Re: Ad in publication 0107
I placed two ads in "The Phone Book" yellow pages for 2007 under two headings, with associated listings. The ads were small, text-only, inline ads.
Pat Larsen was my representative.
Rather than allowing me to design the ads, Pat Larsen drew up ads for us, and gave us no copies of her drawings.
Proofs were provided to us later, and they had a suitable design and 100% correct information. My front desk person was contacted several times to arrange a time for a representative to pick up the proofs. The proofs were not signed, but Dion did acknowledge that they were correct and gave permission to run them as shown on the proof.
The publication has now been released, and the phone number was printed wrong on our ad. I was distraught that the proof was right but the ad was wrong.
Pat Larsen admitted fault in putting the wrong phone number on our ad. She admitted that she mistakenly copied our FAX number from the contract, and actually had mistakenly copied the *wrong* FAX number from an old contract to the current contract. This is to say that our ad was wrong with a completely wrong number. Due to Pat Larsen's poor handwriting, I did not catch the wrong FAX number on her contract; apparently she could not even read her own handwriting.
Despite admission of the error, Pat Larsen told me today that I must still pay 100% price for the wrong ad, and maintained that I should pay it because I did not return a signed proof. This is a grievously unethical practice, and is not supported in the text of the contract.
The signed contract shows the correct phone number, with no mention of a signed proof being required to absolve The Phone Book of the error.
Further supporting my position, the associated ads for web hosting and design were printed with the correct phone number.
Unless resolved, I am to be ripped off in the amount $ 480.00, not counting the damages due to people calling the wrong phone number and thinking I'm out of business!
0 comments