Posted by James Dawson on 1/20/11 3:23pm
Msg #369398

New Low

SS just called me and tells me another NSA referred him to me. He added, (nsa's name) said you can do it cheaper the he can. He offers me a fee that I cannot accept.

So I pick up the phone and call the notary he mentioned and guess what, that conversation never happened. I guess they think we don't talk to each other ever if we are competitors. How desperate must they be.

Reply by bob/IA on 1/20/11 3:27pm
Msg #369400

What ss?

Reply by Glenn Strickler on 1/20/11 7:07pm
Msg #369469

And just when you think you've heard it all. n/m

Reply by Moneyman/TX on 1/20/11 3:34pm
Msg #369403

New "marketing" technique? My fee is my fee.

for companies like that, they can take it or leave it.

LOL Next time they try that you should put them on hold and call the other notary and have a 3 way call with them.

That technique might work at a flea market, but not with me.

Reply by redd on 1/20/11 3:36pm
Msg #369404

Re: New "marketing" technique? My fee is my fee.

A fellow notary in my area told me she got a call from one of our favorite SS and was asked to handle closing for $75.00. When told no way, the SS responded, "There is a notary in your town who will do it for that." She was shocked. This is a SS that has been top notch for several years.

Reply by Les_CO on 1/20/11 3:41pm
Msg #369408

Re: New "marketing" technique? My fee is my fee.

I’d ask: “Then why are you calling me? Call her.”

Reply by redd on 1/20/11 3:44pm
Msg #369410

Re: New "marketing" technique? My fee is my fee.

No doubt! I thought the same thing. My fellow notary friend said she wanted to say "You get what you pay for!"

Reply by Moneyman/TX on 1/20/11 3:55pm
Msg #369414

LOL I've actually asked them

"Then why are you talking to me right now?" LOL She answered, "because they are not available". So I laughed and said that if they wanted me pay me my fee.

Reply by MW/VA on 1/20/11 3:38pm
Msg #369405

I'm sure you don't play that game, James. Most of us know that working for a co. that uses those tactics are probably also low-payers, slow-payers, and general PIA's. LOL

Reply by James Dawson on 1/20/11 3:45pm
Msg #369412

They actually have mixed reviews in SS.

Reply by Moneyman/TX on 1/20/11 3:56pm
Msg #369415

I'd give them a rating for the call, myself. n/m

Reply by James Dawson on 1/20/11 4:13pm
Msg #369420

Re: I'd give them a rating for the call, myself.

Hopefully it was a miss-guided Puff-daddy NJ type "Scheduler" trying to be slick.

Reply by SOCAL/CA on 1/20/11 4:48pm
Msg #369429

Good, I just gave them one star for lying on a NSA! n/m

Reply by upnorth/AK on 1/20/11 4:57pm
Msg #369432

What company was this? n/m

Reply by lmb/CA on 1/20/11 5:50pm
Msg #369450

Re: Good, I just gave them one star for lying on a NSA!

I'm really not looking to deter the OP comments, so my apologies for posting here, but there was a recent discussion about the rating system (Msg #368055). I didn't add to the plethora of comments there, but at minimum, I think that SC should be used to provide balanced feedback. Giving a rating to a company that you've neither worked with or spoken to IMO seems a bit harsh.

Having said that, this may very well be a truly deserving one star company in which case, I'm sure that many SA's who've worked with them have already rated, and will continue to do so.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 1/22/11 7:09pm
Msg #369665

I think you make a very good point

I think the ratings would be much more useful - and more fair to companies listed - if we knew they were based on first hand information. It's bad enough that it's information from someone whose judgment we have no idea about, but to have it based on hearsay on top of that just further devalues it. [By this, I don't mean to question what James has posted, but just that we shouldn't be hasty about posting a low rating - or a very good one, for that matter.]

Reply by GY_CT on 1/20/11 6:02pm
Msg #369452


New low, indeed. In more ways than one.