The background-check scams: Is WhitePages really better than Intelius?

updated
WhitePages has released a mobile application on the BlackBerry Bold that, among other things, lets you screen incoming callers to see who they are before you answer. For example, it lets you see if a caller is a telemarketer by checking the number against its database of profiles (video demo here). It will follow on other BlackBerry models soon.

More on the cool app in a sec. First, though, that the company’s released a call-screener is ironic, because White Pages itself has somewhat dubious tactics when it comes to marketing.

The private company took in $66 million in revenue last year, up from $62 million the year before, we’re hearing. A competitor, Intelius took in $123 million last year, up from $88 million, our sources say. There’s tons of money being made, apparently. How?

White Pages lets you find out all kinds of information about people. Its search service is free, the company likes to say. For example, it offers things like a free reverse phone book service, i.e., letting you put in a phone number to search for the I.D. of the person owning the phone number. But for many searches, “free” takes on another meaning.

For example, say you search for information on a person named “Pam Weiners.” When clicking on the results for “Pam Weiners,” you’re eventually directed to a page that asks you pay $1.95 to review the report. Let’s say you’re ready to pay. Even then, you get thrown into a wild goose chase. You click to fill out some credit card information, but it takes you to a page that offers you a $10 cash back reward on your next purchase. Well, only after reading some fine print do you see it will charge you $12 per month on your credit card. At the bottom of the page, a big “Yes” button lures you. Being clever, you look around the page and scroll down and finally find the small font wording “no thanks, not right now.” But if you click on it, you get another offer. This happens two more times. It’s seemingly impossible to get to the information you paid for. Finally, on the third attempt, if you make it that far, you might notice a “view report” button to the left amid considerable noise, and can then access it — but its far easier to continue on the loop. I tried it out with several names. A couple of times, when I clicked “no thanks,” the service simply took me to an error page (see screenshots below).

I talked with John Lusk, spokesman for WhitePages, and he acknowledged the practice but said it was offered by a third party company called US Search. I looked at the pages, and they do have US Search branding, but I was never really informed at the outset that I was being transferred to the third-party page. Lusk says that’s about to change, and that the company this week launched a new version of its site to a tenth of its users that makes it much clearer US Search is not the same company. He said it’s part of major rebranding effort by the company to make sure it restores trust with users. It will be fully rolled out by June. However, the redirects will still happen. And WhitePages is stuck: The company is sort of addicted to the money it gets from US Search for directing it the traffic. It gets paid for every click through to the US Search page, and that income is much more lucrative than the advertising WhitePages gets to its own services.

Of course, this comes at a time when a competitor named Intelius is getting dinged for similar practices. Last month, there was a long piece in the Seattle Weekly outlining some post-transaction charges that Intelius customers were getting hit with using the same small-print tactics. TechCrunch also also ran a piece about it. There’s no need for me to duplicate all the good research performed by the Weekly. But here’s what happened when I tried out Intelius. After filling out the credit card information, I was presented with an offer very similar to the one given to me over at White Pages/US Search, with a big “yes” button luring me to get it. But Intelius was at least clear about forcing me into a step by having me acknowledge I was about to pay $19.95 per month on my credit card. It also let me choose no and did so without sending me through the continuous loop. So in my book, Intelius is certainly no worse than WhitePages. Intelius said isn’t talking to the media, because it is its “quiet period” before going public.

Last week, VentureBeat reported that Intelius has acquired Spock.com, and I had a chance to talk to Spock.com founder Jaideep Singh about Intelius’ practice. He argued that all commerce sites, including Amazon, and travel sites, try to bundle products after you’ve purchased something and that most users have become accustomed to checking the small-print. He said he saw nothing extraordinary about Intelius.

[Update: Well, Naveen Jain, Intelius' chief executive, did respond after all: "We at Intellius care a lot about our users and the kind of services we provide them, that’s the reason we only offer the best quality services, and do not hide behind another company that may be using deceptive practices."]

Here’s where things stand: Intelius processes 3 million transactions a year and has had 890 complaints over those three years lodged at the Better Business Bureau — however, those complaints have since apparently been closed or resolved. Amazon, by comparison, a much larger company, has about 2,400 complaints. In other words, despite customer complaints by a minority, the vast majority of people seem to be putting up with these practices.

Back to WhitePages. It recently struck a partnership agreement with MSN.com, taking it away from Intelius. So now you can do background checks on people through MSN.com by clicking on “White Pages,” and the process takes you through the exact same process as you’d go through on WhitePages — getting taken to US Search and given the constant run-around if you want to avoid paying extra fees. (That’s the example I’ve shown below).

[Update: Intelius' Jain also had something to say about this: "The fact is, MSN users are still being subjected to these deceptive practices done by their partners. Having a company hide behind a different company, saying these deceptive practices are being done by a different company does not take away its responsibility to users.]

So back to the WhitePages app for the BlackBerry. It’s actually very cool. Unlike the app released for the iPhone in October, this application is able to integrate itself into the actual hardware of the BlackBerry phone — this way, it is similar to the WhitePages application recently released for the Android. However, the Android app just offers caller-ID. BlackBerry lets you do more, such as pull numbers from your call-log and look up information about the number-owners. If you get an incoming call from someone who isn’t in your address book, the app can ping the WhitePages database and find out if it’s a telemarketer. Or, if you choose, you can add the person’s name and other information to your contact list automatically. You can also use it to do company search — entering a company’s name with a person’s last name — to find their phone number, address and other information. You can get maps and directions too. You pay $6.99 for six months of service. I think this is great, because it gives WhitePages a source of revenue that is independent of advertising, and so maybe it will help it distance itself from the scam-like partnership with US Search. Better yet, the service is opt-in, meaning you won’t get charged $6.99 automatically after six months.

[Update 2: WhitePages chief executive Alex Algard responded with the following statement: "I think that the headline and positioning of your story is unfair. WhitePages does not do background checks, and we do not do post-transaction marketing. Some companies do, but we have chosen to not engage in that practice. End of story on that. Furthermore, I do not think it is fair to blame WhitePages for what might potentially happen on the websites of third-party websites, who advertise not only on WhitePages.com, but also other sites like Google and MSN, especially when we make it clear to users that they are clicking on sponsored ads. You included 8 screenshots, of which two are WhitePages-powered web pages. In your screenshot example, we make it clear to the users that they are clicking on 'sponsored' ad links. If you want to make an issue of post-transaction marketing, I do not think that you are picking on the right company.”]

[Update 3: I'm going to stop updating. The discussion continues in comments below.]

Below are screenshots of the WhitePages-US Search maze — they continue after the jump.

MSN Whitepages



MSN Whitepages


MSN Whitepages


MSN Whitepages


MSN Whitepages


MSN Whitepages


MSN Whitepages


MSN Whitepages

Next Story:
Previous Story:

Tags: ,

Photo of Matt Marshall

About the Author, Matt Marshall

Matt Marshall is editor and CEO of VentureBeat. Follow him on Twitter at @mmarshall, and follow VentureBeat on Twitter at @venturebeat.

  • David
    I'm a little confused. WhitePages is shady because of the conduct of an advertiser? Huh? Does not compute...
  • Bryan
    You might want to take a look at Jain's former venture and reconsider his comments on scammers.

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesst...
  • pgomory
    Matt thanks for this. Given that I'm a recruiter, I've hit the WhitePages site a number of times and it is really smarmy. And some of their data on me is wrong. Have never paid Intelius for anything and never will.
  • Jason
    This story looks more like a comparison between US Search and Intelius, not WhitePages. All the screenshots are about US Search so I do not understand what WhitePages has to do with it.
  • Ben
    Your argument is effectively that content publishers are responsible for the practices of their advertisers. This is a slippery slope. To prove the point, I clicked through on an ad that displayed on the upper right of this exact Venture Beat page - not marked in any way as advertising. It was for FRS Health Energy that immediately attempts to sign me up for a sketchy "FREE Trial" that... results in monthly billing (which of course, is only disclosed in tiny print). Would Naveen say that you're hiding behind another company?
  • Matt Marshall
    Guys -- Jason, Ben and David, really straight names there -- wonder who you are. Anyway, you're making the same argument that WhitePages does, which in this case is that a tiny "sponsored" notice in the corner is enough to flag that I'm going off to another site. But when I was going through the exercise, I completely missed the notice, and even if I had seen it, I wouldn't have known what it meant. Your example about the VentureBeat ad is just not comparable. That's clearly an ad, and you expect to click through to something outside. In fact, beyond this MSN example that I illustrated in the screenshots, I saw several instances while using WhitePages directly (not MSN's version) where there wasn't even a "sponsored" notice -- just the blue links that if you click through take you straight through to the US Search site. It's all part of a seamless experience.
  • Bryce
    Totally agree: you guys should be ashamed of your names. This weekend, while you're visiting with your mothers for Mother's Day, take a moment to let her know how disgusted you are with your straight name. Then change it to something gayer, like Nicki or Marco. www.ubersite.com/m/91024
  • Nobody
    I agreee that you can;t hold websites responsible for random ads that appear, especially since many sites use Ad networks and have little control over what appears in the ad space.

    The US Search ad, however, isn't quite the same situation. WP.com has maintained a special relationship with US Search for 5-8 years now and has deliberately designed/structured that ad to blend in with their no results page. That's very different than randomly showing a remnant ad on your site.

    WP will likely deny this, but again and again, WP employees, partners, and customers pointed out that these ads were deceptive and "tricked" users into US Search's arms, but WP Sr. management (including Alex A) refused to give up the heroin-like revenue stream from US Search.
  • David
    Yes, I guess the "sponsored" attribution notice is deceptive and far out of left field. I mean, Google has only been doing that for years ("sponsored links" on search results). You should visit Google sometime...it is a really neat site. Who would have thought of placing targeted advertisements on search results and calling them "sponsored links"
  • Ben
    LOL - reasonable critique = conspiracy.
  • Matt Marshall
    who'd have thunk? :)
  • Finally
    It's nice to see Whitepages.com getting exposed for their scam, Here is a company that wanted to make all the money from the deception and now that the scam is exposed they are left with shifting the blame to someone else. I think it's time to fess up to the crime when they are caught with your hands in the cookie jar.
  • Fact-Check
    USsearch.com's sole purpose of existence is to serve and do the dirty work for whitepages.com. Almost all of the users that visit ussearch come from whitepages.com. Alex's comments are so far from the truth and reality. He is essentially saying that we are not doing anything bad because we outsource all the dirty work to someone else eventhough we collect all the money from them anyway for the dirty work. It's so nice to see truth finally coming out on whitepages's scammy practices.
  • Stown
    Good post here, and thanks for detailing out the 'slick' side of Whitepages' business. My problem with Whitepages USSearch relationship is that it's completely designed around playing the odds of a customer making a mistake. At it's best this is an inconsiderate business practice towards Whitepages' customers, and the fact that it is such a visible and well-promoted piece of their site doesn't give Whitepages any right to throw up their hands and say they can't control what their advertisers do.

    Here's hoping, as you mentioned, that the lure of better products (like their Blackberry app) can ween WP off of this shady relationship. But knowing Alex, I doubt it.
  • There are a couple of important points to note regarding Alex's (whitepages.com CEO) comments. First, according to both ComScore and Hitwise, a substantially large portion of all users who visit Whitepages.com end up going to USSearch. In addition, over 70% of all USSearch's users come from the Whitepages.com. USSearch is completely dependent on Whitepages.com for its survival and vice versa. Whitepages.com is simply trying to hide behind another company to do its dirty work but is collecting all the rewards. USSearch has been an exclusive provider for whitepages.com to provide these deceptive services for several years. Any which way you look at it, these companies are joined at the hip like Bonnie and Clyde.

    One has to agree completely agree with the personal observation that John Cook, Editor of TechFlash made that WhitePages' post transaction marketing offers just keep coming and coming, making it nearly impossible to get to those records requests. He is also not alone when he said that he was left wondering why anyone would use this service.

    The fact that the majority of Intelius revenue comes from its repeat customers proves that Intelius provides valuable services and our customers find our advertising clear and transparent. All advertising on Intelius is reviewed and approved by our privacy and Consumer protection committee to make sure that it meets the highest standards.

    We invite everyone to try out Intelius free service that we offer to our partner AT&T (http://www.yellowpages.com/findaperson) and compare it with the service that Whitepages.com provides to MSN (shown above). You should try to go through the system end-to-end when you find no results to see how the two services compare. You will come to the same conclusion as everyone else that Intelius partners get substantially superior service.
  • Seth Godin
    The qulaity of data on Intelius' AT&T application isn't nearly up to par with WhitePages' MSN site on this "free" search. I wonder if the data is intentionally dumbed down to drive traffic to the paid services...? Or maybe the product just isn't as good.
  • Elliot Spitzer
    Matt props to you. Best post of the week across the blogs I read.

    Bottom line is as follows. THEY ARE SHADY!

    These companies are so shady and deceptive that my knees buckle when I read about them in the media.

    Your point "...In other words, despite customer complaints by a minority, the vast majority of people seem to be putting up with these practices."

    Is completely wrong. How many thousands of people just don't report this to the BBB.

    Look these guys have absolutely no shame scamming the public. What's laughable to me is Naveen Jain is attempting to take www.Intelius.com public. I am willing to bet this will be the biggest pump and dump in modern history when it hits the public markets. Actually, I don't think it will go public at all and hence why Jain is engaging with his comments - no quiet period for him.
  • Max Bardon, President, and John Lusk, VP of Marketing at WhitePages here.

    Customer feedback has been and will continue to be a critical driver of improvements we’re always seeking to make at WhitePages. While we may not agree with everything in previous comments, we do strongly believe they will help us improve our service. Check out our newly-launched site (http://www.whitepages.com/?CID=05002) to see this in action. For example, we’ve made it easier to identify ads and determine where WhitePages ends and services offered by our advertisers begin.

    To be clear, WhitePages is not in the post-transaction marketing business, and there are a few other things in this blog post which we feel are inaccurate. Advertisers allow us to offer our services for free and US Search is just one of many advertisers who find value in WhitePages.

    Trust is core to our business. It’s why we’re transparent about who we are, it’s why we engage in online communities and why we provide many ways for people to interact with us on our own sites. We welcome any and all feedback. Just send your questions and/or comments to support@whitepages.com or feel free to engage us at blog.whitepages.com.

    Max and John
  • Poster
    Vertrue.com and AdaptiveMarketing.com (Reservation Rewards) out of Connecticut is behind the scenes on all of the Intellius marketing practices, and probably contributes 25-40% of Intellius' top line revenue for the last couple years. They are the real ones you should be looking at and writing about.
  • Poster
  • Dare
    If you guys say this is shady practice then you haven't seen the real shady stuff in the people search business. I have been there analyzing and comparing sites for over 2 years and I've seen everything. Scam sites like gov-resources selling "unlimited" access to records (which is not true)...lots of companies who hide and whose address can't be found even via Whois...

    I am really happy for whoever does background check and decides to deal with Intelius and USSearch because they seem to be the most legitimate companies around (but as you said, their "legitimness" can be improved.)
  • Anon
    Reservations Rewards is owned by Web Loyalty, a company just like Vertrue/Adaptive, and it is Web Loyalty's agreement with US Search that is the issue here. Web Loyalty pays US Search a certain amount of money for each US Search customer that enrolls in the Web Loyalty program. Problem is, the majority of US Search customers who enroll in Reservation Rewards are doing so without their knowledge. A lot of money is being made from these post-transaction offers -- and their success is causing them to spread like wildfire.
  • anon
    Who gave Intellius the right to hi-jack Google? Does Google care? How much do they get kicked-back ?!!
blog comments powered by Disqus