FTC - why can't I just tell MY story...

[winebuddy]

OK - been reading all the threads on the new FTC stuff and it occurred to me that I could just write and tell MY story.

I won't promise or guarantee or even insinuate that others can replicate it. I'll tell you what I did and how I did it and if you want the complete step by step on it, then buy this and download it.

I could also easily say in the copy that maybe this will work for you and maybe it won't - but it worked for me.

Thoughts?

[Jason_V]

The way I understand this issue is what you're describing isn't good enough. You have to tell people what the "average" results will be. It's insane. Not to get too political but I seriously wake up every day anymore and wonder if I'm still in the United States or not.

Again, I'm not a lawyer so take this information with a healthy dose of NaCl

Edit:

Here's the troublesome part of this new regulation:

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.

[winebuddy]

Originally Posted by Jason_V

The way I understand this issue is what you're describing isn't good enough. You have to tell people what the "average" results will be. It's insane. Not to get too political but I seriously wake up every day anymore and wonder if I'm still in the United States or not.

Again, I'm not a lawyer so take this information with a healthy dose of NaCl

okay...

But I have no idea what the avergage results will be - I only know what my results are and that's all I can tell people about.

And therein lies one of the problems with this new standard...

If I tell people what I did and say "maybe this will work for you like it did for me" and then they buy it, how do I know what results they got?

Seems to me that the only way to make this work is to hire 500 people and have them test it and then report the results on your sales page. Buyt even then, the people you hired are not "average" because they are being compensated and you'll have to disclose that as well...

"Out of 500 people hired and paid to test this system, the average results were $3,120 within 30 days".

And after reading all the other posts here, people seem to think that even this would not be good enough.

added: But if you are NOT using testimonials and only speaking of YOUR OWN experience, where's the problem?

[tomw]

I'm not singling you out, but yours is the latest and uppermost thread on this topic. I came to it first.

Why are so many people looking for workarounds, loopholes and shenanigans instead of focussing on earning an "honest" living?

The rules have changed, marketing tactics have to follow suit and adhere.

I do a lot of work with the

http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/

It happens all the time in the UK in so many sectors such as alcohol where even a *voluntary* code is strictly adhered to.

Tom

[winebuddy]

Originally Posted by tomw

I'm not singling you out, but yours is the latest and uppermost thread on this topic. I came to it first.

Why are so many people looking for workarounds, loopholes and shenanigans instead of focussing on earning and "honest" living?

The rules have changed, marketing tactics have to follow suit and adhere.

I do a lot of work with the ASA. It happens all the time in the UK in so many sectors such as alchohol where even a *voluntary* code is strictly adhered to.

Tom

Tom,
Glad to see you're back from the dead.

Can you explain what is DISHONEST about relating my own story of internet marketing success? I'd be interested to hear your answer.

[scrofford]

Here is a good explanation on the whole subject....

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

[Jason_V]

Originally Posted by tomw

I'm not singling you out, but yours is the latest and uppermost thread on this topic. I came to it first.

Why are so many people looking for workarounds, loopholes and shenanigans instead of focussing on earning and "honest" living?

The rules have changed, marketing tactics have to follow suit and adhere.

Tom

Well, I can't speak for any of the other threads or posters but I certainly don't think Winebuddy is trying to look for a loophole or a workaround. There is a general mass confusion about exactly what this means and what you can and can't say.

How many WSO's do you see in the headline that says something like:

"How I earned $3,147 in 7 days." Or, "How I earned $500 in 14 days" etc...

Yet, according to the FTC this kind of stuff may or may not be legal to do. It's insane! If I found a method and I put it into practice and I make that kind of money why am I not allowed to say so?

I think most people here are old enough and mature enough to understand that if you don't put in the work you can't expect to get the results.

It's like this with anything. Weight loss products/equipment is another good example. If you really think eating all the fried food you want and taking some sort of herbal supplement is going to trim you down you have serious problems. Especially when there is clear text on the screen that says: "Diet and exercise is required to get results"

You have to be 18 to purchase most any product. If you can't think critically or don't read earnings disclaimers or fine print, that's on you. The government shouldn't be stepping in and trying to play nurse maid to its adult citizens.

[tomw]

Originally Posted by winebuddy

Tom,
Glad to see you're back from the dead.

Can you explain what is DISHONEST about relating my own story of internet marketing success? I'd be interested to hear your answer.

Thanks for the kind words,

Like I said, I wasn't singling you out and it was a genuine question about the wider topic.

By "honest" I simply meant in accordance with the (new) regulations.

Tom

[winebuddy]

Originally Posted by scrofford

Here is a good explanation on the whole subject....

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

Steve, already been there and had a good read, but Frank doesn't address my question. It appears to me that the FTC is mostly concerned about paid or compensated testimonials and "average" results.

In order for a consumer like me to know the "average" results of a new product, it has to be tested somehow or else there is no data to provide the consumer. Hence my question.

[tomw]

Originally Posted by Jason_V

Well, I can't speak for any of the other threads or posters but I certainly don't think Winebuddy is trying to look for a loophole or a workaround. There is a general mass confusion about exactly what this means and what you can and can't say.

Hi Jason,

I didn't either, like I said I wasn't singling him out. Its just that this was another thread on the topic and I was interested in thoughts.



Tom

[Jason_V]

Originally Posted by tomw

Hi Jason,

I didn't either, like I said I wasn't singling him out. Its just that this was another thread on the topic and I was interested in thoughts.



Tom

winebuddy

I think you are dead on as far as what the government wants. They want you to have people independently test your product. Then you can say what the average results are. If you pay them to test the product; then as you said you have to disclose you paid them to test the product.

Another interesting question is:

What exactly does this mean for marketers who are outside the U.S. but market to U.S. Citizens?

[winebuddy]

Originally Posted by Jason_V

winebuddy

I think you are dead on as far as what the government wants. They want you to have people independently test your product. Then you can say what the average results are. If you pay them to test the product; then as you said you have to disclose you paid them to test the product.

Another interesting question is:

What exactly does this mean for marketers who are outside the U.S. but market to U.S. Citizens?

I don't think that the US Govt is able to enforce its laws against people of another country as much as they would like to try. I know there is cooperation as far as copyright laws but even that is thin at best. Someone in another thread has already suggested that all the USA is doing is placing a higher barrier to entry into IM because it will now require an overseas host and server and an overseas company domiciled in another country.

And as far as people independently testing your product, what if they all volunteered to test it? Would that give you an "average" result? NOPE. In fact, there is no way to know an AVERAGE result until as many that are going to buy it HAVE bought it.

The FTC has a huge case of the DumbA$$

We, the people, should immediately try and do something about this. The way that the law is written will allow selective enforcement against anyone they decide to go after. Sounds like pure and simple Dictatorship to me. They wake up one day and see "Jason V's" name in that papers as a new successful entrepenuer and just decide to take him out because he is selling Chocolate Cookies and has reviews from past customers that say "These cookies are the BEST!"

But after doing a survey of all the people who have bought his cookies, they find that there were many people who DID NOT think they were the best (unknow to Jason of course), so now they make a case that the AVERAGE result from consumers is only 73% approval of his chocolate cookies and take him down. Total BS - but a complete license to target and take out whoever they want to.

[bgmacaw]

"In a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary. Men are free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as their own individual judgments, convictions and interests dictate." - Ayn Rand

Unfortunately, we're headed in the opposite direction.

In other words, "Who is John Galt?"

[tomw]

Originally Posted by Jason_V

I think most people here are old enough and mature enough to understand that if you don't put in the work you can't expect to get the results.

It's like this with anything. Weight loss products/equipment is another good example. If you really think eating all the fried food you want and taking some sort of herbal supplement is going to trim you down you have serious problems.

Whether or not people are intelligent enough to think for themselves isn't the issue. In fact, we all know that many rarely do.

You just have to follow a few threads on this forum to see that in action.

The issue is that those in positions of governance have a duty to protect consumers from unscrupulous marketing practices. As do merchants and marketers.

Effectively, the greed of the unscrupulous ruins things for everyone else. As well as causing harm to the consumer in many ways.

Such marketers are to blame *not* the organisations that make the amendments to the rules.

Tom

[tomw]

Originally Posted by bgmacaw

"In a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary. Men are free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as their own individual judgments, convictions and interests dictate." - Ayn Rand

Unfortunately, we're headed in the opposite direction.

In other words, "Who is John Galt?"

Isn't he the guy that makes those really beautiful wooden toys for toddlers?



Tom

[Steven Wagenheim]

I think Winebuddy makes a valid point.

If I use a system that makes me $X per month and can show documented
proof (my tax returns) that I make this money, why can't I state this on
my sales page?

What, I'm not allowed to report my own results with my own product that
I created even if I say "I can't promise this system will make you any money
at all?"

Quite honestly, if I did this (which I do right now on my sales pages with
no testimonials) and the FTC comes after me, I'll take my chances in court
because I think that is stretching the intent of the law beyond what it was
intended to do.

** Disclaimer ** I am not a lawyer and can't 100% say that my feelings
on this are right, but I am sure enough that I would be willing to take
my chances in court. Everybody else has to do what they feel is right.

[winebuddy]

Originally Posted by tomw

Whether or not people are intelligent enough to think for themselves isn't the issue. In fact, we all know that many rarely do.

You just have to follow a few threads on this forum to see that in action.

The issue is that those in positions of governance have a duty to protect consumers from unscrupulous marketing practices. As do merchants and marketers.

Effectively, the greed of the unscrupulous ruins things for everyone else. As well as causing harm the consumer in many ways.

Such marketers are to blame *not* the organisations that make the amendments to the rules.

Tom

Tom,

There is no one out there that has a duty to "take care" of you, as much as you'd like to think so. It is also the "organizations" that are straying further and further afield and are now trying to "take care" of everyone - from making sure you are safe in your car, to making sure you get healthcare, to making sure you have a right to an income - cradle to the grave.

Now they want to protect "dumb" people who will not take the time to read.

While I am okay with saying "you must tell the consumer that results are not typical", I am NOT okay to making up a TOTALLY SUBJECTIVE standard called AVERAGE. There is NO such thing. And that gives the givernemnt the power to come after you just because they decide they don;t like you.

[tomw]

Originally Posted by bgmacaw

"In a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary. Men are free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as their own individual judgments, convictions and interests dictate." - Ayn Rand

Unfortunately, we're headed in the opposite direction.

In other words, "Who is John Galt?"

Heading in the opposite direction of Rand's view of Capitalism is no bad thing. Capitalism leads to disregard for the very idea of democracy (if such a thing ever has or ever will exist) and altruism and hands power over the masses to the wealthy few.



Tom

[winebuddy]

Originally Posted by tomw

Heading in the opposite direction of Rand's view of Capitalism is no bad thing. Capitalism leads to disregard for the very idea of democracy (if such a thing ever has or ever will exist) and altruism and hands power over masses to the the wealthy few.



Tom

1) if you think capatilism is bad - why are you here? This forum is composed of nothing but capitalists

2) We are not and have never been a "democracy" in this USA of ours. We are and I hope will always be a democratic republic. "democracy" is an idea that isn't practiced anywhere in the world as far as I know and allows mob rule.

[joshril]

Originally Posted by Jason_V

The government shouldn't be stepping in and trying to play nurse maid to its adult citizens.

This pretty much sums it up! Nice!

[Kevin AKA Hubcap]

I think the confusion comes in because there is not one set standard. The FTC gives examples of what is acceptable and what's not but there is a wide degree of latitude.

I'm interested to see how things pan out when the law goes into effect.

I can think of more than a few tv commercials with celebrity endorsers that promise beautiful, flowing, radiant hair and gorgeous, thick, eye lashes. I just wonder if the multi-national corporations selling those products will be subject to the same scrutiny as every on else?

Kevin

[tomw]

Originally Posted by winebuddy

Tom,

There is no one out there that has a duty to "take care" of you, as much as you'd like to think so. It is also the "organizations" that are straying further and further afield and are now trying to "take care" of everyone - from making sure you are safe in your car, to making sure you get healthcare, to making sure you have a right to an income - cradle to the grave.

Now they want to protect "dumb" people who will not take the time to read.

While I am okay with saying "you must tell the consumer that results are not typical", I am NOT okay to making up a TOTALLY SUBJECTIVE standard called AVERAGE. There is NO such thing. And that gives the givernemnt the power to come after you just because they decide they don;t like you.

You're right about the "average" yardstick. The rules certainly need clarification.

However, as a member of more than one of those "organisations" and responsible in part for helping create some of the advertising standards in the UK, I have to say that you're completely wrong on the rest.

Of course we have a duty to protect consumers from everything and anything that can potentially cause them harm. Including harm to their wallet.

There are countless other organisations set up and funded by our direct and indirect taxes specifically to do such things.

In a wider sense, the Police Force, Fire Service, Army, Navy, Airforce and countless other organisations I could mention fall into that classification.

You just don't get it. The more "dumb," "limited," "handicapped" or "helpless" someone is, the more we in a civilised society have a duty to "care" for them.

Tom

[winebuddy]

You just don't get it. The more "dumb," "limited," "handicapped" or "helpless" someone is, the more we in a civilised society have a duty to "care" for them.

Unfortunately, it is not I that doesn't get it. "WE" in a civilized society DO have that duty - not some nameless, faceless, government entity - but as individuals.

[tomw]

Originally Posted by winebuddy

1) if you think capatilism is bad - why are you here? This forum is composed of nothing but capitalists

2) We are not and have never been a "democracy" in this USA of ours. We are and I hope will always be a democratic republic. "democracy" is an idea that isn't practiced anywhere in the world as far as I know and allows mob rule.

1) I was referring to Ayn Rand's view of capitalism. But of course there is a tension between the fundamental ideals of a democratic republic and the pursuit of private capital, obviously. It would be really wonderful to find a fair and equitable balance.

I'm here because I own several businesses, am responsible for the livelihoods of many people in various countries, have a wealth of marketing experience and have a lot to offer but more to learn.

2) If democracy leads to mob rule aren't you kind of worried that *your* democratic republic is doing all it can to force it on those that don't want it. (joking)

Tom

[tomw]

Originally Posted by winebuddy

Unfortunately, it is not I that doesn't get it. "WE" in a civilized society DO have that duty - not some nameless, faceless, government entity - but as individuals.

But "YOU" individuals don't perform it. As such, organisations have to be set up and paid to do so with "YOUR" tax dollars.



Tom

[Frank Donovan]

Originally Posted by winebuddy

While I am okay with saying "you must tell the consumer that results are not typical", I am NOT okay to making up a TOTALLY SUBJECTIVE standard called AVERAGE. There is NO such thing. And that gives the givernemnt the power to come after you just because they decide they don;t like you.

All the excerpts I've seen from the FTC guidlines refer to describing results that consumers may "typically" expect. It was Frank Kern who (mis)interpreted this in his blog post to mean "average".

It doesn't appear to me that honest marketers have much to be concerned about.


Frank

[Jason_V]

Originally Posted by Frank Donovan

All the excerpts I've seen from the FTC guidlines refer to describing results that consumers may "typically" expect. It was Frank Kern who (mis)interpreted this in his blog post to mean "average".

It doesn't appear to me that honest marketers have much to be concerned about.


Frank

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.

average/typical/generally expect, just semantics really.

[Frank Donovan]

Originally Posted by Jason_V

average/typical/generally expect, just semantics really.

Not true. Winebuddy was under the impression he'd have to take a sample of consumers to arrive at an average. It was worth clarifying the difference.

What the FTC guide says is that you can't claim results are typical when they're not.


Frank

[winebuddy]

Originally Posted by Frank Donovan

Not true. Winebuddy was under the impression he'd have to take a sample of consumers to arrive at an average. It was worth clarifying the difference.

What the FTC guide says is that you can't claim results are typical when they're not.


Frank

Frank - I am all ears. what does "typical" mean? Normal?

Average?

Typical - what MOST people get for results?

I would think the last one is typical - what MOST people can expect. Well how in the heck do I know what MOST people can expect from my new IM product I just put out there?

[Steven Wagenheim]

The problem with this whole law, ruling, whatever you want to call it, is
that it is "vague" enough so that you honestly don't know what you can
and can't do, not entirely.

Sure, the obvious violations are just that, obvious.

But when you start talking about "typical" and telling your "own story", a
common and highly effective sales letter strategy, that's when it gets
fuzzy.

Let's say I'm suffering from constipation and I find just by eating more
fiber and regularly exercising I "cure" my constipation and write a book
telling people what I did to cure it.

I then write a sales letter stating the following:

"Discover How A 45 Year Old Man Cured 17 Years Of Chronic Constipation"

And I tell my story of how I suffered from this problem and then, when I
discovered what I needed to do to get rid of it, my constipation was gone.

How in the name of all that is right in this world is this against any kind
of rational law if I also include...

"I can't promise that what I discovered will work for you, but it has made
a dramatic change in my life"

in the sales copy itself?

Okay, based on what has come down from the FTC, is this or isn't the
above scenario within or against the law?

1. There are no testimonials other than my own personal experience,
which I do not consider a testimonial.

2. There are no claims made that the person getting this info will receive
any results at all.

If anybody here can tell me absolutely 100% for sure that the above
scenario is against FTC guidelines, I want them to show me, citing the
actual wording in the law that says this.

Because if what I just described is against the law, then every sales
page in the Clickbank Marketplace under health and fitness needs
to be taken down.

I'm all for "protecting" people and coming after the scammers, but if what
I just described is going to land anybody in jail, then there is something
seriously wrong with this law and we are all in very big trouble.

[Kirk Ward]

Originally Posted by tomw

...
2) If democracy leads to mob rule aren't you kind of worried that *your* democratic republic is doing all it can to force it on those that don't want it. (joking)

Tom

If you don't think we are headed for mob rule, then you haven't been watching the news and seeing who gets what. We are at the "circus and bread" stage of decline in a republic, and the democracy part is starting to show through.

Anyhoo, enough politics, back to the subject at hand.

Everything has a time and a place, and while I applaud the intent of the law, I'm not sure I like the way it is written. Only time and case law will tell. God Bless the Trial Lawyers Association!

K
.

[Frank Donovan]

Originally Posted by winebuddy

Frank - I am all ears. what does "typical" mean? Normal?

Okay. I am not a lawyer and nothing I say should be construed as anything other than my opinion blah blah..

But it seems to me that the FTC is targeting those ads we've all seen where some outlandish (and clearly unrealistic) claims have been made and the seller gets away with it by including the simple disclaimer "results not typical".

To stop this practice, the FTC now say that if you make such claims, you'll have to back them up with some harder evidence than just that standard disclaimer.

They've removed that "safe harbor" as they put it.

That's the only context in which they mention having to include "typical" results.

IMO, it's unlikely that any genuine claim, that clearly isn't intending to deceive, is going to get caught up in this and I suspect most marketers might be over-reacting.

But again, that's just my take.




Frank

[winebuddy]

yes Frank I understand your point and I agree that it SEEMS that that is who they are targeting.

But if the law or rule is left vague and unclear to the point that no one here, even though they have read it, understands it, that allows the government the leeway to completely abuse the rule and target anyone they please.

At first, they'll set up a new task force to enforce the new rule. Then, once they have gotten rid of the obvious scammers, they'll go after the "sort of" scammers.

When they run out of those, the task force people will either lose their jobs or they will go to great lengths to identify other marketers they can target and they will interpret the rule looser and looser.

Pretty soon, they will go after Steve's Constipation Cure.

THAT is my problem with it.

FACT: if there is a law that the government can abuse for the self agrandizing power grab of one person, the law will be abused.

[graham41]

this has got to be a good thing ( FTC) i can't understand why every one is going crazy about. Call me stupid but I think it is a good thing.

Pleasetell me why I am wrong

[Frank Donovan]

Originally Posted by winebuddy

At first, they'll set up a new task force to enforce the new rule. Then, once they have gotten rid of the obvious scammers, they'll go after the "sort of" scammers.

When they run out of those, the task force people will either lose their jobs or they will go to great lengths to identify other marketers they can target and they will interpret the rule looser and looser.

Pretty soon, they will go after Steve's Constipation Cure.

THAT is my problem with it.

FACT: if there is a law that the government can abuse for the self agrandizing power grab of one person, the law will be abused.

Well, you know your US Authorities better than I do , but just about every billboard, TV ad, newspaper ad, magazine ad etc is making some sort of claim, even if only by association. That's kind of what advertising does.



Frank

[eBizCoach]

The law will be more understood after there are lawsuits and standards are set and case law is developed I would guess. As Frank Kern says in his blog entry, the FTC is complaint driven, which probably means if you take care of customers you perhaps will be less susceptible to being under the FTC "microscope".

[winebuddy]

Originally Posted by shanedavind

How do I prove to the FTC I'm no longer constipated by following my plan.

ohhhh - that's good

[Jason_V]

Originally Posted by shanedavind

How do I prove to the FTC I'm no longer constipated by following my plan.

Actually, while humorous, there is an example that relates directly to the new guidelines:

YouTube - Jamie Lee Curtis and Activia Yogurt

Activia is going to have to:

A: Prove that Jamie Lee Curtis no longer has irregular bowel movements and that this will be the "typical" results for all who eat it.

B: Disclose that she is being paid a "crap load" <pun intended> of money for endorsing Activia.

P.S. Did you catch that small print disclaimer during? I guess that won't be good enough anymore.

[HeySal]

Knowing the "typical" results also pre-assumes that everyone who buys the product will engage in every step with an equal depth of peripheral knowledge and equal amount of time and effort. They are using faulty logic in the construction of their law. There is no way to equalize use, so how can we be expected to know typical results? Not possible in this universe.

While this law is purported to put false advertising to rest - it's target can be surmised by the size of the fines, which, unlike their points of mandate, they didn't seem to have much trouble spelling out very succinctly. We're talking fines of $11,000. $11,000 dollars? Now it's pretty obvious to me that they are NOT going after the major players......such as pharmaceutical companies. Is an $11,000 dollar fine impetus for a pharmaceutical company to publicly state that 25% of all people that use one of their drugs suffer from debilitating side effects or death from use of their product? They are after small businesses. Period.

$11,000 is the price that will put small businesses out of commission. Can you afford a direct hit like that? Now we are supposed to conform to this law by December 1st yet they have given no clear enumeration of the rules we are to play by. This is not a truth-in-advertising law. This is a law that will allow them to shut down any small businesses they want to shut down. There is only one reason on earth to enact such a law while avoiding making it completely clear in writing what EXACTLY can be done and what EXACTLY can not be done. Control. Completely arbitrary control.

This law is also not the only piece of legislation in the house right now that will subject the Internet to control by the gov. BTW

[pcpupil]

@Winebuddy.
I just read the whole PDF by the FTC.As to what your describing.
Theres an example in there about a lady who has a blog about her dog.Says she buys this NAME of dogfood.Gives her dog a healthy,shiny coat and hes full of energy.
Thats fine to say,no problem.Thats freedom of speech.
But,if the company sends her free dog food,or a check as an affiliate,she must disclose that she gets compensated in some way.
Thats it.Its her personal opinion and shes not telling anybody any numbers,days,ect...
Download the PDF.And look at it.
[5staraffiliateprogram] has it in a thread hes in.
Matt

[winebuddy]

B: Disclose that she is being PAID a "crap load" <pun intended> of money for endorsing Activia.

Think you left out paid but you are SPOT ON. This is a paid testimonial and they do not disclose what the "typical" results are so the entire ad, under the new guidelines, will have to be changed.

or- they could do like car commercials and have a really fast talking guy at the end saying something like

"your results may vary or not be typical. These results are only experienced in 41% of test subjects. The typical results are that you won't see any difference in your poopiness."

[diro]

Hey winebuddy,

Thanks for getting this thread started.

I'll say upfront, I apologize for the length of this thing...

In my humble opinion, I believe you can "just tell your story." The "disclaimers" needed depend on whether it's your product or not.

The way I read it, if it's NOT your product, (***DISCLAIMER*** I'm not an attorney, nor do want to be one! I don't work for the government, and no, I don't want to! This is just my OPINION***) you would need to have something like "if you purchase this product through my link, you will put a few dollars in my pocket and help feed my family and I thank you very much" or some sort of disclaimer letting the reader know you will profit somehow.

If it is your product, then the "typical results" clause would kick in. I believe since the FTC doesn't specify how many people it takes to get an "average" or exactly what "typical" is (i.e. how big your "test" group has to be), it leaves that part wide open.

If you were to give out a few (let's say 10), copies of your product (not all of them should be "experts" in that field...some "regular" folk should probably be included), in exchange for their test data. And, you publicized that test data, or at least the averages (and you keep the records to prove your claims). My guess is that you may be alright in the eyes of this new rule.

Of course, you would need to constantly ask for each and every buyer to please send her/his results in to you so the "average" or "typical" can constantly be adjusted.

This probably means the end of setting up a site to sell a product, and not changing the sales letter for months/years, as the data that was good when the letter was written may not be good 6 months later. Much more maintenance will be required.

As far as the "average" vs. "typical" word in the new rules, I've not yet read all the way through it, and Frank, you're right (as far as I can tell), they don't ask for "averages." My assumption is that they will use the words "typical" & "average" interchangeably. I'd bet it stays that way unless a judge rules otherwise. That ruling would start a whole new chain of events.

And in my opinion, the discussion about "having a duty" to watch out for/take care of/whatever, comes down to the question of whether you value personal responsibility and freedom more or less than giving up some of each to make sure you're "taken care of." The more one wants to be "taken care of" the more of each of the above they can expect to give up.

The only person(s) I have a Duty to take care of, are those that to whom I've promised to do so, including myself. I have a feeling that morally, I should help out whenever and wherever I can, but NO, I do not "have a duty" to do so.

I myself, want government out of my life (and biz) as much as possible.

Yes, I'll concede that some guidelines are probably needed and necessary because of the shysters and thieves that prey on the people that society calls "helpless."

And, I'll concede that there are those who are physically or mentally incapable of taking care of themselves. We do, as a society, have a duty to help take care of those people. We do not have a duty to empower anyone to be more helpless than they already are, which is what a lot of government programs do.

On the other hand, when do we say enough is enough, stop trying to micromanage all the lives you (the government) come in contact with. And for God's sake, quite trying to tax us for all of your pet projects! A percent here, a percent there, it all adds up and eventually those paying the taxes revolt.

It really wasn't that long ago that England was losing a lot of its wealth to overseas locations due to stupidly high taxes. The story's the same in the U.S. Those who do not learn from history, are indeed doomed to repeat it!

I've got lots of opinions on this subject, but I'd better save them for sharing over a pint or two on a lazy evening.

What's the answer? I can't say for sure... But I'll give it a try

In my humble opinion, we don't need more rules and regulations piled on top of the book after book after book of them that are already in existence.

Simplify some, get rid of some and let's make a bunch of these rules/codes/laws more encompassing and less exclusionary.

The divisions only serve to increase costs and employ more court/oversight personnel and more attorneys to fight these rules. In most cases, I believe, the exclusion is created just to help a political ally, friend or donor. In others, it was just oversight that could be fixed by amending the law.

In my opinion, the only reason this is happening now is because a few "media companies" (should read; newspapers that can't figure out how to make money from the internet) that are politically well connected, complained when their party got into a position of power.

My belief is that "new rules" for the "bloggers" is completely unnecessary. The rules that already apply to print and mail order should be updated to include the word "bloggers" if that's where the hangup is, then enforced equally!

I'm interested to see how things pan out when the law goes into effect.

I can think of more than a few tv commercials with celebrity endorsers that promise beautiful, flowing, radiant hair and gorgeous, thick, eye lashes. I just wonder if the multi-national corporations selling those products will be subject to the same scrutiny as every on else?

Hey Kev, to see how these things pan out, just a look at the pharmaceutical companies and the FDA...

I mean really have a look. I think you'll find that whoever donates the most to whatever party is in power at the time will be prosecuted the least, or will experience the most favorable outcomes.

From us "little guys" point of view, it probably depends on who can stay under the radar the best!

That's just my 2 cents worth (wow! 2 cents buys a lot of useless dribble these days!) and a few of my ideas.

Good luck to all and to all Plentiful Profits!

Rog

[darrin_cooper]

Winebuddy,

The new FTC laws are not vague at all. I definitely am in support of this move.
People see it as a negative & against free speech and all that, & simply they are afraid.

It's as simple as creating truth & transparency in your product or service.
And the simple way you do that is by creating an audit trail of everything that you claim, state, or sell. And ensure that the people assisting you in promotions of your product or service that they abide by your promotional (and FTC) guidelines.

As long as everything in your disclosures as well as in your marketing materials has a an audit trail that is clearly defined, you are completely safe.

What does that mean?
Yes, you can say you can make all this money with your product with a step by step method & you can have all the testimonials you want. However, if that information can not be backed up, verified & duplicated easily, then it's not valid.

Simply, people just need to be able to create an audit trail of information based on what your claims are.

[AndrewCavanagh]

Originally Posted by winebuddy

okay...

But I have no idea what the avergage results will be - I only know what my results are and that's all I can tell people about.

And therein lies one of the problems with this new standard...

If I tell people what I did and say "maybe this will work for you like it did for me" and then they buy it, how do I know what results they got?

Seems to me that the only way to make this work is to hire 500 people and have them test it and then report the results on your sales page. Buyt even then, the people you hired are not "average" because they are being compensated and you'll have to disclose that as well...

"Out of 500 people hired and paid to test this system, the average results were $3,120 within 30 days".

And after reading all the other posts here, people seem to think that even this would not be good enough.

added: But if you are NOT using testimonials and only speaking of YOUR OWN experience, where's the problem?

You're right.

None of the scenarios above would be legal under the new FTC guidelines.

You can thank dodgy review sites for these new rules which pretty much make it against their guidelines to use any testimonials or stories that include examples of real results.

To do it legally you'd have to keep track of the results of every purchaser of your product so you could get a genuine baseline average to work from...completely impractical...impossible really.

Kindest regards,
Andrew Cavanagh

[AndrewCavanagh]

Originally Posted by darrin_cooper

Winebuddy,
As long as everything in your disclosures as well as in your marketing materials has a an audit trail that is clearly defined, you are completely safe.

What does that mean?
Yes, you can say you can make all this money with your product with a step by step method & you can have all the testimonials you want. However, if that information can not be backed up, verified & duplicated easily, then it's not valid.

Simply, people just need to be able to create an audit trail of information based on what your claims are.

Unfortunately under the new laws that isn't enough.

If you talk about any results you also have to compare those results to a genuine average of all your purchasers.

The old disclosure that "results may not be typical" is no longer enough.

It's impossible to keep track of the genuine, verifiable results of ALL your purchasers in any practical way.

So that makes reporting any results or testimonials including results against their guidelines because you don't have that average to report.

Read this post for more detail...
http://masscontrolsite.com/blog/?p=59

Kindest regards,
Andrew Cavanagh

[cobra tatham]

Most people fall into the perception of easy money, make money fast, do nothing and make thousands. Desperation leads people into buying products when the salescopy is really good. Actual numbers that are stated ie "I made $8367 in my first month" along with a good story sounds convincing for many people but more often than not the problem is that they DON'T TAKE ACTION and they don't do what it takes to make money. Sad but true....

Andy

[Tom Brite]

Only read the first 3 replies as kinda busy but this caught my attention and if we have to only put typical results on all IM products then that result is.....

90% to 99% of people who buy will make $0!

Can't really see anyone putting that on their sales pages though!

Tom Brite

[Cash37]

International Servers FTW.

[SirHandsome]

your hearts are in the right place in trying to make sense of this nonsense... but you guys need to realize that the FTC doesn't care about being "fair." When you accept that, it all becomes clear

[Tom Goodwin]

Originally Posted by AndrewCavanagh

Unfortunately under the new laws that isn't enough.

If you talk about any results you also have to compare those results to a genuine average of all your purchasers.

The old disclosure that "results may not be typical" is no longer enough.

It's impossible to keep track of the genuine, verifiable results of ALL your purchasers in any practical way.

Kindest regards,
Andrew Cavanagh

Exactly. If Pfizer comes out with a new hairloss drug, they would be in big trouble with the FDA if they just said something like "55 year old man regrew all of his hair with our product". They would have to provide detailed data as to what is typical.

Clearly it is going to be a much lesser standard here under the FTC (I don't think they will have to have nice pretty charts with lots the mean and each standard deviation), but I think the same principle still applies. You must let the user know what is typical. Too be honest, in a vacuum, I think this makes a lot of sense and it is a good thing. The problem is how this could really be implemented is another story.