New Year, New Business for the Beagles

Money in the New Year
Their new little goldmine site is now live, together with links to Claims Management Companies and fee-paying DMP providers. Read more: The big U-turn

End of an era

The end of 2015 also marks the end of an era that has lasted eight years: the Legal Beagles site we all knew is dead, you know, the one that was there just to help people without financial gain. VIP memberships have been around for a while but we all know they only produce enough revenue to cover the running costs of the site such as servers and hosting. Unlike its biggest (and much bigger) rivals, Legal Beagles doesn’t have adverts, referrals or skimlinks, well, until now. OK, so there have been some rather discreet ads on the right sidebar, ironically one of them is for the owners of one of what could be considered a rival site.

money bagAll change!

Next year things are set to change. A new Legal Services Comparison site is due to be launched on the first day of the year. Although users don’t pay to use comparison sites, they generate revenue through pay-per-click (PPC) advertising where the advertiser in question pays for each click-through they receive. The site can also get commission paid through cost per acquisition, sponsored links and banner adverts if used. Since a strong user base is key to the success of such a site, Legal Beagles are on to a winner here.

Whether the site users will also win remains to be seen. The impartiality of the advice could be put into question by the presence of such as sister site. Furthermore, legal services are not as easy to compare as, say, insurance or financial products. There are many kinds of services and many areas of law. I’m not going to comment further until the site is up and running and we can all see what exactly it is they are offering. Suffice to say that Legal Beagles is no longer a site run purely for the benefit of its users. Whether it ever was, is another matter.

98 Comments

  1. Legaleaglet says:

    Looks like the Beagles are not the only ones to have come up with the idea of a legal and financial services comparison site. I’ve just seen a rather good TV ad for this site: http://www.nullrefer.com/?https://www.vouchedfor.co.uk

    They may or may not be the best but that doesn’t matter much when you have the kind of budget required for TV adverti$ing, that’s a sure way to reach 1000s of consumers very quickly and easily, much better than waiting for them to visit LB.

  2. BillK says:

    Well, that looks like a bit of a challenge to the owner of LBcompare now, doesn’t it ? By squandering your time and money on what appears to be an obsession with trying to silence those who dare to criticize you – you have not only managed to prove that LBcompare’s claimed impartiality is a sham – but have now missed the window of opportunity that you were so prepared to seize with no regard for those who helped you along the way.

    So (borrowing some ‘Dirty Harry’ dialogue) I guess the question you now have to ask yourself is – should I throw some really big bucks into advertising something that has been sitting at the end of the runway for 4+ months and going rusty, when someone else has gone airborne with style – or should I continue feeding my OCD by trying to silence my critics ? It’s a no-brainer really, innit ? So – do ya feel lucky punk ? Well…do ya ?

    Some people might say “Put your money where your mouth is, guv’nor.” But you might find that it makes better business sense to reconsider where your mouth actually is right now, first. Capisce ?

    • Legaleaglet says:

      Looks like those guys are streets ahead of LBC: http://www.nullrefer.com/?https://accounts.vouchedfor.co.uk/register

      1.5M visitors
      37,000 reviews
      8,000 professionals
      83,000 conversations

      Their listings are free for solicitors and they are well established and adverti$e on TV. LBC is still in Beta and, according to their own statements, solicitors are the only ones who will pay listing fees. Where are you going to list your firm? Uhmmmm, it’s a tough one!

      Their listed firms already have a lot of live reviews. Surely the Beagles knew about this site when they set up LBC, what made them think they could do better? The presence of the LB forum? Only people who post on fora are generally looking for free advice, if they were looking for professional services they wouldn’t join a forum. You get the odd one asking whether they can recommend a solicitor but that would be .0001% of cases.

  3. grimreaper says:

    Sadly unable to log in now. But I have re-read through this thread in more detail due to the most recent comments. Sadly there are some classic errors showing about forum type comment. It would have been very simple for some comments to have been checked for veracity by the OP(s) at Companies House. And a follow up check on the relevant bits of company law made. The user Cetelco has no shareholding at all in the current companies and any holdings or perceived holdings in the dissolved companies of the past would disappear on dissolution or strike off. If any value remained then the company could not have been dissolved or struck off the register and any tangible assets showing against the profit and loss accounts become Crown property even under the older 1984 Act when things were simpler.

    • Legaleaglet says:

      Sadly unable to log in now.

      Are you saying you’ve finally joined The Ban Club?

      Sadly there are some classic errors showing about forum type comment. It would have been very simple for some comments to have been checked for veracity by the OP(s) at Companies House. And a follow up check on the relevant bits of company law made. The user Cetelco has no shareholding at all in the current companies and any holdings or perceived holdings in the dissolved companies of the past would disappear on dissolution or strike off.

      We are familiar with the publicly available info from Companies House and I’m sure if anyone had a legal claim to anything, they’d have followed that route. Also if the person in question had something to argue, he would have contacted the Beagles himself. What has been posted here refers to historical issues which are not reflected in the current situation as described by Companies House but have a value in terms of setting the scene and providing a bit of background to those who were not around at the time or who were not familiar with the history of LB.

      Obviously people like, say, Sapphire who ran the site for six years but did so as a willing volunteer wouldn’t appear anywhere in any official capacity, nor would there have been a contract of any sort. The issues here concern the behaviour of the Beagles towards those who made their site what it is today and made it possible for them to have a large user base and all those lovely numbers to put forward, not any legal claims anyone may have against them for any reason.

  4. BillK says:

    Yes, I think Allsorts is not really about the formalities & legalities of what la belle “Celamé” are up to – but about the total lack of respect afforded to those who helped them to get to the level of arrogance which they have now managed to achieve. Sure – there are some formalities & legalities that they are using or abusing along the way – but Allsorts is not resorting to that themselves – as yet. It has in fact been interesting to observe the desperate attempts to silence what is after all a tiny group of disgruntled Legal Beagles members who have been simply labelled as ‘Inactive’ in the LB forum – but who have in reality been silenced within that forum for speaking what they sincerely believe to be the truth. Attempts to silence them from speaking outside of that forum have been heavy-handed and inept – but have served to prove how desperate they are to silence those who critique “Celamé” – when they themselves wish to openly and reliably critique others who are often likely to be far more professional.

    I believe that it is this ‘assumed’ impartiality that needs to be examined more closely in view of the nature of LBcompare’s plans to become a trustworthy point of reference for those seeking financial and/or legal advice. The levels of decency and fairness so far displayed by “Celamé” should be at least as high as those of the advice firms that they claim to promote – yet those levels appear to me to be far below that which a decent and honest person seeking such advice would find acceptable.

    In the simplest of layman’s terms – “Would you buy a used car from this lot ?”

  5. grimreaper says:

    No not in the “Ban Club”. They have no reason to ban me other than being here as I don’t bother with it at all these days. Why would I try to help someone properly when all I get/got was derision, denigration and frankly insults both on and off the forum, some of it extremely abusive and threatening as one of you well knows. As the question had been asked by LE I have just checked and my log on at LB still works. I see there is nothing at all of any interest at all going on on that site. I cannot get any contact from them as I set up a “guerrilla.com” e-mail drop box to stop any contact from idiots and malcontents such as reside on LB, AAD and the like.

    However the reference to logging on was for here. Yesterday I tried after some absence for which there is a very good reason known to Admin and the little wheel in the Mozilla Firefox tab just whirred around for a considerable period, I actually went off and did something in the workshop, it was still whirring on my return. Even logged in I have not been able to post a direct reply to anyone for some time so it has to be a new comment. Now I have to comment merely as a guest. Simples. Perhaps I get the message.

    • Legaleaglet says:

      There is no message to get, your account here has not been changed in any way, your avatar is visible against your comment, and as a guest, you would have no avatar. The back-end logs also show your username as having logged in yesterday and today. If you were not able to access the site for some time yesterday, that sounds like the usual pattern we have been experiencing from the beginning, with the site often being inaccessible at weekends after reaching its resource limit. The reasons for those glitches are yet to be determined but when that happens, no-one can access the site.

  6. Dignity says:

    Dear Mr Site Owner, could you please explain why your threats haven’t materialised?

    I remember your solicitors sending an “agreement” to the alleged owner of this site. This so called agreement required this blog to be closed. In return you agreed not to tell anyone why this blog was closed.

    Sir, did you really expect your attempts to work? Can I send you an agreement requiring LB Compare to be closed down? In return I will not tell anyone why LB Compare was closed down.

    Did your legal advisors tell you that you didn’t actually have a claim after all?

  7. BillK says:

    I’m certainly no expert in such matters, but doesn’t a professional legal advisor have a duty to tell its client when there is little or no chance of success with a claim or legal process – instead of continually taking their money whilst issuing empty threats on their behalf ? It seems to me that his advisors are happily parting this fool from his money, when they should be advising him to his best advantage. It probably hasn’t occurred to him that he might do well to visit a half-decent comparison site such as http://www.nullrefer.com/?https://www.vouchedfor.co.uk/ (as advertised on TV and here on Legal Allsorts) – or even to consult an online forum, if there are any decent ones left.

  8. revenge says:

    Yep I believe you are right BillK.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *