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

[Steven Wagenheim]

I looked to see if there were any other posts in this forum about this subject
and haven't seen any...which shocks me.

With the new FTC ruling, here is what, as copywriters, we are left with.

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.

Okay copywriters. Now we're going to get to see who can write compelling
copy without showing any benefits that you can't substantiate in a way
that will appease the FTC.

Personally, I don't have a clue how to deal with this. I'm no million dollar
copywriter, that's for sure.

So here's a chance for the big boys to share how it's going to have to be
done.

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that there is no way. You can't make
something out of nothing. We all know that features don't sell, only
benefits. But if a benefit (money earned, time saved, leads generated)
involves giving numbers, facts, figures, or anything that violates the FTC
ruling, then the only way we can give them is by showing average results.

Stumped?

I'm beyond stumped.

So let's have it you million dollar copywriters. How do we get around this
problem? And please don't say "pre sell the prospect by building your list
first" and stuff like that. I'm talking about actually making your copy as
effective as it was before this new ruling.

I'm interested to see what you guys come up with.

[ghyphena]

Play up the disclaimer :

WARNING: RESULTS NOT TYPICAL.
Here are typical results:

Disclaimer: These numbers do not represent the results you are likely to experience. The average user will file this e-book away in a remote corner of his or her hard drive after giving it only a cursory glance. As a result the average user is likely to make no money with this e-book. Only buy this e-book if you are prepared to make no money at all.

If nothing else, there's great potential for embedded commands. *jk*

That's my take on it... Not that I'm a million-dollar copywriter.

[Matt James]

Hi Steven,

Personally I'm waiting for the dust to settle on this. It still confuses the heck out of me.

But it's the big boys who will suffer first, surely - the FTC will go after the money.

I think I read John Carlton himself saying this kind of hysteria shows up every few years or so... for now just pray that your competition stop using testimonials.

(Disclaimer: this may all seem hopelessly naive when the FTC bi*ch-slap my sales pages.)

[ghyphena]

In all seriousness: the Wall Street Journal's "two young men" letter never openly states that the successful one read the Journal. I think I will invest some considerable resources into mastering the dark art of implication. Not only does it render you immune from liability, but the effect tends to be stronger.

Gary Halbert said something along the lines of: "the audience doesn't care for your pathetic subtleties" (not sure if those are the exact words; I'm sure Metronicity can set me right).

But, on the other hand, Harlan Kilstein shows that you can get dramatic results by finely honing subtleties of language. In any case, I'm sure Halbert was talking about style, i.e. "English Class" writing - not presuppositions and deep structure.

[Johnny12345]

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.

Okay copywriters. Now we're going to get to see who can write compelling
copy without showing any benefits that you can't substantiate in a way
that will appease the FTC.

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...

Yes, it appears that if your testimonials give a specific result, you must also cite the "typical" result a consumer should expect. Note that I said "typical" -- not "average." They're two different things.

But I'm not sure that your point #2 is accurate. As far as I know, the rule says:

"... 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.”

So, my question is... is the creator of a product also "a consumer"?

I don't think so.

If the FTC considered the creator to also be a consumer, wouldn't they have worded it in a more general way? For example, "If the claims made for a product are not typical..."

Furthermore, as the creator of a product, if you have to know "the typical result" at the time the product is released, it could mean long delays in releasing products to the market while research and surveying is done. That would deeply hurt new product development in all sectors -- not just IM.

The U.S. economy is already in shambles. So making things more difficult could create even more economic devastation.

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.

Hold on to your seats, friends, 'cause it's probably gonna be a bumpy ride...

Johnny

[Alexa Smith]

Originally Posted by Johnny12345

We'll have to wait for the FTC to clarify its position or go after the first few scapegoats to find out.

The problem (typically) is: you may have a long wait, and the first few scapegoats may turn out to be such "gross cases" that you can't really learn too much from them.

In the network marketing industry, people got all worked up about the "70% rule" (which was similarly vague - even more so, in fact, since it's not actually set out in any FTC document at all, as far as I know), but when you look at who's been prosecuted over it, they were all such obviously scammy companies that the FTC clearly had other reasons to want to take them to court anyway.

In reality, it may depend on how many complaints are made, and things like this. It can be difficult even to learn anything completely clearly from "subsequent events", in other words.

My own suspicion, given the little I know about the FTC's "history of trading", is actually that it may all turn out to be less "bumpy" than many expect.

[Johnny12345]

Originally Posted by Alexa Smith

The problem (typically) is: you may have a long wait, and the first few scapegoats may turn out to be such "gross cases" that you can't really learn too much from them.

Where in my post did I say that it would be a quick process?

In reality, it may depend on how many complaints are made, and things like this. It can be difficult even to learn anything completely clearly from "subsequent events", in other words.

Many of the "alphabet agencies" are complaint driven. So what happens is that some companies complain as a form of "attack" on their competitors. I know someone who experienced this sort of thing with the FCC.

My own suspicion, given the little I know about the FTC's "history of trading", is actually that it may all turn out to be less "bumpy" than many expect.

OK... let's test your theory. Give us one of your URLs and we'll all complain about it and see what happens.

I prefer to hope for the best, but plan for the worst. If you prepare for the worst and it doesn't materialize -- no harm done. The converse is not true. At this point, no one knows how this will all play out.

But, if you decide to ignore the rules, know this... the alphabet gangs don't play fair and they have unlimited resources. They are also fond of making "an example" out of people. Ask Frank Kern about the FTC. Ask Howard Stern about the FCC. Ask the doctor that got his office raided -- with guns drawn -- for dispensing vitamins about the FDA.

Johnny

[marciayudkin]

I think I will invest some considerable resources into mastering the dark art of implication. Not only does it render you immune from liability, but the effect tends to be stronger.

From my reading of the rules, this may not be a safe response. The reason I say that is that the FTC often talks about the conclusion that the average person takes away from an ad. They give the example that the average person thinks they will get the same results as the person whose story is told in the ad even though the ad never explicitly said anyone else would, and there is an asterisk at the bottom of the ad saying "Results not typical." That's a driving force behind the new rules.

So if you master "the dark art of implication" so well that everyone thinks you are claiming X even though you never say X, then by the FTC's standard, isn't that deceptive?

After all, celebrity ads don't usually promise anything. They don't have to. We get the message without being beaten over the head with it.

Marcia Yudkin

[MarkAndrews IMCopywriting]

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

There are millions of pieces of sales
copy online and many thousands of
copywriters.

Is it reasonable to expect that this
FTC, an American agency is going to
have the clout to go after absolutely
everyone waving their big stick, even
those marketers and copywriters
operating from international shores?

It's a completely barmy notion, a lot
of hot air about nothing.

These quango's, pen pushers, most of
whom havn't accomplished an honest
day of hard work in their lives ... simply
have nothing better to do with their
time than to screw honest, hardworking
individuals as much as they possibly can.
It's utterly ridiculous.

One gets exactly the same in this
country with Brussels interfering in
the affairs of the British, meddling in
things they know not a thing about,
or for that matter, the Health & Safety
Board (UK) throwing up so many
regulations for the small business owner
that it becomes practically impossible to
stay in business without breaking some
daft law or another.

I strongly suspect that near everyone
has absolutely nothing to fear whatsoever
from this FTC ruling concerning in our
case, testimonial boxes etc. It's just
another case of nanny state policing,
big brother interference into the state
of affairs by ordinary business people.

Perhaps I am wrong but since when did
the FTC have any legal clout on British
soil or any other foreign soil for that
matter?

I just don't see that anyone really has
anything to worry about - there's a
far greater chance of you or me
winning the lottery jackpot than having
this agency come chasing after us, for
the sake of a few testimonial boxes
or other claims made on our websites.

Look at the sheer numbers involved.
Look at the sheer number of websites
already out there with this information
on there at present.

Is it honestly, really feasible to expect
that all of these websites will have to
have their content adjusted to fit in
with this new ruling? It's just not
possible and what's more, it's going to
be absolutely impossible by any stretch
of the imagination, to police.

As I said, just another quango. Load of
hot air about nothing.

[marciayudkin]

Is it honestly, really feasible to expect
that all of these websites will have to
have their content adjusted to fit in
with this new ruling? It's just not
possible and what's more, it's going to
be absolutely impossible by any stretch
of the imagination, to police.

As I said, just another qango. Load of
hot air about nothing.

Would you really want to take the chance of being reported to the FTC by a disgruntled customer?

And would you want to be visibly, egregiously out of compliance with the rules if most conscientious marketers are following them?

I don't think so.

And what in the world is a "qango"?

Marcia Yudkin

[Justin Mandel]

Once the first person gets nailed this sets precedent.

The ABC agencies work by complaints. All that needs to happen is that someone complains about a site and then the FTC will have reason to go after that marketer

If you are the copywriter on British soil perhaps you are protected, but where is your client? If he is on this side of the pond then he becomes very touchable

So IMO you are vastly underestimating things.

Don't forget our famous guru who already got nabbed once and was prosecuted - Frank Kern. Something tells me he learned his lesson, hence the email he sent out the other day

Originally Posted by MarkAndrews IMCopywriting

I strongly suspect that near everyone
has absolutely nothing to fear whatsoever
from this FTC ruling concerning in our
case, testimonial boxes etc.

[MarkAndrews IMCopywriting]

You'll have the odd case here and there
Justin sure.

Most marketers though will fly straight
under the radar.

As I said look at the numbers involved.
It's simply impossible to police.

No doubt we will hear a great deal more
of this but I just think it's tantamount
to sticking the cat in amongst the
pigeons.

They'll be a bit of a flurry upon the issue,
the professional wailers etc beating their
chests in a great consternation and
lamentation, meanwhile the rest of the
marketing world will just carry on as
normal.

I think this a very typical case of
creating a storm in a teacup, a mountain
out of a molehill this FTC ruling. In the
vast majority of cases, nobody has
anything to worry about, not like that.

Now, the poster above you asked what
is a quango?

I used to work in a very well known
British think tank, where surprise surprise
a lot of us were extremely outspoken,
tackling social exclusion issues and
community regeneration on a local level
nationally. We were also the physical
home to several other leading UK think
tanks including Demos.

A quango typically referred to a bunch of
'nerds' (pen pushers) who were often
gifted academically but as far as on the
ground experience went, knew practically
zilch about anything of substance in the
real world.

Adept at coming up with government
regulations, they would interfere at just
about every stage of the process in
pushing through sensible laws or projects
aimed at helping people. Introducing
constant red tape, they would tell
organisations to jump through this hoop,
that hoop and just about every other hoop
possible - in the end taking a huge slice of
the money allocated for the community
regeneration project, all the while
pretending to have the greater good and
law upmost in their mind, when in fact just
the opposite was true.

These 'fake' legalistic organisations are
referred to in the UK as quangos.

Hence the correlation with the FTC.

Originally Posted by Justin Mandel

Once the first person gets nailed this sets precedent.

The ABC agencies work by complaints. All that needs to happen is that someone complains about a site and then the FTC will have reason to go after that marketer

If you are the copywriter on British soil perhaps you are protected, but where is your client? If he is on this side of the pond then he becomes very touchable

So IMO you are vastly underestimating things.

Don't forget our famous guru who already got nabbed once and was prosecuted - Frank Kern. Something tells me he learned his lesson, hence the email he sent out the other day

[Metronicity]

Originally Posted by MarkAndrews IMCopywriting

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

Voila. That's it in a nutshell.

[ghyphena]

Quango = Quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation.

And, to paraphrase the UK tv ad series: you know when you've been quango'ed*

@Mark: My fear is that whether you're in the US, UK or even Vanuatu probably won't matter much if you use Clickbank, 2CO or any other platform based in the US. FTC will adjudge you to be within their jurisdiction.

@Marcia: If you're right about the FTC adopting an objective standard (i.e. "what would the average person think") - and I'm sure you are - then yes, implication isn't a bulletproof solution. The difference is, it now become a matter of degree rather than black and white.

*Apologies for obscure UK cultural reference. The ads are for Tango soft drinks, with the slogan: You know when you've been Tango'ed

[Metronicity]

Originally Posted by MarkAndrews IMCopywriting

Perhaps I am wrong but since when did
the FTC have any legal clout on British
soil or any other foreign soil for that
matter?

That's an interesting point. I think you'll find if you're selling or "targeting" the American market they do indeed have some "legal clout". I'll ask Bob Silber - the Attorney to the internet stars - to come on the thread and comment.

[MarkAndrews IMCopywriting]

Originally Posted by ghyphena

@Mark: My fear is that whether you're in the US, UK or even Vanuatu probably won't matter much if you use Clickbank, 2CO or any other platform based in the US. FTC will adjudge you to be within their jurisdiction.

True perhaps, but with the sheer
huge numbers involved, the chance
of anyone coming after you waving a
big stick is still extraordinarily slim,
almost non-existent in fact.

I don't think anyone really needs to
be overly concerned about this issue,
not like that.

One needs to put this matter into
perspective.

[MikeHumphreys]

Steven,

Good quality testimonials are always helpful but I've written plenty of sales letters for brand new products with zero testimonials and still gotten strong conversion rates.

I think you'll see less hypey copy and shift to more "proveable" copy instead. I think you'll see more stories being brought into the copy. Case in point... I'm writing copy for a client right now that has a great story... he started his business after showing up for his job one day to find out that the owner's drug problem had caused the company to go belly-up. He would have never gone out on his own if he hadn't lost his job.

Use what you can prove to sell the benefits of owning the product or service. Use testimonials that were given by actual customers and keep the records on file.

Hope that helps,

Mike

[bobsilber]

The FTC does cross boarder (international) enforcement. You have to follow the laws of the country you do business in. If you think about it, it makes sense. I can't market to a U.K. audience and violate all the U.K. rules that are in place to protect them, just because I'm from the U.S..

.
.

[graham41]

I am definately not a copywriter but would this ruling only serve to boost the earning power of established copywriters?

my reason is, that marketers will increasingly hone in on tecnically gifted copy to keep them safe

My totally offline consultancy is finally taking off due to networking based on great service/results but also on a lot of over the top BS from me.

By the time I am finished the client has already paid a deposit on account in adv, then they are physclogically commited to me and I can tone the promises down to create a more realistic environment which they are more than happy with.

G

[KenThompson]

I believe some of you hit the salient points.

1. Complaint driven govt processes.

2. Vague wording. This is intentional IMO because it accomplishes
several things. First it provides lattitude which, admittedly, can
work for or against you, or them. Secondly it seems to be a natural
result when regulations are applied to a broad area with a myriad of
possibilities and situations. So it's a convenience, if you will.

Additional thoughts:

I would just think that a determining factor in the decision to
pursue prosecution would be a question of cost/benefit for them, the
FTC.

They're govt and therefore to a certain extent political. So they would
not want to look like a 1000 pd gorilla who totally annihilated some person
trying to make 100/month in affiliate revenue.

They have an image to protect just like all the rest in DC.

If there was a disgruntled customer who had an axe to grind, I believe
there would be a question regarding numbers of complaints. Then it
could either be black/white or gray in interpretation.

If we communicate with such customers in a professional manner, and
attempt to resolve the situation in a fair manner, then save those emails.
They'll become evidence and useful for supporting (and defending) your
self.

If the customer does not contact you and fires a complaint to the FTC,
then that will only work against the customer. This presumes it's an
isolated case from a difficult customer.

Edit: More thoughts and an idea.

If someone is sufficiently concerned about this, then the following could
be executed and perhaps be useful.

Create a results poll and send it to customers. Obviously, not all will reply
for reasons we all know. Then the average results will be known, and that
info can be posted somewhere in the copy.

The poll copy can be fairly worded in a way that reflects positively on the
product, etc. I'm not suggesting deceptively worded copy, but fairly and
accurately worded copy.

But it seems to me it all boils down to being a straight marketer who's selling
a good product that works as advertised. If everything's upfront, there's really
no reason to worry, IMO.

[Raydal]

I don't see how the new laws would affect "copywriting". That's for the
legal department to work out not copywriters. Every company has to make
sure that their marketing materials comply with the law before using them,
but that's not the copywriter's job.

-Ray Edwards

[Steven Wagenheim]

Originally Posted by Raydal

I don't see how the new laws would affect "copywriting". That's for the
legal department to work out not copywriters. Every company has to make
sure that their marketing materials comply with the law before using them,
but that's not the copywriter's job.

-Ray Edwards

Ray, it doesn't affect the copywriters as far as their liability, but it does
limit them to what they can say in their copy.

I mean if it was only just about the companies marketing materials, we
wouldn't need copywriters at all.

They do word things in ways that make the product more desirable to
purchase. Now, they have to be more careful about how they do that.

[TimCastleman]

I'm not changing crap. Seriously, I am still going to tell my story and have plenty of testiomonials. If the FTC has a problem, they'll let me know but I have zero plans on changing.

[Paul McQuillan]

I think there are other threads where people are bitching about
the FTC problem. This thread was not asking what we thought about
it, it's about what are we going to do.

Honestly, I do not have a problem with it as I have not wrote copy
using these techniques in such a way. I realize MANY do.

I will keep on keeping on

[Raydal]

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

Ray, it doesn't affect the copywriters as far as their liability, but it does
limit them to what they can say in their copy.

I mean if it was only just about the companies marketing materials, we
wouldn't need copywriters at all.

They do word things in ways that make the product more desirable to
purchase. Now, they have to be more careful about how they do that.

Well, I guess that was my way of saying that I have nothing to change.
I won't lose sleep over this ... not one minute.

They know who they are after. And it's not my kind of copy.

-Ray Edwards

[ThomasW]

Sam read the Bible and says it changed his life for the better. Are these results typical?

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. Drug companies advertise their miracle pills while claiming certain side effects such as your foot falling off and possible coma induced by taking their pill, and on and on. Will all of this stop?

Maybe telling the truth will work. Buy my package of 5 niches, 3 articles, and a pdf file, use it as I describe and results will be pleased with the results. If not , send it back for a full refund. For best results, USE AS DIRECTED.

[Kyle Tully]

Originally Posted by Raydal

I don't see how the new laws would affect "copywriting". That's for the
legal department to work out not copywriters. Every company has to make
sure that their marketing materials comply with the law before using them,
but that's not the copywriter's job.

-Ray Edwards

In the cases I've heard of where people were prosecuted it's BOTH the company and the copywriter that get done. Doesn't matter what your agreement says, if you write it then you back it.

[Matt James]

Most of you copy studs will have seen this already but just in case...

A Big Steaming Cup Of Hysteria | The Official Blog of John Carlton

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

So let's have it you million dollar copywriters. How do we get around this
problem?

Steve the answer isn't impossible. You use truisms and questions and some soft implications. You can get anywhere you would before but your copy will be more sophisticated. I'm looking forward to it. Chompin at the bits!

P.S. You can go under the radar if your copy doesn't result in ton loads of sales but we all know the government goes after the large money cases. They don't need to police every piece of copy. They just need to look at the very successful ones (they are going to have more complaints even if the product is good) and they'll be looking to go after IM products in particular.

Good converion rates are what copywriters sell and the make money and IM fields are one industry the FTC is after so they are in the bullseye.

[markpocock]

Testimonials are just one way of offering proof.

There are plenty more proof methods you can use
in a letter.

cheers

Mark

[Scott Murdaugh]

There are quite a few ways to deal with the new regs...

Mainly being open and transparent. I've written a little more on the subject in my sig.

-Scott

[Collette]

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...

Yes, it appears that if your testimonials give a specific result, you must also cite the "typical" result a consumer should expect. Note that I said "typical" -- not "average." They're two different things.

But I'm not sure that your point #2 is accurate. As far as I know, the rule says:

"... 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.”

So, my question is... is the creator of a product also "a consumer"?

I don't think so.

If the FTC considered the creator to also be a consumer, wouldn't they have worded it in a more general way? For example, "If the claims made for a product are not typical..."

Furthermore, as the creator of a product, if you have to know "the typical result" at the time the product is released, it could mean long delays in releasing products to the market while research and surveying is done. That would deeply hurt new product development in all sectors -- not just IM.

...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.

Johnny

The issue is NOT whether all consumers will experience the same results and/or whether you are able to define, with accuracy, "average" or "typical" results.

Nor does it prevent you from using testimonials.

Overblown Hype does not = Testimonial.

The ruling states that IF you feature a consumer claiming certain, specific results, and IF you present this consumer in such a way as to imply or convey the idea that this consumer's individual results will be the results experienced by the average consumer of your product, THEN you will have to be able to produce verifiable proof that the average consumer who buys your product will experience the exact same results as the consumer featured in your testimonial.

If you CAN'T verify that the average consumer who buys your product will experience the same results, you MUST reveal that fact.

So, say you want to use a testimonial from Joe. Joe says in his testimonial that he made a gazillion bucks in his sleep because he used your product.

You must:

- Verify Joe's claim to have made a gazillion bucks in his sleep using your product. And have that proof in YOUR files.

- Reveal in your advertising that Joe's results are not typical of the average user of your product. (financial and health markets have been doing this for years).

- Or, if you wish to convey the impression to consumers that Joe's results are typical of the average product user, you must have the PROOF that this is so. (That would mean getting confirmed results from every one of your buyers that they, too, made a gazillion bucks in their sleep using your product.)

- If you do not have such confirmed proof, you can not imply, suggest, convey, hint, or give the impression that every buyer of your product will have Joe's results.

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.

[TristanPerry]

Originally Posted by bobsilber

The FTC does cross boarder (international) enforcement. You have to follow the laws of the country you do business in. If you think about it, it makes sense. I can't market to a U.K. audience and violate all the U.K. rules that are in place to protect them, just because I'm from the U.S..

.
.

I mainly disagree with this.

As I posted earlier, I used to own a large website/forums aimed at teenagers and young adults.

Hence I had to comply with the COPPA law (the law stating that no 13 year olds can register/give personal information at all to websites, and those between 13 and 18 needed parental consent)

However as a British citizen, with a British-owned site, which wasn't marketed to Americans (it was for everyone), I wasn't too worried about the law (in the sense that I know it's important, but I wasn't going to massively inconvenience all my visitors for its sake). In my user agreement I just put:

"If you are an American citizen, you must comply with the COPPA Law. That is, if you are an American citizen, you must be over 18 years old to register, or be between 13 and 18 and with parental consent to register"

To me, that was enough. If an American agency wanted to take action, it'd be a bit of a joke. If America wants to protect its citizens then great. But as a British citizen with a British-owned site which wasn't aimed at Americans, I certainly wasn't going to do anything more than put a couple of sentences up.

As for the FTC law - any products I release won't be marketed specifically to Americans, plus I'm British and will (from now on) host all my websites relating to IM products in the UK, thus I'm not too worried about this law.

There are various consumer laws in all countries. But America (its law makers, that is) is the only country I've seen who seem to think that these sorts of laws can apply outside of America too. In my eyes it's just bully tactics, hence I'm not too worried about this FTC law.

I'm British, I'll (now) be hosting all my IM-related products/sales pages outside of America, and I won't be marketing exclusively to American citizens. If the FTC bullies think their jurisdiction covers me, they've got to be pretty daft.

[David Maschke]

I'm no expert copywriter, but I'll tell you what I'd like to read...



"I've received 50,000 hits and made 523 sales using just these simple joint venture techniques alone.

"That's 523 sales x $47 a pop = $24,581 in my pocket. (I think I'll surprise my wife with a trip to Hawaii.)

"Can I guarantee you'll receive the same exact results?

"Of course not. I don't know who you are nor do I know the caliber of joint venture partners you'll find. But if you're willing to put my step by step plan into action, you will see concrete results..."

Testimonials - I never read them. But that's just me.

Dave

[graham41]

clever and concise yet honest

[maximus242]

The panic over this is rediculous. Its just a small change from saying *results not typical to *typical results are bla bla bla

Big deal.

[travlinguy]

For our overseas friends who see this as no big deal, think again. Our government is in a serious transitional period at the moment. Every day we see more and more evidence of capitalism under attack. The president openly speaks about redistributing wealth. I never thought I’d see such a thing here but when Michael Moore’s anti-capitalism schlock garners the high praise it’s been getting, you can be sure there’s trouble on the horizon.

I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see the FTC implement a ‘drop-a-dime’ program similar to what the IRS does to catch tax cheats. I’m talking about a hotline where people can anonymously call the feds and report tax cheats and then receive a ‘bounty’ or percentage of any money the IRS collects.

With America losing an average of 500,000 jobs per month over the past year, this program has been very popular lately. People that have been laid off are ratting out their ex-bosses in record numbers. Maybe it’s a stretch to think the FTC will do this, but for my money, anything is possible.

And if the FTC decides to move only on complaints, what’s to stop jealous and wicked marketers from complaining about competitors? Think about it. What better way to tie up a competitor than forcing them to spend time and money defending his or her actions? You may think I'm paranoid but there is a very anti-business sentiment brewing in the US right now.

Okay, with all of that out of the way, I think the way to deal with the testimonial issue will be with an increase in the use of social proof. For example, say you’re selling a hypnosis program. Rather than have individual testimonials of how well the program works, you’ll be looking to quote magazine articles, universities and other credible sources where respected individuals have documented progress using it.

This won’t carry the appeal that a personal endorsement does (many of which are bogus in the first place) but it just might appease the regulators.

[Kay King]

Steven -

It doesn't matter what marketers think about the FTC rules - we have to follow them and when the steps are clarified (as they will be) that's what we'll do. I think the new rules may be designed to bring online ads and claims in line with what is required of offline advertisers and sellers.

Truth in Advertising | Business.gov

If non-US marketers feel this doesn't apply to them - why are they so busy posting their opinions about US law in all of these threads? For those so confident the FTC will not be able to enforce these rules - good luck with that.

If sellers are at risk with the rules, they will require affiliates to toe the line (no matter where the affiliate lives) and will not hire copywriters who don't adhere to the US laws.

kay

[CLcrax23]

Personally I have no problem with this at all. Like Kay said...once the rules are clarified...we will follow them.

It's just becoming harder and harder to be a business owner. If we think the economy is bad now, wait until all of the new "rules" kick in. Not just this, just pay restrictions, emissions restrictions, etc. It's almost at the point where it's better both personally and financially to be a worker as opposed to an owner. If that ever happens, we're all done for.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by David Maschke

"Of course not. I don't know who you are nor do I know the caliber of joint venture partners you'll find. But if you're willing to put my step by step plan into action, you will see concrete results..."

Dave

Almost but your last sentence possibly trips off the FTC alarm. You are implying in your concrete results an average of sorts (and a guarantee) and you could be liable to give the FTC a basis for that statement. So I would drop it. Reinforce that it worked for me and that I'm not special

" but when I put this step by step plan into action I saw results even though my wife tells me I'm not even close to being the brightest person that she knows. "

Its a variation of a technique they tell us to use in TV/Film scripts. Show don't tell. I just showed them who I was and they measured themselves favorably against my picture. I made no guarantees and just told my story.

[Loren Woirhaye]

I've often written salesletters without testimonials and got
good results. In that case, I shift the emphasis of the writing
to showing how the mechanism of the product works, what
makes it new and exciting.

I used to write a lot of "make money" copy and was fairly
hypey, but I seldom used testimonials because the truth was
money making systems require dedication and work to make
a lot of money with them. It's the "new" angle that gets
"the guy" (my term for the buyer) to start thinking it's
the best idea he's seen lately and take the risk of trying
it out.

That may sound a little simplistic, but there have been a
lot of very successful letters out there which were not
predicated on testimonials. Instead, use risk-reversal,
an innovative product, a price/value appeal, and so forth.

I think maybe the FTC thing is meant to target people selling
wee-wee pills, diet pills, Jeff Paul infomercial type stuff.

[TristanPerry]

Originally Posted by travlinguy

For our overseas friends who see this as no big deal, think again.

As I mentioned above - I'm a UK citizen, NOT sellling/marketing solely to Americans and will be hosting any IM-related websites in the UK. Hence I can't see how the FTC could possibly see that as in their jurisdiction.

I could understand it if, say, I was selling a product marketed to Americans. Or if I hosted in America.

But considering the above, I can't imagine I'd need to worry too much about this.

Just as UK consumer laws on the internet don't magically apply to Americans..

But if you can find a piece of international law that states that American laws apply to non-American citizens marketing non-American products and hosting them thousands of miles away from America, then I'm all ears

[AshleyAA]

Couldnt you kind of getaway with the testimonial part by putting ALL the feedback you receive on your site? One whole page that has the good, bad and the middle.

Of course you would position the testimonials in a way that the bad, which you would put underneath how you fixed the problem or addressed their concerns, were seen as good, because you made it all better, or at least tried to.

I am not a copywriter, in fact I only have one site and only have two testimonials, both are praise.

Just my thoughts.

Ashley

[marciayudkin]

Couldnt you kind of getaway with the testimonial part by putting ALL the feedback you receive on your site? One whole page that has the good, bad and the middle.

Ashley, that might be one solution, except for the fact that you need their permission to use people's feedback and my experience is that many people won't give their permission. Therefore, it might be hard to have a "complete set."

On the other hand, I am thinking of one course I taught that had 12 people in it, and I received permission to post the testimonials from 11 of the 12 people. I can say that and let people see that the praise and the results are very representative.

The larger the data set, of course, the harder it is to do that.

Marcia Yudkin

[tomw]

I don't get the panicking either. Especially by copywriters.

Those that work for advertising and marketing agencies or directly for corporate clients have nothing at all to worry about. All copy goes through compliance. Copywriters working for clients of their own also have nothing to fear as presumably the responsibility for complying with the FTC belongs to those who commission them.

It's only the "writers" that create their own products and market them that are potentially at risk. Those that work within the guidelines should be fine. As for the rest...well surely they're part of the reason why the guidelines have been amended.

Tom

[Lance K]

Originally Posted by marciayudkin

Would you really want to take the chance of being reported to the FTC by a disgruntled customer?

I understand what you're saying, Marcia, but thought that I would mention...

I wouldn't want to take that chance even if the rules hadn't changed.

Honor thy refund requests quickly and courteously.

[Lance K]

Originally Posted by Justin Mandel

The ABC agencies work by complaints.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Justin Mandel

All that needs to happen is that someone complains about a site and then the FTC will have reason to go after that marketer

A single complaint may or may not get you on their radar. But I doubt you'll make the top of their priority list without multiple complaints. And if you have multiple complaints, there's a good chance you should be high on their list.

[Lance K]

Testimonials are only one element of copy. And showcasing extreme results simply to increase sales isn't all that ethical anyway.

How do you deal with not being able to use the specifics of extreme results?

• Get Their Attention

• Construct Your Offer Around Something That They Want

• Explain How Your Solution Is Unique

• Describe benefits

• Offer proof

• Build Trust

• Demonstrate Value

• Reverse Risk

You can even use the lack of testimonials to boost the value of your guarantee...

"Now, I could plaster testimonials from satisfied users of XYZ all over the page in an effort to prove the value of my system to you. But that doesn't change the fact that these people are strangers to you. So I'd rather you prove it to yourself. And with my 100% Satisfaction guarantee I take ALL of the risk"

INSERT KICK ASS GUARANTEE HERE.

[marciayudkin]

And with my 100% Satisfaction guarantee I take ALL of the risk

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

[Mobosorous]

I don't have to worry about this... I live in London bwahjahaha!!