ROSES ONLY

THOUSANDS OF PHONY FLORISTS ACROSS AUSTRALIA

Roses Only Gets Exposed by the ABC

Idiots & Bully Boys, Roses Only Group & FlowersCorp think they have been playing at clever marketing while misleading consumers and raking in $millions by unfair competition. However Rod Sims of ACCC says otherwise.

The dishonest behaviour set out below, will continue until there is intervention by the ACCC.

Fake.Florist 1300.Flowers 1300.Florist
are undergoing continual updating.
Latest updates 8 July 2021.

WARNING AUSTRALIA'S

Duplicitous (i.e, falsely stating to be at a location when they are not at that location) Fake Florists take 25% to 65% in undisclosed commissions, they do not sell flowers, they just take orders and payments for the flowers from which they take their commissions. The fakers are known in the florist industry as "Deceptive Order Gatherers" or "DOGs".
DEFINITION OF A FAKE FLORIST

"GOOGLE" AIDS & ABETS OR OTHERWISE ASSISTS THE FAKERS, BECAUSE GOOGLE MAKES MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF MONEY FROM FAKERS BY WAY OF PUBLISHING THOUSANDS OF DISHONEST GOOGLE ADS LIKE THOSE BELOW:

THE FLOWERSCORP PHONY FLORISTS

Stretching from Noosa Heads to Pelican Waters, the Flowerscorp corporations have saturated the Sunshine Coast in Queensland with well over a HUNDRED Sarah's and Meg's PHONY FLORISTS. This is the Flowerscorp strategy, and they have created similar instances of duplicity right across the rest of Australia, and thus they join with all the others in the Fakers Gallery.

GOOGLE'S DISHONEST CONTRIBUTION TO FLORISTRY

The above 12 examples of Google Ads plus the Flowerscorp slider, illustrate Australian florist searches with Google.com.au. It is a small sample of DISHONEST Google Ad results, and across Australia there would be thousands of similar dishonest results being retrieved daily. 
Across Australia (along with similar activity across the Globe), Google generates HUGE REVENUE from similar searches resulting in the fakers getting to top of the page.

The "OVERALL IMPRESSION" given to consumers is that the Fake Florist is located at the location that is searched.
THIS IS A FALSE IMPRESSION AS THE FAKER DOES NOT EXIST AT THE SEARCHED LOCATION.
The false impressions are arguably FRAUDULENT, and in any event are multiple contraventions of Australian Consumer Law (ACL).
 This is because because they mislead or deceive consumers or are likely to mislead or deceive consumers, in contravention of section 18 of the ACL. That is:
18(1) A person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive.

A further arguably false "OVERALL IMPRESSION" given to consumers, is that some the Fake Florists are local florists independant of each other, when they are not local at all, or independant at all, by having the same Parent Company and sharing the same directors. This further matter is under investigation.

Google would no doubt rely on a High Court decision in Google Inc v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) which has enabled Google to practise MAHEM in relation to Truth in Advertising.
THAT MATTER was about false representions of an association with a company when there was no association, and in the context of section 52 of the now repealed Trade Practices Act (1974), and where the "Aiding and Abetting" provisions of the legislation were NOT APPLIED i.e, - ZIP - NADA - NOTHING!!!.  

THE CURRENT ACTIVITIES of Google are in a totally different set of circumstances, in that it matters not if Google is adopting the false representations as their own, what matters is the OVERALL IMPRESSION GIVEN by Google to consumers;
• WHEN Google Aids and Abets or otherwise assists, publishing the falsities in the circumstances of the Google utter hypocrisy and dominance as set out below;
• AND what Google itself REQUIRES of Real Florists (or any other business promoting itself) so as to not mislead consumers, as set out in its own "Guidelines for representing your business on Google";
• AND consequently Google has full control of what businesses publish on paid advertising for Fakers, whether it is via the said Guidelines or the Google Ad Vetting Policies;
• SEE: GOOGLE BULLSHIT ON MISREPRESENTATION and DUPLICITY.

GOOGLE previously saying to the High Court that it is just a MERE CONDUIT for what the businesses compose, does not hold water anymore.

A BOTTOM LINE IS THAT GOOGLE DOES NOT APPLY ITS OWN GUIDELINE REQUIREMENTS TO ITS MASSIVE REVENUE SOURCES DISPLAYED ABOVE.

Recent events in Australia during February 2021, have illustrated the dominance and power of Google (and Facebook) on the Australian Business Scene, see also NEWS ITEMS (below).

The publisher of Fake Florists is of the view that given Google's dominance which can be described as a monopoly, brings with it a duty of care to act fairly and reasonably to all and not act unconscionably.
• 
Google seems to not like this website as much as Bing does:



How Google Ads display on a mobile phone.

2021 statistics (source) show that internet use by mobile phones to be 56 per cent of all traffic. The benefit of getting to the top of a Google Search Page is especially relevant for a consumer using a mobile phone when a quick choice is desired.

GOOGLE ADS MOBILE PHONE

Price gouging?

Given the virtual monopoly created by Flowerscorp in the above mobile phone example, there exists the opportunity for price gouging. Here are two examples of what is for sale on the Meg's Flowers and Sarah's Flowers brands, which demonstrate a more than healthy profit margin for the Flowerscorp controller...

MEG'S FLOWERS SUNFLOWERS

Meg's Flowers example

10 Sunflowers @ $89.95 + delivery $14.95 = $104.90
Wholesale price of 10 Sunflowers $18.00 + GST.

SARAH'S FLOWERS TULIPS

Sarah's Flowers example

10 Tulips @ $89.95 + delivery $14.94 = $104.90
Wholesale price of 10 Tulips $16.50 + GST.

AND NOW THE GOOGLE UTTER HYPOCRISY

Google sets up a system for Real Florists (below the Fake Florists).

However, while collecting huge revenue from Fake Florists, Google inserts serious obsticles in the way of Real Florists getting a spot on the Real Florist System by requiring onerous verification of the Real Florist existence by:

  • mailing a postcard (from ??? in the world) with a Verification Code to the Real Florist where the code is to be inserted in the Real Florist's Google My Business profile.
    TROUBLE IS the postcard never arrives.
  • Alternatively according to Google instructions, requiring LIVE Video Verification where the Real Florist is to show a Google specialist around the Florist's work space and business... AND also requiring the following ONEROUS INTRUSIONS...
  • "If you meet customers on your premises we’ll want to see your public space as well."
  • "If you service your customers at their location, you can show us the tools and instruments that you use to cater to your customers."
  • "If you use a vehicle to get to your customers, you can show our specialist the license plate of your registered motor vehicle (sorry, no public transit accepted at this time) and your business logo on the vehicle."
  • Google REFUSES to accept a current ASIC Business Registration certificate listing the Florist's ABN, full name and business address, as Verification instead of the above onerous video intrusion.
  • Google REFUSES to allow Genuine Online Real Florists with ASIC Business Registration into its REAL FLORISTS SYSTEM or its GOOGLE MY BUSINESS PLATFORM.
THE CROOKED GOOGLE SYSTEM

THE RESULT:
is that Google protects its Fake Florists from fair competition with Genuine Online Real Florists, by denying Online Real Florists entry into its Real Florists System and its Google My Business platform. 

THE UTTER GOOGLE HYPOCRISY IS:
that no Verification or associated Requirements (such as ONEROUS INTRUSIONS) are required from the ONLINE FAKE FLORISTS who are spending oodles of money with Google, and who almost NEVER identify to consumers in their online publications: 
• their place of business;
• that they are NOT Real Florists;
• the commissions they charge a Real Florist to provide the flowers;
• the identity or address of whoever is fulfilling the flower orders at a location published by a Google Search;
• or that the flowers may be provided from a distant warehouse not in the location published by Google Search;
which is in STARK CONTRAST to what Google requires of Real Florists.

AND ADDING TO THE TRICKERY, Google publishes local telephone numbers (as per the above image) which are redirected to a call centre, in this case... in Brisbane. This is a clear indication of a dishonest intention to mislead or deceive consumers into thinking they are dealing with a local florist at the chosen location, when that is NOT the case.

AND WHILE GOOGLE CAUSES CONSUMERS TO ENGAGE A FAKE FLORIST BY MISLEADING OR DECEIVING CONSUMERS, by Google refusing to allow Genuine Online Real Florists into its Real Florist System or Google My Business platform, Google manages to keep Genuine Online Real Florists from competing fairly with Google's favoured Fake Florists

AND WHILE the publisher of this website tries to shut down the lies and misrepresentations of the fakers on Google Ads, ironically Google Ads happens to shut down the publisher's Google Ads account, as punishment.

WHAT OTHER OPTIONS DO THE ONLINE REAL FLORISTS HAVE?

WELL ONE:
is to increase Google's Fake Florist revenue by competing with the Fakers.

Trouble is that's VERY EXPENSIVE, especially in times of Covid which is seeing many Real Florists going out of business: 

Going into competition with Fake Florists?

Google's own fee for making this excursion by a Real Florist, is in excess of $547.00 PER MONTH.

Anything less, Google states:
"With a budget lower than your competitor [i.e, Fake Florists] range, your ads may not get you noticeable results."

  • The publisher of this Fake Florists Exposure website, is of the view that given Google's undisputed dominance and monopoly in the market, that Google's behaviour is UNCONSCIONABLE in contravention of Australian Law i.e, the ACL:
    •    by enforcing its VERIFICATION SYSTEM in such an onerous and unreasonable way;
    •    and denying Genuine Online Real Florists an opportunity to fairly compete on the Online Platform...
GOOGLE AD FEES

The purpose of this Google behaviour is to force HONEST COMPETITORS to enter into the hugely expensive Google Ads program, so as to compete with DISHONEST COMPETITORS, and thereby protect revenue from the fakers while increasing revenue from Online Real Florists.

DETERMINING WHETHER CONDUCT IS UNCONSCIONABLE

There are a number of factors a court will consider when assessing whether conduct in relation to the selling or supplying of goods and services to a customer, or to the supplying or acquiring of goods or services to or from a business, is unconscionable. SOURCE

• the relative bargaining strength of the parties

• whether any conditions were imposed on the weaker party that were not reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the stronger party

• whether the weaker party could understand the documentation used

• the use of undue influence, pressure or unfair tactics by the stronger party

• the requirements of applicable industry codes

• the willingness of the stronger party to negotiate

• the extent to which the parties acted in good faith.

CONCLUSIONS

In the circumstances of Google having massive and undisputed dominance in the Internet Search Market:

1

Google makes misleading or deceptive publications for the Fake Florists, in exchange for bucket loads of money from Fake Florists.

2

Google requires Real Florists to adhere to a set of Google guidelines that require a totally unreasonable system of verification and associated requirements.

3

Google unfairly refuses to allow Real Online Florists onto its Real Florist System / Google My Business platform

4

Google makes no attempt to apply its guidelines onto the misleading or deceptive activities of the Fake Florists.

5

Google is dishonest by aiding and abbetting or assisting the Fake Florists by publishing False Material in Misleading or Deceitful Google Ads.

6

Google engages in Unconscionable Conduct and Hypocrisy.

7

While the Google behaviour at 1 to 6 is designed to protect and increase Google revenue ($181.69 Billion in 2020), the behaviour is unreasonable, unethical and unlawful in Australia. 

NEWS ITEMS

1

ANTITRUST LAWSUIT AGAINST GOOGLE

21 October 2020
The U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Google for “unlawfully maintaining a monopoly in general search services and search advertising in violation of the U.S. antitrust laws.” Google is accused of being “a monopoly gatekeeper for the internet” engaging in “anticompetitive tactics to maintain and extent its monopolies”. PDF copy

2

lIlegal Monopoly Or Not, Google’s Dominance Is Reflected In Search Startup Funding

23 October 2020
In its long-awaited antitrust lawsuit against Google, the U.S. Justice Department charged this week that the tech giant holds an illegal monopoly over search and search-based advertising. By controlling 88 percent of general searches, the government maintains, the company is stifling competition. PDF copy

3

Google Antitrust Woes Mount With Third Suit Targeting Dominance

18 December 2020
Google’s dominance in online search came under the broadest attack yet as a group of states filed the third antitrust lawsuit in two months against the internet giant owned by Alphabet Inc. PDF copy

4

Google ‘overwhelmingly’ dominates search market, antitrust committee states

6 October 2020
Google created a wide-ranging monopoly that includes favoring its own services and demoting others, a U.S. government antitrust subcommittee argued in an antitrust report Thursday. PDF copy

5

ACCC v GOOGLE LLC and GOOGLE AUSTRALIA Pty Ltd

29 October 2019
FEDERAL COURT of AUSTRALIA
Misleading or Deceptive Conduct and False or Misleading Representations. PDF copy

6

Guess Who's Paying Rupert, it's not Google

2 March 2021
YouTube Video from the Michael West Report.

7

Google Ads shuts down Publisher's Google Ads Account

4 March 2021
While the publisher of this website tries to shut down the lies and misrepresentations of the fakers on Google Ads, ironically Google Ads happens to shut down the publisher's Google Ads account, as punishment.

FUTILE CORRESPONDENCE TO GOOGLE:

25 February 2021

NO RESPONSE

By email to [email protected], Google was requested to respond to any inaccuracies that may exist on this website.

26 February 2021

NO RESPONSE

By email to [email protected], Google was requested to respond to the requirements of Australian Law regarding the Unconscionable Conduct set out on this website.

26 February 2021

RESPONSE - 04/03/2021:
"Please note that this team does not handle non-legal requests.
Regards, The Google Team"

By web form to [email protected], Google Removals was requested to take down contraventions of Australian Consumer Law (ACL) as exposed at https://fake.florist, in particular the unlawful Misleading or Deceptive Conduct and Unconscionable Conduct that is widespread across Australia and would number in thousands of instances. I also informed Google that I am preparing to enter into an online florist business in Australia, and that I suffer huge unfair competition and unconscionable restrictions by Google and the search activities of Google who is dominant and has a virtual monopoly in the marketplace.

26 February 2021

NO RESPONSE

By email to [email protected] Google Legal was informed of the matters at https://fake.florist concerning Google's contravention of Misleading or Deceptive Conduct and Unconscionable Conduct as legislated in Australia. Google Legal was request for comment.

26 February 2021

NO RESPONSE

By email to [email protected] Google Press was informed about the issues at https://fake.florist and was requested for comment.

27 February 2021

NO RESPONSE

By email to [email protected], Google was informed of the contacts with Google Removals, Google Legal and Google Press and that https://fake.florist had been updated. Google was again requested for comment. 

Observation -1

01/03/2021

While Google were only too willing to hand out onerous requirements, now it doesn't have the decency to say anything at all. Obviously it thinks it is too big and powerful to be bothered.

01 March 2021

NO RESPONSE

Dear Google,

ATTN: ANKUR

I refer to my previous emails to you dated 25, 26 (x 3) and 27 February 2021.

You have not responded.

https://fake.florist has been substantially updated as of yesterday and today, which includes the following observation:

While Google were only too willing to hand out onerous requirements (at https://fake.florist/google-requirements.pdf by ANKUR), now it doesn't have the decency to say anything at all. Obviously it thinks it is too big and powerful to be bothered.

I again remind you that you do represent yourself as “Google My Business Support”, and I again request comment from you.

Please would you respond before this article goes into wide distribution.

Observation - 2

04/03/2021

While it can be accepted that Google is globally belligerent in refusing to respond to every day issues in an efficient and timely manner or respond at all, Google does not bother to deny the facts set out in this website. It is the publisher's opinion, that because Google makes such huge revenue from its Fake Florists Google Ads, that it will continue to ignore what is ethical and legal, by not abandoning this conduct that damages consumers and florists.

04 March 2021

Bounced

An email sent to Google Australia Pty Ltd at [email protected] COPY HERE bounced.

I guess this is what you would expect from a Corporate Crook!

05 March 2021

waiting

On finding an email address for Google's legal department an email was sent to: [email protected] for Google LLC, Alphabet Inc (parent company) and Google Australia Pty Ltd
The email was copied to:
Brisbane OFT , Lanie Chopping , David Hillyard , Ash Jordan , [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Cara Waters , [email protected], [email protected]  COPY OF EMAIL HERE

GOOGLE AUSTRALIA REVIEW

Google Australia Pty Ltd - In Google Review

GOOGLE REVIEW

Google Australia Pty Ltd - In Google Review

For attracting Google's displeasure, the publisher's Google Ads account has been cancelled.

The irony is that while the publisher of this website is trying to shut down the fake florists from using lies and misrepresentations in Google Ads, Google Ads shuts the publisher down instead. 
Google REFUSES to provide reasons for the initial suspension and what is says is continued violation of Google Ads Policies. This is not just a suspension which can be rectified, it is PERMANENT PUNISHMENT!!!

GOOGLE ADS CANCELLATION

CONTACT GORDON TO INITIATE PHONY FLORIST INQUIRY CORRESPONDENCE


DEFINITION OF A FAKE (or Phony) FLORIST:
An internet business entity that does NOT purchase, stock and arrange fresh flowers for sale to the public, and exists for the sole purpose of representing itself to be a local and independent florist when it is NOT A FLORIST AT ALL, let alone being local and independent.

The purpose of this, is to gather flower order payments from consumers so as to extract exorbitant and undeclared commissions, before selling those orders on to Real Local Florists for the processing of those orders.

But for this activity assisted by dishonest Google Ads, a consumer would have reached a Real Local Florist directly, and saved having this exorbitant and undeclared commission extracted from the purchase of flowers.

The way that the Fake Florist is able to insert itself between a consumer and a Real Local Florist, is by falsely representing itself to be a local and independent florist by way of Google Ads similar to the dishonest search examples displayed above.

These Google Ads are expensive, as is shown by the example shown above, and which form a substantial component of Google's Advertising Revenue measured in billions of USA dollars.

As such, the Google Ad fees form a component of the uneccessary and undisclosed commissions that are extracted from the purchase of flowers on the internet by a consumer. 
 
Fake Florists ARE RENOWN for Fake Reviews while all offer Same Day Delivery, at the expense and inconveniance of the Real Local Florist.

The Same Day Delivery feature predominantly introduced by Fake Florists, attracts pot luck as to freshness.

Given the chunk of revenue taken as per this example;
CONSUMER SPENDS $100 > FAKE FLORIST TAKES $40 > REAL FLORIST GETS $60;
a florist who is silly or desperate enough to take orders from these fakers, is encouraged to get rid of the stalest of their flowers at the back of the fridge. This results in the disgraceful examples of floristry as are illustrated below.

The irony is, that because Real Local Florists have had the original consumer orders stolen from them by Fake Florists, this results in a loss in revenue that compels the Real Local Florist to process the Fake Florist order.

BEHAVIOUR EXAMPLES of the Fakers. See what The Flower School Brisbane says about it.


THE FAKE FLORIST EVOLUTION

1300 FLOWERS

THE FAKE FLORIST EVOLUTION:
Because many Real Local Florists are refusing to process orders for the fakers because they are sick of being ripped-off, a proportion of the fakers which are all owned by the same public company (FLOWERSCORP GROUP LTD reportedly with 15 subsidiaries), are evolving into setting up their own company warehouse processing and delivery systems in some cities and regional areas such as Brisbane and the Sunshine Coast.

The original faker duplicity of existing at a Google searched location, is still the same misrepresentation, because the named faker (such as Meg's Flowers, Sarah's Flowers or 1300-Flowers etc.) does not exist at that location, except where perhaps their public company warehouse may exist at the searched location, which in any event is NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

The washup of this is that, by the fakers getting to the top of the search pages with dishonest Google Ads and pretending to be a local independant florist at the searched location, they are unfairly scooping orders from a genuine Real Local Florist under the guise of being:
• local when they are not local EXAMPLE HERE; and
• independant of each other when they are not independant of each other because of being related subsidiaries, all sharing the same directors.

This evolution is under investigation which follows...

The Flowerscorp Group Investigation

This Google Review is a good example of a consumer being misled or deceived by a Flowerscorp Group (ASIC Company Extract) brand being Meg's Flowers Pty Ltd.

GOOGLE REVIEW

THE REVIEW READS:
Very misleading advertising. The attached photo makes it look like a little florist in Hornsby, which I chose to make sure a friend working in Hornsby got her flowers delivered to work on her birthday. They said the flowers would be delivered before 5, and they were delivered at 4.45pm. While this is before 5, it’s a pretty unacceptably late time in the work day and is really only meeting a technicality. The arrangement left the shop at 1.30, but was in a van for over 3 hrs. When I called to enquire, I was told it’s a national company and the worker conceded that the advertising was misleading. I was refunded the delivery cost, but my friend still didn’t get flowers on her birthday.

HERE IS THE "MEG'S FLOWERS" & "SARAH'S FLOWERS" BRANDS OF FLOWERSCORP GROUP


The following Maroochydore example exposes how these 2 brands falsely represent themselves throughout Australia:


• In the dishonest Google Ads, to be located at Maroochydore when they are not located at Maroochydore.

• In their own websites, dishonstely giving a false impression that they are located at Maroochydore when they are not located at Maroochydore.

• To be independent of each other when they are not independent of each other. They are not independent by having the same directors (Megs directors, Sarahs directors), the same Flowerscorp Group owner (with the same directors) and the same Roses Only Pty Ltd warehouse (again with the same directors) preparing and delivering the Megs & Sarahs orders, along with a number of other Flowerscorp Group brands.

The purpose of this is to cram as many different Flowerscorp brands into Google Ads as possible (per CALOUNDRA EXAMPLE) so as to flood the Google Ad publication AND provide an "OVERALL IMPRESSION" to consumers that they are independent Real Local Florist Shops, when this is not the case because they are not located in Caloundra and they are NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC and all the brands are processed by the Flowerscorp Group's "Roses Only" brand.

To assist the false representations:

• The brands each have domain names registered that include the name Maroochydore, when they are in fact not located at Maroochydore.

Investigation reveals the staggering facts that, in order to cover all of Australia:
• Meg's Flowers has 783 .com.au registered domain names hosted on IP 210.193.142.75 EVIDENCE;
• Sarah's Flowers has 727 .com.au registered domain names hosted on IP 210.193.142.88 EVIDENCE;
thus incurring substantial expense for the purpose of assisting the false representations.

These domains are supplemented by a considerable number of sub-domain websites. SEE THE SUNSHINE COAST EXAMPLE BELOW

• The brands each have a different local phone number to give the illusion of being in Maroochydore, when those phone numbers are re-directed to a Brisbane Call Centre run by Flowerscorp.

Investigation into how many different local telephone numbers across Australia are involved in this illusory behaviour, requires substantial time consumption of examining each of the .com.au Meg's and Sarah's domains. However 783 and 727 domains being a total of 1,510 domains, can be used as an estimate for the number of different telephone numbers, again incurring substantial expense for the purpose of assisting the false representations.

ALL THE ABOVE, EXPOSES THE DEPTH of the intentional tricks to give the false impression to consumers that Meg's Flowers and Sarah's Flowers are "little local flower shops" located at Maroochydore (and elsewhere throughout Australia), when this is not the case.

THIS BEHAVIOUR IS DUPLICATED AT HUNDREDS OF LOCATIONS ACROSS AUSTRALIA (per the 1,510 domains), WHICH UNDOUBTEDLY ENABLES JACK SINGLETON (a proprietor/director of Flowerscorp Group Limited) TO CLAIM:
• "We're number one"; 
• "Interflora is number two"
;
• "We [Flowerscorp Group] are double the size of Interflora" -
Source: LISTNER PODCAST

It is convenient at this stage to note, that according to Jack Singleton's Linkedin, Singleton is chairman of "Jack Watts Currie", a brand creation and rejuvinator business, which prompted an enquiry by EMAIL to this advertising agency.

SARAHS FLOWERS MAROOCHYDORE

Sarah's Flowers Maroochydore

It can be easily seen that a consumer could be given the "OVERALL IMPRESSION" that this Fake Florist is a Real Local Florist located at Maroochydore, when this is not the case. 

Section 18(1) of ACL:
A person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive.

MEGS FLOWERS MAROOCHYDORE

Meg's Flowers Maroochydore


It can be easily seen that Bridget who made the above Google review, was misled or deceived into believing she was dealing with a "little florist in Hornsby", by the false "OVERALL IMPRESSION" that Meg's Flowers Pty Ltd and its owner Flowerscorp Group Limited portray.

Section 18(1) of ACL:
A person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive.

Sunshine Coast Queensland

Each domain and sub-domain in this example supports an individual Phony Local Florist Website by Megs's Flowers and Sarah's Flowers (which diverts to "sarahsflorist.com.au").

  • This behaviour is repeated throughout Australia.
  • Sarah's Flowers and Meg's Flowers do not exist at the domain or sub-domain locations.
  • This is not a definitive list and there are many other phony locations existing on the Sunshine Coast.
SUNSHINE COAST

THE 6 MILLION DOLLAR BLUNDER:
Similar tricky behaviour to that of Flowerscorp Group and its subsidiaries that found its way into the Federal Court, is the Nurofen example provided by ACCC v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Ltd, where in December 2015, following admissions by Reckitt Benckiser, the Court found that Reckitt Benckiser engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct between 2011 and 2015 by making representations on its website and product packaging that Nurofen Specific Pain products were each formulated to specifically treat a particular type of pain, when this was not the case, because each Nurofen Specific Pain product contained the same active ingredient. On appeal the original $1.7 million fine was raised to $6 million for the purpose of being a STRONG DETERRENT to this sort of behaviour that is against the public interest. PDF ARCHIVE
ABC - $6 million for misleading customers - PDF ARCHIVE

Jacko Video

Jack Singleton talks with Mark Bouris about tricks and techniques that Jack uses in or on his business. Jack gives a really good insight into how he operates.

However Jacko makes NO MENTION of the tricks and techniques of PHONY LOCAL FLORISTS adopted by his Flowerscorp Group and subsidiaries, as is set out herein, which causes consumers such as Bridget (per above) to become misled or deceived, as is demonstrated by Bridget's Google Review of Meg's Flowers, which can only be the tip of the iceberg.

The issue concerning Real Local Florists

The issue with the Flowerscorp Group behaviour, is not about whether a consumer has been misled, or a consumer has received a better or worse experience, but whether the corporate behaviour is:
1. misleading or deceptive; or
2. is likely to mislead or deceive.
Clearly, the Bridget Review is evidence that 1 or 2 applies. Further, it is patently obvious to an informed person that there is some sort of sharp practice going on here that both Google and Jacko are revelling in. Trouble is, a good deal of tricks and techniques are being employed to ensure consumers are not informed. Enshrined in Australian legislation, is the fact that any business trading in Australia is entitled to not be put under the duress and burden of UNFAIR COMPETITION. How would you like it Jacko if I put this website into Google Ads under the 1300.Flowers domain so as to properly inform consumers?
PLEASE TELL ME


THE JACK SINGLETON "FLOWERS EMPIRE".

It is REPORTED HERE (PDF archive) that "Jacko" (a director of FlowersCorp Group) as he's called, "has quietly become the kingpin of delivered or ‘gifted’ flowers, with close to 20 per cent of the $300m market - which in turn is part of the overall $1bn Australian flower market. It's highly fragmented"...

"Singleton started a flower business - 1300 Flowers - in the mid-noughties, but started to really motor after buying the assets and brand of Roses Only in late 2013"....

"Singleton says the flower business will do 'more than 500,000 deliveries' this financial year". “That’s a million people sending or receiving those flowers”.... [$30.05 million in sales per below]

"In the meantime, Singleton says the holding company, Flowerscorp Group, plans to add to its seven brands with further acquisitions. He says the strategy mirrors that of Warren Buffett. “We sit and we wait for the phone to ring"....

“A lot of florists call us. They can’t afford their Westfield rent any more. So we will buy their brand assets, their domain name, their geographic phone number. That gives us a lot of search traffic and gets the calls coming in,” says Singleton.

So if you’re a florist out there and you want to be acquired, call 1300 Flowers.”...

"...we’re a “reluctant Google advertiser”. It’s 90 per cent of our ad budget and we get a return on every single dollar. We would like that return to be higher… but it’s working.”

THE FLOWERS EMPIRE REVENUE 

Dun & Bradstreet recently published that Flowerscorp Pty Ltd + shareholders (ASIC historic extract) annual revenue is $30.05 million and Roses Only annual revenue is $23.84 million, previously sourced from Dunn & Bradstreet (per below image).
CURRENT DUNN & BRADSTREET INFO:
• Flowerscorp Pty Ltd 2017 annual revenue $30.05 Million in USD - SOURCE.
• Flowerscorp Group Limited 2018 annual revenue $33.04 Million in USD - SOURCE.

Roses Only FLOWERSCORP FAT CATS

IT IS RELEVANT TO ARGUE:
That a large component of this revenue, is in fact revenue STOLEN from Real Local Florists by way of the DISHONEST behaviour set out herein.

"Roses Only" warehouse at West End in Brisbane, has been REQUESTED via Facebook to confirm if the two revenues of $30.05 million and $23.84 million should be combined as total revenue for the "Singleton Flowers Empire", OR if the Roses Only $23.84 million is a component of the Flowerscorp $30.05 million.

As per usual, apart from Flowerscorp trying to get the publisher kicked off Facebook, the request was ignored.

Roses Only Pty Ltd

Servicing the Sunshine Coast region, as part of the FAKE FLORIST EVOLUTION one such company warehouse has been setup by Roses Only Pty Ltd and the current company extract show that Flowerscorp Pty Ltd is the beneficial owner by way of owning all of the 3000 shares. Roses Only has (reportedly) 18 other companies in its corporate family.

SUNSHINE COAST LOCATION OF ROSES ONLY - Unit 1/2 Claude Boyd Parade, Bells Creek QLD 4551. However this warehouse (or "studio" as Roses Only like to call it), is not open to the public and flowers cannot be purchased or collected from this warehouse.

SEE: Roses Only Review

ROSES ONLY SUNSHINE COAST
ROSES ONLY SUNSHINE COAST

IT IS FROM HERE

on the Sunshine Coast, that orders are processed for these six Flowerscorp brands which Google Ad themselves on the Sunshine Coast and its hinterland.

These are the main brands in the "Singleton Flowers Empire", that rely on the duplicity & misrepresentation as in the above example of Google Ads that appear in searches daily in their thousands across Australia, along with Megs & Sarahs giving the OVERALL FALSE IMPRESSION that they are Real Local Florists when this is not the case. 

SARAHS FLOWERS

Sarah's Flowers
Phony Local Florist

MEGS FLOWERS

Meg's Flowers
Phony Local Florist

VIP FLOWERS

VIP Flowers
Phony Florist

FAST FLOWERS

Fast Flowers
Phony Florist

1300 FLOWERS

1300 Flowers
Long been recognised as an Order Gatherer.

ROSES ONLY

Roses Only
The flagship brand.
BACKGROUND

THE WAREHOUSE

A "Studio" according to Roses Only.

ROSES ONLY SUNSHINE COAST
ROSES ONLY SUNSHINE COAST
ROSES ONLY SUNSHINE COAST
ROSES ONLY SUNSHINE COAST
ROSES ONLY SUNSHINE COAST
ROSES ONLY SUNSHINE COAST
ROSES ONLY SUNSHINE COAST
ROSES ONLY SUNSHINE COAST
ROSES ONLY STAFF SUNSHINE COAST
ROSES ONLY STAFF SUNSHINE COAST

The massive cost of setting up similar warehouses in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Canberra, Cental Coast NSW and across Australia, when the business model and culture is based on deception thus being incompatible with integrity, appears to be clearly unwise.

Anthony Rohde
Director Roses Only

According to "1300Flowers about us" (the pre evolution bullshit) Mr. Rohde has extensive experience in IT management.
SO what does this sort of behaviour say about ALL the positive reviews within the Flowerscorp Group stable of brands???

  • Mr. Rohde is a director of:
    • Flowerscorp Group;
    • Flowerscorp Pty Ltd;
    • Roses Only Flagship;
    • Meg's Flowers Fake Local Florist;
    • Sarah's Flowers Fake Local Florist;
    • Fast Flowers Fake Florist;
    • VIP Flowers Fake Florist;
    • 1300Flowers historical Order Gatherer.
    Instead of addressing issues raised in this website, Mr. Rohde chooses to make a personal attack on the publisher of this website via a one star Google Review.
  • Trouble is, Mr. Rohde gives 5 star reviews to his "Roses Only" brand, and in light of what the ACCC says about such behaviour ($600,000 penalty), one can make an opinion on the calibre of Mr. Rohde's judgement in making reviews.
  • THIS IS ESPECIALLY CONCERNING, WHEN HE (or his subordinate) RESPONDS TO HIS OWN REVIEW, AND PROVIDES A THANK YOU FOR MAKING IT!!!
Roses Only

"Roses Only" has been requested to explain

By "Roses Only" webform, on 22 March 2021 Roses Only was sent the following inquiry.

Roses Only

Copy of Webform and acknowledgement.

24 March 2021 - "ROSES ONLY" HAS NOT BEEN IN TOUCH OR PROVIDED ANY EXPLANATION
At this stage "Roses Only" has demonstrated:
• a failure to correct this latest review to be within ACCC guidelines;
• arrogance and utter contempt for Australian Consumer Law regarding "Reviews".

SO AGAIN THE QUESTION ARISES:
What does this sort of behaviour say about ALL the positive reviews within the Flowerscorp Group stable of brands, along with the deceptive culture of this outfit???

26 March 2021 - Subsequent to a reminder that the review had not been rectified... 
UTTERLY PREDICTABLE... when the going gets tough... "ROSES ONLY" GOES TO GROUND!!! without fixing the review. What would the shareholders say?

"ROSES ONLY" ARROGANCE and UTTER CONTEMPT for Australian Consumer Law is CONFIRMED.

To get a further insight into the current Australian "Roses Only" business with Kelly Taggart, Director & Chief Operating Officer at Roses Onl‪y‬ Australia, listen to the PODCAST with MARK BOURIS ("I wanted to work in a business where I could really make a difference"), where Kelly (with Jacko looking on) also OMITS (like Jacko) to mention the tricks and techniques of creating PHONY LOCAL FLORISTS for boosting the annual revenue to $30.05 million.

ANTHONY ROHDE + KELLY TAGGART

Anthony Rohde
Director

Kelly Taggart
Director/Secretary

ZOOM

Source Facebook




"ROSES ONLY" BACKGROUND
James Stevens co-founder of "Roses Only" with his father, built the Roses Only brand until selling the Australian component to Jack Singleton's Flowerscorp in 2013. James retained the rights to the brand outside of Australia (PDF Archive), and operates it in many parts of the world including UK, USA and Singapore, while still operating in Australia under the Mr. Roses brand.

James may well be horrified, by what is going on now with the Roses Only brand he built with his father in Australia. Read about the 3 principles James lives by (PDF Archive).

PHONY FLORISTS USE DIGITALLY PREPARED FLOWER ARRANGEMENTS,
NOT REAL PHOTOS 

SOME FAKE IMAGES OF PHONY FLORIST FLOWER ARRANGEMENTS ARE SET OUT BELOW

Many if the images of flower arrangements displayed by fake florists are also FAKE. Closer inspection reveals that the arrangements (especially those in vases) are unnatural and virtually impossible to reproduce in real life. They originate not from photography, but by digital construction on a computer.

DIGITAL ROSES

Some florists refuse to accept Lily's orders
so Lily's have Petals Network fulfil the order.
RESULTING IN 2 COMMISSIONS

DOUBLE COMMISSIONS

PRODUCT REVIEW SAYS THIS ABOUT LILYS FLORIST : 

"We have detected a number of positive reviews for this listing which we suspect have been falsely generated and have the potential to mislead consumers."

Along with the above RHODE REVIEWS, this appears to be further evidence of FlowersCorp's propensity for FAKE REVIEWS.

MANIFESTLY FAKE:

FAKE ARRANGEMENTS

PETALS Network
Dancing Daisies says it all:
See Product Review

PETALS Dancing Daisies

BLOOMEX
Lavender Love:
See Product Review

BLOOMEX Lavender Love

BLOOMEX
Digital Concoctions
See Product Review

BLOOMEX FAKE FLORIST DIGITAL CONCOCTIONS


BLOOMEX on GOOGLE SHOPPING


BLOOMEX
delivers
See Product Review

BLOOMEX DELIVERS

Real Florists, please link to this site.
If you find another Fake Florist, or have a story to tell, please let Gordon know

CONTACT GORDON TO INITIATE PHONY FLORIST INQUIRY CORRESPONDENCE

CONTACT GORDON

HAVE YOUR SAY


SHARE THIS PAGE!