Why cant mods authenticate wso's income claims?

87 replies
The clickbank has made this mandatory. I mean, i just checked you'll income claims will be checked by clickbank. Why cant we introduce something like this here?

Daily, we hear nothing works in wso section. There is lot of hype and looking at wso section reminds me of me looking at guru launches. Lot of false hope, but no real truth. Why cant we introduce something here to double check the earning claims of wsos?

If clickbank can do this, why cannot we? I know someone will jump and say mods are here already too busy. They voluntarily give their services, so we cannot burden them. What if we actually pay someone to verify it?

Let's say i post my wso for $40, then i i pay $20 extra to someone on wf helpdesk to verify my income claims. Some kind of seal, that marks the authenticity of wsos.

I am sure, there are plenty of bright minds here and they can get a solid process for this. My question is, if clickbank can do this to save their marketplace, why cant we do this to save our own wso section?
#authenticate #claims #income #mods #wso
  • Profile picture of the author Bill Farnham
    Originally Posted by ankur sharma View Post

    Let's say i post my wso for $40, then i i pay $20 extra to someone on wf helpdesk to verify my income claims. Some kind of seal, that marks the authenticity of wsos.
    Let's say we put the responsibility for buying products on the one place where it really belongs....the buyer.

    Transferring the responsibility and the liability to the classified advertiser is not only a waste of time, it's insane on many levels.

    Who's going to verify the data submitted for verification?

    Where does the process end?

    ~Bill
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3717774].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author KenThompson
      Originally Posted by Bill Farnham View Post

      Let's say we put the responsibility for buying products on the one place where it really belongs....the buyer.

      ~Bill

      I don't see this often enough, and you are exactly right.

      Too many people are too lazy and expect others, such as the rulemakers/enforcers,
      to do their thinking for them.

      Always a terribly bad idea.


      Ken
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3717831].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        What would you verify?

        If the seller earned $100k and proved it - so what?

        Doesn't mean the buyer will earn that amount?

        So will you then want to have "someone" follow the methods and see if they can replicate it? Is one person enough?

        If people stop buying dreams and expecting miracles, they won't be so disappointed.

        Maybe we should require buyers to prove they did more than 2 steps of a 10 step process before claiming "this doesn't work".:rolleyes:
        Signature

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

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3717855].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author KenThompson
          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

          Maybe we should require buyers to prove they did more than 2 steps of a 10 step process before claiming "this doesn't work".:rolleyes:

          Or Paypal should require proof the document was opened after
          it was purchased. Not only opened, but opened for a sufficient
          length of time to suggest it was completely read.

          It goes both ways.


          Ken
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3717874].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author John Broberg
        Originally Posted by KenThompson View Post


        Too many people are too lazy and expect others, such as the rulemakers/enforcers,
        to do their thinking for them.

        Always a terribly bad idea.


        Ken
        I have to agree with Ken.
        The rule is...

        caveat emptor

        They've been telling buyers to beware for 500 years. If you buy into having others verify income claims for you, then you give up thinking for yourself. Just know that outrageous claims rarely deliver.

        Producing content adds to your bank account. Buying content from others subtracts from it. If you want to make money, do more selling than buying. It's that simple.
        Signature


        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3717974].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Jeremy Kelsall
          For me, this is how I handle income claims...

          If someone posts a WSO or even a sales letter saying that they are making XXX,XXX amount of dollars...and doesn't post their real name - I don't believe it.

          If they post that they make XXX,XXX amount of dollars and do post their real name, but I can't find anything about them on Google - I don't believe it.

          As a seller, I don't think that I have ever:

          1.) Said how much money I make
          2.) Posted a screenshot of my income

          There definitely is a time and a place to prove your income, for me, most of the time running a WSO isn't the time or the place.

          Brian Kindsvater who is a member here on the forum, and a practicing attorney has made an offer before that he would verify sellers income if they wanted him to - Surprisingly, even after that, when buyers would ask a seller to let Brian verify their income - they declined...why do you think that is?

          9 times out of 10 when you see a screenshot with substantial income on it...guess where that income comes from? Selling Info products to newbs in the IM niche...

          Not through SEO
          Not through promoting CPA products
          Not Through selling websites
          etc
          etc

          ...but running a WSO or getting their homies to blast an email out for one of their IM niche products.

          Bottom line - If you buy a product because you see a huge screenshot and think that the seller made that money through anything other than pitching products in the IM niche...8 times out of 10 - you're a dumb ass.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3718008].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author scrofford
      [DELETED]
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3718442].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
        Bill,
        Simple math: Removing income claims = less WSO purchases = less happy WSO sellers = less WSO bumps
        If you really believe that's the reason for not banning them, you ought to be hanging out somewhere else.

        That aside, the math wouldn't work that way. One could just as easily argue that removing the income claims would lead to higher confidence and happier buyers, which would mean more bumps and more happy sellers. That could suggest that some folks who don't advertise here now would start.

        The arguments I just posted are no more knowable than your suggestion. It simply isn't that simple, no matter how much anyone might insist or believe it is.


        Paul
        Signature
        .
        Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3718486].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Bill_Z
          Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

          Bill,If you really believe that's the reason for not banning them, you ought to be hanging out somewhere else.
          Why, because the goal of this forum isn't to make money? The goal is to look out for the newbs to make sure they don't buy crap?

          Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

          That aside, the math wouldn't work that way. One could just as easily argue that removing the income claims would lead to higher confidence and happier buyers, which would mean more bumps and more happy sellers. That could suggest that some folks who don't advertise here now would start.
          Yes you could argue that, but easily? Doubtful.

          I don't think so. The reason alot newbie's buy all the trash in the WSO forum is because of the income claims and the *dream* that they can too make that kind of money.

          This is a private forum, correct? Your argument that "lawyers say it's a bad idea to ban income claims but don't ask me ask them" doesn't make sense.

          Don't you prevent bashing? Don't you prevent talk about other forums? Don't the mods delete and remove posts and threads at will with content that is not in the best interests of the forum?

          Please, lawyers, enlighten me...why would it be a bad idea for a private forum to say to WSO sellers that they can't make any income claims. Please, I'm ready to learn something here.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3718546].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author misterkailo
    I didn't know ClickBank is going to verify people's claims now. Is this posted somewhere? Link?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3717795].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
    Originally Posted by ankur sharma View Post

    My question is, if clickbank can do this to save their marketplace, why cant we do this to save our own wso section?
    Just watch what happens with Clickbank.

    This isn't going to work. It's a load of BS. Clickbank is just trying to put a policy in place. They're not actually going to stop or investigate anything.
    Signature
    "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3717801].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ken Strong
    Originally Posted by ankur sharma View Post

    Why cant we introduce something here to double check the earning claims of wsos?
    Here's an alternative idea, one that's been suggested a number of times already: How about a blanket ban on all income claims in WSOs? Or at the very least, the stupid, easily-faked screenshots.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3717819].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Bill Farnham
      Originally Posted by Ken Strong View Post

      Here's an alternative idea, one that's been suggested a number of times already: How about a blanket ban on all income claims in WSOs? Or at the very least, the stupid, easily-faked screenshots.
      So true.

      Income claims have no relevence to what the buyer can accomplish.

      If someone reads an ad for "Play the Guitar Like Eddie Van Halen in Less Than 5 Minutes a Day" and looks down at their short stubby fat fingers and thinks they can actually do that they're kidding themselves.

      At some point your personal skills, drive, and talents have to enter into the equation.

      All those claims are inherently worthless from the get-go.

      ~Bill
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3717895].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author MikeHumphreys
        Originally Posted by Bill Farnham View Post

        At some point your personal skills, drive, and talents have to enter into the equation.
        Spoken like a veteran marketer and I couldn't agree more.

        As the OP... the mods are already swamped with work now. It's not their responsibility to double check income claims. Even if they were, it would increase the time to get a WSO approved by days or even weeks.

        Personally, I look at the WSO seller's reputation as a key factor on what I may or may not buy. The folks who have been providing great value to WF for a long time start with more points on my score card before I even read their salesletter.

        My 3 cents,

        Mike
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3718216].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ankur sharma
          Originally Posted by MikeHumphreys View Post

          Spoken like a veteran marketer and I couldn't agree more.

          As the OP... the mods are already swamped with work now. It's not their responsibility to double check income claims. Even if they were, it would increase the time to get a WSO approved by days or even weeks.

          Personally, I look at the WSO seller's reputation as a key factor on what I may or may not buy. The folks who have been providing great value to WF for a long time start with more points on my score card before I even read their salesletter.

          My 3 cents,

          Mike
          That is true. I know mods already work a lot. But, income claims made in wso section has almost reached at epic nonsense level. You see a guy asking a question "How can i make money" and next week you see him posting wso "Here's how i made $1ok in 1 month". Its utterly ridiculous. Back in 2007, it was much nicer place. The actual wso meant lot of value and there was lot of experience put in every product. But now, the quality has decreased.

          Do not get me wrong, i know wso section is still loaded with ton of stunning products. I still purchase and learn lot of stuff from wso section. But i have seen, there are more crappy products here than older wso section.

          The primary reason is utterly easy way to vomit anything on pdf files and then post it anywhere on web. Thousands and thousands of people are now trying to make quick money on internet. They see wso section as easy way. You see countless posts on "If you want to make money, go post a wso". Why that?

          Its like wso section is kind of ATM and you can do whatever with it for quick cash. Thats what, may be clickbank has figured it out. They know , internet is filled with millions of people trying to make buck on internet. If they wont stop these crappy stuff. Clickbank will get very very bad name.

          Can you see the "Rise of automation". Automation is result of ton of crap. In just 2 months, we have seen big big panda algorithm from google, which was there only to kill automation tools. Now, we see clickbank rules to clear their backyard. They know, the ease of putting digital stuff on web will kill their business.

          Obviously, all of those who have posted here in threads are pros. You all guys are in this game for so so long. But daily thousands of newbies join wf. I have seen countless newbies falling for get rich schemes here.

          So, i guess may be if newbie wants to learn Im. First, he has to learn "The magic bullet" doesnt exist and he has to learn it in hard way.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3718256].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author lgibbon
      Banned
      Originally Posted by Ken Strong View Post

      How about a blanket ban on all income claims in WSOs?
      Why just WSO's?
      Most of the offenders are posting matching lectures
      on the main forum to suck in more victims.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3718041].message }}
    • Originally Posted by Ken Strong View Post

      Here's an alternative idea, one that's been suggested a number of times already: How about a blanket ban on all income claims in WSOs? Or at the very least, the stupid, easily-faked screenshots.
      I agree with Ken on a blanket ban for all income claims and screenshots. True, the buyer should always beware. But it's also true that deceptive advertising is a criminal act.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3718286].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author PPC-Coach
    Clickbank and any marketer that is full of crap with their income claims is playing with FIRE.

    The FTC is cracking down on these snake oil salesmen all the time now.

    I think it's a good thing, we can finally get rid of the false income claims that people use to sell everything.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3717827].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
    Banned
    Originally Posted by ankur sharma View Post

    The clickbank has made this mandatory. I mean, i just checked you'll income claims will be checked by clickbank. Why cant we introduce something like this here?
    Are you really freaking serious? Let's see ....
    Mods buy or get it free and them implement the method, no matter how long that takes.
    If they make money ... it's all good.
    If they don't it's all bad.

    If they do make money because they implemented, then Joe Schmuckaroo who doesn't implement will accuse mods of telling little lies.

    Oh ... and mods do have a life ... somewhat. And they aren't paid to be mods.

    How about this? Buyer do their own due diligence and take responsibility for purchasing decisions that they make.

    Buyers stop expecting the Internet to hire a babysitter for them.

    If buyer does not believe the income claim ... don't buy. Now there's an idea.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3717845].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author PPC-Coach
    LOL so if the buyer believed the fake, ridiculous claims it's THEIR fault for being stupid?

    How are they to know who is honest and who is full of it? They're constantly blasted with fake stats all day long.

    So there's no issue with the fake crap, but there is the inference that the purchaser is just stupid for believing it.

    That's whack.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3717866].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
      Banned
      Originally Posted by PPC-Coach View Post

      LOL so if the buyer believed the fake, ridiculous claims it's THEIR fault for being stupid?

      How are they to know who is honest and who is full of it? They're constantly blasted with fake stats all day long.

      So there's no issue with the fake crap, but there is the inference that the purchaser is just stupid for believing it.

      That's whack.
      It's always been common sense to me ... if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is, but I am aware that there are those who just want to believe that crap so baaaaad, that common sense doesn't enter into the equation.

      Do we go along with you/them to the mall to make sure that you don't get taken in by crafty misleading sales pitches? I mean, come on.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3717896].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Bill Farnham
      Originally Posted by PPC-Coach View Post

      LOL so if the buyer believed the fake, ridiculous claims it's THEIR fault for being stupid?
      Stupidy has nothing to do with this.

      If you are naive enough to believe all those "too good to be true" claims than you possibly need to learn some of life's bigger lessons.

      That doesn't make you stupid.

      ~Bill
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3717924].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Tsnyder
      Originally Posted by PPC-Coach View Post

      LOL so if the buyer believed the fake, ridiculous claims it's THEIR fault for being stupid?

      How are they to know who is honest and who is full of it? They're constantly blasted with fake stats all day long.

      So there's no issue with the fake crap, but there is the inference that the purchaser is just stupid for believing it.

      That's whack.
      No... what's whack is that anyone would even consider purchasing
      something based upon income claims. Anyone who does is...well... you
      said it... stupid.

      Tsnyder
      Signature
      If you knew what I know you'd be doing what I do...
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3719473].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Teravel
    I have personally purchased many WSO, mostly to find new business models or ways of driving traffic.
    I see people all the time saying "Nothing in the WSO section works!" and they cry and complain.

    The truth is, most (if not all) of the business models or traffic generation products in the WSO section do work. The problem is that people are lazy and think that some magic is going to happen that fills their bank by simply purchasing a digital book.

    Clickbank can't verify crap unless it goes directly through their site. Many marketers these days use server software to run their businesses, and only use Clickbank to pull in the sales of Affiliate marketers.

    Lets use an example...

    X = Website program that drives traffic to the website it was installed to.
    Q = Is an Internet Marketer that uses X on his blog.

    Q sets up a blog for his favored Niche (Doesnt matter, dont ask). He sets up his On-Site SEO, Installs X on his blog, Writes Articles to publish on a regular basis, pings each post, creates backlinks to increase Search Engine Ranks, and even posts an Article on a few high end directories for an extra boost.

    Q makes a bunch of sales, and decides to promote X because he made so much money. He creates a new website to promote X, and shows his stats from Analytics and his Affiliate sites.

    So how can Clickbank verify this? They would have to find traffic that didn't come from Search Engines, Article Syndication, Pings, Backlinks, and even Word of Mouth. Can we even prove if X drove any traffic to the site? Honestly, it would take a LOT of work, and you would have to split test by doing absolutely no promotion other than using X.
    Signature

    "Failure is feedback. Feedback is the breakfast of champions." -Fortune Cookie

    PLR Packages - WSO

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3718030].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mandark
    Here's an alternative idea, one that's been suggested a number of times already: How about a blanket ban on all income claims in WSOs? Or at the very least, the stupid, easily-faked screenshots.
    I agree with this. I would bet that many of the screenshots in WSOs are inflated at least a little.. using 'inspect element' in Chrome or firebug in Firefox, it takes literally seconds to change those numbers around. I never put income screenshots in my stuff because my real earnings can't compete with other peoples' fake earnings, and I refuse to participate in the lies.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3718046].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author cashcow
    I have a better idea and one that's a lot easier to implement.

    How about you just take any income claims with a grain of salt. That's what I do.

    See, the thing is even if the seller IS making the money claimed that does not mean that you will. And I'm going to venture a guess that most of the systems or methods to make money take a heck of a lot of work so it's up to the buyer to do the work, choose the right keywords, get the hard to get backlinks etc...

    As stated above, use your common sense with these things and buy accordingly. There is no magic easy button.

    Lee
    Signature
    Gone Fishing
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3718085].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
      I've long been a proponent of simply not allowing them. That said, I've seen very good arguments from actual lawyers, with experience in this area, about why that might not be a good idea.

      As far as verifying them... You clearly haven't thought that through.


      Paul
      Signature
      .
      Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3718160].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Tim_Carter
        Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

        I've seen very good arguments from actual lawyers, with experience in this area, about why that might not be a good idea.
        Care to share this info?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3718176].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
          Tim,

          I'd rather leave that to the lawyers in the group. There are a lot more of them than most members would probably expect.


          Paul
          Signature
          .
          Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3718195].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Jill Carpenter
        Originally Posted by Bill Farnham View Post

        Let's say we put the responsibility for buying products on the one place where it really belongs....the buyer.

        Transferring the responsibility and the liability to the classified advertiser is not only a waste of time, it's insane on many levels.

        Who's going to verify the data submitted for verification?

        Where does the process end?

        ~Bill
        And what ever happened to sellers actually building a good reputation and a personal following so they can sell to people who know them enough to know they are not full of bs? Heavens forbid someone should actually go out and spend some time trying to understand their niche and wanting to really help them.

        Building a name for themselves - yeah, I guess that is just too much work.

        By the way, even if income shots are not used there are a million and one other ways to put out the belief that someone is more successful than they really are.

        We allow fake pictures for profiles. People use pen names. Testimonials can be purchased. Do you honestly think just the enforcing of authenticated income claims is enough to get to the root of the real issue behind the problem?

        People need to do their own due diligence. They need to communicate directly with product creators, service providers, and even others who have testified in behalf of those people in the past, and form their own opinions on what is true.
        Signature

        "May I have ten thousand marbles, please?"

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3718219].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Originally Posted by ankur sharma View Post

    The clickbank has made this mandatory. I mean, i just checked you'll income claims will be checked by clickbank. Why cant we introduce something like this here?

    Daily, we hear nothing works in wso section. There is lot of hype and looking at wso section reminds me of me looking at guru launches. Lot of false hope, but no real truth. Why cant we introduce something here to double check the earning claims of wsos?

    If clickbank can do this, why cannot we? I know someone will jump and say mods are here already too busy. They voluntarily give their services, so we cannot burden them. What if we actually pay someone to verify it?

    Let's say i post my wso for $40, then i i pay $20 extra to someone on wf helpdesk to verify my income claims. Some kind of seal, that marks the authenticity of wsos.

    I am sure, there are plenty of bright minds here and they can get a solid process for this. My question is, if clickbank can do this to save their marketplace, why cant we do this to save our own wso section?
    NOBODY can do that, not even Clickbank! SURE, clickbank can check the PAYMENTS THEY have made, but WHO on the planet traacks all payments? NOBODY! And INCOME is worse, because WHO tracks all expenses? NOBODY! HECK, I once received a check for $250. How much did I make? TRICK QUESTION! I LOST $4750. The payment was on a $5000 theft. SURE, the FBI knew about that. Apparently nobody else did. EVEN the IRS(You know, the MASSIVE organization to find this out for US taxpayers) requires W2s, 1099s, etc... to try to approach INCOME. STILL, they require US taxpayers to double check, appeal for refunds, and possibly submit to audit. SIMPLY because NOBODY TRACKS IT!

    BTW misrepresenting clickbank statements COULD be considered LIBEL, FRAUD, and copyright infringment, not to mention violating TOS.

    BTW if it ever were tracked, HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of people could be OUT OF WORK! Auditors, IRS people, accountants, some investigators, lawyers, etc... I don't know how ANYONE could track it though. You would have to get rid of any bearer bond type stuff(the most popular US version is the US dollar). You would also have to mandate central control of any commodity. You would ALSO need to have ONE pipeline where both parties are identified. In the US, the first may be 80% done, the second maybe 30%, and the 3rd is done maybe 30%. SOME companies, through the ACH, and definitely through credit cards, comply nearly 100%, but that is it. And the IRS doesn't even bother wading through ANY of that stuff unless you are audited. The IRS just has investment firms, banks, and employers, send them summaries. Still, that is GROSS INCOME ONLY!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3718227].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Rod Cortez
    Originally Posted by ankur sharma View Post

    The clickbank has made this mandatory. I mean, i just checked you'll income claims will be checked by clickbank. Why cant we introduce something like this here?

    Daily, we hear nothing works in wso section. There is lot of hype and looking at wso section reminds me of me looking at guru launches. Lot of false hope, but no real truth. Why cant we introduce something here to double check the earning claims of wsos?

    If clickbank can do this, why cannot we? I know someone will jump and say mods are here already too busy. They voluntarily give their services, so we cannot burden them. What if we actually pay someone to verify it?

    Let's say i post my wso for $40, then i i pay $20 extra to someone on wf helpdesk to verify my income claims. Some kind of seal, that marks the authenticity of wsos.

    I am sure, there are plenty of bright minds here and they can get a solid process for this. My question is, if clickbank can do this to save their marketplace, why cant we do this to save our own wso section?
    Ankur,

    You're heart's in the right place and in theory, this sounds like one of those ideas that SEEMS like a good idea, but when you take a closer look at it, from a legal standpoint, all the way to how to actually handle it logistically, it's a nightmare.

    Clickbank might have a policy in place, but actually implementing and enforcing it is a whole different animal. I just don't see that happening.

    The simpliest answer on why the mods can't "authenticate wso's income claims" is that it just isn't logistically possible. You'd be asking the volunteer moderators to put insanely long hours and in the end, no one would be able to agree on the criteria and how far to take it.

    Clearly, in business transactions between the buyer and the seller both parties should be conducting their business ethically and morally, but that doesn't always happen. There are some really GREAT WSOs out there since I happen to own many of them, but there are also some real SHADY ones and it's our duty as members to report those.

    If you've been here long enough you'll notice that there are people that create WSOs soley to earn income from them and/or build a list, make their money, and get the hell out of here. I always buy WSOs with my credit card that has purchase protection on it, so if I ever need a refund I can get it irregardless if it's a service or a product. Buying through Paypal doesn't always give me that option so I no longer use that when buying most of the WSOs. I've been buying WSOs for over 7 years and I've only asked for a refund a couple of times because I research the seller and I ask other users what their experience has been with the product and I contact the product creater to see if they are responsive.

    It's really important for the buyer to bear some responsibility as well. Many folks just buy on impulse or with very little research. I think with some common sense and more thorough research you could drastically cut down on many of these issues.

    Lastly, I would love to see any and all income claims banned. Why? Because it's going to force some people to write better sales copy, which is a skill they should be working on anyway. Look, instead of writing:

    How To Earn 15,397.39 Per Month Using The Profit Hurricane Mega Blaster 2.0

    You can write something like:

    How I Quit My Job Last Month Using The Profit Hurricane Mega Blaster 2.0

    Not my best sales copy, but you catch my drift. You can always allude to making money without having to use actual numbers. There are probably 1,001 ways to do it.

    RoD "Coffee-Rules!" CorteZ
    Signature
    "Your personal philosophy is the greatest determining factor in how your life works out."
    - Jim Rohn
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3718259].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Scott Burton
    I couldn't even read the entire thread before I had to respond to this, so if this has been addressed, I apologize.

    Ankur... YOU are a Mod... We all are... http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...moderator.html and http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...moderator.html

    That aside, how would you propose we do this? In order to submit a WSO, there is a requirement to fax in a certified copy of bank statements? Even if we did that, it would only verify the amounts received, and possibly the source (clickbank, paypal, etc) It wouldn't verify HOW that money was earned.

    I could send money to my paypal account several times a day from other peoples accounts, or worse yet, send money from one bank account on my paypal account to paypal, then have it daily dropping back to another bank account. (If you have 2 checking accounts on a single paypal account, the bank statement side would be easy enough without even creating fake statements. Since the transfer between a bank account and a paypal account costs nothing.

    To provide even reasonable authentication of earnings statements, would put such an overhead into the WSO system, that the people reviewing would need to get paid, the review would take several days, and it would become impossible a number of warriors to even meet the requirements to submit a legitimate WSO.

    Clickbank only has the ability to verify claims about clickbank earnings, and even that is going to run into problems.

    Since the Warrior Forum doesn't process the orders, touch the money, or in any other way have anything to do with the transaction except being the marketplace where the advertisement appears, there's little that anyone at the Warrior Forum could do.

    Does every television station, newspaper, website, billboard advertising company or radio station require full disclosure of all these details in order to run an advertisement for someone who wants to lend money, sell an item, hire an employee, etc?

    Generally (can't speak for every outlet, but really) the answer is typically NO.

    But let's not try to put the burden on the Mods. What access do you or I as a Moderator of this forum have with regards to Warrios ABCDEFG's business? We have NONE.

    How much information would we have to request and sift through on EVERY WSO?

    I believe it would require, VERY CONSERVATIVELY, at least 15 minutes on every WSO, just to open the submitted information, verify everything was submitted, and verify that in all cases 1+1 = 2. When you consider you'd have to have someone looking for shady practices, cross referencing different sheets of submitted data, and the fact that there would still be no way short of acces st o the seller's accounts (bank, paypal, website, clickbank, etc) to be even reasonably certain some people didn't submit false documents to start with... There's very little added protection.

    Do you want to have to pay $400 to submit your WSO?

    Originally Posted by ankur sharma View Post

    The clickbank has made this mandatory. I mean, i just checked you'll income claims will be checked by clickbank. Why cant we introduce something like this here?

    Daily, we hear nothing works in wso section. There is lot of hype and looking at wso section reminds me of me looking at guru launches. Lot of false hope, but no real truth. Why cant we introduce something here to double check the earning claims of wsos?

    If clickbank can do this, why cannot we? I know someone will jump and say mods are here already too busy. They voluntarily give their services, so we cannot burden them. What if we actually pay someone to verify it?

    Let's say i post my wso for $40, then i i pay $20 extra to someone on wf helpdesk to verify my income claims. Some kind of seal, that marks the authenticity of wsos.

    I am sure, there are plenty of bright minds here and they can get a solid process for this. My question is, if clickbank can do this to save their marketplace, why cant we do this to save our own wso section?
    here's my new WSO.

    100% verified income, how I make over $600 a week without a list, without a website, and withouta search engine!

    (After customer purchases) I got a regular job! that pays about $34,000 per year.

    There, nuff said.
    Signature

    - = Signature on Vacation = -
    (We all need a break from what we do for a living. I thought it was time my signature got a break too)

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3718265].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ShayB
      Other than the issues raised in this thread, I truly think it comes down to one thing (which has already been mentioned, as well).

      Even if income from a particular method being sold via a WSO is verified, there is no way to assure that it will bring you the same amount of income.

      It doesn't mean the method isn't valid. It just means that it may not work the same way for you.

      OR

      You may buy a WSO that claims to help you earn $100 a day. You tweak it and it earns you $500 a day.

      It just depends.
      Signature
      "Fate protects fools, little children, and ships called Enterprise." ~Commander Riker
      Get my FREE Hotsheet: "7 Ways to Make Money Writing (without Writing Articles)"
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3718291].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Paul Gram
    Doesn't matter who says income claims are "authenticated", I don't trust income or traffic claims unless I know the person. There is WAY too much crap out there and many scammers. It does make it easier for us good guys though.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3718322].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ankur sharma
    You know what there is one very interesting thing about this thread. Almost most of the people, who are posting here are seniors. Most of them got thousands of posts. I see no newbie posting here. But if you just visit any wso, you will see warriors having 10-12 posts and buying wsos. Countless times, i have seen warriors saying "I have question on your wso. I cant pm, because i got less than 50 posts".

    Everybody is clearing their system. Plus, this is not a common marketplace.

    I am not claiming. I got the solution for this. But there has to be some way. Look at apple, look at their restrictions to list apple application on their system.Its extremely strict. Steve jobs did this for a reason. He know if he need to keep things clean, he has to make rules and regulations stricter. Plus, the whole approval thing has to be more brutal.

    But, the way newbies keep getting sucked in by magic bullets, its disheartening. I know some of them may grow out of this. But, i am sure many will fail so much, that they will loose all hope in IM field.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3718328].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
      Ankur,
      But there has to be some way.
      You want there to be a way, but there isn't. Not one that would work in any practical sense. It's simply not possible without massive changes to the system which would end up leaving people more vulnerable to abuse by anyone who was willing to extend fraud to providing false documentation.

      People lie to the IRS/Revenue Canada/etc. Those folks have the power to get way more info than we ever could, and they can throw you in jail if you get caught. What makes you think they wouldn't lie to us?

      It is logistically impossible, fraught with liability issues, and could well end up creating more losses to members due to fraud. I don't see it leading to any any significant reduction.

      It would make everything associated with running a WSO a lot more expensive, for no good result whatsoever.

      As far as the opinions of less experienced folks on this subject... Why would those carry any weight in a discussion of a topic on which they don't have any useful knowledge?


      Paul
      Signature
      .
      Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3718391].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
      [DELETED]
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3718436].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author lgibbon
        Banned
        Originally Posted by Richard Van View Post


        The stuff they peddled was rehashed crap that was not only illegal advise but a lot was dam right lies. Lots of old methods rebranded as revolutionary new methods. Total BS.
        And they are hiding behind rule 1 knowing no one will call them out about it.
        I know members are allowed to give negative reviews if warranted,
        but most buyers are newbies a little wary of complaining for fear
        of being ripped to shreds by the sharks.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3718505].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
          Originally Posted by lgibbon View Post

          And they are hiding behind rule 1 knowing no one will call them out about it.
          I know members are allowed to give negative reviews if warranted,
          but most buyers are newbies a little wary of complaining for fear
          of being ripped to shreds by the sharks.
          Well Les,

          I deleted that post as I thought, maybe, I'd be treading on toes I shouldn't.

          You're spot on though. Hence the reason I'm not blabbing my mouth over the pile of crap I, very mistakenly, bought.

          Moral of the story - Beware authority figures, even when you're doing ok.

          Meantime, well, that's another story....
          Signature

          Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3718541].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author lgibbon
            Banned
            Originally Posted by Richard Van View Post

            Well Les,

            I deleted that post as I thought, maybe, I'd be treading on toes I shouldn't.
            And that's exactly why it's going to carry on sadly.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3718582].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
              Originally Posted by lgibbon View Post

              And that's exactly why it's going to carry on sadly.
              Sorry Les, perhaps I should have kept the post up. I was worried I'd gone over board, I do that from time to time.

              The fact is though, rule #1 is, rule #1.

              Not much I can do about that, I'll PM you my findings, you carry way more clout than I do.
              Signature

              Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3718614].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author CheapTrafficDude
    I hate to beak it to you buddy but even Clickbank cannot verify income claims, they are too easily botched, no matter the angle it is presented. Also, keep in mind that income claims are generally exceptional results and in no means offer an income guarantee. Seals are usually bought so they mean nothing. Buyer beware!

    If you NEED something, you'll buy it regardless of the potential income it may bring. Most WSO sellers do offer some sort of money back guarantee so if it comes down to it and you're not satisfied with your purchase, just contact them and request a refund. Same applies with Clickbank... No questions asked money back guarantee.

    PS: I'm not a newbie although I have less than 10 posts.... I have no idea where my last account went to and can't retrieve password since the email I signed up with got deleted by accident.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3718370].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Doran Peck
    I happen to believe there is very little "garbage" in the WSO area.

    Lots of copied/altered stuff yeah ...but it still works...its still good information....you have to engage in actual action and persistence.

    What you say? ...yeah you actually have to do some work and use your brain.

    Too many people want to ckick a button and have stuff done for them so they don't have to actually talk to people, or negotiate, or reveal themselves behind the big curtain.

    The big money comes from actual work...actual setting up processes and putting them into motion and following through when there is a hiccup or bump in the road....apply that forumla to any WSO, and that WSO will work.

    Income claims should just be banned alltogether...I think it would force people to become better marketers of their own products without getting to rely on that overly influential income claim.....its like a big crutch....an easy button.

    I have little doubt someone made the income...its just hard to say if all of it came from the product at hand. (shrug) I saw somehting John Durham did recently ...He put up his WSO pro account income numbers and then made a public challenge that if he was lying, Mr. Lantz could ban him from the forum ...to me that would solidify a claim...if more people did that i think the credibility of claims would strengthen greatly.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3718392].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Tim_Carter
      Originally Posted by Doran Peck View Post

      I happen to believe there is very little "garbage" in the WSO area..
      Lol.

      You go on believing that.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3718417].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ankur sharma
      Originally Posted by Doran Peck View Post

      I happen to believe there is very little "garbage" in the WSO area.

      Lots of copied/altered stuff yeah ...but it still works...its still good information....you have to engage in actual action and persistence.

      What you say? ...yeah you actually have to do some work and use your brain.

      Too many people want to ckick a button and have stuff done for them so they don't have to actually talk to people, or negotiate, or reveal themselves behind the big curtain.

      The big money comes from actual work...actual setting up processes and putting them into motion and following through when there is a hiccup or bump in the road....apply that forumla to any WSO, and that WSO will work.

      Income claims should just be banned alltogether...I think it would force people to become better marketers of their own products without getting to rely on that overly influential income claim.....its like a big crutch....an easy button.

      I have little doubt someone made the income...its just hard to say if all of it came from the product at hand. (shrug) I saw somehting John Durham did recently ...He put up his WSO pro account income numbers and then made a public challenge that if he was lying, Mr. Lantz could ban him from the forum ...to me that would solidify a claim...if more people did that i think the credibility of claims would strengthen greatly.
      I am not saying whether a particular wso is bad or good. It depends upon where your IM i.q is. A thing which will look too crappy for you, it may look very good info for newbie. Like wordpress installation through fantastico. I can say for $7, i am learning only this? I dont like this and i need a refund. But for someone else, it might be very useful.

      The point here is providing false screenshots and then scamming lot of newbies from it.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3718490].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author masterjani
    These are valuable points Ankur Sharma
    No one tells WSO is bad,It contains tons of useful information but the information publishing way needs to be changed.
    "income claims made in wso section has almost reached at epic nonsense level. You see a guy asking a question "How can i make money" and next week you see him posting wso Here's how i made $1ok in 1 month"
    and
    So, i guess may be if newbie wants to learn Im. First, he has to learn "The magic bullet" doesn't exist and he has to learn it in hard way

    Each and every member First learn 600$ in one week because(6000+ hours already worked in past by that member.)So you need to work atleast 3000+ hours to get your first sale online.

    No Magic Bullet Learn it in hard way to stablilize your income,Learn more stuffs.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3718399].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
      Doran,
      I happen to believe there is very little "garbage" in the WSO area.
      That's a different question than the one originally raised. My experience supports the idea that most WSOs are solid products, but I don't buy enough of them to say that with authority. A fair number, but only a small percentage.

      I can tell you, from plenty of experience, that most of the complaints are from people who want an effortless road and were disappointed to find - yet again - that the seller didn't have one.


      Paul
      Signature
      .
      Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3718428].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Doran Peck
        Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

        Doran,That's a different question than the one originally raised. My experience supports the idea that most WSOs are solid products, but I don't buy enough of them to say that with authority. A fair number, but only a small percentage.

        I can tell you, from plenty of experience, that most of the complaints are from people who want an effortless road and were disappointed to find - yet again - that the seller didn't have one.


        Paul
        ...Which is exactly what I said, thankyou.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3718467].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

        I can tell you, from plenty of experience, that most of the complaints are from people who want an effortless road and were disappointed to find - yet again - that the seller didn't have one.
        I HATE it when people say this. A LOT of times they expected an easy time because that was what the seller said! YEAH, it's dumb, naive, etc.... But STILL, they had a RIGHT to expect it, and that makes the product a SCAM! Under the law, a lot of legal, valuable, etc... things are made ILLEGAL scams SIMPLY by how they are advertised. You can bet that the majority of the stuff the FTC prosecutes relates to ADS/sales, as opposed to products.

        BTW for others, since I'm sure Paul realizes this, EVEN if the seller were 100% honest about income, that doesn't mean YOU will do that well. ONE good site or keyword, for example, can mean a lot of business. And EVEN if they told you about that, 50 people on the same sites would likely split up the prospects, and give each site fewer visitors, so it STILL wouldn't work.

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3719043].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author paulie888
          Originally Posted by seasoned View Post


          BTW for others, since I'm sure Paul realizes this, EVEN if the seller were 100% honest about income, that doesn't mean YOU will do that well. ONE good site or keyword, for example, can mean a lot of business. And EVEN if they told you about that, 50 people on the same sites would likely split up the prospects, and give each site fewer visitors, so it STILL wouldn't work.

          Steve
          Steve, I couldn't agree more about this. Just because someone with the assets, resources and skills can make an obscene amount of income and prove it, does not mean a rank newbie with zero knowledge and no money can do the same. Newbies tend to be very gullible, and they should realize this fact before springing for the latest whiz-bang product, even if it has verified income claims.
          Signature
          >>> Features Jason Fladlien, John S. Rhodes, Justin Brooke, Sean I. Mitchell, Reed Floren and Brad Gosse! <<<
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3719062].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Bill_Z
    Simple math: Removing income claims = less WSO purchases = less happy WSO sellers = less WSO bumps
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3718438].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Matt Ward
    I've seen some outright deceitful stuff in the WSO forum, clearly meant to trick people that don't know what exactly they're looking at. It's not even just income claims, either.

    I agree that income screenshots and claims should just not be allowed. You can literally create a fake screenshot in less than 10 seconds, and there's absolutely no way to tell if it's real or not. The income claims you see are all trying to outdo each other to the point where you might as well claim that you make "1 quadrillion dollars," because it's just as believable. The sad part is that it's easy to be fooled by fake or misleading screenshots and income claims if you're not technically inclined and understand how easy it is to pull this off.

    It's quite sickening, actually. It's this kind of scammy stuff that makes me hesitant to tell people that I make an income online. I'm not going to say everything in the WSO forum is garbage (the one $$ WSO I've seen was actually excellent, and the creator is rightfully doing very well with it), but it's comparable to sifting for gold nuggets in 50 tons of dirt.
    Signature
    "Keep moving forward."
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3718634].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      it's comparable to sifting for gold nuggets in 50 tons of dirt.
      Who wins? The guy who methodically digs through the dirt and pulls out the nuggets - or the guy who says "too much dirt" and sits waiting for someone to tell him where to dig?
      Signature

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

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3718685].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author kindsvater
        Why can't mods authenticate WSO income claims?

        There are a wide variety of WSOs. To "authenticate" a claim presumes

        1. One is able to reasonably, timely, and cost-effectively authenticate each and every claim, and

        2. One is qualified to do that.

        Mods are volunteers. Not paid expert overlords able to distill and understand the accounting, marketing, and relationship between certain claimed actions and income for every possible WSO.

        3. If a seller wants to "authenticate" an income claim they can always hire a CPA to perform and audit and provide a written opinion.

        Of course, this would entail opening one's actual bank account information showing what has actually been received. A claimed ClickBank gross earnings screenshot would not qualify.

        Why should the forum authenticate something the seller is in a better position to do? And which would strengthen their own marketing?

        Keep in mind that

        4. ClickBank is a unique situation where ClickBank is the retailer of products. If you have a ClickBank product you are actually a wholesaler to ClickBank.

        That is an entirely different situation than the forum.

        Surprisingly, I have not seen mentioned

        5. Legal liability issues. There is no reason for the forum to assume unnecessary liability risks. Especially unlimited ones where you have income claims and members worldwide with a full spectrum of abilities, expertise and knowledge.

        The forum is about making money. Excuse me, but I have not yet seen the forum post or WSO proving one makes money by voluntarily assuming risks and potential liabilities related to how much money someone else can make.

        If someone is willing to put their butt on the line financially, for suggesting that the forum put its butt on the line by following their authentication recommendation, then make sure you have obtained sufficient insurance, a ready ability to post a huge bond, and let us the details.

        6. What is really being asked by authentication is a guarantee one will make money from buying a product. Sorry, but it does not work that way.

        There are "gurus" and many others who provide detailed methods of making money. Even providing their websites. What happens? For reasons having nothing to do with the methods many fail to take any action. Or fail to take appropriate action. Or sabotage themselves in some other manner, etc. Sorry, but there are no guarantees.

        7. Finally, again not mentioned is the 'flip side' of proving one's own income claims and that is some people are simply better teachers than doers.

        For example, one may hate cold calling. But that does not mean they cannot teach others how to profitably cold call.

        Thus, a claim one can make money cold calling is true, even if the seller does not themselves have that background. Don't assume personal experience is a prerequisite to being able to teach. Example: pro sports coaches.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3719323].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Steven Wagenheim
      Looks like I'm late to the party on this.

      Okay, where to even start? Well, for one thing, how do you really validate
      income claims? Let's for argument sake say that the WSO seller gave the
      mods access to their PayPal or Clickbank accounts.

      How do you know for sure that the money in those accounts came from the
      method, tactic or whatever, that the WSO itself was selling?

      There is absolutely NO way to verify this.

      NONE...ZERO...NADA.

      And wanting it to be possible doesn't make it possible. It just makes you a
      frustrated forum member who should be spending time doing something else
      other than worrying about income claims.

      Instead, why doesn't every WSO buyer or prospective buyer do the
      following?

      1. Read the sales letter and use a little common sense. If the seller
      promises massive riches at the push of a button, a red flag should pop up
      over your head shouting to your "Danger Will Robinson." But so many people
      are so damn gullible, they almost deserve what they get. Sorry, but how
      about putting some of the blame where it belongs...on lazy people who are
      looking for a push button solution to a lifetime of bad financial decisions.

      2. Do a little research on the seller.

      Do they have a real name or at least real branded company name?
      How long have they been here?
      Do they have sites online or do they just exist here?
      Are there reviews online about this person or their products?
      Are there REAL reviews of the WSO actually detailing aspects of it?

      3. Spend within your limits. If you can't really afford more than a $7 WSO
      purchase, don't purchase one that sells for $97. Lower your risk by
      lowering your sites on what you're going for. A $7 loss, while still a loss, is
      not the end of the world.

      4. Have a plan before you even BUY a WSO. So many people jump around
      from one thing to another. If you have a specific goal in mind, you'll at
      least narrow down the WSOs that you'll end up buying.

      5. Ask the seller questions...tough, hard questions. If he won't answer them,
      think twice about making the purchase. YOU'RE the buyer so anything you
      ask is fair game.

      In short...use the common sense that the good Lord gave you.

      YOU responsible for YOUR decisions...NOT the seller.

      You want to regulate something that can't be regulated...no way, no how.

      Grow up and take responsibility for your life for crying out loud.

      Heaven knows I don't have anybody watching over me with every little
      damn thing that I buy.

      /rant
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3718741].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
      Bill,
      Why, because the goal of this forum isn't to make money? The goal is to look out for the newbs to make sure they don't buy crap?
      Are you suggesting the two are mutually incompatible? If so, you haven't a clue about the people behind the scenes here. Feel free to make whatever cynical assumptions you like. Just don't be surprised when you get called on them.
      Yes you could argue that, but easily? Doubtful.
      What's doubtful about it? I just did. Exactly as easily as you made your argument. And with exactly as much proof: None at all.

      Which was kind of my point.
      Don't you prevent bashing? Don't you prevent talk about other forums? Don't the mods delete and remove posts and threads at will with content that is not in the best interests of the forum?
      You have just demonstrated why it's a bad idea for non-lawyers to give advice on legal issues about which they're uninformed.

      That said, it doesn't take a lawyer to see the slippery slope involved in the suggested policy. Just look at the possible scenarios and it should be pretty obvious.

      Matt,
      there's absolutely no way to tell if it's real or not
      And how does anyone justify refusing to allow legitimate and truthful claims?

      That's one of the arguments against the suggested policy. I'm not sure I agree with it, but I can't say it doesn't have merit. There are good arguments on both sides.

      The original question is about us verifying the claims. That's simply not possible. Forbidding them is, but it brings other issues that would go beyond the basic rule.

      It's very easy to say, "We want X, Y, and Z." When you're dealing with real people, it's always a lot more complicated to give them what they want without there being associated risks. The trick is, too many of those ideas require people to take responsibility for their own decisions, and not enough people are willing to do that.

      As I've said before, my personal preference would be to refuse to allow any specific results claims in screen capture or video formats, and to forbid video testimonials. But I don't make the rules. And I really can see both sides of this argument.


      Paul
      Signature
      .
      Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3718826].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Tsnyder
        Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

        Matt,And how does anyone justify refusing to allow legitimate and truthful claims?

        Paul
        Heck... that's an easy one. If I had a lawyer who argued
        otherwise I'd hire a new lawyer.

        I'm not a lawyer so... CAUTION: THE FOLLOWING CONTAINS SOME LAWYER TALK!

        Here's the perfectly legitimate reason why income claims... even those
        that may be legitimate... even verifiable... should be disallowed:

        Because they are nothing more than an inducement to buy the product.
        (follow on... that's not the end of the point)

        As I... and others... have said many times, the fact that someone else
        may have legitimately earned "X" amount of dollars is NO GUARANTEE that
        anyone else will earn that much money... or any money at all.

        Therefore, the claim, even if legitimate and verifiable, is a fraud

        (caution... here's the lawyer talk) The fraud is in the inducement.

        By merely making the claim the seller infers that the buyer is likely
        to achieve that result. Since it is impossible to determine that in
        advance the claim... the fraudulent inducement... should be disallowed.

        I'd love to hear a lawyer who is well versed on the subject argue otherwise.

        Tsnyder
        Signature
        If you knew what I know you'd be doing what I do...
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3719555].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
          I'd love to hear a lawyer who is well versed on the subject argue otherwise.
          I have heard it. It's a pretty basic argument, but I'll let any lawyer who feels like jumping in explain it.

          One very basic flaw in your argument: There's nothing wrong with inducements, unless they're misleading or inaccurate.


          Paul
          Signature
          .
          Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3719600].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Tsnyder
            Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

            One very basic flaw in your argument: There's nothing wrong with inducements, unless they're misleading or inaccurate.


            Paul
            Precisely... the fact that the inducement infers a likely result
            is misleading and inaccurate. Why do you think the FTC likes
            to hammer income claims? I operate daily in a business where
            this is a major concern. I'm not making this stuff up. I hope
            one of the forum attorneys will chime in because I'd love to hear
            a cogent legal argument the other way... I've never heard one yet.

            There are NO legitimate income claims... period.

            Tsnyder
            Signature
            If you knew what I know you'd be doing what I do...
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3719652].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Steven Wagenheim
          Originally Posted by Tsnyder View Post

          Heck... that's an easy one. If I had a lawyer who argued
          otherwise I'd hire a new lawyer.

          I'm not a lawyer so... CAUTION: THE FOLLOWING CONTAINS SOME LAWYER TALK!

          Here's the perfectly legitimate reason why income claims... even those
          that may be legitimate... even verifiable... should be disallowed:

          Because they are nothing more than an inducement to buy the product.
          (follow on... that's not the end of the point)

          As I... and others... have said many times, the fact that someone else
          may have legitimately earned "X" amount of dollars is NO GUARANTEE that
          anyone else will earn that much money... or any money at all.

          Therefore, the claim, even if legitimate and verifiable, is a fraud

          (caution... here's the lawyer talk) The fraud is in the inducement.

          By merely making the claim the seller infers that the buyer is likely
          to achieve that result. Since it is impossible to determine that in
          advance the claim... the fraudulent inducement... should be disallowed.

          I'd love to hear a lawyer who is well versed on the subject argue otherwise.

          Tsnyder
          How can an honest inducement be fraud? :confused:

          Example:

          "Here is Jane Doe before she used Slim Fast. She was 250 pounds. Here
          is Jane Doe AFTER using Slim Fast. She's now 135 pounds."

          How in the name of all that's holy is that fraud?

          Does it infer that YOU can lose this weight if you use Slim Fast?

          Yes.

          Does it PROMISE you'll lose weight if you use Slim Fast?

          No.

          So if that's fraud, then every ad that I can think of in the known world is
          fraud.

          I agree with a lot of what you say here, but this one, I just can't agree with
          at all.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3719622].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Tsnyder
            Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim View Post

            How can an honest inducement be fraud? :confused:

            Example:

            "Here is Jane Doe before she used Slim Fast. She was 250 pounds. Here
            is Jane Doe AFTER using Slim Fast. She's now 135 pounds."

            How in the name of all that's holy is that fraud?

            Does it infer that YOU can lose this weight if you use Slim Fast?

            Yes.

            Does it PROMISE you'll lose weight if you use Slim Fast?

            No.

            So if that's fraud, then every ad that I can think of in the known world is
            fraud.

            I agree with a lot of what you say here, but this one, I just can't agree with
            at all.
            Did I miss something? Is losing weight making money? The subject of
            this debate is income claims. Anyone who thinks there isn't a STRONG
            legal case against even truthful income claims should ask the FTC what
            they think about that.

            Tsnyder
            Signature
            If you knew what I know you'd be doing what I do...
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3719660].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
              Precisely... the fact that the inducement infers a likely result is misleading and inaccurate.
              Wrong.

              The word you're looking for is 'typical.' And the FTC (along with most other government agencies in the countries where I've looked at the rules) define that pretty much the same: What is the typical (most common) result gained by people who use the product?


              Paul
              Signature
              .
              Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3719702].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Tsnyder
                Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

                Wrong.

                The word you're looking for is 'typical.' And the FTC (along with most other government agencies in the countries where I've looked at the rules) define that pretty much the same: What is the typical (most common) result gained by people who use the product?


                Paul
                I know the word the government uses. I used precisely the
                word I meant to use. We may be reading different websites
                and WSOs but the copy I read infers that the results claimed
                are likely... not typical. Hence, the fraudulent inducements.

                Further... I doubt any of them can prove that the results achieved
                by the aggregate of all buyers of their products is either. Absent
                such proof... fraudulent inducement.

                Tsnyder
                Signature
                If you knew what I know you'd be doing what I do...
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3719718].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Black Hat Cat
      Banned
      Daily, we hear nothing works in wso section.
      How does getting rid of income claims change that? A wso either works or it doesn't. Getting rid of income claims won't magically transform a non-viable wso into a viable one.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3720128].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author VanessaB
    Originally Posted by ankur sharma View Post

    The clickbank has made this mandatory. I mean, i just checked you'll income claims will be checked by clickbank. Why cant we introduce something like this here?

    Daily, we hear nothing works in wso section. There is lot of hype and looking at wso section reminds me of me looking at guru launches. Lot of false hope, but no real truth. Why cant we introduce something here to double check the earning claims of wsos?

    If clickbank can do this, why cannot we? I know someone will jump and say mods are here already too busy. They voluntarily give their services, so we cannot burden them. What if we actually pay someone to verify it?

    Let's say i post my wso for $40, then i i pay $20 extra to someone on wf helpdesk to verify my income claims. Some kind of seal, that marks the authenticity of wsos.

    I am sure, there are plenty of bright minds here and they can get a solid process for this. My question is, if clickbank can do this to save their marketplace, why cant we do this to save our own wso section?
    An earnings claim is completely independent of whether or not something works.

    Just because I made $xxxx.xx doing A-Z, at 00:00:00 time on 00/00/000 date, in country, state, province, city, town, hamlet, classified site, forum, blog, search engine, while Jupiter was in Venus and the stars in the heavens aligned while Haley's comet passed over on a full moon..... doesn't mean you can duplicate that because many of these factors cannot be easily replicated, sometimes not at all

    There are just too many factors at work here to base any products effectiveness on someone else's past results with it anyway.

    They just make good stories, and it's unfortunate that we need and FTC to protect people from their own stupidity who want that kind of story, but then want to call in Big Brother when they can't replicate the results because they were too bloody ignorant to have figured out that there will always been unknown factors of that which could never be duplicated. There's enough regulation of Big Brother protecting me from me. I certainly wouldn't want in here.

    But the fact is people buy the story, and verifying whether or not I got the results I claim I got, will still never guarantee that you will do the same. That's just the IM version of the 'gated community.' A false sense of security.

    -Dani
    Signature
    Easily Recruit JV Partners & Affiliates
    with lifetime commissions
    Lead Money Locker
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3718785].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Jake Gray
    There are only so many moderators on here. If they had to go
    through each sales page trying to verify everything, then there
    wouldn't be much of a WSO section because there wouldn't be
    very many new offers.

    People whom plan on doing business unethically will soon find themselves
    banned from the forum. It's just like there aren't enough police officers able
    to catch everything illegal violation.

    Think about it.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3718845].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author High Horsepower
      #1 reason it will never happen = WSO will cost 100's of dollars to verify income claims, methods used, and to cover Liability insurance.

      Use common sense, wait until some good reviews come in from trusted Warriors and hopefully purchase through PayPal so you have some retribution.
      Signature
      Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. Sir Winston Churchill, Speech, 1941, Harrow School

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3718891].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author James Sides
    My thoughts on this are pretty clear...

    Income proof has nothing to do with the level of success I might or might not have with a method. The seller might make $100 a day with his/her method. I might buy the WSO and make $0 a day or I might buy it and make $500 a day. In the end it falls on my shoulders to make the system work.

    The sad part is I have written free reports giving away my exact strategies for making money online and yet very few people who gain access to those reports do anything with them. The reason people get upset over WSO's is the same reason they get upset with most IM products...they want a push button answer to a problem that has no push button answers.

    Just my humble two cents,

    James
    Signature

    "People will remain the same until the pain of staying the same is greater than the pain of change."

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3718890].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Linda_C
      Originally Posted by Fenderkid View Post

      The reason people get upset over WSO's is the same reason they get upset with most IM products...they want a push button answer to a problem that has no push button answers.
      I'm not sure newbies really want push button answers. I find that a bit cynical. Maybe it's true and I'm giving people too much credit.

      I lean towards thinking that newbies are looking for something that fits with both their ethics and their skillset. When I was a newbie, I just wanted to figure out what I *could* do that I could feel proud of doing.

      There's a couple of long threads by John Durham in which he shows newbies how to go make some money. Lots of awesome feedback and no one complaining that there's actual work involved. I tend to think most newbies are that way - unafraid to do work given some real direction. I think it's the minority looking for internet magic. Maybe I'm wrong.

      As for the OP - while I understand why it's not reasonable to ask the mods to verify income claims, I get his point. I read the post as a loud protest at too much hype.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3719280].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Tina Golden
        I don't think newbies are the ones spending the most money in the WSO section. Going by just browsing that section frequently, I see far more people who have been around for a while buying WSO after WSO after WSO...particularly the ones that have the income claims in the header. Or the person has a low post count but every post has been in a WSO thread.

        That's not from lack of knowledge about IM. That's from a lottery mentality and you can't save or protect people from that.
        Signature
        Discover how to have fabulous, engaging content with
        Fast & Easy Content Creation
        ***Especially if you don't have enough time, money, or just plain HATE writing***
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3719305].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Tina Golden
    Why is that anyone thinks we have to protect people who fail to use their own common sense?

    There are already rules in place about using fake screenshots - if you can show that one is fake, report it.

    There are already rules about being scammy or deceptive - if you can show an offer that is, report it.

    But if you think you can protect newbies from all the bad guys, you're sadly mistaken. And I don't even think you should. How are we doing them a service by trying to do their thinking for them?

    One would assume that the majority of the newbies coming in here have a reasonable amount of intelligence, unless they're out there in the offline world falling for every television commercial there is. No one is going around offline and holding their hand, is there?

    How are they going to learn to discern the difference between the good people to follow and the ones they shouldn't listen to?

    How did YOU learn to tell the difference? I know I learned by experience and my gut feeling tells me that's the only way to truly learn discernment.
    Signature
    Discover how to have fabulous, engaging content with
    Fast & Easy Content Creation
    ***Especially if you don't have enough time, money, or just plain HATE writing***
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3718981].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author paulie888
    Ankur, this is a marketplace, not a place that babysits buyers and "verifies" that all offers are legitimate and above board. Do you know how much time and expense would have to go into making something like this happen? Even if it's feasible (which I don't think it is), you'd probably have to pay a hefty monthly fee just for these services to be performed on every WSO.

    You definitely wouldn't be getting $7 WSOs anymore, and then you'd have something else to complain about. Look at any marketplace out there. Consider ebay - scammers and con artists hang out there all the time. Ebay can only do a certain amount of due diligence on sellers, and the rest is up to you.

    If even one of the biggest and most well-known online marketplaces can't do what it is that you're proposing, what makes you think that this forum can do so?

    Grow up, and learn to think for yourself. If you come across some crazy offer that guarantees you can make $100,000 within 7 days with a $50 investment and you buy it, you only have yourself to blame.

    Paul
    Signature
    >>> Features Jason Fladlien, John S. Rhodes, Justin Brooke, Sean I. Mitchell, Reed Floren and Brad Gosse! <<<
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3719025].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Scott Burton
    I had comments to offer, which I refrianed from posting, because when *I* read what I had to say, it seemed like I was inviting a war. Which I was not.

    The OP asked that Moderators 'verify' the claims of a WSO, and I think I put it fairly clearly before that WE ARE ALL supposed to be moderators; and that in day to day business, how many of us ask everyone involved in our face to face transaction about their qualifications to make this procut or to make this sale to us?

    I asked in OT the other day about why some people thing they are worth what appear to be outrageous amounts when offering zero support for their prices... And you know, I had people asking if I provided 5 different proofs that I was a legitimate business, rather than addressing my wuestion about why people thought they were worth what I perceived to be high (but not necessarily outrageous if supported) values for a service with ZERO evidence...

    But aren't we all supposoed to be moderators here?
    ASSUMING every WSO poster provided 100% accurate information, how long would it take in person hours for 4-10"moderators" to verify everything submitted on a WSO adds up?

    How many Warriors would want to submit complete business financials to make a WSO?
    How many warriors would be content to accept the 6 hour to 6 day turnaround time between their payment and the actual go live of their WSO for their submission to be 'verified"?
    How many people would cook up a passable set of books?
    Unless we gave the "moderators" i.e. EVERY MEMBER full access to every WSO offerer's accounts (bank account, clickbank account, paypal account, hosting accounts, etc) how could a moderator be confident they had accurate information?
    If mods had to look at each offer, woudn't the need arise to PAY moderators, thus increasing the cost of the WSO?

    I was more eloquent before, but I didn't want to seem I was trying to start a fight. But seriously, after a few more hours the dispute was still the same, so my points, I THINK, still stand.
    Signature

    - = Signature on Vacation = -
    (We all need a break from what we do for a living. I thought it was time my signature got a break too)

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3719084].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Adie
    Simple.

    Just stay away from WSOs that don't require the basic things like:

    no seo
    no ppc
    no sb
    no promotion
    no programming
    no email list

    ...because this WSO means nothing....
    Signature



    Moderator's Note: You're only allowed to put your own products or sites in your signature.

    Signature edited.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3719096].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Daniel Brock
    Originally Posted by ankur sharma View Post

    The clickbank has made this mandatory. I mean, i just checked you'll income claims will be checked by clickbank. Why cant we introduce something like this here?

    Daily, we hear nothing works in wso section. There is lot of hype and looking at wso section reminds me of me looking at guru launches. Lot of false hope, but no real truth. Why cant we introduce something here to double check the earning claims of wsos?

    If clickbank can do this, why cannot we? I know someone will jump and say mods are here already too busy. They voluntarily give their services, so we cannot burden them. What if we actually pay someone to verify it?

    Let's say i post my wso for $40, then i i pay $20 extra to someone on wf helpdesk to verify my income claims. Some kind of seal, that marks the authenticity of wsos.

    I am sure, there are plenty of bright minds here and they can get a solid process for this. My question is, if clickbank can do this to save their marketplace, why cant we do this to save our own wso section?
    Yeah...

    Why don't you just hand over your bank account info, your paypal login info, your clickbank account info, your affiliate accounts, etc. etc...

    You go ahead and do that... me... I prefer to keep my money in my accounts.
    Signature
    Clickbank #1 Best Seller: The Deadbeat Super Affiliate.
    Click here to learn how to make money online in your bath robe and gym socks!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3719116].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author CheapTrafficDude
    Due Dilligence + Research = Good Buys AND/OR Money Saved
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3719170].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Tom E
    Let's go with your idea. I can see the scenario now:

    • Allen hires full time staff to do nothing but test WSO's.
    • Full time staffers, being paid to do it, follow WSO's to the letter.
    • Full time staffers make a crapload of money following WSO's to the letter.
    • Full time staff immediately quits, cuz Allen's not paying them close to what they're now making on the WSO's.
    • Allen discontinues verification program.
    The end.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3719357].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
      Steve,
      I HATE it when people say this.
      That doesn't make it any less true. The rest of your rant made it sound like I was defending deceptive ads, which is an inaccurate twist of the comment.

      I've seen legitimate products, with honest ad copy, get blasted by the same kind of "easy button" mentality that you seem to think only plays into the bogus ads. It doesn't.

      If you lie, you're responsible for the consequences of that lie. Whether you tell it to others or to yourself.


      Paul
      Signature
      .
      Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3719405].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Tsnyder
    Actually... when I say there are no legitimate income claims that's
    a bit of hyperbole. The FTC does publish guidelines for making
    income claims but following them renders most claims ineffective
    anyway.

    Tsnyder
    Signature
    If you knew what I know you'd be doing what I do...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3719688].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Steven Wagenheim
      Originally Posted by Tsnyder View Post

      Actually... when I say there are no legitimate income claims that's
      a bit of hyperbole. The FTC does publish guidelines for making
      income claims but following them renders most claims ineffective
      anyway.

      Tsnyder
      There is a big difference between saying I have made so much money and
      saying YOU will make so much money.

      I see no problem with the former.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3719701].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Tsnyder
        Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim View Post

        There is a big difference between saying I have made so much money and
        saying YOU will make so much money.

        I see no problem with the former.
        There is a difference but it depends on how you say it.

        Most of these people are not versed in the nuances of
        copy writing filtered through the requirements of the FTC.

        Tsnyder
        Signature
        If you knew what I know you'd be doing what I do...
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3719728].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author VanessaB
          TSnyder,
          "Because the FTC says so" may make it technically illegal, but nonetheless, completely baseless.

          I'm careful with my claims, because of a bunch of bureaucrats pandering to a bunch of idiots who can't take personal responsibility for a lack of common sense, but they're still a bunch of bureaucrats pandering to a bunch of idiots who can't take personal responsibility for their own lack of common sense.

          -Dani
          Signature
          Easily Recruit JV Partners & Affiliates
          with lifetime commissions
          Lead Money Locker
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3720161].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Paul Coleman
    Originally Posted by ankur sharma View Post

    The clickbank has made this mandatory. I mean, i just checked you'll income claims will be checked by clickbank. Why cant we introduce something like this here?
    Yikes. Ankur, it is up to the buyer to check the previous posts and the reputation of the buyer. It's not hard to do.

    Claims don't count as much as the quality and logic of the WSO that is being offered. And, of course, there must be a full money back guarantee.

    Paul
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3720149].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author High Horsepower
      Originally Posted by Paul Coleman View Post

      Yikes. Ankur, it is up to the buyer to check the previous posts and the reputation of the buyer. It's not hard to do.

      Claims don't count as much as the quality and logic of the WSO that is being offered. And, of course, there must be a full money back guarantee.

      Paul
      You'd be amazed at what you find when you do a little "due diligence".

      I'll see someone post a WSO that claims to make $8,000 in one day, then in previous post only weeks prior ask another WSO person if they can make $100 day using their methods. :confused:
      Signature
      Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. Sir Winston Churchill, Speech, 1941, Harrow School

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3720259].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author BoDarville
        Originally Posted by High Horsepower View Post

        You'd be amazed at what you find when you do a little "due diligence".

        I'll see someone post a WSO that claims to make $8,000 in one day, then in previous post only weeks prior ask another WSO person if they can make $100 day using their methods. :confused:
        I recently did some Due Diligence here concerning someone and posted what I found - which wasn't pretty. Now, I admitted immediately I'm private and am not sharing my 'identity' as it is, with the world here ... even still I didn't think that trying to help others ferret out someone who, let's say, didn't seem to be exactly "up and up" was such a bad think to do -- Besides, I didn't put all that stuff online... just reported what I found.

        What I got for my efforts was a very nasty IM, a "warning" of some kind (that I still don't understand), the thread locked, and my last post in the thread erased forever (and it was a good one too!) ... so, if you think due diligence is good, I'm with you - but if you think this is ever going to happen - think again! lol
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3720433].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Andyhenry
          Wow - I'm really late in on this thread, but since it's something I feel quite passionate about I want to add my say anyway

          Caveat Emptor ------- "Let the buyer beware"

          As I see it there are several sides to this issue and wsos.

          1 - You as a purchaser need to use your brain.

          Yes - you want to read that making money is quick and easy and one good way to do it is follow in the footsteps of others that have already been successful. I don't think many people would fault that logic.

          However - there's a massive difference between:
          a) Sitting with someone you know and trust and having them share their business model and approach with you so that you understand the dynamics of the way they do business well enough to have a good stab at reproducing some of their results

          and

          b) Reading a sales page from someone you don't know that says that making money is just so easy they can't believe everyone isn't doing it but you can be the lucky owner of their secrets.

          One way is just open and honest and you're modeling genuine advice with someone who knows you and your abilities and is giving you specific advice that they believe will help you - based on their experience.

          The other - some random person who is selling generic information not in any way tailored for you and with zero understanding of who you are or what your abilities are.

          Does it really take a rocket scientist to see the difference?

          No random product that is sold to anyone with a few dollars with no personalisation or factoring who the buyer is will ever be the right answer for everyone.

          You're ALWAYS taking a chance when you buy something that is available to a mass market - even if it was a laser targeted strategy - the mass use of it would kill it in most cases, so even if it was true and did work - it wouldn't last for long.

          2 - Sellers are often BSing you

          So, the other side of the coin is that if you believe everything you read then you're in for some disappointments.

          In my experience there are a lot of people who see this forums members as nothing more than ignorant wallet owners and they will create and sell ANYTHING they think you will buy. Some of them may even be willing to say ANYTHING to encourage that to happen.

          So while it would be nice to think that we're all one big happy family here - that's not the case. Some people see you as sheeple and are constantly looking at how to get your money.

          I know this because I've had plenty of PMs from people wanting me to check out their wso and it's been awful and not remotely based on having worked for them - they just want something to sell so they copy things other members have said and then hype up their sales copy and put a low ticket price on so that some gullible people will go for it.

          Don't believe what you read be default if you don't know the person.

          3 - They're selling what you want.

          Now this is where it gets a little controversial.

          The reason people are stating income claims and hyping up their stuff is because they're desperate to get your money and they're going right for your sweet spot.

          If you weren't looking for impressive posturing sales stats and promises of easy riches - they wouldn't bother saying it.

          This crap sales letters have come from testing what works and what people respond to.

          You've seen it in this thread already, comments like "well if people are stupid enough to believe it - they deserve to be ripped off" - some people really do think that and they'll say anything to part a fool with their money.

          I know we've been trained to think it's illegal for people to lie like this - and in many places it is -but that doesn't stop idiots from doing it to make a quick buck.

          So, while I'm completely onboard with you if you think that it shouldn't be allowed - you need to get real and realise some people have no scruples about such things.

          4 - As with everything in this forum - there ARE some really good people working very hard to bring excellent value to people via WSOs.

          I regularly buy WSOs and I love that this forum has them.

          It's not sifting for gold - quality is easy to find. You only have to look at the seller to get the best common indication. If they're a long-standing member who has a good track record then you're probably going to get a decent product. They're also less likely to hype it up because they value their reputation.

          If it's a newbie - just beware but don't be afraid to give them a go.

          I buy services from new members often just to see how they deliver and if the experience is good - I subscribe to their wso and go back many times.

          You don't have to be a long standing member or have lots of posts to do well, you just have an extra element of burden to prove you are genuine and nothing beats that better than overdelivering and making happy customers.

          So as for what could be done about the claims........

          I think that they shouldn't be allowed. They're irrelevant.

          You can't make claims of potential earnings and I don't think stating your own earnings really adds much credibility to value to a product since that's still completely unrelated to what someone else will earn.

          I think if WSO providers had to just be clear about what their product did and why they think that is useful to other members then there's still plenty of ways to show your value so that prospects can feel good about a purchase.

          I can understand that some people love to share their success - but in the cases where people are quoting 6 figure sums - they're always leaving out what making that cost. So even if the figure is true they could've spend more than they made and you would never know.

          I think that earnings claims are just misleading and not required in order to make sales. They're just a lazy way to people to push your buttons without actually showing value. If they really want to impress you with their stats or they're just stoked about their results - they can show you AFTER you purchase.


          Andy
          Signature

          nothing to see here.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3720829].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ricardo-Acosta
    Its a semi good idea, however it is a WSO. No one is loosing there shirt or going broke because they bought a certain product that was trash. Plus we have many honest reviews on the products themselves, we are entrepreneurs, we have to be prepared for investments that show no returns, lessons learned you know?

    Ricardo
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3720284].message }}

Trending Topics