98% Of Salesletters To Become Illegal Soon? What's The Warrior Solution? :)

[Trader54]

A law like this really means they could almost shut anyone down at anytime. You will always be breaking some law.

Maybe the changing of the CEO at GM was just the beginning.

[admin]

Originally Posted by Dan C. Rinnert

So, in the IM world, that means the disclaimer would have to read something like this:

Typical results are that buyers will stop reading around chapter 2 or 3 and buy another eBook in an effort to find a get-rich-quick-while-doing-absolutely-nothing scheme. Among readers that do read the material in its entirety, typical results are that they'll never do anything with it or, if they do, they will do so in a half-hearted manner only sparsely following the described system and will achieve no results at all. A small portion of buyers will then claim they never made the purchase, downloaded, received or read the book and file a chargeback for an unauthorized transaction on their credit card.

That's exactly what I was thinking :-) Go overboard with it. This kind of disclosure can actually work FOR you instead of against you if done right.

[Loren Woirhaye]

My understanding is it doesn't prohibit outlandish claims -
a-la classic Eugene Schwartz ads - it says that you cannot
use testimonials in a manner that cherry-picks the best ones.

So - if you use them, you have to use ones that reflect
the average experience... or even the bad experience.

A lot of get-rich product offers and weight-loss offers hinge
on "I made $400,000 and I can't even read!" or "I lost
200 lbs and I pigged-out nearly every night on my favorite
foods!"

So now such ads must also include "I did this dumb program
and I lost $8000 buying advertising before I gave up on it!"
or "I followed this diet program and now I'm fatter than ever!"

It may (I hope) force offers to stand on the strength of
communicating real value rather than short-circuiting the
decision-process with social proof... because we all know
outrageous testimonials mislead people into getting into
purchases on self-deluded terms.

...which isn't good for business, long term.

[Dan C. Rinnert]

Originally Posted by Jack Duncan

@Paul Myers,
My favorite part by far was the satire site lincoln bicentennial coin

Love that satirical disclaimer...priceless.

Did you click the Add to Cart link? I wonder if he's getting any sales from that.

[Michael Motley]

Originally Posted by Jack Duncan

@ Tyrus,
The new law is actually a total overhaul of the whole "disclaimer" process that was put in place in the 80's.

That's why they are going to put this in place.

@Michael

Nada.

Jared actually DID lose 245 pounds. It's just that HIS RESULTS were not typical...

There are already plenty of laws in place that work just fine for unlawful claims...this is a whole new level.

Yeah, but they werent truthful about it.

he did lose 245 lbs. But it wasnt JUST by eating a diet of subway sandwiches

The people that you see in most diet ads probably did lose the weight, but not JUST by taking the product.

Yeah, this marketing doo-dad WILL draw traffic, but not with a singular use and with no other processes in place.

i still dont see the problem here. marketers just have to be more truthful. technically they aren't lying, their salesletters just have 'strategic ommissions'

[Dan C. Rinnert]

Originally Posted by Trader54

A law like this really means they could almost shut anyone down at anytime. You will always be breaking some law.

Maybe the changing of the CEO at GM was just the beginning.

There's about 468 people that maybe we can put out of work in November of 2010.

[bgmacaw]

Originally Posted by Greg Jacobs

Thinking about it more, the only way for REAL enforcement would be to establish a sort of "compulsulary licensing" for websites where they are unequivocally traced back to the real owner or they are not included in the search results. Ouch.

I suspect this is coming eventually. Many in government, on both sides of the political aisle, want this as do many large corporations.

[Jack Duncan]

marketers just have to be more truthful

Again...this isn't about truth vs. lie

It's about typical vs. non-typical

Problem is, we are talking about PEOPLE...and no two of them are alike.

Honestly, based on the wording of this regulation, it looks to me that marketing in general is going to have to go the way of the drug industry.

It means that companies will have to PAY for tests out of their own pocket...just to see how people "typically" respond to their product. Regardless of what can actually be accomplished with the product.

So, say you write an ebook on "How To Flip Websites".

Even if 10 of your reviewers made $1500 in the first week, before you can use that information in your salesletter, you will need to pay for a group of "average joes" to try out your product...make sure the results are statistically accurate...and then file paperwork with the FTC when the non-average-joe user doesn't make the $1500 you claim, showing them your test results.

[LB]

Specific results and proof are what make great copy.

"Become a great affiliate marketer in a month!" is a ****ty, nonspecific headline.

If someone purchased my product and made a million dollars should I not be able to say that?

The reality is 90% of people don't even use products...why have to include the stats of someone who buys a book and buries it under their bed?

The FTC does not need more power, why is everyone always looking for the government to save them and expecting they always have pure motives?

The government LOVES ambiguous laws. The way this is written it would affect almost all advertising. Selective enforcement.

[bgmacaw]

Originally Posted by Trader54

A law like this really means they could almost shut anyone down at anytime. You will always be breaking some law.

"That's what governments are for — getting in a man's way." - Malcolm Reynolds Firefly

[Jack Duncan]

Specific results and proof are what make great copy.

"Become a great affiliate marketer in a month!" is a ****ty, nonspecific headline.

Spoken like a champ!

Originally Posted by Michael Motley

so basically marketers will have to be truthful in their sales letters?


OH THE HORROR!!!

-

Well I only create and sell my own products, so no worries here as my sales letters are truthful and have no hype or madeup income statements. Testimonials are from those that actually use my sites, products, or services..

So safe here...

James

[ragnartm]

Since I live in Norway this won't effect me?

[InternetMarketingIQ]

Just like Speed limits... say the speed limit is 55mph... does that mean people drive 55? No they do not.

It's all a matter of enforcement and proof.

Truth in advertising benefits everyone. But the reality is this will not change much for the average guy online. The average guy is already violating a number of laws... primarily copyright.

[Jack Duncan]

my sales letters are truthful and have no hype or madeup income statements. Testimonials are from those that actually use my sites, products, or services..

But are they typical?

For example:

Of the last 100 people that bought your X product, did they ALL generally (on average) have the same experience as the Testimonial quote from Rhonda in Vermont?








.

[doctorjay]

I don't see the problem. This is the way it should be.

Freedom of speech is not freedom to lie and make outlandish claims.

[LB]

Originally Posted by internetmarketingiq

Just like Speed limits... say the speed limit is 55mph... does that mean people drive 55? No they do not.

It's all a matter of enforcement and proof.

Truth in advertising benefits everyone. But the reality is this will not change much for the average guy online. The average guy is already violating a number of laws... primarily copyright.

Most people in business are not violating copyright, a select few may do so flagrantly or because they aren't educated, but it's hardly a standard.

Most people here aren't aware of "asset forfeiture" laws in the US.

In short, if the FTC accuses you of something they can easily claim that all of your assets were acquired due to your accused crime and they can freeze your bank accounts, and take everything you own leaving you essentially homeless.

Then try fighting federal prosecutors without a penny in your pocket to hire a lawyer.

The FTC is already out of control, as is most of the government...they do not need more ambiguous laws on their side.

Originally Posted by LB

Most people in business are not violating copyright, a select few may do so flagrantly or because they aren't educated, but it's hardly a standard.

Most people here aren't aware of "asset forfeiture" laws in the US.

In short, if the FTC accuses you of something they can easily claim that all of your assets were acquired due to your accused crime and they can freeze your bank accounts, and take everything you own leaving you essentially homeless.

Then try fighting federal prosecutors without a penny in your pocket to hire a lawyer.

The FTC is already out of control, as is most of the government...they do not need more ambiguous laws on their side.

Bravo!!! I would agree 200% there...

James

[Trader54]

Originally Posted by doctorjay

I don't see the problem. This is the way it should be.

Freedom of speech is not freedom to lie and make outlandish claims.

Now wouldn't that be a hoot.

To have the government pass a law like this based on that logic. "Freedom of speech is not freedom to lie and make outlandish claims"

Originally Posted by Jack Duncan

But are they typical?

For example:

Of the last 100 people that bought your X product, did they ALL generally (on average) have the same experience as the Testimonial quote from Rhonda in Vermont?
.

That's the stickler ... We all know many fail due to not taking action and we have no control over customers that do not take action.

James

[coffeyucf]

Great!!! You can always count on the government to make brilliant policy changes like this. Aren't they supposed to be trying to stimulate the economy at a time like this.

I don't think they see the bigger picture...

Advertisers response rates decrease which results in less money (tax to government)...

Since advertisers can't make a healthy ROI they stop or reduce advertising spends on TV, Radio, Print, and web... Now all those business make less money (tax to government).

Granted there are some dishonest marketers who should be put in jail but this takes it a bit far. The good thing is this seems to be effecting multi-million and billion dollar companies. So hopefully they have the money and the legal power to fight this.

[Jack Duncan]

I don't see the problem. This is the way it should be.

Freedom of speech is not freedom to lie and make outlandish claims.

Where is that bang-head-on-wall smiley?

From the proposed legislation:

An advertisement disseminated by a company that sells heat pumps presents endorsements from three individuals who state that after installing the company’s heat pump in their homes, their monthly utility bills went down by $100, $125, and $150, respectively.

(bold emphasis mine. This is a TRUE testimonial from 3 actual customers who already purchased the heat pump and used it.)


The ad will likely be interpreted as conveying that such savings are representative of what consumers who buy the company’s heat pump can generally expect. The advertiser does not have substantiation for that representation because, in fact, less than 20% of purchasers will save $100 or more.

(The company would have to already have performed testing at this point to KNOW this information as a fact.)

If you want just a whiff of what will happen...think of Cheerios right now.

It's advertising is under attack because it is making claims that "only a drug could make"...regardless of the fact that some individuals have indeed lowered their cholesterol X points in a month...after eating Cheerios.



.

Originally Posted by coffeyucf

Advertisers response rates decrease which results in less money (tax to government)...

They will just find something else to tax or raise taxes on ...

James

[Michael Lee]

I was just wondering what's the penalty or consequence if the FTC did take you down.

Would it be something as serious as what happened to Frank Kern many years ago? Or would they shut down your whole online business, or just the one "guilty" website?

[124711]

Originally Posted by JayXtreme

I'm safe...

Don't make outlandish claims on sales pages.. and I'm happy with my conversion %'s... and I don't use testimonials... still happy with my conversion %'s.

I think JayXtreme is on the right track: don't make false/hyped up promises and you should be ok.

[Frank Donovan]

I've seen some pitches recently, by well-respected marketers, for a software program that automates testimonials.

Evidently, giving a testimonial is seen by some marketers as simply an opportunity to promote themselves and their own products.

Then there are the obvious "you scratch my back.." testimonials.

It's become that many potential customers are developing a sort of "testimonial blindness" - I know that I get turned off by a sales page stuffed with so many cookie-cutter "reviews". Much more effective is an engrossing story such as the one Paul described.

If the proposal is to clamp down on untypical testimonials, that doesn't seem like a wholly bad idea. It surely can't outlaw honest review sites (where would Amazon be?) so affiliates shouldn't be too concerned.

Whatever happens, creative and imaginative copywriting, which can be both honest and compelling, will always pay dividends.



Frank

[LB]

If I write a book called "How to Build a Sailboat in 10 Weekends"...

Do I have to include a disclaimer stating that some people will take longer than 10 weeks?
Do I have to include a disclaimer stating that some people will never even try?
Do I have to include a disclaimer stating that some people will read the book and then just buy a prefab boat?

I mean...how far out could we extrapolate this?

Can you imagine being on trial and having to defend the fact that you ran valid scientific studies to make your claims for a marketing product...you would get destroyed. They destroy pharmacuetical companies that spend billions on testing. (even though that is some times deserved)

I'm going to make a new product right now:

"How to Maybe Make Some Money Doing Some Stuff that Maybe Not Everyone Can Do"*
Order Today and get my free bonus: "How to be Average!"

*Not all customers will be able to maybe do stuff, some will maybe not do stuff.




-

[kckaz]

It'd be cool if they'd add language to exempt those who offer a reasonable money-back guarantee. If you don't achieve the results we claim, send it back and we'll give you your money back.

[Jack Duncan]

LB,
The headline did nothing for me...

It was that wicked Bonus (How to be Average!) that made me buy.

[Jason Moffatt]

Just for the record, my very best converting sales page of all time didn't have a single testimonial.

Go figure!

[Dan C. Rinnert]

Originally Posted by doctorjay

Freedom of speech is not freedom to lie and make outlandish claims.

Maybe they should start enforcing the new laws on politicians first.

If a marketer lies and makes outlandish claims, how many people will be hurt by it? A hundred? A thousand? A hundred thousand? If a marketer claims I can make a million dollars in seven days on a product with a sixty day money-back guarantee, there's no real problem so long as the seller honors the guarantee (which is a separate issue), no?

On the other hand, if a political candidate lies and makes outlandish claims, how do I get my refund when the product (i.e., the elected candidate) doesn't deliver?

If we want to enforce truth in advertising (which is not really what this law is about, as "results not typical" is pretty clear, or should be), how about we start with political ads? Why should politicians be allowed to get away with stuff marketers cannot?

If marketing campaigns were run like political campaigns, our jails would probably be overflowing with marketers.

Please note that I am in no way supporting dishonest or deceptive marketing practices. Far from it. But, I think there is a difference between saying someone made a million dollars using your product with a disclaimer that such results are not typical if that claim is true and saying someone made a million dollars using your system when it's not true. The latter is dishonest while the former is honest.

To me, as I understand it, this new law is not about truth in advertising so much as it is about hand-holding consumers and generally treating them like young children unable to make informed decisions for themselves.

If we've come to the point in this country where "results not typical" reads the same as "results are typical," we really need to focus on improving reading comprehension and critical thinking skills in the education system and not on developing new laws designed to protect people from needing such skills.

[Guitarnut]

Big Brother to the rescue! What would we do without em.

[Mark Riddle]

FACT: A well known internet marketer was shut down by The FTC for making claims that were reasonable to anyone who understands business.

To be FRANK about it, that wasn't good enough for them.

FACT: You can be fully submerged in a body of water with an average depth of 1 inch.

FACT: The Average length of Coast Line in California changes up to 30 miles depending on what season and year you choose to make measurements.

FACT: The average US Citizen spends less out of pocket for health care than for transportation.

FACT: The Median price of Homes in The US is Above Average.

Mark Riddle

[Free Time]

Originally Posted by Jack Duncan

@ Tyrus,
The new law is actually a total overhaul of the whole "disclaimer" process that was put in place in the 80's.

That's why they are going to put this in place.

@Michael

Nada.

Jared actually DID lose 245 pounds. It's just that HIS RESULTS were not typical...

There are already plenty of laws in place that work just fine for unlawful claims...this is a whole new level.

I think what you'll find is that people will be saying (using your example), that Jared's results are "typical" if you put in the effort like Jared did. For example, most dieters quit their diet and don't stick with it. Therefore, the "typical" results wouldn't be very impressive. But if the diet plan is solid, it's not necessarily the diet plans fault that the dieter didn't stick with it.

So I have a feeling marketers will just cover themselves by saying in effect "if you put in the work Jared did, then the results he received are typical. If you store Cheetoh's in you belly button for later.... not so much!"

[Daniel E Taylor]

Great news! I'm tired of all the garbage claims and bull**** floating
around in this market.

For those of us who run legitiment operations outside the IM niche
this shouldn't be a problem.

Lets not forget the point of business is to HELP people while
getting paid.

I see alot of online businesses just wanting to get paid, nevermind
the person.

Daniel

[Andy Hart]

Originally Posted by 124711

I think JayXtreme is on the right track: don't make false/hyped up promises and you should be ok.

Damn!! read the thread!!

Its not about telling the truth or false claims, one customer of yours could make $100,000 in a month and you then put that on your sales page, which won't be false but that's not a typical result (if it is send me a link)

Its not about false/hyped up promises, you can be truthful with all your testimonials and still get into hot water.

A lot of people seem to think they will be ok if they don't make false claims or hype up the product, that's not what this is about.

If you sell 50,000 units of your home study course and 5 people who purchased all are consistently making $100,000 per month you would put that on your sales page right? and if you did it wouldn't be a false or hyped up claim but the point is that's not a typical result and you would have to disclose what the other 49,995 made on average.

So NO its not about the people who display false claims and downright hyped up bullshi*t but the many people who choose to display the real world results of there most successful customers.

Andy

[Steven Fullman]

Oh, you crazy Yanks, and your crazy laws.

The whole thing sounds...silly.

You have to protect the stupid from being...erm...stupid?

Does the average reader really believe the headline results should in any way be considered 'typical'...?

(...think One Legged Golfer...)

What kind of world are we living in? Jeez!

I might have something more coherent to say later...

Steve

[jasonl70]

You know what shocks me?

How many people posting here seem to think this is about honesty and false claims..

[jasonl70]

if you use clickbank or 2co, you are affected no matter where you live. since they are in the US (and they are technicaly the one selling the products) they would have to make sure all of their vendors/affiliates are in compliance.

[JonesersRX7]

It's all part of being in business - adaptability. I think the products/companies that have a good product will flourish and the pie in the sky products will just be less main stream.

[PrettyJenny]

That law is still too general. It needs a lot of modifications to come into practice effectively.
And there is still a long way to identify "what is "typical"?" They need a definition for that and a method to calculate the average result figure of the customers. I don't think legit sellers with a bit hyped testimonials need to worry, only those with false promises and fake testimonials. But those always have to be worried anyway.

[Dmitry]

Originally Posted by Jack Duncan

Almost correct...it would also matter for any warrior wishing to do business with any U.S. Company (Google, Yahoo, MSN, GoDaddy, Hostgator) as well as transactions involving U.S. customers.

I don't quite get this.

It's almost as if a US citizen came into my country made a transaction with me and then the US government would kindly ask ME to pay THEM taxes?

That's nonsense.

[honestbizpro]

First Cheerios now this!? (Can't say it fights heart desease anymore)

I used to always wonder when someone claimed "America's favorite" "America's Number 1..." how come I never got asked?

[David Cavanagh]

Hi,

I reckon that 98.4% of the Warriors reading this thread won't take notice of this thread within 21 days from now, and the other 1.6% who do, won't take action because they will have forgotten all about it within the following 7 days.

100% guaranteed, or I'll give you double your money back for wasting your time!

David Cavanagh

[Steven Wagenheim]

Originally Posted by David Cavanagh

Hi,

I reckon that 98.4% of the Warriors reading this thread won't take notice of this thread within 21 days from now, and the other 1.6% who do, won't take action because they will have forgotten all about it within the following 7 days.

100% guaranteed, or I'll give you double your money back for wasting your time!

David Cavanagh

David, you're right. And you know why you're right?

That's human nature.

We don't act on things until they become a reality. And usually by that
time, it's too late.

Remember the Poseidon Adventure?

Nobody believed that the ship was going to sink other than a few. Then
the water came pouring in and everybody began to panic. The few who
did listen, they were the ones who survived.

It's the same thing with people who get house alarms. Most don't do it
until they've been robbed that first time. I should know...I was one of
them.

Now, I wouldn't dream of not paying for my service.

Human nature...it will never change.

[SocialWiz]

Good thing none of my sales pages have any type of testimonials .

[Jack Duncan]

Dmitry,

I don't quite get this.

It's almost as if a US citizen came into my country made a transaction with me and then the US government would kindly ask ME to pay THEM taxes?

That's nonsense.

What I was trying to point out to the original poster was that just because he lived in Germany didn't mean he wouldn't be affected...because chances are that a lot of "services" he used were U.S. companies...so therefore they would be required to comply with the law.

For instance, let's say someone in Singapore decides to just say "screw it with the new U.S. law" and goes ahead with business as usual.

The FTC could very easily threaten ClickBank, PayPal, Google, or anyone else that marketer is "working" with...since those companies ARE based in the U.S.

Make sense?

.

[Jack Duncan]

David,

I reckon that 98.4% of the Warriors reading this thread won't take notice of this thread within 21 days from now, and the other 1.6% who do, won't take action because they will have forgotten all about it within the following 7 days.

Let's chat on day 29...

[Marian Berghes]

What If I don't use any testimonials and just show my own personal results? like screenshots how I made X$ and stuff.

What do you guys think? Would you still need to add the typical thing?

[JNFerree]

Sounds to me like the copyright guys who can 'spin' their client's sales page content (and remain compliant) even if this bill ever sees the light of day, will get to raise their rates by a factor of 3x or better.