WSO sales copy being Rejected! - Tips please

163 replies
So I've posted several WSOs in the past, and because of the new rules that just recently started several days ago, I can see that there are several things I'll have to do just a bit differently, including income proof.

One thing I noticed that changed was even though I provided income proof to get my salescopy approved, it still wasn't. The admin told me to look at the rules on #17 of the announcement.

I noticed it said:

"Sellers are not to make claims around income that has been made unless this income can be verified through Warrior Payments. Sellers are not permitted to make claims about or imply that income will result from purchasing a WSO. This will be strictly enforced to protect the Warrior community.

This is applicable to the WSO Marketplace and all sub-forums."

I don't seem to understand what they mean by "Unless this income can be verified through Warrior Payments." What exactly does this mean? What do they mean by verifying through Warrior Payments?

(I wanted to send these questions to admin, but I know they may not reply right away, so I thought I might as well just ask my questions here. )
#copy #rejected #sales #tips #wso
  • Profile picture of the author Tsnyder
    Seriously?

    It means that if you make an income claim you have to
    provide verifiable proof that the claim is legitimate. The
    only verification source acceptable is prior sales via Warrior
    Payments. What's confusing about that?
    Signature
    If you knew what I know you'd be doing what I do...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781530].message }}
    • Originally Posted by Tsnyder View Post

      Seriously?

      It means that if you make an income claim you have to
      provide verifiable proof that the claim is legitimate. The
      only verification source acceptable is prior sales via Warrior
      Payments. What's confusing about that?
      Yes, I am very serious. I still don't get what you mean about the Warrior Payments. I've never used it.

      What do I have to do?

      Do I provide more than just a screenshot?

      That's all I needed to use before. I used to even submit threads that weren't even finished with just plain text, and then add in the bbcode and finish the rest of the salescopy when it's approved. This new style is great though to help protect Warrior members from fraudulent products.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781539].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Cali16
      So, if I'm understanding this correctly, only WSOs about creating and / or selling WSOs would qualify, and only if the seller used Warrior Payment for past sales of the current WSO they are selling....

      I understand that WF can easily verify these income claims, but in reality, it's rather pointless. Might as well do away with income claims altogether then, it would seem.
      Signature
      If you don't face your fears, the only thing you'll ever see is what's in your comfort zone. ~Anne McClain, astronaut
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781595].message }}
      • Originally Posted by Cali16 View Post

        So, if I'm understanding this correctly, only WSOs about creating and / or selling WSOs would qualify, and only if the seller used Warrior Payment for past sales of the current WSO they are selling....

        I understand that WF can easily verify these income claims, but in reality, it's rather pointless. Might as well do away with income claims altogether then, it would seem.
        I thought this was what they meant as well. Definitely confusing if you ask me,

        But I am thinking they're trying to say is that you can only make income claims and show proof IF you only use the Warrior Payments.

        But still.....I still don't get it completely. I'm just wrapping my head around this. I remember when I would submit a thread without thinking, and it would be fine. I wouldn't even be done with the pdf's editing and I would submit, but now, you have to have a paypal button ready.

        _

        I just resent it in. Should be good by now.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781617].message }}
      • Originally Posted by Cali16 View Post

        So, if I'm understanding this correctly, only WSOs about creating and / or selling WSOs would qualify, and only if the seller used Warrior Payment for past sales of the current WSO they are selling....

        I understand that WF can easily verify these income claims, but in reality, it's rather pointless. Might as well do away with income claims altogether then, it would seem.
        I just read the moderator's reply again, and I think you're right.

        I'm guessing it's going to be weird not seeing as many WSOs as it used to.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781624].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mark Singletary
    I'm not them but the way I read it is let's say I want to claim I made $1,000 in the last week with technique X. Only if I sold those $1,000 through Warrior Payments, would I be allowed to claim I made that money.

    My take anyway.

    Mark

    Originally Posted by internetmarketer1 View Post

    So I've posted several WSOs in the past, and because of the new rules that just recently started several days ago, I can see that there are several things I'll have to do just a bit differently, including income proof.

    One thing I noticed that changed was even though I provided income proof to get my salescopy approved, it still wasn't. The admin told me to look at the rules on #17 of the announcement.

    I noticed it said:

    "Sellers are not to make claims around income that has been made unless this income can be verified through Warrior Payments. Sellers are not permitted to make claims about or imply that income will result from purchasing a WSO. This will be strictly enforced to protect the Warrior community.

    This is applicable to the WSO Marketplace and all sub-forums."

    I don't seem to understand what they mean by "Unless this income can be verified through Warrior Payments." What exactly does this mean? What do they mean by verifying through Warrior Payments?

    (I wanted to send these questions to admin, but I know they may not reply right away, so I thought I might as well just ask my questions here. )
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781536].message }}
    • Originally Posted by Mark Singletary View Post

      I'm not them but the way I read it is let's say I want to claim I made $1,000 in the last week with technique X. Only if I sold those $1,000 through Warrior Payments, would I be allowed to claim I made that money.

      My take anyway.

      Mark
      Thanks for the advice.

      But I find this part really odd. I guess I have to just remove all income claims since it's a product related to Fiverr, and I wouldn't know how to prove it's legit.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781546].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author danieljb
      Originally Posted by Mark Singletary View Post

      I'm not them but the way I read it is let's say I want to claim I made $1,000 in the last week with technique X. Only if I sold those $1,000 through Warrior Payments, would I be allowed to claim I made that money.

      My take anyway.

      Mark
      What Mark has said is correct. We have no way of verifying any income claims unless you are referencing a product sold through Warrior's own platform, Warrior Payments. https://payments.warriorforum.com/

      Because Warrior Payments is our platform, we can verify the claims being made. For other platforms that we do not own we cannot verify the claims you are making.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781553].message }}
      • Originally Posted by danieljb View Post

        What Mark has said is correct. We have no way of verifying any income claims unless you are referencing a product sold through Warrior's own platform, Warrior Payments. https://payments.warriorforum.com/

        Because Warrior Payments is our platform, we can verify the claims being made. For other platforms that we do not own we cannot verify the claims you are making.


        Thanks for the clarification. I get it now.

        Wait, so are you saying I need to sell it through the Warrior Payments platform strictly?

        If I choose not to.......

        Since my product has already been made and I've worked hard on it, I don't really just want to let it go to waste, but I also don't want to use a platform I am not used to.

        I understand what you said about the verifying of the income. Since my product is related to Fiverr, (and you have looked at the salescopy already so you should know about the claims i made), what would be best for me to do?

        Should I just remove my screenshot and just remove the income claims altogether?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781572].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author danieljb
          Originally Posted by internetmarketer1 View Post

          Thanks for the clarification. I get it now.

          Wait, so are you saying I need to sell it through the Warrior Payments platform strictly?
          No.

          Originally Posted by internetmarketer1 View Post

          Should I just remove my screenshot and just remove the income claims altogether?
          Yes, this is the only way the offer will comply with the new rules.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781580].message }}
  • When I go through Warrior Payments, what do I need to do to verify the income claims?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781575].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author danieljb
      Originally Posted by internetmarketer1 View Post

      When I go through Warrior Payments, what do I need to do to verify the income claims?
      The only time you can reference income being made is when you are referencing income being generated from Warrior Payments. As you are claiming the money you made was from another platform, we cannot verify it.

      Because it cannot be verified it cannot be included in the sales copy.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781586].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Tsnyder
    What you're going to have to do is learn how to sell
    without using the crutch of income claims.
    Signature
    If you knew what I know you'd be doing what I do...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781933].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimothyW
      Originally Posted by Tsnyder View Post

      What you're going to have to do is learn how to sell
      without using the crutch of income claims.
      I agree. But, many people won't buy (justifiably) without seeing income proof.
      So, a little catch 22 here, it seems.

      -- TW
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781950].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
        Banned
        Originally Posted by TimothyW View Post

        I agree. But, many people won't buy (justifiably) without seeing income proof.
        So, a little catch 22 here, it seems.

        -- TW
        Then their product and their copy simply isn't good enough to be a WSO. If it can't stand without dubious income claims that no one can verify, it shouldn't be sold.

        But the interesting thing with the new rules is that most of these income claims are for coaching or for "methods" and you don't DO methods using Warrior Payments (normally), so income claims for methods or coaching will not be possible to prove at all. On the coaching claims, they claim they teach their students to make XXXX amount ... not that they sold XXXXX of coaching via Warrior Payments.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9782254].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimothyW
          Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

          Then their product and their copy simply isn't good enough to be a WSO. If it can't stand without dubious income claims that no one can verify, it shouldn't be sold.

          But the interesting thing with the new rules is that most of these income claims are for coaching or for "methods" and you don't DO methods using Warrior Payments (normally), so income claims for methods or coaching will not be possible to prove at all. On the coaching claims, they claim they teach their students to make XXXX amount ... not that they sold XXXXX of coaching via Warrior Payments.
          I think maybe you misread my post.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9782317].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
            Banned
            Originally Posted by TimothyW View Post

            I think maybe you misread my post.
            Maybe ... but the point remains that people (dreamers) are driven to these types of offers by unsubstantiated income and other claims. Will they still buy without them? I sort of think not. I think those income claims are the #1 driving force of that type of buyer.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9782617].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Tsnyder
        Originally Posted by TimothyW View Post

        I agree. But, many people won't buy (justifiably) without seeing income proof.
        So, a little catch 22 here, it seems.

        -- TW
        You're mindset has you believing that... it's not true.

        I sold more than $100K of a product that explained in great detail
        exactly what it would do for them without ever once mentioning income
        potential.

        The reason why people demand to see income claims
        is because YOU lead them to believe YOU made a bunch
        of money using the method you're trying to sell.

        CLUE: Stop making your sales copy about what you claim you did.
        Make it about what the product will do to improve their lives in a variety
        of ways.

        You have to build value in the product to the point where
        using it becomes the obvious thing to do.

        You don't have to spout income claims to do that... never did.

        Income claims are nothing more than a crutch for those who
        don't know how to represent their product honestly in a manner
        that will inspire people to buy.

        It's that simple.
        Signature
        If you knew what I know you'd be doing what I do...
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783336].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author DubDubDubDot
          Originally Posted by Tsnyder View Post

          Make it about what the product will do to improve their lives in a variety of ways.
          Same crap from a different angle.

          "Stop stressing over paying the mortgage." is really no different than "Make $500,000 per year!"

          Each is attempting to pull in a sale based on (probably) false hope.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783360].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Tsnyder
            Originally Posted by DubDubDubDot View Post

            Same crap from a different angle.

            "Stop stressing over paying the mortgage." is really no different than "Make $500,000 per year!"

            Each is attempting to pull in a sale based on (probably) false hope.
            Perhaps in your world... but in the world of honest and effective
            sales copy that's not true at all.
            Signature
            If you knew what I know you'd be doing what I do...
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783368].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author DubDubDubDot
              [DELETED]
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783374].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Daystar11
          I agree. I have never once purchased a WSO (or anything else
          for that matter) based on an income claim. When I see them,
          I ignore them. However, when used as subject lines on emails,
          if cleverly worded, I MAY open the email out of curiosity. That
          is as far as it goes, however. Then the email copy (and the
          reputation of the person sending it) is what will cause me to
          explore further, and then possibly buy. Just my own personal
          experience, but I would bet I'm not the only one.

          I think there are some fuzzy parts to the new rules- for instance,
          the logic on payment processors is a bit off, I think this needs
          some work yet.

          Overall, the new rules are a very good move.


          Originally Posted by Tsnyder View Post

          You're mindset has you believing that... it's not true.

          I sold more than $100K of a product that explained in great detail
          exactly what it would do for them without ever once mentioning income
          potential.

          The reason why people demand to see income claims
          is because YOU lead them to believe YOU made a bunch
          of money using the method you're trying to sell.

          CLUE: Stop making your sales copy about what you claim you did.
          Make it about what the product will do to improve their lives in a variety
          of ways.

          You have to build value in the product to the point where
          using it becomes the obvious thing to do.

          You don't have to spout income claims to do that... never did.

          Income claims are nothing more than a crutch for those who
          don't know how to represent their product honestly in a manner
          that will inspire people to buy.

          It's that simple.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9784626].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author James Campbell
      Originally Posted by Tsnyder View Post

      What you're going to have to do is learn how to sell
      without using the crutch of income claims.
      Not really. He is being forced to earn income from one particular system in the future IF he wants to use income claims in his WSO sales copy. Income claims are still there, they just want it to be within the system they run.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9782000].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author yukon
        [DELETED]
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9782054].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author blackjack
          About time that Freelance brought this change in WSO. I agree with all changes but Rule# 17 is the best change.

          No more BS about income claims. No more Pizza Driver making $1,000,000 over night claims.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9782179].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author James Campbell
          Originally Posted by yukon View Post

          Wrong.

          He's being forced to not BS buyers.

          It's a damn good move by Freelancer & shows they're moving in the right direction trying to remove the lame WSOs that make income claims. There's no possible way Freelancer could verify income claims outside of their own checkout/sales.

          Income claims have nothing to do with a buyer.
          It isn't wrong at all.

          Apparently you didn't read the rule or maybe just don't understand it. He can make income claims as long as his income claims come from verifiable data from within their own (warrior payments) system.

          Also, you're assuming that the OP is BSing people. You have no idea what his income is or isn't, basically you're implying that you believe the OP is some sort of fraud simply because he wants to use income claims that he has submitted documentation to help verify that his claims are true.

          Get off your high horse.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783617].message }}
          • Originally Posted by James Campbell View Post

            It isn't wrong at all.

            Apparently you didn't read the rule or maybe just don't understand it. He can make income claims as long as his income claims come from verifiable data from within their own (warrior payments) system.

            Also, you're assuming that the OP is BSing people. You have no idea what his income is or isn't, basically you're implying that you believe the OP is some sort of fraud simply because he wants to use income claims that he has submitted documentation to help verify that his claims are true.

            Get off your high horse.
            Exactly. I showed PayPal screenshots that aligned just right with the salescopy. I did what I could to show that what I was teaching was legit. I am beginning to get the hang of not putting any income claims in my salescopy.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9786364].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
              Originally Posted by internetmarketer1 View Post

              Exactly. I showed PayPal screenshots that aligned just right with the salescopy. I did what I could to show that what I was teaching was legit. I am beginning to get the hang of not putting any income claims in my salescopy.
              I'm happy for you if you got your offer approved but if Paypal screen shots had anything to do with getting it approved...the new ship is taking on water pretty fast.
              Signature

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9786530].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Mark Hess
                Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                I'm happy for you if you got your offer approved but if Paypal screen shots had anything to do with getting it approved...the new ship is taking on water pretty fast.
                Or maybe they are being smart and using common sense when evaluating these things.

                The OP said this in a recent post that lead to the WSO approval:

                Originally Posted by internetmarketer1 View Post

                Exactly. I showed PayPal screenshots that aligned just right with the salescopy. I did what I could to show that what I was teaching was legit....
                If that's the case, there's no reason why the offer shouldn't of been approved and it's 100% better than the system that was in place where there was zero scrutiny.

                And let's face it, just adding this step to the approval process will turn a lot of sellers off that were running sketchy at best offers.

                Now sellers have to deal with scrutiny from moderators before the thread is approved and then they deal with scrutiny again on their thread from potential buyers when it goes live.

                So good on FL if they keep this up and evaluate things on a case-by-case basis.
                Signature
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9787341].message }}
                • Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                  I'm happy for you if you got your offer approved but if Paypal screen shots had anything to do with getting it approved...the new ship is taking on water pretty fast.
                  Originally Posted by Mark Hess View Post

                  Or maybe they are being smart and using common sense when evaluating these things.

                  The OP said this in a recent post that lead to the WSO approval:



                  If that's the case, there's no reason why the offer shouldn't of been approved and it's 100% better than the system that was in place where there was zero scrutiny.

                  And let's face it, just adding this step to the approval process will turn a lot of sellers off that were running sketchy at best offers.

                  Now sellers have to deal with scrutiny from moderators before the thread is approved and then they deal with scrutiny again on their thread from potential buyers when it goes live.

                  So good on FL if they keep this up and evaluate things on a case-by-case basis.
                  Actually, my thread was NOT approved when I sent them a screenshot. I had to remove all income claims as well, and that was fine.

                  Yes, there is definitely a lot of scrutiny with the moderators, but nothing is worse than having a ton of people make posts on your thread saying its a scam or that I'm a fake, so WSO sellers who don't sell what they think is worth selling may not want to pursue selling their products anymore, which is good for sure since those who just want to make a quick buck won't continue selling WSOs anymore.

                  As of now, I'm glad with the changes.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9787660].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Mark Hess
                    Ohh, then I guess me and Mike must have misread what you wrote.

                    Honestly, I have absolutely no idea WTH is going on and totally confused because now you say:

                    Originally Posted by internetmarketer1 View Post

                    Actually, my thread was NOT approved when I sent them a screenshot. I had to remove all income claims as well, and that was fine.
                    Here are some of the lines you use in your approved WSO sales thread copy:

                    Originally Posted by internetmarketer1 View Post


                    Need a faster and easier way to make money?

                    And You Could Be Earning Hundreds From A Single Gig

                    I *want* to see you making real money from a method that works.

                    If You Want The Easiest Way To Consistent - Almost Autopilot Income, Fiverr Is The Way To Go

                    And I Am Going To Show You The Quickest And Most Simple Method For Banking Huge With Fiverr

                    Let Me Show You How To Sell This Untapped Gig That You Can Literally Copy and Paste In Just 10 Minutes From Now And Start Making Money

                    Discover The Easiest Gig *You* Could Sell Everyday To Rake In Big Cash

                    Make Fast Cash

                    Imagine if you didn't have to worry about getting sales.....and that everything *you* do when you get this system is almost *guaranteed to making you sales.

                    You Can Take This Paint By Numbers System And Make A Killing $$ Daily On Fiverr

                    offer this gig the way my system teaches it, and make a killing.

                    You won't make a cent by reading anything. Get this WSO - Take Action - And I Can Almost Guarantee You'll See Results.
                    Heck, I was worried about "I made XXX..." income claims. Looks like there's nothing to worry about if something like that got approved.
                    Signature
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9787867].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
                      Banned
                      Originally Posted by Mark Hess View Post

                      Here are some of the lines you use in your approved WSO sales thread copy:

                      ...

                      Heck, I was worried about "I made XXX..." income claims. Looks like there's nothing to worry about if something like that got approved.
                      Well, if that's what was just approved, I'm not getting it (exactly what is not allowed, that is). lol.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9787897].message }}
                    • Originally Posted by Mark Hess View Post

                      Ohh, then I guess me and Mike must have misread what you wrote.

                      Honestly, I have absolutely no idea WTH is going on and totally confused because now you say:



                      Here are some of the lines you use in your approved WSO sales thread copy:



                      Heck, I was worried about "I made XXX..." income claims. Looks like there's nothing to worry about if something like that got approved.

                      Exactly. This is what makes it just a bit confusing for me because it allowed for me to talk about how people can make money with my system, but I just couldn't say *how much*.

                      The main reason why I started this thread was because I was getting worried about what the WF would allow me to say. I had literally no clue since all of my salesletters before had gotten approved every single time, so to have it continually rejected made me go straight here to open up a thread..

                      Apparently, you can say whatever you want as long as you just don't say any AMOUNT or any income claim.

                      So now there really isn't much to worry about as long as you just remove the numbers of possible income claims.

                      To the other question.

                      The reason why there are still income claims on the other threads is that they were all approved A LONG TIME ago before the new rules. I don't know if they'll slowly start telling others in their past WSOs to edit their titles if they are made with income claims. I doubt it though.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9788502].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author oda
      Originally Posted by Tsnyder View Post

      What you're going to have to do is learn how to sell
      without using the crutch of income claims.
      I had a witty comment for this But I forgot it when I saw this as I went to post,



      I guess it depends how much cash your handing over?
      WSO $20
      Banner Ad $100 a day.

      Just sayin.......

      ODA
      Signature
      Are You Missing Out on an Opportunity?
      AGED .COM Domains $37 Each or make offer from $9 Grab a Bargain HERE
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9782249].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author aire
        Originally Posted by oda View Post

        I had a witty comment for this But I forgot it when I saw this as I went to post,



        I guess it depends how much cash your handing over?
        WSO $20
        Banner Ad $100 a day.

        Just sayin.......

        ODA
        You gave me a good dose of laugh at 7 am. Good Point. Hand $100 - No proof needed. Hand $20- Mods want proof.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9782648].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
          Originally Posted by aire View Post

          You gave me a good dose of laugh at 7 am. Good Point. Hand $100 - No proof needed. Hand $20- Mods want proof.

          Its already been announced that the same rules are coming to the banner section. If it doesn't then you might have a point but as of right now there is no hypocrisy - things just take time to phase in
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9782755].message }}
    • Originally Posted by Tsnyder View Post

      What you're going to have to do is learn how to sell
      without using the crutch of income claims.
      Luckily enough, I have.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9786370].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author GlenH
      Originally Posted by Tsnyder View Post

      What you're going to have to do is learn how to sell
      without using the crutch of income claims.
      That's exactly what you'll have to do.

      And now that all the products with dubious income claims plastered everywhere have been stopped, the hope is to start seeing the return of 'quallity' products to the WSO section
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9791588].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author travlinguy
    I wonder if someone buying a banner ad needs to prove some of these outrageous headline claims.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781943].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author cloudstrife
    From the WSOs I have bought in the past, income claims have rarely, if ever, been the determining factor on my purchase decision. It is definitely true that some vendors may have exaggerated/lied about their income levels. I like that WF is trying to clean up the WSO subforum. Some changes we simply may not like.

    A lot of these changes were done after feedback from us as the users. They may not please everyone though, but that's how it is. We simply have to adapt to it.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9782043].message }}
  • Oh so warrior payments are like a JVZoo?
    Signature

    I would have invented Google and Microsoft if I was born earlier.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9782228].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Carter Boatright
    Looking at the WSO section right now and it's flooded with income claims. So I guess people who have bought a thread before these new rules are good?

    If so, then wouldn't new threads be at a severe disadvantage when old WSOs with powerful income claims are being bumped?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9782843].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author nik0
      Banned
      Originally Posted by Carter Boatright View Post

      Looking at the WSO section right now and it's flooded with income claims. So I guess people who have bought a thread before these new rules are good?

      If so, then wouldn't new threads be at a severe disadvantage when old WSOs with powerful income claims are being bumped?
      Seems we have to report threads that break the rules.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9782874].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Tyler Pratt
      Originally Posted by Carter Boatright View Post

      Looking at the WSO section right now and it's flooded with income claims. So I guess people who have bought a thread before these new rules are good?

      If so, then wouldn't new threads be at a severe disadvantage when old WSOs with powerful income claims are being bumped?
      I got a message from a mod to change the title of my wso when I bumped.

      No worries, I like the new rules.
      Signature

      Get the Top 11 Millionaire Tools and 7 Of them are FREE
      >> Yes Get Instant Access <<

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9787968].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MikeShaw
      Buyers might think that bumped old WSOs have verified income claims!! This could be misleading.

      Originally Posted by Carter Boatright View Post

      Looking at the WSO section right now and it's flooded with income claims. So I guess people who have bought a thread before these new rules are good?

      If so, then wouldn't new threads be at a severe disadvantage when old WSOs with powerful income claims are being bumped?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9797453].message }}
      • Originally Posted by MikeShaw View Post

        Buyers might think that bumped old WSOs have verified income claims!! This could be misleading.


        True. This is why I haven't bumped any of my old WSOs at all to avoid this problem.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9797721].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
          Banned
          Originally Posted by MikeShaw View Post

          Buyers might think that bumped old WSOs have verified income claims!! This could be misleading.
          Originally Posted by internetmarketer1 View Post

          True. This is why I haven't bumped any of my old WSOs at all to avoid this problem.
          Alaister has stated that eventually those WSOs will be brought into compliance.

          Originally Posted by Alaister View Post

          I appreciate everyone pointing out these offers and keen to clean up the section. It's an ongoing process for our moderators to go through the existing offers. The rules have been very relaxed for a long time so we are messaging sellers and explaining that we have new rules and that their existing WSOs need to follow or will be moved or deleted.

          Over the next few weeks there will be WSOs in that section that potentially break the rules until we are able to get through all of them.

          Once we have gone through them if there are offers that violate any of our rules you can report them using the red triangle on the bottom left, just like if you're reporting a reply or thread that violates a rule.

          Thank you
          Cheers

          -don
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9797804].message }}
          • Hi Don

            Just got an email from WF about the new marketplace rules.

            [We require all sellers to update their existing offers to align with the new rules. This must be done by January 12, 2015. Sellers that do not update their offers to align with the new rules will find their offers are removed from sale.]

            [Examples of statements that are not permitted:
            - Make $100 per day in 7 minutes.
            - I made $100 by selling eBooks.
            - Earn $100 every time you press this button.
            - I made $100 selling a domain.
            - Make $100-$15000 per month by buying a website from me.
            - Make $5+ in 30 days.
            - Make $XX,XXX per month by clicking here.
            - Make passive income with this offer.
            Any statement that states or implies a member will earn income by purchasing your WSO is against the WSO Marketplace rules. Income claims will be policed heavily. If your offer uses income claims or guarantees, you are required to remove these by January 12, 2015.
            When do I have to change my offer by?
            Offers must be adjusted by January 12, 2015. Sellers that do not adjust their offers by January 12, 2015 may find that their offers are removed from sale.
            For free and service offers, we will move these offers to the appropriate subsections without any further action required by sellers.]


            So there you have it - the decision has been made and impacts on everyone.

            Here's a link to the new Announcement:-

            Warrior Forum - The #1 Internet Marketing Forum & Marketplace - Announcements in Forum : Warrior Special Offers

            Regards


            Bronwyn and Keith

            Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

            Alaister has stated that eventually those WSOs will be brought into compliance.



            Cheers

            -don
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9799244].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mark Hess
    I think there's a huge difference between someone saying "I made xxxx" and "You will make xxxx". "You will..." is a real income claim where the seller has absolutely no idea if that would be true of all customers who purchase.

    Stating "I made..." is based on personal experience that the product creator achieved implementing what they're teaching. Of course with proper disclaimers like"You may make nothing implementing this" attached to them, many people use the sellers results as a measuring stick when evaluating the potential of a product.

    I'm not sure why the two are being grouped together as being the same when one can be stated as fact.

    Without the seller having to state anything in regards to income. this could have some serious unintended consequences because now there's no barrier for entry, no burden of proof so to speak.

    Anyone can think up some ridiculous idea that sounds good on paper, or take something like PPC that they read about but never implemented themselves, package it up, and they don't have to prove anything.

    If someone asks on the thread, the seller can simply tell them they are not allowed to disclose or imply any sort of income. The buyers can't offer any type of serious scrutiny and it's basically a big guessing game for them.

    This can (will) leave things wide open and I'm sure there's people drooling right now to get in the WSO game because the only thing that held them back before was having to prove stuff.

    Just saying... I'm all for the vast majority of the rules, it's something that needed to be done for a long time.

    But maybe some plain, good, old-fashioned common sense would go a long way in evaluating these WSO threads/sales pages versus a policy that opens up a loophole and can expose the members here to even more of a guessing game when it comes to products.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9782940].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      If all you verify are payments made to the seller through WarriorPay - that seller may be earning 100% of his income selling to newbies on this forum and nothing outside the forum.

      Mark is exactly right - the thinking on this idea of verification is confusing and convoluted. What a seller earns through one NEW payment system run by this forum has nothing to do with what that seller has earned with the method/process/application he is advertising for sale here.

      If the verification of WSO sales (which is what it is) is clearly labeled on the WSO as "income verified" - it will be just as misleading (or more so) as the previously allowed "WSO of the day". But if that's what it is - it will be easy to avoid buying those WSOs and may be that message will get through.
      Signature

      Saving one dog may not change the world - but forever changes the world of one dog.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9782968].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author arindamb
      Frankly I didn't like it when I first saw it....but I later realized the forum is moving in the right direction after all (or at least trying to). It's not possible for them to verify claims linked to other platforms and in any case that would just delay the approval process (of WSOs).

      Maybe in the near future they'd understand that Warrior Payments isn't the only platform that people use to make money and other platforms would somehow be verifiable too (I don't see that being possible though).

      As of now it's good that a product should sell based on its USPs and not on its "bling" factor.

      This is also going to force some buyers to become more mature and stop running after shiny objects. Buyer do need to understand that all that glitters is not gold after all!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9782984].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by Mark Hess View Post


      Anyone can think up some ridiculous idea that sounds good on paper, or take something like PPC that they read about but never implemented themselves, package it up, and they don't have to prove anything.
      .
      What did they really have to prove before (given most of the proof wasn't really credible proof)? It does raise the question though. Doesn't the seller still have a burden of proof to show that whatever they are offering works (somebody is bound to ask) ? then it kind of gets into the grey area I mentioned in another thread but no one seemed concerned about.

      The answer will probably come close to an income claim....You can hardly say something works without somebody asking for details on how it worked.

      So the action is really going to move from the sales copy to the replies on the thread. I think its nevertheless a big improvement to not have it in the title or the sales copy OP. Buyers will have to look for thread titles that appeal to them on a more logical basis than it screaming dollar amounts at them.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783019].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
      Banned
      Originally Posted by Mark Hess View Post

      I think there's a huge difference between someone saying "I made xxxx" and "You will make xxxx". "You will..." is a real income claim where the seller has absolutely no idea if that would be true of all customers who purchase.

      Stating "I made..." is based on personal experience that the product creator achieved implementing what they're teaching. Of course with proper disclaimers like"You may make nothing implementing this" attached to them, many people use the sellers results as a measuring stick when evaluating the potential of a product.

      I'm not sure why the two are being grouped together as being the same when one can be stated as fact.

      Without the seller having to state anything in regards to income. this could have some serious unintended consequences because now there's no barrier for entry, no burden of proof so to speak.

      Anyone can think up some ridiculous idea that sounds good on paper, or take something like PPC that they read about but never implemented themselves, package it up, and they don't have to prove anything.

      If someone asks on the thread, the seller can simply tell them they are not allowed to disclose or imply any sort of income. The buyers can't offer any type of serious scrutiny and it's basically a big guessing game for them.

      This can (will) leave things wide open and I'm sure there's people drooling right now to get in the WSO game because the only thing that held them back before was having to prove stuff.

      Just saying... I'm all for the vast majority of the rules, it's something that needed to be done for a long time.

      But maybe some plain good old-fashioned common sense would go a long way in evaluating these WSO threads/sales pages versus a policy that opens up a loophole and can expose the members here to even more of a guessing game when it comes to products.

      Without substantiation, the "fact" that the buyer made a certain amount of money is no more true or false than the implication that the buyer will make money. Sellers lie about income and provide fake proof all the time. That's the point. It gives the buyer false hope if the income claims are not true.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783046].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        I just took a quick look at the WSOs offered under the old rules by the OP...they are ALL claims of income or big results so I can see why the new rules shook him up.

        $50-$100/day
        $243 in 24 hours
        $20-$70 every morning in 15 mins a day
        $50-$100/day
        $80-$100/day
        $50-$70/day
        $750 bucks in 30 minutes
        $500-$1000 by Christmas
        $710.87 on YouTube Fast
        $100/day - 50 minutes of work
        Thousands of free visitors in hours
        page 1 on google in 24 minutes


        BUT - under the new WarriorPay verify system....

        Does this mean if he earned $50 one day selling copies of one WSO he can claim "$50 per day" and be "verified" for that offer? The more it's discussed, the more confused I become.
        Signature

        Saving one dog may not change the world - but forever changes the world of one dog.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783096].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author DubDubDubDot
        Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

        It gives the buyer false hope if the income claims are not true.
        It will be interesting to see how many of the "WSO celebrities" can maintain their status without the ability to sell false hope. Look at how many of them are pushing the bogus income claims and blind sales copy.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783099].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
          Banned
          Originally Posted by DubDubDubDot View Post

          It will be interesting to see how many of the "WSO celebrities" can maintain their status without the ability to sell false hope. Look at how many of them are pushing the bogus income claims and blind sales copy.
          I'm sure some will get real creative with their copy and get around the rules. What will also be interesting ... admin said these rules were necessary to clean the place up and the goal was to attract the "big" launches. I've never really seen a "big" launch that didn't involve income claims. I'm sure there may be some, but I haven't seen them. So, if they do attract the big boys, do the same rules apply, and would the big boys even be interested in the platform with these types of rules in place when it isn't necessary for them to launch here.

          This is the reason that I really thought these rules wouldn't materialize.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783109].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
            Banned
            Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

            I've never really seen a "big" launch that didn't involve income claims.
            Several of the massive video product launches that we have seen recently did not use the types of income claims that are being disallowed here.

            Cheers

            -don
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783244].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author DubDubDubDot
            Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

            admin said these rules were necessary to clean the place up and the goal was to attract the "big" launches. I've never really seen a "big" launch that didn't involve income claims
            Those might not be the type of "big boys" that they desire to attract. They might be looking more mainstream than the MMO niche's traditional definition of who is big. The reality is that guys like Kern, Filsame, Pagen, etc... are actually not that big of a deal.

            I was just noticing the other day how none of the gooroos have Twitter verified accounts. But if you look at the Twitters of some actual marketing professionals who have written actual books that aren't just snake oil, their accounts are verified even when they have less followers than the gooroos. Obviously that doesn't mean anything in itself, but it helps to illustrate the gooroo's place on the totem pole by people who know better.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783300].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mark Hess
        Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

        Without substantiation, the "fact" that the buyer made a certain amount of money is no more true or false than the implication that the buyer will make money. Sellers lie about income and provide fake proof all the time. That's the point. It gives the buyer false hope if the income claims are not true.
        It's not the sellers creating hope. That hope exists the minute people step on the forum and read the description under the main discussion area: "Where the Warriors talk about making money on the Internet."

        If anywhere needs to be truly cleaned up it's the regular discussion area that's filled with misguided, aweful information and advice that doesn't affect just individual buyers but hundreds of people trying to make a go of things.

        There is a personal accountability factor involved that many people on here seem to ignore. If people can't see the difference between "I made.." and "You will make..." then that is their problem. I'm not in favor of babysitting.

        Bunching together "I" and "You" income statements as being the same thing when it's not is what I was talking about.

        When someone makes the "I" statement it gives the buyer a metric to work off of and ask questions. Where now, the entire thing is a huge blind implication.

        Think if you blur out a $100 screenshot of your affiliate account or a check. That number could be absolutely anything and be even better for the "pushers of false hope" because people can dream up an even larger number in their head (and they will).

        When anyone asks the seller about it, they don't have to tell the potential buyer anything and hide behind the rule that was put in place to protect buyers and clean-up the marketplace.

        Right now if you have $20 and read a few blog posts on a subject you can run a WSO because even if you were asked to prove something, you couldn't because it would go against forum rules.

        I'm just trying to point out the flip side of things so people don't think this new rule will be all rainbows and gumdrops.

        That's why I would advocate for a more common sense approach when it comes to this stuff where there could be exceptions made.

        Case and point on this thread:

        Originally Posted by Tsnyder View Post

        .

        I sold more than $100K of a product that explained in great detail
        exactly what it would do for them
        You aren't allowed to say that in the WSO section anymore...
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783337].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Tsnyder
          Originally Posted by Mark Hess View Post


          Case and point on this thread:

          "Originally Posted by Tsnyder View Post
          .

          I sold more than $100K of a product that explained in great detail
          exactly what it would do for them"

          You aren't allowed to say that...
          Yes, I am... I'm not selling anything.... and you left out the following line
          where I explained I never made an income claim in the copy for that product.

          That wasn't even a nice try at making a point.
          Signature
          If you knew what I know you'd be doing what I do...
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783391].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Mark Hess
            Originally Posted by Tsnyder View Post

            Yes, I am... I'm not selling anything.... and you left out the following line
            where I explained I never made an income claim in the copy for that product.

            That wasn't even a nice try at making a point.
            I didn't say you were selling anything, I was pointing out an income claim like that is no longer allowed in the WSO section.

            Originally Posted by Tsnyder View Post


            I sold more than $100K of a product that explained in great detail
            exactly what it would do for them without ever once mentioning income
            potential.
            Signature
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783644].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author iMassMarket
        Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

        Without substantiation, the "fact" that the buyer made a certain amount of money is no more true or false than the implication that the buyer will make money. Sellers lie about income and provide fake proof all the time. That's the point. It gives the buyer false hope if the income claims are not true.
        I see where you are coming from but someone saying I made $1000 doing XYZ is in no way implying you will do the same unless so stated.

        You can't make blanket statements that just because someone says I made $$$$ that they are full of it and just trying to sucker in weak minded buyers.

        If that were the case and what you truly believe than I anticipate you will be removing the words "flip for profit" from your sig. And then removing all screenshots from flippa pertaining to dollar amounts and the words "Flip them for profit" from your Warrior sales thread am I right?

        But then again, under the new rules I am sure you will be asked to remove them and not be posting such income images in the future anyhow.

        That is what you are saying correct? Just because you have made money doesn't mean anyone else will? Sure I know you have made money on Flippa as I have sold there as well for over six years. But you and I both know that NOT everyone who flips sites makes money. Many beginners loose money with hosting and domain costs, listing fees, listing extra's etc. etc. etc.

        But I agree that 99% of all income claims are pure BS. The point is, The Warrior Forum was at first only going to verify Warrior payments income claims which made no sense. Not unless you were selling how to make money selling WSO's. They then saw the error in that way of thinking and have band ALL income claims.

        P.S. You may be able to keep using the word profit in "flip them for a profit" but I don't know. They might see it as it's read that they couldn't possibly be flipped for a loss which would be untrue. But I would change it to "You could even Flip these for profit" just to be safe.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9784117].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Tsnyder
          Originally Posted by iMassMarket View Post

          I see where you are coming from but someone saying I made $1000 doing XYZ is in no way implying you will do the same unless so stated.
          The FTC and various state attornies general disagree. Their position is that
          a claim of having earned "X" is an implicit claim that the buyer can expect the
          same or similar results.

          You can't make blanket statements that just because someone says I made $$$$ that they are full of it and just trying to sucker in weak minded buyers.
          Yes... I think you can. Given the fact that one person's results in no way
          indicate that anyone else will achieve those results there is no other reason
          for making the claim.

          But I agree that 99% of all income claims are pure BS. The point is, The Warrior Forum was at first only going to verify Warrior payments income claims which made no sense. Not unless you were selling how to make money selling WSO's. They then saw the error in that way of thinking and have band ALL income claims.
          Good for them! I had hoped they would.
          Signature
          If you knew what I know you'd be doing what I do...
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9785085].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
            Banned
            Originally Posted by iMassMarket View Post

            someone saying I made $1000 doing XYZ is in no way implying you will do the same unless so stated.
            Sorry, but this just isn't so: the entire purpose of mentioning that you made $1,000 doing it is typically to imply to other people that they can, too.

            And as rightly mentioned above, the recognition of that simple and obvious reality is also the perspective that regulators, law officers and courts usually take on this point (more or less worldwide, I think).

            I don't know where you're getting your "information" from, but reading carefully all Tsnyder's posts in this thread, if you can manage to restrain yourself from arguing with him just for a moment, really might be very instructive to you (and it might even prompt you to realise that he hasn't said some things you're claiming he said).


            .
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9785095].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author iMassMarket
              Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

              Sorry, but this just isn't so: the entire purpose of mentioning that you made $1,000 doing it is typically to imply to other people that they can, too.

              And as rightly mentioned above, the recognition of that simple and obvious reality is also the perspective that regulators, law officers and courts usually take on this point (more or less worldwide, I think).

              I don't know where you're getting your "information" from, but reading carefully all Tsnyder's posts in this thread, if you can manage to restrain yourself from arguing with him just for a moment, really might be very instructive to you (and it might even prompt you to realise that he hasn't said some things you're claiming he said).


              .
              Wow. I am not arguing I assure you.

              But you are wrong by simply saying that isn't so.

              If you question where you can find this information simply pay yourself a visit to ftc.gov and you will find all the information you need to my point that YOU CAN make claims. The FTC is pretty good at laying out what THEY require when you do make a claim so that you stay within the law.

              Again, they don't restrict you from making a claim that I made $$$$ doing XYZ or that I can show you how I made $$$ doing XYZ - but they do require you disclose the required information regarding your claim.

              As far as the rest of the world. I am not 100% positive but believe the FTC to be the strictest.

              Somehow I feel you are attacking me for either not understanding my post or not knowing FTC disclosure requirements.

              My whole point is you can make claims if you do it legally. That's all. Simple as that. You just can't do it here with the forum rule change.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9785796].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author dougp
                My advice to those new is don't read and take any legal advice or interpretations of the FTC at face value. use your own due diligence and seek an attorney.

                From the WSOs I have bought in the past, income claims have rarely, if ever, been the determining factor on my purchase decision
                .

                That's nice, but the truth is you're a small minority. In this industry income claims sell which is why the WSO section is riddled with all of those mind-numbing headlines.

                It's kind of a catch-22. If all of the WSO subjects had a headline of "spend 10 hours a week to build an online business" then hardy no one would take up the offer because its not for me or too much work. If consumers are sick and tired of those headlines then they have to do one thing and one thing only...boycott them indefinitely.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9785820].message }}
            • Hi Alexa

              You hit the nail on the head.

              The "Purpose" of a marketer mentioning anything related to sales, results, profit, ease of use, push button etc is deliberately to get into the buyers head even if the buyer doesn't admit it or know about it, it is still in there.

              The seed has been planted and cannot be removed no matter how talented you are - it's a bit like sh*t on a blanket....

              The problem lies in finding the line that is "reasonable" and "acceptable" in the eyes of the mods.

              Hopefully this can be sorted quickly and moved across the whole WF platform rather than just the WSO's.

              One idea given that members of other affiliate models are also members here i.e. W+ and JVZoo could be that we the product maker could authorize a "proof check" by the WF Mods of the info that we are looking to add from one of those "external sources" as the decision is pretty "insular" in nature as cross sales of W+ and JVZoo are on here everywhere.

              Regards


              Bronwyn and Keith



              Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

              Sorry, but this just isn't so: the entire purpose of mentioning that you made $1,000 doing it is typically to imply to other people that they can, too.

              And as rightly mentioned above, the recognition of that simple and obvious reality is also the perspective that regulators, law officers and courts usually take on this point (more or less worldwide, I think).

              I don't know where you're getting your "information" from, but reading carefully all Tsnyder's posts in this thread, if you can manage to restrain yourself from arguing with him just for a moment, really might be very instructive to you (and it might even prompt you to realise that he hasn't said some things you're claiming he said).


              .
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9786180].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author kindsvater
                Originally Posted by Bronwyn and Keith View Post

                One idea given that members of other affiliate models are also members here i.e. W+ and JVZoo could be that we the product maker could authorize a "proof check" by the WF Mods of the info that we are looking to add from one of those "external sources" as the decision is pretty "insular" in nature as cross sales of W+ and JVZoo are on here everywhere.
                Nice idea, but it doesn't work. Years ago I offered that service for the forum and while everyone was for it in theory:

                - The vast majority of sellers declined to have their claims verified.

                - Many sellers who did start the process were a little stunned it wasn't just a rubber-stamp and they actually had to open up their accounts to prove their claims. It didn't happen.

                - It was simply not cost effective and sellers don't want to pay anything extra.

                That should tell you something about a lot of claims being made. Might as well ban them.

                .
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9786199].message }}
                • Hi

                  Yeah its something that has been put forward before but given that the WF has changed and has new drivers in the seats of power then the time is right.

                  All it would do to the ones who signed on to have their claims verified is add a nice little - Verified by WF Stamp added to it.

                  The way to do it is by using a simple restricted cross platform API.

                  Surely that would boost sales for the ones who were prepared to back up their claims with real figures.

                  Lets hope that the Mods read this thread

                  Regards

                  Bronwyn and Keith
                  Originally Posted by kindsvater View Post

                  Nice idea, but it doesn't work. Years ago I offered that service for the forum and while everyone was for it in theory:

                  - The vast majority of sellers declined to have their claims verified.

                  - Many sellers who did start the process were a little stunned it wasn't just a rubber-stamp and they actually had to open up their accounts to prove their claims. It didn't happen.

                  - It was simply not cost effective and sellers don't want to pay anything extra.

                  That should tell you something about a lot of claims being made. Might as well ban them.

                  .
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9786211].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author iMassMarket
            Originally Posted by Tsnyder View Post

            Perhaps you could take a moment from patting yourself on the back
            and point to a post where someone said the FTC bans all income claims...
            Originally Posted by Tsnyder View Post

            The FTC and various state attornies general disagree. Their position is that
            a claim of having earned "X" is an implicit claim that the buyer can expect the
            same or similar results.
            There.... You made a statement asserting they collectively disagree than claimed they both collectively have an agreeing opinion on the law.

            And again. Soooooooo fired.

            If a claim is made than so shall you disclose the required statements near the claim and ye shall be in accordance with the law.

            Can't we just be friends? I'm a pretty cool dude and very likable when you get to know me.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9785771].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Tsnyder
              Originally Posted by iMassMarket View Post

              There.... You made a statement asserting they collectively disagree than claimed they both collectively have an agreeing opinion on the law.

              And again. Soooooooo fired.

              If a claim is made than so shall you disclose the required statements near the claim and ye shall be in accordance with the law.

              Can't we just be friends? I'm a pretty cool dude and very likable when you get to know me.
              God, you're obtuse. What I wrote is 100% correct... and it did not
              say that regulators ban all income claims.

              Move on... you look silly.
              Signature
              If you knew what I know you'd be doing what I do...
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9785896].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Tsnyder
              Originally Posted by iMassMarket View Post

              There.... You made a statement asserting they collectively disagree than claimed they both collectively have an agreeing opinion on the law.
              Uh... no... that's not what I said. Again... I was responding directly
              to a specific comment from a previous poster. I said the various regulators
              disagree with what that poster said.

              Some remedial reading comprehension training would serve you well...
              Signature
              If you knew what I know you'd be doing what I do...
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9785898].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author iMassMarket
                Originally Posted by Tsnyder View Post

                Uh... no... that's not what I said. Again... I was responding directly
                to a specific comment from a previous poster. I said the various regulators
                disagree with what that poster said.

                Some remedial reading comprehension training would serve you well...
                Really???? This was the quote you responded to. (post #52)

                I think there's a huge difference between someone saying "I made xxxx" and "You will make xxxx".
                Which was my original point as well. The FTC does see a difference but you must abide by the law. That was it. And then I noted exactly why I made my point and where to find all the information needed to back it up.

                If you disagree fine. You disagree. But sly unwarranted insults on what you perceive my intellect to be and such is just childish and beneath the forum. Would you deal with your customers this way? mmm....mmmm...mmmm.

                Should you wish to discuss it further just PM me. I would be more than happy to discuss if further if you feel the need to insult me to get your point across. I am sure we can mutually agree on things.

                But these types of posts should be kept out of forum threads if they're going to be reduced to name calling and put downs.

                A shame some things on this forum never change. But now under Freelancer I am sure they will.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9785920].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
          Banned
          Originally Posted by iMassMarket View Post

          If that were the case and what you truly believe than I anticipate you will be removing the words "flip for profit" from your sig. And then removing all screenshots from flippa pertaining to dollar amounts and the words "Flip them for profit" from your Warrior sales thread am I right?

          But then again, under the new rules I am sure you will be asked to remove them and not be posting such income images in the future anyhow.

          That is what you are saying correct? Just because you have made money doesn't mean anyone else will? Sure I know you have made money on Flippa as I have sold there as well for over six years. But you and I both know that NOT everyone who flips sites makes money. Many beginners loose money with hosting and domain costs, listing fees, listing extra's etc. etc. etc.

          But I agree that 99% of all income claims are pure BS. The point is, The Warrior Forum was at first only going to verify Warrior payments income claims which made no sense. Not unless you were selling how to make money selling WSO's. They then saw the error in that way of thinking and have band ALL income claims.

          P.S. You may be able to keep using the word profit in "flip them for a profit" but I don't know. They might see it as it's read that they couldn't possibly be flipped for a loss which would be untrue. But I would change it to "You could even Flip these for profit" just to be safe.
          I'll let them sort it out. If using the word profit, as in saying "you can profit" without any specific amount of profit being stated, is against the rules and showing a screenshot of sales made on Flippa's platform that the links to those sales actually do exist and are verifiable, then I'm sure they'll tell me that.

          When people ask me in my listings how much they can make, I tell them either nothing or hundreds or thousands ... depending entirely on them, the niches they choose, how they promote sites, how they acquire traffic and how they monetize a site. I make them understand that it is entirely their efforts or lack of effort that will determine their rewards. I've lost many sales because of that but it is the only way I operate. I seriously don't want to be involved in the 'make money easy and fast' buyers and I don't attempt to attract them. If I did, my "income statements" would be much more in your face and much more exaggerated. I could dig up all of the sales I've made and made a great big grand total, rather than focusing on just a few sales to show that people actually do buy these sites in Flippa.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9785215].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author David Keith
      Originally Posted by Mark Hess View Post

      I think there's a huge difference between someone saying "I made xxxx" and "You will make xxxx". "You will..." is a real income claim where the seller has absolutely no idea if that would be true of all customers who purchase.

      Stating "I made..." is based on personal experience that the product creator achieved implementing what they're teaching. Of course with proper disclaimers like"You may make nothing implementing this" attached to them, many people use the sellers results as a measuring stick when evaluating the potential of a product.

      I'm not sure why the two are being grouped together as being the same when one can be stated as fact.

      Without the seller having to state anything in regards to income. this could have some serious unintended consequences because now there's no barrier for entry, no burden of proof so to speak.

      Anyone can think up some ridiculous idea that sounds good on paper, or take something like PPC that they read about but never implemented themselves, package it up, and they don't have to prove anything.

      If someone asks on the thread, the seller can simply tell them they are not allowed to disclose or imply any sort of income. The buyers can't offer any type of serious scrutiny and it's basically a big guessing game for them.

      This can (will) leave things wide open and I'm sure there's people drooling right now to get in the WSO game because the only thing that held them back before was having to prove stuff.

      Just saying... I'm all for the vast majority of the rules, it's something that needed to be done for a long time.

      But maybe some plain, good, old-fashioned common sense would go a long way in evaluating these WSO threads/sales pages versus a policy that opens up a loophole and can expose the members here to even more of a guessing game when it comes to products.
      Mark the issue driving this is one of legality rather than ethics to be honest. according to the ftc any income claims must be "of typical results" thus you cant even say i made XXXXXX thus implying that buyers will make XXXXX to if they buy this product and do what i did.

      The is more about WF covering their proverbial legal ass than about them trying to actually regulate the quality of the products released as wdo's

      Regulating quality is very very subjective. Me and my 20 years of online marketing experience means that to ME 95% of the wso's are nothing more than rehashed products. but what about to the guy who just started his IM journey last month? should he not have access to they stuff i call rehashed junk?

      i am also accurtely aware that there is plenty of true junk in the wso section. i wam just pointing out that trying to regulate product quality is not very easy at all.

      some would say a product about making money with traffic exchanges is junk. but there are those on this forum making solid incomes with them, so who is to say a few more folks couldn? You, Me....? who.

      I say let the buyer determine that. As long as the sales pages says what i am getting and the product delivers that, i am good with what i call sub par products.

      you know some men buy their wedding rings at walmart. does that mean they are getting a sub par woman?

      but the income claims thing is a straight legal issue.... not an ethics or quality thing.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783167].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mark Hess
        Originally Posted by David Keith View Post

        Mark the issue driving this is one of legality rather than ethics to be honest. according to the ftc any income claims must be "of typical results" thus you cant even say i made XXXXXX thus implying that buyers will make XXXXX to if they buy this product and do what i did.
        I don't know, with proper income disclaimers and the use of forward looking statements but I'm not a lawyer.

        I wasn't suggesting go through each individual product. I've been preaching about the subjective nature of products for years.

        The point I was trying to make is using "I made" versus "YOU will make"

        Amazon is filled with books talking about individuals personal success. There's a ton of income claims on their site as well.
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783193].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author kindsvater
          Say Obama pens a book, How I Went from the Hawaiian Poor House to the White House and Made $400,000 a Year - that is:

          - True and typical. US Presidents have a $400,000 salary.

          - An income claim not verified via Warrior Payments.

          - Not an implied claim anyone will make $400,000 by reading his book. If you want to imply such a result that is your own problem.

          Apparently, Obama's book is banned from the Warrior Forum.

          .
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783227].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
            Banned
            Originally Posted by kindsvater View Post

            The FTC has known about the WSO section and the income claims being made for years.
            Exactly the same was true of all the "money-making products" offered on ClickBank for years, before ClickBank wisely cleaned up their act in this regard. Let's congratulate Freelancer on their attempts to do something similar here.

            Originally Posted by kindsvater View Post

            Google has gone through several lawsuits claiming it is an image thief. It keeps winning in court.
            Highly atypical company, there (fortunately ): it effectively has limitless funds to defend itself and stand on what it perceives as points of principle. Many companies don't, and/or understandably choose not to take this approach.

            Originally Posted by kindsvater View Post

            Apparently, Obama's book is banned from the Warrior Forum..
            Additional bonus, there.

            (And we all know you need an "additional bonus", to maximize the sales of these things, don't we? ).


            .
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783303].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author David Keith
          Originally Posted by Mark Hess View Post

          I don't know, with proper income disclaimers and the use of forward looking statements but I'm not a lawyer.

          I wasn't suggesting go through each individual product. I've been preaching about the subjective nature of products for years.

          The point I was trying to make is using "I made" versus "YOU will make"

          Amazon is filled with books talking about individuals personal success. There's a ton of income claims on their site as well.
          the ftc rules are pretty claim about only being able to show "typical results". it states specifically that just saying "yymv" is not a way out. so the "i made" vs "you will make" thing is exactly what the ftc has made illegal.

          having said that, i am fully aware that there are thousands, if not more who are in violation of those rules. most of which will never come under and legal pressure at all.

          there is a certain size company the ftc makes examples of. they have to big enough to matter to a group of people but not so big as google or amazon where the defendant very well may have more money than the ftc to fight the impending legal battle.

          not to suggest that amazon is untouchable, but lets be real, the ftc knows thats a fight. if the ftc wanted to shut down wf tomorrow, that would be a very very uphill battle for wf...one they very well may not be able or willing to fight.

          if the ftc knocked on your door tomorrow you and i would keep repeating things like "yes sir" an awful lot because we know fighting them is something we would only consider in the most extreme cases. but if they should up to googlplex tomorrow, they better bring a bus load of lawyers and cash and be ready to stay a while.... and they know that.

          regarding amazon. 2 practical points on that.

          1. just because they are breaking the law doesn't make it ok for you and me to... when facing an ftc regulator the defense of "but amazon does it" is not likely to make him see things your way. And while i have what i consider a decent lawyer, i am accutely aware that amaozns legal team is very likely better trained, better financed, and much better able to handle any legal issues than me and you are.

          and while WF and its parent company are considerably bigger than me and i would presume you as well, their legal team doesnt match that of amazons. but they are however a big enough fish to get on the ftc radar as a target. an easy target the ftc knows they could walk all over.

          2. right or wrong, the amazons and googles of the world can do things others cant. Google is absolutely the biggest image thief in the world, but they can and will continue to get away with for the foreseeable future.... me and you cant. and amazon does some very very questionable legal things regarding similar issues as well.

          thats just the rules as they say.


          and yeah, product quality is just a slippery slope most dont really understand when it comes to the practicality of regularint such things.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783246].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author kindsvater
            Originally Posted by David Keith View Post

            the ftc rules ...
            The FTC has known about the WSO section and the income claims being made for years.

            Originally Posted by David Keith View Post

            Google is absolutely the biggest image thief in the world....
            Google has gone through several lawsuits claiming it is an image thief. It keeps winning in court.


            IDK (text lingo learned from my kid) you might be wrong about a few things in your posts.

            .
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783262].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author David Keith
              Originally Posted by kindsvater View Post

              The FTC has known about the WSO section and the income claims being made for years.



              Google has gone through several lawsuits claiming it is an image thief. It keeps winning in court.


              IDK (text lingo learned from my kid) you might be wrong about a few things in your posts.

              .
              as far as goodle. that exactly my point. they can win legal battles others cant win. i got into a minor legal issue with ghetty images. we had plenty of documentation and we did nothing wrong. but the truth was when offered the chance to settle it for $750 it was the smart business thing for me to do.

              also:

              I was speeding on my way to starbucks this morning when i passed a cop...he didnt pull me over. But that doesnt mean he wont next time. see the correlation?

              truthfully, many of the offers in the wso section fall under the ftc biz ops guidelines. which are far more strict about income claim requirements.

              I realize things like software or scripts usually wouldnt fit that category, and even info products that claim to be simply info products. but those making income claims and providing a "system" usually do fit the biz opp requirements and their regulations.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783286].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author iMassMarket
            Originally Posted by David Keith View Post

            the ftc rules are pretty claim about only being able to show "typical results". it states specifically that just saying "yymv" is not a way out. so the "i made" vs "you will make" thing is exactly what the ftc has made illegal.

            having said that, i am fully aware that there are thousands, if not more who are in violation of those rules. most of which will never come under and legal pressure at all.

            there is a certain size company the ftc makes examples of. they have to big enough to matter to a group of people but not so big as google or amazon where the defendant very well may have more money than the ftc to fight the impending legal battle.

            not to suggest that amazon is untouchable, but lets be real, the ftc knows thats a fight. if the ftc wanted to shut down wf tomorrow, that would be a very very uphill battle for wf...one they very well may not be able or willing to fight.

            if the ftc knocked on your door tomorrow you and i would keep repeating things like "yes sir" an awful lot because we know fighting them is something we would only consider in the most extreme cases. but if they should up to googlplex tomorrow, they better bring a bus load of lawyers and cash and be ready to stay a while.... and they know that.

            regarding amazon. 2 practical points on that.

            1. just because they are breaking the law doesn't make it ok for you and me to... when facing an ftc regulator the defense of "but amazon does it" is not likely to make him see things your way. And while i have what i consider a decent lawyer, i am accutely aware that amaozns legal team is very likely better trained, better financed, and much better able to handle any legal issues than me and you are.

            and while WF and its parent company are considerably bigger than me and i would presume you as well, their legal team doesnt match that of amazons. but they are however a big enough fish to get on the ftc radar as a target. an easy target the ftc knows they could walk all over.

            2. right or wrong, the amazons and googles of the world can do things others cant. Google is absolutely the biggest image thief in the world, but they can and will continue to get away with for the foreseeable future.... me and you cant. and amazon does some very very questionable legal things regarding similar issues as well.

            thats just the rules as they say.


            and yeah, product quality is just a slippery slope most dont really understand when it comes to the practicality of regularint such things.
            I don't know why some people assert the FTC bans income claims. Not true. I just made a post on this elsewhere. Oh yeah... like one post above.

            Now on to banning the rest of those claims. Because it's not just the outrageous mmo income claims here... there's the far out SEO claims... Youtube, offline and yadda yadda marketing claims. The Plugins that never work... the video software that takes longer than 2 minutes to create a video.... etc. etc. etc.

            What? too close to home for some.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9784404].message }}
            • Hi iMassmarket


              Yeah great points for all of these extra items you listed.

              We think that they call the marketing approach "open licence" - which means open licence to lie, cheat and steal.

              Regards

              Bronwyn and Keith
              PS. Marketing Videos and Sales Pages would be pretty boring though and we often have a good old laugh at some of the crap that is being said and written.
              Originally Posted by iMassMarket View Post

              I don't know why some people assert the FTC bans income claims. Not true. I just made a post on this elsewhere. Oh yeah... like one post above.

              Now on to banning the rest of those claims. Because it's not just the outrageous mmo income claims here... there's the far out SEO claims... Youtube, offline and yadda yadda marketing claims. The Plugins that never work... the video software that takes longer than 2 minutes to create a video.... etc. etc. etc.

              What? too close to home for some.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9784501].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Tsnyder
              Originally Posted by iMassMarket View Post

              I don't know why some people assert the FTC bans income claims. Not true. I just made a post on this elsewhere. Oh yeah... like one post above.
              Perhaps you could take a moment from patting yourself on the back
              and point to a post where someone said the FTC bans all income claims...
              Signature
              If you knew what I know you'd be doing what I do...
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9785099].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
        Originally Posted by David Keith View Post

        you know some men buy their wedding rings at walmart. does that mean they are getting a sub par woman?
        Depends on the woman . If she finds out they just might be....at that point.
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783384].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Tsnyder
      Originally Posted by Mark Hess View Post

      I think there's a huge difference between someone saying "I made xxxx" and "You will make xxxx". "You will..." is a real income claim where the seller has absolutely no idea if that would be true of all customers who purchase.

      Stating "I made..." is based on personal experience that the product creator achieved implementing what they're teaching. Of course with proper disclaimers like"You may make nothing implementing this" attached to them, many people use the sellers results as a measuring stick when evaluating the potential of a product.

      I'm not sure why the two are being grouped together as being the same when one can be stated as fact.

      Without the seller having to state anything in regards to income. this could have some serious unintended consequences because now there's no barrier for entry, no burden of proof so to speak.

      Anyone can think up some ridiculous idea that sounds good on paper, or take something like PPC that they read about but never implemented themselves, package it up, and they don't have to prove anything.

      If someone asks on the thread, the seller can simply tell them they are not allowed to disclose or imply any sort of income. The buyers can't offer any type of serious scrutiny and it's basically a big guessing game for them.

      This can (will) leave things wide open and I'm sure there's people drooling right now to get in the WSO game because the only thing that held them back before was having to prove stuff.

      Just saying... I'm all for the vast majority of the rules, it's something that needed to be done for a long time.

      But maybe some plain, good, old-fashioned common sense would go a long way in evaluating these WSO threads/sales pages versus a policy that opens up a loophole and can expose the members here to even more of a guessing game when it comes to products.
      Your attorney general or the FTC can explain it to you... what they'll say is this...

      The claim of personal income is a fraudulent inducement in that it implies
      that the potential buyer is likely to achieve the same results. If that weren't
      the reason behind the claim the claim wouldn't have been made in the first
      place.

      Saying "I earned $20K doing X" is no different than saying "You can earn $20K doing X"

      In fact... the latter statement is less fraudulent than the first. In either case the
      reason for the claim is exactly the same for both.
      Signature
      If you knew what I know you'd be doing what I do...
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783362].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author iMassMarket
        Originally Posted by Tsnyder View Post

        Your attorney general or the FTC can explain it to you... what they'll say is this...

        The claim of personal income is a fraudulent inducement in that it implies
        that the potential buyer is likely to achieve the same results. If that weren't
        the reason behind the claim the claim wouldn't have been made in the first
        place.

        Saying "I earned $20K doing X" is no different than saying "You can earn $20K doing X"

        In fact... the latter statement is less fraudulent than the first. In either case the
        reason for the claim is exactly the same for both.
        False.

        Luckily you're not a lawyer. If by some slight chance you are and were mine I would fire you. And it would be like "Duuuudeeee....you are so wronnnngg and sooooo fired!"

        Kinda sorta something like that.

        Now, under FTC guidelines if sellers make any claims about how much money you might make, they have to provide a disclosure document.

        If the seller makes a claim about how much money you can make... Than under the rule, they have to provide a separate document called a EARNINGS CLAIM STATEMENT REQUIRED BY LAW. (yup that has to be the title. Every word) Which must include;
        - the name of the person making the claim and the date;
        - the specifics of the claim;
        - the start and end date those earnings were achieved;
        - the number and percentage of people who got those results or better;
        - any information about those people that may differ from you - for example, the part of the country where they live;
        - and a statement that you can get written proof of the seller's earning claims if you ask for it

        The FTC does NOT prohibit you from making claims. Just when you do make a claim that claims others will make money or have the same success - then you are required to provide all possible info to prove the claim and not that you're just b.s. ing.

        But don't take my word for it and no one should. Just visit ftc.gov for an explanation of what you can or can not do.

        Don't assume what the Warrior forum does is what the FTC requires.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9784281].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Tsnyder
          Originally Posted by iMassMarket View Post

          False.

          Luckily you're not a lawyer. If by some slight chance you are and were mine I would fire you. And it would be like "Duuuudeeee....you are so wronnnngg and sooooo fired!"

          Kinda sorta something like that.

          Now, under FTC guidelines if sellers make any claims about how much money you might make, they have to provide a disclosure document.

          If the seller makes a claim about how much money you can make... Than under the rule, they have to provide a separate document called a EARNINGS CLAIM STATEMENT REQUIRED BY LAW. (yup that has to be the title. Every word) Which must include;
          - the name of the person making the claim and the date;
          - the specifics of the claim;
          - the start and end date those earnings were achieved;
          - the number and percentage of people who got those results or better;
          - any information about those people that may differ from you - for example, the part of the country where they live;
          - and a statement that you can get written proof of the seller's earning claims if you ask for it

          The FTC does NOT prohibit you from making claims. Just when you do make a claim that claims others will make money or have the same success - then you are required to provide all possible info to prove the claim and not that you're just b.s. ing.

          But don't take my word for it and no one should. Just visit ftc.gov for an explanation of what you can or can not do.

          Don't assume what the Warrior forum does is what the FTC requires.
          Well.... aren't you dandy and feeling all superior and proud of yourself... LOL

          Please point out where I said that the FTC bans all income claims...

          What I wrote was a specific response to a specific statement. What I wrote
          is 100% correct. You can read all the websites you like... I've researched and
          litigated the issue successfully.

          Next...
          Signature
          If you knew what I know you'd be doing what I do...
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9785092].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Lightlysalted
    I think it's positive that warrior forum vets income claims it gives me more confidence when buying! It just be frustrating though starting over when you already have a proven track record selling.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783148].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Phil Wilkinson
    What I get from it is that if THEY can't verify that you made X amount of money, it's outside of the rules, and the only way they can truly verify it is if you made that money through their payment system.

    They aren't saying that you can't also offer it somewhere else...just that they have no way of verifying money you made on someone elses' platform.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783341].message }}
    • Hi All

      Just wanted to chime in here with our view.

      To change a "thinking" pattern inside a forum like this you need to use a BIG STICK type approach first and then relax it back to normality later on.

      What the BIG STICK approach does is it sends the Cowboys and Shonky Sales People somewhere else to peddle their wares.

      This is Good News for all of us Real product creators.

      We released 4 products on another Platform in 2014 and sold almost 4000 units - this is well documented.

      The big thing is that we made Zero claims of Earnings on any of our Launches.

      We all need to look after each other in this industry and remember it "Is Not" about Rape and Pillage.

      We would all be better off without the Crooks in this industry.

      Regards

      Bronwyn and Keith
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9784182].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Tsnyder
    When it's all said and done this new rules is really just a
    chickens**t way of banning income claims since it would
    be pretty much impossible to have sold everything through
    their payment system.

    Why don't they just come out and say it... no more income claims.

    That would be a good thing.
    Signature
    If you knew what I know you'd be doing what I do...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783406].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author DubDubDubDot
      Originally Posted by Tsnyder View Post

      When it's all said and done this new rules is really just a
      chickens**t way of banning income claims since it would
      be pretty much impossible to have sold everything through
      their payment system.

      Why don't they just come out and say it... no more income claims.

      That would be a good thing.
      If someone made $x selling WordPress plugins using Warrior Payments and they wanted to release a WSO on their experiences, why shouldn't they be able to include their sales total since it can be verified?

      Both the seller and the buyer win in that scenario.

      Sellers of competing items that didn't use Warrior Payments may feel left out, but everyone knows moving forward that the decision to use Warrior Payments or not impacts the ability to print income claims in a potential future WSO.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783486].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        You must have missed these monster launches in 2014.
        Join date listed is last week.

        Yet those sellers who had massive sales with no income guarantees - would not qualify as "verified income" if they didn't use WarriorPay. At least, that's how I'm reading it.

        Would the seller of 250 copies of a $5 plugin end up verified while the seller of 10,000 products at $27 not be 'income verified'.
        Signature

        Saving one dog may not change the world - but forever changes the world of one dog.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783540].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Tsnyder
        Originally Posted by DubDubDubDot View Post

        If someone made selling WordPress plugins using Warrior Payments and they wanted to release a WSO on their experiences, why shouldn't they be able to include their sales total since it can be verified?

        Both the seller and the buyer win in that scenario.

        Sellers of competing items that didn't use Warrior Payments may feel left out, but everyone knows moving forward that the decision to use Warrior Payments or not imtpacts the ability to print income claims in a potential future WSO.
        Here's a thought... why can't you just be smart enough about your
        business to make serious purchasing decisions without someone
        throwing out income claims?

        Anyone who buys anything based on income claims just isn't a smart businessperson
        Signature
        If you knew what I know you'd be doing what I do...
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783543].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimothyW
          Originally Posted by Tsnyder View Post

          Here's a thought... why can't you just be smart enough about your
          business to make serious purchasing decisions without someone
          throwing out income claims?

          Anyone who buys anything based on income claims just isn't a smart businessperson
          This is common sense folks!
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783611].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author James Campbell
          Originally Posted by Tsnyder View Post

          Here's a thought... why can't you just be smart enough about your
          business to make serious purchasing decisions without someone
          throwing out income claims?

          Anyone who buys anything based on income claims just isn't a smart businessperson
          Because then he couldn't whine and moan in hundreds of threads on the forum about how "gurus" are so bad and how so many of "them" don't have "real" businesses and are a "joke" in the "real world".

          After all, writing a book and having a verified twitter account makes you a "real" marketer in the real world according to this clown.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783662].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author DubDubDubDot
            Originally Posted by James Campbell View Post

            After all, writing a book and having a verified twitter account makes you a "real" marketer in the real world according to this clown.
            Go back and re-read what I said and the context in which I said it in.

            The infamous $2,000 course "internet marketing gurus" and the more mainstream personalities operate within the same space. One is obviously more legitimate than the other. I'm not saying a published book and verified Twitter is a litmus test individually, but it's something to consider when looking at the two groups as a whole.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783836].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author James Campbell
              Originally Posted by DubDubDubDot View Post

              Go back and re-read what I said and the context in which I said it in.

              The infamous $2,000 course "internet marketing gurus" and the more mainstream personalities operate within the same space. One is obviously more legitimate than the other. I'm not saying a published book and verified Twitter is a litmus test individually, but it's something to consider when looking at the two groups as a whole.
              Obvious to who exactly?

              There are plenty of legitimate business people and marketing professionals outside of the IM space that don't have a book and/or a verified twitter account. If that is what you look for, then you're more amateur hour than I anticipated.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9784054].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author DubDubDubDot
                Originally Posted by James Campbell View Post

                Obvious to who exactly?

                There are plenty of legitimate business people and marketing professionals outside of the IM space that don't have a book and/or a verified twitter account.
                The discussion in question began with the topic of product launches. Assuming we are going by the info product definition of what a product launch entails, it's a fairly limited segment. I think everyone here knows that most successful people online don't have a book or possibly even a Twitter account.

                Let's stick to the discussion instead of scraping the bottom of the barrel for word games as a distraction.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9784145].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author DubDubDubDot
          Originally Posted by Tsnyder View Post

          Here's a thought... why can't you just be smart enough about your
          business to make serious purchasing decisions without someone
          throwing out income claims?

          Anyone who buys anything based on income claims just isn't a smart businessperson
          Rules aren't necessary to protect established people from info product scams, but the buyers here are a more diverse group than that.

          Those at or not far beyond entry level are naturally going to be influenced by income claims since they don't have much to weigh at that stage. You could be rough on them and say their own ignorance gets them ripped off, but at some point you've got to recognize the moral bankruptcy in selling like that.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783777].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author CliffRCS
    Though I don't have any kind of legal knowledge on subject but one thing is sure, I have never ever seen a 6 or 7 figure launch as WSO or outside WSO, which does not involve an income claim. And first thing that WF moderator should do is, delete all current WSO as almost every one of them have income claim in some or the other way, direct or indirect. I was browsing WSO main page, and I didn't even need to open threads, all of the have income claim as subject line.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783411].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author David Keith
      Originally Posted by CliffRCS View Post

      Though I don't have any kind of legal knowledge on subject but one thing is sure, I have never ever seen a 6 or 7 figure launch as WSO or outside WSO, which does not involve an income claim. And first thing that WF moderator should do is, delete all current WSO as almost every one of them have income claim in some or the other way, direct or indirect. I was browsing WSO main page, and I didn't even need to open threads, all of the have income claim as subject line.
      they happen daily man. just not in the super small IM niche world you guys are in. The BIG im launches are really not big launches at all really. Many in the business world would laugh at the MEGA launches in the IM industry at think why do these guys keep playing small ball.

      You should step into the world of marketing and get out of the overhyped...super small niche of "how to be an IMer" niche.

      the truth is most real IMers are and never will be in the IM niche. its too dang small, competitive, and scammy.

      by the same token, you take most "gurus" and put them into highly competitive real world markets and they would struggle big time. they are preying on the weak and desperate and have been for years in the industry. And i know that a generalization, but if the shoe fits...wear it.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783433].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
      Banned
      Originally Posted by CliffRCS View Post

      Though I don't have any kind of legal knowledge on subject but one thing is sure, I have never ever seen a 6 or 7 figure launch as WSO or outside WSO, which does not involve an income claim.
      You must have missed these monster launches in 2014.



      These product launch pages did not provide income claims and guarantees like what are being discussed on this thread.

      Cheers

      -don
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783480].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author David Keith
    from a principle standpoint, i believe it should all be on the buyer. i rarely get scammed these days because i learned numerous ways to spot them ... I am rarely disappointed in a product purchase because over the years i have learned how to make wise choices when it come to purchases.

    i guess i am very much an advocate for everyones right to fail just as much as them having the right to succeed. if you make crappy decisions, you dont do well... and that fine with me.

    if a person desntt want to learn the skill of assessing whether someone is feeding them bs or not, then no rule or law is going to save them from making bad decisions ultimately.

    that being said. their are definitely rules and laws sellers must follow whether we agree with them or not.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783417].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Chris Worner
    Good to see the forum owners taking a stand against the BS.



    -Chris
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9784579].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TymBolla
    You just need to adapt your sales advertisement with something else.

    Not income claims, in this case
    Signature

    Tym

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9785159].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Brent Stangel
    Banned
    Subscriber: "Can you guarantee the income I will make?

    Me: "Neither myself or anyone else can do that."

    Subscriber: ...

    Would dreamers buy lotto tickets if all the advertising said, "Keep your money in your pocket. This is a fools bet."?

    Serious business people are not influenced by income claims.

    That being said, the people who operate this "model" will just move to the next platform.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9785176].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Tsnyder
    I know what you said and you were wrong... you just continue
    to look silly by arguing about it.
    Signature
    If you knew what I know you'd be doing what I do...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9786182].message }}
  • I am shocked at how fast this thread grew, and I didn't even get to stay up to date with it at all.

    As a random update, my WSO did get approved, and there were no income claims. I think the biggest problem that really shocked me was how my thread had got rejected multiple times, and I never knew they made updates. All I have to say is, it's confusing to me still as to who can make income claims, (if you have to strictly only talk about making money from WSOs, which I think is pretty weird. ) But either way, I think this is a 50/50 situation.

    There is a bright side to this (like how nobody can just barge in, make an income claim, collect sales, and then move on.)

    But there is some downsides as well....and several people like Mark Hess has explained it pretty well. I'm glad multiple sides are being shared, and I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens.
    Overall, I am beginning to like the new change
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9786359].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TymBolla
    This is all kind of extreme talk in my opinion.

    Let people just adapt. They always have. They always will.

    It's easy and like someone else already said... and it's true for me too.. when I purchase something, income claims aren't the determining factor.
    Signature

    Tym

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9786387].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author writeaway
    Makes sense. That rule change BUILDS trust in the system. WSO sellers are the ultimate beneficiaries. The more people trust the system, the better.
    Signature
    Need Passive Income?
    Publish Books online for long term passive income
    CLICK HERE to get help
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9786405].message }}
  • And yes, I am 100% sure that they will be doing this on a case by case basis on every single person trying to sell their WSO, which is good.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9787670].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kris79
    Simple question:

    What about income claims that are results of simple mathematics:
    for example:
    a wso about Amazon niche with products priced above $500
    $500 x 4%(min. aff commission) = $20

    Would it be ok to write something:
    "Make $20 every time someone buys using your aff link"
    or
    "You will make at least $20 when someone buys using your aff link"

    Is it still income claim, or not?

    Where is the line?
    And I'm not only asking WSO but in general, FTC etc.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9787919].message }}
    • Originally Posted by Kris79 View Post

      Simple question:

      What about income claims that are results of simple mathematics:
      for example:
      a wso about Amazon niche with products priced above $500
      $500 x 4%(min. aff commission) = $20

      Would it be ok to write something:
      "Make $20 every time someone buys using your aff link"
      or
      "You will make at least $20 when someone buys using your aff link"

      Is it still income claim, or not?

      Where is the line?
      And I'm not only asking WSO but in general, FTC etc.
      Zero numbers are allowed. Saying people could make X amount is not allowed.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9788504].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        Zero numbers are allowed.
        But you haven't changed the more than half dozen WSOs where you have income claims. Might want to do that as I believe the rules will be retroactive.
        Signature

        Saving one dog may not change the world - but forever changes the world of one dog.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9788518].message }}
        • Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

          But you haven't changed the more than half dozen WSOs where you have income claims. Might want to do that as I believe the rules will be retroactive.
          I believe the rules are currently only revolved around the newest WSOs. I don't plan on changing every single one of them only because:

          1) They don't get traffic
          2) I've had people ruin sales already because of the disrespectful comments
          3) Obviously, I don't plan on bumping them considering the new rules.

          If they ask me to edit them, I will, but I have yet to hear anything about my past WSOs.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9790629].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author nik0
            Banned
            Originally Posted by internetmarketer1 View Post

            I believe the rules are currently only revolved around the newest WSOs. I don't plan on changing every single one of them only because:

            1) They don't get traffic
            2) I've had people ruin sales already because of the disrespectful comments
            3) Obviously, I don't plan on bumping them considering the new rules.

            If they ask me to edit them, I will, but I have yet to hear anything about my past WSOs.
            Good for you, negativity always has a good reason behind it.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9791651].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ioan draniciar
    I think the main reason for this rule is because the Warrior Forum owners want to get more money in their pocket. They want to eliminate the competition (Warrior Plus, JVZOO) Let's tell it like it is.

    What they don't realize is the fact that guys who are most likely to create multiple WSOs in the future don't really need this forum so much. They have lots of JVs to help them with their launches and they can skip the Warrior forum completely.

    Bad move WF, you'll loose traffic and business big time.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9788194].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
    Banned
    I find this very confusing. This was posted on the 3rd.

    Discover How I Easily Created And Launched This WSO In Under 48 Hours...Banked $1000’s In Profit...And How YOU Can Do The Same On Your Very FIRST Try!

    Is that or is that not an income claim and an income guarantee to boot?

    This is a WSO about creating WSOs in under 48 hrs and has a Warrior Payments button. So I guess that you verified that he "banked $1,000s and that his customers can do the same on their very first try."
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9790262].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kris79
      Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

      I find this very confusing. This was posted on the 3rd.

      Discover How I Easily Created And Launched This WSO In Under 48 Hours...Banked $1000's In Profit...And How YOU Can Do The Same On Your Very FIRST Try!

      Is that or is that not an income claim and an income guarantee to boot?

      This is a WSO about creating WSOs in under 48 hrs and has a Warrior Payments button. So I guess that you verified that he "banked $1,000s and that his customers can do the same on their very first try."
      In my opinion if they are limiting income claims to only those that are verified by them, they also should mark those WSOs that they have really verified those income claims. A banner at the top or something.
      this way buyers would know if this is true or not.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9790475].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alaister
      [DELETED]
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9790519].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
        Banned
        Originally Posted by Alaister View Post

        Hi Suzanne,

        Could you share the link to this WSO please. I can't seem to find it. I'll investigate what the situation is with this offer.
        How about this one? I take it you have verified that we can make $3000 a month with free traffic and we can set this up in only 7 days or less?




        Cheers

        -don
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9790534].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Alaister
          I appreciate everyone pointing out these offers and keen to clean up the section. It's an ongoing process for our moderators to go through the existing offers. The rules have been very relaxed for a long time so we are messaging sellers and explaining that we have new rules and that their existing WSOs need to follow or will be moved or deleted.

          Over the next few weeks there will be WSOs in that section that potentially break the rules until we are able to get through all of them.

          Once we have gone through them if there are offers that violate any of our rules you can report them using the red triangle on the bottom left, just like if you're reporting a reply or thread that violates a rule.

          Thank you
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9790547].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Valdor Kiebach
            Originally Posted by Alaister View Post

            Once we have gone through them if there are offers that violate any of our rules you can report them using the red triangle on the bottom left, just like if you're reporting a reply or thread that violates a rule.

            Thank you
            Will you post a notice when that is as I reported a couple that blatantly violated the new rules but nothing was done so I dont bother now.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9790554].message }}
            • Originally Posted by Valdor Kiebach View Post

              Will you post a notice when that is as I reported a couple that blatantly violated the new rules but nothing was done so I dont bother now.
              The rules just recently changed as of Dec 29!

              You don't have to report every single one with income claims because most of them were all approved from a long time ago.

              It's an ongoing process with this forum, and I'm sure they will be changing tags in the long run.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9790633].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Valdor Kiebach
                Originally Posted by internetmarketer1 View Post

                You don't have to report every single one with income claims because most of them were all approved from a long time ago. .
                These 2 were new WSO's posted in January and it had nothing to do with income claims.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9790677].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
                Banned
                Originally Posted by internetmarketer1 View Post

                Zero numbers are allowed. Saying people could make X amount is not allowed.
                It does sound like zero is the word on claims that WF can't verify.

                Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

                But you haven't changed the more than half dozen WSOs where you have income claims. Might want to do that as I believe the rules will be retroactive.
                Right.

                Originally Posted by internetmarketer1 View Post

                I believe the rules are currently only revolved around the newest WSOs. I don't plan on changing every single one of them only because:

                1) They don't get traffic
                2) I've had people ruin sales already because of the disrespectful comments
                3) Obviously, I don't plan on bumping them considering the new rules.

                If they ask me to edit them, I will, but I have yet to hear anything about my past WSOs.
                Originally Posted by internetmarketer1 View Post

                The rules just recently changed as of Dec 29!

                You don't have to report every single one with income claims because most of them were all approved from a long time ago.
                Not changing them, eh? LoL ---> it's a bit comical you saying that, as I Just had a look through your past WSOs and you might be the KING of income claims!!!

                Originally Posted by Alaister View Post

                The rules have been very relaxed for a long time so we are messaging sellers and explaining that we have new rules and that their existing WSOs need to follow or will be moved or deleted.
                It looks like Alaister has already stated that changes will need to be made to previous WSOs that have made claims that WF can't verify. It sounds like you are waiting until your threads are reported instead of being proactive with regards to the new rules.

                To each their own.

                Cheers

                -don
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9790693].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Valdor Kiebach
    I dont think the new rules are being 100% adhered to by WSO approval people.

    I noticed the WSO Suzanne mentioned and a few others including web design and automation bots / software so it seems its down to luck on who you get to approve your WSO.

    Also the rule about having a max of 3 offers on WSO and classifieds page 1 is not being enforced as one guy had 7 on p1 of classifieds.

    Try not to let it bother you.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9790527].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Valdor Kiebach
    I think that one mentioned by ForumGuru was posted before the new rules and has maybe been bumped.

    Dont know if bumped WSO's get re approved or if its automatic.

    Also dont know if the new rules apply to old WSO's being bumped.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9790551].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
      Banned
      Originally Posted by Valdor Kiebach View Post

      Also dont know if the new rules apply to old WSO's being bumped.
      Yeah, it's a bumped WSO and it has been stated multiple times that the new rules do apply to old WSOs. This one and others have been reported using the red triangle...

      Cheers

      -don
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9790555].message }}
  • Most of my WSOs have been backed with proof...

    AND I made this SO THAT I WILL COINCIDE WITH THE RULES.

    This is the reason why I made this thread so I won't be breaking any of the rules. Even when I'm not promoting something or selling something I get disrespected.

    If they decide to remove them, then it is COMPLETELY fine with me. I don't feel like I have to go back and edit every single one because they were all submitted before the rules were changed, AND I don't plan on bumping them.

    I'm guessing if they'll be getting mad about my PAST threads, then they should be able to correct every other WSO that has gotten WSO of The Day that either has zero income proof and nothing but income claims. But I doubt that'll ever happen considering that the forum makes good money off of those who bump those threads that have won WSO/Deal of The Day.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9790805].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Valdor Kiebach
      Originally Posted by internetmarketer1 View Post

      ...they should be able to correct every other WSO that has gotten WSO of The Day ...
      Maybe they should anyway as 'WSO of the day' was an award(?) given out by WSOpro and has nothing to do with the forum really.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9790826].message }}
      • Originally Posted by Valdor Kiebach View Post

        Maybe they should anyway as 'WSO of the day' was an award(?) given out by WSOpro and has nothing to do with the forum really.
        Yes, but the forum is the one making the cash when people bump their threads. I don't know if they'll be forcing the guy who made the long running thread "$465 In 4 Hours" to change his thread that he has bumped consistently over the past few years, making the forum thousands of dollars from his bumps. Who knows, maybe they will, but that would be quite a hassle trying to go through thousands of threads and telling them to remove their claims.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9790844].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Valdor Kiebach
          Originally Posted by internetmarketer1 View Post

          ... I don't know if they'll be forcing the guy who made the long running thread "$465 In 4 Hours" ...
          I would hope so as that links to an offsite page not directly to a checkout, but maybe there is only 1 WSO approval person.

          The new rules have been in place for about a week so it will take time and people will take advantage if they can, dont let it bother you.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9790862].message }}
          • Originally Posted by Valdor Kiebach View Post

            I would hope so as that links to an offsite page not directly to a checkout, but maybe there is only 1 WSO approval person.

            The new rules have been in place for about a week so it will take time and people will take advantage if they can, dont let it bother you.
            I'm not bothered at all honestly by the rules. I really won't be mad if they decide to close my old threads. I'm not here to take advantage of anybody. And I'm not here to try and get as much money before the rules become more enforced.

            I just don't think that me having to edit all of by past salescopy is that important unless they tell me to.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9790894].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Robert Puddy
      Originally Posted by internetmarketer1 View Post

      Most of my WSOs have been backed with proof...
      A true income claim would be...

      1% of buyers will make the income I claimed in this adcopy

      20% will make somewhere between $1 and half my claim

      79% of you will make zero, zilch, nada
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9794830].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Tony M
    Originally Posted by internetmarketer1 View Post

    So I've posted several WSOs in the past, and because of the new rules that just recently started several days ago, I can see that there are several things I'll have to do just a bit differently, including income proof.

    One thing I noticed that changed was even though I provided income proof to get my salescopy approved, it still wasn't. The admin told me to look at the rules on #17 of the announcement.

    I noticed it said:

    "Sellers are not to make claims around income that has been made unless this income can be verified through Warrior Payments. Sellers are not permitted to make claims about or imply that income will result from purchasing a WSO. This will be strictly enforced to protect the Warrior community.

    This is applicable to the WSO Marketplace and all sub-forums."

    I don't seem to understand what they mean by "Unless this income can be verified through Warrior Payments." What exactly does this mean? What do they mean by verifying through Warrior Payments?

    (I wanted to send these questions to admin, but I know they may not reply right away, so I thought I might as well just ask my questions here. )

    I'm glad this is happening.

    I'm tired of seeing these ridiculous WSOs.

    And I'm tired of the authors of these WSOs
    refusing to show income proof.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9790918].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mark Singletary
      Originally Posted by Tony M View Post

      I'm glad this is happening.

      I'm tired of seeing these ridiculous WSOs.

      And I'm tired of the authors of these WSOs
      refusing to show income proof.
      You realize that with the new rules, there will NO income proof whatsoever, right?

      Mark
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9791029].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
    Banned
    Originally Posted by internetmarketer1 View Post

    I'm guessing if they'll be getting mad about my PAST threads, then they should be able to correct every other WSO that has gotten WSO of The Day that either has zero income proof and nothing but income claims. But I doubt that'll ever happen considering that the forum makes good money off of those who bump those threads that have won WSO/Deal of The Day.
    Originally Posted by Valdor Kiebach View Post

    Maybe they should anyway as 'WSO of the day' was an award(?) given out by WSOpro and has nothing to do with the forum really.
    Supposedly they are no longer allowing "WSO award" mentions that were not given by WF.

    Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

    Does this mean no more "WSO of the Day", "WSO of the week/month/quarter", "named best WSO" ...etc? That has been deceptive for members here for quite some time.

    Some really positive changes in the new rules. It's obvious FL put a lot of thought into the new requirements and I think they'll help resurrect the WSO section.

    kay
    Daniel has addressed this...
    Originally Posted by danieljb View Post

    Exactly right. The only time such "WSO of the {Day|Week|Month|Year|Decade}" can be used is when it has been awarded by the Warrior Forum. External parties are not authorised and have no place implying that we endorse a WSO that we have no affiliation with.


    http://www.warriorforum.com/warrior-...wso-rules.html

    Cheers

    -don
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9790922].message }}
  • As far as I am concerned, that still doesn't remove the idea that the guys behind big threads that DIDN'T win WSO of The Day won't be told to change their threads.

    Like the guy behind "$465 In 4 Hours". Will the mods tell him to change his threads? He has been bumping that WSO for years, and the forum is making great money from this one guy alone.

    Honestly, I really don't care if they choose not to or if they do. I won't be going to the WSO forum just to see if there are income claims or not. Whatever they decide, I have no problem with what the forum does.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9791002].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
    Banned
    It looks like the peeps doing the approvals are missing some of the other new rules as well. Like the 3 Threads On The Front Page rule. They just approved 3 more of this guy's threads giving him 7 threads on the front page of the classifieds section.







    Cheers

    -don
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9791315].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alaister
      Hi Don,

      I have corrected this and have communicated with the seller in regards to the new WSO rules that have been violated. This is a tricky rule as it comes down to when the seller chooses to pay for their approved thread.

      I appreciate you reporting this. Moving forward it would be more useful to report via the red triangle. We'll be able to address these reports much faster.


      Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

      It looks like the peeps doing the approvals are missing some of the other new rules as well. Like the 3 Threads On The Front Page rule. They just approved 3 more of this guy's threads giving him 7 threads on the front page of the classifieds section.







      Cheers

      -don
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9791608].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
        Banned
        Originally Posted by Alaister View Post

        Hi Don,

        I have corrected this and have communicated with the seller in regards to the new WSO rules that have been violated. This is a tricky rule as it comes down to when the seller chooses to pay for their approved thread.

        I appreciate you reporting this. Moving forward it would be more useful to report via the red triangle. We'll be able to address these reports much faster.
        Hi Alaister,

        FWIW, I had reported it via the red triangle prior to making the post here.

        Cheers

        -don
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9792549].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kay King
          Suzanne - and Alaister -

          That particular WSO (on how to make fast WSOs) was one I reported yesterday.

          Look at the link Suzanne posted - not to a WSO but to a TEST forum sales pages with live links....this can't be allowed!


          For now - I'm not reporting older or newly bumped WSOs because I was told those will be addressed as we go forward. The first order is to stop new claims of income from being posted as WSO's and then other sellers will be given the word to remove income claims.

          It won't be instant but we should see an instant change for NEW WSOs.
          Signature

          Saving one dog may not change the world - but forever changes the world of one dog.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9792830].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Alaister
            Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

            Suzanne - and Alaister -

            That particular WSO (on how to make fast WSOs) was one I reported yesterday.

            Look at the link Suzanne posted - not to a WSO but to a TEST forum sales pages with live links....this can't be allowed!


            For now - I'm not reporting older or newly bumped WSOs because I was told those will be addressed as we go forward. The first order is to stop new claims of income from being posted as WSO's and then other sellers will be given the word to remove income claims.

            It won't be instant but we should see an instant change for NEW WSOs.
            Hi Kay,

            I've removed that link. Are you able to see that thread in the test forum?
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9793161].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Kay King
              Alaister -

              When I go back to my 'history' and click it - that link now redirects me to the WSO.

              However, in the test section - there are multiple "tests" where sellers have inserted live link to their websites (where they offer a special deal on the WSO or a signup page) or directly to JVZoo sales paqge.

              As I read it - the only live links allowed in the test forum are temporary ones where sellers are checking their link. I've read where members say they can't SEE the test section - but I don't know what they mean as it's right and clickable for me.
              Signature

              Saving one dog may not change the world - but forever changes the world of one dog.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9794829].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
                Banned
                Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

                Alaister -

                When I go back to my 'history' and click it - that link now redirects me to the WSO.

                However, in the test section - there are multiple "tests" where sellers have inserted live link to their websites (where they offer a special deal on the WSO or a signup page) or directly to JVZoo sales paqge.

                As I read it - the only live links allowed in the test forum are temporary ones where sellers are checking their link. I've read where members say they can't SEE the test section - but I don't know what they mean as it's right and clickable for me.
                Kay .... can you still see the Test section? I know you could before, but thought that was fixed.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9794948].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
                  Banned
                  Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

                  Alaister -However, in the test section - there are multiple "tests" where sellers have inserted live link to their websites (where they offer a special deal on the WSO or a signup page) or directly to JVZoo sales paqge.

                  As I read it - the only live links allowed in the test forum are temporary ones where sellers are checking their link. I've read where members say they can't SEE the test section - but I don't know what they mean as it's right and clickable for me.
                  Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

                  Kay .... can you still see the Test section? I know you could before, but thought that was fixed.
                  Yeah, Alaister became aware of the issue when it was discussed back on this thread:

                  http://www.warriorforum.com/off-topi...rs-do-you.html

                  It sounds like it's not quite fixed yet. FWIW, the only threads I can see in the test section are the threads I am supposed to see, which are my own test threads.

                  Cheers

                  -don
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9795118].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                    Yes - I can see the test section and I can access the threads there. I've always been able to view and click on the test section threads.

                    I'm not the only one with access as there are some "tests" with question/answer sessions going on...like this one

                    http://www.warriorforum.com/test-for...y-14-days.html

                    People have been asking questions - and the seller apparently is answering IN the test thread. I can't tell if it also a WSO as search seems to be balking again today.

                    Quite a few of the threads I've accessed either link to a website or a squeeze page - these are not "inactive test links" on many of the "test offers".
                    Signature

                    Saving one dog may not change the world - but forever changes the world of one dog.

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9795446].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                      Yes, Don - I can also see the test you started to see if it could be seen...LOL

                      I'm reporting what I see to Alaistar and to Danieljb - no need to confuse it further that I can see.
                      Signature

                      Saving one dog may not change the world - but forever changes the world of one dog.

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9795453].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
                        Banned
                        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

                        Yes, Don - I can also see the test you started to see if it could be seen...LOL

                        I'm reporting what I see to Alaistar and to Danieljb - no need to confuse it further that I can see.
                        Actually, I created a second test thread today to see if I could open multiple threads in the test forum. My first test thread was created on June 20th, 2012. Can you see both threads?

                        I thought Alaister and his team had taken care of this permissions issue a while ago...

                        Cheers

                        -don
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9795454].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Alaister
          Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

          Hi Alaister,

          FWIW, I had reported it via the red triangle prior to making the post here.

          Cheers

          -don
          Thanks Don. I'm working with the moderators and the team to ensure we're on top of this.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9793159].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
    Banned
    @ Kay

    Here is a link to my June 20th, 2012 test thread...can you see it too?

    http://www.warriorforum.com/showthread.php?t=621746

    Cheers

    -don
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9795471].message }}
    • Hi Kay and Don

      We have only ever been able to see our own test in the test forum.

      Ours is pretty exciting it says - This is a test page.

      We use it only for a few minutes each time we do up any BB Code to make sure that we haven't messed anything up and then put our - This is a test page message back up.

      We had no idea that anyone else aside from the mods could see this but took a natural precaution anyway.

      To hear that their are people who have been using the WF in this way is pretty disturbing and a sad testimony to some of the types we get on here.

      Let's find them and boot them out of the Forum.


      Regards

      Bronwyn and Keith
      Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

      @ Kay

      Here is a link to my June 20th, 2012 test thread...can you see it too?

      http://www.warriorforum.com/showthread.php?t=621746

      Cheers

      -don
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9795536].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        I've used test pages - but then always took them down when I launched the WSO. I did that because I could see the test pages and assumed everyone else could, too.

        It's not up to me to boot anyone anywhere - just to let those in charge here know what is happening so they can look at it.

        It's not a terrible thing - just a rules violation that management needs to know about. If there's a loophole, someone will drive an SUV through it!
        Signature

        Saving one dog may not change the world - but forever changes the world of one dog.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9795562].message }}
  • Originally Posted by Bronwyn and Keith View Post

    Hi Don

    Just got an email from WF about the new marketplace rules.

    [We require all sellers to update their existing offers to align with the new rules. This must be done by January 12, 2015. Sellers that do not update their offers to align with the new rules will find their offers are removed from sale.]

    [Examples of statements that are not permitted:
    - Make $100 per day in 7 minutes.
    - I made $100 by selling eBooks.
    - Earn $100 every time you press this button.
    - I made $100 selling a domain.
    - Make $100-$15000 per month by buying a website from me.
    - Make $5+ in 30 days.
    - Make ,XXX per month by clicking here.
    - Make passive income with this offer.
    Any statement that states or implies a member will earn income by purchasing your WSO is against the WSO Marketplace rules. Income claims will be policed heavily. If your offer uses income claims or guarantees, you are required to remove these by January 12, 2015.
    When do I have to change my offer by?
    Offers must be adjusted by January 12, 2015. Sellers that do not adjust their offers by January 12, 2015 may find that their offers are removed from sale.
    For free and service offers, we will move these offers to the appropriate subsections without any further action required by sellers.]


    So there you have it - the decision has been made and impacts on everyone.

    Here's a link to the new Announcement:-

    Warrior Forum - The #1 Internet Marketing Forum & Marketplace - Announcements in Forum : Warrior Special Offers

    Regards


    Bronwyn and Keith
    I haven't received an email yet, but then again, I don't check that email as often. I'll make sure my thread titles and the salescopy won't have any income claims. I just hope I can do it before January 12! I've got about 2-3 days to do it, so we'll see.

    I would like to know if this is an official statement because I haven't received an email yet, and neither is it in the announcements section of the WSO rules. Is it official already?

    Thanks for the link. I'll check it out.

    Edit: they haven't said anything in the link though. Hopefully they'll update it so that others who don't see this thread will know about this.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9802168].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
      Banned
      Originally Posted by internetmarketer1 View Post

      I would like to know if this is an official statement because I haven't received an email yet, and neither is it in the announcements section of the WSO rules. Is it official already?
      Yes, it's official.

      http://www.warriorforum.com/warrior-...ml#post9783747

      http://www.warriorforum.com/warrior-...ml#post9787971

      Cheers

      -don
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9802191].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
      Banned
      Originally Posted by internetmarketer1 View Post

      I would like to know if this is an official statement because I haven't received an email yet, and neither is it in the announcements section of the WSO rules. Is it official already?
      Here is the email in full color:



      Cheers

      -don
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9802205].message }}
      • Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

        Here is the email in full color:



        Cheers

        -don
        Thank you.

        I still wonder what the forum is going to look like by the 12th/13th. It'll be looking very different, that's for sure. I'm happy the forum is going in this direction. I mean, it definitely changes things with the market, but it has benefited me already in the one WSO I have posted after the rules.

        I like it because they also enforce the bullying that goes on in WSO threads as well. Having people make assumptions about my products WITHOUT even buying is something I am tired of, and I'm happy they are implementing this because now BUYERS and even the SELLERS are benefiting from these changes.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9802384].message }}
  • Is that thread where he says "click here to read the discussion about clarification etc" this thread? If so, that's really cool.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9802387].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
      Banned
      Originally Posted by internetmarketer1 View Post

      Is that thread where he says "click here to read the discussion about clarification etc" this thread? If so, that's really cool.
      No, it's not, it's one of the threads I had linked above. It's this thread, posted by the main man Alaister, which has been up since December 29th.

      Cheers

      -don
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9802410].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      This is why I haven't bumped any of my old WSOs at all to avoid this problem.
      I don't think you've avoided a problem. You have ten (?) WSOs that appear to be active and open - and all have income claims. Only your most recent WSO meets the new rules.

      I still wonder what the forum is going to look like by the 12th/13th.
      You may have one WSO left? My understanding is this rule applies to ANY active WSOs (i.e., open and available for sale) whether they get bumped or not.
      Signature

      Saving one dog may not change the world - but forever changes the world of one dog.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9802416].message }}
      • Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

        I don't think you've avoided a problem. You have ten (?) WSOs that appear to be active and open - and all have income claims. Only your most recent WSO meets the new rules.



        You may have one WSO left? My understanding is this rule applies to ANY active WSOs (i.e., open and available for sale) whether they get bumped or not.
        You did read my previous posts right talking about HOW I AM going to edit my old threads right? I didn't say I'm going to do them at this very moment, but I am going to finish editing them before the 12th.

        "Only your most recent WSO meets the new rules."

        I AM VERY AWARE OF THAT. And that is why if you read one of my recent posts just recently, I am preparing to slowly edit them and will be done with it by the 12th.

        You might want to read first before you decide to say anything.


        This is what I posted just a few hours ago:

        "I'll make sure my thread titles and the salescopy won't have any income claims. I just hope I can do it before January 12! I've got about 2-3 days to do it, so we'll see."
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9802471].message }}

Trending Topics