massive update to ALL WSOs here on the forum..

salegurus

7 years ago

This is not new, there are already a few discussions about income claims in WSO's...

Thanks

Signature

Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.

― George Carlin

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9798775].message }}

Anthony La Rocca

7 years ago

Add your thoughts and feedback here:
http://www.warriorforum.com/warrior-forum-news/1031390-new-warrior-special-offer-wso-rules.html

Email even links to the main discussion of it

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9798779].message }}

Cali16

7 years ago

Originally Posted by JakeStatler

Won't this make it hard to prove our method or strategy is legit and is actually getting results?

The new rules have been discussed in several threads for nearly 10 days now.

Claiming you made $1000, $10,000, or $1,000,000 with your method isn't "proof". That's been one of the primary problems with income claims (including screenshots of PayPal accounts, etc., which can easily be faked) all along.

(Edited to add: Just took a look at the first page of the WSO section - boy does it look different!!

)

Thanks
1 reply

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[9798828].message }}

shafiqq07

7 years ago

Originally Posted by Cali16

The new rules have been discussed in several threads for nearly 10 days now.

Claiming you made $1000, $10,000, or $1,000,000 with your method isn't "proof". That's been one of the primary problems with income claims (including screenshots of PayPal accounts, etc., which can easily be faked) all along.

(Edited to add: Just took a look at the first page of the WSO section - boy does it look different!!

)

Indeed,very helpful for a beginner like me so that won't be blinded by those huge income.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9798868].message }}

cooler1

7 years ago

Since the new WSO rules, there have been WSO's closed which provide software that searches sites such as Craigslist. But in the Warrior's for Hire section there are still loads of services being sold for high PR backlinks, etc..

So the WF owners are saying it's wrong to use software that searches classified ad sites and the like, but manipulating Google's algorithm with paid backlinks is okay.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9799376].message }}

Alexa Smith

Banned 7 years ago

Originally Posted by cooler1

So the WF owners are saying it's wrong to use software that searches classified ad sites and the like, but manipulating Google's algorithm with paid backlinks is okay.

No; I don't think they're really saying that at all: they're perhaps saying more that there are only so many of them available to do this work, that it takes time and care, that they can't do everything at once, and that WSO's are where they're starting (many months later than was indicated, perhaps, but at least they are apparently "starting", now?).

The subject of "backlink software" is a long-contentious and thorny one. At one point, the forum's previous owner did exclude and disallow a lot to do with "paid backlinks", but subsequently changed his mind about it, and as far as I know they're permitted at the moment. (I'd far rather see them all prohibited, myself, but I'm sure that's a minority view, as most of mine probably are, in this context).

There are various different "categories" and "classifications" of "what's ok", aren't there, really?

There are things that are clearly illegal, under the criminal law ("fraudulent").

Then there are things that are clearly or less clearly non-FTC compliant (like some of the WSO income claims currently being dealt with).

Then there are things that "just breach third-parties' terms of service".

Then there are things that probably aren't illegal but are clearly unethical and/or immoral (two different things, of course).

And then there are things that aren't even unethical, but just very stupid and potentially damaging to people's businesses.

And then there are also perhaps things that don't fall into any of the above categories but can still bring the forum into disrepute.

Nobody can (should) suggest that all of those things are equally urgent and important? Or that they should all be dealt with together? Or even that that any of them is exactly "clearcut". So even people like me who whine and complain all the time

are more or less obliged to acknowledge that it's never going to be easy, and that with all the goodwill in the world, there are still going to be anomalies. However, if your main argument is that it's sometimes desperately slow to "get very obvious problems fixed" around here, and that both the forum and its users suffer unnecessarily as a result, then yes: rightly or wrongly, and for all my intolerance, I do agree with you completely about that.

.

[ 3 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9799398].message }}

Craig B

7 years ago

Originally Posted by JakeStatler

..Sounds like an easy way for scammers or newbies to come in and quickly create "theory-based" products since no one can provide examples and proof of results or talk about how much we've made with a particular strategy that we're now teaching..

This made me laugh as that section has always been full of scammers. I've seen so many faked income claims in the WSO section that I never take any of them serious.

Some sellers were so lazy that they goofed up the screenshots and they were obvious fakes. Others show PayPal screenshots where it is obvious all their sales came from WSOs just by looking at the prices (I'm not talking about the WSOs on selling other WSOs, which are pointless anyway).

I think the forum is moving in the right direction on this one. Those so-called "income proofs" were a joke anyway.

Originally Posted by cooler1

So the WF owners are saying it's wrong to use software that searches classified ad sites and the like, but manipulating Google's algorithm with paid backlinks is okay.

Big difference there. The classified ads software is against the terms of service of most classified ads sites and actually uses the site. Thus, the classified ads sites can file a lawsuit if they wanted to.

On the other hand, there are no legal issues with selling links on one's site. After all, it is their own site. Spamming other sites is a different matter though.

Thanks

Signature

FREE COURSE

6 Figure Local Lead Generation Business System

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9800459].message }}

nicoli

7 years ago

I for one was made to edit my WSO to remove income claims, including my Paypal and Teespring screenshots. It has certainly affected the numbers of sales and the entire WSO sub forum has gone pretty quiet!

I understand the reason behind it, and agree with their cause, but would love the opportunity to be able to prove income claims to admins (hell, I'd even give them temporary limited logins to my PP and other accounts) to keep sales threads alive.

There are certainly better ways to weed out the scammers than this rather abrupt move.

Still happy to stick around and continue to launch some WSO's but I know I am not the only one who is beginning to put their efforts and advertising funds into alternative channels.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9799390].message }}

Elvis Michael

7 years ago

Originally Posted by nicoli

I for one was made to edit my WSO to remove income claims, including my Paypal and Teespring screenshots. It has certainly affected the numbers of sales and the entire WSO sub forum has gone pretty quiet!

I understand the reason behind it, and agree with their cause, but would love the opportunity to be able to prove income claims to admins (hell, I'd even give them temporary limited logins to my PP and other accounts) to keep sales threads alive.

There are certainly better ways to weed out the scammers than this rather abrupt move.

Still happy to stick around and continue to launch some WSO's but I know I am not the only one who is beginning to put their efforts and advertising funds into alternative channels.

You may be onto something here. I would post your ideas on the main Feedback section, or try to work closely with the higher-ups to brainstorm a better solution together.

I don't think your suggestion about providing "temporary limited logins to your PP account" will be well-received, but you are still voicing your overall concern, which is really what matters. It's a great start.

I fully support what the WF is trying to do, but this is also affecting legitimate people with actual income proof.

As it stands, this new rule resolves one big problem, but it also creates another.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

-- Over 5,000 Blogs that Accept Guest Posts --

Click to View the Largest List Available Online

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9800308].message }}

nicoli

7 years ago

I may do, however the good thing is that sales of the product on our higher priced product site have soared since we put efforts back into promoting that so I'm going to think about my and my two businesses strategy without using WF at all. We have just over 20 new products ready to launch but see far better potential pushing these elsewhere now.

In my 12 years on the warrior site (lost my old account when I went offline for a few years

) I've seen a lot of changes, but honestly, the FL takeover has been the worst and a lot of the good people have left. The solid marketers and good guys are being replaced with these types of self proclaimed gurus and the sarcasm and arrogance now far outweighs the community and "team" synergy this place once had.

Just take a look at the Alexa rank. Still on the way down and diving sharper than ever.

The juries out for me on this place but will still keep an eye on it as any vigilant marketer should.

Originally Posted by Epic Passive Income

You may be onto something here. I would post your ideas on the main Feedback section, or try to work closely with the higher-ups to brainstorm a better solution together.

I don't think your suggestion about providing "temporary limited logins to your PP account" will be well-received, but you are still voicing your overall concern, which is really what matters. It's a great start.

I fully support what the WF is trying to do, but this is also affecting legitimate people with actual income proof.

As it stands, this new rule resolves one big problem, but it also creates another.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9800652].message }}

JensSteyaert

7 years ago

Originally Posted by nicoli

I for one was made to edit my WSO to remove income claims, including my Paypal and Teespring screenshots. It has certainly affected the numbers of sales and the entire WSO sub forum has gone pretty quiet!

I understand the reason behind it, and agree with their cause, but would love the opportunity to be able to prove income claims to admins (hell, I'd even give them temporary limited logins to my PP and other accounts) to keep sales threads alive.

There are certainly better ways to weed out the scammers than this rather abrupt move.

Still happy to stick around and continue to launch some WSO's but I know I am not the only one who is beginning to put their efforts and advertising funds into alternative channels.

You got contacted and asked to edit your Wso page?

Just wonder.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Join ADZbuzz Here:

ADZbuzz Social Network And Content Discovery Platform

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9800665].message }}

nicoli

7 years ago

Originally Posted by JensSteyaert

You got contacted and asked to edit your Wso page?

Just wonder.

Yes, a member here reported it 18 times. And yes, it makes you wonder

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9800667].message }}

JensSteyaert

7 years ago

Originally Posted by nicoli

Yes, a member here reported it 18 times. And yes, it makes you wonder

Wow that's low...

I thought it might have been the mods here who contacted you about the new rules or something.

I've been really busy, i heard something about new rules but didn't pay too much attention, luckily i found this thread and found out changes must be made by january 12.

So how are they going to enforce this rule about income claims (or any other rule for that matter), anybody knows this? I'll make changes but they're not going to just close down your Wso without notice right?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Join ADZbuzz Here:

ADZbuzz Social Network And Content Discovery Platform

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9800693].message }}

nicoli

7 years ago

Yeah, some people don't have a life haha! You'll need to edit yours now too to comply.

You won't get banned, your existing threads willl be moved temporarily and new ones showing income claims, even though they are highly likely real ones, won't get approved.

Originally Posted by JensSteyaert

Wow that's low...

I thought it might have been the mods here who contacted you about the new rules or something.

I've been really busy, i heard something about new rules but didn't pay too much attention, luckily i found this thread and found out changes must be made by january 12.

So how are they going to enforce this rule about income claims (or any other rule for that matter), anybody knows this? I'll make changes but they're not going to just close down your Wso without notice right?

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9800699].message }}

Valdor Kiebach

7 years ago

The new WSO rules are here:
Warrior Forum - The #1 Internet Marketing Forum & Marketplace - Announcements in Forum : Warrior Special Offers

Maybe you need to read them then there wont be any more surprises.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9799394].message }}

netbroker 7 years ago

This is defiantly a good rule in my opinion... All those copy and pasted screen shots of earnings etc etc to beef up the sales copy and lure you into a false sense of Earnings can become tiresome.. I cant understand why a WSO do it.. it is obvious... more sales..

But some of the WSO`s copy is borderline fictional to say the least.. Why not be transparant with your WSO, speak the truth including how much it is to set up.. what the cost and time involved is.. and then show a reasonable profit in what you can achieve..

Screen shots.. PayPal accounts.. click-bank earnings, do not interest me to be honest. It is none of anyone's business how much I have earned. I will tell you what can be achieved and what possibly you can make from the product.. but like any WSO`s, it takes patience, time ,energy and sometimes a little luck to succeed.

Netbroker
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9799418].message }}

BaukeV

7 years ago

Some in this thread are suggestion income statements are no longer allowed at all, but in Alaister's thread I'm just reading that they need to be backed up with proof? How is that even a bad thing...

Thanks

Signature

You've been Robbed And Lied To When It Comes To Making Money Online
FREE 4-Part Video Series Reveals How I Built My $5,000 / mo Online Business In Just 2 Months...

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9800318].message }}

Geeked Labs

7 years ago

Seems like an absolutely terrible idea. Imagine a personal trainer not being able to give weight loss, or muscle gain claims? Imagine a doctor not being able to give recovery rate claims. I'm not a WSO seller because I don't like the market, but if I was an WSO seller this would make me stop offering WSOs.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9800326].message }}

cooler1

7 years ago

Originally Posted by Geeked Labs

Seems like an absolutely terrible idea. Imagine a personal trainer not being able to give weight loss, or muscle gain claims? Imagine a doctor not being able to give recovery rate claims. I'm not a WSO seller because I don't like the market, but if I was an WSO seller this would make me stop offering WSOs.

The way the rule is worded, it sounds like you can state the potential income in your sales copy, but you can't say how much you've personally made unless the income can be verified through Warrior Payments.

Rule #17: Income Claims & Guarantees

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.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9800355].message }}

ForumGuru

Banned 7 years ago

Originally Posted by cooler1

The way the rule is worded, it sounds like you can state the potential income in your sales copy, but you can't say how much you've personally made unless the income can be verified through Warrior Payments.

Here are examples of some of the things you are not allowed to say:

Originally Posted by danieljb

Thank you all for your input regarding the new rules, particular Rule 17.

Eliminating questionable income claims is one of the most important features of the new rules. We know that a lot of buyers are potentially being misled with current income claims and promises of income if the buyer were to purchase the WSO.

Here are some examples to clarify what is an income claim:
- 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.

Under the new rules, any such statement is not permitted in the WSO Marketplace, which includes all sub-forums.

We require all sellers to read through the rules thoroughly and adjust any offers accordingly.

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

Cheers

-don

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9800380].message }}

AmanD

7 years ago

Originally Posted by JakeStatler

..Sounds like an easy way for scammers or newbies to come in and quickly create "theory-based" products since no one can provide examples and proof of results or talk about how much we've made with a particular strategy that we're now teaching..

Any thoughts???

I think the problem is it was easy for the scammers and newbies to make false claims about the earning potential of their WSOs, thereby fooling some people.

Nobody making income claims were actually providing any real proof anyway, so it's meaningless.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9800553].message }}

JensSteyaert

7 years ago

"Rule #17: Income Claims & Guarantees

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. "

Well that's interesting, in my Wso i actually promote people's affiliate link on the Wso page. So that basically means because i help people get their first sale my Wso will be illegal then? Or am i missing something?

Thanks

Signature

Join ADZbuzz Here:

ADZbuzz Social Network And Content Discovery Platform

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9800651].message }}

pilot47

7 years ago

I don't know about you guys, but I think this puts things more into perspective, actually...
there won't be any offers that "how I made $500 by doing this" and it's outdated-only-worked-once information.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Be grateful for everything you have.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9800909].message }}

nicoli

7 years ago

Originally Posted by pilot47

I don't know about you guys, but I think this puts things more into perspective, actually...
there won't be any offers that "how I made $500 by doing this" and it's outdated-only-worked-once information.

How I made and how I make have extremely different meanings

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9800914].message }}

JakeStatler

7 years ago

Originally Posted by pilot47

I don't know about you guys, but I think this puts things more into perspective, actually...
there won't be any offers that "how I made $500 by doing this" and it's outdated-only-worked-once information.

I can totally agree with this, and at the same time it can make it difficult for those who do have a really great method for making money.. bittersweet.. but if it's verified I think it should be allowed (no clickbank "screenshots")

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9823488].message }}

XponentSYS

7 years ago

Originally Posted by JakeStatler

I can totally agree with this, and at the same time it can make it difficult for those who do have a really great method for making money.. bittersweet.. but if it's verified I think it should be allowed (no clickbank "screenshots")

I agree with the notion that makes it "harder" to sell a legit product if you can't make legit income claims - just because you've run it all through a different processor.

I will point this out for everyone though....,

"Harder" doesn't mean impossible, you've just got to be able to produce copy with big enough balls to sell without the income claims - or find a copywriter with the chops to do it.

Trust me, it can be done,

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"Hybrid Method" Gets 120,846 TARGETED VISITORS
To Any Site in ANY NICHE!
NOW FREE IN THE WAR ROOM! CLICK HERE!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9823513].message }}

XponentSYS

7 years ago

Originally Posted by XponentSYS

I agree with the notion that makes it "harder" to sell a legit product if you can't make legit income claims - just because you've run it all through a different processor.

I will point this out for everyone though....,

"Harder" doesn't mean impossible, you've just got to be able to produce copy with big enough balls to sell without the income claims - or find a copywriter with the chops to do it.

Trust me, it can be done,

I don't uaually quote myself BUT.........

I forgot to mention that nobody said anything about TRAFFIC PROOF........ SOCIAL PROOF.

The name of the game is to think outside the box. When there's not a way, there are 10,000 others.

Thanks

Signature

"Hybrid Method" Gets 120,846 TARGETED VISITORS
To Any Site in ANY NICHE!
NOW FREE IN THE WAR ROOM! CLICK HERE!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9823560].message }}

Bob Reynolds

7 years ago

I read that it had to be verifiable, as in if the sales went down with W+ those figures would be allowed. I have not seen the email, this is only what I was reading in one of the other posts. I see both sides, there are people that spout of income claims that look real, and they are making it more difficult for those that are non scammers. the fake it til you make it crowd I call them

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

http://successwithbob.com/welcome

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9801012].message }}

nicoli

7 years ago

Originally Posted by Bob Reynolds

I read that it had to be verifiable, as in if the sales went down with W+ those figures would be allowed. I have not seen the email, this is only what I was reading in one of the other posts. I see both sides, there are people that spout of income claims that look real, and they are making it more difficult for those that are non scammers. the fake it til you make it crowd I call them

ONLY warrior payments can be used to verify income claims so :

1) It's a business decision in order to push people to use warrior payments instead of the other platforms and using the excuse of protecting buyers from scammers (smart move but can see through it like glass)

2) The only income through that platform is going to be sales of your actual product so you will only be able to show income of your sales HERE which is useless unless you are selling a product on how to sell with warrior payments (theres an idea for you newbies stuck for a product idea)

3) They should have employed a method in which we can allow them to verify our claims. At least that's what a smart business owner would have done.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9801024].message }}

JakeStatler

7 years ago

Originally Posted by Bob Reynolds

I read that it had to be verifiable, as in if the sales went down with W+ those figures would be allowed. I have not seen the email, this is only what I was reading in one of the other posts. I see both sides, there are people that spout of income claims that look real, and they are making it more difficult for those that are non scammers. the fake it til you make it crowd I call them

Or just keep faking it again and again.. but I know what you're saying (;

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9804889].message }}

WD Mino

7 years ago

Warrior + is a separate entity warrior payments is the warrior forums platform. They are saying unless you can be verified through the warrior payment system not w+ or any other, than income claims are not o.k. if they can verifiy they are because they themselves who are the facilitating platform can prove your story. I suspect this is done to improve the fact for years the section has been filled with over the top bs.
I say hats off to Fl for at least trying to do something rather than just approving any and all for the sake of profits.
Not an easy job and certainly not a task that can be achieved overnight but at least it is a start.

Best,
-WD

[ 2 ] Thanks

Signature

"As a man thinks in his heart so is he-Proverbs 23:7"
Coming Soon http://graphicsdon.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9804912].message }}

ronyoung

Banned 7 years ago

I think its game changing , but will also be a hit to warrior forums income because much of what the wsos do have income mentions

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9823519].message }}

sal64

7 years ago

quite the opposite...

It stops the snake oil sellers from hyping up crap results to rip off newbs.

Theory? Most books out there are based on theory and ghost written.

If people want to claim that their product is 100% then let them live or die by their promise.

If someone puts out a WSO oh how to use FB ads, then I'm cool with that as long as it has been properly researched and is accurate.

All in all, I like the new rules.

Hopefully the quality of WSO's will improve accordingly.

Originally Posted by JakeStatler

Just got an email from the warrior forum explaining that all WSOs must remove any income claims or income statements from WSO copy or title. This means if you made $1000 selling a certain product in a certain way and you create a WSO to show others how the method works, you cannot tell them you made $1000..

Did anyone else get this message? Did I read this wrong? It seems like they were pretty clear in the email..

Won't this make it hard to prove our method or strategy is legit and is actually getting results?

..Sounds like an easy way for scammers or newbies to come in and quickly create "theory-based" products since no one can provide examples and proof of results or talk about how much we've made with a particular strategy that we're now teaching..

Any thoughts???

[ 2 ] Thanks

Signature

Internet Marketing: 20% Internet - 80% Marketing!
You Won't See The Light Until You Open Your Eyes.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9823773].message }}

grafx77

7 years ago

I actually received my 1st rejection today, NOT for any detailed income claims, false promises of income figures, or screenshots, but because some of the statements within my body copy say things like...

- "show you exactly how to make real money on....."

- "Actually, making money on XXX is easy..."

- "In fact, XXX is one of the best money making..."

This is taking things a bit too far and is NOT what is stated by Alaistar here: http://www.warriorforum.com/warrior-...ml#post9807613

So it seems we can't even mention the word "income" or "money" or "cash" on our WSOs.

I am now checking to see if we can even utilize the words "potentially", "could", "possibly", etc when making any kind of statement with the word income/money/cash.
Example: "Could potentially make an incredible income"

Don't get me wrong, I love the fact that no one can use those cheesy screenshots or claims of making $500 per day, but not being able to mention ANYTHING about money seems like their over-reaching here.

This is the worlds largest "Internet Marketing" forum (maybe not for long the way things are going) and the entire purpose behind "marketing" is to gain exposure and generate revenue!

When it comes down to it, all buyers want to know is IF your traffic methods, ranking tactics, and paid advertising venues are going to make them money.........we just shouldn't promise them how much as that is relative to each individual.

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9826239].message }}

Lightlysalted

7 years ago

I think it's a good move. There are so many scammers claiming you can make $1000 a day, so removing these claims entirely is an excellent idea, that way it's more about promoting the benefits of the product rather than making wild claims that may or may not be possible to prove.