BBB a lie?

Better Business Bureau
315 N. La Cadena Drive
Colton CA 92324-2915

The Orange County Register found there were several business owners who alleged that the Southern California Bureau's telemarketers promised they could clean up their company record if they paid fees ranging from $300 to $600. The Southland bureau has a permanent telemarketing department, which accounts for about 77 percent of the bureau's $4.9 million annual revenue. The 40 telemarketers, who are paid solely on commission, make thousands of calls to businesses every week.

William G. Mitchell, the president of the Southland bureau, acknowledged problems with his telemarketing staff and said he has moved to correct them. He also expressed frustration with the quality of the bureau's reports on individual companies. "Our information is not always right," said Mitchell, who earns $245,000 a year.

For more than 75 years, U.S. consumers have relied on the bureau's torch logo and its pledge to encourage integrity in the marketplace. Some consumers mistakenly believe the bureau is a public agency, when it is not. In fact, each local bureau is a franchise of the national organization. They are all funded, almost exclusively, by businesses on its membership roster. Consumer advocates say the membership dues create a conflict of interest for the bureau.

More than a dozen consumers who contacted the Register described unsatisfactory experiences with the BBB.

The Register also surveyed 180 business owners about the bureau. Of the 97 that responded, 89 reported negative experiences. More than a dozen business owners said telemarketers used harassing tones.

Robert Scott, president of Omenicus, said the bureau's report contains numerous errors and has damaged his business.

Jim Troeller, a Fullerton businessman, states, "I see so many references to the BBB as if it's some sort of watchdog, but it's not," Troeller said. "It's just a paper-shuffling organization."

More serious are the allegations from some businesses who said bureau employees offered to clean up negative reports for a fee.

Dan Golka of United Home Improvements said a bureau telemarketer told him he could make a complaint go away. "It was a shakedown," said Golka.

Allan Lobel, of A-L Financial, had a similar encounter with the bureau.

Mitchell has been rewarded by receiving an annual income of $245,000. That is more than what the head of the national Council of Better Business Bureaus earns.
Mitchell not only makes almost one-third more than his national counterpart, he is paid almost three times more than the average chief executive of comparably sized nonprofit groups, according to a study by Abbott Langer & Associates.

Mitchell ran the Inland Empire bureau until it ran into trouble and he had to fold it. A year later, Mitchell merged his bureau with the Los Angeles / Orange County one. (With Mitchell having run a 'failed' BBB franchise, how is the BBB report on that and on Mitchell himself? I would bet that the BBB is 'silent' on Mitchell's failures.)

A very interesting & disturbing post, Sandy.
May I ask where the info came from? Was it
reported in an actual print newspaper somewhere,
or perhaps an online counterpart?

Also, is the "Southern California Bureau" the
same as the "Southland bureau"?

> Better Business Bureau
> 315 N. La Cadena Drive
> Colton CA 92324-2915

> The Orange County Register found there were
> several business owners who alleged that the
> Southern California Bureau's telemarketers
> promised they could clean up their company
> record if they paid fees ranging from $300
> to $600. The Southland bureau has a
> permanent telemarketing department, which
> accounts for about 77 percent of the
> bureau's $4.9 million annual revenue. The 40
> telemarketers, who are paid solely on
> commission, make thousands of calls to
> businesses every week.

> William G. Mitchell, the president of the
> Southland bureau, acknowledged problems with
> his telemarketing staff and said he has
> moved to correct them. He also expressed
> frustration with the quality of the bureau's
> reports on individual companies. "Our
> information is not always right," said
> Mitchell, who earns $245,000 a year.

> For more than 75 years, U.S. consumers have
> relied on the bureau's torch logo and its
> pledge to encourage integrity in the
> marketplace. Some consumers mistakenly
> believe the bureau is a public agency, when
> it is not. In fact, each local bureau is a
> franchise of the national organization. They
> are all funded, almost exclusively, by
> businesses on its membership roster.
> Consumer advocates say the membership dues
> create a conflict of interest for the
> bureau.

> More than a dozen consumers who contacted
> the Register described unsatisfactory
> experiences with the BBB.

> The Register also surveyed 180 business
> owners about the bureau. Of the 97 that
> responded, 89 reported negative experiences.
> More than a dozen business owners said
> telemarketers used harassing tones.

> Robert Scott, president of Omenicus, said
> the bureau's report contains numerous errors
> and has damaged his business.

> Jim Troeller, a Fullerton businessman,
> states, "I see so many references to
> the BBB as if it's some sort of watchdog,
> but it's not," Troeller said.
> "It's just a paper-shuffling
> organization."

> More serious are the allegations from some
> businesses who said bureau employees offered
> to clean up negative reports for a fee.

> Dan Golka of United Home Improvements said a
> bureau telemarketer told him he could make a
> complaint go away. "It was a
> shakedown," said Golka.

> Allan Lobel, of A-L Financial, had a similar
> encounter with the bureau.

> Mitchell has been rewarded by receiving an
> annual income of $245,000. That is more than
> what the head of the national Council of
> Better Business Bureaus earns.
> Mitchell not only makes almost one-third
> more than his national counterpart, he is
> paid almost three times more than the
> average chief executive of comparably sized
> nonprofit groups, according to a study by
> Abbott Langer & Associates.

> Mitchell ran the Inland Empire bureau until
> it ran into trouble and he had to fold it. A
> year later, Mitchell merged his bureau with
> the Los Angeles / Orange County one. (With
> Mitchell having run a 'failed' BBB
> franchise, how is the BBB report on that and
> on Mitchell himself? I would bet that the
> BBB is 'silent' on Mitchell's failures.)

One thing I heard was that the BBB was started by a couple of shadey guys to credentialise their business.

Think of it... with no business trading history or customers, why not start your own Business Rating thing and give yourself a good rating.

Is it true?

I don't know. But it makes for a good story either way.

Michael Ross