So...to avoid all that it's better to be HONEST.

I hope they crack down big time.

I agree but I think it's just a statement the starter of this thread picked out rather than an official charge.

They actually state... the promised products and services were worthless and “expert” coaches lacked the promised knowledge and experience.

It's not really vague in my opinion. I might be wrong, I am no lawyer, but it seems to me that if someone is pitching themselves as an expert and saying hey look I have been where you are now but I overcame it and I know how to show you how to do it too... but they really do not know how to (1) really do what they are saying they did to earn money or (2) how to effectively show someone else to be able to do the same thing... then they are misrepresenting themselves in their claims.

Outside of the IM world these things are pretty well-known. I think this is why the FTC sees this industry as one that is running out of control. I mean the claims made on a daily (hourly?) basis are amazing when you really think about it. I realize a lot of people look at it like well surely people should have enough sense to not fall for such claims but that does not change the fact that if these guys and gals were doing this in any other industry / offline they'd be buried fast. For some odd reason it seems like on the Internet people think anything goes. So what if people embellish and exaggerate and misrepresent themselves or their products. I mean we have seen it so much I think we are almost blind to the fact that what they are doing is not only simply wrong it is most likely illegal.

GOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Prime example is the posting I posted yesterday on WF about an instance of trying to mislead. What's wrong with honest advertising. If done right you come out better on the top b/c people know what to expect and trust that what they purchase from you is EXACTLY what they will get. Now that is WINNING!

They would have a field day in the ClickBank marketplace first. Like shooting fish in the barrel for them.

I have to point something out here. I don't have any software I sell but there is software I use and I feel like I need to say this.

Programs are just a tool. They automate something so you can do more of it or do it automatically.

If you do not already have a game plan and experience success with something on a small scale there is no reason to scale it up or automate it. A lot of programs work great but they are just tools, you still need your game plan in order to realize the results.

I see a lot of people who are new to SEO buying software and then thinking its a scam just because they don't really know how to use it properly and how to combine it with everything else they need to do.

Couldn't agree more about the refund policy and adhering to it as well as hiring ample staff do deal with all the customer service issues that can come into play...I've seen 10-20 different continuity clients come and go in the past 6 months all because their charge backs and not providing full refunds if consumers weren't pleased with the product...

Chargeback %'s for companies that require credit card processing are the key, dont lie, refund if someone requests one, and make sure the product or service you're offering the consumer is accurate and provides value to the consumer...seems simple but if there are shortcuts that can be taken to make a quick buck, there are people out there that will do so.

I doubt that they would shut the forum, since it is a small percentage of the advertisers doing the blatant dishonest stuff.

Some of the people targeted in Operation Empty Promises were running ads on the major news network websites. Those websites seem to have survived the smack-down that their advertisers got.

Only honest people would belong to an IM Trade Association, and they are not the people causing the mischief...

That needs to be pointed out to the moderators of the forum and is easy to do.

When you find a WSO with a fake screen shot, hit the button that looks like this:

The moderators will promptly investigate and if the screen shot is found to be faked, the WSO is usually disabled and the seller banned.

Just be careful to be absolutely certain it is a fake screen shot, because people who falsely accuse others are often dealt with the same way as people who fake screen shots are dealt with.


p.s. Also take time to read this forum sticky: http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...moderator.html

You can PM them to me. Just make sure you've got real evidence, rather than speculation.

If you've got proof, I want to see it.


Paul

Faked screen shots are a growing problem in the WSO's. In the last 2 weeks I've identified and reported a number of them. Often, sellers are not banned, and return to run another wso.
_____
Bruce

[DELETED]

That's probably why ClickBank doesn't make it on to the FTC's radar. They have a very generous, no questions asked refund policy even beyond their stated 60 days. If people get their money back they probably won't go and report it to places like the FTC.

You must be very selective about what you read that has been written by me.

Given an honest assessment, it would be hard to prove your assertion.

My signature doesn't even point to my article company. In fact, my signature doesn't even suggest I own one.


p.s. If you don't believe I am trustworthy, then you should not buy from me ever.

Another useless whiner.

If I was a moderator, you and Mike would be banned right now. The only reason you aren't, is because threads like these and the whiners they inevitably attract, can be quite educational, and entertaining at the same time.

If you have a problem with the way this forum is run, then perhaps you should make sure to let the door hit you on the ass on the way out, and go start your own forum.

Same goes for you Mike, it seems you like to whine about a whole lot of topics and practices within the IM niche, such as up-sells, exit pops etc. Make sure the door hits you to, and make sure it is hard.

Chris

[DELETED]

It's almost as though we don't have a democratic republic, and we're just supposed to throw our hands up as though we have no control over these decisions.

As far as adapting to this - good luck on that.

Ernie, you're absolutely right. Having big brother meddle in the internet for the "greater good" is only going to have detrimental consequences, and crush creativity, innovation and entrepreneurialism here.

When they start "regulating" things here, you'll see the free market gradually go away, and this will ultimately decrease revenues generated and overall profitability. We can already see some repercussions occurring from the state governments wanting to have a hand in tax revenues from Amazon, and it doesn't look good.

Let's hope we don't experience any more serious government intrusions on our internet business activities.

The Internet was founded by the government not on any free market principles. Ripping off people has been illegal for a long time. Before the Internet. They used to tar and feather snake oil salesmen.

[DELETED]

Mike, I have heard the story.

It reminds me of an engagement I had with my oldest last night.

He got in trouble, then threw himself on the floor and started throwing a tantrum because he got in trouble.

So I deliberately pissed him off by telling him he was a "drama queen" and suggesting that "he is the only 10yo I know that behaves that way." (That really pisses him off, because he is actually 11yo.)

When I asked him why he behaved that way, he had the balls to tell me that "he is just more sensitive than other children his age."

I told him, "Bull****. You are just using that as a crutch to excuse your bad behavior."



Now Mike, I have heard your story, so you really don't need to share it again here...

But honestly, you can control that part of you... You simply choose not to do so...

If it is what you described, then you should type your reply, sit on it for 20 minutes, then review it with a clear mind, before hitting the button that says, "Submit Reply".

Never respond to anything when you are angry or agitated... Always clear your mind and review your post, before you submit it...

If you were to do that, you would find that you will piss off fewer people.

After all, you should only piss someone off, when you intend to do so...

Don't use your condition as a crutch to explain your bad behavior...

Instead, take the recommended steps to avoid your bad behavior, and we might start taking you a little more seriously.

That was my initial thinking. I only skimmed that article, but from what I picked up on many (most?) of the companies that were busted had high pressure boiler room operations set up. I'm guessing the scammers in the WSO forum are pretty small potatoes by comparison.

Having grown up on a horse ranch, I can also attest that not all who appear to be cowboys are really cowboys.

Watch it, Paulie, someone is bound to believe cow tipping is real with that kind of talk.

Their emails may be annoying, but they aren't spam. You opted into their lists, and therefore started receiving promotional emails from them - spam only applies to unsolicited bulk emails. Please get your terminology straight.

I had a talk yesterday with a guy that illustrates the point I want to make. HE said he wanted to buy one 7/11 and work that into HUNDREDS of 7/11s. He would then make over $700,000 a month. That is about $8.4million a year. He THEN said that 7/11 should NOT have allowed people to get 1000+ 7/11s. He speaks of how millionares would know people that work for them, but billionares won't. Interesting thoughts.

Anyway, many think of the internet almost like brick and mortar. After all, there are ~7 billion people. Never mind that most probably can't buy from you on the internet. So how is an "automated wealth system" impossible? It can definitely work for hundreds, or even thousands. I'll ask you what I asked him. Where should the cutoff be? HE said about 100 per person.

Steve

Yeah, CB with calling themselves a vendor, and having access to the product, is treading on thin ice. That IS a major lawsuit waiting to happen. Of course, paypal, CJ, etc... can't say the same thing. CB IS a bit unusual in this regard.

Steve

It's very easy to say stuff like this, and it probably makes you feel all warm and fuzzy and righteous, but it ignores the realities of the situation.

Mechanics. Processes. Standards and definitions.

First, you have to throw out words like "crap," "rehash," and anything else that can't be objectively defined. I buy a fair amount of WSOs, some to learn from and some just to keep a general feel for what's being sold. I've seen stuff that I consider junk get good reviews from smart people who I know mean what they're saying. If they got something from it that will help them in their business, is it really crap, or just not useful to me?

I can objectively assess layout, grammar, clarity, product design, completeness, etc. I cannot objectively assess "crap" in most cases.

"Rehash" is even worse. The way it's used here, all it means is, "I've seen some part of some idea in this somewhere else before." So what? A lot of people haven't. That's like saying math textbooks are rehashed crap because we've already learned what they have to teach, and many of them haven't changed significantly in decades.

Hello... It's math. It doesn't change.

It's almost the same with "stolen." Sorry, folks, but no-one has the monopoly on techniques here. Copyright issues we can deal with, but that's a much narrower thing than "She's teaching the same thing."

Yes, I think it's sleazy for someone to grab another person's product and just rework it and sell it in the same market. But it's not something we can do anything about, even if we could prove they did that. Which, in most cases, would be impossible.

The word "scam" also has little meaning the way it's used around here. All I can glean from most such accusations is that the person using the word doesn't like something. The sane folks in the crowd would be surprised at just how many complaints I see that say, "It's a scam. Nothing but rehashed crap."

What part of that is a basis for taking action?

The process of vetting products before allowing them to be sold would be so time-consuming as to be impossible. Even if it were not, there'd be the matter of expertise. You'd need people who knew all about every field of the industry to qualify for that kind of effort. No-one knows that much about that many things in this business.

Not to mention that if we allow people to think that approving an ad constitutes an endorsement by the forum, we effectively remove the incentive for people to apply their own judgment.

That's a Really Bad Idea.

If you have a complaint about a product or seller, you need to report it. You need to be specific, and you need to be clear. Leave out any comments about the seller as a person.

That's it. Simple. And almost no-one follows that basic approach to reporting things. We get lots of noisy rants here about all the alleged evils going on in the WSO section, but very few specific complaints. The funny thing is, the people who make useful and valid complaints are rarely among the ones jumping on that bandwagon. Because they know the stuff gets dealt with.

It's a complaint-driven system, people. It's too big to be handled any other way. We do what we can up front, but in the end, it's up to you.

Now, if you want to improve the quality of the offers, that's something you can do much better than the moderation team. If the product doesn't measure up, mention that in the thread. Tell people what you think. If it's good stuff, tell them that, too. If it doesn't deliver, get a refund. Make suggestions for improvements. Give real reviews, not meaningless comments, like "Great stuff" or "This sucks."

And, as a personal suggestion, don't buy anything that makes specific income claims. Those are almost always the problem offers.


Paul

Doug,Yep. For sellers of products, not the places they advertise. Remember, the WF is not the merchant in a WSO. That's a different set of processes and mechanics.

Consider TV stations. They sell advertising to a relatively small group of merchants, for a whole lot more money, and they can't vet every ad. The seller is responsible for delivering on their promises. Not the broadcaster.

We do what we reasonably can to keep out the creeps, but in a system this size, there's going to be some that sneak through. When we're made aware of them, we take action.Impossible for us to know, in most cases. And that's a problem. It's why I've been telling people for years to ignore income claims and alleged "proof" of same.

I personally think income claims should be forbidden there, but that's not my call to make.I'm not sure who else you're talking about, but Mike was addressed in a tone appropriate to the one he consistently adopts when discussing this (or almost any other) moderation issue.

Spewing bile is not the way to earn civility. Mike will learn that at some point, I'm sure.

Keep in mind that the moderators actually see who's reporting specific incidents in useful ways. Comparing that list to the list of people who rant about the subject would shock you. There is almost zero overlap.

If a person rarely or never reports specific incidents, but talks at length about the "widespread problem," what does that suggest to you about their premise, or the credibility of their argument? Or their actual concern for addressing the problem in a practical way?

There are people who help us get things done, and there are people who rant about things not getting done. Again, very little overlap. Which group do you think we'd be wiser to listen to?


Paul

Okay see, but the thing is, I've DONE THIS, using mostly techniques I learned from Russell Brunson, Chris Farrell, and several other gurus.

If I'm just a totally regular guy, and I follow their advice, and now I have a huge monthly income while only working part-time hours, why shouldn't they be able to say that?

Russ

Been there, done that... And other experienced warriors have as well...

I always smile when people demand more "policing" of the wso section.

Personally, I don't really care about what is being offered. I "police" the offers by not buying them.

People need to take responsibilities for their purchasing habits. It is their decision if they want to buy the "push button make millions" product. The problem is people purchasing the same type of product over and over again and never being happy.

I wonder why?

Fool me once, shame on you... Fool me twice, well, I guess you deserve my money.

You can't protect people from themselves.

No one has been kicked off for Commenting Negatively on a product they purchased.

Comments on the product are accepted, making it personal and bashing the "person" can get you banned.

Bashing the product if you haven't bought it can get you banned also, especially if you persists when you are warned to stop commenting on a product you haven't purchased.

George Wright, EDIT: I should have said the Negative comments on a purchased product should be in the WSO thread in question. Bringing your negativity to the Main Forum can also get you in trouble.

Craigslist managers might view you exactly the same way...

In a truly free market, there is no need for a watchdog agency or regulation. The market itself is what drives success, outs scams and self regulates. The problem is we assume stupid people and their money should be protected. I am not advocating scamming by any means but if some dumbass hurts themselves because they leapt before looking or worse, bought into some pie in the sky BS good. Maybe they will think twice the next time.

Instead, just when the common sense gland starts tingling and they realized that the 47$ product they bought isn't going to make them a dime because they are a dumbass still after hitting submit.

Then the pain hits. The memory gets set and just when you would think, Good now they wont fall for it again cause they cant buy there Jerry Springer season 4 DVD now. They chargeback. And the next day they will repeat the process. Except it will be Season 5 after they get back from Walmart.

The chargeback situation avalanched into strong armed refund robbery, even for goods and services merchants are out in direct relation to consumer dumbassery. It's also why I don't sell my own info products because if I have to give them their money back does that mean I can take a hammer to their head to get my information back?

The FTC is just another crooked jack booted fed agency ran by government welfare leaches.

Surely this means that Clickbank is in the clear ?

Clickbank may have a load of hyped up c**p ( as well as some good stuff ) but at least you can get a refund easily enough through them.

So I would think that put CB in an even stronger position doesn't it ?

I seriously doubt the FTC would even REMOTELY have any serious issues with the Warrior Forum - for many of the reasons already stated. I'm not saying there isn't fraud going on (I don't know, but on a site/marketplace this big & popular, it's just the odds that it will happen).

But here's why I think they wouldn't be interested:

1) It's marketers marketing to OTHER marketers much of the time - NOT marketers marketing to a vulnerable population like most of the bizop scams the FTC goes after.
2) Even if someone IS a newbie - the WSO section has a FEEDBACK mechanism which allows buyers to get information (sure some of that can be faked & compensated reviews probably aren't disclosed sometimes, but my GUESS is that actually doesn't go on that much - and even if/when it does there are enough fair reviews).
3) Most WSO sellers will refund if there's a problem
4) Most WSO's are really inexpensive

I can't really see how the FTC would consider the Warrior Forum a "problem spot".

Actually, when it comes to the FTC, the SEC, and the like they typically DON'T do that. They typically ONLY go after the worst companies targeting the most vulnerable populations.

I know you are talking about the WSO section but in general terms, I would say that David Ogilvy would turn in his grave right about now haha.