Now We're Going To See Who Can REALLY Write Copy?

[learnmore]

Hi Marcia,
This could be explained by a common notion in some cultures where the person who claims to be truthful in an excessive manner is considered to be the opposite (liar or hiding something or stands to gain something from others believing him). Imagine the traveling sales person who gives you one guarantee after the other and (implicitly or explicitly) pushes to buy, the prospect may just run away.

As you said this may apply in cases where sales letter relies too much on the guarantee. If the trust or rapport has been build prior to that, then guarantee becomes less important. Let say I already have a following, if I sell something to them, I don't have to overly rely on guarantee but may be a mere passing mention of it will suffice.

Originally Posted by marciayudkin

This may not be true in all niches, but several of my customers have told me that they feel it's wrong to request refunds and therefore do not order if the marketing copy depends too much on the guarantee to try to get the order.

This surprised me so much I didn't know what to say, and it wasn't just one weird person. It was several.

Marcia Yudkin

[ronakshah]

As Bob Silber wrote that the FTC can extradite people across borders through international treaties, I believe they can't even touch an Australian citizen or an Iranian or a Japanese or any other citizen of external nationality unless and until the person is proven to have done any "forgery" in the home courts from where the business is operational. The US can only enforce its laws on Afghanistan and Iraq, and other places where it has bases such as Pakistan. Even Pakistan does not give real importance to the US (no offence) who gives aid to it so getting a person extradited is really a task unless it goes to interpol and lodges a case in violation of a criminal offence.

I, for one reason, won't even give a damn to the FTC if I have my own product as I am from India. I firstly find the rules very unclear, vague and astonishingly one sided.

Secondly, I as an affiliate marketer will have to be cautious while promoting the products of American companies to potential customers. The only thing I will have to do is put a disclaimer stating:

"My blog makes money from promoting products through banner ads or text link ads of other people where I get a commission if someone buys it. Thus, the ads or text links may point to a product or service where I could be getting financial benefits from the same. Any recommendation stated within the content published on my blog is a personal choice of my own and each person must justify to themselves whether they must make a purchase of recommended product / service before making it. I or the content on my blog is not at all responsible for any decisions you take and they are your personal choices so please make your choices wisely."

My friend Bob Silber (yeah.. I'd call you my newly found friend ) ..

Would you be able to say whether ezinearticles.com will have to shut down its backlinking policy or disallow people to stop linking back to potential affiliate marketing urls from their ezinearticles.com articles?

That way, ezinearticles.com is set to shut down if FTC has to speak... ain't it? Not only ezinearticles.com but all article directories will have to shut down provided they keep a disclaimer on each page stating the backlinks are kept to generate financial revenues.

What about comments in blogs and posts in forums which already have affiliate marketing urls in signatures and so on so forth...? What about content that has already been posted on twitter before the ruling comes into effect and cannot be changed where you've no control over it?

I love this forum. This is a beautiful forum. I'm loving it. Wow Allen! Lovely!

[TristanPerry]

Originally Posted by ronakshah

As Bob Silber wrote that the FTC can extradite people across borders through international treaties, I believe they can't even touch an Australian citizen or an Iranian or a Japanese or any other citizen of external nationality unless and until the person is proven to have done any "forgery" in the home courts from where the business is operational. The US can only enforce its laws on Afghanistan and Iraq, and other places where it has bases such as Pakistan. Even Pakistan does not give real importance to the US (no offence) who gives aid to it so getting a person extradited is really a task unless it goes to interpol and lodges a case in violation of a criminal offence.

I wouldn't worry too much about it. I'm not. As I asked elsewhere, if someone can show me the piece of international law that says:

"American laws apply to non-American citizens selling products to non-Americans and hosting the products thousands of miles away from America"

then I'll agree with Bob et al. But at the moment it just sounds like a joke. Certainly, I don't think the FTC's silly rules apply to me since I won't be doing business in America or anything. That doesn't mean I won't sell to Americans (or course, I would), but my selling wouldn't be 'based' in America nor marketed solely to Americans.

In the future I might set-up an offline business or two in the UK. I'll be a British citizen doing business with British citizens and basing my business in the UK. Will I have to follow American consumer laws if an American comes here on holiday and buys one of my products?

No?

Then I don't have to follow the FTC rules either, surely?

As I say, that's my interpretation of things and I can't find any piece of international law that states anything different

[robinana]

Subversive marketing and indirect endorsements will still rule, as usual. Get a well known face to place alongside the product and people put the two together, even if it not directly spoken. The marketers with less money to spend will continue to use large breasted, scantily dressed women, images of grandeur and the like. Who needs great copy when you can put one small image in a potential client's mind and let them run wild with it.
They end up advertising to themselves.

[cerava]

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

1. No more testimonials that show personal results unless we can show what the average results are, which we know we can't because we have no way of knowing.

2. No more personal stories talking about our own results unless, again, we
can show what the average results are.

Thanks, Steven, for bringing the regulations up to our attention. I'm certain that as copywriters, all of us were caught of guard. My views are based on an incomplete legal training for over 3 years, from which I dropped out off last year. Again, it does not cover American jurisprudence, but only Malaysian. Commonwealth countries may find it relevant, but it does not replace the advice from a competant legal practitioner:-

As many of you have stated, this two - if the regulation appears as it is here - are poorly worded and ambiguous.

Chances are copywriters will be spared by this. This is because copywriters have in their terms of services, contained in their website or invoice, that exempts them the liability. How? By stating that it shall be the clients' responsibilities to obtain legal advice on the advertising and marketing pieces which they send out; not the copywriter. By further adding that copywriters are not liable for the way clients use their marketing and advertising materials, you add another layer of defense.

Even if this is a blanket ban, are there any other techniques?

I'm confident that there are more ways to write copy than the one prohibited by this ruling, i.e. use of testimonials.

How?

Just demonstrate how to use it.

Deception, 'fraud' or 'misrepresentation', only arises when the seller knowingly gives false information on the product or service. It also covers when the seller or advertiser fails to do things made compulsory by law. For example the disclosure of a prospectus for shares and mutul funds.

Whatever idea which the prospects or customers conceive is beyond the control of the seller or copywriter. Neither you nor I can expect what they may conceive. Again, there are many copywriting principles and tactics which exist out there to address this.


What I can foresee is this:

• Use a different copywriting tactic;
• Protect yourself with a terms of service which specifically mentions the waiver of liability and onus of legal counsel on the Client.
• For the purpose of website, use country specific domain country-level names. A .com.my is governed by the laws of Malaysia, a .co.uk is governed by the laws of the UK. A .com, however is governed by the law of where it is accessed.

For better advice, I urge you to refer to a legal professional in your country.




Best regards,


Aldric

[marciayudkin]

I'm confident that there are more ways to write copy than the one prohibited by this ruling, i.e. use of testimonials.

The new rules do NOT ban testimonials. Many testimonials will still be fine. Only a certain type of testimonial - touting results that may not be typical - require different treatment.

That's why all copywriters who write for clients in the U.S. need to familiarize themselves with the new guidelines - so they don't toss out perfectly fine techniques that the ruling says nothing about.

Marcia Yudkin

[cgallagher93]

From what I can fathom, there's a lot of misconception regarding this. No-one REALLY knows what the heck is goin on...

In this post, I'm gonna break down the ruling and do my best to work out that it really means! Before I do so, let me state that I'm no English graduate or billion-dollar copywriter, so please don't rip me to shreds if you disagree :-)

"Under the revised Guides, advertisements that feature a consumer and convey his or her experience with a product or service as typical when that is not the case will be required to clearly disclose the results that consumers can generally expect. In contrast to the 1980 version of the Guides – which allowed advertisers to describe unusual results in a testimonial as long as they included a disclaimer such as “results not typical” – the revised Guides no longer contain this safe harbor."

Firstly, a product creator/publisher is not a consumer. Taken from the good ol' dictionary.com, a conusmer is one that acquires goods and services for direct use rather than for resale or production in manufacturing.

The person who creates the product is the vendor. In response to Steven's initial post, I have to say I strongly disagree with point #2. I don't see anywhere that the ruling implies product owners cannot convey their own experience with their own product - meaning that including personal stories in your copy should be perfectly fine.

What these new guidelines do imply, however, is that the use of testimonials from beta testers or previous consumers whereby clear statements of financial/physical results are made are strictly illegal IF you fail to include some sort of diclaimer stating the typical results consumers are likely to experience for themselves.

I think people are looking into this too much. Don't get me wrong, I think it's wise to always be cautious but in this case I think what the FTC are saying is that they'll be coming down heavily on liars, conmen and fraudsters.

In the main, this should affect only those outrageous CPA landing pages that are never backed up with proof. It's as simple as this...

If you're going to use testimonials, don't use fake ones. If you're going to use testimonials, make sure you include LOTS of them! This way, you can include some sort of disclaimer stating typical results that users can expect to achieve:

"Results NOT Typical - Based upon the testimonials included from previous consumers and beta testers, we have taken an average of each person's earnings and concluded that the typical results users will achieve is X. However, there are also a number of users who did not return positive testimonials or indeed failed to include any form of feedback whatsoever. Therefore, we can only conclude that typical users IF taking the action steps stated within the manual will achieve X. If however, as a product owner you fail to take action and follow our step-by-step instructions to the letter and in the order they are advised, we can only suggest that you will achieve NOTHING."

The FTC are looking for honesty and integrity and people making false claims will inevitably suffer the consequences (getting their asses sued in court for millions of dollars as a way of paying them back for being assholes!).

A disclaimer such as the one above is just about as honest as you can be without guessing what users will achieve and states clearly that not everyone will achieve those results.

To be honest, not many people read the disclaimer anyway. So surely including a link at the bottom of the sales page to an earnings disclaimer stating something along the lines of the above would be fine. Therefore, I see no reason why your copy can't be just as effective as it used to be!

That's what I propose anyway. But hey, I'm 16. I ain't no lawyer! I suggest you leave it a couple of months and run it past some legal advisor who knows what he/she is talking about

Thanks,

Connor

[Dainis]

MarkAndrews

To be perfectly honest, I can't for the life of me see how the FTC are going to police this.

...the thing that makes people afraid is being in the 2% used as an example. And then everyone else just complies on their own.

So all the FTC ruling is saying is:

Don't make claims in your marketing that you can't prove.

Really. That's all there is to it.

...and WE, the FTC, we OWN what PROOF is. No matter how backwards our "science" is...we OWN proof, and you can't do anything about it. So shut down anything that does not serve us, our purpose, or the people we report to. Or go to jail. Court proceedings? Rights? Excuse me? Just shut down your operation NOW or go to jail, you'll get a letter in a few months.

Lance K

Offer proof

...what if proof is illegal...

I dunno, I'm getting close to 40 years old. I was raised in Chicago as a Latvian in exile, because the Soviet Union had occupied Latvia. Russia STILL refuses to acknowledge the forceful occupation of Latvia, and turns a blind eye to the 100's of thousands of Latvian lives lost. It IS possible to overthrow great nations. It IS possible to silence populations. And it IS possible to profit from that.

That, I think is the big FEAR everyone is feeling. And, under no circumstances, are we to underestimate the idiocy of the masses, the cruelty of governments, or the willingness of individuals to comply with EVIL policies.

Especially people who provide natural products and alternative therapies feel threatened. Because they feel like big pharma is out to kill you and them.

I do, however, have a lot of faith in America and the American People. If there is a nation and population that can handle this with savvy, grace, and honor, it's America and Americans.

Ummm...BTW...anyone think I might need to move the business address of this site overseas?

Cure Tinnitus Member Community

[Collette]

Originally Posted by Dainis

...the thing that makes people afraid is being in the 2% used as an example.

The guidelines are not obscure. If you're in the percentage that insists on blatantly ignoring them, then you have reason to be afraid. You seem to have a number of misconceptions about the ruling. I suggest you take a copy of the FTC doc to a qualified lawyer and follow his/her guidance. If nothing else, it will give you clarity.

Originally Posted by Dainis

...and WE, the FTC, we OWN what PROOF is. No matter how backwards our "science" is...we OWN proof, and you can't do anything about it. So shut down anything that does not serve us, our purpose, or the people we report to. Or go to jail. Court proceedings? Rights? Excuse me? Just shut down your operation NOW or go to jail, you'll get a letter in a few months.

With all due respect, Danis, this is unsubstantiated paranoia. Ethical marketers have been making a substantial profits for years by producing proof that their products and services have the benefits they claim in their marketing. The FTC ruling does not change what these marketers have been doing - profitably - for years.

All this ruling does is to shut down the hucksters and flim-flam merchants. It's not the first time this has been done, you know. Travelling carnival salesmen were once allowed to sell arsenic in fancy brown bottles while claiming that their "patented formula" cures everything from croup to cancer. The government shut down those operations, too.

Originally Posted by Dainis

...what if proof is illegal...

Then you can't use it as "proof". And why would you even want to consider using something deceptive or untrue as "proof"?

Originally Posted by Dainis

I dunno, I'm getting close to 40 years old. I was raised in Chicago as a Latvian in exile, because the Soviet Union had occupied Latvia. Russia STILL refuses to acknowledge the forceful occupation of Latvia, and turns a blind eye to the 100's of thousands of Latvian lives lost. It IS possible to overthrow great nations. It IS possible to silence populations. And it IS possible to profit from that.

I understand how your perception could be influenced by this. But the FTC is not trying to "silence" anyone except the rip-off artists. Those people whose business is built on empty promises and over-priced mediocrity.

THOSE people should - quite rightly - be breaking a sweat. But you know what? I'd bet they're not. I'd bet that they - the ones who should be most concerned with providing legitimate products and proof - are paying high-priced lawyers to find the loopholes in the ruling. So that they can continue to do business as usual.

Originally Posted by Dainis

That, I think is the big FEAR everyone is feeling. And, under no circumstances, are we to underestimate the idiocy of the masses, the cruelty of governments, or the willingness of individuals to comply with EVIL policies.

If people were that concerned with their personal rights we wouldn't have the Patriot Act. And that's all I'm gonna say about that.

This hysteria is being fanned by shysters panicking about their personal profits being damaged. There is no higher motive here.

Originally Posted by Dainis

Especially people who provide natural products and alternative therapies feel threatened. Because they feel like big pharma is out to kill you and them.

People who provide LEGITIMATE natural products and alternative therapies have always been careful to have the proof to back their claims. And Big Pharma has been trying to shut down the alternative health market for decades - without success. In fact, Big Pharma has now decided "If we can't beat 'em, we'll join 'em!" For the last few years, Big Pharma is producing their own line of "alternative therapies".

I just saw an ad on tv last night for a Big Pharma product for joint therapy. It contains Hyaluronic Acid, derived from cock's comb. Big Pharma has been trying to shut down HA for at least a decade now.

But they couldn't. Because the studies had been done and the proof of HA's efficacy was there.

I know this, because I've written for two products containing HA. And the client had a file drawer of proof that would pass the FTC any day.

Plus, we never made any claims that could not be substantiated. HA helps alleviate joint pain, but it doesn't cure arthritis or any other joint disease. Nor is there 'proof' that it prevents the progression of any joint disease. (There are theories that it does, and some evidence that it may. But no proof that it does.) So we simply never made those claims - much as we would have liked to.

And, BTW: These HA products were among their best-sellers.

Originally Posted by Dainis

Ummm...BTW...anyone think I might need to move the business address of this site overseas?

Cure Tinnitus Member Community

Really, if you're concerned, you should ask a competent lawyer, not a bunch of random people on a forum.

[erinwrites]

I think that all that is happening is that the FTC is trying to prevent people on both sides of a sale from getting screwed. Seriously--these are government drones, do you really think they want to create more work for themselves? And think of just how much federal funding and work it would take to check every single website for compliance.

What you guys seem to be overlooking is that this ruling protects merchants and copywriters too. Think about it. If, somehow, you are forced to incorporate information about the "typical" result of a product or service then some jerk won't have a leg to stand on if he wants to sue you because he bought the product but didn't make a billion dollars overnight just by taking the product out of the box.

It looks to me like this ruling's goal is not so much to crack down on liars but to prevent a bunch of unnecessary lawsuits--lawsuits that somehow always make it to the FTC. These guys want to cut down on their work, not create more for themselves.

And, just my two cents, but if all that you have in your copywriting bag of tricks is a stack of (mostly faked) glowing testimonials then you probably need to go back to school And thank god, because I am getting REALLY tired of seeing pages that offer nothing but blinking headlines and five miles worth of testimonials with little to no text that references the actual product.

Come on, people: we're copywriters! We're the people who look at concrete bricks and say "now how can I make this interesting so people will buy more of them?" Aren't you up for a little bit of a challenge?

/nauseating cheerleading

[Martin Luxton]

Originally Posted by TristanPerry

I wouldn't worry too much about it. I'm not. As I asked elsewhere, if someone can show me the piece of international law that says:

"American laws apply to non-American citizens selling products to non-Americans and hosting the products thousands of miles away from America"

Ooops!

BBC NEWS | UK | NatWest 'fraud' trio arrive in US

America can extradite British citizens but for some reason this agreement is not reciprocal.

Don't worry about the FTC. All you need is friends in high places and you can market, for example, a flu vaccine which hasn't been tested and whose predecessors' "typical" results included brain damage and absolutely no protection against flu.

Just sayin'.

Martin

[TristanPerry]

Hi Martin,
Thanks for that link. Isn't that a case of a US-based business, though? As in, Enron was a US based company with some UK citizens working at the top of it?

It's worrying nonetheless, but I still can't seem to find anything which says that the FTC has jurisdiction over UK businesses not specifically doing business with US citizens?

As I say, it does seem like a silly case though. Some of the US law-making/enforcing bodies do seem to believe that they have Worldwide jurisction.

[Profit-smart]

So?

Stick to features, and emphasize them.

And add this rule to your playbook;

Give away a KILLER sample of the product.

Whatever it is!

I'm a big fan of letting a products quality sell its self.

If your doing aff/cpa offers, just duplicate the numbers from the owners site. Then they should be liable, not you.

If its a report, or a piece of software; offer a limited trial or a free chapter. Dont try to force them to opt-in to get it, just give it to them!

This is what I've been doing since all this FCC hoopla started up anyways. My numbers havent changed much, So I must be doing something right.

[mattlloyd]

Regardless of what will happen, the idea that you can only use the average results of customers is a joke. The fact is, 95% of people are lazy don't take action. Just look at the stats for how many people diets... are the diets labelled as a scam? No.

But in industry's like Network Marketing, it's OK to label a company as a scam if you don't get results with it. It just doesn't make sense to me.

[mattlloyd]

i dont have to worry about that i live in Australia anyway

[TristanPerry]

Originally Posted by mattlloyd

i dont have to worry about that i live in Australia anyway

Exactly Just be sure to not host your product in America (i.e. host it in Australia or Europe, etc) and I think you'll be set.

That's what I'll be doing.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by Profit-smart

So?

Stick to features, and emphasize them.

Exactly. I really don't know what the commotion is about. You can write good effective copy even under the new rules. IM and mail order get rich quick schemes have ensured that no one outside our industry is going to care to ever change the new rules. So might as well live with it.

BTW - Excellent piece of writing in that last post Collette. I Will look out for your posts more often.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by TristanPerry

Exactly Just be sure to not host your product in America (i.e. host it in Australia or Europe, etc) and I think you'll be set.

That's what I'll be doing.

Sorry Matt and Tristan. Paypal is US based. If you are found to be violating US law Paypal can and will eventually shut you down if you come under the radar.. Anyone thinking that they don't have to comply if they are not US based has a point but they must be preapared to forget about the US market as well.

[rconejr]

Yeah, I don't see how they will enforce this. Are they really going to devote staff to look for sales pages that violate this policy? I think they will go after the companies that are already on their radars for other scams and complaints.

[Damien Roche]

Anybody have any input on Google paid advertising? I'm constantly seeing textual ads which give very exact results. I'd hope cracks start to show there first, considering they're at the forefront of these ads.

I'm by no mean a copywriter in any respect, or a lawyer.

BY the way, how would this affect people outside the US?

[TristanPerry]

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Sorry Matt and Tristan. Paypal is US based. If you are found to be violating US law Paypal can and will eventually shut you down if you come under the radar.. Anyone thinking that they don't have to comply if they are not US based has a point but they must be preapared to forget about the US market as well.

So now USA law can be enforced on UK citizens doing business in the UK... if some Americans pay via an American payment system?

Sorry but... that sounds a bit of a joke?

What's next... I then change things and use a UK payment system, but since I once went to America on holiday I now have to follow all the American laws??

I honestly can't seem to believe the mentality that USA law covers everyone in the World over the most trivial of 'links'?

[Mike Anthony]

Tristan don't be ridiculous. Paypal is US based. Forget the US mentality hate rant (didn't expect that from a UK brother). Just as your business has to comply with UK laws so does Paypal with US law. You are fine as I said selling to people outside the US but if what you are doing is illegal in the US the FTC has the right to lean on US based companies to cut off service to you.

Sorry, some of you have your head in the sand on this one. You will get no sympathy from the overwhelming majority of people who see this for what it is. I am with Collette on this one. Its simply a policy to cut down on the scam or near scam offers that have been run.

This is a copyWRITERS forum. If you can't write good copy under these guidelines then you really aren't a writer of any kind at all so just hire someone who can. If you can't or won't then be content with being mediocre because if you ever have a breakout product or offer you'll find yourself under the radar.

[cgallagher93]

Tristan, unfortunately US copyright laws apply to copywriters and product vendors no matter where they are in the world. You could live in a straw hut in the middle of a tiny island off the coast of Hawaii, and you still can't avoid the FTC rules.

I have to say that I fully agree with Mike. It pays to be cautious in all areas of marketing, but at the end of the day you have absolutely nothing to worry about unless you're doing something illegal. As far as I'm concerned, anyone operating illegally should be eligible for punishment no matter where they live. The FTC are simply trying to aid the consumer in avoiding scams and conmen alike.

[TristanPerry]

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Forget the US mentality hate rant (didn't expect that from a UK brother)..

Erm.. what? I love America, have been there on holiday lots, and the people there are great.

Nothing against America, I just can't understand the logic.

UK laws aren't enforced randomly on US citizens (or citizens in other countries), hence I can't understand the logic here.

That's all, nothing "hate" related thank you very much. Just am confused and bemused by what seems to be *one* country's laws apparently applying to everyone in the entire World.

Edit: So yeah, I am just confused by the logic that a 100% British operation could somehow be 100% liable to American law. Although your second post seems to say that this isn't the case, merely that PayPal could close my account (etc) if I had a product (which I wouldn't) which was breaking the FTC's rules. That's fair, and something I entirely agree with. I resent that "race hate" implication though. If you knew me you'd know that's a silly thing to accuse me of

[TristanPerry]

Originally Posted by cgallagher93

As far as I'm concerned, anyone operating illegally should be eligible for punishment no matter where they live.

Of course, I fully agree

I'd never write scammy-type half promises on sales pages, nor create a "Make $1m with 2 hours of work!" product.

I'm just trying to understand how a 100% non-American company suddenly would have to follow American laws.

But Mike's second post seems to make sense to me. It's not like the FTC could ruin a UK business (per se), but just that PayPal could (for example) close one of their accounts if it was used to receive money via a product that breaks the FTC's rules. That, to me, is fair.

[rickstooker]

I think some fear is justified - as one previous poster noted, they'll make
an example of a few to scare the rest of us. And there is some reason for
even honest direct marketers to fear.

I don't understand the belief that these new regulations apply only to
scammers. There're plenty of laws and regulations already on the books to
shut them down. Why issue new ones?

Yes, some of them imply more than the average customer can expect, but if
the testimonial is truthful, forbidding it is a deliberate limit to free speech.

And if they're applied online, why not to all advertising?

So -- why should Coke be allowed to hire actors to portray happy young
people enjoying their products at a beach party?

Are they typical Coke drinkers? The actors may not drink soda at all.

Or McDonalds to hire actors to portray happy families? Are they typical
customers? Maybe it's the overweight nerd in the corner that you won't
see in any commercials.

Should the Wall Street Journal be allowed to continue to send out the current
version of the two young men letter? That's an example that is clearly
misleading, since we know that the typical WJS reader does NOT become
a company president -- there aren't enough companies in the world!

The St Louis Post Dispatch once published my mother's picture under a
fake name and implied that since she was a web surfer, you could be
too if you signed up for their ISP service. At that time, my mother had
never gone online or, I believe, even turned on a PC. Does anybody
believe the FTC will target a major newspaper?

As for you non-US residents -- I think it's clear that many governments
throughout the world are imposing transnational laws, and cooperating
to catch criminals across borders.

I don't blame you for being upset about having to comply with US
regulations. Americans feel the same when we read about how
European supplements regulations have to be applied to us become of
some treaty. And global warming regulations. And worldwide income
taxes that the UN wants to impose. Or when our Supreme Court issues
decisions citing as precedents the laws of other countries, when it's
supposed to enforce ONLY the US constitution.

Rick

[Collette]

The new ruling closes a loophole which is being exploited by unscrupulous marketers.

- You can no longer cherry pick testimonials or results to give an overall impression that is misleading. So, you can no longer pull an extraordinary result enjoyed by 1 person - without having to mention that the other 99 buyers didn't get the same result.

- You can no longer use only a 'best case scenario' and get by with the vague disclaimer "results may vary" in teeny-tiny print. You must provide a more detailed explanation of "results may vary". And that disclaimer can't be buried.

- If you use specific result claims in your copy (e.g. "Make $3,465,729.00 In Three Days Using My Whoopdedoo Miracle System") you have to be able to prove that ALL users of your product can expect that result. Or provide a disclosure of the typical results a typical purchaser can expect.

- General testimonials ("I thought this was the most helpful e-book I've ever read on autoresponders") are not required to carry a disclaimer.

- Anything that may affect the credence given to testimonials or endorsements, or which may affect the outcome of results must be clearly revealed. For example, JLo endorses CranAppleEssence Weight Melt-a-Way as a product that helped her lose 25 pounds in just 3 days.

The advertiser must now reveal that, during those 3 days, JLo also ate and drank nothing but CranAppleEssence Weight Melt-a-Way, while working out with her personal trainer for 10 hours a day, and sat in a sauna for 4 hours encased in a two-inch thick aluminum foil bodysuit.

- Expert endorsers should be experts in the field(s) related to the product. In other words, you can't hawk a nutritional supplement using the "expert" endorsement of a podiatrist, and using the generic "Dr."

- Unsolicited reviews are not endorsements. For example, you get a review or endorsement for which the giver of the review has not been, or will not be, compensated in any way. Affiliates would need to disclose that they will be compensated for sales made through their affiliate links. Paid bloggers would need to do the same for products they endorse.

- The marketer may be held responsible for claims made by subordinates (i.e affiliates).

This is the one that should most concern the IM industry, in general. It means keeping a very tight watch on what affiliates are claiming about your product. If you're running an affiliate program for a product that may come under the FTC radar, it might be well worth a chunk of dinero to consult with a really good contract attorney.

The ruling does not affect advertising where the average consumer will assume paid endorsement.

So, using your example, most people viewing a Coke commercial assume they're watching actors. Therefore, no disclosure is necessary.

People reading the Wall St Journal letter are aware that not everyone who reads a financial newspaper will become, or want to become, a CEO someday as a direct result of reading the newspaper. Therefore, no disclosure is necessary.

And so on...

BTW: the St. Louis Dispatch is damn lucky your mother didn't sue them for using her unauthorized likeness in their advertisng. Because there IS a law prohibiting that.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by TristanPerry

But Mike's second post seems to make sense to me. It's not like the FTC could ruin a UK business (per se), but just that PayPal could (for example) close one of their accounts if it was used to receive money via a product that breaks the FTC's rules. That, to me, is fair.

Sorry you didn't understand me Tristan. Thats all I meant. I said it before

Anyone thinking that they don't have to comply if they are not US based has a point but they must be preapared to forget about the US market as well.

Hey whats the racism bit about? I never accused anyone of racism. The US mentality thing did sound a little Anti - US though - not racist.

[Josh Bartlett]

Can I just clarify my understanding?

The issue is when you are stating results in a way which may be misleading.

For example, quoting exceptional results regularly which makes them seem like average results when people cannot realistically expect them?

(Lets leave the whole, thinking for other people issue and the, 90% of people just file something and never open it so why the hell should we go with "average results"! arguments aside for now)

My view is, shouldnt the switch be from specific results based quotes to quotes along the lines of:

"This is quite possibly the best product of this nature I have ever bought. Thank you for such eye opening information. This is going to be a MASSIVE help to my business"

etc

rather than:

"This report made me $8,000,000 in about 3.5 minutes!"

I am probably being a little nieve but I wanted to see what everyone else thought?

If this is basically it then surely a shift from written quotes is coming...

We have all seen the blog based launches where social proof and user posts make up part of the proof of the product etc

I guess alot more of this will happen and alot more "love this product its amazing" type quotes will be used.

[Dainis]

I don't understand the belief that these new regulations apply only to
scammers. There're plenty of laws and regulations already on the books to
shut them down. Why issue new ones?

Yes, some of them imply more than the average customer can expect, but if
the testimonial is truthful, forbidding it is a deliberate limit to free speech.

...Thank you...and is it not interesting that there is already some "flight" away from the US? That is what happens when free speech is limited, and it has happened before. Now some of the "flight" may be by unscrupulous folks, but some of it may be people like me (and cultivating integrity is a significant part of my life).

- The marketer may be held responsible for claims made by subordinates (i.e affiliates).

That, honestly is scary as sh**. So, I become responsible for something someone else said online, because I have a business relationship with them? Excuse me?

This is a very "rosy" concept:

most people viewing a Coke commercial assume they're watching actors. Therefore, no disclosure is necessary.

Oh, so Coke and the WSJ are exempt from this ruling because "everybody knows" some vague something. OK, writers, get your government approved list of "common knowledge" out and start writing. Because everyone knows that Coke really is bad for you and is used as a pesticide, it's OK for Coke to advertise using happy healthy actors...how many millions per year does a company need to make to be above these regulations?

I'm just thinking of creating an online survey of members of CureTinnitus.org. It could be numeric and update live. That would be pretty cool. I have to think it through. Let's see McDonald's or Coke have the balls to post their "common results," or the med industry. Hey, the med industry has their copy ready...they just need to take their list of "side effects" and title them "common results." Tadaa! Done! :-)
(I'm kinda kidding there, I mean it's just so sad to see the valuable contribution the pharma industry could make to civilization lost due to their demonization of themselves through gunpoint medicine)

Don't worry about the FTC. All you need is friends in high places and you can market, for example, a flu vaccine which hasn't been tested and whose predecessors' "typical" results included brain damage and absolutely no protection against flu.

...and if you don't give that vaccine to your kids you'll go to jail for child abuse.

With all due respect, Danis, this is unsubstantiated paranoia....All this ruling does is to shut down the hucksters and flim-flam merchants

Collette, I now live in Vienna, Austria, and I am a 1st generation American (raised in Chicago). As beautiful as the city is where I live, there is a very palpable guilt and an informed fiery soulful passion here regarding what happened here during WWII...and how to live differently, more fairly, and what "warning signs" to look out for in a governmental system, if and when it slides down the slippery slope of oppression. There is also a healthy amount of cynicism here, and hey, if the US slips, whatever, it's their turn this time around...let's go have coffee.

I also told you about my experience with the Soviet Union.

I will squarely state, that among the people you find to be hucksters or flim-flam merchants, there very well may be real, honest, caring individuals with real help for the sick, the needy, the dying and the hurting.

I run Cure Tinnitus Member Community and, of all things Urine Therapy Community, so it will make sense that when you or a government gets to decide what is "flim flam," and what is not, and when American media is saturated with mind control techniques, hypnotic techniques, verbal abuse, projection, and sorely lacking in solid thought and true application of the scientific method, then allowing government control over stated "results of a product" comes off as, well, control.

I have a lot of faith in the American people, the American "Masses," and the Individual American Mind, and basic principles need to be honored, in order for a free system to work.

Interestingly, I am not discussing "profits," as a matter of fact "profits" aren't really on my agenda. What is on my agenda is being allowed to communicate truth and living in a society where others can do the same.

And I very much hope, Collette, that every single aspect that you find paranoid about my thinking or my argumentation will turn out to be nothing but passing, unsubstantiated fear -- soon to be forgotten as our civilization progresses towards sustainable bliss.

...you know...I have to let this stew a bit...but there may be some exciting opportunities as a result of this ruling...

[Mike Anthony]

Dainis.

Comparing a FTC ruling made in part to stop people from "propaganda" with Nazi germany (although not mentioned by name) is quite a stretch.

[David McKee]

In answer to the original posting question:

The "Million Dollar Copywriters" should use their prodigious skills to get people elected who will overturn the idiotic, non-capitalistic, non-free-enterprise rulings of the un-constitutional FTC. That should be first and foremost. And then, if there are any copywriters out there that are in any way like (in spirit or in ability) the late Gary Halbert - they should be willing to perform test case copy against the FTC rulings.

By the way, if you just read this post, you WILL make a over ten thousand dollars today, guaranteed! (Individual results may vary, this result may not be typical, or it might, colors depend on lot number, your millage may also vary by as little as 0 or as much as a billion, You may have rights enumerated under other applicable federal, state of local laws - which could contradict each other. Please consult a lawyer, or tar and feather your local politician, if you read this far you may think I am kidding, am I?)



-DTM

[Collette]

Originally Posted by Dainis

Collette, ... ...so it will make sense that when you or a government gets to decide what is "flim flam," and what is not,...
...

Your perception of my influence is flattering, if overblown.

[Collette]

Originally Posted by Josh Bartlett

Can I just clarify my understanding?

The issue is when you are stating results in a way which may be misleading.

For example, quoting exceptional results regularly which makes them seem like average results when people cannot realistically expect them?

(Lets leave the whole, thinking for other people issue and the, 90% of people just file something and never open it so why the hell should we go with "average results"! arguments aside for now)

My view is, shouldnt the switch be from specific results based quotes to quotes along the lines of:

"This is quite possibly the best product of this nature I have ever bought. Thank you for such eye opening information. This is going to be a MASSIVE help to my business"

etc

rather than:

"This report made me $8,000,000 in about 3.5 minutes!"

...

Josh, you could still use the latter quote IF you had proof in your files that Joe Wunderkind did, in fact, make $8,000,000 in about 3.5 minutes.

You would also need to add copy something to the effect of: "Joe's result is extraordinary. But many people who use my report tell me they make at least $3,000 in the first year."

And, of course, you'd need to have the testimonials in your files to back THAT up.

And the first quote could be used even if it said, "This is quite possibly the best product of this nature I have ever bought. Thank you for such eye opening information. This [has been] a MASSIVE help to my business" Joe Wunderkind, Chicago, IL".

In this case, Joe Wunderkind is giving his personal opinion of the value of the report to him. He is not saying (and therefore, neither are you) that the product will have the same value, or produce the same results, for anyone else.

Of course, we're assuming that Joe Wunderkind is not being compensated for this glowing testimonial...

[David McKee]

My Friends all Laughed when I said I was running for FTC chairman, but when I won and then began to dismantle the agency from the inside...


Who Else Wants to Take on City Hall and Win Big?

[jasondinner]

"I can sell water to a WHALE. FTC got nothing on me."

Now, say that to yourself out loud 25 times today and you'll never have to worry about them again.

Jason

[rickstooker]

Originally Posted by Collette

BTW: the St. Louis Dispatch is damn lucky your mother didn't sue them for using her unauthorized likeness in their advertising. Because there IS a law prohibiting that.

Glad you mentioned this. My mother was a PAID model. Just like Coke actors
(only not paid as much, I'm sure ). So it was perfectly legal.

And while their ad with her picture over a fake name and claim was running,
she had zillions of friends come up to her to ask her about it -- and saying
they'd never trust advertising again.

And my mother's friends are generally well-educated and well-off - NOT
dumb hicks.

And she was once in a local casino commercial -- even though
she's never gone to any casinos. I can't say that any particular person
was persuaded to board The Alton Belle just because they saw her
happiness at going to the Belle in the commercial -- but the Alton Belle
obviously thought it would help bring in business from the older
generations.

Nobody really knows just how much -- or how little -- "everybody" knows.

I'm sure you've read INFLUENCE by Robert Cialdini. Remember that things
like social proof work EVEN WHEN THE PERSUADEE KNOWS THEY'RE
BEING PERSUADED.

And it's funny -- in many ways I agree with you about how testimonials
can be misleading. I try not to let them influence me (though I'm sure they
do anyway -- see above paragraph). I've been in MLM and heard people
stand up in a meeting and swear that a product later proven to be a scam
worked for them.

And I believe that every nutritional product in the world works for
SOMEBODY -- even if it's only a placebo (which work about about
33% of the time anyway. And it's amazing how many experimental
drugs perform WORSE than a placebo when they're tested.)

If the FTC enforces these regs as reasonably as you believe they will, then all
right -- no disagreement.

I wish I could have your faith that the FTC really had only the best wishes
for the consumer in mind but, let's just say -- without veering off
into politics -- I can't.

best, Rick

[Collette]

Originally Posted by rickstooker

...Remember that things
like social proof work EVEN WHEN THE PERSUADEE KNOWS THEY'RE
BEING PERSUADED.

And it's funny -- in many ways I agree with you about how testimonials
can be misleading. I try not to let them influence me (though I'm sure they do anyway -- see above paragraph).

Rick

LOL, Rick... Even though I know exactly what they're doing, I have trouble resisting the 3 a.m. infomercials just like every other person who's ever wished she had flawless skin, a perfect figure, a spotless house, and could wake up each morning to a bank account fattened by millions while she slept.

And, I have to admit - I love a good advertisment more when I can admire the mechanics.

I guess I'm just shallow that way...

[sherry_d]

I bet our IM friends across the pond are wishing they were based somewhere. LOL

Come to sunny London and deal with the Trading Standards instead...and brussels rules here....as as long as you dont mind living under the rules of some EU autocrats

[RussRave]

Originally Posted by Johnny12345

Steven,

I am a copywriter, but I'm not a lawyer. However, here's my own take on the situation, based on what I've read...


But, in any case, the real problem is that the rules are vague. They may have purposely been made that way to allow the FTC the ability to interpret and twist them in any way they desire. I don't know. We'll have to wait for the FTC to clarify its position or go after the first few scapegoats to find out.


Johnny

I'm not a lawyer either but I did study law for a couple of years and have had direct experience working with several lawyers in the area of litigation in Australia where the legal system is very similar to that of the US.

The thing about any rule, law or statute and any contractually binding clauses in any contract or agreement is this... that they are always subject to interpretation. Our entire western system of civil law is that of an adversarial one. Meaning that the lawyers for both plaintiff and defendant are opposing each others arguments in order to have their own interpretation and claims be the ones that are validated and carried by the court.
As far as the FTC are concerned, I agree that they had to do something to create caution and concern (fear if you like) amongst marketers that have been rorting the wide open landscape for too long. Having said that, the fact that they have deliberately set loose clauses within the bill or law can work for them but it can equally work against them. I doubt that any savvy and financially capable marketer would have too much difficulty making a solid defense based on a well crafted argument by an expert attorney team. However,.. not all marketers are that wealthy that they would wish to enter into litigation that in itself could run into tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in order to win their cases. The FTC knows this and would be relying on it as a major deterrent to any marketer to act recklessly or with a measure of disregard for the new loosely worded and broadly interpretable law now enacted. Prior to this if the FTC had commenced action against any marketer, that marketer could have made an application to the court to have its costs awarded in the case of a win,.. but now the new law means that the FTC have full legal right to commence proceedings against anyone that they feel should be served a lesson and therefore there would be virtually no case of being able to claim against the FTC for costs for filing a case that they were fully legally entitled to pursue.
Conclusion: Be careful and be responsible but don't get too paranoid about it. Sooner or later some fool is going to push the parameters too far and then the FTC will make an example of them so that then the interpretation will become all the more clear!
That's my view,
Russ

[lionpuncher]

I think this rule is to encourage rigorous testing before a product is released.

I could see why they did it to "help" the customer find the best product, based on actual results. But its taking a lot of the little guys out of the game and handing the advantage to the bigger firms who can afford the product testing.

Still, there are ways around this like the disclaimer. Plus, testimonials are great but I find that with REALLY GOOD COPY they tend to distract more than anything else (unless its from an authority, not your uncle).

my two cents!

[markpocock]

I think Michel Fortin has a great solution on his Blog.

Write your testimonials as case studies.

Simple!

regards

Mark

[ronakshah]

Originally Posted by jasondinner

"I can sell water to a WHALE. FTC got nothing on me."

Now, say that to yourself out loud 25 times today and you'll never have to worry about them again.

Jason

Oh so you didn't read Frank Kern's blog post on his blog about FTC..? did you?

He says "don't MESS with FTC" like a stern warning... they took all his money away from his bank a/c's though he wasn't at fault. He did make blunders and he is responsible for what happened. Though that was in 2003, Frank writes "COMPLY, BY GOD".

http://masscontrolsite.com/blog/?p=59

Jason, you can sell water to a whale but you can't sell laws to FTC! Indeed.

[ewenmack]

It will be interesting to see if Amazon makes changes to their buyer feedback.

Somehow I don't think so.

Amazon may well be the model to follow as it is very transparant...including negative feedback.

How many internet marketers would have the guts to include ALL negative feedback?

Ewen Vile

[sanjid112]

Actually, I get confused reading this thread. What is the point of all of this?
Do I missed something here? Why we talked about US-law vs non US-law? And some racism issue, and some more about Amazon changing and blah...blah....

Do I need calling Law-expert in here? And giving lecture about international law? Please back to the topic.

-Malik

[digidoodles]

If you don't live in the US, but you sell to US customers, I wholeheartedly believe you should have to comply with US laws. After all, that's the "price you pay" for getting into the pockets of Americans.

Are people actually suggesting that they can profit from Americans, yet run willy-nilly and think they must only conform to the country their business is established in? Please say this isn't the case.

Furthermore, if you tell the truth... this whole FTC thing doesn't mean bupkas to you. My partner and I have a sales page selling our services... where we .. wait for it.. TELL THE TRUTH. *gasp* Novel concept, eh?

If I have to lie or exaggerate to sell you something, I'd rather not sell you something, be broke and live in a van down by the river. Seriously.

You can't put a price tag on integrity. At least, I won't put a price tag on MY integrity.

Brandi

[killercopy]

If you're a copywriter, you really have nothing to worry about with the FTC, as it will be the company selling the product that needs to support their claims. The copywriter is given the information and running with it. On the other hand, if you're writing your own sales copy (for your own product/service), you are responsible for the claims you make.

I'm a government employee and I can tell you that the Feds are not going to be targeting small-time niche players. They just do not have the manpower for that and they never will. Obviously, these new rules are a result of unscrupulous bigger companies that are ripping people off. I'm sure a lot of the MLM companies will come under scrutiny, as well those "unknown-forced" continuity programs (like the recent Google Cash debacle).

I'd think it also comes down to base reality. When you sell an ebook, you have no way of knowing what the average customer makes 9in the case of an IM ebook). All you have is your testimonials. On the flip side, MLM companies track everyone's sales. The know exactly how many people you have in a downline and they know your product volume, etc. From this information, they can legitimately produce an "average" customer. Those of us that sell ebooks have no way of tracking results--it's impossible! And besides ebooks, what about books? How about a Dr. Phil "self help" book. I'm sure the back of the book cover makes all kinds of promises about how your life will improve when you buy his book, but there would be no possible way for Dr. Phil to give the FTC an average of what's going on when they buy his book.

Sure, we will have to wait and see. But we all know who the culprits are and if you really take a look at the new rules, you know the ones that are (or at least should be) worried about them. Personally, I think the latest move is a result of the countless complaints/investigations/lawsuits of the Google Cash B.S.

[ewenmack]

One man band outfits DO get shut down by the authorities.

An Australian selling an ebook on cancer therapy into the USA market
hit mainstream media in Australia about the shutdown.

Ewen Vile

[janet444]

Originally Posted by ThomasW

Jeff Paul has an infomercial showing women with large amounts of boobage interviewing clients making 10,000 - 100,000 a month with an unreadable disclaimer at the bottom of the screen. Will this stop?

Dear Lord, I hope so!

After seeing that infomercial (which was EXACTLY as you describe it here) I Googled Paul. Just as scammy as it sounds. I'd love to see the FTC put him out of business and make him give every single customer his/her money back.

Janet

[tchashow]

Im guessing that most of you in here dont really care about this but I would like to know how in the world are affiliates supposed to "conspiculously" state that they are an affiliate and still have the customers trust.