President of the American Bridal and Prom Industry Association (ABPIA) our progress fighting counterfeiters from China. At the end of 2012, the ABPIA filed a lawsuit against 45 of the most egregious websites shipping counterfeit merchandise to North America and the rest of the world. The court granted us a temporary restraining order, also referred to as TRO. We returned to court in New Jersey on January 7, 2013 and appeared before the Honorable Judge Wolfson, Chief Magistrate of the Federal Court.

At this hearing, we presented original and counterfeit merchandise from multiple manufacturers and highlighted the damage done to our industry from these offshore pirates. We explained to the judge that approximately 500,000 to 600,000 counterfeit units entered North America in 2012, representing approximately $300 million in lost retail sales. This translates to approximately 100 to 150 units per full-service bridal and social occasion store in the United States.

Within a half hour of testimony, the judge immediately grasped the danger to our industry and ordered the following:

• The granting of a Formal Injunction against the defendant websites to immediately cease and desist from their illegal cyber- squatting activity. Our counsel prepared the paperwork and the order was signed the next day on January 8, 2013.

• For counsel to additionally serve the injunction on all members of the supply chain that aid and abet the counterfeiters. This includes website providers and hosts such as VeriSign, Go-Daddy and other such entities, search engines such as Google, financial entities transferring funds offshore such as PayPal, American Express, MasterCard, Visa, Discover, etc., freight entities transporting goods such as FedEx, UPS, DHL, and any other entity within the supply chain that helps the counterfeiters.

• For counsel to immediately add additional websites as defendants without having to file formal motions to amend the complaint. We have a list of approximately 2,500 additional websites that will be added to the injunction as defendants this week.

• For counsel to instruct all entities conducting business with the counterfeiters to reveal the exact name of the owners of the website, their locations and any other information we feel pertinent in eradicating this threat to the industry. This will aid us in securing damages, shutting down the websites and aiding the court and government agencies to enforce rulings.

• To immediately inform United States Customs and Homeland Security of the injunction to secure maximum help from these institutions to seize illegal websites and counterfeit merchandise.

The judge was clear in her instruction that should any entity fail to comply with the order, she is fully prepared to take additional action. This could include forcing any of these organizations to appear before her in court for rulings, especially if she feels they are in contempt of court.

Judge Wolfson was also clear that the economic damage to the industry is so difficult to calculate that she would place it in the category of “irreparable harm”. The significance of this category is that we could potentially go after large damages from any of the entities should they fail to comply.

It is my great pleasure to report that PayPal has begun to seize funds originally slated to be sent offshore and that we already received notifications of websites that are being shut down by web hosts following instructions of the court order. We expect many more websites to be shuttered over the coming weeks and will remain vigilant in this effort as we add an additional 2,500 counterfeiters to the injunction.

Attached to this email is the ad creative our marketing team recently developed to communicate the ABPIA’s message to the masses. Keep an eye out for this impactful new ad campaign to appear in major publications, websites and social media platforms next season.

Thus far, the ABPIA is comprised of approximately 400 members including manufacturers, retailers, sales representatives, apparel marts, media resources and other interested constituents of our industry. If you have not yet joined the ABPIA, we respectfully feel it is your responsibility to stand up and be counted. Join us in the fight to save our industry from this horrible scourge. We created ABPIA as a nonprofit 501(c) 6 organization, which allows us to lobby in Washington, D.C. and with other government entities. We plan to visit senators and congressmen to secure federal legislation that would give us even greater leverage against these counterfeiters.

It goes without saying that this grand endeavor takes time and money. I have personally dedicated the last year and a half of my life to working on this project, basically turning my company over to be run by my wonderful employees. However, I cannot do this alone and need your help. Attached is an application to join the organization. As you can see, it is only $100 annually for retailers. If we save you just one lost sale, your investment is more than secure. We also have other plans for the ABPIA including securing affordable health care coverage and already have a consultant working on this project.

Please stand up and be counted. Join the ABPIA today.

Respectfully,

Stephen Lang, President of ABPIA and CEO of Mon Cheri, LLC

Currently only 5% of respondents so-far say they would not support a wedding industry organization. 95% said they would support a well-run organization that would give benefits to its members, wasn’t too expensive and/or all of the stated reasons. What do you say?

Click to join the ABPIA

eWedNewz

All Rights Reserved

2013

Filed Under: Anti Fairy Dust, bridal, Bridal Dresses, Bridal Shops, eWedNewz, General News, Hall of Shame, Ongoing Story Coverage, Uncategorized, Wedding Dresses, wedding industry Tagged: , , , , ,

Wedding Water Cooler in Uproar over 20/20 view of the Wedding Business

Posted on January 22, 2013 Written by 4 Comments

By Paul Pannone

A slanted view of wedding industry professionals presented by ABC’s 20/20 has many members of the business rankled including the Wedding Water Cooler. What started as a positive post hoping the team at 20/20 would give a balanced view of how the credible part of the business treat their customers soon became a lynching of the industry, putting consumers on alert.

 

The wedding industry is in an uproar over how ABC’s 20/20 portrayed them in a segment of their show. Members of the Wedding Water Cooler group say they’ve contacted the show to get the story straight.

 

Responses posted during and just after the segment unanimously turned negative;

“First of all, the nonsensical videos of “wedding disasters” were ridiculous.   How many brides get peed on by their dog as they walk down the aisle?   But,mostly, it insulted the industry as a whole.   It made us out to be a bunch of thieves and idiots, based on a few phone calls to a DJ and Chris Evans’ “expert” opinion.   There was no substance to the show and there was very little fact- only conjecture and stupidity!”

Stunned members of the group and long-time veterans of the business said the show’s producers worked on ‘very old information” and a very slanted view of the business, leaving out hard -working people who are dedicated to their clients.

“Well it was just tawdry, and that reflects poorly on what should be a spectacular time in someone’s life.  It also underlining the old saw about not trusting your vendors, which puts the couple and their wedding products partners at odds.  And lastly, I’d like to see some “confidential” reporting on “how to” shop, preferably with good wedding vendor partners.  I’m specifically tired of the reality foolishness,” said one member of the group.

But not everyone bothered to watch– some people have a life and live during the weekend– but did comment on all the hoopla when they finally arrived late to the discussion:

“As mentioned, I didn’t see the show last night.  However, based on all your comments, it appears that the content was off target and useless to most consumers.  If that’s the case, what’s to be done about it?

I’d like to see the show personally before I pass judgment on the content.  Regardless, I believe what you’re saying and also believe that someone at 20/20 should be informed that they did, in fact, miss the target and what they can do to correct this problem.  Maybe they will listen — maybe they won’t.  If nobody tells them what they did wrong, they’ll never know that they did anything wrong or that there is another point of view that should be explored.

I only have one solid contact in TV who can direct me/us as to how address this problem with 20/20 or any other TV program.

Based upon personal experiences, I know for a fact that producers shape a show in whatever way they wish.  Right or wrong.  Usually, people are so flattered to be a part of a show that they honor the producer’s every request.  When we’ve done programs with the Today Show and others, the producer calls most of the shots on which merchandise is featured.  If they want Vera Wang or only high end resources, you either give them what they want or they find someone else,” said one industry veteran.

Members of the group said they’ve contacted the show to get some sort of balancing statement and a possible segment that would portray honest vendors of the wedding business in a better light.

What do you think about the wedding business?

 

eWedNewz

All Rights Reserved

2013

Filed Under: Anti Fairy Dust, bridal, eWedNewz, General News, Hall of Shame, wedding industry, Wedding Water Cooler Tagged: , , , , , , , , ,

eWedNewz Helps Shine the Light on Posting During Tragedy

Posted on December 17, 2012 Written by 1 Comment

By Paul Pannone

An ongoing story about normal posting during catastrophe and times of tragedy continues to rock the wedding business, especially those who were exposed for normal tweets and Facebook posts during last week’s horrible event in Connecticut. Private discussions over the weekend with some wonderful people and some not-so-wonderful idiots shows the good and bad in the world. Today we focus on the positive.

Do you agree there is a time and place for everything?

Alicia LeGala at Fantasia Bridal, Long Island, New York, told eWedNewz how shaken she was while trying to run her business and posting what she thought was a routine image.

“I had no idea what was happening at that moment. My daughter called to tell me there was some guy on the internet making the store look bad,” she told eWedNewz.

Alicia’s store was one of several highlighted for posting usual images and thoughts on the tragic day, while the events were unfolding. A discussion with Alicia informs eWedNewz that she was mortified and wanted to be clear she is not the insensitive person the internet exchange made her out to be.

“I really felt horrible and wished I knew what was going on. I never would have posted anything because I didn’t feel like doing any sort of business, once I learned what happened. I was shaken because of the senseless death of those poor, innocent victims,” says LeGala.

The Brooklyn-born native told eWedNewz  she learned that everyone needs to be more aware, cognizant and responsible for what they post, especially during national tragedy.

An ongoing poll that originally gave the benefit of the doubt to companies like Alfred Angelo became less tolerant after the murders in Connecticut. Currently 37% (and rising) say there is a time and place for everything, denouncing normal posting during tragedy. 28%  (and declining) say it’s perfectly fine. 17% say they don’t like it but it is the right of the company to do as they wish. 12% voted “other” and include excuses regarding  preset, automated posts.

In our discussion LeGala agrees the automated posts are still the responsibility of the company. In other discussions business experts told eWedNewz the bigger companies who pay people to keep their Social Media active have an even greater responsibility; to make certain the company’s image and community standing is upheld.

Christine Boulton of Think Like a Bride told eWedNewz, “I wasn’t totally convinced during the Sandy incident with Alfred Angelo. But with this horrible event, I agree with what you’re saying.”

Boulton posted her thoughts on Facebook, as people gave their heartfelt prayers and thoughts to the victims and their families. Boulton and others found the trite posts distracting, awkward and out-of-place from the moment, giving the impression of insensitivity and a disconnect with the horrible event.

In contrast companies like Macy’s took time out to offer their condolences along with small businesses who said they would not be offering any discounts, even foregoing any sort of normal business activity.

In this ongoing eWedNewz story we welcome the thoughts of everyone, including those who disagree. In addition we await with open arms the scurrilous threats against us who are scared of being exposed as the insensitive idiots they are. We’ve warned them to stay off our radar and crawl back under the rock the came from. At this time in history there is zero tolerance or time for their stupidity.

What do you think?

eWedNewz

All Rights Reserved

2012

Filed Under: Anti Fairy Dust, Current Events, eWedNewz, eWedNewz Exclusive, Hall of Shame, Ongoing Story Coverage, Ongoing Story Investigation, Paul Pannone, Promotions, Uncategorized Tagged: , , , , , , ,

Samantha Goldberg Calls Out a Growing List of Scam Artists

Posted on November 5, 2012 Written by 6 Comments

 

By Paul Pannone

With Hurricane Sandy a bad memory there is another storm brewing called Samantha; Samantha Goldberg, the feared viscous wolf in sheep’s clothing  that arrives with some freshly baked cookies but leaves most of her victims three-quarters dead and unable to enjoy the treat. Goldberg says she is on to no less than a dozen stories and scams at any given time but this time her sights are set on what she calls a pyramid scheme.

 

Samantha’s followers on Twitter (@samanthaisgold) went from relatively nothing on September 1st, 2012 to the current   252,000 in less than ten weeks.

 

 

“They are coming out of the woodwork right now; they’re everywhere, preying on the hopes and fears of small people of our business that look to some higher, mystical magic that does not exist,” insists Goldberg.

Since taking on Wedding Wire and making their lives miserable for failing to admit there was a flaw with their rating system, Goldberg says she learned a lot in the way of patience and getting her point across. Goldberg won the support of others in the wedding business who could not get answers from Wedding Wire but the movement took it on the chin when Sonny Ganguly gracefully shot her down, refusing to take down an unflattering review. Ganguly wore Goldberg and the rest of the industry down by citing corporate policy and sticking to a scripted– canned– reply.

“It got the ball rolling and got me to this point, so it did serve a purpose,” according to Goldberg.

Now she says she’s back and ready to educate the wedding industry who she feels is being scammed by unscrupulous vultures that have set themselves up as experts; selling programs that help no one but the people selling the program.

On the top of her most recent hit-list is Natalie Bradley, self-proclaimed high-end bride expert. According to Goldberg, Bradley posted a proposal to donate a portion of money to help hurricane victims.

“She did; the problem was she never said what percentage or to whom the money would go. She would not divulge the charity until someone bought her program,” said Goldberg.

Goldberg sent the following e-mail to Bradley and copied the transmission to her fellow Wedding Water Cooler members:

 

Hello Natalie,

I hope all is well. I noticed that you were speaking of a great way to help earn money for the horrible issues we have had on the east coast on Linked in. I thought to include on this email a very reputable and rather large force of industry professionals. We speak of how we might change the industry. How to avoid the $10K in 30 days theory. You know this all too well. Wait, you are the 10K in 30 days concept…silly me.

I could sit back and allow you to find a small percentage that may pay for your services, but since I have no electric and (was) on hiatus, I can now address the issues I have with your theory. First, let me express how disgusted I am that you would use the “Make Money” concept during this time. I don’t care of retail, etc, and if they give percentages even better… BUT “YOU” are not using this in the fashion one would respect; you are using what they call “scare tactics”. Did you know that you are marketing this to my VERY own friends who have more damage than you can imagine, but were questioning if they should take your seminar as they need money quick.

Since I cannot speak badly of any program, I can only tell you, this is not a good thing to do right now. Please refrain from this angle. It’s not a threat, it’s a genuine ask. Your not going to get anyone 10K in 30 days Natalie. Well, you might- Free has a price tag…

If you are doing so well financially, why must you use the hearts/lack of funds from those who have NADA dime to pay, but yet take loans on credit cards etc because you tell them they could make 10K while this horrible issue is happening all around us?

If what you were teaching was of any value, I might be inclined to “spread the word”. Let’s be real shall we? It’s of NO value. Your lies with Linked In..stating that you were away and left someone to promote this svelte idea, was you. You forgot to change the comp and IP address. I don’t know why you would not just tell the truth and say it’s you…We all know it was.

By now, you’ve probably figured out, I have a BIG mouth..a REALLY big mouth. When I see things that are not kosher, I tend to open up a bit more…While I applaud anyone that is willing to help during time of need, I also have to look at ones history… Whom might you be giving this extra money o? Are they a 501c3? A 1023? Do they even know you are offering such an amazing bit of assistance? If they don’t, I have now made sure they do. You don’t have to thank me, I
did that already.

At the end of the day you have to feel good about the reflection in the mirror and sleeping at night knowing, your potential “hopeful” clients are really in dire need of help. Yet your making such promises that will not happen for them now, and possibly not ever.

Testimonials Pure and Heart Weddings- 2010? They are not in business any longer… a Moment like this ? Same thing.. No website No company? You listed this testimonial 2 times and 2 times is not in business. They should have taken
the 10K in 30 days I guess. www.moalifetime.com ? also just gone? You actually need to check your testimonial page– you doubled up babe.

I also did some research on my own as an industry member, I want to see what’s going on. I wasn’t thrilled with what I saw.  Natalie, you don’t have to listen to me, or anyone else…But for $199.99 I can ensure you I will teach at n/c to all of your students how to close a sale the right way. They don’t have to pay me, you do. We can donate that fund together OK? If you do sign people up with this fab deal of 10K in 30 days and have PUBLICLY listed you will help Hurricane Sandy Victims..It’s illegal not to list such funds and distribution of such… You have not partnered with Red Cross, FEMA, SA or etc. They should not have to pay you to learn where it goes.

From one woman entrepreneur to another, please do the right thing, and not take advantage of the heart strings of those who have lost everything right now. After 23 years, I teach at no charge. There are times I charge but have never had to promise anyone that they will create this massive income in 30 days. It’s wrong, and you know it.

Take time to reflect Natalie. Understand this is wrong. I am of no threat, but I do have a voice in this business a rather large one. Leave those who need to figure out where their next check comes to them. Nice gesture to offer assistance, but unless you have a valid place or organization to  donate to you cannot say this;  you can be fined and it’s a lot more than 10K. This advice is free, just like the $97 deal you offer…The difference, I give good advice and don’t promise the impossible.

Best,

Samantha Goldberg

 

eWedNewz read the original post/offer by Bradley that since disappeared after Goldberg emailed her what you just read. According to Goldberg the Bradley story ties into other marketing and pyramid type schemes involving well-known members of the wedding business. Goldberg promises to release more information in all her channels including this newZ source.

Ms. Bradley did not respond to Goldberg’s email nor our request to speak to her and give the opportunity to clarify the matter at the time of this story release.

eWedNewz will continue to investigate this story.

 

 

eWedNewz

All Rights Reserved

2012

Filed Under: Advertising and Marketing, Anti Fairy Dust, bridal, Celebrity, eWedNewz, eWedNewz Exclusive, General News, Hall of Shame, Ongoing Story Coverage, Ongoing Story Investigation, Paul Pannone, Social Media, The Internet, Uncategorized, Wedding Charities, wedding industry, Wedding planners, Wedding Water Cooler, wedding websites, Wedding Wire Tagged: , , , , ,

Through Death and Devastation Alfred Angelo Tweets about “A Line Bodices “

Posted on October 31, 2012 Written by 9 Comments

By Paul Pannone

Freedom of speech and now freedom of Tweets is a wonderful thing but with the freedom comes responsibility. Of course no one has the right to silence another or even tell them what to say. But it seems inappropriate to be talking about anything commercial while people’s lives are ruined by one of the worst storms to devastate the east coast.

 

We doubt that people devastated by the impact of this week’s storm care about A-line bodices.

 

In the midst of the storm, Alfred Angelo tweeted:

The newest wedding trend is in–Asymmetrical bodices! They are the perfect combination of elegance and fun. See them at alfredangelo.com

The tweet seemed random, awkward and out-of-place for the moment and brought criticism from members of the Wedding business, including the Wedding Water Cooler group. One Coolie summed the tweet up by saying:

“As I sit in my living room with my firewood and my pet, watching the trees sway and hoping none fall on my house (like the huge one that took out half my yard last winter) – and my husband texts me to tell me that the roads are flooded in downtown DC…and to call my mom to see if she is OK…. I think…. Damn, A-symmetrical is SO LAST SEASON. Let’s get with the program. Power is on for now, and so is the internet. The only thing that would explain that post is that the person that wrote it, must be in China.”

Other members of the group including competitors of Alfred Angelo could only shake their heads in disgust.

Angelo’s Tweet stood out among other trite posts and e-mail blasts promoting cheesy, upcoming “Hollywood” shows and look at ME, ME, ME, posts wanting attention. To single out Alfred Angelo seems unfair. But given the circumstances and devastation all around us this week it’s no more unfair than the millions of people who are sitting in the dark or who’ve lost homes and even worse, loved-ones; that is unfair.

So far we have received no response to our criticism from Alfred Angelo.

What do you think? Is tweeting and posting as usual during a horrific event right?

 

 

 

eWedNewz

All Rights Reserved

2012

 

 

 

 

Filed Under: Anti Fairy Dust, bridal, Bridal Dresses, eWedNewz, General News, Hall of Shame, Paul Pannone, Poll, Social Media, The Internet, Wedding Water Cooler Tagged: , , , , ,

Wedding Wire Caves in to Mounting Pressure from Outspoken Planner and Critics

Posted on May 16, 2012 Written by 6 Comments

By Paul Pannone

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned or a wedding planner named Samantha Goldberg getting a bad review on Wedding Wire. Samantha Goldberg keeps banging the drum against Wedding Wire and their system of ratings and reviews, rallying a growing number of discontented wedding vendors that feel her frustration.

 

Samantha Goldberg evened the score after being dismissed by Wedding Wire last year. Goldberg gets Sonny Ganguly to issue a statement in response to growing pressure she’s inflicting with her relentless exposure of flaws in the Wedding Wire system.

 

Her latest battle that began in 2011 has forced a statement from Sonny Ganguly who has continually skirted requests to say something– anything– about the matter. Ganguly replied to the mounting pressure surrounding a scammed customer that used a vendor on Wedding Wire.

 

“Thanks for sharing your concerns about this particular vendor.  Let me address a couple points:

First, I want to be 100% clear on WeddingWire’s reviews policy:  WeddingWire pulls down a review only if it violates our Review Policy, which can be found here www.weddingwire.com/shared/TermsOfUse in Section 13 and 14.  Whether a vendor is paying or not has zero impact on this policy.  Period.

Second, WeddingWire was created to help engaged couples make better, more informed decisions.   That is why we have the reviews system itself, and why both positive and negative reviews are essential to helping engaged couples.  And that is why we have left this account up on our site, so that these negative experiences can inform future brides and grooms.

Third, with regard to details on this particular vendor, she had a total of 10 reviews on our site. Eight reviews were flagged due to them being fraudulent; two were automatically removed by our system, and the other six were removed over 2 months ago as they were written from her computer (based on tracking IP address). There are currently 2 negative reviews remaining in the account, which are both from real newlyweds: EW Corp Reviews

It is our goal to provide a neutral platform for newlyweds to share their experiences. We take fraudulent behavior very seriously and have the algorithms and mechanisms in place to react quickly.  I hope this addresses your questions.

Best,

Sonny

Ganguly issued the statement after Goldberg went public with the story after months of back and forth pleading with Ganguly to consider revising the way Wedding Wire treats its vendors. Goldberg accuses the website of giving preferential treatment to paid listings and ignoring free ones.

But the statement did little more than piqué the interest of other Wedding Water Cooler members also included in the exchanges between Goldberg and Ganguly, raising more questions.

David Fuhrer, who blew the whistle on all wedding websites in 2010, questions Ganguly about the Wedding Wire practices:

“Out of curiosity & in the absolute interest of WW’s integrity & your assumed goal of transparency, allow me to pose the following inquiries for the enlightenment of all. In the interest of “your time” the most suitable means of response would most probably be to directly respond to each point (e.g. A, B, C). This will also allow for any vagueness to be alleviated as you will be responding to a direct inquiry of “how” WW performs these aspects for engaging the vendors who populate WW directories.

A) Does WW inform every vendor appearing upon the WW family of websites that they are indeed “listed” & are thus subject to reviews, be them positive or negative? These vendors are also subject to WW’s terms & conditions & the 100% litmus that WW must apply to all polices including the reviews, correct? By what means can a vendor “opt out”?

B) How does this communication with the Vendor occur? It isn’t a sales call, correct? You understand that a vendor could ignore a sales call. I’m certain given your “100% policies” that some form of e-mail confirmation that a vendor is being displayed is sent to a vendor, correct? The vendor then responds “okay” & that is their means of “opting in”, correct? Please provide a copy of that WW vendor verification email to this group.

C) Utilizing the “02420″ zip code & selecting Wedding Venues “near” that zip-code the WW “results” equate to 37 pages. The 1st page inclusive of the 2 “spotlight” listings possess an additional 22 “featured” listings for a total of 24 listings. The 2nd & 3rd pages include the 2 “spotlight” listings & have an additional 20 listings inclusive of photos, but not a “featured” connotation. The 4th page has the 2 “spotlight” listings and 7 more listings inclusive of photos. Thus in the first 4 pages of this specific search criteria 71 listings appear inclusive of photos (2 spotlight + 22 featured + 47 just photos). I assume these are all paying clients who have “opted in”, yes or no or “maybe”?

D) Picking up from page 4, an additional 13 listings appear inclusive of no photos, the name of the vendor, the town the vendor is located, a pinpoint for the vendor upon the Google map, and stars & reviews for that vendor. Pages 5-37 are inclusive of vendors denoted in the same format as referenced above & each page has 20 listed with page 37 having 3 listings. Thus the “non-photo” reviewed/ vendors for this specific search criteria equate to 143. The total non-photo reviewed vendors equals 156. The total vendors listed for this search criteria are 224.

E) Are all of the 156 non-photo reviewed/vendors aware they are on WW and subject to WW’s policies for reviews? Have these 156 vendors agreed to “opt in” to WW’s terms & conditions? Are these 156 vendors paying WW clients? If they are non-paying, how do they “opt out” of WW. I am assuming your 100% clarity on WW policies comment, that all of these 156 vendors have received a written notification that they are listed upon WW & subject to WW’s review policy, correct? (i.e. the email that I referenced which WW sends and requested that you copy this group upon…lets term it the “universal” WW opt-in subject to WW reviews & policies email…The group looks forward to your sharing it with us).

F) Just as an aside, how does WW’s radius search work? Some of the listings were for locations just short of 200 miles from the preferred “02420″ search criteria?

Thanks in advance for the copy of the WW email to vendors who have not “opted in”, and your responses to the above inquiries.”

-David

 

Fuhrer and others in the Wedding Water Cooler say the Wedding Wire system is flawed; some even say that in an extreme case like this, where there is financial loss, Wedding Wire acts as a conduit between the customer and listed vendor, becoming culpable in the act of allowing the theft to happen. As a result, some are calling for Wedding Wire to compensate the bride (s) for any incurred losses.

Vendors reading the coverage give their opinions of why the give no relevance to wedding websites and rating systems. In various eWedNewz channels followers of the story are starting to speak out, including Justin Willison

“This is why I take no stock in review sites. 1 of 1000 happy customers leave a good review. 900 out of a 1000 unhappy people leave a review. Google local bridal shops. 90% of them have 2.5 stars out of 5 or less. All bridal shops are bad? I think not. I get 2-3 bad reviews a year. And 2-3 good ones a year. Out of 500+ wedding parties per year.

I know from the hundreds of thank you cards and gifts (even wedding invites) we get that 99.8% are happy. But google rates us about 80-85%.. if one in 5 people were unhappy we’d be bankrupt years ago. These sites are a joke and most offer paying vendors the abilty to remove bad ones. Most of the bad ones are lies anyway. Unreasonable people with unreasonable expectations. Im not saying this person wasnt scammed. Im juat saying what service does a review site provide?

It’s not an accurate portrayal of customer opinions because it is such a small group and people that are happy have no reason to review.

We have a pretty good rep… but we work hard for it.. we go the extra mile. when we make mistakes we lose money. we lose future customers, we lose referrals. believe me referrals are key. almost 50% of our business (200+ wedding parties of 425) this year is prior customers or referrals coming back. but if you google bridal shops near us.. most have bad reviews 1 star or 2 star out of 5. I know a lot of these shops owners personally. they are nice people and have well trained staff but people don’t care about others livelihood.

A lot of reviews come from buyers remorse, they feel bad from the money they spent, and want to take it out on someone after the fact. It seems as if the ones spending the least are expecting the most. A lot of times they want FREE alterations or to return things after the wedding. I’ve even got a bad review from a person mad I wouldn’t buy back her $800 dress for $500 (I could buy a new one for $400) Look on google at bridal shops near you. what do you see?

I often wonder how much stock do you take in reviews Paul Pannone? Google your favorite place, restaurant, theatre, store, Etc. look at the bad review… does it seem like something that would happen there? or does it seem like a person being petty? then look at a place you’ve never been to… skip the good ones and read that place’s bad review.. now how do you feel? If you feel different about the place you have been to than you do about the one you’ve never been to.. you’ll see my point. REVIEW SITES OFFER NOTHING to the business. do they offer a disservice to the customers? I THINK SO.”

I responded to Justin’s question saying, “Like all information reviews are a guide on the way to making a decision. They should be taken as such if they come from total strangers. Family, friend referrals or caution not to use a particular vendor rates higher than some website. Common sense applies.”

eWedNewz continues our coverage of this story and investigates how some market leaders pay no attention to Wedding Wire, Websites, rating systems or anything beyond simply giving customers the best consumer experience at a fair price to grow their business.

 

 

eWedNewz

All Rights Reserved

2012

Filed Under: Celebrity, eWedNewz, General News, Hall of Shame, Ongoing Story Coverage, Ongoing Story Investigation, Paul Pannone, wedding industry, Wedding planners, Wedding Water Cooler, wedding websites Tagged: , , , ,

The Week of February 20th in Review

Posted on February 25, 2012 Written by Leave a Comment

 

By Paul Pannone

The Shortened work week of February 20th saw a huge increase in eWedNewz story interest by wedding industry members, particularly in stories  that covered Hall of Shame material. But the top story fueled by consumers involves a recent survey from Bridal Guide Magazine that gave the number one reason for wedding dress purchasing. More and more, consumers are turning to eWedNewz as a resource when deciding what types of vendor to rely on for their wedding plans.

Consumers are connecting with vendors to look for the latest trends and up-to-date products from leading manufacturers.  If the Bridal Guide survey results are any indication, price is the leading reason for their purchasing decisions– but many consumers are also looking for true value for whatever they decide on.

On the rise is the growing problem of Internet thievery and what’s being done about it. The rampant rise of internet theft is here to stay leaving professionals to work around the reality and find solutions based on that fact.

It’s befitting that a story about the presidency of the United States and the deteriorating respect towards the office be in the top stories of the week. For the first time there was not one but two generations of Duhe men that weighed in on the topic.

A story released in December, 2011, about Vera Wang and Men’s Wearhouse collaborating to create tuxedo rentals with her brand trended up into the top stories, as Internet searches from consumers beginning to look for tuxedos moved the story up. The same is true for other brands by FLOW formal, including Ralph Lauren, Calvin Klein and Joseph Abboud. The most searched brand for the 2012 season by far is the Situation, specifically, the Avalon tuxedo.

 

 eWedNewz

All Rights Reserved

2012

Filed Under: Hall of Shame, Men's formal wear, The Internet, The Week in Review, wedding industry, Wedding Water Cooler Tagged: , , , , , , , , , ,
« Older Posts