You think the FTC's new rules are out to get you? Then I hope they do...

[JohnMcCabe]

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

I did read it, and unless I am as dense as a stone, my understanding is
that you can only use results based testimonials IF you also include what
the typical results are.

How are we supposed to know what the typical results are?

As I said in an earlier post, a lot of people are going under the assumption that TYPICAL = AVERAGE. The two words mean very different things.

As I interpret the words, 'typical' means that if the same actions are repeated under similar conditions, the most likely outcome is a similar result.

'Average' is a mathematical concept applied to a fixed sample with known data. Cumulative results divided by the number of elements in the data set equals the average value.

If your data set is constantly changing, as you sell products and issue refunds, computing an average is impossible. That's why you have vague phrases like 'generally expected' and 'typical results' - to allow the marketer some room for marketing without granting an open license to lie.

Here's a 'just suppose' for you...

-----------------------------

Suppose you like to play golf, but you don't like the banana ball you usually hit off the tee. Physics tells us the problem is either the way you set up to the shot or the angle at which the club face meets the ball.

I have a product that shows you how to correct both of those faults.

If the 'typical' user follows the instructions, they can 'generally expect' to hit straighter shots. That claim is defensible using basic physics - line up straight, hit the ball squarely, and the ball will fly straighter.

Now you get a testimonial that says, "before I got this product, I sprayed balls all over the golf course. Now most of my shots land in the fairway and my scores are 4-5 shots lower. Thanks!"

The testimonial is consistent with the claim.

-----------------------------

Even if you could construct a mathematical average, it can be skewed so many ways as to make such a determination useless. Unless you are in Lake Woebegone, where the men are pretty, the women strong and all the kids are above average...

[Frank Donovan]

Originally Posted by Steven Carl Kelly

Stop imagining what you THINK the new FTC guides mean and instead READ THE DOCUMENT for yourself and see that you can, indeed, still use results-based testimonials if you like.

Steven, the FTC guidelines have now been out a while. They've been discussed in several threads on this forum. And yet, otherwise intelligent and sharp marketers are still continuing to either willfully, or carelessly, misinterpret the wording.

Just see some of the posts in this thread which invent an "average results" scenario simply, it would seem, in order to ridicule it. Of course it would be impossible to comply with such a condition, for the reasons John McCabe has already described.

My guess is that the objections, in the main, spring from a political standpoint. I'm not saying that point of view isn't valid - I'm no fan of big government or (most) state agencies - but from an ethical marketing perspective, I don't see very much in the FTC guidelines (such as they now exist) to get concerned about.


Frank

[Steven Wagenheim]

Originally Posted by tomw

That's a fair point and I apologise for the misunderstanding. Often I'm maybe overly concerned with how words and sentences read (flow or scan) and don't pay sufficient attention to the precision of their meaning. This means that I sometimes leave too much room for "individual interpretation." One of my (many) failings.

I've amended the post (in bold).

You're not wrong about my view. I've been working in marketing since 1989. There have been so many rule changes, amendments and hair-brained legislative moves that it's difficult to keep up. More often then not, these are the result of political ideologies of the time (or day!) and pressure groups exerting undue influence and lobbying on behalf private interest or private capital, of charities and consumer groups. Sometimes, they're as a result of a celebrity's child getting a rash because of the toxin used in the production of painted make up on her barbie-doll and whipping up a media frenzy. Then of course, there are those made because there is a real need and "something has to be done."

I'm of the view that in this case the latter applies.

Dark clouds for some, however, the eternal silver lining is that;

the world is full of people that want or need all kinds of weird and wonderful stuff and you have the opportunity to profit from this by simply delivering it to them.*

Market conditions change all the time, however. Those that react and adapt profit. Those that don't, don't.

Tom

[*especially by providing *real* value and not causing harm.]

So in other words, and again correct me if I'm wrong, I have to find a way
to get somebody to my sales page (not the hard part), look at it and say,

"This person has gained my trust. I believe this product will help me and I
am going to buy it"

without...

1. Posting any results based testimonials that the product actually worked.
2. My own story telling how it worked for me.

but simply by...what?

1. Describing what the product does? Isn't that a claim in itself?
2. Asking them to trust me? Why should they?
3. Pointing out the features of the product? We all know features don't sell.

Look, I admit, I'm no million dollar copywriter. So please enlighten me.
Your answer to the problem...

Market conditions change all the time, however. Those that react and adapt profit. Those that don't, don't.

is so vague that I don't even understand what this means.

Adapt how?

What am I supposed to do?

I have a product. I know it works. I am 100% sure that if used, it will work.

But hell, I can't even say that in my copy. All I can say is, "Look folks,
the typical user will probably use this as a coaster for his beer. So I can't
make you any promises. All I can do is offer you a complete money back
guarantee if you're not happy."

I don't see anything else.

Provide value? That's a given. And yeah, we can still load up on the bonuses
(value ones) and all that stuff.

But what good is it all if the person can't see that somebody actually
used this thing and it worked for them?

Please enlighten me Tom. I see no way to create a sales page that is
going to comply with the FTC and make any kind of sales.

And this has NOTHING to do with the integrity of the product. Show me one...
just ONE product out there with an ad that doesn't violate FTC guidelines
(online or offline) that is raking in the big bucks.

Unless of course what you're saying is that there really are no products
that do any good and the only way they sell is with these ads that we see.

As a consumer of many products, I would disagree with that. I have bought
many things that work and the ads that sold them to me would all violate
the FTC ruling.

Unless I'm mistaken, it's called marketing (putting your product in the
best light) and I see nothing evil about that, especially not when the
marketing is honest.

And somebody using your product, getting results with it, and reporting
those results IS honest.

But we can't use it anymore.

So you say adapt.

Okay Tom...to what?

I admit it. I'm an idiot. I have no idea what to do about this. So what's
the answer?

[Steven Wagenheim]

Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe

As I said in an earlier post, a lot of people are going under the assumption that TYPICAL = AVERAGE. The two words mean very different things.

As I interpret the words, 'typical' means that if the same actions are repeated under similar conditions, the most likely outcome is a similar result.

'Average' is a mathematical concept applied to a fixed sample with known data. Cumulative results divided by the number of elements in the data set equals the average value.

If your data set is constantly changing, as you sell products and issue refunds, computing an average is impossible. That's why you have vague phrases like 'generally expected' and 'typical results' - to allow the marketer some room for marketing without granting an open license to lie.

Here's a 'just suppose' for you...

-----------------------------

Suppose you like to play golf, but you don't like the banana ball you usually hit off the tee. Physics tells us the problem is either the way you set up to the shot or the angle at which the club face meets the ball.

I have a product that shows you how to correct both of those faults.

If the 'typical' user follows the instructions, they can 'generally expect' to hit straighter shots. That claim is defensible using basic physics - line up straight, hit the ball squarely, and the ball will fly straighter.

Now you get a testimonial that says, "before I got this product, I sprayed balls all over the golf course. Now most of my shots land in the fairway and my scores are 4-5 shots lower. Thanks!"

The testimonial is consistent with the claim.

-----------------------------

Even if you could construct a mathematical average, it can be skewed so many ways as to make such a determination useless. Unless you are in Lake Woebegone, where the men are pretty, the women strong and all the kids are above average...

Okay, I used the wrong word. Typical, fine, whatever.

How do I know the typical result?

What's the typical result?

How do you find out?

For some products, yes, maybe it's easier than for others. But what if
you use a system to build an opt in list and it works for you? The proof is
in the size of your list.

What's typical?

Is it building a list of 100 people, 200 people, 1 person?

If somebody uses my system and happens to build a list of 3,000 people
and sends me a testimonial to that fact, I can't use it.

Why?

I still have no idea what the typical use can expect or what the typical
results are.

So that testimonial does me no good.

Please correct me if I am wrong. I'm no brain surgeon but I think I am
intelligent enough to understand the basics of this ruling.

Can I use that testimonial?

And if not, what do I have to show in order to be able to use it?

And please don't answer with "typical results" because I don't know
what they are.

[Steven Carl Kelly]

I've tried my best on this subject, I guess.

[Steven Wagenheim]

Originally Posted by Steven Carl Kelly

First, I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. Consult your own counsel.

I point you to page 32 of the document, through the first part of page 34.

Advertisers are not required to identify a “typical consumer” of their product and then determine what result that consumer achieved. Rather, the required disclosure in this circumstance is “the generally expected performance in the depicted circumstances.” Thus, advertisers are provided some reasonable leeway to make this disclosure. For example, the term “generally expected results” is used rather than “average” in order to convey that this disclosure would not have to be based on an exact mathematical average of users of the product, such as might be developed from a valid survey of actual users. For example, substantiation for a “generally expected results” disclosure could be extrapolated from valid, well-controlled clinical studies of patients matching the profile of the persons in the ad, even though consumers’ real
world results are not likely to match exactly the results in the clinical study."

In other cases, the advertiser may be able to limit the scope of the disclosure by limiting the circumstances depicted in the advertisement. For example, if all of the testimonials used in an advertisement are clearly identified as persons who have been members of a weight loss clinic for at least one year, the disclosure can be based on performance data from that group. In any event, the disclosure of generally expected results should clearly identify the group from which the data were obtained.

Pay particular attention to the above paragraphs, and especially the portion "the generally expected performance in the depicted circumstances." Again, "in the depicted circumstances". Since the FTC provides for disclaimers of generally expected results based on individual circumstances, if I were doing performance-based testimonials that quote specific results, I would include a link to a unique disclaimer for each and every testimonial. That disclaimer would include the circumstances of that particular user's results.

Additionally, from the document:

If the advertiser does not have substantiation that the endorser’s experience is representative of what consumers will generally achieve, the advertisement should clearly and conspicuously disclose the generally expected performance in the depicted circumstances, and the advertiser must possess and rely on adequate substantiation for that representation."

So...

If Joe Blow used my product and wrote a testimonial: "I made $1.7 billion in 11 minutes using Steve's new Money Grabber II Electric Boogaloo System" then in the testimonial box I'd like to a disclaimer that says:

"Generally expected results depend on the amount of commitment and experience each individual provides when implementing the Money Grabber II Electric Boogaloo System. Joe Blow has been involved in internet marketing for 3 years. He was provided a review copy of the system and no charge. Joe completely read the entire documentation provided with the system, and then spent 6 hours developing a strategy for implementation. Joe worked his strategy for approximately 2 hours per day for 5 weeks. Once he launched his site live, he received a total of $1.7 billion in the first 11 minutes after the site was launched using the techniques in my system combined with techniques Joe had already learned prior to purchasing the system. These are the generally expected results based on Joe Blow's circumstances".

Again, me no lawyer. But it seems no matter how many times I've read the document that I can't come to any other conclusion. The new guide allows for generally expected results based on circumstances.

Advertisers are not required to identify a “typical consumer” of their product and then determine what result that consumer achieved. Rather, the required disclosure in this circumstance is “the generally expected performance in the depicted circumstances.” Thus, advertisers are provided some reasonable leeway to make this disclosure. For example, the term “generally expected results” is used rather than “average” in order to convey that this disclosure would not have to be based on an exact mathematical average of users of the product, such as might be developed from a valid survey of actual users.

Pay also close attention to:

The Commission tested the communication of advertisements containing testimonials that clearly and prominently disclosed either “Results not typical” or the stronger “These testimonials are based on the experiences of a few people and you are not likely to have similar results.” Neither disclosure adequately reduced the communication that the experiences depicted are generally representative. Based upon this research, the Commission believes that similar disclaimers regarding the limited applicability of an endorser’s experience to what consumers may generally expect to achieve are unlikely to be effective.

Nonetheless, the Commission cannot rule out the possibility that a strong disclaimer of typicality could be effective in the context of a particular advertisement. Although the Commission would have the burden of proof in a law enforcement action, the Commission notes that an advertiser possessing reliable empirical testing demonstrating that the net impression of its advertisement with such a disclaimer is non-deceptive will avoid the risk of the initiation of such an action in the first instance."

You could couple the above example with a broader disclaimer that indicates what some folks on the WF have already suggested: a disclaimer of generally expected results that most users of the system fail to put in enough effort to be successful.

Okay, I read all that...again.

And as you said, you're not a lawyer. This is YOUR interpretation of it,
which, for all we know, might be dead on the money.

But that's the problem...we don't know...not for 100% certain anyway.

And all honest John Doe marketer needs to do is follow your suggestions,
put up his site, have somebody complain, even with all those disclaimers
and my little bit about most people using this info for toilet paper, and
the FTC can still come cracking down on this poor guy's head and slap
him with an $11,000 fine. Yes, I know I read somewhere about warnings
first and all that and a chance to fix what's wrong.

Are YOU willing to take that chance?

I'm not. I need somebody from the FTC to look at my pages and sign off
a document saying that I comply.

And let me tell you something...if we could get that, an FTC approval
seal, think about what they would do for consumer confidence.

See, I'm not all against this law entirely as long as it's enforced fairly
and product creators can actually benefit from it by being recognized as
being complient. Sort of like a BBB seal.

Bottom line: After reading all that again, I am not 100% sure that what I
do with my sales pages is 100% within FTC guidelines.

[JayXtreme]

Originally Posted by Steven Carl Kelly

I've tried my best on this subject, I guess.

Some people don't want to understand, Steven it's their problem, not yours.

Peace

Jay

[Steven Wagenheim]

Originally Posted by JayXtreme

Some people don't want to understand, Steven it's their problem, not yours.

Peace

Jay

No Jay, it's not that some people don't want to understand. It's that some
people don't understand.

You want to call me an idiot, that's fine. But for me, this ruling is not clear.
It leaves too much open to interpretation to the point where I won't feel
comfortable without a lawyer explaining it to me and looking over my sales
pages.

And in my opinion, for anybody in this business, that would be the smart
thing to do.

[Steven Carl Kelly]

I can't help you any further, Steven. I think you need guidance that doesn't currently exist. Personally, I am convinced of several things as regards my own business:

1) These FTC rules aren't new, they've been around for decades.
2) The FTC responds primarily to complaints.
3) One complaint won't likely set off any alarm bells.
4) I've never known the FTC to target legitimate marketers who make good faith compliance efforts.
5) People here are making this more complicated than it needs to be.
6) I'm not worried about this new FTC guide or an investigation.

In order to reach your own comfort level, you're going to need a lot more than I can provide. I'm satisfied with my own position and not the least bit concerned.

[Steven Wagenheim]

Originally Posted by Steven Carl Kelly

I've tried my best on this subject, I guess.

Steve, I know you have and I don't blame you for this problem at all. It's my
problem, okay? I don't get it. I'm not comfortable with having to interpret
what all this means.

So I know what I'm going to do.

I'm going to get a lawyer and have HIM explain to me what I can and can't
do.

And if that doesn't do it, I'll get a hold of the FTC myself and get answers
directly from them, sending them to my own sales pages if I have to.

Either way, by the time I'm done, I will understand this.

[JayXtreme]

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

No Jay, it's not that some people don't want to understand. It's that some
people don't understand.

It's the exact same thing, only a desire TO understand is missing.

You want to call me an idiot, that's fine.

I don't.... and can we please leave the amateur dramatics out of a discussion for once?

I won't feel
comfortable without a lawyer explaining it to me and looking over my sales
pages.

Then go see a lawyer, if you feel that is your only way.. fill your boots.

And in my opinion, for anybody in this business, that would be the smart
thing to do.

You said it, Steve!

Peace to ya

Jay

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

But for me, this ruling is not clear.

It isn't a ruling. It is a guide explaining rules that have been around for decades. If you are out of compliance now, you have been out of compliance and subject to prosecution for a long, long time.

[Steven Wagenheim]

Originally Posted by Steven Carl Kelly

It isn't a ruling. It is a guide explaining rules that have been around for decades. If you are out of compliance now, you have been out of compliance and subject to prosecution for a long, long time.

Steve, if that's the case, take a look at the products in the Clickbank
marketplace. Some of them are years old, way out of compliance (IMO)
and yet, are still in business.

So what you're saying is that all of this is just a lot of smoke?

If so, then why come out with this new document?

Or are these sales pages now going to be in a lot of trouble?

Point is, while many might have been out of compliance (whatever that
means) for a long time, is it only now that it's going to be a problem?

Or is it not going to be a problem at all?

This is what I am still not clear on if what you're saying is true (these
things always being in effect)

So then what's the big deal?

[marciayudkin]

As I said in an earlier post, a lot of people are going under the assumption that TYPICAL = AVERAGE. The two words mean very different things.

As I interpret the words, 'typical' means that if the same actions are repeated under similar conditions, the most likely outcome is a similar result.

Your golf example is pretty clear because the laws of physics are fairly solid and predictable. However, when we are dealing with things like job-hunting, getting published, finding a mate, avoiding an audit, building a business, we are not dealing with the laws of physics. There is luck involved plus a whole lot of other factors, like timing.

And in those kinds of endeavors, I'm not sure how to apply the word "typical." For example, I can teach someone how to write a great letter to a literary agent. Sometimes it will get results the first time out and sometimes it will never work. There are too many factors to talk about a typical result. Or else I simply do not understand what the word means.

The dictionary definition of "typical" is no help at all: "Exhibiting the qualities, traits, or characteristics that identify a kind, class, group, or category." How does that apply to my examples?

I am not sure that anything I have ever achieved in my life is "typical."

Marcia Yudkin

[tomw]

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

So in other words, and again correct me if I'm wrong, I have to find a way
to get somebody to my sales page (not the hard part), look at it and say,

"This person has gained my trust. I believe this product will help me and I
am going to buy it"

without...

1. Posting any results based testimonials that the product actually worked.
2. My own story telling how it worked for me.

but simply by...what?

1. Describing what the product does? Isn't that a claim in itself?
2. Asking them to trust me? Why should they?
3. Pointing out the features of the product? We all know features don't sell.

Look, I admit, I'm no million dollar copywriter. So please enlighten me.
Your answer to the problem...

Look Steve,

billions of people all around the world walk into a store everyday and buy a product. Whilst perusing the mouth-watering wares on the shelves of a boutique confectionary store, does a salesperson follow them around the aisles showing them spiral bound testimonials and recommendations for, say, a candy bar that the customer appeared to be interested in?

The whole time, does she tell them how she's worked in candy bars for 7 years? That it was her lifelong dream to create a range of, what she believes are, the finest candy bars in the world? That it is her passion? That every day she wakes up and feels wonderful because she knows she's making a difference in people's lives even if it is only for the tongue tantalising time they're eating the belgian chocolate covered fruits of her labour?

And speaking of the chocolate, she imports the very best, made using only the finest beans found at the top of the forest. They grow in an until now undiscovered knoll known only to a handful of local indigenous tribesmen. The beans are so special because these coco trees grow amongst guarana, acai, and coca plants in the shadow of a wispy waterfall that bubbles out of mystical spring on the side of a lichen covered cliff-face. Legend has it that he who drinks the water will gain immortality, if only they could scale high enough to drink.

The raw chocolate is then combined with the finest endangered exotic animal fats and the breast milk of the most beautiful, erotic-dancing and scantily-clad beach dwelling tribes women in a natural top secret ancient Inca process that the 'so called' chocolate-making gurus of the world don't want anyone to know about!

Then the chocolate is shipped to Belgium for some of the special magic that everybody knows only the Belgians can do. And it is given a special seal of five star approval from the Belgian Chocolate Bureau of Alberta, USA.

Finally, she tells the customer that because the chocolate has been infused with a natural combination of holistic energy giving, fat burning and age reducing properties they can eat as many of these finest tasting candy bars in the world without putting on weight or eventually looking looking like crap, and that instead, they'll actually lose weight and start to look younger and healthier - but wait there's more! Because of the coca they'll feel bloody fantastic every time they take a bite!

No of course not.

Why do you imagine it has to be like this online? Why do you imagine the only way to sell infoproducts is the way that YOU do?

There's more than one way to skin a cat. And there are so many ways to sell things for me to list here. If not, there'd be no need for marketing or marketers, would there?

But as you are so adamant that you will not be able to sell your wares as a result of this legislation, I think the burden of proof is on you to show me that other marketing tactics will not work and not on me to prove to you that you can indeed make a living by adapting your tactics to fall in line with legislation should it require you to adapt.

Tom

[Steven Wagenheim]

Originally Posted by tomw

Look Steve,

billions of people all around the world walk into a store everyday and buy a product. Whilst perusing the mouth-watering wares on the shelves of a boutique confectionary store, does a salesperson follow them around the aisles showing them spiral bound testimonials and recommendations for, say, a candy bar that the customer appeared to be interested in?

The whole time, does she tell them how she's worked in candy bars for 7 years? That it was her lifelong dream to create a range of, what she believes are, the finest candy bars in the world? That it is her passion? That every day she wakes up and feels wonderful because she knows she's making a difference in people's lives even if it is only for the tongue tantalising time they're eating the belgian chocolate covered fruits of her labour?

And speaking of the chocolate, she imports the very best, made using only the finest beans found at the top of the forest. They grow in an until now undiscovered knoll known only to a handful of local indigenous tribesmen. The beans are so special because these coco trees grow amongst guarana, acai, and coca plants in the shadow of a wispy waterfall that bubbles out of mystical spring on the side of a lichen covered cliff-face. Legend has it that he who drinks the water will gain immortality, if only they could scale high enough to drink.

The raw chocolate is then combined with the finest endangered exotic animal fats and the breast milk of the most beautiful, erotic-dancing and scantily-clad beach dwelling tribes women in a natural top secret ancient Inca process that the 'so called' chocolate-making gurus of the world don't want anyone to know about!

Then the chocolate is shipped to Belgium for some of the special magic that everybody knows only the Belgians can do. And it is given a special seal of five star approval from the Belgian Chocolate Bureau of Alberta, USA.

Finally, she tells the customer that because the chocolate has been infused with a natural combination of holistic energy giving, fat burning and age reducing properties they can eat as many of these finest tasting candy bars in the world without putting on weight or eventually looking looking like crap, and that instead, they'll actually lose weight and start to look younger and healthier - but wait there's more! Because of the coca they'll feel bloody fantastic every time they take a bite!

No of course not.

Why do you imagine it has to be like this online? Why do you imagine the only way to sell infoproducts is the way that YOU do?

There's more than one way to skin a cat. And there are so many ways to sell things for me to list here. If not, there'd be no need for marketing or marketers, would there?

But as you are so adamant that you will not be able to sell your wares as a result of this legislation, I think the burden of proof is on you to show me that other marketing tactics will not work and not on me to prove to you that you can indeed make a living by adapting your tactics to fall in line with legislation should it require you to adapt.

Tom

Okay, I could argue that your example of chocolate doesn't apply but
I'm not going to go down this road anymore.

I just downloaded the FTC document and I'm going to read it from cover
to cover until I understand it. And what I don't understand I am going to
go over with a friend of mine who just happens to be a lawyer.

All of this is moot because ultimately, the only thing that matters is that
whatever marketing a person does complies with the FTC...whatever
that marketing has to be.

[tomw]

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

I just downloaded the FTC document and I'm going to read it from cover
to cover until I understand it. And what I don't understand I am going to
go over with a friend of mine who just happens to be a lawyer.

All of this is moot because ultimately, the only thing that matters is that
whatever marketing a person does complies with the FTC...whatever
that marketing has to be.

Holy crap! Progress.



Tom

[Marc2008]

So let me ask the big guys on here this one. Steven and Jeremy, two people I look up to and feel are my mentors in a sense. Or anybody else can answer this really. Is this mainly going to effect the make money crowd of sellers online? Whether it be Stocks, Real Estate, Make My Online, etc..?

[Steven Wagenheim]

Originally Posted by tomw

Holy crap! Progress.



Tom

Okay, read it...got it.

Seems pretty straight forward to me, but please correct me if any of my
interpretations are incorrect.

This is a no-no

Customer sends testimonial on how your product did (whatever) but those
results are not typical, so you have to show what the typical results are.
If you can't do this, you can't use the testimonial.

This is okay.

Nowhere in the document does it talk about the product creator himself
going on and on about how he uses this (whatever) that he created and
it just makes his life so wonderful. The guideline, from my understanding,
ONLY covers third party testimonials and NOT your own personal
experience as a product creator.

Affiliate marketers, however, are third party and thus they would fall
under the guidelines and thus, if they say on their blog "I use this and got
X results" they have to disclose not only what typical results are but also
that they are being compensated for their endorsement.

Is that pretty much this whole thing in a nutshell?

If not, please correct me as to where I am not understanding.

[Killer Joe]

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

Okay, read it...got it.

Seems pretty straight forward to me, but please correct me if any of my
interpretations are incorrect.

Hi Steven,

Your interpretations, or anybody else's will simply be educated guesses until Case Law has determined the scope of the FTC guidelines.

Consider it lawyer job security. One group gets paid to makes guidelines and the second group now has the opportunity to earn vast sums of money by 'arguing' how the guidelines should be interpreted based on a system that rewards political contributions.

There's nothing radical in that statement, btw, that's how most of the laws in the US come to be and are defined through the court system. That's why so many of them make absolutely no sense to a layperson.

It's still very early in the game, and the first action you would see if you are out of bounds is a letter from the FTC telling you that your actions are out of tolerance. At that point you can make changes, or put the offending product/sales letter on hold.

Don't get too wrapped up in trying to hit a moving target on this one, just do your best based on what you believe to be the spirit of the law.

Everything will change to some degree or another once some Case Law is established, and that will take years.

KJ

[sbucciarel]

Originally Posted by Steven Carl Kelly

It isn't a ruling. It is a guide explaining rules that have been around for decades. If you are out of compliance now, you have been out of compliance and subject to prosecution for a long, long time.

That's not exactly true. The guide has just changed. Before testimonials were ok if you had fine print at the bottom that said "results not typical." That is no longer enough to keep you out of hot water. You have to show what typical results are.

You also have to divulge if your testimonial is a paid for testimonial. You can't just "review" a product like you have in the past and pretend that you are actually a user/customer who just loves this product to death. If you are getting paid to endorse, you have to disclose that. Since affiliates are getting paid to endorse (if they make a sale), I'm not really certain whether or not an affiliate relationship has to be disclosed. I am affiliate of more than one product and am not compensated for it.

[JohnMcCabe]

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

Okay, I used the wrong word. Typical, fine, whatever.

How do I know the typical result?

What's the typical result?

How do you find out?

For some products, yes, maybe it's easier than for others. But what if
you use a system to build an opt in list and it works for you? The proof is
in the size of your list.

What's typical?

Is it building a list of 100 people, 200 people, 1 person?

If somebody uses my system and happens to build a list of 3,000 people
and sends me a testimonial to that fact, I can't use it.

Why?

I still have no idea what the typical use can expect or what the typical
results are.

So that testimonial does me no good.

Please correct me if I am wrong. I'm no brain surgeon but I think I am
intelligent enough to understand the basics of this ruling.

Can I use that testimonial?

And if not, what do I have to show in order to be able to use it?

And please don't answer with "typical results" because I don't know
what they are.

My layman's reading is that, yes, you can use that testimonial. In the absence of data, you can fall back on generally accepted rules of thumb. I.E., there's a widely quoted rule of thumb that says sales pages typically get a 1% response rate. Some do better, some do worse, but it's a commonly used benchmark. Your "out" is that using commonly accepted benchmarks, 'typical' results are such and such. Diligence, market choice and dumb luck can and will likely affect results.

Originally Posted by marciayudkin

Your golf example is pretty clear because the laws of physics are fairly solid and predictable. However, when we are dealing with things like job-hunting, getting published, finding a mate, avoiding an audit, building a business, we are not dealing with the laws of physics. There is luck involved plus a whole lot of other factors, like timing.

And in those kinds of endeavors, I'm not sure how to apply the word "typical." For example, I can teach someone how to write a great letter to a literary agent. Sometimes it will get results the first time out and sometimes it will never work. There are too many factors to talk about a typical result. Or else I simply do not understand what the word means.

The dictionary definition of "typical" is no help at all: "Exhibiting the qualities, traits, or characteristics that identify a kind, class, group, or category." How does that apply to my examples?

I am not sure that anything I have ever achieved in my life is "typical."

Marcia Yudkin

In some cases, there is no 'typical result'. As I read the document, simply explaining that there is no typical result because there are too many factors outside the control of the writer should be sufficient. Testimonials do represent real results, but can't be claimed as typical because there is no such animal.

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

Okay, read it...got it.

Seems pretty straight forward to me, but please correct me if any of my
interpretations are incorrect.

This is a no-no

Customer sends testimonial on how your product did (whatever) but those
results are not typical, so you have to show what the typical results are.
If you can't do this, you can't use the testimonial.

This is okay.

Nowhere in the document does it talk about the product creator himself
going on and on about how he uses this (whatever) that he created and
it just makes his life so wonderful. The guideline, from my understanding,
ONLY covers third party testimonials and NOT your own personal
experience as a product creator.

Affiliate marketers, however, are third party and thus they would fall
under the guidelines and thus, if they say on their blog "I use this and got
X results" they have to disclose not only what typical results are but also
that they are being compensated for their endorsement.

Is that pretty much this whole thing in a nutshell?

If not, please correct me as to where I am not understanding.

My (layman's, again) interpretation is that if you personally experienced the claimed results, that's a personal claim. It's up to the seller to provide 'typical' results. You are simply sharing your personal experience, as long as you don't promise that others can duplicate your results.

You would, however, have to reveal that if a purchase is made through your link, you are compensated. No need to make a big deal out it, just put it out there.

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

That's not exactly true. The guide has just changed. Before testimonials were ok if you had fine print at the bottom that said "results not typical." That is no longer enough to keep you out of hot water. You have to show what typical results are.

You also have to divulge if your testimonial is a paid for testimonial. You can't just "review" a product like you have in the past and pretend that you are actually a user/customer who just loves this product to death. If you are getting paid to endorse, you have to disclose that. Since affiliates are getting paid to endorse (if they make a sale), I'm not really certain whether or not an affiliate relationship has to be disclosed. I am affiliate of more than one product and am not compensated for it.

In other words, you can get penalized for lying. Sorry if I can't crank up the waterworks on this one. Print and broadcast media endorsers have had to reveal that they are being paid for many years now. I haven't seen the wheels of commerce fall off yet.

[markquinn]

Originally Posted by Killer Joe

Don't get too wrapped up in trying to hit a moving target on this one, just do your best based on what you believe to be the spirit of the law.

Everything will change to some degree or another once some Case Law is established, and that will take years.

KJ

Agreed.

Probably the key here is realizing these are GUIDELINES. Whether or not they are put in place as part of a grand conspiracy, get decided by political contributions, or put in place to more broadly protect consumers doesn't matter.

No matter how you slice it they are a moving target until there are enough FTC cases to review - and even THEN they are still going to be a moving target in many cases as it's just impossible for any Guidelines to cover every possible scenario.

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

That's not exactly true. The guide has just changed.

Well, to be preci... oh, never mind. It's all good.

[gabbydeb]

Love your Pic! Tooo funny! and makes the point!

Originally Posted by Scott Ames

I'm not worried about valid testimonials. It's a given that most honest marketers will use real ones.

What I object to is the gathering of data of what the "typical" customer can expect. How the heck would I know? I only know what customers tell me. I only know about those that take the time to write.

[sbucciarel]

Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe

In other words, you can get penalized for lying. Sorry if I can't crank up the waterworks on this one. Print and broadcast media endorsers have had to reveal that they are being paid for many years now. I haven't seen the wheels of commerce fall off yet.

I can't crank up the waterworks either. It's all much ado about nothing in my opinion, but then I don't really do any paid testimonials and not much affiliate marketing. I sell my own products and have a long way to go before the FTC would be watching what I am doing. I stand by my products but I am not going over my sales pages with a lawyer or a fine toothed comb.

In their own document, they said that the FTC is not large enough to monitor millions of web pages and these guidelines will be largely self-regulated ... and that they will be targeting the ad networks to educate their affiliates.

They will make an example of some huge companies who are obviously misrepresenting their products, and using phony testimonials with false claims.

[Kevin AKA Hubcap]

Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe

In other words, you can get penalized for lying. Sorry if I can't crank up the waterworks on this one. Print and broadcast media endorsers have had to reveal that they are being paid for many years now. I haven't seen the wheels of commerce fall off yet.

I see and hear many endorsements on broadcast media where the endorsers don't reveal they're being paid, especially radio programs.

Kevin

[marciayudkin]

I see and hear many endorsements on broadcast media where the endorsers don't reveal they're being paid, especially radio programs.

"Lots of other cars were speeding."

Ever tried that argument on a cop - or on a judge? Doesn't get you off the hook.

Marcia Yudkin

[Kim Standerline]

If I recall correctly, Martin also gives a chunk of that affiliate income to charity.

BTW I saved just over £8000 a couple of years ago using moneysavingexpert. I got all the money back from an insurance I'd been sold falsely. wouldn't have known anything about it if I hadn't read about it in Martin's newsletter. If you are in the UK it's a must read

Kim

Originally Posted by Nick Brighton

Here's A perfect example of a website that has been doing it "the right way" for years before this ruling, is www.moneysavingexpert.com/

Martin (the website owner) is a trusted source of information, appearing on TV and radio regularly.

And wherever an affiliate link appears, he signals it with an asterix, and then explains to the reader that if you click that link, his company makes a direct profit.

And I recall him saying in an interview that his site generates tens of thousands of pounds per month in affiliate advertising revenue.

So perhaps it won't affect your sales to be honest, transparant and law abiding after all...

...providing you give value, people will always click your links.

He's not saying that at all, and I can assure you we have our fair share of scummy politicians in the UK unfortunately

Originally Posted by Mark-Dickenson

First of all, you act like we are all scamming people and being misleading. That is not the case

Thats because you don't live in the states. You see, many of these people in gov who write and enforce these rules/laws aren't fit to work at a McDonalds