Automated Webinars - What would the FTC think?

That would just be a tutorial video would it not.

The word webinar wouldn't need to be used in that situation at all.

It's the way in which automated webinars are being used I'm talking about.

Personally, I don't feel comfortable using the feature that makes it look like you have hundreds of other people logging on at staggered times, when in reality you're the only one watching the video.

That's just me though. Others may feel comfortable using names of previous viewers (real ones). I can see that too... but totally making up people, well that's a different story.

I guess it's just a question of ethics and common sense and how much of each you have.

I'm not judging... just my opinion.

Wait, you mean all these webinars I keep getting invited to aren't live. Ah crap...

j/k - It blows my mind that people just don't say upfront they're recorded. Who cares. I watch a lot of TV that isn't live. It's not like there's something special about a live event.

The only purpose of a live event is the Q&A. Just provide a way for folks to get their questions answered and move on.

A number of automated webinar solutions allow for live Q&A during the event. Basically, you're watching a video, but support is also there at the event in case you have a question. It's a hybrid model.

There are two different ways this can go, at opposite extremes.

Option one, the high-value option: I want to do the best possible job on my presentation AND the live interaction, so I don't want to divide my attentions. I'll record my presentation, and once I get it perfect I'll put it up for you to watch while I concentrate on giving good answers to your questions.

Option two, the scammy-crap option: I can't be arsed to meet your schedule, so watch this video while a cheap outsourcer logs into my account and pastes canned answers to the questions he recognises in the chat.

The closer you get to option one, the more I like your usage of the system. But you can get awfully far from option one without getting anywhere near option two.

Do you know what's actually too funny? The fact that you can turn ALL those features off if you wish. The software simply gives you all the possibilities, bells and whistles, but it's YOUR responsibility and YOUR judgement to decide what use to make out of it.

Example: Cars can throttle up to 200 mph, yet the legal limit is 55. You can use that car to drive your kids to school, or you can use it to race recklessly in the streets. Who is to blame, the car or the driver?

Apply ethics and common sense in your automated webinars (and in your marketing), and no FTC will give you any problem whatsoever.

Not on the autobahn. And we are still talking about driving, which is what a car does. The ability to perform its intended function beyond the bounds of reason is not in any way unethical.

But if it were modified to, say, inflate artificial people from the seats and make it look like more people were in the car... you sort of have to ask why. And if people are using that feature to drive in the carpool lane, which is illegal, it starts to be questionable whether this is precisely why the feature exists.

Whereas when someone is driving a Ferrari at 85 mph down the highway, it does not lead anyone to ask why a Ferrari can be driven at all.

And I seriously doubt you're this stupid, but keep talking - you're starting to convince me.

Nobody is saying automated webinars are unethical. NOBODY. The only thing we've said is unethical is lying to your customers, which you've already taken a stand against.

Except you're defending a software feature that willfully deceives your customers. Which, you know, is commonly called "lying." And you keep trying to compare it to other things, because you're apparently unable to see the difference between "a fake person logging in and out of a web event" and "a car driving faster than the speed limit" or "a musician lip-syncing a recording of his own performance."

I mean, come on. Are you ACTUALLY this stupid? Can you honestly not tell that these are different things?

Or do you just not give a crap?

Ah, the arrogance. Anyone that disagrees with you must not be a "real marketer".

As CD noted, no one here is against pre-recorded webinars. It's about lying and basically defrauding people into thinking they're attending a live event that's the question here. So don't try to confuse the issue.

You even agreed that people should be honest about that so the issue is why add features that allows people to do the opposite.

Your Ferrari comparison is far fetched but what the heck. As CD already mentioned the overall function of the Ferrari, to drive, is still there whether people drive 30 MPH or 200 MPH. And there is legitimate reasons to drive that fast, car racing (professional and armature on a track), and on places where there are no speed limits.

But, what would happen if Ferrari or any car manufacture where to add a new feature to their cars, a radar speed gun jammer so drivers could jam cops radar speed guns.

Do you think the police would be upset? The appropriate transportation regulatory bodies? The government? Would they perhaps go after Ferrari for adding this new option to their cars. I would say... mmm, yes.

But wait the Ferrari rep says, you can turn the jammer off. So only bad people who want to break the law would turn it on. So their hands are clean.

Not likely.

There is no legitimate reason to add a radar speed gun jammer to a car and it wouldn't be allowed.

Just as there is no legitimate reason to add a feature that allows people to trick others into thinking there are 100 attendees to a "webinar" that has zero attendees.

And even worse give the false illusion that's it's a live event as it shows fake people dropping on and off.

At least stand by your features, good, bad, and ugly.

To throw your customer's under the bus for not being honest for using a feature you provide and market to them as a "sneaky" feature is disingenuous.

If honesty and integrity is so important why not just remove a feature whose only purpose is to do the opposite?