FTC going to bite our heads off?

[LauriNiskasaari]

Hey fellow warriors.

...the new ftc rules about use of endorsements and testimonials in advertising...

I just wanted to know if anyone knows what you should do to be ftc compliant?

To be honest, I`m really confused about these new ftc rules and need some advice.

Really, I`m scared of the scenario that FTC will sooner or later contact me and say "You`re in trouble now!"

Thanks in advance for any advice.

-Lauri

[captivereef]

just search ftc and you will see alot of posts about this.

I am not to worried about it, anything the US government does runs poorly and never does what it is intended to do!

[Steven Wagenheim]

FTC going to bite our heads off?

Like the guy who eats chicken heads at the carnival.

All kidding aside, if you just use some common sense, don't use
testimonials that show outrageous results and don't make promises
in your copy, you'll be fine.

A typical disclaimer that seems to be going around online and offline
goes something like this.

"We cannot promise you that..."

Etc.

As long as you are open, up front and honest, I seriously doubt that
you have anything to worry about.

But I'm not a lawyer, so if in doubt, go find yourself one.

[Soapyshoe]

Originally Posted by captivereef

I am not to worried about it, anything the US government does runs poorly and never does what it is intended to do!

I was watching a webinar with an FTC officer who openly admitted that they are horribly under-funded.

They are announcing these changes because it gives them legitimacy when they "seize" a business - otherwise, everybody would flip out when they start doing it.

The FTC will make an "example" out of some poor schmuck to scare everybody else. But when the cats are away....

[John M Kane]

here's Jim Edwards interviewing a FTC official about all this
FTC (Federal Trade Commission) Clarifies New Internet Marketing, Blogging & Affiliate Advertising Guidelines With Jim Edwards |

[Chris Nesmith]

If there is one person that annoys me more than Jim Edwards it's . . . umm . . . I'll think of someone . . . give me a minute . . . nope just about the most annoying person on the planet

[The Dotcom Hippie]

If they can help get rid of one percent of the grade A bull**** that I see online every day - particularly from more than a few of my fellow internet marketers (with the product pimps being the absolute worst) - I'm more than happy with all this. If a piece of **** is still floating around in the toilet, just flush it.

That said, every time regulators get into their stuff, they do risk hurting legitimate businesses - and the economy as a whole. I'm usually against ALL that kind of stuff, but let's face it: we're in a line of business that could do with a little house cleaning.

[LauriNiskasaari]

Okay, thanks for your answers. Maybe I`ll get to keep my head after all...

Anyone knows is it enough for FTC if I include modified privacy policy at my sites?

-Lauri

[Chris Nesmith]

Essentially if any 3 letter agency wants to nail you they can. Now whether your sites would warrant that I cannot say. But if you are a small timer you should have nothing to worry about especially If you are not using blatantly spam-like copy or beating your customers into submission (I am no lawer nor can anything I say be used as legal advice, as a matter of fact don't listen to a word I say; also I can't prove as to the existence of ufos moon landings or making money on the internet) *end FTC disclaimer.

[killercopy]

Unless you are getting tons of complaints about your site/product, I seriously doubt the Feds are going to be paying you a visit. These new rules are a result of numerous state lawsuits against the google money systems, MLMs and the forced (I dind't know it was forced) continuity programs. The google money systems had a very profitable ad that read like a news story that ended up putting thousands of people in a continuity program they didn't know anything about. There were lots of complaints and this is the typical Fed knee jerk reaction. Believe me, the FTC does not have the manpower to police every site on the Internet. Don't cross the line...don't get complained on, and you'll be fine

[Ron Douglas]

Originally Posted by Chris Nesmith

If there is one person that annoys me more than Jim Edwards it's . . . umm . . . I'll think of someone . . . give me a minute . . . nope just about the most annoying person on the planet

LOL. Is it the Hawaiian shirt?

Actually I thought that interview with the FTC was very helpful and everyone should listen to it.

[Hesaidblissfully]

From my understanding, the FTC will be primarily relying on complaints from customers to decide which merchants they go after, so it's not as though they're just sitting around surfing the internet all day, looking for sites to screw with.

Having said that, I think you'll be fine if you:

1. Don't use testimonials where people make specific claims about the result they got from your system (unless you're ready to do research and indicate what results your average user could expect). Using testimonials where someone talks about the product itself (Joe's course was great. It was well-written and to the point. It gave me a completely new perspective on generating traffic and plenty of great ideas I'll start using right away.) is fine. But (Joe's course was great. I already used it to get 12,000 visits to a new website so far this month) is not fine.

2. Don't make specific claims about what your product can do unless you can back it up with proof.

3. Are transparent with your readers about when you're getting paid to endorse a product.

And as everyone else mentioned, I'm not a lawyer. This is just my interpretation based on what I've read in interviews with people from the FTC.

[LauriNiskasaari]

Originally Posted by killercopy

Unless you are getting tons of complaints about your site/product, I seriously doubt the Feds are going to be paying you a visit. These new rules are a result of numerous state lawsuits against the google money systems, MLMs and the forced (I dind't know it was forced) continuity programs. The google money systems had a very profitable ad that read like a news story that ended up putting thousands of people in a continuity program they didn't know anything about. There were lots of complaints and this is the typical Fed knee jerk reaction. Believe me, the FTC does not have the manpower to police every site on the Internet. Don't cross the line...don't get complained on, and you'll be fine

Yeah, I`m beginning to get the point here...and in fact it`s really good the B.S. systems mentioned above finally get what they deserve. Really, if this helps to get rid of the scammers and spammers, lots of people stop losing money online.

And what comes to Jim Edwards...he looks like Dustin Hoffman wearing a shirt borrowed from Boyd Coddington

...Just kidding! I`m listening to his interview right now and honestly, Jimmy is doing a great job...

[Alminc]

How about selling only such products that really
can do what you say in your sales letter?
How about having everything verified and documented?

[LauriNiskasaari]

Originally Posted by Alminc

How about selling only such products that really
can do what you say in your sales letter?
How about having everything verified and documented?

Yeah, that`s what`s this is all about if I`m looking at the bigger picture, and it`s really good thing.

Still, The testimonial rule that requires you to give "generally expected" results kinda sucks. I mean, how do you know what is the typical result?

If you have awesome product and someone buys it and makes $100 the first day using it...and someone else gets the same product and makes that $100 in first 6 months...people are different (thank god) and the results are usually different too.

And "surprisingly" it`s done clear by ftc that you can`t use the "these results are not typical" frase anymore.

-Lauri

[Soapyshoe]

I have a feeling that karma is going to play a big role in this.

You can probably get away with making the same kinds of claims that the people on WarriorForums typically make in their copy.

I agree - these regulations are really about flushing some of the **** down the toilet.

[Hesaidblissfully]

Originally Posted by LauriNiskasaari

Yeah, that`s what`s this is all about if I`m looking at the bigger picture, and it`s really good thing.

Still, The testimonial rule that requires you to give "generally expected" results kinda sucks. I mean, how do you know what is the typical result?

If you have awesome product and someone buys it and makes $100 the first day using it...and someone else gets the same product and makes that $100 in first 6 months...people are different (thank god) and the results are usually different too.

And "surprisingly" it`s done clear by ftc that you can`t use the "these results are not typical" frase anymore.

-Lauri

The "workaround" for that is that you avoid giving specific results in testimonials altogether. People can still give their opinion of the product, but if you use testimonials where people claim they got a specific result from using your product, then you have to include data that indicates what the typical user can expect. Since probably no one would be willing to go to the trouble of surveying all their customers and calculating what "typical results" are, just for the sake of using a testimonial, the only solution that makes sense is to just avoid those types of claims altogether.

[Ron Douglas]

It should be interesting to see how the posts in the WSO forum change after Dec 1st.

[Kevin Riley]

Originally Posted by Ron Douglas

It should be interesting to see how the posts in the WSO forum change after Dec 1st.

I've already set scripts to automatically pull "Make A Gazillion Dollars While You Sleep" out of all my WSO headlines at the stroke of midnight on Nov 30.

[Ron Douglas]

Originally Posted by Kevin Riley

I've already set scripts to automatically pull "Make A Gazillion Dollars While You Sleep" out of all my WSO headlines at the stroke of midnight on Nov 30.

Good thinking Kevin. A Gazillion in your sleep is just crazy. When I used your system, I had to be awake before making that much.

[Kevin Riley]

Originally Posted by Ron Douglas

Good thinking Kevin. A Gazillion in your sleep is just crazy. When I used your system, I had to be awake before making that much.

Can I get your documentation? I need to create a disclaimer like this:

Disclaimer: The results in the above testimonials are not representative of average results. The average user of this program will have to stay awake to make a Gazillion Dollars overnight.

[Vic Shake]

hint: All this is a marketing ploy (FTC etc).

Micheal jackson, (he made less money when he was alive and made more money when he passed away.


example news channels make money by scaring people (scare tactic)

[Profit-smart]

Originally Posted by Kevin Riley

I've already set scripts to automatically pull "Make A Gazillion Dollars While You Sleep" out of all my WSO headlines at the stroke of midnight on Nov 30.

Hahahaha


Always with the witty posts Kevin.



On a more serious note, I've said it a hundred times now; I dont understand why so many warriors are up in arms worrying about the new FTC rulings.

From my studies, Even if your a violator theres a "Three strikes" rule.

If you do slip up, you'll get a warning first.

[Globe_Trotter13]

A quick question:
is this FTC thing applicable only to Americans and US residents or also to people who are not American and are not US residents? Should the FTC apply also to non Americans and non US residents, it would be yet one more example of the dictatorial ways of the US government. Don't get me wrong, I am all for cleaning all the **** going around online, and all my sites are legit and not making any unreal claims, but if the FTC tried to control non American and non US residents, then that's as clear a case of a basic freedom infringement from the US government...yet again!

[jazbo]

The chances of getting "caught" are so remote unless you are a big player that I cant really understand why its such a i concern for people. Just dont make outrageous, unsubstantiated claims in your copy, simple really.

I even read someone saying they can come after non-US citizens. Come one, lets get real here, that is paranoia, pure and simple, the chances of them being able to succesfully police the domestic web are a million to one.

As for the WSO forum, yes it will be interesting, perhaps just posting and saying "prove it please" when someone posts ludicrous claims will suffice.

[Allen Lewis]

Internet marketing has just got tougher, folks. Article directories, and now, on the bigger scale of things, the FTC are starting to clamp down on the wild, wild west.

Freedom is being sucked away day by day to protect the 10% of idiots and the majority are having to do more legal work because of a corrupt few who spoil it for everyone with their sleazy claims. Bureaucracy has finally seeped in good into Internet marketing.

The easy days are over.

Allen

[Paul Schlegel]

Originally Posted by Allen Lewis

Internet marketing has just got tougher, folks. Article directories, and now, on the bigger scale of things, the FTC are starting to clamp down on the wild, wild west.

Freedom is being sucked away day by day to protect the 10% of idiots and the majority are having to do more legal work because of a corrupt few who spoil it for everyone with their sleazy claims. Bureaucracy has finally seeped in good into Internet marketing.

The easy days are over.

Allen

Well, the easy days are over for some people. But as anyone who's been through this kind of stuff before knows, often developments like this actually make it easier for the people who are willing to work and think because so much of the competition runs away scared.

[Allen Lewis]

Originally Posted by Globe_Trotter13

A quick question:
is this FTC thing applicable only to Americans and US residents or also to people who are not American and are not US residents? Should the FTC apply also to non Americans and non US residents, it would be yet one more example of the dictatorial ways of the US government. Don't get me wrong, I am all for cleaning all the **** going around online, and all my sites are legit and not making any unreal claims, but if the FTC tried to control non American and non US residents, then that's as clear a case of a basic freedom infringement from the US government...yet again!

The whole of the Internet and all advertising to all Americans will be affected. They drew up a US Web SAFE Act. John McCain was one of those who approved it.

Since the US has a lot of allies, expect other countries to start taking up these new laws as well. This way, the US doesn't have to go after you. They can do the same. There is already talk about it in some countries.

Allen

[dave147]

Originally Posted by Ron Douglas

It should be interesting to see how the posts in the WSO forum change after Dec 1st.

It will also be interesting to see what email headlines the spammers come up with

[The Dotcom Hippie]

Originally Posted by dave147

It will also be interesting to see what email headlines the spammers come up with

Heh. It will indeed.

[Alexa Smith]

Originally Posted by markquinn

Well, the easy days are over for some people. But as anyone who's been through this kind of stuff before knows, often developments like this actually make it easier for the people who are willing to work and think because so much of the competition runs away scared.

Exactly so.

It's a real win/win.

The only people with anything to lose here are those who do their marketing by deceiving and misleading people. And I'll be really happy to see the back of them, myself.

The public image of and public confidence-level in our profession is not what it might be. The more regulation and enforcement there is to clean up internet marketing and take action against the frauds, the more things can gradually improve. Bring it on.

[Allen Lewis]

Originally Posted by Alexa Smith

Exactly so.

It's a real win/win.

Alexa, more regulation is definitely good, as long as it's done fairly. What is bad is regulations that are open to a lot of interpretation.

I don't think it even needs mentioning, since it has been mentioned many times before, but expecting marketers to reveal 'average results' or the alternative - use average generic testimonials - is a poor move.

And don't even get me started about affiliate disclosures...

Will the industry reputation boost achieved out of this outweigh the cons? Maybe, but I doubt it. And the FTC didn't create these guidelines just for Internet marketing, but for all advertising, so that's a moot point.

Allen

[Alexa Smith]

Originally Posted by Allen Lewis

And don't even get me started about affiliate disclosures...

Ok, I won't, then.

I'll just mention, for myself, that personally I have great doubts about what proportion of consumers, if buying something on the strength of a recommendation/review on someone's blog/site, would prefer to be told openly whether the blogger/reviewer is earning a commission on that sale and might feel misled if they subsequently found out it had been concealed. It's really confusing and difficult to judge. Some days I feel it's probably 99.9% of them, but on other days I sometimes wonder if it might really be only 99.8% of them. It remains a mystery.

[LauriNiskasaari]

It`s pretty interesting that I´ve lately got TONS of email saying "You need to get these new legal forms to comply with ftc rules...when ftc knocks your door it`s too late..." and then there`s affiliate link for product that sells for $97-$197...

So, looks like people have figured out a really good way to make money outta the ftc fear...

And If I understand this right, if your site(s) are not compliant with ftc in some ways and they pay a visit (Pretty unlike unless you`re a scammer or a big player...) they don`t send you a email telling you`re going to pay $11K...They will notice you about it and give a chance to make your sites compliant.

But as said, there`s money being made outta the ftc fear...

-Lauri