Posts

End of the day, the mother wasn't selling a business service and had no legal rights to send an invoice. Nor is the child old enough to enter into a contract (and the invite would have been in his name).

The kid was invited to a party, not offered or sold a service, not given any terms and conditions to the invite, so the invoice cannot even begin to stand in any small claims court. It's a farce from someone who thought she was being clever.

The only problem to lowering a price as a result of haggling for me, is that the buyer then expects to get the premium full price service. I did this once and never again. He was a handful to deal with, didn't have a clue about anything so it made it even more hard work as I had to think for him and his business (not really my job) and he was expecting to get extras thrown in that are not even thrown in for any full-paying customer, let alone someone who beat you down!Had it been a breeze then I might have felt it was worth doing.

Personally I find it rude in a professional setting to haggle down a professional service and even then, I wouldn't try and haggle down a plumber or builder. To me, their first price should be their best price. But i'd also be savvy enough to know that if I ask for it cheaply, I may not gain any loyalty from them.They will hardly want me as a customer in the future. There are folk that haggle even when they do not realise the cost they are given is actually, a good price already! They also are not savvy enough to work out that within any sale there is the hidden support/customer service that is included in the price quoted. You're paying for quality, guarantees, support of a better/higher level, etc.

Good business relationships work 2 ways. My customers who pay the full price, and on time, don't try and get stuff for nowt, and they actually earn invisible credits from me for their loyalty. 

I do odd things here and there for free or I give them lots of free advice/consultancy when there is otherwise nothing in it for me to do so - stuff that is normally chargeable.

My longest serving client deleted her ecommerce admin files in the hosting control panel in blissful error - I had her site back up and live, restored from a backup I happened to have, and at no charge, despite a churn of back and forth emails also taking up my time, until I realised what she had done.

The only time haggling should be done is if you are asking for a lot of something. If someone comes to me for 2 or more websites I am going to discount if ordered at the same time.....And not on that old chestnut "I could bring lots of work your way if the price is right". Or the 'we are a charity" and I say, well when your CEO drops his pay from £48,000 PA  to £46,000 I may consider it!

After all, what you are in fact asking is if the seller will take home less pay, so the seller has to do the maths and still make it viable to be worth taking on and in order to do say, may not be able to offer you the hidden benefits/brownie points you may otherwise have got. Just something to consider when haggling down. I think it all depends on what, when and where, as well as what you actually expect in return for your money.

Have you ruled out that it works fine 1) with a wired Ethernet connection to your own network and 2) with a dongle/mifi using another network?

Also, is the whole broadband connection lost, or just internet access e.g. voip/skype works, but the browser doesn't connect.

What time did you go out? You find these days that the young uns don't start to get into town until around 9.30/10.00pm since pub closing hours ceased as such, and longer opening hours, there's no need to be going out at 8pm these days.

I also would disregard where you rank after so few days. SEO to me, means where you are after several weeks and ongoing, do you stay there (or rise). I have seen folk bouncing off the wall and claiming success after reaching page 1 after 2 weeks of seo.....then they disappear never to resurface when the site they were proving a point with, starts to suddenly drop back. Good seo doesn't see you get to page 2 from page 14, then 3 weeks later see you back on page 7.

Ah, but the IPO lawyer actually will know what will and what won't get rejected - that's the whole point of them doing it for you and why you pay them, so that it's guaranteed to be accepted. 

I still see the second variation as a completely different word, albeit close, but that's just how I read their interpretation of what a variations means. I would be interested to see what the outcome is none the less.

With that example of the similarity I see what you mean but you know what would happen? The company who owned the first trademarked name would stick in an objection....and they can do that even after yours has been accepted.... and get it removed, as it is too alike. That's what I think anyway.

Put another way, would you ever try and trademark 'virg!n'? A lot of things are down to someone putting in an objection if not during, but after acceptance. And if it wins, you have wasted your money. Again, one reason why the IP lawyer does their extensive checks and advises you with caution.

I'm just being objective for you by the way, giving you things to consider.

Why would you want to insert an exclamation mark in the logo? Just curious!

Only an IP lawyer could really tell you if that exclamation mark will change anything in the eyes of the IPO unless someone here as done exactly the same thing.I wouldn't submit based on my own or anyone guessing, as it could be costly for you.

Using an exclamation mark could be seen as replacing the letter 'i' for example, so that then potentially changes the word from zoobks to zooibks as you are saying you want to trademark the logo not the text so that it covers the text. It's just that small conflict that could be viewed that way.

So I see your 2 samples are 2 different words. If it was zoobks and zoobks uk then i'd call this a series as in the main logo, and the second, there is consistency in the main word.

Logic also tells me if it's submitted as a series then they are both rejected, but again, you'd need to be the expert to give you a correct answer. Which I guess is why only the straightforward submissions are done DIY. Thing is, you not only have to submit again....you have to pay again too.

Yeah drives me buts when folk say 'we're top of Google'....but don't even say for which keyword. And I bet most mean for their business name! 

But I agree with you Steve about the OP's testing on that URL....it's not even a word in the dictionary that anyone would even use it and less so, be able to spell it correctly.

On site SEO works and was proven years ago, so don't think any testing needs to be done to prove it.  That said, there are still millions of business websites who fail to do their onsite SEO and with a bit of basic tweaking they could soon be on page 1 for their keywords instead of page 3, or perhaps just a bit higher up on page 1 if they're there already. It can make all the difference. Not for the highly competitive phrases granted, but your average joe business owner isn't up against the big boys and usually only wants to be top in their local area.

The thing is it's a bit skewed as they're not all real start ups in that, many of those don't actually trade, are made dormant, and are struck off after 12 months. What they should do instead, if publish the figures for those companies who submitted accounts for their first full year. This proves the fact they did actually start and run a business.

At the moment though, all this info does is confirm they formed a limited company. I own a virtual office business and the percentage that start and close within or after the first year is high. I have said it for years from when I also ran one of the UK's largest enterprise centres, that only HMRC can truly confirm any trading start up numbers.

Forming a company does not equal starting a business. Even confirming Ltd Co accounts is only a reflection for the number of Ltd Companies and excludes sole traders and partnerships.

Most start-ups do not even form a Ltd Company, so the fact it uses those figures to claim the highest number of start ups in the UK is wrong. Don't get me wrong, it might be that 2014 was higher than 2013 if they still collated all of the real figures, but to base it on Ltd Co formation alone is misleading.

I find it bizarre that you can say something offensive on twitter and be arrested, charged and even jailed for it, but yet you can draw cartoons and be as offensive as you like (under the title of 'humour') and nothing happens to you.