<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.techrepublic.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on ProSavvy promises to match consultants with projects ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/15-162795]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/15-162795/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-06-20T04:06:43-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Eric Starck is right]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/15-162795-2477076]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Thank you Eric Starck for voicing against Pro Savvy's stinky policy. As an independent consultant, I have faced exactly what you have. My business has suffered exactly the way yours has for the cheating policy. I actually had to pay $5000 for my first year's subscription during 2002 and only got a few responses out of which I really got 1 tiny-mini contract out in the whole year. It was a total loss of my time and investment that I could have otherwise, spent efficiently to bring business and not respond to these stupid bids that do not go anywhere. What a way to do screw people!More surprisingly, I recall my conversation with one of the Marketing agents who lured me to this contract, mentioning that Neil Walker (I believe is the founder of ProSavvy) is a graduate of some Ivy League school (I forgot which one it is). What a shame, if that is true!Bhaskar RoyWeb Traits, Inc.1.240.731.6120]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/15-162795-2477076]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[bhaskar.roy@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 00:03:53 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Prosavvy has become Eworks and the 419 fee in advance scam continues]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/15-162795-2236320]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Before plunking down a large deposit on any service like Eworks ask yourself why the large front loaded fee.Services that believe in their business model do not have to front load profits. Sure they can request a reasonable retainer or deposit but the prosavvy, eworks approach is a &quot;grab what you can now&quot; model. Why? Perhaps its because they know from experience that their service does not return a profit for most all  clients and if they based their ROI on shared commissions they would not earn anything either. Just look at the BBB, www.ripoffreport.com, and the soon to be www.conjob.com. There's no shortage of Eworks victims out there.Never pay huge up front fees to anyone. Always pay as you go so you can at least stop the loss and file a complaint.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/15-162795-2236320]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[jdurban@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2007 11:56:21 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Pro savvy's Unethical Business Model - or a classic &quot;Bait and Switch&quot; Game]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/15-162795-1671607]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[We have been consultants signed up with Prosavvy (or prosavvy.com) for 3 months. The cost of signing up is $3999 for 14 months of access to the projects posted on their websiteWe have come to the conclusion that Prosavvy fundamentally misrepresents itself in its web copy and contractual agreements. That misrepresentation is troubling to us - particularly as we have paid you money so as to be able submit responses to RFP's posted on the Prosavvy site as being open to submissions.We started out by being impressed by Prosavvy- by Prosavvy's programming systems and the response of Neil Walker to queries during the set-up process. We engaged wholeheartedly in the spirit of what we had been led to believe by Prosavvy -- from Prosavvy's copy, Prosavvy's contract, and a friend of ours who was a friend and consultant ( yes, Prosavvy needs consultants) to David Proestos, Prosavvy's President -- that we would be part of  a clean, ethical transmission of interest of consultants in projects that had been submitted to Prosavvy or solicited by Prosavvy. We have since discovered that the process is frequently, if not regularly manipulated by the Prosavvy staff and/or its President, David Proestos to the detriment of one if not many other consultants. If, as Prosavvy says, occasionally it is retained by the services requisitioner to vet and advise about potential contractees - what it specifically designates as the &quot;Personalized Search Service&quot;, the Prosavvy manipulation of the process is acceptable within Prosavvy's contractual agreements and, indeed, Prosavvy states in its contract that when a firm is approached under the &quot;Personalized Search Service&quot;, the firm shall be told that that is the situation. The clear implication is that Prosavvy does not therefore manipulate the normal submission process. We can find no reference to the fact that Prosavvy's reserves the right to pass on, reject, place lower or higher on a &quot;list&quot; any consultants' submissions.We have found this not to be the case and that manipulation of submissions Prosavvy's president, David Proestos and the Prosavvy staff is a part of Prosavvy's undisclosed business model.We discovered that Prosavvy submits its consultants' responses based on favoritism and predilection rather than as they are submitted. Indeed, we sense that many of our submissions were not even submitted to the potenmtail client. We did discover that there is a &quot;hidden&quot; list of consultants whose submissions are seen and another whose submissions are not. We were fortunate: a friend had an in with the President, David Proestos, and she was able with one call to get us put up high on the submission list.Ethically, we find such corporate, undisclosed manipulation more than suspect and particularly when Prosavvy has presented its paying consultants with what masquerades as a fair, open, and clean submission system.If Prosavvy wishes to run such a business, we suggest that it charge the project submitters for membership and not the consultants. But that is not the case. Prosavvy charges us, the consultants for submission rather the submitters. Paying Prosavvy a fee should allow us to be seen by those companies that are seeking services such as those that we provide. But this is not the case. From research on the web, we note that there are a number of dissatisfied buyers of Prosavvy's  misrepresented service with its undisclosed business model. We would have expected that if David Prestos is attempting to sell Prosavvy, as we have been told, then an unethical and undisclosed business model will not helpful to that sale.So, when one is dealing with Prosavvy, one is dealing with an organization that submits its consultants' responses based on favoritism and predilection rather than as they are submitted. There is a &quot;hidden&quot; list of consultants whose submissions are seen and another whose submissions are not. We were fortunate we found a friend to get us put up high on the list.Eric StarckGanoga]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/15-162795-1671607]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[ganoga@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 04 Nov 2004 12:02:54 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

