FTC - why can't I just tell MY story...

The way I understand this issue is what you're describing isn't good enough. You have to tell people what the "average" results will be. It's insane. Not to get too political but I seriously wake up every day anymore and wonder if I'm still in the United States or not.

Again, I'm not a lawyer so take this information with a healthy dose of NaCl

Edit:

Here's the troublesome part of this new regulation:

Under the revised Guides, advertisements that feature a consumer and convey his or her experience with a product or service as typical when that is not the case will be required to clearly disclose the results that consumers can generally expect. In contrast to the 1980 version of the Guides - which allowed advertisers to describe unusual results in a testimonial as long as they included a disclaimer such as "results not typical" - the revised Guides no longer contain this safe harbor.

I'm not singling you out, but yours is the latest and uppermost thread on this topic. I came to it first.

Why are so many people looking for workarounds, loopholes and shenanigans instead of focussing on earning an "honest" living?

The rules have changed, marketing tactics have to follow suit and adhere.

I do a lot of work with the

http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/

It happens all the time in the UK in so many sectors such as alcohol where even a *voluntary* code is strictly adhered to.

Tom

Here is a good explanation on the whole subject....

http://masscontrolsite.com/blog/?p=59

"In a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary. Men are free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as their own individual judgments, convictions and interests dictate." - Ayn Rand

Unfortunately, we're headed in the opposite direction.

In other words, "Who is John Galt?"

Unfortunately, it is not I that doesn't get it. "WE" in a civilized society DO have that duty - not some nameless, faceless, government entity - but as individuals.

yes Frank I understand your point and I agree that it SEEMS that that is who they are targeting.

But if the law or rule is left vague and unclear to the point that no one here, even though they have read it, understands it, that allows the government the leeway to completely abuse the rule and target anyone they please.

At first, they'll set up a new task force to enforce the new rule. Then, once they have gotten rid of the obvious scammers, they'll go after the "sort of" scammers.

When they run out of those, the task force people will either lose their jobs or they will go to great lengths to identify other marketers they can target and they will interpret the rule looser and looser.

Pretty soon, they will go after Steve's Constipation Cure.

THAT is my problem with it.

FACT: if there is a law that the government can abuse for the self agrandizing power grab of one person, the law will be abused.

The law will be more understood after there are lawsuits and standards are set and case law is developed I would guess. As Frank Kern says in his blog entry, the FTC is complaint driven, which probably means if you take care of customers you perhaps will be less susceptible to being under the FTC "microscope".

ohhhh - that's good :p

Actually, while humorous, there is an example that relates directly to the new guidelines:


Activia is going to have to:

A: Prove that Jamie Lee Curtis no longer has irregular bowel movements and that this will be the "typical" results for all who eat it.

B: Disclose that she is being paid a "crap load" <pun intended> of money for endorsing Activia.

P.S. Did you catch that small print disclaimer during? I guess that won't be good enough anymore.

Knowing the "typical" results also pre-assumes that everyone who buys the product will engage in every step with an equal depth of peripheral knowledge and equal amount of time and effort. They are using faulty logic in the construction of their law. There is no way to equalize use, so how can we be expected to know typical results? Not possible in this universe.

While this law is purported to put false advertising to rest - it's target can be surmised by the size of the fines, which, unlike their points of mandate, they didn't seem to have much trouble spelling out very succinctly. We're talking fines of $11,000. $11,000 dollars? Now it's pretty obvious to me that they are NOT going after the major players......such as pharmaceutical companies. Is an $11,000 dollar fine impetus for a pharmaceutical company to publicly state that 25% of all people that use one of their drugs suffer from debilitating side effects or death from use of their product? They are after small businesses. Period.

$11,000 is the price that will put small businesses out of commission. Can you afford a direct hit like that? Now we are supposed to conform to this law by December 1st yet they have given no clear enumeration of the rules we are to play by. This is not a truth-in-advertising law. This is a law that will allow them to shut down any small businesses they want to shut down. There is only one reason on earth to enact such a law while avoiding making it completely clear in writing what EXACTLY can be done and what EXACTLY can not be done. Control. Completely arbitrary control.

This law is also not the only piece of legislation in the house right now that will subject the Internet to control by the gov. BTW

@Winebuddy.
I just read the whole PDF by the FTC.As to what your describing.
Theres an example in there about a lady who has a blog about her dog.Says she buys this NAME of dogfood.Gives her dog a healthy,shiny coat and hes full of energy.
Thats fine to say,no problem.Thats freedom of speech.
But,if the company sends her free dog food,or a check as an affiliate,she must disclose that she gets compensated in some way.
Thats it.Its her personal opinion and shes not telling anybody any numbers,days,ect...
Download the PDF.And look at it.
[5staraffiliateprogram] has it in a thread hes in.
Matt

Think you left out paid but you are SPOT ON. This is a paid testimonial and they do not disclose what the "typical" results are so the entire ad, under the new guidelines, will have to be changed.

or- they could do like car commercials and have a really fast talking guy at the end saying something like

"your results may vary or not be typical. These results are only experienced in 41% of test subjects. The typical results are that you won't see any difference in your poopiness."

Hey winebuddy,

Thanks for getting this thread started.

I'll say upfront, I apologize for the length of this thing...

In my humble opinion, I believe you can "just tell your story." The "disclaimers" needed depend on whether it's your product or not.

The way I read it, if it's NOT your product, (***DISCLAIMER*** I'm not an attorney, nor do want to be one! I don't work for the government, and no, I don't want to! This is just my OPINION***) you would need to have something like "if you purchase this product through my link, you will put a few dollars in my pocket and help feed my family and I thank you very much" or some sort of disclaimer letting the reader know you will profit somehow.:rolleyes:

If it is your product, then the "typical results" clause would kick in. I believe since the FTC doesn't specify how many people it takes to get an "average" or exactly what "typical" is (i.e. how big your "test" group has to be), it leaves that part wide open.

If you were to give out a few (let's say 10), copies of your product (not all of them should be "experts" in that field...some "regular" folk should probably be included), in exchange for their test data. And, you publicized that test data, or at least the averages (and you keep the records to prove your claims). My guess is that you may be alright in the eyes of this new rule.

Of course, you would need to constantly ask for each and every buyer to please send her/his results in to you so the "average" or "typical" can constantly be adjusted.

This probably means the end of setting up a site to sell a product, and not changing the sales letter for months/years, as the data that was good when the letter was written may not be good 6 months later. Much more maintenance will be required.

As far as the "average" vs. "typical" word in the new rules, I've not yet read all the way through it, and Frank, you're right (as far as I can tell), they don't ask for "averages." My assumption is that they will use the words "typical" & "average" interchangeably. I'd bet it stays that way unless a judge rules otherwise. That ruling would start a whole new chain of events.

And in my opinion, the discussion about "having a duty" to watch out for/take care of/whatever, comes down to the question of whether you value personal responsibility and freedom more or less than giving up some of each to make sure you're "taken care of." The more one wants to be "taken care of" the more of each of the above they can expect to give up.

The only person(s) I have a Duty to take care of, are those that to whom I've promised to do so, including myself. I have a feeling that morally, I should help out whenever and wherever I can, but NO, I do not "have a duty" to do so.

I myself, want government out of my life (and biz) as much as possible.

Yes, I'll concede that some guidelines are probably needed and necessary because of the shysters and thieves that prey on the people that society calls "helpless."

And, I'll concede that there are those who are physically or mentally incapable of taking care of themselves. We do, as a society, have a duty to help take care of those people. We do not have a duty to empower anyone to be more helpless than they already are, which is what a lot of government programs do.

On the other hand, when do we say enough is enough, stop trying to micromanage all the lives you (the government) come in contact with. And for God's sake, quite trying to tax us for all of your pet projects! A percent here, a percent there, it all adds up and eventually those paying the taxes revolt.

It really wasn't that long ago that England was losing a lot of its wealth to overseas locations due to stupidly high taxes. The story's the same in the U.S. :confused: Those who do not learn from history, are indeed doomed to repeat it!

I've got lots of opinions on this subject, but I'd better save them for sharing over a pint or two on a lazy evening.

What's the answer? I can't say for sure... But I'll give it a try

In my humble opinion, we don't need more rules and regulations piled on top of the book after book after book of them that are already in existence.

Simplify some, get rid of some and let's make a bunch of these rules/codes/laws more encompassing and less exclusionary.

The divisions only serve to increase costs and employ more court/oversight personnel and more attorneys to fight these rules. In most cases, I believe, the exclusion is created just to help a political ally, friend or donor. In others, it was just oversight that could be fixed by amending the law.

In my opinion, the only reason this is happening now is because a few "media companies" (should read; newspapers that can't figure out how to make money from the internet) that are politically well connected, complained when their party got into a position of power.

My belief is that "new rules" for the "bloggers" is completely unnecessary. The rules that already apply to print and mail order should be updated to include the word "bloggers" if that's where the hangup is, then enforced equally!

Hey Kev, to see how these things pan out, just a look at the pharmaceutical companies and the FDA...

I mean really have a look. I think you'll find that whoever donates the most to whatever party is in power at the time will be prosecuted the least, or will experience the most favorable outcomes.

From us "little guys" point of view, it probably depends on who can stay under the radar the best!

That's just my 2 cents worth (wow! 2 cents buys a lot of useless dribble these days!) and a few of my ideas.

Good luck to all and to all Plentiful Profits!

Rog

Winebuddy,

The new FTC laws are not vague at all. I definitely am in support of this move.
People see it as a negative & against free speech and all that, & simply they are afraid.

It's as simple as creating truth & transparency in your product or service.
And the simple way you do that is by creating an audit trail of everything that you claim, state, or sell. And ensure that the people assisting you in promotions of your product or service that they abide by your promotional (and FTC) guidelines.

As long as everything in your disclosures as well as in your marketing materials has a an audit trail that is clearly defined, you are completely safe.

What does that mean?
Yes, you can say you can make all this money with your product with a step by step method & you can have all the testimonials you want. However, if that information can not be backed up, verified & duplicated easily, then it's not valid.

Simply, people just need to be able to create an audit trail of information based on what your claims are.

Most people fall into the perception of easy money, make money fast, do nothing and make thousands. Desperation leads people into buying products when the salescopy is really good. Actual numbers that are stated ie "I made $8367 in my first month" along with a good story sounds convincing for many people but more often than not the problem is that they DON'T TAKE ACTION and they don't do what it takes to make money. Sad but true....

Andy

Only read the first 3 replies as kinda busy but this caught my attention and if we have to only put typical results on all IM products then that result is.....

90% to 99% of people who buy will make $0!

Can't really see anyone putting that on their sales pages though!

Tom Brite

International Servers FTW.

your hearts are in the right place in trying to make sense of this nonsense... but you guys need to realize that the FTC doesn't care about being "fair." When you accept that, it all becomes clear

The funny thing about all of this is that any book that has been pubished - even those from Harvard Press, about any kind of management topic, philosophy, theory, etc... could all be considered to be in violation of the FTC as they don't include the requisite "average results" etc...

Take for example, Jay Conrad Levinson's "Guerilla Marketing", a very popular marketing book. If the publisher continues to print the book without any of the requisite disclaimers, there's trouble for everyone involved.

The a$$hattery is big with this one.

"Average results" aren't always required.

[Insert standard CYA -IANAL, etc.]

Winebuddy/Steve, as I read the memo outlining the change, you as product creator, don't count. If you create some process and tell your own story, it's considered an advertisement, rather than a third-party endorsement.

Edit:

As an advertiser, you would still fall under the already established rules for advertising (documentation of claimed results, etc.)

Sal, you said:

Again, as I read it, that $11,000 fine is per incident, not per piece of creative.

If a drug company creates an ad that fails to make the proper disclaimers, the fine isn't $11,000 for the ad. It's $11,000 multiplied by the number of times the ad is presented. If an ad runs 10,000 times nationwide, times $11,000 per incident, the fine could be $110,000,000. $110 million in fines is definitely an impetus to comply.

By the same token, any company owner too stupid to appraise himself of the laws and regulations governing his endeavours shouldn't be in business.

And certainly any official of a registered or incorporated company should not be afforded leniency for breaking them simply because they could not be bothered to read the incorporation documents that they signed or familiarise themselves with the regulations governing the industry from which they erroneously profited.

Surely?

Also, why should a consumer be forced to read every single word in order to protect themselves from deception in cases where an unscrupulous marketer has either gone to great lengths to hide them or used them to cover themselves in regard to outlandish, false and misleading headline claims? Or in any other situation.

Consider this example:

If your child has a nut allergy and you give her a candy bar that has some five point copy hidden in the seal fold of the wrapper stating "may containing traces of nuts" and she ends up in the emergency room after eating it, who's fault is this?

1> Yours for being too "stupid" to take the time to search for and read the notification?
2> Hers for being "stupid" and trusting her father and eating it?
3> The confectionary company's for their great marketing tactic of hiding the warning away?
4> All of the above?

Wouldn't life be much simpler (and safer) if the warning was on the front, prominent enough so that a parent doesn't have to worry about putting their child's life at risk whenever giving her a treat?

Tom

So, company owners that don't bother to do their homework are at fault but consumers who don't bother to do their homework prior to purchasing need to be protected.

I guess you think that's fair.

BTW, in case I was not clear:

The above is, IMO, perfectly acceptable under the new FTC guide.

Let me ask, what percentage of companies do you think are unscrupulous marketers? What percent of companies do you think treat consumers unfairly?

"Nor should Example 6 to Section 255.0 be read to suggest that every appearance by a
well-known personality will be deemed an endorsement. As the Commission previously noted,
this example was added "to illustrate that the determination of whether a speaker's statement is
an endorsement depends solely on whether consumers believe that it represents the endorser's
own view." Id. Example 6 does not expand the scope of potential endorser liability but merely
"clarifies that whether the person making the statement is speaking from a script, or giving the
endorsement in his or her words, is irrelevant to the determination." Id. In this example, the
celebrity's statement that the home fitness system being advertised "is the most effective and
easy-to-use home exercise machine that she has ever tried" would clearly be understood by
consumers as an expression of personal belief. Moreover, new Example 7 to Section 255.0
presents a situation in which well-known persons who appear in advertising are not deemed to be
endorsers."

Well, honestly, to paraphrase the comedian Denis Leary, we could take cigarettes put them in a black pack with a skull and crossbones on the front with "you will eventually DIE if you smoke enough of these" in huge letters and the cigarette industry would still be a multi billion dollar business.

And people would still sue the tobacco companies for selling a dangerous product because they were not aware of the dangers. :-)

To take the candy bar example further, they would not only need to make warnings about peanut allergies prominent but also every other kind of allergy that might flare up from any combination of the ingredients.




Then, the legal battles would start because some obscure allergy that only .0001% of the population has was not included and those allergy sufferers feel discriminated against.

Then the various groups representing the various allergy sufferers would want to make sure their allergy were more prominently displayed on the wrapper.

Does the most common allergy need to be listed in larger font or a different color? OR maybe the really rare allergies should take prominence because they are so rare?

Millions of tax payer dollars would be wasted, millions of people would be directly or indirectly involved.

Or

Keep the candy wrappers as they are, and worry about the extremely rare and very few legitimate instances of allergic reactions on a case by case basis.


I get your point, I truly do.

My point is that most things could probably be resolved in a common sense fashion. Like say having an area on all ingredient labels dedicated to listing ingredients that typically cause allergic reactions would work well (although we know what would happen if somethign was left off by accident)

But instead we get crazy mezzy bloated expensive and wasteful solutions to most all issues/problems that end up helping practically no one.


The FTC is going to go after the big scammers but the little guys need to worried to, especially the affiliates of the big scammers. Once a company is cracked down on, the FTC can then begin to follow where the money and customers come from and that is where we will initially see the some of the smaller guys take a hit as a result of some sort of association with the bigger companies/scammers

So let's see, on that peanut warning, since the allergic reaction is NOT typical it should be stated as not typical and that the average response is happy feeling due to how wonderful the candy is. That would comply with the new FTC rules.

So why ain't the late night "Get Rich Quick" advertisments on the TV not getting hit with this rule too?

They are just as bad if not worse!!

Graeme

FTC hits prime time - front page of AOL....

'Results Not Typical' Banned From Diet Ads - That's Fit

The results stated are not typical.

The average buyer of this product prefers to sit on their ass and dream of making money , but never puts any real effort into it .

The United States have enough financial problems without using taxpayers money for this unnecessary intrusion.
Oh I forgot, the money comes from China.

Why can't you tell your story? I think the problem is when you use a testimonial from a CONSUMER who experienced a lot of success. Then you're making it sound like everyone who buys from you will see that level of success.

Pretty sure it deals only with testimonials from consumers, but obviously we should all check and get this clarified. Would be nice to verify this.

Lisa

More BS laws as usual...I wish I had a time machine that could bring me back to 1980's when the world WASN'T so F***ED UP.