How to upset a salesman!

How to upset a salesman!

Didn't find your answer?

Many months ago I put a posting on AW to offer any fellow accountants who wanted it a copy of Eureka timerecording software which I bought and never used. Incidentley no body bought it.

I have just had a VERY rude call from Eureka stating I should be ashamed of myself that I stated it cost £350 when it apparently cost £175. The 'gentleman' proceeded to tell me how disgusted I should be of myself for lying and I had no right to sell it anyway and before I had the full oppurtunity to discuss it the phone was slammed down.

So public apology - I unreservedly apologise if I stated I had paid more than I had - I truly didnt do this on purpose. I believe from memory when I put the posting on AW I had a quick look at the Eureka list price - I truly cant remember. If somebody had offered me £20 they could have had it.

But secondly I REALLY do not appreciate calls made in such a rude manner. Politeness costs nothing. Guess who I shall never buy from or recommend again!

Isnt it a shame that AW is being used in such a way - it started off as a very friendly forum for accountants to exchange views and assist each other and is now clearly being used by many for other purposes - great shame.

Nicola Jones

Original comment edited by AccountingWEB

Replies (29)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By dan06
06th Feb 2007 12:28

AWEB response
Nichola, we have edited your orginial comment above because you were still offering the software. As previously stated, Any Answers cannot be used to sell items.

Dan Martin
Business Editor
AccountingWEB

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Neil Douglas
06th Feb 2007 12:15

salesman
Dear Nicola,

I apologise for slamming the phone down, I have never done that in 15 years but then again I have never seen anyone try and do what you appeared to do. whatever your opinion on your apparent absentmindedness on our original price you should still have known you do not have the right to sell our software.

I have received an apology from AW who have removed your original 'question'.

I find it amusing you criticise AW for allowing AW to become a forum for 'other purposes' when you yourself have tried to use it to sell something. Kettle pot black.

Putting someone in their place doesnt mean you are not a gentleman, You appeared to be reluctant to discuss the matter instead asking me to put it in writing, I suspect I beat you to putting the phone down..

Neil

Thanks (0)
avatar
By deanshepherd
07th Feb 2007 09:31

Thanks for the tip Tom..
..I will have to check it out.

I was testing another 'timer-style' recording software but I was forever forgetting to log out when I went for lunch - don't think the clients would be too happy with being billed for that!


(p.s. Nicola.. eBay is your friend!)

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Neil Douglas
06th Feb 2007 13:23

lesson learnt
OK maybe little lesson learned here as well.

I am much nicer than those other salesman.

fancy a pint?

No didnt think so.

Neil

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
06th Feb 2007 14:44

Happy Ending
oh...I'm glad its finished

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
06th Feb 2007 12:56

.
Oh dear, Nicola what where you thinking, trying to set up a side line of selling unwanted software, next we’ll have thousands of accountants trying to sell unwanted sage products and the like, where will it all end :-)

It sounds like the software company in question could have handled it far better too, but I guess it serves as a guide/warning to the rest of us when looking for a software provider with customer service with a smile :-)

More than anything it yet again goes to show the pitfalls of making posting on the internet, potentially such a legal minefield.

Jason
Holden Associates
The Small Business Blog

Thanks (0)
avatar
By tomtrainer
06th Feb 2007 21:47

Pot/Kettle
It's really come to something when a salesman thinks you should be ashamed of yourself!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By tomtrainer
06th Feb 2007 22:24

Vakcer Time Recording Software
Just got an evaluation copy of this and it seems brilliant. It automatically records the length of time for which any document is active (not just open) and allows you to allocate that document to a client/project.

It stops the timer if you don't touch the mouse or keyboard for a while, and has a one-touch facility for non-computer tasks too.

And it only costs USD 39.99. Demo at www.vakcer.com

Thanks (0)
avatar
By ACDWebb
09th Feb 2007 08:27

understand or not?
eeeeeeeeeeer - Not

:)

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Neil Douglas
08th Feb 2007 11:17

the end
I also accepted your apology the other day, I am surprised you continue to post here when you want to appear to end the matter.

I wish you well with your new suppliers and hope your experiences are better than this and also the appalling service you seemed to get from Sage.

There was no torrent of abuse Nicola, you had ample chance to defend yourself you just didnt I put the phone down in the end because you wouldnt answer me.

The reality is if you had been offering for £ 20 or something I may not have bothered but £ 350 well that was a different matter but I will accept you were trying to save the world poor accountants.

I have said my piece and so have you. Let that be the end, amen.

Neil

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
08th Feb 2007 12:38

[***] for tat
As a member of AWeb I have watched this spat and thought how would I react.

Firstly, I think Nicola feels agrieved, and looking at your postings Neil, I can understand why. I don't know what your role is at Eureka but if was the owner/board I would be livid at what I have seen posted here from you.

Everyone has disagreements and forums like this are easy to have misunderstandings on, all the more reason why one should always take great care when posting.

I now know Eureka is a company that I would from now on going forward aviod purely based on what I have seen of your postings on here Neil. You also seem intent on having the last word. As the community made up of a large number accountants in practice and industry together with non accountants I think you Neil have done a lot of damage to your company and its profile on here.

Nicola, I also think offering for sale on AWeb a product you bought was a moment of judgement lapse. Not knowing what you paid for it is not the best excuse from an accountant, however, I assume like me you are always spending several hundred pounds on a regualr basis on software just to see if there is something better than what you currently have, and no doubt like me you find what you have really is pretty good.

I have no doubt that Nicola certainly had no intention of trying to make money from the software Neil and no doubt made her postings genuinely without knowledge of the true value, thats not to excuse Nicola from trying to sell your software, but AWeb is used by many to promote their wares it's just a shame Nicola chose your software, or should i say for the rest of the community its a good thing as we have now seen first hand what kind of company you are, how you deal with customers and the like, and we can now all ensure we and our clients avoid dealing with you in the future.

Personally Neil i think you should have contact Nicola to politely point out the error of her posting, which is sometime ago now and therefore had no doubt been forgotten by all, yet you seem intent on making a big public spectical, one that has not been pleasent to witness.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
08th Feb 2007 13:14

I think it is a shame that the reputation of a firm
can be damaged in this way.
I think Neil Douglas was quite within his rights to telephone this woman and ask her what the hell she was playing at.
To come on here and offer for sale software is not only a breach of the licence agreement, but also is not the purpose of the forum.
The forum moderators are also to blame. The posting should have been pulled straight away and the person advised of the error of their ways.
Regular users of the forum are well aware that selling and self-promotion are strictly prohibited.
If I was Nicola I would be apologising unreservedly to Mr. Douglas and also count myself fortunate that he has not taken the matter further.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Neil Douglas
08th Feb 2007 14:05

FTAO Aweb member
OK fair enough that is to your credit actually a balance well thought out view which is what these websites are about.

I reiterate that we as a company have had no such experiences in 15 years the reality of life is that you cannot keep everyone happy but as a rule I believe we have in a lot of cases. Accountants are very critical of software houses as a rule particularly the larger companies and I cannot accept responsibility for that.

I do not accept your last word comment, I apologised to Nicola, she to me and AW apologised too, Nicola then came on here again 2 days later to start the matter up again and criticise. Another member also appears to have issues with Nicola which I have nothing to do with.

I accept that this may put some people off us as a company particularly as this is an accountants website, but the fact that I have come on to this website and tried to defend this company I think should be perceived as quite brave really. I will now step back. If somebody does not want to buy our software as a result of my actions then that is their right but the issue of selling rights and security are a much bigger issue to most software houses.

Neil


Thanks (0)
avatar
By pgittins
08th Feb 2007 14:15

Confused of North Yorkshire .....
I've read this thread with interest, and particularly the comment a couple of posts down, that "Regular users of the forum are well aware that selling and self-promotion are strictly prohibited".

Really? I see it quite a lot in response to queries posted here ("Dear so-and-so, my company has a great bit of kit / software / service which will solve all your problems ... please call me on ....") Including, ironically, Neil Douglas on another thread ("Time Recording software").

What I find equally surprising is to see a practising accountant who's prepared to pay £200 or so for a piece of software, and then never used it. I'm clearly in the wrong line of business ......!!

As for bringing any of this private dispute into the public arena .... well, I'm not sure I'd want to have a professional relationship with either Eureka OR with Nicola Jones ......

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Neil Douglas
08th Feb 2007 15:56

Threads etc
Hello Paul,

Im alright really.

In fairness I do also help people with other issues on here such as accts disclosure etc. I stopped doing this a couple of years ago as It seemed to me a lot of exam questions were being posted on here. Looking at it recently I think the site has got its act together and seems a lot of better I will contribute where I can to help any users from now on.

Neil

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
08th Feb 2007 16:23

.
This one has run.

It seems irrespective of people’s view of Neil and his handling of matters that Nicola tried to sell something she had no right to sell.

I would say its lucky Neil and his company aren’t one of the bigger more litigious inclined operations.

It would also be a shame to think that the reputation of Eureka could be harmed, when in fact all Neil has done is protect his business and its rights.

It goes to show that AW needs to monitor postings better and deal with breaches such as Nicola’s trying to sell a product.

That said, it would not have occurred to me that Nicola could not sell it on. You learn something new every day.

Jason
Holden Associates
The Small Business Blog


Thanks (0)
avatar
By neileg
08th Feb 2007 16:46

Mmm...
I suspected these threads would run, so I've held off.

We should all know that when you buy software, you are almost always buying an EULA, ie a license, not the rights to own the software. So Nicola doesn't own the software.

It is debateable whether the EULA can legally prevent the sale of the physical medium, the manuals or the packaging (though many include such a clause, it's unlikely to be enforceable). So Nicola may well have the right to sell those. The buyer does not have a legal right to use the software, but that is an issue for the buyer, not the seller.

Some software houses have decided that enforcing the EULA may not help their reputation or their customer base and offer a way of 'second users' legitimising their software.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Neil Douglas
08th Feb 2007 20:17

Jason/Neil
Thank you for your contribution to what I think actually in the end became a fairly interesting week on AW personally speaking. Opinions are divided for as many people who resent me for what I have done a lot also respect me, there are as many opinions as there are people as they say at least I had the nerve to stick my neck out.

The truth is I hear so many accountants complain about software houses and the way they are treated (one company in particular) then it is everyones favour that such firms do not have such a dominant position as it is clear in many cases that such dominance is being abused. In order to stifle competition the larger software houses have for some time been buying out the smaller outfits and in some cases ditching / refusing to support the product they have bought.

Believe it or not even after this week and what some of you may think it is in everyones interest that small software houses fight on.

I reiterate again my apology to Nicola as I have previously and wish her the best with her new suppliers, of the 3 companies she listed recently as being nicer at least two (PTP & Digita) of them I have had dealings with in respect of import / export routines and found them to be decent companies employing decent people on support. If I were a 'salesman' as some people wish to categorise me I suspect I would never have made the above statement in a million years.

Neil Douglas ACMA MAAT

Thanks (0)
avatar
By steveoneill
08th Feb 2007 20:55

Money Laundering!!!!!!!
A quick quote from the SOCA guidence notes direct from their website

"A limited intelligence value report is required where the benefit of criminal conduct is in the form of cost savings, such as the illegal copying or distribution of software licences".

Since no one took Nicola up on her offer to buy the software from her, even at £20, then has been no proceeds of crime, therefore no reporting matter. However we as accountants are required by legislation to report any client who is or has done what Nicola tried to do, albeit I believe in jest, bourne out of frustration in Nicolas point of view.

We now have full criminality of failure to apply the requirements of the ML Regs built in in Regulation 41 of the ML Regulations 2007 targeted directly at us the practitioner. Ladies and Gentlemen, time is running out. The nasty arm of the 'compliance assurance officer' is fast approaching. Should we not all be looking at our own compliance a bit closer, especially when a breach of the ML Regulations is quite openly debated !!! Does this not demonstrate our ignorance of the legislation we have to work under, when it is openly flouted on an internet site?

Steve O'Neill
Business Tax Centre

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
09th Feb 2007 07:07

Site admin guidance ...
Interesting exchange with sympathy for both sides; although all concerned could have gone about matters in a more sensible manner.

No-one really bothers to read EULA's, however, it is a salutory lesson all round. Additionally as I read Stephens (Money Laundering) posting even though there was no criminal act committed there was in fact (unwittingly) intent - however, that is a whole bag of worms and another issue ....

Frankly selling goes on all the time in AWeb (either directly or covertly) and this is a fact of life. Direct selling is obvious and illustrated in this instance but the covert aspect refers to articles, advice or contrived questions etc. accompanied by URL's, email addresses, blog redirects and so on.... They may not actually be selling for money but neverthless thay are selling awareness of someones product or services and this is a marketable commodity

How many times have you seen replies to questions followed up by for more information contact ..... Ultimately this is a form of selling and accordingly one has to define precisely what is acceptable on this forum; where do you draw the line?

Over to the site admin for guidance

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
09th Feb 2007 08:51

Talk about storm in a teacup!
Reading the posts from top to bottom i.e reverse date order it would appear that Nicola had been burning copies of this software and touting them for sale all over the internet! Perspective please software people (and contributors). This was clearly without malice and a simple reply to her thread saying "actually Nicola you cant do that!" would have finished the whole thing in 10 seconds.

As for MLR .. grow up ... there are real criminals in the world and just how much do you think we will contribute to their capture by tying up valuable time with endless stupid reporting. If you are not convinced here is a list of people to report:

Taxi drivers
Plumbers
Builders
Painters
Gardeners
Caprenters
etc etc

Sometimes these people do work for cash and sometimes they spend it on breakfast and sometimes they forget to put it in their books. When these 0.5 million have been investigated, I will give you another list.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By steveoneill
10th Feb 2007 10:34

Reply to Steven Holloway
Steven

On the ML issue, I am afraid to say it is not me who needs to grow up, it is you who needs to wake up.

The ML reporting regime is an 'all crimes' regime with no de minimus limit. It is our obligation to report any reasonable suspicion of a ML offence, not matter how big or how small. Your comments give an attitude of 'judge and jury'.that is not your job but the role of law enforcement agencies. You seem to want to apply your own ideas in condratiction to the law.

The Financial Intelligence Units reports have identified the accountancy sector as the worst in the regulated sector for this, with the money launder knowing it, with less than 20% of all firms ever filing a single report in almost three years.

Obviously you have not clearly understood your obligations under POCA 2002 amd ML Regs 2003, so you will be in for bigger shock with the 2007 Regs.

Regulation 41 states that is a criminal offence not to apply a continuous system of risk assessment, vericiation, monitoring of transactions and reporting of all reasonable suspicions, even for those clients pre 1 April 2004, to an industry standard. You have to give staff training on all the issues at regular intervals. And yes, there is full monitoring for it for anybody in the industry, including bookkeepers and payroll bureaus. To act for a client without being registered for 'ML assurance' is also a criminal offence.

This is not new, under S330 there has always been the 'objctive test of negligence' for those who fail to report when they should have known, failure to compy fully with the requirements of the ML Regs is negligence.

The intent of law enforcement is to make the accountancy industry comply, as yet we do not know the level of resources that they will throw at the task, but we expect that initially to get the message across it will be more than normal, The CPS has full guidance on when to prosecute already issued. The HMRC internal guidance gives you an insight into this. To quote,

Those accounants that facilitate a culture where clients can commit a money laundering offence are ' centres of infestation', they continue;

'where there is evidence of tax evasion (an enquiry) and the accountant has failed to report, he has committed an offence, we (HMRC) will lead the investiagtion into this and prosecute accordingly'.

Getting 'caught' by the 'ML Assurance Officer' with a civil or criminal breach of the Regulations in simple terms means your are permanately out of business, now that is a good place to start on your mandatory risk assesment for your practice and on your clients.

Stephen O'Neill

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
12th Feb 2007 10:44

MLR were designed to be impossible to implement

Stephen O'Neill is correct

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
12th Feb 2007 12:41

Which is it?
The accountancy profession is (a)

a complete Fagins den of corruption working hand in hand with criminal clients ... or (b)

It works hand in glove with the Revenue and authorities to the detriment of its clients.

Both of these are accusations made on AWEB and presumably they cant both be true can they? Like most accountants I know, I just try and help people to get things right in a very complex field and in a real and not always perfect world. I don't help or encourage them to defraud and as far as I am aware they are just ordinary people trying to pay the mortgage. When that is not enough, well I'm out of here guys!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
12th Feb 2007 17:01

Clarification
When I said Stephen O'Neill was correct, I did not intend to endorse any negative comments about Steven Holloway., and I apologise if that is how it appeared.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
12th Feb 2007 19:29

The Funny Side.........
From Eureka's Homepage:

"We are committed to supplying quality software products designed to satisfy genuine client needs, and to the provision of prompt, courteous and efficient after-sales care. Eureka Software's success is rooted in its willingness to listen and respond to customers' evolving requirements...."


And from Nicola's:

"We place a great deal of importance on being approachable."


I'd like to bid £5 Nicola, if you're willing to include the bin.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
13th Feb 2007 07:41

Sales ... what sales ????
Refer to a recent posting:
https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=164946&d=1031&h=1023&f=1026&dateformat=%25o%20%25B%20%25Y

In the light of:
Dan Martin, 06 February 2007 @ 12:28 PM
AWEB response
...... Any Answers cannot be used to sell items .......
Dan Martin
Business Editor
AccountingWEB

Frankly someone at AWeb needs to state what the rules are....

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
13th Feb 2007 08:34

Arnold ..
no offence was taken .. mine was just a personal rant against the continued insistence by this goverment that everyone is responsible and accountable for doing the governments job for them.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
13th Feb 2007 11:16

Steven
My link was to a personal rant about the Government too, but over something far more sinister.

Thanks (0)