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

[Jack Duncan]

Ok...

First things first:

65.2% of all statistics are made up on the spot.


So, yes, I'm pulling the 98% part out of thin air...based solely on my personal experience with salesletters...and a new law to be put in place by the FTC shortly.

Here's the new FTC rule: You can't use a testimonial or promise results that are not typical...without telling your customers what the typical results are.

That includes any portion of your advertisement...including testimonials, headlines, guarantee's, etc.

ALSO...

1. If you decide to reveal an "extreme result" for your product, you have to disclose just HOW EXTREME the result was over the typical results. (i.e. Jared lost 245 pounds eating S***** sandwiches...but 99% of people who eat at S***** actually gain 40 pounds.) <- I made this up...it's just an example.

2. All celebrities will have to reveal their monetary involvement in companies before promoting a product.

3. All Blogs have to reveal that they were given free products to review...before promoting them.

4. Doctors have to reveal the extent to which they have used the product and their understanding of the products benefits.


Now, before everyone jumps in and says "First Amendment Violation", let's face the facts...the Constitution has been attacked (trampled on in some cases) for decades...and the wind isn't changing any time too soon.


If you'd like to know more about this new law...there is a pretty good archive piece in the Chicago Tribune: Federal Trade Commission's plan to change rules on ad endorsements, testimonials worries marketers - Chicago Tribune

Want to see some of the actual laws that will be amended:
http://www.seobythesea.com/?p=1300

What's the creative solution to this problem?

I'd love to hear your input...

One company immediately came to mind...Trump University.

One of the things they do in their $10,000+ coaching class is to "fire" any customers who don't follow the steps by a certain date...which insures that they can at least get an edge with testimonials...and make some great claims about the people who actually DID the effort.

What are your thoughts...ideas...?

Eventually this is going to be on our "front porch", so we might as well "grab the gun".


- Jack

P.S. I didn't even go down the road of affiliate issues...that is another whole ball of wax. Goodbye review sites...

[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 don't review free products on my blogs, always purchasing the products I am going to review, always felt that doing it like this gives you a better feel for how the customer is going to feel when they make the purchase...

Some people might struggle with this law, not here though

Peace

Jay

[Tyrus Antas]

Isn't the earnings disclaimer enough for this?

Tyrus

[Michael Motley]

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


OH THE HORROR!!!

[Marian Berghes]

They need to give ALOT more details if this gets approved.

With what it is now its just too unspecific.

[coreygeer]

Personally, if you have a decent product, then you won't need to make outlandish claims or use outlandish testimonials.

Like most of the CB products that are promising hundreds of thousands of dollars in CB earnings.. yeah.. right.. it looks to me like this only pertains to the over-hyped and over saturated type of web pages. If you're running a good product, then you shouldn't have to worry =)

[Jack Duncan]

Jay,
Wait a second buddy...

Don't make outlandish claims on sales pages

The law here isn't going to restrict "outlandish"...the law will demand "typical results" to be fully disclosed.

Do you use headline's on your salesletters?

"How To Get 10 Visitors To Your Site In 3 Years"

If the average person that picks up your course and tries it only gets 2 visitors to their site in 3 years...

Guess what?

New Headline: How To Get 10 Visitors To Your Site In 3 Years (Results Not Typical...Average Student Gets 2.3 Visitors In Three Years)



The good news...

You live in the UK? (I might be coming to join you. )

[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

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

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.

[jasonl70]

Originally Posted by coreygeer

Personally, if you have a decent product, then you won't need to make outlandish claims or use outlandish testimonials.

Like most of the CB products that are promising hundreds of thousands of dollars in CB earnings.. yeah.. right.. it looks to me like this only pertains to the over-hyped and over saturated type of web pages. If you're running a good product, then you shouldn't have to worry =)

It doesn't matter how great your product is - you will have a very hard time selling it without good sales copy. Good products do not sell themselves.

[Marian Berghes]

The deal is that most marketers present theyr top most results as the sales pitch and then say in the disclaimer that those are the best results.

This is to get people to see that IT can be done and of course to attracted them to buy.

Now, If I put my top most results in testimonials but I also put my lowest results? would that be legal then?

What If i only tested on 10 people...and they all got TOP results...but the buyers would not get that, that means I am breaking the law?

There are loads and loads of questions that would have to be answered about this.

Also about headlines...just don't use specific numbers anymore...you can do just as fine without putting results in the headline.

[bgmacaw]

I love the irony on the Chicago Tribune page you linked to, an article about the FTC cracking down matched with an ad promising a way to get paid $213 an hour by Google.

Overall, I think it will be difficult for them to enforce, particularly for smaller online businesses (ie not Subway, Jenny Craig, etc). Given the trans-national nature of the Internet it's quite easy to get web hosting based in Singapore/India/etc, private domain registration outside the US and a business entity elsewhere in the world funneling money to a person or business in the US.

[Jack Duncan]

@Marian,
Good question.

The way it is being presented right now according to FTC's Richard Cleland "You not only have to say that it is extreme, but exactly how extreme."

The whole thing is going to rise and fall on the definition of extreme.

Also, ads will have to include "generally expected results"....

[Jack Duncan]

Overall, I think it will be difficult for them to enforce, particularly for smaller online businesses (ie not Subway, Jenny Craig, etc). Given the trans-national nature of the Internet it's quite easy to get web hosting based in Singapore/India/etc, private domain registration outside the US and a business entity elsewhere in the world funneling money to a person or business in the US.

I was thinking along the same line.

[MontelloMarketing]

I hope it's enforceable! Warriors need to understand that honest business practices are the only ones that work longterm.

This law doesn't change a thing. Except of course it makes the better copywriters that much more needed.

[Marian Berghes]

so if im not in the US I don't have to comply to those rules? I can still carry on like now and don't get penalized, sued, etc?

@Montello

The law does change ALOT of things...if I put my top students as proof that doesn't mean im not honest...I just want to show them what they can achieve, IT SHOULD be logicall to ANY customer that NOTHING is the same for everyone.

Im not lying or deceiving if i say X did 100.000$ in 1 month if HE DID IT.

[Steven Wagenheim]

As long as you don't give specific results, you're fine.

For example, this line of copy is perfectly acceptable.

"Want To Become A Killer Affiliate Marketer In Just 7 Days?"

What's killer?

Is it 2 sales, 20 sales, 200 sales?

It's up to the person reading the sales letter to determine in his own mind
what that means to him.

As long as I'm not making any claims that he'll make X number of sales per
day, week or whatever, I'm fine.

There are many ways to write creative salescopy without having to put
dollar or sales amounts in black and white.

You just have to be a little creative.

[Trader54]

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

As long as you don't give specific results, you're fine.

For example, this line of copy is perfectly acceptable.

"Want To Become A Killer Affiliate Marketer In Just 7 Days?"

Would "In Just 7 Days" be a extreme result or a typical one?

Not sure how they could enforce these rules.

[Jack Duncan]

HALT...wait a second.

We are NOT talking about being dishonest. That's a NON ISSUE here.

Under the current laws, if a customer emailed me to let me know that they just made $3,456 dollars using the ideas found in my ebook, "How To Sell Your Grandmother's Antique Shoes On Ebay"...Then I can prominently display the testimonial on my site...

Under the new laws, I'd have to show that the TYPICAL RESULTS for someone who reads my ebook is XXXX...regardless of the fact that the above testimonial is 100% true.

This is the section in question:

(b) An advertisement containing an endorsement relating the experience of one or more consumers on a central or key attribute of the product or service also will likely be interpreted as representing that the endorser’s experience is representative of what consumers will generally achieve with the advertised product in actual, albeit variable, conditions of use.
Therefore, an advertiser should possess and rely upon adequate substantiation for this representation. 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.

See the above link in the first post to read all items in question.

.

[Marian Berghes]

yeah lol

You don't give x sales but you do say 7 days, but normally...do people do that in 7 days or less or more?

The FTC could ask you this way too...

[EndGame]

This seems to be a vague statement of intention. As others have said they will need to drill down to specifics, because some of what they are asking just is not going to be feesible or doable for small or large companies, like monitoring "typical" results.

Ultimately all this is going to do is make it harder for smaller business people like us to compete.

And if you're in the UK, this law could potentially effect you as well, especially if you are selling via clickbank.

I don't like this one bit, but I am hopeful that it will take a while for them to enforce this, only for the sheer amount of workload and stress it is going to bring on implementation.

[Steven Wagenheim]

Originally Posted by Trader54

Would "In Just 7 Days" be a extreme result or a typical one?

Not sure how they could enforce these rules.

But WHAT in 7 days?

I'm not saying anything.

What does "killer affiliate marketer" mean?

Technically, it has no real meaning whatsoever.

To Jane Doe who just started marketing online, it could mean she makes
a sale a week.

To John Doe who's making making a sale a week, it could mean maybe 2
sales a week or 3.

I'm not making any claims as to income or sales or anything other than
time frame,

But time frame for what?

Again, "killer affiliate marketer" means absolutely nothing.

To make a case against that headline in court would take way more
money and manpower than our government has to waste.

They're going to go after the totally outlandish claims like...

"Lose 100 Pounds In 7 Days...Guaranteed."

Not what I wrote above.

[Jack Duncan]

This is an actual example from the bill:

• Example 2: 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.
  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.
  A disclosure such as, “Results not typical” or, “These testimonials are based on the experiences of a few people and you are not likely to have similar results” is insufficient to prevent this ad from being deceptive because consumers will still interpret the ad as conveying that the specified savings are representative of what consumers can generally expect. The ad is less likely to be deceptive if it clearly and conspicuously discloses the generally expected savings and the advertiser has adequate substantiation that homeowners can achieve those results.
  There are multiple ways that such a disclosure could be phrased, e.g., “the average homeowner saves $35 per month,” “the typical family saves $50 per month during cold months and $20 per month in warm months,” or “most families save 10% on their utility bills.”

[Rod Cortez]

Just to clarify, this is not a new law, it is a new, updated FTC guideline that is currently under review and will most likely be updated (if you believe the article) by the "end of this year". Notice how some of the details are kept quite vague. So it will be interesting what the actual update to the guideline will be and when it will actually go into effect. I'm going to wait until it actually gets updated before I'm concerned about it and then I'll meet up with my legal counsel. The FTC is going to get a lot of pressure from a variety of industries, so I'm going to be watching this quite closely. I am incredulous that this will be the end of most sales letters though.

RoD

[Dan C. Rinnert]

Originally Posted by Jack Duncan

Under the new laws, I'd have to show that the TYPICAL RESULTS for someone who reads my ebook is XXXX...regardless of the fact that the above testimonial is 100% true.

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.

[Jack Duncan]

@ Vin Montello
Buddy...anyone who makes a living in copywriting is about to have "their work cut out for them..."

No doubt you know how to make people convert...but just the first testimonial on your salesletter could end you up in the slammer if some disgruntled customer decides to complain to the FTC.

It could be a real game changer in copywriting.

[Steven Wagenheim]

Originally Posted by Marian Berghes

yeah lol

You don't give x sales but you do say 7 days, but normally...do people do that in 7 days or less or more?

The FTC could ask you this way too...

Oh good grief man, if you don't like the 7 days, how about this one.

"Discover How To Become A Killer Affiliate Marketer In Less Time Than It
Takes Superman To Fly To Mars"

There. That's about as unspecific and as off the wall as you're going to
get and, at the same time (test it of course), get prospects to read
what's coming next.

Hey, you know...I should test this one out.

Please...any copywriter worth his salt has nothing to worry about when it
comes to this "law" IF it becomes a law.

[Jack Duncan]

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.

LOL...Brilliant

[flnz400]

So what do you think the time frame will be for the immunity factor?

Moreover, once everyone implements something and it becomes commonplace, immunity sets in with a diminished effect.

[Greg Jacobs]

This will have to be enforced at the affiliate network level for it to be effective as profitable marketers will simply all magically appear incorporated and hosted in the BVI or other overseas location.

Part of this would make the Affiliate networks responsible for what their affiliates do if it is going to hold weight with serious marketers.

And then of course the next logical step is that you will see a slew of affiliate networks "relocating" overseas with just their "support" staff being "outsourced" and US based.

Since both the drivers of the traffic and the paymasters can all effectively and virtually relocate "overseas" it will be nearly impossible to enforce for serious affiliates and just present a higher barrier of entry into the industry, which means less novices and more for the established.

The only way it could really be enforced would be total cooperation from the search engines and PPC vendors who would then in effect be held responsible for any websites showing up in their results.

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.

But lets not get too excited. Get rid of the googlecash and berry blogs as the scapegoats this year and it will blow over till the next thing.

I think a more reasonble way to handle it would be tighter regulation on CC Rebills. Meaning that to enact online rebills it would be required to have a one-click cancel - same like the one-click mailer opt-outs.

That should reasonbly be able to solve the root of the problem we are currently experiencing.

[Dmitry]

I suppose that affects only US-based webmasters...

[Dan C. Rinnert]

Originally Posted by Jack Duncan

This is an actual example from the bill:

• A disclosure such as, “Results not typical” or, “These testimonials are based on the experiences of a few people and you are not likely to have similar results” is insufficient to prevent this ad from being deceptive because consumers will still interpret the ad as conveying that the specified savings are representative of what consumers can generally expect.

In other words, the new law or guidelines are designed to cater to the dumbed-down members of society. What part of "results not typical" is difficult to understand? Rather than assume that results are representative when the disclaimer clearly states that results are not typical, perhaps the consumer should instead ask what typical results are? That would be the question that would pop into my mind.

If I see "results not typical," I don't immediately think "yes they are!" Rather, I wonder what the typical results are if the testimonial results are not typical.

Consumers are better served when they are encouraged to think things through rather than encouraged to not think at all.

[dvduval]

On the flip side of this, when there are honest businesses that are not making outlandish claims, such a bill could help them because customers will find the right product faster, and bad elements will not as easily drive down the reputation of a niche or industry.

[Steven Wagenheim]

Originally Posted by Dan C. Rinnert

In other words, the new law or guidelines are designed to cater to the dumbed-down members of society. What part of "results not typical" is difficult to understand? Rather than assume that results are representative when the disclaimer clearly states that results are not typical, perhaps the consumer should instead ask what typical results are? That would be the question that would pop into my mind.

If I see "results not typical," I don't immediately think "yes they are!" Rather, I wonder what the typical results are if the testimonial results are not typical.

Consumers are better served when they are encouraged to think things through rather than encouraged to not think at all.

Come on Dan, you're making too much sense.

We can't have any of that in the world of Internet marketing.

[danhughes]

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

As long as you don't give specific results, you're fine.
"Want To Become A Killer Affiliate Marketer In Just 7 Days?"
What's killer?
Is it 2 sales, 20 sales, 200 sales?
You just have to be a little creative.

Steve is exactly right.

If ever there a product with absolutely no substance, it's Coke (I mean in it's literaly sense... sugar, water, color and only lightly flavoured). How many times have you seen an Ad for Coke that uses testimonials or %s ? I wasn't alive at the time , but I'm guessing it was a hundred years or so ago.

In fact, Pepsi have tried time and time again to use testimonials (Pepsi Challenge) etc and are still number 2.

While I realize that coke is clearly a Brand, and most of us are not thinking in those terms, the same techniques are still highly usable.

"Is it time to stop living Paycheck-to-paycheck?"

"How close are you to the life of your dreams?"

"Let me tell you a story of how I made 30 Gazzilion Dollars In Just 10 Minutes"

"The 7 Secrets that have made me millions"

We are eluding as opposed to flat-out-screaming results.

Coke doesn't make you pretty.... or popular.... or skinny.... or athletic ... but you sure as heck wouldn't think that if you watched an ad!

McDonalds even runs keep-fit / health type commercials on PBS!!! Watch them and you are definitely left with the feeling that McDonalds is nothing like it really is.

[Jack Duncan]

Again...

honest businesses that are not making outlandish claims

The new regulation would be aimed at dishonesty...but the issue here is the use of real testimonials...from real people...who had non-typical results. (regardless of the level of energy they put into the process.)

[Paul Myers]

See "Truth in Storytelling," at Truth in Storytelling - TalkBiz News.


Paul

[DavidTheMavin]

So you can't say "As heard on the Howard Stern show!" anymore? lol

[Marian Berghes]

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

Oh good grief man, if you don't like the 7 days, how about this one.

"Discover How To Become A Killer Affiliate Marketer In Less Time Than It
Takes Superman To Fly To Mars"

There. That's about as unspecific and as off the wall as you're going to
get and, at the same time (test it of course), get prospects to read
what's coming next.

Hey, you know...I should test this one out.

Please...any copywriter worth his salt has nothing to worry about when it
comes to this "law" IF it becomes a law.

) that is just awesome

For anyone interested this is a show Shoemoney did some time ago when the guidelines were first announced
New FTC Rules | The Shoemoney Show (no affiliate or stuff like that)

From what I understand so far is that instead of saying "results not typical" you have to say "these are the top results achieved, typical results are X" witch X should be a concrete number of somekind.

[Jack Duncan]

@ Dan,

Love the sig.

Yeah, you (and others) have brought up a really good point.

It's the old "Blow some my way" cigarette ad that ultimately started the women smoker's craze...

Or the Marlboro man...

[Scot Standke]

Great!

All this law will do is handcuff any US based marketer and give anyone living anywhere else a huge advantage.

This is exactly what happens when we can't police ourselves and folks think that just because others are doing it and no one has ever been busted, that I can do it too.

Scot

[Steven Wagenheim]

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

See "Truth in Storytelling," at Truth in Storytelling - TalkBiz News.


Paul

Excellent, as expected.

Thanks for sharing this.

[Jack Duncan]

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

Love that satirical disclaimer...priceless.

[Allegro]

That only matters for US-American warriors. I couldn't care less about any laws or regulations on the other side of the pond...

[Jesus Perez]

Originally Posted by Jack Duncan

Do you use headline's on your salesletters?

"How To Get 10 Visitors To Your Site In 3 Years"

STOP copying my headlines, Jack!

[bminor]

My question to this would be: If I sell an ebook of some on some IM technique and maybe gave it out to some testers for review before releasing it, I can state an average result for these testers.
But what then? Do I have to contact my customers regularly to find out what results they have to then calculate a new average result and then have to update my sales letter?

[Trader54]

Originally Posted by TMG Enterprises

Yet another example of how the government is "protecting" the terminally stupid.

But those are the guaranteed votes. We will take care of you.

[Jack Duncan]

Do I have to contact my customers regularly to find out what results they have to then calculate a new average result and then have to update my sales letter?

Yeah...that was another thought.

They mentioned "scientific research" at some point...and I was thinking PAPERWORK.

I think this point alone will be very difficult to manage.

That only matters for US-American warriors.

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.

[J smith]

Hmm, how would this apply to cpa? Would you have to disclose that you are getting paid if/when a visitor takes the required action? (Kind of similar to how a blog that got a free product to review would have to disclose it)

"If you are looking for a reliable host for your websites, I recommend hostgator, I've used it for many years and it's a very reliable hosting company with an amazing customer support.
Disclaimer: If you click on my link and sign up for hosting I will make 100$ Cha-Ching!"

Oh, well, good times to relocate to a different country I suppose

[Greg Jacobs]

Originally Posted by TMG Enterprises

I think it's sad that there is a need to cater to people with absolutely no common sense whatsoever. Yet another example of how the government is "protecting" the terminally stupid. We already have warnings on just about everything - love the "contents may be hot" on coffees, don't you?

There is a big difference between deliberately lying to people and expecting them to have a modicum of intelligence and personal responsiblity.

Tina G

Again we need to look at the root of the problem. And that is Locked in CC Rebills that cannot be canceled.

Fix the rebill issue and make a law for a once click cancel and this whole things will blow away with the wind.

[Tom2009]

Well, for people who weren't lying in their sales letters. this doesn t change too much, but for those who made false promises like .. with "little" investmnet you can make xxxxx$ per month..etc , not telling that ,the little investment was high xxxx$ at least , it will change a lot.. hopefully we will see less scammers in this business