Supernovasearch Avis 

Réponse de Supernovasearch

Il y a 12 heures

Any client is entitled to be dissatisfied with a service and to say so publicly. This review, however, contains factual assertions that do not accurately reflect what was engaged, what was delivered, or how the matter was resolved.

First, the service purchased was Google Ads management, not SEO. The review refers repeatedly to SEO and to a third party’s assessment of our SEO capability. SEO was never the service engaged, so those comments have no bearing on the work actually commissioned.

The first month was a campaign build and setup period. The scope proved considerably larger than anticipated, and we built a campaign of 12 separate ad groups, completed within that first month, signed off by the client, and taken live at the start of the following month. That structure represented substantially more work than the modest monthly management fee would ordinarily cover, and it is difficult to reconcile with the description of a “30-minute hatchet job”.

The review suggests that few visible entries in the change history the following month means effectively no genuine work was done. That conclusion does not follow. Once a campaign goes live, responsible management does not mean making daily changes to pad the audit trail. A new campaign needs to gather performance data before meaningful optimisation decisions can be made, and constant early changes make it harder to assess what is working. The account was monitored during this period and was generating conversions.

We cannot now reconstruct the account’s later performance from our own records. Our access was revoked when the client ended the engagement, and this review was only brought to our attention many months later. We will not make claims about account details we can no longer independently verify.

We strongly dispute the claim that we removed the budget ceiling and “maxed out” the spend, costing thousands almost instantly. Removing a budget restriction is not the same as deliberately maximising expenditure, and we did not cause the account to spend in the manner alleged.

On the refund: the client emailed alleging zero activity, optimisation or management, demanded a refund, and threatened a Disputes Tribunal claim. Our response did not accept those allegations. We agreed to refund the second month’s payment, did so promptly, and also credited the following month’s invoice, which had been issued but not paid. That was a commercial goodwill resolution of a disagreement, not an admission that the allegations were correct. The client also retained the full campaign structure that had been built.

As to the Consumer Guarantees Act, this was a business-to-business engagement for services acquired for the client’s business, and we do not accept that the circumstances described in this review establish a failure under the Act.

We have no wish to conduct a public dispute with a former client, and we respect that any client can decide a provider is not right for them. We are responding only because the review presents a one-sided account as established fact, and prospective clients are entitled to see the relevant context before drawing conclusions. We stand behind the work undertaken and the good faith in which we sought to resolve this matter.