In the original marketing materials from Pay Per Play to attract new publishers and affiliates to make NetAudioAds viable they made some statements may haunt them long term, yet they will not acknowledge directed questions concerning their claims.
This is taken from their original Marketing Materials:
NetAudioAds™ (the patent holder) already has over 550,000 registered members that have been earning income this way for 2 ½ years.
This claim is a lie and yet they will not answer directed questions about it, however they use questions directed about this and the other claim of:
Over 550,000 websites have been serving up to 43 million PPP plays each and every month for years. NetAudioAds™ millions of audio ads each month are too easily consumed by our search engine partner’s 66,000 eager advertisers, so the ad platform of 550,000 websites needs expanding from millions of audio ad plays a month to BILLIONS!
as an opportunity for them to try to denigrate people at their forum to quell the truth from coming out. They use the common tactic of sock puppets (thanks Charles for reminding me of that term) and cattle calls to try to squash open debate and even resort to libelous comments and general attempted character assassinations.
You would think 2 1/2 years of success and an inventory of 43 Million ads to be delivered they should not be having the pains that they are having now.
They have claimed that 555,000 people have been receiving income from the 43 million ad plays being served by their system for the last 2 and one half years and I claim that is an inaccurate and false claim made in their recruitment pitch from day one and I still stand by that.
People have asked me to substantiate my claims in a caustic fashion:
Charles Heflin said:
The bottom line is that Paul has told me so many allegations without proof that I frankly don't believe a word that he says about anything. He pro ports to know things that an affiliate could not possibly know... again, without evidence.
and Jason Collins said:
If you have evidence to support ANY of your claim then I challenge you to either post it here or STFU! If Charles has libeled you then I suggest that you file suit. If NetAudio owes you money then I suggest that you file suit.
To answer Charles Heflin's comments about "allegations without proof" I counter to ask him to verify the claims that he made in the marketing materials and his reply has always been "This is information given to me by Larry Host".
If cash flow were good it would not of taken a month for them to refund the former affiliates for the fees they paid in and if those affiliates that helped build the 550,000 registered member base were being compensated for the last 2 and one half years for ad plays then there would be no need for Pay Per Play. Those affiliates would be referring others to Voice2Page and NetAudioAds and the built in marketing ability of half a million people would have more publishers and users than Pay Per Play could ever pull off.
I challenge Charles and NetAudioAds to prove those statements made in the marketing materials that anyone with average intelligence should be able to see through. As an original affiliate with the company, personal contacts with the original affiliate manager and other investors in the company I can state without a doubt these claims are complete hype and overly forward false statements.
And to answer Jason Collins. I gave Charles Heflin a pass for his previous libelous statements made at the Affiliate Tips Blog based on a gentleman's agreement, because he even admitted to me that he drew the wrong inferences from conversations with Larry Host and Sam Deeb but now he is trying to use false statements and crystal ball powers to denigrate me at his forum to keep from answering the tough questions
I wonder how he knows what I will say and the evidence brought forward in this post should give anyone with minimal intelligence to second guess anything coming from NetAudioAds or Pay Per Play.
Maybe it is time to file a suit, because he is taking every pop shot he can on his turf and is banning me from posting in his forum after he published comments designed to denigrate and diminish stature and I have never attempted to discredit his integrity just publish the facts as I see them.
Here is the definition of Libel from www.law.com:
libel
1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others.
Take that as food for thought and to Victoria I will address your concerns in a post soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment