Complaints

This profile includes complaints for The Pediment Group Inc's headquarters and its corporate-owned locations. To view all corporate locations, see Find Local Branches.

close

Find a Location

The Pediment Group Inc has 2 locations, listed below.

*This company may be headquartered in or have additional locations in another country. Please click on the country abbreviation in the search box below to change to a different country location.

BBB accredited

Near

Country

USUnited States

Please enter a valid location.

Filter

• 

  The Pediment Group Inc

  12004 NE 95th St Ste 850 Vancouver, WA 98682-2226

  
• 

  The Pediment Group Inc

  1417 SE Rasmussen Blvd Ste 101 Battle Ground, WA 98604-8623

  

The complaint text that is displayed might not represent all complaints filed with BBB. Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:12/14/2024

  Type:Sales and Advertising Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  We engaged with Pediment about them providing publishing services for a book we had planned. The company shared our confidential plans with another news outlet in our market. That competitor then demanded that Pediment not work with us and threatened future business. No non-compete or exclusivity clause existed before our engagement with Pediment. Instead of doing the right, ethical thing - Pediment chose the competitor. Pediment did not have the right to share our plans with another party, and furthermore by refusing our business acted in an anticompetitive manner and cost us potential revenue from the book project.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 12/16/2024

  Its unfortunate this potential customer has opted to take this matter public. Perhaps theres a misunderstanding or the potential customer does not have the full picture. In any case, since BBB is asking us to respond in public, below are the details. Its a bit hard to follow because BBB is asking us not to identify anyone and the details involve multiple parties.
  
  Potential customer is the entity who filed this complaint. We have no contractual relationship with this entity and have published no books for them.
  
  Existing client is a media entity we have published numerous books for over the span of at least 10 years and we have a contractual relationship with. 
  
  A bit of background: we publish books for media companies across the country on a variety of topics. In this case, the topic in question is a book on a college football teams season.
  
  This potential customer contacted us about ********************** a book featuring theirs and a third partys content in a book about their local college football teams season. We had a warm exploratory conversation and I provided details of our program. 
  
  Because we were already in conversations with an existing client (another media company) about a book on the same local college football team, I disclosed to this potential customer the name of the other media company and that we were in the process of getting their book rolling. This potential customer expressed gratitude for the candor but it did not deter them from moving forward. To be clear, this potential customer contacted us **after** we were working with our existing client on a book on the same topic, the local college football teams season.
  
  After our call, I provided pricing and other details of our program via email to this potential customer. I then informed our existing client (the other media company) that we were in early discussions with the potential customer about a book on the same topic, the local college football teams season. No other details were shared. 
  
  Our existing client then asked us to sign an exclusivity agreement on this particular topic. Essentially, our choice was to honor the wishes of our existing client (a client of more than ten years), or move forward with this potential client who came to us second with this particular book topic. We couldnt have both.
  
  Weve built our good reputation on working with media companies for more than 25 years, publishing books that their readers love while carving out revenue opportunities for our media partners. Part of our reputation is from building trust and loyalty. When a longtime client asks us for an exclusivity agreement, we are happy to agree to their terms as a way to honor their loyalty to us over the years.
  
  As for this potential customers claim that anything confidential was shared, this is false. The only details that were shared with both parties was that the other party had contacted us about a book on the local college football teams season. We do the ethical thing by disclosing any potential conflict or competition to all parties involved (without disclosing any details of plans). Thats what I did when I disclosed our existing client relationship with this potential customer, to which they expressed gratitude, and thats what I did in disclosing to our existing client that this potential customer had reached out to us. 
  
  Furthermore, no non-disclosure agreement was signed and if this potential customer had asked us to sign a non-disclosure agreement agreement, we would have declined because it is important to us that all parties involved know the books we are working on for a common topic. What would be unethical is us hiding a second book on the same topic from an existing client only to have them surprised we published a second book upon release. We refuse to be underhanded about these sorts of things, and thats what seems to have upset this potential customer and led to this complaint.
  
  As for a resolution, we are unable to start work on this potential customers book due to our contractual obligations to our existing client. However, I shared the contact information of another publisher that does similar work in the same genre. It pains me to share a competitors information, but I am happy to try to help this potential customer find a publisher for their book.
  
  

  Customer Answer

  Date: 12/20/2024

   
  Complaint: 22686236
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  It is unfortunate the business left us few choices but the BBB. We asked them to reconsider privately and they would not.

  The reply is laced with falsehoods. First, it claims there was a different class between two clients perspective client and current client. This is false. Both clients were potential, and neither had signed agreements when we engaged. The former client last worked with the company in 2014, according to the companys own website. 
  

  Second, while the company did share with us that this competitor was considering a book, at no time did they alert us that they would make a choice between potential clients. Further, the principal in the company said businesses like ours often sell more books than those like the other company. We certainly were not afraid of competition. In hindsight we should have spotted the lapse in ethical judgement in sharing a competitors plans with us in an apparent attempt to make a sale and realized they might do the same to us, and demanded they not. We could not imagine theyd share our private plans - nor could we imagine theyd then enter into a slapdash exclusivity arrangement just hours after we had spoken. We trusted them to be ethical and deal fairly. In fairness, we do understand that the third party here also acted in an inappropriate manner, but again, they would not have had the chance if our private plans were kept that way.

  Third, the company did share another possible vendor with us after our request - not on their own initiative.  This vendor does NOT publish similar books to the one we were considering, and was clearly inferior (a non-mobile website with Flash applications is not the sign of a company who can handle digital commerce in 2024). That vendor told us they were not a fit.

  It appears we are at an impasse. We wish the vendor had dealt fairly but did not. We are glad we did not share our other book concepts in development with them so that we can compete fairly in the future.

  Sincerely,
  
  Don Day