Bloggers, Marketers & Affiliates Beware! FTC Has Laid The Smackdown!

[darrin_cooper]

UPDATE: As of 12AM 10/6/09:
Since the passing of this FTC bill, I have since come across a few Internet Marketers & their sites who have taken the FTC regulations seriously and are already starting to comply with some of the rules.

Guys, it's so simple. I won't name the sites, but I will provide you with the content of what is "NOW" being disclosed clearly & precisely on their sites right on the Sales Page (MAIN PAGE), with Asterisks (meaning they were added & relate to some point being made within their sales page) & subscript numbers, etc.

Full Disclosure will now become the norm!!! This is some of the legalese that was clearly placed on a sales page disclosure section:

========
1. MATERIALS IN OUR PRODUCT AND OUR WEBSITE MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT INCLUDES OR IS BASED UPON FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SECURITIES LITIGATION REFORM ACT OF 1995. FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS GIVE OUR EXPECTATIONS OR FORECASTS OF FUTURE EVENTS. YOU CAN IDENTIFY THESE STATEMENTS BY THE FACT THAT THEY DO NOT RELATE STRICTLY TO HISTORICAL OR CURRENT FACTS. THEY USE WORDS SUCH AS “ANTICIPATE,” “ESTIMATE,” “EXPECT,” “PROJECT,” “INTEND,” “PLAN,” “BELIEVE,” AND OTHER WORDS AND TERMS OF SIMILAR MEANING IN CONNECTION WITH A DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL EARNINGS OR FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE.

** TO PROTECT THE PRIVACY OF THE TESTIMONIAL GIVER, IMAGE OF TESTIMONIAL IS FOR REPRESENTATION OF THE TESTIMONIAL GIVER AND NOT OF THE ACTUAL TESTIMONIAL GIVER. ALL TESTIMONIAL TEXT IS REAL AND LEGITIMATE.

Overall, there are still issues with the 2nd statement in the disclosure, but as you can see, it's already starting. The good thing is that the owner of this product clearly stated that the "IMAGE OF Testimonial is for representation of the testimonial." The problem is that it doesn't clarify if the image is of a real person, & contradicts the statement stating the "testimonial test is real and legitimate"

The whole key to Disclosures from a Fraud & Forensic Investigation perspective is to have an audit trail of fact based information. If you don't have that, & it's not clear, you will be liable to offenses of $11,000 per offense. Just be truthful & accurate people!

Today, the Federal Trade Commission has passed guidelines on Advertisers & how endorsements, bloggers, & testimonials must adhere to new standards. Fines will be $11,000 for each offense.

I'm personally glad about this, whereas, it's about time something was done of all the False Product Testimonials, inaccurate information, and "Claims" of making millions without disclosing actual facts when confronted.

It has gone on for far too long for these crazy claims where too many people can't produce the results that they portray. Also, what will be happening soon as well, is Affiliate Marketers must disclose that if they:
1. Are an affiliate marketer
2. If they have received payments or freebies from promoting the product
3. To clearly disclose the results that a consumer can expect.

What I think will be happening as well, is that there will be a crack down on ridiculous statements such as "Not everyone will receive same results" kinds of statements, whereas, a person (not the owner) promoting who claim results will have to prove it & be very clear in disclosing it.

For enforcement, you will definitely see a crack down by the FTC, but it will mostly be up to the people who will have to report infractions. This means, marketers who BS their sales letters, have testimonials of people who never even used there product will be called out openly & publicly. Expect to see tons of Consumer Reporting & Rip Off report Sites go on the rise!


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.

Now, some may disagree with the FTC whereas, free speech & constitution issues, however, this is about protecting the people. The fact of the matter is that it's too easy to Scam, vs. providing a Product or Service that actually works. We need to bring more truth not only to the country but also the world.

Bottom line, if your product produced results for you, you better be able to clearly back that up, otherwise, don't complain about refunds!!

It's about time we bring quality of service and level of effort back to our work ethics. But that's just my opinion on that matter.

I'll definitely tell you though, I'm definitely scrutinizing every new sales letter, product, promoter, just in HOPES I can find some false claims.

What are your thoughts?

New FTC Guidelines Here

[sbucciarel]

Well, it's going to be very difficult if not impossible for them to police millions of posts.

"The FTC's published discussion of its rules indicates that the agency will rely mainly on self-regulation, with enforcement action only in the most egregious cases, much as it does in dealing with online fraud. "

[francof]

Saw that this morning. Was only a matter of time I suppose. Attests to the growth of the little guys in terms of doing business online IMO.

[RGallowitz]

I highly doubt they are going to pursue any small time affiliate marketers.
They will tackle the big boys. And it's going to be REALLY hard for them to take on people from third world countries.

It's going to take years more.


Regards,
Reinhardt

[Brad Gosse]

They will pick a few big fish at a time to make examples out of. This is how the feds operate.

[plugsnpixels]

I read this news this morning and rushed over to the WF to see what others thought!

I am involved in the affiliate marketing of Photoshop-related software (URL in sig). I'm not a celebrity and I don't think I make claims to the degree that would concern the FTC. I do receive NFR versions of each product, but no cash payment unless I produce referral sales, but I suspect that's different.

I'd be interested in hearing Darrin's and others' opinions about how this ruling will affect my type of site (and no, I'm not advertising it here ;-) ).

[goldmind123]

I really appreciate these new rules..
May be this will help to bring back some ethics to this business, especially the making money market..
Let's have fun watching the scam clowns try to tolerate these new rules (they spend there time and effort turning around the rules instead of trying to build an honest real business).

[l23bc]

whats going to happen if your out of ftc enforcement i wonder like another countries such as europe or were i am in the u.k, How can they enforce that

To be quite honest it sounds more like a ron paul therory on youtube on how people are trying to senorship the internet and how people or companies use it? the chance for people to have the right as a customer to have some enforcement.

[Gail Sober]

I reported a site once for sending very bad spam links to me and heard back from them three years later requesting a copy of the email and additional information.

I hope they are hiring or their backlog will now be 10yrs or more.

[Marc Rodill]

Yeah, you might be happy about it.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing.

But $11,000 PER offense? Are you kidding me?

Sure that might not put a DENT in the "big boys" wallets... but then again, this is based on getting reported. What if someone reports the little guy, maybe someone who unwittingly made a mistake in some way, and now their pockets are drained?

I think it's lame.

"You shouldn't do this, and you did it, so give me all your money."

It's a really lame way to make sure their pockets are lined.

Don't you think fines should be appropriated on a case-by-case basis, concerning the facts?

But, you know, just my point of view.

[Marc Rodill]

Originally Posted by salorsilky

For this purpose i think they will plan on big scale and definitely nothing is impossible, Hope it would be a great step, And finally all users will be in relief.

Regards

Lol, what the hell does that even mean?

Not to be a jerk or anything, but your post reminds me of the comments on my blog that don't get passed my spam filter.

;]

[darrin_cooper]

At the end of the day, it's definitely about the big fish that the FTC wants to fry. However, from a legal point of view, the little fish are not exempt either.

What will happen is once issues come in, a formal & normalized process will take place. They have already laid out a framework. So, it's really up to the people to start policing the products they purchase. For example, Craigslist has a system & process of which you can report fraudulent classified ads. The more people complain about a certain ad, its removed.

The same concept will apply on a legal & federal level. If the PEOPLE actually involve themselves, provide actual & factual information, vs. bits & pieces, then the process will work for all. Therefore, that's why it's critical if people are making the accusation to have very clear & detail information. Scrutinize, but back up the statements they are making. For example,:
1. Testimonials: You make a claim on a testimonial by verifying if 1.) the person is real, 2.) the person providing the testimonial really used the product & received the claimed benefit, 3.) A disclosure of information of the testimonial, 4.) Accuracy of testimonial (whether or not the results of the claimed benefit can be verified).

Now, that's just one example in one category. Now in each of those areas, there will possibly be a weight & measure placed on how deep is the infraction and how wide it goes. So, what I think will happen is there will be more sites like Rip off Reports & Consumer Internet report style sites that provide more deep & accurate information RATHER to warn consumers & to document fraud.

At the end of the day, this is just a focused effort for people to wake up, stop the fraud, and get people involved, rather just sit on the sidelines.

[darrin_cooper]

It's not about the FTC policing posts. It's the people & wide ranging consumers purchasing products or services.

If those products & services are not what they seem to be, and formal complaints happen then there is an issue.

If people are promoting products with statements that "don't make sense" or statements that are simply not true, or when you are confronted or asked about it, then that's where the policing starts. And it starts by the people.

For example, I REALLY can't wait until Arbitrage Conspiracy comes out.......That's the first one I'm going after personally. LOL.

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Well, it's going to be very difficult if not impossible for them to police millions of posts.

"The FTC's published discussion of its rules indicates that the agency will rely mainly on self-regulation, with enforcement action only in the most egregious cases, much as it does in dealing with online fraud. "

[5starAffiliatePrograms]

There is another thread about this here: FTC Publishes Final Guides Governing Endorsements, Testimonials

I blogged about it this AM and posted my comments about how this could affect affiliates over in that other thread.

(Maybe the threads could be merged so we have the conversation all in one place?)

[ppcpimp]

you guys read this as being directed at affiliate marketers?

[darrin_cooper]

Of course. Affiliate marketers are just promoters, promoting a product in their own self-interest.
The issue is that with Affiliates, you don't know the TRUE relationship between them all. A perfect example is when you see a 10 GURU products, and then you have the same 10 people as the highest affiliates promoting their products. The question is: 1.) is that true, 2.) how accurate is that information, 3.) why is it that the same 10 people across 10 various products are all the same?

Then if you actually do your research, you will find:
1. Sometimes there is a SEPARATE SPECIAL Affiliate lists for their friends
2. There are special gifts given for certain affiliates
3. There is potential collusion amongst a group of affiliates
Those are just some grey areas that can cause potential problems without proper disclosures & to have a clear understanding of the relationships between the promoter & the product owner.

Originally Posted by ppcpimp

you guys read this as being directed at affiliate marketers?

[plugsnpixels]

Originally Posted by ppcpimp

you guys read this as being directed at affiliate marketers?

That was my first thought. Though I personally don't think my type of affiliate products will be a problem, and besides, I create my own custom examples of their usage for posting on my site, so I know they work.

Thankfully these products don't promise weight loss or the accumulation of wealth!

[Centimetro]

These laws are SO vague, and since the FTC made its intentions clear, I've seen so many people think that they're on some kind of moral high ground where they're safe.

With vague rules such as these, they can be twisted to fit just about ANYONES business model. If you're making any sort of money online at all, I highly doubt that you are 100% safe from the FTC if they truly chose to hone in on you for whatever reason.

It's very arrogant to assume that you have a full understanding of what these laws actually mean and who is or isn't safe when the guidelines themselves are LITTERED with completely subjective terms.

P.S. I find the posts from people suggesting that they want to "rat out" their fellow marketers absolutely disgusting

[wolfshaman]

I'm confuzzled... If a product is full of false claims and uses fake testimonials isn't the guy who actually sells the product the one laible for the fraud? How is the affiliate culpable?

Also, where is the burden of proof? In our justice system one is not immediately presumed guilty as soon a the complaint is filed. The feds will have to build a case worthy of prosecution so I have to agree with above posts they'll be too busy trying to fry the big fish and it may take years for them to get around to the little guys.

[Alexa Smith]

Originally Posted by l23bc

whats going to happen if your out of ftc enforcement

I'd imagine it's not so much about being outside FTC enforcement as being outside FTC jurisdiction.

If you live outside the US and your web site's hosted outside the US, you can't be of legitimate interest to them, surely?

If you live outside the US and your site's hosted inside the US, then maybe in theory they might be able to have your site closed down? As Steve would say, who KNOWS?!

[Pat Jackson]

Originally Posted by Alexa Smith

who KNOWS?!

This is exactly the problem. What I just read was so vague that it's impossible to understand what you need to do and what you shouldn't do.

It'll be interesting to see what happens but I'm not too worried just yet.

[SurviveUnemployment]

It seems fair in one way -- people using false statements to sell things are the scum of the earth whether it's the "guru" promising desperate people the moon or the slick car salesman throwing your car keys on the roof of the dealership when you take a test drive.

In another way, it seems unfair. Why should the affiliate be responsible for the false claims of a vendor? Plus, the Internet is global. This puts American marketers in a good spot to take the high ground, but it surrenders the very profitable low ground to shady overseas operations. In that sense, it also opens the door to Internet censorship as those sites will be blocked. Before long, we're all China, with a censored Internet.

[discrat]

Yeah I think this is a good thing. Especially with some of the Products being hawked by Afffiliates these days. I mean honestly, how can someone really believe that a ClickBank Product can be capable of adding inches in heigth on a full adult human being ??
This kind of stuff is ridicolous and needs to cracked down on !!

[Steven Wagenheim]

I've been doing the smart affiliate marketer thing since day 1.

First of all, I make no claims in my reviews. I tell what the product does,
what I like about it and what I don't like. If it's an IM related product, I
don't say things like "You will make $X a month" or anything like that. I
say that I think it will help you with your business.

Sales pages, again, no claims.

I don't make as much money as the big boys but I have absolutely nothing
to worry about when it comes to the FTC. Heck, most of my sales pages
don't even have testimonials (something I have been criticized for)

As for how I feel about it, honestly, I don't even care since it doesn't
affect me. If an affiliate of mine (have few of those) puts up a blog and
lies about one of my products, making crazy claims, it's HIS butt on the
line...not mine.

So as far as I'm concerned, the FTC can do whatever it wants.

At worst...we have fewer lying skeeze buckets online

At best...we have fewer lying skeeze buckets online.

It's a win-win the way I see it.

[LegitBlogger]

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Well, it's going to be very difficult if not impossible for them to police millions of posts.

You meant to say BILLIONS of posts, right,

[ripsnorta2]

Originally Posted by LegitBlogger

You meant to say BILLIONS of posts, right,

From what I hear the FTC don't have a branch devoted to tracking evildoers down, it's all complaint based. So the only way you'll get caught is if complaints are made against you, or perhaps you come to the FTCs attention some other way.

I'm also not sure of the constitionality of this, especially the non-disclosure aspects, and especially if you're not making false claims. Doesn't this sort of thing fall under free speech?

Couple that with the exemptions provided to big media outlets. The NY Times can get all the freebies it likes and never has to tell anyone in their reviews. Doesn't that sort of thing make the laws harder to enforce constitutionally or otherwise legally?

Why should the small guys be the only ones subject to these laws? Wouldn't it be nice to see the big outlets subject to this too? Or perhaps product placements in movies also falling under this jurisdiction?

[pcpupil]

I actually think it wouldnt be that hard to do.I could do it with a Dozen people full time.
I know i could put a dent in the way marketing is done.Mostly like already mentioned with scare tactics.
Theres an old rule:
"They might be a Bad person,but they could be a Good example!"
Just by reading this post i have 3 ways already in my head.
Matt

[ppcpimp]

according to our attorneys the FTC first started looking into this with the pay per post blog explosion happened. I was not saying that AM are not going to fall into this group with the language they used. I typically don't ever look at "guru" products as most gurus are not gurus.

Originally Posted by darrin_cooper

Of course. Affiliate marketers are just promoters, promoting a product in their own self-interest.
The issue is that with Affiliates, you don't know the TRUE relationship between them all. A perfect example is when you see a 10 GURU products, and then you have the same 10 people as the highest affiliates promoting their products. The question is: 1.) is that true, 2.) how accurate is that information, 3.) why is it that the same 10 people across 10 various products are all the same?

Then if you actually do your research, you will find:
1. Sometimes there is a SEPARATE SPECIAL Affiliate lists for their friends
2. There are special gifts given for certain affiliates
3. There is potential collusion amongst a group of affiliates
Those are just some grey areas that can cause potential problems without proper disclosures & to have a clear understanding of the relationships between the promoter & the product owner.

[ECS Dave]

From the page at FTC Publishes Final Guides Governing Endorsements, Testimonials

The Guides are administrative interpretations of the law intended to help advertisers comply with the Federal Trade Commission Act; they are not binding law themselves. In any law enforcement action challenging the allegedly deceptive use of testimonials or endorsements, the Commission would have the burden of proving that the challenged conduct violates the FTC Act.

By NO MEANS am I a legal eagle, or such, but it's my strong opinion that if you are an affiliate marketer, and you market ethically, you've nothing to worry about.

Even so, I have placed a "new" footer link on my blog, and will probably be adding that to my other sites as well...

Be Well!
ECS Dave

[plugsnpixels]

Originally Posted by ECS Dave

By NO MEANS am I a legal eagle, or such, but it's my strong opinion that if you are an affiliate marketer, and you market ethically, you've nothing to worry about.

I'm getting that impression as well, so I won't spend time stressing.

[mikkosant]

Time to start building your email lists...

[l23bc]

Landmark Ruling: Judge Orders Google to Hand Over Identity of Anonymous Blogger

different sitution but very scary and some aspects scary if you are a blogger if the ftc have control of blogging does that mean blogging will go underground in some ways, i mean look at how china banned some websites or syria yet people blogged their views an comments to show the world

all the ftc has to do is ask if you use blogger.com or even wordpress the account owner details an google will hand them over

just a idea on sitution
andy

[darrin_cooper]

UPDATE: As of 12AM 10/6/09:
Since the passing of this FTC bill, I have since come across a few Internet Marketers & their sites who have taken the FTC regulations seriously and are already starting to comply with some of the rules.

Guys, it's so simple. I won't name the sites, but I will provide you with the content of what is "NOW" being disclosed clearly & precisely on their sites right on the Sales Page (MAIN PAGE), with Asterisks (meaning they were added & relate to some point being made within their sales page) & subscript numbers, etc.

Full Disclosure will now become the norm!!! This is some of the legalese that was clearly placed on a sales page disclosure section:

========
1. MATERIALS IN OUR PRODUCT AND OUR WEBSITE MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT INCLUDES OR IS BASED UPON FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SECURITIES LITIGATION REFORM ACT OF 1995. FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS GIVE OUR EXPECTATIONS OR FORECASTS OF FUTURE EVENTS. YOU CAN IDENTIFY THESE STATEMENTS BY THE FACT THAT THEY DO NOT RELATE STRICTLY TO HISTORICAL OR CURRENT FACTS. THEY USE WORDS SUCH AS “ANTICIPATE,” “ESTIMATE,” “EXPECT,” “PROJECT,” “INTEND,” “PLAN,” “BELIEVE,” AND OTHER WORDS AND TERMS OF SIMILAR MEANING IN CONNECTION WITH A DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL EARNINGS OR FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE.

** TO PROTECT THE PRIVACY OF THE TESTIMONIAL GIVER, IMAGE OF TESTIMONIAL IS FOR REPRESENTATION OF THE TESTIMONIAL GIVER AND NOT OF THE ACTUAL TESTIMONIAL GIVER. ALL TESTIMONIAL TEXT IS REAL AND LEGITIMATE.

Overall, there are still issues with the 2nd statement in the disclosure, but as you can see, it's already starting. The good thing is that the owner of this product clearly stated that the "IMAGE OF Testimonial is for representation of the testimonial." The problem is that it doesn't clarify if the image is of a real person, & contradicts the statement stating the "testimonial test is real and legitimate"

The whole key to Disclosures from a Fraud & Forensic Investigation perspective is to have an audit trail of fact based information. If you don't have that, & it's not clear, you will be liable to offenses of $11,000 per offense. Just be truthful & accurate people!

[Alexa Smith]

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

It's a win-win the way I see it.

Of course it is.

It's good news for all ethical, honest marketers. And for the public.

The only people with anything to lose here are the people we should be trying to get rid of from our business anyway because they're damaging the reputations of all of us.

[sashas]

How will it impact people who aren't in the US? People outside the US can completely get away without following these guidelines.

Does this mean that marketers outside the US will now have an unfair advantage over those in the US?

[Alexa Smith]

Originally Posted by sashas

How will it impact people who aren't in the US?

Too early to tell, I suppose. In theory, it might impact people whose sites are hosted on servers in the US(?), but for myself I doubt if it really will.

Originally Posted by sashas

Does this mean that marketers outside the US will now have an unfair advantage over those in the US?

I think that depends on what you mean by "unfair"?

[ShiroTora]

It's like speed cameras isn't it - make people police themselves.


ST

[TelegramSam]

Originally Posted by darrin_cooper

I'll definitely tell you though, I'm definitely scrutinizing every new sales letter, product, promoter, just in HOPES I can find some false claims.

What are your thoughts?

Hey Dude, I'll tell you what my thoughts are.

Whilst I appreciate you starting the thread and your comments, I certainly don't appreciate your comment I have quoted above.

Who do you think you are?

Are you part of the Internet Police?

Do you realise that there may be many "innocent" or "ignorant" marketers who fail to "abide" by the rules. Some may be oversights, some may be deliberate.

But do you realise just how much of a **** storm you could cause for some innocent little guy or gal working from home.

I have witnessed lives ruined by these ******-******* at the FTC.

Are you perfect?

Are every one of your sites 100% legitimate?

How do you know for sure that there isn't some law somewhere that you aren't breaking?

Would you like your competition to completely crap all over you and then to be left alone to pick up the peices after you have been well and truly ******?

Your vindictive attitude makes me want to find a bucket. Also what's with the BOLD writing and the Anonymous mask? I also note you have been a member for a few months, have made quite a few comments, over 200 in fact, but have yet to thank anyone. Mmmm, interesting that!

Grow up.

[Jay Truman]

Originally Posted by darrin_cooper

I'll definitely tell you though, I'm definitely scrutinizing every new sales letter, product, promoter, just in HOPES I can find some false claims.

What are your thoughts?

hmmm.... can we start with your WSO?

Your telling me I can make 5600 Per Month with your biz op and with out proper disclaimer and disclosure? Im not sure if this will sit well with the FTC, should we send them your WSO to make sure theres no false claims and your advertising is legit?

I have a contact there on my email list, I don't mind sending an email.

[blur]

I'm going to play the devil's advocate here. I DO THINK THIS IS GREAT but there are so many loopholes.

1 - To get a conviction on a false claim or promise one would have to actually buy the product and use it and prove it doesn't work. You think the FTC has a budget to purchase our products, follow them, and use them? Testimonials are another thing as you should always keep hard copy of this...

2 - Offshore hosting is only a click away. I'm not telling anyone to circumvent the law, but who's to say that the people in question won't just move their product sales pages to an offshore server and use a different identity?

3 - How are you to control what affiliates are promoting your product and what they are saying about it?

I think this is a great step in trying to control the crazy claims by some marketers. Ultimately the real responsibility lies with the buyer.

[JohnMcCabe]

Originally Posted by plugsnpixels

I read this news this morning and rushed over to the WF to see what others thought!

I am involved in the affiliate marketing of Photoshop-related software (URL in sig). I'm not a celebrity and I don't think I make claims to the degree that would concern the FTC. I do receive NFR versions of each product, but no cash payment unless I produce referral sales, but I suspect that's different.

I'd be interested in hearing Darrin's and others' opinions about how this ruling will affect my type of site (and no, I'm not advertising it here ;-) ).

If you check the big sites that do software and computer reviews, you often see a line somewhere in the text saying "X Company furnished Model Z for purposes of this review."

If you use the product and produce the results, I don't see how it makes a difference whether you paid for the product or not. Just be up front about it. "My site publishes reviews about this type of software, so makers of the software sometimes furnish review copies. Furnishing that copy does not guarantee a positive review, or any review at all."

Originally Posted by SurviveUnemployment

In another way, it seems unfair. Why should the affiliate be responsible for the false claims of a vendor? Plus, the Internet is global. This puts American marketers in a good spot to take the high ground, but it surrenders the very profitable low ground to shady overseas operations. In that sense, it also opens the door to Internet censorship as those sites will be blocked. Before long, we're all China, with a censored Internet.

Turn it around.

You are a vendor. Your sales site does things right, every claim provable, every testimonial on file. I want to be your affiliate, but I don't think your site hits hard enough. So I put up a few hundred flogs making "juicier" claims, and write some killer testimonials. Then I spam the links to those flogs far and wide. I'm so flagrant about it that several people file complaints and the feds decide to look into it.

They decide that, yes, there's a lot of fraud around your product and decide to prosecute.

Why should you have to take the heat?

[JayXtreme]

What?

You mean factual based reviews without puffed up testimonials and lies?



What is this industry coming to?

Peace

Jay

/sarcasm

[blur]

If you're smart and you DO follow the actual FTC guidelines as stated, I would make a huge deal about it on your sales pages. To have real testimonials, real claims, and following the FTC guidelines should be a huge boost for sales.

I would make a burst or seal and place it 'above the fold' or even make it one of those page peels. Make a huge deal about it because if you do and your competition doesn't, there's your advantage.

[DASHBOY]

This is probably long over due (understatement).

Will it work? Don't think so I am sure marketers will get round this in time.

Theres just too many variables. With any product the person who puts in the most time and dedication will reap its benefits, whilst most will give it a half hearted bash and move onto something else and possibley claim it never worked.

Later

Graeme

[darrin_cooper]

It's definitely ALL Marketers, offline, online, everywhere.
Everyone needs to look at the whole framework of the concept & apply it to their businesses BETTER than (not as best you can) but better than that.

It's that simple. It's not a silo effect, trying to weed out a certain category such as "bloggers" or a certain type of fraud. The FTC's goal is to uncover it all.

I was just watching a television commercial, about the Eye Drops, I believe the problem was Rostastia. If you are in America, many of you will know what i'm talking about. They run this ad a lot. You know when you get so used to ads you can really remember them verbatim almost.
But this time, at the end of the 30 second spot, there was a major difference, they said the following:
Paraphrased:
"XXXX, is an actor and not a doctor. And XXX, has been compensated for this commercial" ---

It's definitely happening already. I never heard that line ever in the commercial & now I do.

Originally Posted by ppcpimp

according to our attorneys the FTC first started looking into this with the pay per post blog explosion happened. I was not saying that AM are not going to fall into this group with the language they used. I typically don't ever look at "guru" products as most gurus are not gurus.

[Jon Tees]

I just tell people what they need to know to spark their interest. They can find out more detailed information on the website.

[MichaelHiles]

I just drank the most delicious beverage. It is called Diet Coke. It was cold and crisp, and I really liked it. I will likely drink another one soon.






This post is the express opinion of the author, and is protected under the 1st Amendment.

[darrin_cooper]

The problem is Mike, is that in your "illustration", YOU are not "selling" Diet Coke to profit from it. So your logic is not in the framework of the FTC legislation.

Although funny, but it's just out of scope, based on what is trying to be achieved. The goal here is to create better & safer market places for consumers and to provide accountability on behalf of product & service sellers.

There's nothing against "First Amendment" & Free Speech...those aspects are irrelevant. It's the fact that when "Free Speech" gets stomped on, for example, when a person yells Fire in a Crowded theater.

This is the concept & the framework that this is under, and the goal is to reduce fraud & make people more accountable.

Originally Posted by MichaelHiles

I just drank the most delicious beverage. It is called Diet Coke. It was cold and crisp, and I really liked it. I will likely drink another one soon.






This post is the express opinion of the author, and is protected under the 1st Amendment.

[MichaelHiles]

Originally Posted by darrin_cooper

The problem is Mike, is that in your "illustration", YOU are not "selling" Diet Coke to profit from it. So your logic is not in the framework of the FTC legislation.

Although funny, but it's just out of scope, based on what is trying to be achieved. The goal here is to create better & safer market places for consumers and to provide accountability on behalf of product & service sellers.

There's nothing against "First Amendment" & Free Speech...those aspects are irrelevant. It's the fact that when "Free Speech" gets stomped on, for example, when a person yells Fire in a Crowded theater.

This is the concept & the framework that this is under, and the goal is to reduce fraud & make people more accountable.

I'll sell you the rest of the 12 pack I have in the fridge. One heck of a deal.

[Dan C. Rinnert]

Originally Posted by darrin_cooper

The problem is Mike, is that in your "illustration", YOU are not "selling" Diet Coke to profit from it. So your logic is not in the framework of the FTC legislation.

What if he owns stock in Coca-Cola? What if he has a mutual fund that has some shares in Coca-Cola? What if he has a family member that works for Coca-Cola? What if he does business with Coca-Cola? What if he does business with a company whose largest client is Coca-Cola? Or, what if he just wants to make sure that people buy Diet Coke because he enjoys it and wants to make sure they don't stop making it any time soon?

In any of those cases, isn't he "selling" Diet Coke to profit from it? In each of those cases, he benefits in some way if Diet Coke sells.

The goal here is to create better & safer market places for consumers and to provide accountability on behalf of product & service sellers.

Yep. Keep drinking that Kool-Aid.

This is the concept & the framework that this is under, and the goal is to reduce fraud & make people more accountable.

Looks to me like it puts a greater burden on people that weren't committing fraud to begin with, while those that were committing fraud will just continue to do so, no?