A response from Crowdrating's Modweena

We had an email from Modweena - the CEO of Crowdrating - to tell us that we had got this all wrong.

Sorry...............................

Crowdrating does not receive any money from pitches when it rates companies and publishes them. Quite independently another company, in no way attached to Crowdrating but run by the same people, approaches companies that are in line to publish an ECf campaign and offers them a 'campaign healthcheck' which if they accept, they are charged for. In Modweena's words -  

''This is a nascent Consultancy service that is entirely separate to our publication of Ratings. Being a customer of our Consultancy service cannot influence the rating as each rating is created by our Ratings Engine which always and only uses publicly available facts available to the entire crowd.''

As to our suggestion that the ratings are pointless because they are so diluted, she says -

''Regarding your opinion that our ratings are diluted.  I thought you might be interested to know that we publish the ratings as Appointed Reps of FCA regulated firm Sturgeon Ventures.  All our ratings are approved for compliance and regulatory purposes, and in operating under these rules, our ratings must present a fair and balanced view.''

We would like to make it clear that we are not appointed by anyone or beholden to any Government quango. Our opinions are ours and are based on what we see in front of us and what others tell us.

Nothing Modweena has told us changes our opinion - according to pitching companies who have contacted us, Crowdrating do try to sell their 'campaign healthcheck' and tell these companies that they will get rated anyway ie its better to have the check so we can get all the facts right. The idea of a totally autonomous 'ratings engine' sitting in some London office issuing reams and reams of ratings like something out of a Roald Dahl, is at least amusing. The dilution issue is plain to see.