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

Nick Brighton · 10-10-2009, 11:44 AM

Here's my take on the new FTC rulings regarding affiliates, sponsors and other marketing activities for profit online...

If you're worried about the effect your business will have because you can no longer make misleading, unrealistic claims in your content and testimonials, then it's time you had a long hard think about what you're really offering people in the first place.

I understand why it's a worry that you have to disclose your "average" customer results alongside those exceptional results-based testimonials on your website...

...after all, you can't control the people who make your product look bad by doing nothing (and not getting results, bringing the averages down)...

...but you can't go wrong by telling legitimate, serious prospects what your intentions are, and by being transparent with them.

(AND HERE'S WHAT NOBODY HAS POINTED OUT YET: If you stop misleading people in the first place, then your average customer WILL get results, because you've already filtered/screened them through your marketing. People who get 90% of their customers doing nothing, are the same people who are attracting 90% of the wrong people in the first place! Duh? Don't these folks see the irony going on here?!!!)

I can't understand why people are so worried. Here's the thing:

If you rely on "over seasoning" your marketing copy, or your offers, or the use of 3rd party testimonials...or whatever else it takes to make a commission or sale, and you can't make money without the hyperbole, then one this is obviously clear...

...you can't deliver enough value to your visitors in the first place.

On the other hand, when visitors get something out of your site, your content and your overall marketing, trust me, they won't care if you make a commission from them clicking your links.

(unless you're selling to other marketers of course, who in general, have become predisposed to a whole different set of ethics when it comes to buying through each others affiliate links)

The bottom line is - sites that offer value and ethical, honest and transparent content will gain more trust from their visitors than those that mislead instead.

People aren't stupid anyway. They know your claims are to be taken with a pinch of salt...and the FTC is merely protecting those people who DON'T take things with a pinch of salt and get led into a false sense of hope and misdirection when handing money over to you.

People like John Reese have been saying this for a long time now - transparency is the only way forward for web business these days. Just like offline business can't hide behind BS and faceless management to win the trust of their market, neither can (nor should) website businesses either.

It's obvious to most of us, and I personally think this is a great change to the world of online marketing. Finally, it forces those amongst us who get by on creating cheap, misleading and thinly spread content to generate income from false hope, to finally create value and a real user experience for web users.

And when that happens, guess what? Web users regain trust with websites, and then EVERYONE of us stand to benefit when the dust has settled from this.

It's win-win, unless you're in the game of misdirection and deception of course.

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.

LB · 10-10-2009, 01:05 PM

Quote:

People like John Reese have been saying this for a long time now - transparency is the only way forward for web business these days.

John Reese uses tons of testimonials...in fact, at one point his sales letter for Traffic Secrets was nothing BUT testimonials. I think that's smart marketing.

I don't at all follow that someone who uses testimonials is looking to deceive. I have one product with over 500 UNSOLICITED testimonials...am I deceptive to want to share them, or does that just mean my product works?

It's amazing double-think, or perhaps just ego-protection that for years upon years marketers have known the value of great testimonials and now after an FTC guideline is published testimonials are now supposedly some sort of weak scam tactic?

Quote:

People who get 90% of their customers doing nothing, are the same people who are attracting 90% of the wrong people in the first place!

Sorry, could not disagree more with this although it sure sounds clever.

As a consumer I want to be able to make the choice as to whether or not a product is right for me. If I buy an exercise bike and it becomes a coat hanger, that's my fault- no one else's.

As a marketer, it's important to identify your target customer and seek them out. However, whether it's 90% or 20% there is always going to be a segment of customers that are simply looking for entertainment rather than real solutions.

As for affiliate disclosure...those in the affiliate game should already be doing it, FTC or no. I agree with that. The biggest offenders are offshore and will continue to scam, lie and deceive no matter what the FTC says. Look at spam.

Jeremy Kelsall · 10-10-2009, 01:17 PM

Nick, you do copy, right?

Would you mind posting some examples of your copy so we can see whether you are walking the walk or not?

The FTC sucks - Plain and simple.

I agree that measures need to be taken to protect consumers - After all, I am a consumer

But, when you start involving government agencies on this scale - IT ISN'T A GOOD THING FOR ANYONE.

Mark-Dickenson · 10-10-2009, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick Brighton

(AND HERE'S WHAT NOBODY HAS POINTED OUT YET: If you stop misleading people in the first place, then your average customer WILL get results, because you've already filtered/screened them through your marketing. People who get 90% of their customers doing nothing, are the same people who are attracting 90% of the wrong people in the first place! Duh? Don't these folks see the irony going on here?!!!)

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick Brighton

I can't understand why people are so worried. Here's the thing:

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

I am being serious

I was in the mortgage business for 8 yrs and when gov got involved, they actually did more harm to the consumer when trying to come up with solutions.

It was obvious the people making these decisions didn't have a clue about finance. It was absolutley ridiculous

Now they are butting in with rules that are as vague as Ebay's so they can come after you if they get bored

Thankfully, I think it is going to be really hard to police, but I feel sorry for the person they make an example out of...and they will make an example out of them

Steven Wagenheim · 10-10-2009, 01:48 PM

Nick, sorry but I can only agree with you to a point.

We all know that many people get no results with your product because
they don't use it...PERIOD.

So no matter how good your product is, you're still going to get 97% of
the people showing no results.

It's not always the quality of the product that's the problem, and I can
prove that with my own results of products I've purchased but I'm not
going to get into that.

You're painting a broad stroke of paint over a problem that is only partially
caused by poorly made products.

Or more to the point, YOU show me one product where 97% of the people
who bought it had good results with it...documented.

I'd be willing to bet my bank account that neither you or anyone else can
do that.

People are inherently lazy.

And no product, no matter how good, is going to change that.

Nick Brighton · 10-10-2009, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LB

John Reese uses tons of testimonials...in fact, at one point his sales letter for Traffic Secrets was nothing BUT testimonials. I think that's smart marketing.

I don't at all follow that someone who uses testimonials is looking to deceive. I have one product with over 500 UNSOLICITED testimonials...am I deceptive to want to share them, or does that just mean my product works?

I'm not saying testimonials are bad. I'm saying that if you rely on exceptional testimonials to move product, then you require exceptional people to get results from your product.

And the rest of 'em? Well, screw 'em - they're lazy, right?

(major misconception).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeremy Kelsall

Nick, you do copy, right?

Would you mind posting some examples of your copy so we can see whether you are walking the walk or not?

The FTC sucks - Plain and simple.

I agree that measures need to be taken to protect consumers - After all, I am a consumer

But, when you start involving government agencies on this scale - IT ISN'T A GOOD THING FOR ANYONE.

I write copy, but I don't get involved with testimonials. I do agree, that writing copy is a tricky game to balance these issues. But I never make claims in my copy that aren't true.

My point isn't about generic copy per se, more about the usage of claims./proof/testimonials, which directly related to the FTC's new rulings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark-Dickenson

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

No, no, no. Not at all. I'm not assuming or calling out anyone in particular. I'm just making a point about this issue, and the fact that there ARE people out there doing this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

We all know that many people get no results with your product because
they don't use it...PERIOD.

I agree, but not all people who buy a product don't get results because they don't "use" it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

So no matter how good your product is, you're still going to get 97% of
the people showing no results.

It's not always the quality of the product that's the problem, and I can
prove that with my own results of products I've purchased but I'm not
going to get into that.

You're painting a broad stroke of paint over a problem that is only partially
caused by poorly made products.

Or more to the point, YOU show me one product where 97% of the people
who bought it had good results with it...documented.

I'd be willing to bet my bank account that neither you or anyone else can
do that.

People are inherently lazy.

And no product, no matter how good, is going to change that.

you might be coming down on the wrong side here. Put it this way - if 100 people come to your site, and 97% are lazy tirekickers looking for an easy way to do something, and make a lot of money doing it, then a testimonial saying how easy it was to make $10,000 using your product is going to attract that 97% demographic.

However, putting "filters" in place which stipulate results are far from typical, and what you can REALLY expect, will filter out that 97% of lazy, uncapable demographic, leaving you with the real prospects who will run and fly with your product.

And then, you'll experience a much higher success rate of the people you sell your product to, see what I mean?

Jeremy Kelsall · 10-10-2009, 02:40 PM

Nick,

It won't be long before you can't use words like "cash sucking" or "easy" in your headlines. After all, how do you prove something is "cash sucking" or "easy"?

Is something really "free" if someone has to give you an email address?

Is it really so easy that a 12 year old can do it?

What is the FTCs definition of easy?

What is their definition of auto-pilot?

Seriously, it's only a matter of time before our headlines have to read like this:

"BUY MY PRODUCT THAT IS IN THE GOVERNMENTS EYES A SCAM AND GOOD FOR NOTHING OTHER THAN A PAPER WEIGHT - BECAUSE I'M A NICE GUY..."

Marketing, at least in part is about evoking emotion and getting people to have a vision of what your product can do for them. How can you do that if the FTC for the most part won't let you say anything good about your product - or even share the great results someone has had with your product without following it up with:

"you probably won't have the same results because that is how life is - buy it anyway and if it doesn't work out you can sue me"

The government here in the states has already proven that they could screw up a bachelor party at the bunny ranch. Embracing them having more power over our business, should not be encouraged by ANYONE.

If someone screws you over, take them to court, sue them, report them to the authorities - But, giving someone that much control on the front-end is ridiculous.

Nick Brighton · 10-10-2009, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeremy Kelsall

Nick,

It won't be long before you can't use words like "cash sucking" or "easy" in your headlines. After all, how do you prove something is "cash sucking" or "easy"?

Is something really "free" if someone has to give you an email address?

Is it really so easy that a 12 year old can do it?

What is the FTCs definition of easy?

What is their definition of auto-pilot?

Seriously, it's only a matter of time before our headlines have to read like this:

"BUY MY PRODUCT THAT IS IN THE GOVERNMENTS EYES A SCAM AND GOOD FOR NOTHING OTHER THAN A PAPER WEIGHT - BECAUSE I'M A NICE GUY..."

Marketing, at least in part is about evoking emotion and getting people to have a vision of what your product can do for them. How can you do that if the FTC for the most part won't let you say anything good about your product - or even share the great results someone has had with your product without following it up with:

"you probably won't have the same results because that is how life is - buy it anyway and if it doesn't work out you can sue me"

The government here in the states has already proven that they could screw up a bachelor party at the bunny ranch. Embracing them having more power over our business, should not be encouraged by ANYONE.

If someone screws you over, take them to court, sue them, report them to the authorities - But, giving someone that much control on the front-end is ridiculous.

I know where you're coming from, and yes, one of my sales letters does say "cash sucking" and "easily".

But at no point does it have testimonials that say "Nick's copy made me $10.000 and anyone who hires him will get the same, I can assure you!" type of crap.

I agree, even sales copy itself will come under the hammer sooner or later - but if you can substantiate it, and give reasoning, then when the men in black come knocking at the door, then you won't have any problems.

Either way, my whole point is about testimonials and claims of results...which is the whole new FTC ruling issue.

Steven Wagenheim · 10-10-2009, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick Brighton

And then, you'll experience a much higher success rate of the people you sell your product to, see what I mean?

First of all, if you look at almost all of my sales pages (minus a few
exceptions) you will find...

1. No testimonials.
2. No promises.

And only a few even have income claims of myself or others.

I've been greatly criticized for not "selling" hard enough and not using
testimonials. Personally, I hate that kind of marketing.

But even without it, it's rare that I'll get somebody write to me and say,
"Thanks, this stuff really works." No, instead, most of the emails I get
read like this.

"I'm sorry but I'm just starting to get to you <product name> that I
bought last year. I can't seem to find the download though. Can you
send me another link."

This is the nature of the MMO niche. The majority of the people are
looking for a quick fix. Not making promises doesn't discourage these
people. The only thing that will is if you specifically put on your sales
page...

"You must work very hard to make this work. It will take hours of your
time and it won't bring results right away. It could take 3 to 6 months
before you will get the kind of results that I am achieving (which I can't
share with you because the FTC won't let me)"

If I do that, my sales will go from 300 plus a month to about 30 plus a
month and I'll need to start selling products outside of the MMO niche.

But why should I have to?

The products I create, sharing the tactics I use, actually earn me a good
living each month. So if people actually used them, they'd actually have
some success.

Point is, it's not that I'm selling snake oil. It's that people are lazy and no
copy is going to make them not be lazy. All it will do is keep them from
becoming customers.

Again, if I want to do that, I might as well not be in business at all.

And mind you, that is with sales pages that are absolutely within FTC
guidelines. If I made the kind of sales pages that everybody else did, I'd
be making 3,000 sales a month instead of only 300.

And as somebody asked above (forget who it was) let's see your sales
pages and see how brutally honest they are.

Jeremy Kelsall · 10-10-2009, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick Brighton

I know where you're coming from, and yes, one of my sales letters does say "cash sucking" and "easily".

But at no point does it have testimonials that say "Nick's copy made me $10.000 and anyone who hires him will get the same, I can assure you!" type of crap.

I agree, even sales copy itself will come under the hammer sooner or later - but if you can substantiate it, and give reasoning, then when the men in black come knocking at the door, then you won't have any problems.

Either way, my whole point is about testimonials and claims of results...which is the whole new FTC ruling issue.

No, but some of the testimonials say "fast" and "great", right?

Who gets to decide what fast and great mean?

Do you now have to provide a disclaimer that says what your average turnaround time is? Or put an anonymous poll up for your customers to see how many of them think it was "great"?

I know it probably seems trivial, but it's only a matter of time before the regulations get tighter and tighter - especially on the "small guys" like us online business owners.

bobsedge · 10-10-2009, 03:12 PM

I think claims will become a thing of the past as it has in franchising in the US. With franchising, and I believe with MLM's as well, if you make a claim you need to substantiate it. To say the least, you will almost never find claims any longer in those two sectors.

When you purchase a franchise, the franchisor gives you references you can call but they are also obligated to give you a complete list of all franchisees with their contact information.

The thing with the FTC is that they intentionally keep rules broad so they can use discretion on how they implement the rules. Only time will tell on how they intend to enforce this.

Black Hat Cat · 10-10-2009, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick Brighton

Here's my take on the new FTC rulings regarding affiliates, sponsors and other marketing activities for profit online...

Being from the UK, it's no surprise you're pretty much conditioned to accept overbearing government intrusion with barely a second thought.

Nick Brighton · 10-10-2009, 03:13 PM

Stephen, I'm not attacking you personally my friend. Nor anyone else for that matter. My post is a way to make a point about the correct way to conduct business as an affiliate, and how to use ethical, honest testimonials without misleading your prospects.

You are obviously already doing that, judging by your comments in your last post!

bobsedge · 10-10-2009, 03:18 PM

Nick,

The sad thing is that in a week or two after we are all done discussing this, nothing will change.

Look at the industries that have been under attack in recent years by the FTC- debt and credit. The FTC selectively goes after a few businesses but the rest go about their business as usual playing a game of Russian Roulette.

And you know what, the odds are in their favor that they will never be touched. This will be particularly true on the internet where the state regulators have no impact at all.

Nick Brighton · 10-10-2009, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black Hat Cat

Being from the UK, it's no surprise you're pretty much conditioned to accept overbearing government intrusion with barely a second thought.

Well I guess if I was more "black hat" I wouldn't need to worry about being honest, legit and transparent, and care about whether consumers get treated the way they deserve to be, right?

If the government is coming down hard on something, it's because there is substantial cause for concern in the first place (ie. lots of people protesting, making claims, complaining etc).

If it weren't for such governing bodies, then you, me and the rest of the world would be susceptible to being scammed day after day...or at the least, misled with our hard earned money.

I really can't see why this is such a monkey wrench for so many people, when getting around it/dealing with it is pretty easy.

@Jeremy - I agree, it could get out of hand, but as I say, rulings come from existing problems. If people play nice in the first place, then problems won't occur so much in the first place.

sbucciarel · 10-10-2009, 03:21 PM

People who are protesting and twisting the entire thing around to preposterous levels are probably those with the most to worry about. It's all spelled out pretty clearly in this thread, but for those who don't want to go absorb the info, here's the gist of it.

An FTC thread that you REALLY should read

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carl Kelly

I've seen a lot of what I consider "overreaction" to the new FTC guides. Bear in mind that these new guides apply to the "Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising". Ads not using endorsements and testimonials are not addressed herein.

I see far too many good, honest Warriors fretting unnecessarily about this and that's why I want to try and clarify a few a points.

Regarding ads with testimonials and endorsements, I seem to see a lot of folks particularly concerned on the issue of disclosing "average results". First, understand that the guide doesn't address "average" results but instead addresses "generally expected" results. There's a very specific reason for that: because the FTC recognizes that it would be impractical to survey every one of your customers and to create a true mathematical average result.

From the FTC guide:
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.

In addition, you must also understand that the FTC guide further qualifies the generally expected results to apply to "the depicted circumstances" in the testimonial.

From the FTC guide:
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.

Pay particular attention to the above. You can use the "depicted circumstances" to limit the "generally expected results" you need to disclose. Limit the circumstances and you may limit the disclosure.

From the FTC guide:
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.

You can also use scientific principles to substantiate.

From the FTC guide:
In some instances, advertisers may rely on generally accepted scientific principles (e.g., the average individual needs a net calorie deficit of 3,500 calories to lose 1 pound) to determine generally expected results.

So you say that most of your customers won't even bother to implement your program and thus your "average" result will be a big fat ZERO? The FTC recognizes this as well.

From the FTC guide:
The Commission recognizes that differences in physiology and commitment will affect the results that individual consumers will get from a particular weight loss or fitness product or program. The proposed revisions to Section 255.2 do not prescribe a uniform one-size-fits-all disclaimer, however, and an advertiser could take these factors into consideration in crafting a disclosure. With meaningful disclosures, consumers not only would have a realistic sense of what they can expect from a product or service, but could also take away the message that if they dedicate themselves as much as the testimonialist did, they might achieve even more.

The FTC even recognizes that you, as a marketer, may not even have the necessary information to be able to disclose generally expected performance. Does that mean you can't use testimonials at all? Absolutely NOT!

From the FTC guide:
Nevertheless, as the Commission recognized in the November 2008 Federal Register notice, 73 FR at 72382, some advertisers may not have the information available to them to be able to disclose the generally expected performance of their product or service to consumers. In these cases, advertisers using testimonials need either to exercise care not to convey a typicality claim, or to rely on statements of general endorsement of the product, e.g., “I’ve tried many products and this was the best.”

Great! You can still use testimonials that offer an OPINION without any disclaimer of generally expected performance. Just don't use testimonials that make a SPECIFIC CLAIM about SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.

Joe Schmoe says: "I used Jay's new Internet Money Suction Filter System and I made $1.2 million in 17-and-a-half minutes!"

That requires a disclaimer of generally expected performance.

Joe Schmoe says: "I've bought nearly two dozen online money-making guides, and I can say that Jay's new Internet Money Suction Filter System is by far the best I've ever purchased."

No disclaimer required.

Take a step back and look at what the FTC guide is requiring and what it is allowing. If you're a legitimate, concerned, serious marketer then you should be able to easily determine that these guides are a GOOD thing for you because it should, in at least some way, cut down on the number of unscrupulous marketers who have no qualm in offering false claims for their products. You will also see exactly how you can use these guides properly to ensure that you can continue to effectively market your products without fear of running afoul of the FTC.

Don't freak out. Be calm, examine all of your marketing materials, and revise them as appropriately. If you're like me, you may eventually come to see that this HELPS marketers like you and I.

Nick Brighton · 10-10-2009, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobsedge

Nick,

The sad thing is that in a week or two after we are all done discussing this, nothing will change.

Look at the industries that have been under attack in recent years by the FTC- debt and credit. The FTC selectively goes after a few businesses but the rest go about their business as usual playing a game of Russian Roulette.

And you know what, the odds are in their favor that they will never be touched. This will be particularly true on the internet where the state regulators have no impact at all.

I totally agree, and yes, it is sad. Still, gives us a reminder of how to treat people, huh?

marlon · 10-10-2009, 03:22 PM

Bro,

I disagree on average results.

The average person reads 2 books a year, believes in ufo's and can't spell potato.

The average ebook buyer does NOT read more than a few chapters. I embed tracking links
in my products to know how far people read.

The average consumer of how to information topics buys things for research and never INTENDS to do anything. They are curious or doing research.

And the PROOF is on your book shelf. Either you're average and don't have many books there at all. Or if you do, how many have you actually read cover to cover and followed the
majority of the advice in them?

Honestly.

It's not how books or info products are read nor used.

I have no problem with the law. But as far as average results, I don't care how good the
product is, the average results won't be good.

On average how many people who read Dale Carnegie actually go out smile, listen and
stop doing all the stuff he tells you? Like about none!

How many people who read Think and Grow Rich actually write down the stuff he says
on an index card and read it 3x per day as he instructs for more than 1 week?

Very few.

My ex client (passed away) was worth $600 million. He made that after reading Think
and Grow Rich. When people would come to him for business advice, he'd tell them to go
read that book THEN come back for advice.

In all his years, not ONE person did that.

Marlon

Steven Wagenheim · 10-10-2009, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marlon

Bro,

I disagree on average results.

The average person reads 2 books a year, believes in ufo's and can't spell potato.

The average ebook buyer does NOT read more than a few chapters. I embed tracking links
in my products to know how far people read.

The average consumer of how to information topics buys things for research and never INTENDS to do anything. They are curious or doing research.

And the PROOF is on your book shelf. Either you're average and don't have many books there at all. Or if you do, how many have you actually read cover to cover and followed the
majority of the advice in them?

Honestly.

It's not how books or info products are read nor used.

I have no problem with the law. But as far as average results, I don't care how good the
product is, the average results won't be good.

On average how many people who read Dale Carnegie actually go out smile, listen and
stop doing all the stuff he tells you? Like about none!

How many people who read Think and Grow Rich actually write down the stuff he says
on an index card and read it 3x per day as he instructs for more than 1 week?

Very few.

My ex client (passed away) was worth $600 million. He made that after reading Think
and Grow Rich. When people would come to him for business advice, he'd tell them to go
read that book THEN come back for advice.

In all his years, not ONE person did that.

Marlon

Marlon...thank you.

You said, what I was stumbling over, much better than I could have ever
said it.

Yeah, that's about the size of it.

JayXtreme · 10-10-2009, 03:30 PM

I did see the point in the OP..

But I think Marlon summed it up quite well

Peace

Jay

bobsedge · 10-10-2009, 03:31 PM

Marlon,

You're right, but who cares.

The FTC does not like claims. On the companies they go after, claims is almost always the first cause of action, period.

Businesses basically have three choices.

1. Stop making claims
2. Make claims but stay small and under the radar
3. Make claims, grow big, and go to bed at night praying that your company is not the one they select to go after

rtrotter · 10-10-2009, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick Brighton

...I agree, even sales copy itself will come under the hammer sooner or later - but if you can substantiate it, and give reasoning, then when the men in black come knocking at the door, then you won't have any problems.

The problem is, when the men in black come knocking it cost money, even if you can prove you did nothing wrong.

I liken this new rule to a state saying the speed limit is what ever you want as long as it is safe. That is very subjective and the policeman that pulls you over obviously did not have same view of safety as you, put you still have to pay.

If they can write the rules so a 12 year old can read my sales copy and know whether or not it is okay, then I would probably agree the rule is one I can follow. When everyone has a different view of compliance then there is a problem.

Also, think about the Pareto's rule. You can probably count on 80% of people buying your product doing nothing with it. It's human nature.

Dan C. Rinnert · 10-10-2009, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick Brighton

The bottom line is - sites that offer value and ethical, honest and transparent content will gain more trust from their visitors than those that mislead instead.

Honest marketers will continue to be honest. Though, some may opt to get into a different field, not because they were dishonest, but because they fear the heavy-hand of government stepping in.

Dishonest marketers will continue to be dishonest.

The FTC may go after some of them and make examples out of them, to show the public they are going to make a strong effort to clean things up and "protect" the consumer.

Here's the rub...

Dishonest marketers will continue to be dishonest. Some may be outside U.S. jurisdiction, either because they are legally outside U.S. jurisdiction or because it may be too impractical to go after them where ever they are.

However, because the FTC may have made a big deal out of making an example out of some marketers, the public is going to be more likely to have the perception that things are being cleaned up. So, if a marketer is making a claim, it must be true!

As a result, more people will end up being scammed. And then tougher regulations will come down, and the cycle will begin anew.

At any rate, what is often the case is that tougher laws or regulations negatively impact honest, law-abiding businesses more than they do the businesses that were actually causing harm.

The CPSIA is a good example of that. That was passed as a knee-jerk reaction by politicians when lead-tainted toys appeared in the marketplace. The CPSIA requires (expensive!) testing of children's products for lead. The big corporations that imported the lead-tainted toys were actually in favor of the law! For them, the expense of lead testing is a drop in the bucket. But, for smaller businesses, those that weren't even found to be selling problematic toys, the expenses are too high.

Increased laws and regulations may be well-meaning but it is often the case that they cause more problems than they resolve.

JohnMcCabe · 10-10-2009, 04:17 PM

First off, I think many people are giving a government agency credit for way too much ambition. Agencies don't "get bored and come after people", they figure out more and better ways to shuffle and stack paper to justify their budgets.

I'm not sure how the words 'typical' or 'generally expected' came to mean average. "Average" has a strict mathematical meaning that depends on a fixed sample. Actively sold products can't have "average" results, because the sample changes every time a product is either sold or refunded. Requiring a statement of "average results" would be unenforceable, IMO.

If your MMO system is set up to generate $10 per sale, and if the user gets the 1% conversion often touted as typical, then the user can "generally expect" to make $10 for every hundred prospects. If the user fails to do anything, they can "generally expect" to make nothing.

Unless your sales copy claims otherwise.

The FTC isn't out to get you. That would be too much like real work. Many times rules are written very vaguely to make them easier to not enforce.

[Insert standard CYA] IMO, unless you're burning up late night TV or your product actually kills someone, there isn't much to worry about.

bobsedge · 10-10-2009, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe

First off, I think many people are giving a government agency credit for way too much ambition. Agencies don't "get bored and come after people", they figure out more and better ways to shuffle and stack paper to justify their budgets.

I'm not sure how the words 'typical' or 'generally expected' came to mean average. "Average" has a strict mathematical meaning that depends on a fixed sample. Actively sold products can't have "average" results, because the sample changes every time a product is either sold or refunded. Requiring a statement of "average results" would be unenforceable, IMO.

If your MMO system is set up to generate $10 per sale, and if the user gets the 1% conversion often touted as typical, then the user can "generally expect" to make $10 for every hundred prospects. If the user fails to do anything, they can "generally expect" to make nothing.

Unless your sales copy claims otherwise.

The FTC isn't out to get you. That would be too much like real work. Many times rules are written very vaguely to make them easier to not enforce.

[Insert standard CYA] IMO, unless you're burning up late night TV or your product actually kills someone, there isn't much to worry about.

I agree with you that government agencies are generally lazy and uninspired.

But the FTC has a very specific agenda. They target certain industries and go after deep pockets and headlines.

Their investigations cost hundreds of thousands of dollars that line the pockets of lawyers, accountants, etc. There is usually very little money left for the consumers.

If you happen to be in an industry of interest, you will be a target if you are one of the big boys on the block and if you hit the radar with the Better Business Bureau. The BBB has become their watchdog.

Scott Ames · 10-10-2009, 05:12 PM

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.

markquinn · 10-10-2009, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe

First off, I think many people are giving a government agency credit for way too much ambition. Agencies don't "get bored and come after people", they figure out more and better ways to shuffle and stack paper to justify their budgets.

I'm not sure how the words 'typical' or 'generally expected' came to mean average. "Average" has a strict mathematical meaning that depends on a fixed sample. Actively sold products can't have "average" results, because the sample changes every time a product is either sold or refunded. Requiring a statement of "average results" would be unenforceable, IMO.

If your MMO system is set up to generate $10 per sale, and if the user gets the 1% conversion often touted as typical, then the user can "generally expect" to make $10 for every hundred prospects. If the user fails to do anything, they can "generally expect" to make nothing.

Unless your sales copy claims otherwise.

The FTC isn't out to get you. That would be too much like real work. Many times rules are written very vaguely to make them easier to not enforce.

[Insert standard CYA] IMO, unless you're burning up late night TV or your product actually kills someone, there isn't much to worry about.

Wow. Tell this to the FTC attorneys who have NO paralegals who put in 12-14 hour+ days AND weekends.

How exactly are these new laws "justifying a budget" that is already way too small? and how are the litigators doing "no real work"?

I agree that people are overreacting but not at ALL for the reasons you've put forth.

Even though there are aspects of the new guidelines that will make it easier to prosecute, the FTC is STILL going to prioritize cases and go after the most egregious and pervasive offenders first and there are MULTIPLE things that have to happen before any potential case would likely even get on a list for their consideration.

...or I would say the most egregious cases that they can *win* - and that's unfortunate because the very worst criminals seem to be able to avoid prosecution for long periods of time since it's so easy to set up anonymous corporations tied to secret bank accounts as was recently proven by Jason Sharman's study which was discussed in the Economist here:

"In other cases Mr Sharman formed companies by providing no more than a scanned copy of his driving licence. In contrast, when trying to open accounts in Bermuda and Switzerland, he was asked for documentation such as notarised copies of his birth certificate. “In practice OECD countries have much laxer regulation on shell corporations than classic tax havens,” Mr Sharman concludes. “And the US is the worst on this score, worse than Liechtenstein and worse than Somalia.”

markquinn · 10-10-2009, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeremy Kelsall

Marketing, at least in part is about evoking emotion and getting people to have a vision of what your product can do for them.

I think this is closer to the real problem here.

How many of us HAVE bought products based on the vision and - heaven forbid - even the hype - and have BENEFITED from the purchase and might NOT have bought otherwise.

Paul M · 10-10-2009, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black Hat Cat

Being from the UK, it's no surprise you're pretty much conditioned to accept overbearing government intrusion with barely a second thought.

This industry or parts of it have clearly demonstrated that it either wont or cant self regulate. When that happens and enough consumers are being hurt by it, someone has to step in. That's not conditioning. Try necessary and inevitable. Agencies like the FTC have to take action, or at least be seen by consumers to be doing things to correct problems and protect them.

What did you expect?

-Paul

Justin Jordan · 10-10-2009, 07:05 PM

Honestly, even if you are dishonest and a scammer, the FTC is not a huge threat. I knew someone who worked for a financial planner who was both incompetent and massively dishonest, and ultimately lost a few million dollars worth of customer's money.

Amongst other things, he was forging client signatures (which is what caused my friend to resign, actually) destroying records, falsifying records, tranferring money from other accounts when clients asked for money that actually no longer had and, generally, a laundry list of other crap.

The FTC knew about this at least seven years ago, and while they did take some action, after having him directly reported, he was able to stay in business until earlier this year, when the FBI and a few other entities became involved.

(As a side bar, he's being criminally prosecuted with some zeal largely because the Bernie Madoff thing made this sort of thing newsworthy, so the local medi became involved enough to pressure law enforcement to become directly involved.)

The FTC is limited in people and money. They simply can't spend the time rooting out small time operations on any real scale. It's not effective use of their time and money. So the odds are good that for most people, the FTC will never notice them.

Even if the FTC does notice them, the most likely outcome isn't some kind of business devastation. They'll simply have to change how they're operating. For the vast majority of people, even the real con artists, you're unlikely to be making enough money or scamming enough people to be worth going after.

If you're worried about the FTC, then you probably should change the way you do business, but most of the fear is pretty irrational.

markquinn · 10-10-2009, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan C. Rinnert

Honest marketers will continue to be honest. Though, some may opt to get into a different field, not because they were dishonest, but because they fear the heavy-hand of government stepping in.

Dishonest marketers will continue to be dishonest.

The FTC may go after some of them and make examples out of them, to show the public they are going to make a strong effort to clean things up and "protect" the consumer.

Here's the rub...

Dishonest marketers will continue to be dishonest. Some may be outside U.S. jurisdiction, either because they are legally outside U.S. jurisdiction or because it may be too impractical to go after them where ever they are.

However, because the FTC may have made a big deal out of making an example out of some marketers, the public is going to be more likely to have the perception that things are being cleaned up. So, if a marketer is making a claim, it must be true!

As a result, more people will end up being scammed. And then tougher regulations will come down, and the cycle will begin anew.

At any rate, what is often the case is that tougher laws or regulations negatively impact honest, law-abiding businesses more than they do the businesses that were actually causing harm.

The CPSIA is a good example of that. That was passed as a knee-jerk reaction by politicians when lead-tainted toys appeared in the marketplace. The CPSIA requires (expensive!) testing of children's products for lead. The big corporations that imported the lead-tainted toys were actually in favor of the law! For them, the expense of lead testing is a drop in the bucket. But, for smaller businesses, those that weren't even found to be selling problematic toys, the expenses are too high.

Increased laws and regulations may be well-meaning but it is often the case that they cause more problems than they resolve.

All great points.

The U.S. Safe Web Act was supposed to help combat foreign fraud targeting Americans, but as you've mentioned it doesn't do much good if it's impractical (or budgetarily unfeasible) to make use of the Act.

For example, it seems like the hidden negative option offers that are (probably) run by organized crime are heading towards even smarter ways of organizing and avoiding detection in the same way the Estonian Cybercrime hub operated per this recent Trend Micro report.

Kevin AKA Hubcap · 10-10-2009, 07:20 PM

Of course, because everyone who questions the necessity of additional government regulations is obviously a scammer.

Kevin

Quote:

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

People who are protesting and twisting the entire thing around to preposterous levels are probably those with the most to worry about. It's all spelled out pretty clearly in this thread, but for those who don't want to go absorb the info, here's the gist of it.

An FTC thread that you REALLY should read

markquinn · 10-10-2009, 07:26 PM

Terrific post by Steven.

Thanks for the link, Kevin!

Steven Carl Kelly · 10-10-2009, 10:11 PM

Lots of overreactions to the new FTC guides -- guides, not laws or regulations -- the laws have been around for decades.

Come on, folks.

UKTim29 · 10-10-2009, 10:23 PM

Hmm, will this have an effecton some WSO headlines!!!!!

Richard Tunnah · 10-10-2009, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick Brighton

Here's my take on the new FTC rulings regarding affiliates, sponsors and other marketing activities for profit online...

If you're worried about the effect your business will have because you can no longer make misleading, unrealistic claims in your content and testimonials, then it's time you had a long hard think about what you're really offering people in the first place.

I understand why it's a worry that you have to disclose your "average" customer results alongside those exceptional results-based testimonials on your website...

...after all, you can't control the people who make your product look bad by doing nothing (and not getting results, bringing the averages down)...

...but you can't go wrong by telling legitimate, serious prospects what your intentions are, and by being transparent with them.

(AND HERE'S WHAT NOBODY HAS POINTED OUT YET: If you stop misleading people in the first place, then your average customer WILL get results, because you've already filtered/screened them through your marketing. People who get 90% of their customers doing nothing, are the same people who are attracting 90% of the wrong people in the first place! Duh? Don't these folks see the irony going on here?!!!)

I can't understand why people are so worried. Here's the thing:

If you rely on "over seasoning" your marketing copy, or your offers, or the use of 3rd party testimonials...or whatever else it takes to make a commission or sale, and you can't make money without the hyperbole, then one this is obviously clear...

...you can't deliver enough value to your visitors in the first place.

On the other hand, when visitors get something out of your site, your content and your overall marketing, trust me, they won't care if you make a commission from them clicking your links.

(unless you're selling to other marketers of course, who in general, have become predisposed to a whole different set of ethics when it comes to buying through each others affiliate links)

The bottom line is - sites that offer value and ethical, honest and transparent content will gain more trust from their visitors than those that mislead instead.

People aren't stupid anyway. They know your claims are to be taken with a pinch of salt...and the FTC is merely protecting those people who DON'T take things with a pinch of salt and get led into a false sense of hope and misdirection when handing money over to you.

People like John Reese have been saying this for a long time now - transparency is the only way forward for web business these days. Just like offline business can't hide behind BS and faceless management to win the trust of their market, neither can (nor should) website businesses either.

It's obvious to most of us, and I personally think this is a great change to the world of online marketing. Finally, it forces those amongst us who get by on creating cheap, misleading and thinly spread content to generate income from false hope, to finally create value and a real user experience for web users.

And when that happens, guess what? Web users regain trust with websites, and then EVERYONE of us stand to benefit when the dust has settled from this.

It's win-win, unless you're in the game of misdirection and deception of course.

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.

Yes Martin Lewis has done very, very well by being a straight shooter. I think because people know and expect that from him he can be like 'this is a great product or service and yes I get paid if you click the link to it'. I think it would be great if a few more were like him.

Rich

CDarklock · 10-10-2009, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

We all know that many people get no results with your product because they don't use it...PERIOD.

So no matter how good your product is, you're still going to get 97% of
the people showing no results.

Want to know how to deal with this?

Go to one of those "Rich Dad" real estate seminars in your area, and pony up the few hundred bucks they want for advanced training. A major selling point throughout that class is that 98% of people who enter the real estate market fail.

But not you, right?!

Who cares if you want to do real estate or not, you can see how it converts. It's worth the price.

IM is a lot like real estate. Not only do most people in it get no results, but they try to pursue it as a full-time income... and fail miserably. Then they blame their failure on the industry, not themselves.

We like to blame the industry, too. We like to tell people that it's not their fault, because people lied to them. We'll tell them the secrets those gurus don't want them to know. Damn gurus. Keeping those secrets. This industry is full of liars and thieves.

Wait a minute, WTF? Why would you do that? You're working in this industry. Those are your friends. Those are your colleagues. They're your mentors and partners and clients. And do you think that helps matters? What do you think they hear after they've tried your product and still fail?

"Here, buy my product because this industry is full of liars and thieves... thanks for the money, sucker!"

Look, there's still an us and them, okay? There's an "us" who succeed and a "them" who don't. But stop walking over to them and pointing at us. You're part of us. You're not one of them. They know it. You're not fooling anyone. Try excusing their failures (a time-tested persuasion method) in some other way, okay?

marciayudkin · 10-11-2009, 07:37 AM

Quote:

If you rely on "over seasoning" your marketing copy, or your offers, or the use of 3rd party testimonials...or whatever else it takes to make a commission or sale, and you can't make money without the hyperbole, then one this is obviously clear...

...you can't deliver enough value to your visitors in the first place.

This is way off base.

I have been teaching people for years that the very best kind of testimonials are "results" testimonials. These testimonials may be 100% true, and provably so, and yet now with the new regulations, they may create more trouble than they're worth because they must be accompanied not just by disclaimers but also by statements about the results that the average person gets from the program in question.

There is ample reason for completely honest, ethical and non-hypey marketers to be concerned about the new FTC rules and to want to know what changes they need to make in their marketing because of them.

Marcia Yudkin

Steven Wagenheim · 10-11-2009, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDarklock

Want to know how to deal with this?

Go to one of those "Rich Dad" real estate seminars in your area, and pony up the few hundred bucks they want for advanced training. A major selling point throughout that class is that 98% of people who enter the real estate market fail.

But not you, right?!

Who cares if you want to do real estate or not, you can see how it converts. It's worth the price.

IM is a lot like real estate. Not only do most people in it get no results, but they try to pursue it as a full-time income... and fail miserably. Then they blame their failure on the industry, not themselves.

We like to blame the industry, too. We like to tell people that it's not their fault, because people lied to them. We'll tell them the secrets those gurus don't want them to know. Damn gurus. Keeping those secrets. This industry is full of liars and thieves.

Wait a minute, WTF? Why would you do that? You're working in this industry. Those are your friends. Those are your colleagues. They're your mentors and partners and clients. And do you think that helps matters? What do you think they hear after they've tried your product and still fail?

"Here, buy my product because this industry is full of liars and thieves... thanks for the money, sucker!"

Look, there's still an us and them, okay? There's an "us" who succeed and a "them" who don't. But stop walking over to them and pointing at us. You're part of us. You're not one of them. They know it. You're not fooling anyone. Try excusing their failures (a time-tested persuasion method) in some other way, okay?

CD, first off, I think you're a really cool guy. Love the OT participations
for all the music threads and stuff, so I have no beef with you. Also, I
see you're a copywriter. Great. I write my own copy...well enough to make
6 figures a year though I am in no way a professional and freely admit
that.

But I'm also no idiot. I have a very logical mind. And when the FTC now
says to me that I can't have a testimonial that says...

"I used Steve's product and in my first week I made over $200"

without showing average results (which I can't do, obviously)

and when I can no longer tell personal stories like...

"I was broke, but then I discovered this very simple system that now
allows me to make a modest $200 a week from it on autopilot"

without showing average results (which I can't do, obviously)

What the F***K is left?

We all know, even we average copywriters, that features don't sell.
Benefits sell. But we can no longer state any benefits of a product
because in almost all cases, those benefits involve making some kind of
a claim, even if it's just "get your work done faster."

What's faster? And how fast is the average result?

Do you see what the problem is with this new law? It is hurting the honest
person with an honest product a lot more than it's hurting the crook,
because the crook isn't going to care. He's going to keep writing his copy,
open up Swiss accounts to keep hiding from the feds and it will be
business as usual.

So I challenge you, right here and now, to write me effective copy for
say, a money making product, that will pass FTC guidelines and STILL get
the job done AS effectively as BEFORE the guidelines.

I don't think you or Michel Fortin or God himself can do it.

Because you can't make something out of nothing.

That's why this law is pure hell on earth and is going to effectively
destroy a lot of businesses.

tomw · 10-11-2009, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick Brighton

People like John Reese have been saying this for a long time now - transparency is the only way forward for web business these days. Just like offline business can't hide behind BS and faceless management to win the trust of their market, neither can (nor should) website businesses either.

I agree with almost all of what you said - it's about time someone said it - except for this. Only the naive would truly believe that.

On the online side of what we do, I and my companies make a lot of money online. Across multiple markets, several sectors, numerous niches and I wouldn't have a clue how many products.

Nobody has, or ever will have, any idea of who we *actually* are and who's *really* selling them all this stuff. This holds true for an awful lot of the most successful people online. I could name some, but obviously I won't.

All over the web (and everywhere else!) things are being recommended, pitched and sold, *purely* by great copy. Not two bit personalities that you can waste your life away with on Twitter, Facebook, blogs and forums while they pitch at you.

Ask yourself,

"Do I regularly come across the names and faces of any of the so called magical mystical beasts lumped together as one large, homogenous group and deemed the 'Super Affiliates?'"

No.

But you do know the names and faces of those attempting to peddle a $97 system that is "guaranteed or your money back" (after untold hassle, if at all) and claims to "pull back the curtain," "give YOU the keys to the kingdom" and "show YOU every secret the 'so-called' Gurus don't want you to know" about how to join their ranks.

It's a joke!

And the rest of us are laughing all the way to the bank, while countless others needlessly cry into their Camtasia courses and ebooks.

You know, sometimes, the naivety, complete blindness to important lessons that are child's play to learn, replicate and profit greatly from (right there, in front of their very eyes) *and* a total absence of business acumen of so many on this forum astound me. It actually upsets me that really wonderful people who really do need real help are lead down such ridiculously winding dead ends. They toil for a tuppence when it just doesn't have to be that way.

How many times?

You don't make real money seeking fame, courting respect in your market and peddling a $10 dollar tonic for toenail fungus.

Part of me has been tempted so many times in the past to get some of my guys to create a real training program that *actually works* (shock horror!). However, I always stop myself and think of the obnoxious customer support issues, the fact that maybe one in a hundred will actually watch the damn thing, one in a thousand will take action and I'll have to put my face to it and waste my days Twittering and frittering away time spent more profitably elsewhere.

Like in all societies, you reap what you sow, the world you create is that in which you live. For the infoprenuers out there, as far as I'm concerned, the nature of the business you're in, so relentlessly discussed on this forum day in, day out, is simply a result of what YOU AS A GROUP have created.

On the one hand you complain about the state of the business and of scammers making things difficult for you, thwarting trust and stifling sales. On the other, an attempt to commendably amend regulations that might actually improve things is announced and so many of you are up in arms concerning your right to rip people off!

Tom

TelegramSam · 10-11-2009, 10:21 AM

I wonder if McDonalds, Crispy Creme and Pizza Hut will now have to state the following:

"The typical person who uses our products will get fat and feel terrible within a few months".

Or perhaps Budweiser, Heinekin and the other beer companies will have to state:

"The typical person who drinks our beer will drink too much, get drunk and get into trouble with his Mrs".

Steven Wagenheim · 10-11-2009, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomw

I agree with almost all of what you said - it's about time someone said it - except for this. Only the naive would truly believe that.

On the online side of what we do, I and my companies make a lot of money online. Across multiple markets, several sectors, numerous niches and I wouldn't have a clue how many products.

Nobody has, or ever will have, any idea of who we *actually* are and who's *really* selling them all this stuff. This holds true for an awful lot of the most successful people online. I could name some, but obviously I won't.

All over the web (and everywhere else!) things are being recommended, pitched and sold, *purely* by great copy. Not two bit personalities that you can waste your life away with on Twitter, Facebook, blogs and forums while they pitch at you.

Ask yourself,

"Do I regularly come across the names and faces of any of the so called magical mystical beasts lumped together as one large, homogenous group and deemed the 'Super Affiliates?'"

No.

But you do know the names and faces of those attempting to peddle a $97 system that is "guaranteed or your money back" (after untold hassle) and claims to "pull back the curtain," "give YOU the keys to the kingdom" and "show YOU every secret the 'so-called' Gurus don't want you to know" about how to join their ranks.

It's a joke!

And the rest of us are laughing all the way to the bank, while countless others needlessly cry into their Camtasia courses and ebooks.

You know, sometimes, the naivety, complete blindness to important lessons that are child's play to learn, replicate and profit greatly from (right there, in front of their very noses) *and* a total absence of business acumen of so many on this forum astound me. It actually upsets me that really wonderful people who really do need real help are lead down such ridiculously winding dead ends. They toil for a tuppence when it just doesn't have to be that way.

How many times?

You don't make real money seeking fame, courting respect in your market and peddling a $10 dollar tonic for toenail fungus.

Part of me has been tempted so many times in the past to get some of my guys to create a real training program that *actually works* (shock horror!). However, I always stop myself and think of the obnoxious customer support issues, the fact that maybe one in a hundred will actually watch the damn thing, one in a thousand will take action and I'll have to put my face to it and waste my days Twittering and frittering away time spent more profitably elsewhere.

Like in all societies, you reap what you sow, the world you create is that in which you live. For the infoprenuers out there, as far as I'm concerned, the nature of the business you're in, so relentlessly discussed on this forum day in, day out, is simply what YOU AS A GROUP have created.

On the one hand you complain about the state of the business and of scammers making things difficult for you, thwarting trust and stifling sales. On the other, an attempt to commendably amend regulations that might actually improve things is announced and you're up in arms concerning your right to rip people off!

Tom

Sorry Tom, but I take great exception to you saying that we all want to
rip people off.

I can count the number of complaints I've had about my products in the
almost 7 years I've been doing this on ONE HAND.

Most people, if they write to me at all, thank me for an honest product
without all the hype.

But now, the FTC is telling me that this same person who used my product
and made $200 in their first week or two, can't give me this as a testimonial
and I can't use it as one BECAUSE I don't know what the average results
are...something there is no way I can know when I've sold hundreds, if
not thousands of products.

So now what do I have left to sell with?

YOU tell ME?

Show me a line of copy that will make a prospect say, "Hey, I think this
will really help me" that DOESN'T violate the FTC guidelines.

I pride myself on my ethics and the quality of my products, but the FTC
has essentially told me that all I can say on my sales page is this.

"This is a product that will teach you <whatever>. I can't make you any
promises as to how well it will work for you or even tell you about my own
success using these methods because the FTC will no longer allow me to.
I can't even tell you what it will do without implicitly making claims (such
as, this product will help you build an opt in list) This implies that you'll
actually build a list of any size at all, even if just ONE person. And since I
don't know what the average results are, I can't even tell you that you
WILL get one person."

Do you see what my problem is with this whole law? It's beyond the point
of reason.

But what I object to more than that is you inferring that we all want to
rip people off.

Please do NOT paint us all with a broad stroke of the brush because there
are some people here who actually conduct and honest and ethical
business.

LB · 10-11-2009, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marciayudkin

This is way off base.

I have been teaching people for years that the very best kind of testimonials are "results" testimonials. These testimonials may be 100% true, and provably so, and yet now with the new regulations, they may create more trouble than they're worth because they must be accompanied not just by disclaimers but also by statements about the results that the average person gets from the program in question.

There is ample reason for completely honest, ethical and non-hypey marketers to be concerned about the new FTC rules and to want to know what changes they need to make in their marketing because of them.

Marcia Yudkin

Thank you. At least there is another voice of reason when it comes to testimonials.

What kind of testimonial is, "Thanks for your product, you're a great guy!"?

tomw · 10-11-2009, 10:49 AM

Steve,

I think you and I have known each other long enough to know that we both only have the best possible intentions for our fellow man and our fellow Warriors.

As much as I like you and respect a lot of what you do, I also know your posting patterns well enough to expect you to read a *generalised* view of a *wider* situation, internalise it and then often reply with a self engrossed (sometimes displaying traits of clinical narcissism), histrionic reply - usually with some form of (not so) subtle pitch woven into the narrative. For example,

"I can count the number of complaints I've had about my products in the almost 7 years I've been doing this on ONE HAND. Most people, if they write to me at all, thank me for an honest product without all the hype."

and

"I pride myself on my ethics and the quality of my products..."

Of course not *all* infopreneurs want to rip people off. Stop being silly.

Tom

Yankabilly · 10-11-2009, 10:50 AM

Steven,
Hit, The NAIL ON THE HEAD WITH THAT ONE:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

Nick, sorry but I can only agree with you to a point.

We all know that many people get no results with your product because
they don't use it...PERIOD.

So no matter how good your product is, you're still going to get 97% of
the people showing no results.

It's not always the quality of the product that's the problem, and I can
prove that with my own results of products I've purchased but I'm not
going to get into that.

You're painting a broad stroke of paint over a problem that is only partially
caused by poorly made products.

Or more to the point, YOU show me one product where 97% of the people
who bought it had good results with it...documented.

I'd be willing to bet my bank account that neither you or anyone else can
do that.

People are inherently lazy.

And no product, no matter how good, is going to change that.

Here's My Two Cents Worth:

Our GOVERNMENT the good old USA, can't handle their OWN problems. They are always Raising our Taxes or something, Giving Money Away To The WRONG PEOPLE, Always, Always putting there NOSE where it don't belong, have for years now... They have proven Time & Time Again they CAN'T HANDLE MONEY, They themselves Run the Biggest Money Racket Going... They Need To Start Looking At Them SELF'S FIRST and QUIT Lying To US so much, before they talk about adding a New Law...

I totally agree that Most People don't do anything with "The Products" they buy, because There Lazy, Yes, this Includes Me Sometimes... and that's a lot & most of the problem, why it don't & won't work. The Product, can't make "You TAKE ACTION" you have to do that yourself.

Most People Still Believe When They Get On The Internet (and even in there daily lives on the street as well) That If They Do SOMETHING That They Are Going To Get RICH in 24hrs or Less (It's Called A Dream). And that's not always a bad thing and it doesn't make them bad for thinking that way either. But life for the Most Part doesn't work that way...

Yes, some People on the Internet & even on the Streets sell That Same Dream to others and (That's Wrong) but it's OK, that Radio & TV does it everyday.. (What's Uncle Sam doing about them) Also most of the People In The World live in a Fantasy all there LIFE one way or another...

I Truly Love This Country, but I don't like how our Government runs it... Most of all, How The People Here Are Treated Once They Reach A Certain Age...

Understand To Own A Business - You First Must Have A Understanding Of How To Run A Business...

Thanks To All
John

Steven Carl Kelly · 10-11-2009, 11:08 AM

People, people, people.

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.

Personally, I've never used them, but if you DO use and still want to use them, you still can. Again, READ the document and stop taking other people's word for what is in there.

Steven Wagenheim · 10-11-2009, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomw

Steve,

I think you and I have known each other long enough to know that we both only have the best possible intentions for our fellow man and our fellow Warriors.

As much as I like you and respect a lot of what you do, I know your posting patterns well enough to expect you to read a *generalised* view on a *wider* situation, internalise it and then often reply with a self engrossed (sometimes displaying traits of clinical narcissism), histrionic reply - usually with some form of (not so) subtle pitch woven into the narrative. For example,

"I can count the number of complaints I've had about my products in the
almost 7 years I've been doing this on ONE HAND."

and

"I pride myself on my ethics and the quality of my products, but the FTC
has essentially told me that all I can say on my sales page is this."

Of course not *all* infopreneurs want to rip people off. Stop being silly.

Tom

Well my apologies then but this is the most upset I have gotten here in
a long time. You've been gone a while and don't know what went down.

I was banned for a week and finally realized I had to straighten up and
fly right. I now spend most of my time in OT talking music. Look in
main discussion and you'll find very few threads that I've started in the
last few months. I just don't bother anymore.

But the tone of your post and that remark about wanting to rip people off
was way too general to just let slide by. Had you qualified it with a many
or even most, I would have let it slide. But the way it came out sounded
like you were painting us all with a broad stroke.

Anyway, I just wanted you to know where I am coming from. If anything
I have been accused of not selling hard enough. I've had copywriters tell
me my sales pages suck because they're too low key. So I'm not at all
concerned about the FTC coming after me because if they do, we are all
in trouble. And I mean all literally.

For what it's worth, I detest the sales pages that are currently online. I'd
point out tons of examples but that would be in violation of the forum
rules. But you know it as well as I do...most, not all, but most sales pages
are going to get fined if there are enough complaints and the FTC does
what it says it's going to do.

My problem is with the honest guy who has an honest testimonial for a
product that actually does what it says, only he can't use it anymore.

That's what I have a problem with.

And correct me if I am wrong, but your attitude about this seems to be,
"Oh well, if honest businessman can't use that testimonial anymore, that's
the way it goes."

I can't feel that way. I think it's wrong. I think the law is going too far.
I understand that the FTC has no way of knowing who is telling the truth
and who isn't. But the law is going to punish the innocent, not the guilty.

The guilty will go get a Swiss account somewhere and a server in Asia
and that will be the end of it.

Anyway, I think you know how I stand on this issue. So I guess we will
just agree to disagree.

Steven Wagenheim · 10-11-2009, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carl Kelly

People, people, people.

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.

Personally, I've never used them, but if you DO use and still want to use them, you still can. Again, READ the document and stop taking other people's word for what is in there.

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?

tomw · 10-11-2009, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

Well my apologies then but this is the most upset I have gotten here in a long time. You've been gone a while and don't know what went down.

But the tone of your post and that remark about wanting to rip people off
was way too general to just let slide by. Had you qualified it with a many
or even most, I would have let it slide. But the way it came out sounded
like you were painting us all with a broad stroke.

And correct me if I am wrong, but your attitude about this seems to be,
"Oh well, if honest businessman can't use that testimonial anymore, that's
the way it goes."

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 - and 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. Those that react and adapt profit. Those that don't, don't.

Tom

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

Steven Carl Kelly · 10-11-2009, 11:47 AM

Quote:

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?

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.

10-10-2009, 11:44 AM	#1
Nick Brighton Offensively Defensive War Room Member Join Date: May 2006 Location: In the trenches... Posts: 1,411 Thanks: 156 Thanked 146 Times in 63 Posts	You think the FTC's new rules are out to get you? Then I hope they do... Here's my take on the new FTC rulings regarding affiliates, sponsors and other marketing activities for profit online... If you're worried about the effect your business will have because you can no longer make misleading, unrealistic claims in your content and testimonials, then it's time you had a long hard think about what you're really offering people in the first place. I understand why it's a worry that you have to disclose your "average" customer results alongside those exceptional results-based testimonials on your website... ...after all, you can't control the people who make your product look bad by doing nothing (and not getting results, bringing the averages down)... ...but you can't go wrong by telling legitimate, serious prospects what your intentions are, and by being transparent with them. (AND HERE'S WHAT NOBODY HAS POINTED OUT YET: If you stop misleading people in the first place, then your average customer WILL get results, because you've already filtered/screened them through your marketing. People who get 90% of their customers doing nothing, are the same people who are attracting 90% of the wrong people in the first place! Duh? Don't these folks see the irony going on here?!!!) I can't understand why people are so worried. Here's the thing: If you rely on "over seasoning" your marketing copy, or your offers, or the use of 3rd party testimonials...or whatever else it takes to make a commission or sale, and you can't make money without the hyperbole, then one this is obviously clear... ...you can't deliver enough value to your visitors in the first place. On the other hand, when visitors get something out of your site, your content and your overall marketing, trust me, they won't care if you make a commission from them clicking your links. (unless you're selling to other marketers of course, who in general, have become predisposed to a whole different set of ethics when it comes to buying through each others affiliate links) The bottom line is - sites that offer value and ethical, honest and transparent content will gain more trust from their visitors than those that mislead instead. People aren't stupid anyway. They know your claims are to be taken with a pinch of salt...and the FTC is merely protecting those people who DON'T take things with a pinch of salt and get led into a false sense of hope and misdirection when handing money over to you. People like John Reese have been saying this for a long time now - transparency is the only way forward for web business these days. Just like offline business can't hide behind BS and faceless management to win the trust of their market, neither can (nor should) website businesses either. It's obvious to most of us, and I personally think this is a great change to the world of online marketing. Finally, it forces those amongst us who get by on creating cheap, misleading and thinly spread content to generate income from false hope, to finally create value and a real user experience for web users. And when that happens, guess what? Web users regain trust with websites, and then EVERYONE of us stand to benefit when the dust has settled from this. It's win-win, unless you're in the game of misdirection and deception of course. 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.
	I know why your sales SUCK. And I guarantee if you use this method, you WILL double your income or I'll buy it back off you TWICE. CLICK HERE to get it before I pull it

10-10-2009, 01:17 PM	#3
Jeremy Kelsall Senior Warrior Member War Room Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: , , USA. Posts: 4,294 Blog Entries: 2 Thanks: 323 Thanked 1,225 Times in 420 Posts	Re: You think the FTC's new rules are out to get you? Then I hope they do... Nick, you do copy, right? Would you mind posting some examples of your copy so we can see whether you are walking the walk or not? The FTC sucks - Plain and simple. I agree that measures need to be taken to protect consumers - After all, I am a consumer But, when you start involving government agencies on this scale - IT ISN'T A GOOD THING FOR ANYONE.
	CALLING THE FAKERS OUT - $1000 EASY \| Join Our List \| Do You Want To Piss People off and Get PAID!?! \| To Contact Don & Jeremy Please Use Or Support Ticket System

10-10-2009, 01:48 PM	#5
Steven Wagenheim Article Marketing Wiz War Room Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Roselle, NJ, USA Posts: 13,262 Blog Entries: 11 Thanks: 515 Thanked 2,887 Times in 904 Posts Social Networking	Re: You think the FTC's new rules are out to get you? Then I hope they do... Nick, sorry but I can only agree with you to a point. We all know that many people get no results with your product because they don't use it...PERIOD. So no matter how good your product is, you're still going to get 97% of the people showing no results. It's not always the quality of the product that's the problem, and I can prove that with my own results of products I've purchased but I'm not going to get into that. You're painting a broad stroke of paint over a problem that is only partially caused by poorly made products. Or more to the point, YOU show me one product where 97% of the people who bought it had good results with it...documented. I'd be willing to bet my bank account that neither you or anyone else can do that. People are inherently lazy. And no product, no matter how good, is going to change that.
	NEW WSO - Bank $4,000 Monthly - 5 Niches - Only 38 Left NEW WSO - Beat The FTC Honestly And Still Rake In The $$$ Make Money TODAY Hot Trends WSO - Over 1,000 Satisfied Buyers My Greatest Warrior Specials In One Place My Personal Blog...A 6 Figure Education For FREE

10-10-2009, 02:40 PM	#7
Jeremy Kelsall Senior Warrior Member War Room Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: , , USA. Posts: 4,294 Blog Entries: 2 Thanks: 323 Thanked 1,225 Times in 420 Posts	Re: You think the FTC's new rules are out to get you? Then I hope they do... Nick, It won't be long before you can't use words like "cash sucking" or "easy" in your headlines. After all, how do you prove something is "cash sucking" or "easy"? Is something really "free" if someone has to give you an email address? Is it really so easy that a 12 year old can do it? What is the FTCs definition of easy? What is their definition of auto-pilot? Seriously, it's only a matter of time before our headlines have to read like this: "BUY MY PRODUCT THAT IS IN THE GOVERNMENTS EYES A SCAM AND GOOD FOR NOTHING OTHER THAN A PAPER WEIGHT - BECAUSE I'M A NICE GUY..." Marketing, at least in part is about evoking emotion and getting people to have a vision of what your product can do for them. How can you do that if the FTC for the most part won't let you say anything good about your product - or even share the great results someone has had with your product without following it up with: "you probably won't have the same results because that is how life is - buy it anyway and if it doesn't work out you can sue me" The government here in the states has already proven that they could screw up a bachelor party at the bunny ranch. Embracing them having more power over our business, should not be encouraged by ANYONE. If someone screws you over, take them to court, sue them, report them to the authorities - But, giving someone that much control on the front-end is ridiculous.
	CALLING THE FAKERS OUT - $1000 EASY \| Join Our List \| Do You Want To Piss People off and Get PAID!?! \| To Contact Don & Jeremy Please Use Or Support Ticket System

10-10-2009, 03:12 PM	#11
bobsedge HyperActive Warrior War Room Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Long Island, NY, USA. Posts: 229 Thanks: 17 Thanked 156 Times in 18 Posts Social Networking Contact Info	Re: You think the FTC's new rules are out to get you? Then I hope they do... I think claims will become a thing of the past as it has in franchising in the US. With franchising, and I believe with MLM's as well, if you make a claim you need to substantiate it. To say the least, you will almost never find claims any longer in those two sectors. When you purchase a franchise, the franchisor gives you references you can call but they are also obligated to give you a complete list of all franchisees with their contact information. The thing with the FTC is that they intentionally keep rules broad so they can use discretion on how they implement the rules. Only time will tell on how they intend to enforce this.
	www.ViralSweeps.com - Discover The Power Of The Sweeps- The Ultimate Giveaway Strategy

10-10-2009, 03:13 PM	#13
Nick Brighton Offensively Defensive War Room Member Join Date: May 2006 Location: In the trenches... Posts: 1,411 Thanks: 156 Thanked 146 Times in 63 Posts	Re: You think the FTC's new rules are out to get you? Then I hope they do... Stephen, I'm not attacking you personally my friend. Nor anyone else for that matter. My post is a way to make a point about the correct way to conduct business as an affiliate, and how to use ethical, honest testimonials without misleading your prospects. You are obviously already doing that, judging by your comments in your last post!
	I know why your sales SUCK. And I guarantee if you use this method, you WILL double your income or I'll buy it back off you TWICE. CLICK HERE to get it before I pull it

10-10-2009, 03:18 PM	#14
bobsedge HyperActive Warrior War Room Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Long Island, NY, USA. Posts: 229 Thanks: 17 Thanked 156 Times in 18 Posts Social Networking Contact Info	Re: You think the FTC's new rules are out to get you? Then I hope they do... Nick, The sad thing is that in a week or two after we are all done discussing this, nothing will change. Look at the industries that have been under attack in recent years by the FTC- debt and credit. The FTC selectively goes after a few businesses but the rest go about their business as usual playing a game of Russian Roulette. And you know what, the odds are in their favor that they will never be touched. This will be particularly true on the internet where the state regulators have no impact at all.
	www.ViralSweeps.com - Discover The Power Of The Sweeps- The Ultimate Giveaway Strategy

10-10-2009, 03:22 PM	#18
marlon HyperActive Warrior War Room Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: , , . Posts: 251 Thanks: 18 Thanked 73 Times in 13 Posts	Average results Bro, I disagree on average results. The average person reads 2 books a year, believes in ufo's and can't spell potato. The average ebook buyer does NOT read more than a few chapters. I embed tracking links in my products to know how far people read. The average consumer of how to information topics buys things for research and never INTENDS to do anything. They are curious or doing research. And the PROOF is on your book shelf. Either you're average and don't have many books there at all. Or if you do, how many have you actually read cover to cover and followed the majority of the advice in them? Honestly. It's not how books or info products are read nor used. I have no problem with the law. But as far as average results, I don't care how good the product is, the average results won't be good. On average how many people who read Dale Carnegie actually go out smile, listen and stop doing all the stuff he tells you? Like about none! How many people who read Think and Grow Rich actually write down the stuff he says on an index card and read it 3x per day as he instructs for more than 1 week? Very few. My ex client (passed away) was worth $600 million. He made that after reading Think and Grow Rich. When people would come to him for business advice, he'd tell them to go read that book THEN come back for advice. In all his years, not ONE person did that. Marlon
	Sales letters \| website site design \| internet marketing ezine .

10-10-2009, 03:30 PM	#20
JayXtreme Babyfaced Assassin War Room Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Out Of My Mind - Brandy Too Posts: 3,262 Blog Entries: 5 Thanks: 1,652 Thanked 802 Times in 430 Posts Social Networking	Re: You think the FTC's new rules are out to get you? Then I hope they do... I did see the point in the OP.. But I think Marlon summed it up quite well Peace Jay
	Twitter Me Alls I Need Is: 5 Lines Of Text And A BUYNOW Button To Sell Sh1t!... Eyeballs To Offers.... You Need Traffic!..

10-10-2009, 03:31 PM	#21
bobsedge HyperActive Warrior War Room Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Long Island, NY, USA. Posts: 229 Thanks: 17 Thanked 156 Times in 18 Posts Social Networking Contact Info	Re: You think the FTC's new rules are out to get you? Then I hope they do... Marlon, You're right, but who cares. The FTC does not like claims. On the companies they go after, claims is almost always the first cause of action, period. Businesses basically have three choices. 1. Stop making claims 2. Make claims but stay small and under the radar 3. Make claims, grow big, and go to bed at night praying that your company is not the one they select to go after
	www.ViralSweeps.com - Discover The Power Of The Sweeps- The Ultimate Giveaway Strategy

10-10-2009, 04:17 PM	#24
JohnMcCabe Happy Hooker War Room Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: North of the Peace River, Southwest Florida, USA. Posts: 2,301 Thanks: 278 Thanked 459 Times in 298 Posts Social Networking	Re: You think the FTC's new rules are out to get you? Then I hope they do... First off, I think many people are giving a government agency credit for way too much ambition. Agencies don't "get bored and come after people", they figure out more and better ways to shuffle and stack paper to justify their budgets. I'm not sure how the words 'typical' or 'generally expected' came to mean average. "Average" has a strict mathematical meaning that depends on a fixed sample. Actively sold products can't have "average" results, because the sample changes every time a product is either sold or refunded. Requiring a statement of "average results" would be unenforceable, IMO. If your MMO system is set up to generate $10 per sale, and if the user gets the 1% conversion often touted as typical, then the user can "generally expect" to make $10 for every hundred prospects. If the user fails to do anything, they can "generally expect" to make nothing. Unless your sales copy claims otherwise. The FTC isn't out to get you. That would be too much like real work. Many times rules are written very vaguely to make them easier to not enforce. [Insert standard CYA] IMO, unless you're burning up late night TV or your product actually kills someone, there isn't much to worry about.
	[YOU], back by popular demand... Salad is not food. Salad is what food eats... -- The REAL PETA, People for Eating Tasty Animals "I did not fight my way to the top of the food chain to eat tofu!" Last edited by JohnMcCabe; 10-10-2009 at 04:19 PM. Reason: clarification

10-10-2009, 05:12 PM	#26
Scott Ames I'm getting fat War Room Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: West of Rockies Posts: 4,808 Thanks: 194 Thanked 304 Times in 168 Posts	Re: You think the FTC's new rules are out to get you? Then I hope they do... 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.
	http://www.kiva.org/

10-10-2009, 07:05 PM	#30
Justin Jordan Advanced Warrior War Room Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: The wilds of Pennsylvania Posts: 538 Blog Entries: 3 Thanks: 19 Thanked 18 Times in 13 Posts	Re: You think the FTC's new rules are out to get you? Then I hope they do... Honestly, even if you are dishonest and a scammer, the FTC is not a huge threat. I knew someone who worked for a financial planner who was both incompetent and massively dishonest, and ultimately lost a few million dollars worth of customer's money. Amongst other things, he was forging client signatures (which is what caused my friend to resign, actually) destroying records, falsifying records, tranferring money from other accounts when clients asked for money that actually no longer had and, generally, a laundry list of other crap. The FTC knew about this at least seven years ago, and while they did take some action, after having him directly reported, he was able to stay in business until earlier this year, when the FBI and a few other entities became involved. (As a side bar, he's being criminally prosecuted with some zeal largely because the Bernie Madoff thing made this sort of thing newsworthy, so the local medi became involved enough to pressure law enforcement to become directly involved.) The FTC is limited in people and money. They simply can't spend the time rooting out small time operations on any real scale. It's not effective use of their time and money. So the odds are good that for most people, the FTC will never notice them. Even if the FTC does notice them, the most likely outcome isn't some kind of business devastation. They'll simply have to change how they're operating. For the vast majority of people, even the real con artists, you're unlikely to be making enough money or scamming enough people to be worth going after. If you're worried about the FTC, then you probably should change the way you do business, but most of the fear is pretty irrational.
	You Want Good Content? You Want GREAT Content? Then CLICK HERE And Step Inside.

10-10-2009, 07:26 PM	#33
markquinn Advanced Warrior War Room Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: , , USA. Posts: 618 Blog Entries: 14 Thanks: 126 Thanked 68 Times in 47 Posts	Re: You think the FTC's new rules are out to get you? Then I hope they do... Terrific post by Steven. Thanks for the link, Kevin!
	Kevin Riley calls this fellow Warrior's niche marketing course "A step by step detailed course designed to take you by the hand and suck profit into your web sites." WorkAtHomeTruth.com \| ArticleSpinners.com

10-10-2009, 10:11 PM	#34
Steven Carl Kelly Trust Christ Alone War Room Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Central Florida Posts: 2,114 Thanks: 22 Thanked 350 Times in 199 Posts	Re: You think the FTC's new rules are out to get you? Then I hope they do... Lots of overreactions to the new FTC guides -- guides, not laws or regulations -- the laws have been around for decades. Come on, folks.
	My Voice + Your Content = More Profits for You! <-- Click This

10-10-2009, 10:23 PM	#35
UKTim29 HyperActive Warrior War Room Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: United Kingdom. Posts: 126 Thanks: 5 Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts	Re: You think the FTC's new rules are out to get you? Then I hope they do... Hmm, will this have an effecton some WSO headlines!!!!!

10-11-2009, 10:21 AM	#41
TelegramSam Telegram Expert ;-) Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: USA/UK Posts: 421 Thanks: 24 Thanked 93 Times in 50 Posts	Re: You think the FTC's new rules are out to get you? Then I hope they do... I wonder if McDonalds, Crispy Creme and Pizza Hut will now have to state the following: "The typical person who uses our products will get fat and feel terrible within a few months". Or perhaps Budweiser, Heinekin and the other beer companies will have to state: "The typical person who drinks our beer will drink too much, get drunk and get into trouble with his Mrs".

10-11-2009, 10:49 AM	#44
tomw Advanced Warrior War Room Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: , , United Kingdom. Posts: 927 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 480 Thanked 286 Times in 148 Posts	Re: You think the FTC's new rules are out to get you? Then I hope they do... Steve, I think you and I have known each other long enough to know that we both only have the best possible intentions for our fellow man and our fellow Warriors. As much as I like you and respect a lot of what you do, I also know your posting patterns well enough to expect you to read a generalised view of a wider situation, internalise it and then often reply with a self engrossed (sometimes displaying traits of clinical narcissism), histrionic reply - usually with some form of (not so) subtle pitch woven into the narrative. For example, "I can count the number of complaints I've had about my products in the almost 7 years I've been doing this on ONE HAND. Most people, if they write to me at all, thank me for an honest product without all the hype." and "I pride myself on my ethics and the quality of my products..." Of course not *all* infopreneurs want to rip people off. Stop being silly. Tom
	If you are like others, who will be like you?

10-11-2009, 11:08 AM	#46
Steven Carl Kelly Trust Christ Alone War Room Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Central Florida Posts: 2,114 Thanks: 22 Thanked 350 Times in 199 Posts	Re: You think the FTC's new rules are out to get you? Then I hope they do... People, people, people. 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. Personally, I've never used them, but if you DO use and still want to use them, you still can. Again, READ the document and stop taking other people's word for what is in there.
	My Voice + Your Content = More Profits for You! <-- Click This