"As Seen On" - FTC Cracking Down on Fake News Sites

by The Copy Nazi Banned
95 replies
From a week ago -
The Federal Trade Commission recently announced that it is asking federal courts to enact a permanent ban on affiliate marketers being able to use the fake news site as a marketing method. The fake news site is an advertising method that has long been used by affiliate marketers of various products. They create what looks like an online web page, with the format and content being modeled on legitimate news sources. They present advertising claims and promotions in a way that makes them appear to be facts investigated by a journalist, rather than advertising slogans.
In addition, the sites generally use the logos of prominent news providers like CNN, MSNBC, and ABC along with the phrase, "As Seen On." This is meant to imply to readers that this particular "report" was seen on these websites, when the truth is that the company pays to advertise on the banners of these sites. This purposeful misleading of the public is what led the FTC to its recent decision.
From - FTC Announces Permanent Ban on Fake News Sites in **** Berry Case

Which links to the FTC page on it.
#as seen on #cracking #fake #ftc #news #sites
  • Profile picture of the author TiffLee
    Good. Very good.

    Those sites were quite misleading to the general public.

    I bet there are quite a few people who suddenly went from $10,000 a month to absolute zilch.

    They get what they deserve.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3826020].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author celente
      Originally Posted by TiffLee View Post

      Good. Very good.

      Those sites were quite misleading to the general public.

      I bet there are quite a few people who suddenly went from $10,000 a month to absolute zilch.

      They get what they deserve.
      I am with you on this, however, the actuall sites that do spend to adverise on TV are getter a bad name too. Actually teh legit ones.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3830212].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Eddie Spangler
    I dont disagree about the sites being misleading BUT I argue they are just pissed because the people that did it were so good at it. They were better at lying to people and making money off dummies than the media themselves. After all its not like being in the media automatically means its legit. Oh I can get featured on your news show and say "as seen on" but if I buy an ad and do it then it becomes fishy? WHY? How many get extra interviews or air time because of how much they spent on advertising. Lets get real, our local channel does an editorial type Business Break every morning that promotes a business who has PAID for commercials on their other shows.
    Im glad they are cracking down because it does give the legit offers a bad name.
    Signature
    Promise Big.
    Deliver Bigger.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3826093].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Scott Burton
    An interesting side note... Most of the "As Seen on TV" products, were 'seen' on paid programming, i.e. infomercials, where the time slot was bought to play the 30 minute commercial presentation.

    Yet this seems to be perfectly acceptable.

    Of course, the "As seen on TV" presentation doesn't try to claim it was seen on a news channel/program. Though I'd like to see an end to those infomercials that are presenting themselves as news programs.
    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[3826182].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author bnwebm
    Wait. **** berry doesn't work? But I just got an email telling me I can lose 100lbs in just three weeks!
    Signature
    My blog, because nothing is a more powerful marketing tool than a well written article.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3826187].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
      Banned
      Originally Posted by bnwebm View Post

      Wait. **** berry doesn't work? But I just got an email telling me I can lose 100lbs in just three weeks!
      Different sort of 100 pounds, I'm afraid: it's just £100 (by buying it).
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3826225].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author bnwebm
        Lol, touche'!

        Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

        Different sort of 100 pounds, I'm afraid: it's just £100 (by buying it).
        Signature
        My blog, because nothing is a more powerful marketing tool than a well written article.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3826238].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Marvin Johnston
    Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

    Yes, boys and girls, you CAN write advertorials that are not deceptive.

    Look in any newspaper.

    I don't see the FTC banning them.

    That "ruling" is so wrong on so many levels it stuns the imagination.
    I'm not sure if the first part is sarcasm or if I'm just taking it out of context. The major news *stories* may be factual as far as what they present, but they are totally deceptive with what they don't present (i.e. sins of omission vs sins of commission.)

    And yes, those stories are for selling public opinion.

    And yes, rulings like present in the OP do worry me. It brings to mind a soliloque from The King and I ... "if they are strong enough to protect me, might they not protect me out of all I own."

    Marvin
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3826380].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author genietoast
      About time.

      However, a lot of tax payer dollars will be spent cracking down and sifting through lies when it would have been cheaper to do it right the first time around.

      Never pays in the long-run to lie.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3826398].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
        Banned
        So, let me get this right ... if you stop 100 people and a dog in the street and show them one of these sites, and explain it to them, and ask them the question "Is the intention clearly deceptive?", how many are going to say "Yes": all 100 or do you think possibly only 99?

        What will the dog think?

        Some of us have been saying openly here for years that we won't, as affiliates, promote sales pages that have this "As seen on ..." crap across the top.

        This is a no-brainer.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3826446].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author myob
          [DELETED]
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3826518].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author cjreynolds
            I don't think marketing products that are labeled by their source (the merchant you are affiliating with) as "As Seen On TV" is really the focus of this ruling. If the product you're promoting can legitimately be called "As Seen On TV", there should be no problem.

            The way I see it, they're trying to discourage those who put "As Seen On TV" on their website when it's a bogus or misleading claim.

            I know we all hype and lead our customers with good copy, but when leading the customer becomes misleading the customer, we all suffer - the individual's reputation suffers, as does the overall reputation for our industry.

            Just MHO

            joe
            Signature

            I just added this sig so I can refer to it in my posts...

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3826794].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author DOWORKSON
          Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

          So, let me get this right ... if you stop 100 people and a dog in the street and show them one of these sites, and explain it to them, and ask them the question "Is the intention clearly deceptive?", how many are going to say "Yes": all 100 or do you think possibly only 99?

          What will the dog think?

          Some of us have been saying openly here for years that we won't, as affiliates, promote sales pages that have this "As seen on ..." crap across the top.

          This is a no-brainer.
          So hows the poor life treating you?
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3826820].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author JamieSEO
        Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

        Will you think that when they ban the squeeze page because some of them are deceptive?

        If they can ban the advertorial, can the sales letter be far behind?
        If people keep abusing them by making false claims and ripping people off? Would that really be surprising?
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3834042].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author GarrieWilson
    Magazines had issues at one time and it was corrected by labeling it as an advertisement around the heading. Websites should be no different.

    Garrie
    Signature
    Screw You, NameCheap!
    $1 Off NameSilo Domain Coupons:

    SAVEABUCKDOMAINS & DOLLARDOMAINSAVINGS
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3826658].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author The Copy Nazi
    Banned
    You know...last year I attacked a copywriter who was being lauded in the Copywriting section for his Forex bot copy - which had "as seen on tv" across the top of it. Bogus "as seen on tv". I pointed out that the FTC would take a dim view of it and that it was in the copywriter's interest to advise the client against using it. I also sought Bob Silber's (the FTC law specialist and lawyer) opinion and he said you would just be asking for trouble from the FTC if you use "As seen on tv" - or even "as seen on (insert various logos)".

    And guess what? The copywriter can be liable also. But it's a moot point I suppose - if the client takes your copy and then adds the "As seen on" bs later.

    But I'm with Alexa - I can't stand these stupid sites that use that tactic.

    It's about time IM grew up - don't you think? As in - stop the misrepresentation.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3828698].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Devid Farah
      Thanks Mal.

      I'm sorry guys...but i see this thing as another attempt to limit our freedom.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3828793].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Michael Lee
      I think the "As Seen On" strategy has been taken a bit too far...

      When the article you've submitted to Ezinearticles has a resource box to your site, can you put "as seen on Ezinearticles?"

      When your site is indexed by google, can you put "as seen on google?"

      Many marketers are taking advantage of this strategy in a misleading way. They are trying to associate themselves with the big names, but anyone can have their site on Ezinearticles or Google easily.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3828805].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author KenThompson
      Originally Posted by The Copy Nazi View Post

      And guess what? The copywriter can be liable also. But it's a moot point I suppose - if the client takes your copy and then adds the "As seen on" bs later.
      But what if it was actually seen on TV? I guess they'd have to prove it
      to them.

      I remember Cory Rudl's site had an "as seen on tv" or Maury Pauvich Show, I
      think it was. Back in 97 or 98? But he also had pictures of him on the show, so I
      guess that would make everybody feel better.


      It's about time IM grew up - don't you think? As in - stop the misrepresentation.
      You guys are missing it. It's not IM. It's human nature.

      This is ancient news, and paper pushers have been fighting awful things like
      misrepresentation since the first classified ad was carved into a stone way
      back whenever.

      But it all sounds good, I guess.


      Ken
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3828882].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Palusko
    My personal favorites are those "As seen on Google" type of endorsement. :-) What does it say about the marketer using it? But also, what does it say about the user who takes it is a sign of trustworthiness? I guess that marketer and that user are just made for each other ;-)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3828968].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
      Banned
      Originally Posted by Palusko View Post

      What does it say about the marketer using it?
      Simply and obviously that his intent is to try to deceive people, as you rightly imply.

      Originally Posted by Palusko View Post

      But also, what does it say about the user who takes it is a sign of trustworthiness? I guess that marketer and that user are just made for each other ;-)
      I guess ... yes. :rolleyes: :p

      Three times I've written copy for people who wanted this crap across the top of their sales pages.

      Two of them I persuaded to split-test it (the third wouldn't listen).

      Both times, obviously enough, the otherwise-identical page converted better without it than with it. Once just slightly better, and the other time significantly better.

      But people often don't test this crap; instead, they assume that it "must" work because "otherwise everyone else wouldn't be using it, would they?" In other words, the same way that most internet marketing decisions are made, most of the time, by most marketers.

      People who use it on that basis, without testing it for themselves, I suppose, are the ones gullible enough themselves not to realise that many prospective customers can see that - whether technically true or not - it's an attempt to claim an illegitimate imprimatur by deceptive association. :rolleyes:

      Regulatory action of the kind commented on in this thread is - as always - the inevitable response to a dishonest trade. Ironically enough, the people whining about "interference" and "over-regulation" are usually the very ones who cause these problems. But there you go: as far as matters of honesty are concerned, people who are not part of the solution sometimes are part of the problem.

      Looks like, in spite of the inevitable snide remarks above, nobody wanted to answer the question I asked in post #13. "Go figure."
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3829506].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author DireStraits
        Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

        Looks like, in spite of the inevitable snide remarks above, nobody was able to answer the question I asked in post #13. "Go figure."
        I just consulted Bud for his opinion on the matter, who assured me that he'll get back to me later with his full thoughts. Right now he's just too dog-tired after a long stroll and a hearty lunch. Though he did add that he thinks such tactics are an abomination, and that those who utilise them are barking-mad.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3829626].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author DOWORKSON
        Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

        Simply and obviously that his intent is to try to deceive people, as you rightly imply.



        I guess ... yes. :rolleyes: :p

        Three times I've written copy for people who wanted this crap across the top of their sales pages.

        Two of them I persuaded to split-test it (the third wouldn't listen).

        Both times, obviously enough, the otherwise-identical page converted better without it than with it. Once just slightly better, and the other time significantly better.

        But people often don't test this crap; instead, they assume that it "must" work because "otherwise everyone else wouldn't be using it, would they?" In other words, the same way that most internet marketing decisions are made, most of the time, by most marketers.

        People who use it on that basis, without testing it for themselves, I suppose, are the ones gullible enough themselves not to realise that many prospective customers can see that - whether technically true or not - it's an attempt to claim an illegitimate imprimatur by deceptive association. :rolleyes:

        Regulatory action of the kind commented on in this thread is - as always - the inevitable response to a dishonest trade. Ironically enough, the people whining about "interference" and "over-regulation" are usually the very ones who cause these problems. But there you go: as far as matters of honesty are concerned, people who are not part of the solution sometimes are part of the problem.

        Looks like, in spite of the inevitable snide remarks above, nobody wanted to answer the question I asked in post #13. "Go figure."
        Theres no point in answering your question because we all know the answer and that is IRRELEVANT. You are either a marketer or a do-gooder.

        Marketer = $$$$$$$$$$$$$

        Do-Gooder = 0/$$$

        And your little "split test" is bs because:

        1:You said you wouldn't endorse that stuff yet YOU WROTE THE COPY ON ONE OF THEM.

        2:Somebody paying a copywriter who posts on the most bs/shady/noob forum on the planet to write for them, will OBVIOUSLY not know their demographic and will OBVIOUSLY pick the wrong traffic source for monetizing the big payouts.

        Do you seriously think **** and other 8-10 figure products are being promoted on just search engines?

        Sorry for the rant, but people saying flogs/farticles don't work tics me off.

        Here is how they are making money:

        Gullible people + emotional problem + Instant answer to all their problems = BANK.

        Period.

        Is it right? No.. Are people making money with it? More than you can fathom and it's A LOT easier to convert than red fleece long sleeve hoodies.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3833918].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Karen Blundell
          Originally Posted by DOWORKSON View Post

          Theres no point in answering your question because we all know the answer and that is IRRELEVANT. You are either a marketer or a do-gooder.

          Marketer = $$$$$$$$$$$$$

          Do-Gooder = 0/$$$

          And your little "split test" is bs because:

          1:You said you wouldn't endorse that stuff yet YOU WROTE THE COPY ON ONE OF THEM.

          2:Somebody paying a copywriter who posts on the most bs/shady/noob forum on the planet to write for them, will OBVIOUSLY not know their demographic and will OBVIOUSLY pick the wrong traffic source for monetizing the big payouts.

          Do you seriously think **** and other 8-10 figure products are being promoted on just search engines?

          Sorry for the rant, but people saying flogs/farticles don't work tics me off.

          Here is how they are making money:

          Gullible people + emotional problem + Instant answer to all their problems = BANK.

          Period.

          Is it right? No.. Are people making money with it? More than you can fathom and it's A LOT easier to convert than red fleece long sleeve hoodies.


          this is what I loathe about some marketers. That they would do anything for money, including deliberately deceive "gullible" people as you put it.

          Sorry, call me stupid, but I'd rather make less money and not deceive anyone, because in the end, I think I'm more likely to get the repeat business because of my honesty, then the marketer who is deceptive and then gets found out.
          Signature
          ---------------
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3834490].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
          Banned
          Originally Posted by DOWORKSON View Post

          And your little "split test" is bs because:

          1:You said you wouldn't endorse that stuff yet YOU WROTE THE COPY ON ONE OF THEM.

          2:Somebody paying a copywriter who posts on the most bs/shady/noob forum on the planet to write for them, will OBVIOUSLY not know their demographic and will OBVIOUSLY pick the wrong traffic source for monetizing the big payouts.
          Sorry to disappoint you, but that's utter nonsense.

          On both the occasions the split-tests were done, the copy split-tested was of course identical apart from the "As seen on ..." line across the top of the page (which reduced conversions, understandably, in both tests). Obviously. Otherwise it wouldn't be "testing" that, would it? Duh ...

          Regarding your second "point", other than offering the observation that your characterisation of the Warrior Forum as "the most bs/shady/noob forum on the planet" is perhaps not calculated to win you too many friends here, I won't comment further as every professional copywriter here can already see its complete lack of any logic, sense or reason.

          I would say "nice try, though" but to be honest, it wasn't even that.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3835944].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
            Originally Posted by DOWORKSON View Post

            Somebody paying a copywriter who posts on the most bs/shady/noob forum on the planet to write for them, will OBVIOUSLY not know their demographic and will OBVIOUSLY pick the wrong traffic source for monetizing the big payouts.
            I've had a good look through all your posts and you do seem to have a way with words, you remind me of someone that used to be a member here.

            Incidentally, as you find this forum the "most bs/shady/noob forum on the planet" why exactly do you come here at all?
            Signature

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

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3836061].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author paulie888
              Originally Posted by Richard Van View Post

              I've had a good look through all your posts and you do seem to have a way with words, you remind me of someone that used to be a member here.

              Incidentally, as you find this forum the "most bs/shady/noob forum on the planet" why exactly do you come here at all?
              Richard, we've seen a lot of IP manipulation to set up multiple accounts here, I wouldn't be surprised at all if this person was previously banned at some point or another, and is obviously having sour grapes about it.
              Signature
              >>> Features Jason Fladlien, John S. Rhodes, Justin Brooke, Sean I. Mitchell, Reed Floren and Brad Gosse! <<<
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3836070].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
                Originally Posted by paulie888 View Post

                Richard, we've seen a lot of IP manipulation to set up multiple accounts here, I wouldn't be surprised at all if this person was previously banned at some point or another, and is obviously having sour grapes about it.
                The style of writing is very familiar to me.

                He's a remarkable person though. In one thread he said he's been in IM for just a year and in another, said he had 600 sites. By my estimate that means he's been making 50 sites a month, straight off the bat and if they're all earning just $10 a day each, he's on $180,000 a month. :rolleyes:

                Remarkable.
                Signature

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

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3836108].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author tpw
                  Originally Posted by Richard Van View Post

                  DOWORKSON
                  I've had a good look through all your posts and you do seem to have a way with words, you remind me of someone that used to be a member here.

                  Incidentally, as you find this forum the "most bs/shady/noob forum on the planet" why exactly do you come here at all?
                  Originally Posted by paulie888 View Post

                  Richard, we've seen a lot of IP manipulation to set up multiple accounts here, I wouldn't be surprised at all if this person was previously banned at some point or another, and is obviously having sour grapes about it.
                  Originally Posted by Richard Van View Post

                  The style of writing is very familiar to me.

                  I was thinking the same.

                  The fact that he targeted Alexa for the ugliest criticism, implied the same.

                  I read his comments, and I was inclined to respond, "Hi Dave. Welcome back!!"
                  Signature
                  Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
                  Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3840427].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author DireStraits
            Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

            Sorry to disappoint you, but that's utter nonsense.

            On both the occasions the split-tests were done, the copy split-tested was of course identical apart from the "As seen on ..." line across the top of the page (which reduced conversions, understandably, in both tests). Obviously. Otherwise it wouldn't be testing that, would it? Duh ...

            Regarding your second "point", other than offering the observation that your characterisation of the Warrior Forum as "the most bs/shady/noob forum on the planet" is perhaps not calculated to win you too many friends here, I won't comment further as every professional copywriter here can already see its complete lack of any logic, sense or reason.

            I would say "nice try, though" but to be honest, it wasn't even that.

            Don't you find it somewhat hypocritical, too, that whilst he accused this place of being "bs/shady/noob", he has exhibited all of these traits, himself?

            "bs" - As you've just pointed out above, he has no idea what he's talking about.

            "shady" - The guy who apparently openly condones the practice of insidiously deceiving prospects (or "gullible people") into making purchases using 'any means necessary', and says/implies "you're either a penniless do-gooder or a rich, flagrant liar like me", has the cheek to come here and accuse others of being "shady"!?!? Hah!

            "noob" - The guy doesn't have that many posts, comes to a forum which is head and shoulders above the rest of its "competition" (in terms of the collective level of professionalism), starts using words like "bs" and "noob" and other nonsense, then accuses the forum's members of being "noob" themselves? That language, so far as I've seen, is best suited to "conversations" (read: my-willy-is-bigger-than-yours-style slagging-matches) that are more commonplace in OTHER forums I'd consider to be more "noobish", because half the people there come across as parents-basement-dwelling morons whose knowledge only extends as far as the technical ins and outs of "how to spam as many backlinks per day as possible", and more often than not just revolves around such nonsense as "lolz b00bagez!!1" and other such crap).

            The cheek of it. :rolleyes:
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3836087].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Jeremy Kelsall
            Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

            Sorry to disappoint you, but that's utter nonsense.

            On both the occasions the split-tests were done, the copy split-tested was of course identical apart from the "As seen on ..." line across the top of the page (which reduced conversions, understandably, in both tests). Obviously. Otherwise it wouldn't be "testing" that, would it? Duh ...
            Are you saying that your "as seen on" copy converted at lower numbers?
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3836287].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
              Banned
              Originally Posted by Jeremy Kelsall View Post

              Are you saying that your "as seen on" copy converted at lower numbers?
              Yes, exactly that - as explained in post #25 above.

              I've only seen the numbers for two split-tests, myself, both of which had the same unsurprising result, but to different degrees of statistical significance.

              But I've also commented informally to others here that their conversion rate may increase if they take the deceptive line away, and I know of two people here who tried it and found that it appeared to (unlike what's referred to above in post #25, these two were not accurately monitored split-tests, I think, and I didn't see numerical results for them anyway: this paragraph refers to second-hand gossip only, albeit that its conclusions do match the above).
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3836381].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Jeremy Kelsall
                Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

                Yes, exactly that - as explained in post #25 above.

                I've only seen the numbers for two split-tests, myself, both of which had the same unsurprising result, but to different degrees of statistical significance.

                Take this for what it's worth - But, I've seen "split tests" on over 100 sites, and I've never seen the "as seen on" convert lower than without it - EVER.

                Granted, the "as seen on" might have been different, because I've only seen it used for sites the product, or content actually was "seen on", but "as seen on" has always converted significantly better in the tests I've seen...and I've seen a ton of them as a result of a couple people I know.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3836414].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Jeremy Kelsall
          Originally Posted by DOWORKSON View Post

          Theres no point in answering your question because we all know the answer and that is IRRELEVANT. You are either a marketer or a do-gooder.

          Marketer = $$$$$$$$$$$$$

          Do-Gooder = 0/$$$

          And your little "split test" is bs because:

          1:You said you wouldn't endorse that stuff yet YOU WROTE THE COPY ON ONE OF THEM.

          2:Somebody paying a copywriter who posts on the most bs/shady/noob forum on the planet to write for them, will OBVIOUSLY not know their demographic and will OBVIOUSLY pick the wrong traffic source for monetizing the big payouts.

          Do you seriously think **** and other 8-10 figure products are being promoted on just search engines?

          Sorry for the rant, but people saying flogs/farticles don't work tics me off.

          Here is how they are making money:

          Gullible people + emotional problem + Instant answer to all their problems = BANK.

          Period.

          Is it right? No.. Are people making money with it? More than you can fathom and it's A LOT easier to convert than red fleece long sleeve hoodies.
          This.

          I'm not agreeing with the personal tone of what's been written, but DOWORKSON is dead on.

          just about ANY sales page/squeeze page on the net right now can be picked apart for SOMETHING.

          I'm inclined to believe that those who cheer the FTC on for these kinds of things don't really understand the weight of the situation and what the ramifications could be in the future.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3836156].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
            Originally Posted by Jeremy Kelsall View Post

            This.
            I'm inclined to believe that those who cheer the FTC on for these kinds of things don't really understand the weight of the situation and what the ramifications could be in the future.
            Wait. People actually cheer when the FTC does something?

            I was under the impression they deposited stuff in their trousers.
            Signature

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

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3836176].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Jeremy Kelsall
            What many people fail to comprehend I think is that when the FTC gets involved, and everyones all rah rah rah!!!!!

            Sooner or later, they will get involved to the point of interfering with people who aren't trying to sell stuff to gullible people. As long as we are OK with them coming in and making blanket changes - it won't be long before your squeeze page has to say:

            Opt-in here to get this report that 1 million others have already downloaded. Their typical results have been 0 and there is absolutely nothing in this that you probably don't know if you've been doing whatever it is your trying to do for a week or two.

            It's never good for anyone when the FTC starts laying the law down.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3836183].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
              Banned
              Originally Posted by Jeremy Kelsall View Post

              It's never good for anyone when the FTC starts laying the law down.
              It's a "reactionary" process.

              Regulations (eventually) get laid down increasingly when the public complains increasingly that it's being scammed.

              The more blatant dishonesty there is in an industry, the more the industry gets regulated.

              The one thing that guarantees more and more regulatory involvement, more and more regulatory bodies, and regulators with sharper and sharper teeth is a commercial climate in which increasing numbers of people "test the limits of the public's tolerance".

              It really is as simple as that. It has been in most countries of the world, for many decades. I don't see that changing any time soon.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3836240].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
            Banned
            Originally Posted by Jeremy Kelsall View Post

            DOWORKSON is dead on.
            Not so, Jeremy. You may agree with his conclusion, but two of the points on which he apparently bases it are themselves factually incorrect, for the reasons explained in post #49 above.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3836201].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author DireStraits
            Originally Posted by Jeremy Kelsall View Post

            This.

            I'm not agreeing with the personal tone of what's been written, but DOWORKSON is dead on.

            just about ANY sales page/squeeze page on the net right now can be picked apart for SOMETHING.

            I'm inclined to believe that those who cheer the FTC on for these kinds of things don't really understand the weight of the situation and what the ramifications could be in the future.
            And who is most to blame for this, Jeremy?

            You have to understand and appreciate that these people with no apparent moral/ethical boundaries - the people whose general mindset seems to be "screw 'em and milk 'em for all they're worth in whatever ways you can", with a blatant disregard for anything else - are those collectively most responsible for the ever-increasing strength and volume of (over)regulation which eventually leaves everyone wary, weary and struggling to comply.

            You push too hard, and it's only a matter of time before the authorities push back. How do you avoid that happening - at least to the degree that it inevitably always does? Simple: exercise some self-restraint.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3836221].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Jeremy Kelsall
              Originally Posted by DireStraits View Post

              And who is most to blame for this, Jeremy?

              You have to understand and appreciate that these people with no apparent moral/ethical boundaries - the people whose general mindset seems to be "screw 'em and milk 'em for all they're worth in whatever ways you can", with a blatant disregard for anything else - are those collectively most responsible for the ever-increasing strength and volume of (over)regulation which eventually leaves everyone wary, weary and struggling to comply.

              You push too hard, and it's only a matter of time before the authorities push back. How do you avoid that happening - at least to the degree that it inevitably always does? Simple: exercise some self-restraint.
              You're making the mistake of lumping everyone in together. Sure, there are dirt bag assholes out there - But, there are also people who do follow the rules that are affected when regulations such as the ones talked about here are enacted.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3836299].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author DireStraits
                Originally Posted by Jeremy Kelsall View Post

                You're making the mistake of lumping everyone in together. Sure, there are dirt bag assholes out there - But, there are also people who do follow the rules that are affected when regulations such as the ones talked about here are enacted.
                You misconstrue me. Where did I say anything about who does or doesn't adversely feel the effects of over-regulation?

                I dislike regulation as much as the next person.

                I completely understand that regulation can and will build to the point that even professional, legitimate and honest/ethical marketers will feel its effects, "suffer" from it and - in one way or another - be put to great inconvenience by it.

                Which is why I'm hostile to those who come to a forum and openly condone practices that are blatantly scammy, outrageously dishonest/deceitful and downright unethical, and reveal themselves to be practitioners of this crap in the process.

                I'm just attributing blame, is all.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3836370].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Jeremy Kelsall
                  Originally Posted by DireStraits View Post


                  Which is why I'm hostile to those who come to a forum and openly condone practices that are blatantly scammy, outrageously dishonest/deceitful and downright unethical, and reveal themselves to be practitioners of this crap in the process.

                  I'm just attributing blame, is all.
                  I guess I'm saying that it isn't always scammy, outrageously dishonest/deceitful, and downright unethical - Even if some think it is.

                  If I use a page like the one described and in big bold font at the top of the page write
                  ADVERTISEMENT

                  We aren't dealing with a case of dishonest marketing - We are dealing with a case of stupidity if someone later comes back and says "I thought it was real"

                  This type and style of advertising has been used since long before many of us were born - It doesn't make it wrong just because it's done on the internet...I'm not suggesting that is what you personally are saying, but I do get the felling that some folks believe that.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3836393].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
                    Banned
                    Originally Posted by Jeremy Kelsall View Post

                    It doesn't make it wrong just because it's done on the internet...
                    For sure ... not questioning that at all - it's not the fact that it's done online that makes it wrong: if the intent is to deceive people, then it's wrong wherever it's done, clearly.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3836435].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Jeremy Kelsall
                      Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

                      For sure ... not questioning that at all - it's not the fact that it's done online that makes it wrong: if the intent is to deceive people, then it's wrong wherever it's done, clearly.
                      Advertising almost always is done to make people think, feel, or believe a certain thing...ALMOST ALWAYS.

                      Car commercials are made to make women think they will look hotter by buying a certain mini-van or make men think that they will be more manly by buying a certain pick up truck.

                      Boflex commercials are made to make you believe you will be some incredible hulk after 6 weeks.

                      That's advertising...

                      In no way am I saying that a blog thrown up with a bunch of fake comments on it is acceptable - my contention here is that by being "OK" with the FTC or any other government body stepping in and making blanket regulations is both stupid and dangerous if you are actually doing any sort of advertising online or otherwise.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3836478].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Karen Blundell
                        Originally Posted by Jeremy Kelsall View Post

                        Advertising almost always is done to make people think, feel, or believe a certain thing...ALMOST ALWAYS.

                        Car commercials are made to make women think they will look hotter by buying a certain mini-van or make men think that they will be more manly by buying a certain pick up truck.

                        Boflex commercials are made to make you believe you will be some incredible hulk after 6 weeks.

                        That's advertising...

                        In no way am I saying that a blog thrown up with a bunch of fake comments on it is acceptable - my contention here is that by being "OK" with the FTC or any other government body stepping in and making blanket regulations is both stupid and dangerous if you are actually doing any sort of advertising online or otherwise.
                        Jeremy, I totally get what you are saying. I would rather have "less government". We are, after all, grownups, and we should be able to do our own due diligence before purchasing anything that might seem suspect.
                        Signature
                        ---------------
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3840572].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author ExRat
                          Hi,

                          Interesting thread and opinions.

                          If you want to see a bunch of quotes from Atlas Shrugged (it's like a coffee-time version of it) go HERE. Many of them are relevant to what we discuss in this forum and this thread.

                          EG -

                          "When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, 'Who is destroying the world?' You are."
                          "Let me give you a tip on a clue to men's characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it. Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another - their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun."
                          "...When a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law, men who use force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims, then money becomes its creators' avenger. Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they've passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter."
                          "When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion- When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing- when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors- when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you- when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice- you may know that your society is doomed."
                          Signature


                          Roger Davis

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3840641].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author DOWORKSON
                            I'm to busy to go on a quoting spree so heres a summary for the "warriors" who had negative replies to my comments.

                            1: The reason I came to this forum was to converse with marketers. All I see is a group of deceitful and ignorant people spreading false information and monetizing each other. Do I practice deceitful marketing tactics? Yes, but the internet marketing world has always had an honor among thieves (hence the large syndicate between the likes of Frank Kern, Eban Pagan, Jeff Walker etc.) and the majority of users here have demolished that golden rule.

                            2: Calling me a "noob" because of my post count? Ohh boy. :rolleyes:

                            3: The vast majority of my sites DO NOT earn 10$ a day, in a perfect world my friend.

                            4: The reason I have fast success is because internet marketing is CHEAP. Anybody can do it and that's why i'm going to leave these points for the new guys:

                            Stop asking any and all questions on a forum. You will get too many contradictory answers. Instead, find someone at the END LEVEL that you want to be at. Befriend them, move to their city, walk their dogs, wash their dishes. Whatever you have to do to learn what a real expert did to get to where they are.

                            Funding: Get a loan, a friends credit card, rob a bank, i don't really care. Theres no point in stressing your self out writing 10 pieces of content or creating 100 backlinks a day when you can pay experts for 100 articles and 100,000 backlinks a day for pennies on the dollar. Were business men, not writers or an seo firm.

                            The internet is not saturated, nor is it getting saturated. Is google saturated? Uhhh yes. I am just not into seo based traffic anymore, the profit to difficulty ratio is not even close to worth it. Do you not see why every major bizopp that has came out in the past year has serious Googleitis? Ever heard of PPC, CPV, TEXT LINKS, MEDIA BUYS, BANNER ADS, etc.

                            The warrior forum one of the biggest and oldest IM forums around, but if your going to sit there and tell me that it isn't full of noobs and scammers then you might need to stop squinting buddy.
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3845061].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
                              Originally Posted by DOWORKSON View Post

                              The reason I came to this forum was to converse with marketers. All I see is a group of deceitful and ignorant people spreading false information and monetizing each other. Do I practice deceitful marketing tactics? Yes
                              So my question remains, if you came here to converse with marketers and all you see is a group of deceitful, ignorant people, why do you still come here?

                              The vast majority of my sites DO NOT earn 10$ a day, in a perfect world my friend.
                              Fair point. I was more impressed with the way you got the 600 sites up and running over the one year period you've previously said, you've been doing this for. I find that very impressive, Did you outsource it?

                              The warrior forum one of the biggest and oldest IM forums around, but if your going to sit there and tell me that it isn't full of noobs and scammers then you might need to stop squinting buddy.
                              There are plenty of newbs and scammers, indeed even you said...

                              Do I practice deceitful marketing tactics? Yes
                              My point is though, that there are lots of people, especially in this thread, who do not scam and are not new to this.

                              Incidentally, my response wasn't intentionally negative. It's negativity was directly proportional to the amount of negativity you let out, everytime you've decided to leave a comment.

                              No hard feelings though, just me thinking out loud.
                              Signature

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

                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3845188].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yourreviewer
    Here is an interesting story. I had a client who was interested in doing the same. When I asked him the reason, he said, "Well, I just read an article which said that once you associate your product or brand with authority, then your sales will improve."

    I then told him that the principle was based on Robert Cialdini's The Psychology of Persuasion and while what he read was true, he had to keep this mind. Cialdini warns that whenever you try to use any of the principles of influence to intentionally deceive the consumers, the results are most likely to backfire.

    I recommended him to focus on gathering testimonials than have a big colorful graphic of "As seen on Google, Yahoo, Bing, Squidoo, Hubpages, Ezine Articles". Not only is it such a waste of valuable real estate, in many markets, these gimmicks just won't work.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3829635].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
    Although this is a good discussion, I suppose, I want to point out a couple of things that everyone seems to have overlooked:

    #1, in the US, courts can't "enact a permanent ban" on anything. They do not have that capability.

    #2, the FTC page that was linked to describes the actions the FTC is taking against 10 specific companies:
    The Federal Trade Commission is requesting federal courts to temporarily halt the allegedly deceptive tactics of 10 operations using fake news websites to market **** berry weight-loss products. (from the original FTC page)
    What might be misinterpreted is "requesting federal courts". The FTC is not asking that ALL federal courts "enact a permanent ban". "Federal courts" is plural because the 10 cases were not filed in a single federal court, but in several, according to jurisdiction.

    Rules against deceptive advertising already exist, this FTC article is just them tooting their own horn that they are, in fact (contrary to much public opinion), doing their job and striking down bad people and making the world safe for the average oblivious consumer.
    Signature

    The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

    Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3830392].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author paulie888
      Originally Posted by SteveJohnson View Post

      Although this is a good discussion, I suppose, I want to point out a couple of things that everyone seems to have overlooked:

      #1, in the US, courts can't "enact a permanent ban" on anything. They do not have that capability.

      #2, the FTC page that was linked to describes the actions the FTC is taking against 10 specific companies:

      What might be misinterpreted is "requesting federal courts". The FTC is not asking that ALL federal courts "enact a permanent ban". "Federal courts" is plural because the 10 cases were not filed in a single federal court, but in several, according to jurisdiction.

      Rules against deceptive advertising already exist, this FTC article is just them tooting their own horn that they are, in fact (contrary to much public opinion), doing their job and striking down bad people and making the world safe for the average oblivious consumer.
      Steve, thanks for pointing this out, as many people here seem to be under the impression that this is a "blanket ban" against all fake news sites - I certainly don't condone the use of such deceptive tactics, but enforcing such a ban would be next to impossible anyway.

      This ruling is specifically focused on affiliate marketers that are promoting **** berry products, and no one else.

      Paul
      Signature
      >>> Features Jason Fladlien, John S. Rhodes, Justin Brooke, Sean I. Mitchell, Reed Floren and Brad Gosse! <<<
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3835436].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MichaelHiles
    As Dan Kennedy once said, anything that is effective on any level is probably going to be deemed illegal by the FTC.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3830408].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Richnana
    I am glad they did it. The public is very gullible and they believe anything the they see or read that is endorsed by a legitimate news ageny. Many people purchase items based on these misleading advertisements. I think this is a good thing in many ways.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3830829].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author The Copy Nazi
    Banned
    "As seen on The Warrior Forum"
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3831100].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author tpw
    I looked at a product one time that was claiming "as seen on Oprah".

    I checked.

    The product was mentioned on "Oprah" as a product that could not deliver on its promised benefits.
    Signature
    Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
    Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3833931].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author E. Brian Rose
      Originally Posted by tpw View Post

      I looked at a product one time that was claiming "as seen on Oprah".

      I checked.

      The product was mentioned on "Oprah" as a product that could not deliver on its promised benefits.
      That's nothing new. Look at all of the movie advertisements that use that strategy. For example, let's say that Rolling Stone said, "full of action, but fails to deliver on any type of level that would be suitable for anyone with a brain."

      Then you see a commercial for the movie with this on it...

      "FULL OF ACTION" - Rolling Stone Magazine
      Signature
      My New Video Series is Free (for now)
      Crazy good marketing tips from the founder of JVZoo.
      Get EBR 365 Now!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3834059].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author DOWORKSON
        Originally Posted by E. Brian Rose View Post

        That's nothing new. Look at all of the movie advertisements that use that strategy. For example, let's say that Rolling Stone said, "full of action, but fails to deliver on any type of level that would be suitable for anyone with a brain."

        Then you see a commercial for the movie with this on it...

        "FULL OF ACTION" - Rolling Stone Magazine
        ^This.

        THAT is how crapy movies/products/ANYTHING makes mega bank. Bending the truth as far as possible.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3834387].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Dean Jackson
        Rolling Stones Mag officially went down the crapper when they featured the "Jonas Brothers" on the cover... LOL


        Originally Posted by E. Brian Rose View Post

        That's nothing new. Look at all of the movie advertisements that use that strategy. For example, let's say that Rolling Stone said, "full of action, but fails to deliver on any type of level that would be suitable for anyone with a brain."

        Then you see a commercial for the movie with this on it...

        "FULL OF ACTION" - Rolling Stone Magazine
        Signature
        NEW: CRAZIEST Copywriting offer ever offered on WF
        My top student WILL make your sales go BANANAS!
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3835026].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author KenThompson
          Originally Posted by Dean Jackson View Post

          Rolling Stones Mag officially went down the crapper when they featured the "Jonas Brothers" on the cover... LOL
          LOL..

          As Seen On Rolling Stone

          Still, that is a step in something for RS; not so sure about a direction, though.


          Ken
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3835275].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Tom Lazenby
    If there's one thing I've learned in life, it's that bull$hit gets you everywhere. THIS is a case in point, this lady built an entire career around it.
    Signature

    YES IT IS STILL POSSIBLE
    !
    Not Only That, It's Perfectly Legal & Whitehat!
    CLICK HERE
    FOR DETAILS
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3834428].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Derek S
    I'm against FTC on this one.

    Their issue should be with content and nothing to do with the design. Who are they to start saying how you should design your site. "it looks too official" is probably the worst reason I have ever heard of. Now it is one thing if you steal an actual news organizations trademarked logo/name but you can really call a site whatever you want so long as it is not trademark infringing.

    Watch a handful of infomercials tonight and I can guarantee you 1 out of 4 will be made to look like a news broadcast or "60 minutes" rip off. Television has been doing this for years and even before the internet as we know it today. Hell I think people dressing up head to toe like doctors but spinning themselves as "private researcher" is far worse than how a site is designed... Yet we still see this in commercials on a daily basis.

    So long as the page discloses that they are compensated for the links they recommend and the products they recommend are legal... FTC is really pushing it here.

    For the record I have never promoted any product with a news style template but if I had the time and used/believed in the product you can sure as hell bet I would use that exact style of site for the CPA offers... It's genius right down to the geo-targeted headlines and weather reports!
    Signature

    --- Work Smart... Not Hard ---

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3834451].message }}
    • Originally Posted by Derek S View Post

      I'm against FTC on this one.

      Their issue should be with content and nothing to do with the design. Who are they to start saying how you should design your site. "it looks too official" is probably the worst reason I have ever heard of. Now it is one thing if you steal an actual news organizations trademarked logo/name but you can really call a site whatever you want so long as it is not trademark infringing.
      Really it has more to do with the intent more than anything and less to do with the overall design. What you have is people doing large scale media buys that go on major news sites like CNN, AOL,ect. With a advertisement about whatever weight loss product they are advertising and the user is redirected to a page that looks like a credible news site.

      So that is their main crux of the allegations at this point, the people behind the sites knowingly deceived consumers into thinking they were actual news sites to profit.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3834513].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Derek S
        Originally Posted by OnlineMarketingSys View Post

        Really it has more to do with the intent more than anything and less to do with the overall design. What you have is people doing large scale media buys that go on major news sites like CNN, AOL,ect. With a advertisement about whatever weight loss product they are advertising and the user is redirected to a page that looks like a credible news site.

        So that is their main crux of the allegations at this point, the people behind the sites knowingly deceived consumers into thinking they were actual news sites to profit.
        People mostly find these sites through media buys just like you have said and click the ADVERTISEMENT just like you said.

        Now if you click an AD clearly marked "ADVERTISEMENT" should it not be assumed 99% of the time clicking an ad will lead you to another ad? If an advertisement wants to look like a news report they have the right to do so.

        Should they?

        That can only be answered individually by your own personal opinion as a marketer.

        The issue here really should not be with the look of the ad but the content. As the document says only 10 people are being banned from this style marketing and all 10 of them did not make the mandatory commission/affiliate claims required on the sites... their guilty obviously but I dont think the design should have anything to do with it.
        Signature

        --- Work Smart... Not Hard ---

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3834584].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author theplugindude
    My friend in india made 300K dollars with Bizopp having a Fake news type landing page.

    The thing is - If you know how to do Bizopps well, then the Fake News type landing page converts like hell.

    And then guess what happened?

    FTC tried to corner him and tried to slap a 500K Fine.

    He escaped because he did not give his REAL name and address in places where he had to...

    Now my friend is solely relying on other sources like Article Marketing, Adwords etc.

    Just dont mess around with them in these places..You will be paying for it someday.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3834478].message }}
  • {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3835322].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Converting Copy
    I actually didn't know that anyone but **** Berry sites used this stuff, at least I've never seen anything else.

    I agree that it's always disconcerting when the business of affiliate marketing gets put under the microscope by people with power. Still, this is a decidedly black hat technique, so unless you're doing something pretty similar I don't see how this is that much cause for alarm.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3836259].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author E. Brian Rose
    Those of you that side with stricter government regulations are in a sense shooting yourself in your own foot.

    Every business category in the world has their share of good guys and bad guys. It is up to you to prove your worthiness and trustfulness to the consumer.

    Cheer for stricter regulations and you just might find yourself out of a job.

    Instead, cheer for more freedom and use that freedom to prove yourself and your product.
    Signature
    My New Video Series is Free (for now)
    Crazy good marketing tips from the founder of JVZoo.
    Get EBR 365 Now!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3836326].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
    Banned
    All of you who think it's the government grabbing your freedoms away, advertisers do not have the freedom to to lie and use deceptive marketing practices. It's that simple. That just doesn't exist in our "Bill of Rights". So they get caught and face the consequences. Big Deal. Ho hum. Another scammer bites the dust.

    For those of you who think this is a massive government conspiracy so that you can't make any money, do you believe in these practices:

    From the FTC Complaint
    __________________________
    "As part of a new series: 'Diet Trends: A look at America's Top Diets' we examine consumer tips for dieting during a recession." The article that follows purports to document a reporter's first-hand experience with **** berry supplements - typically claiming to have lost 25 pounds in four weeks.

    "Almost everything about these sites is fake," said David Vladeck, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection. "The weight loss results, the so-called investigations, the reporters, the consumer testimonials, and the attempt to portray an objective, journalistic endeavor."

    make false and unsupported claims that **** berry supplements will cause rapid and substantial weight loss;
    deceptively represent that:
    their websites are objective news reports;
    independent tests demonstrate the effectiveness of the product, and
    comments following the "articles" on their websites reflect the views of independent consumers; and
    fail to disclose their financial relationships to the merchants selling the products.


    Reporters or commentators pictured on the sites are fictional and have not conducted the tests or experienced the results described in the reports

    The "responses" and "comments" following the reports are simply additional advertising content, not independent statements from ordinary consumers.

    The defendants receive commissions when consumers buy the products or sign up for "free trials" on the product-selling sites - but they fail to adequately disclose their lack of objectivity and their financial incentive to get consumers to buy the products.


    The defendants running the fake news sites who were charged in these cases make claims that consumers can experience dramatic weight loss by taking **** berry supplements in combination with a companion product such as a so-called colon cleanser.
    __________________________

    If this is what you are fighting for and how you conduct your business, just say so.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3836411].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Jeremy Kelsall
      Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

      All of you who think it's the government grabbing your freedoms away, advertisers do not have the freedom to to lie and use deceptive marketing practices. It's that simple. That just doesn't exist in our "Bill of Rights". So they get caught and face the consequences. Big Deal. Ho hum. Another scammer bites the dust.

      For those of you who think this is a massive government conspiracy so that you can't make any money, do you believe in these practices:

      From the FTC Complaint
      __________________________
      "As part of a new series: 'Diet Trends: A look at America's Top Diets' we examine consumer tips for dieting during a recession." The article that follows purports to document a reporter's first-hand experience with **** berry supplements - typically claiming to have lost 25 pounds in four weeks.

      "Almost everything about these sites is fake," said David Vladeck, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection. "The weight loss results, the so-called investigations, the reporters, the consumer testimonials, and the attempt to portray an objective, journalistic endeavor."

      make false and unsupported claims that **** berry supplements will cause rapid and substantial weight loss;
      deceptively represent that:
      their websites are objective news reports;
      independent tests demonstrate the effectiveness of the product, and
      comments following the "articles" on their websites reflect the views of independent consumers; and
      fail to disclose their financial relationships to the merchants selling the products.


      Reporters or commentators pictured on the sites are fictional and have not conducted the tests or experienced the results described in the reports

      The "responses" and "comments" following the reports are simply additional advertising content, not independent statements from ordinary consumers.

      The defendants receive commissions when consumers buy the products or sign up for "free trials" on the product-selling sites - but they fail to adequately disclose their lack of objectivity and their financial incentive to get consumers to buy the products.


      The defendants running the fake news sites who were charged in these cases make claims that consumers can experience dramatic weight loss by taking **** berry supplements in combination with a companion product such as a so-called colon cleanser.
      __________________________

      If this is what you are fighting for and how you conduct your business, just say so.
      Way to completely miss the point - You win the gold star.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3836422].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
        Banned
        Originally Posted by Jeremy Kelsall View Post

        Way to completely miss the point - You win the gold star.
        Oh ... I didn't miss the point. Everyone is crying foul about fake news sites and "as seen on tv" crap but the real point is advertising that is outright lies and deceptive. You get a gold star too for missing that.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3836433].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Jeremy Kelsall
          Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

          Oh ... I didn't miss the point. Everyone is crying foul about fake news sites and "as seen on tv" crap but the real point is advertising that is outright lies and deceptive. You get a gold star too for missing that.

          Nobody is arguing that you should be able to advertise deceptively...show me where I or anyone else said that?

          What I'm saying and what others have said is that if one person is doing something wrong - drop the hammer on them...don't make it a blanket type deal where people who are doing it the right way are affected.

          Try not over reacting - it makes the discussion a lot more enjoyable.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3836455].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
            Banned
            Originally Posted by Jeremy Kelsall View Post

            Nobody is arguing that you should be able to advertise deceptively...show me where I or anyone else said that?

            What I'm saying and what others have said is that if one person is doing something wrong - drop the hammer on them...don't make it a blanket type deal where people who are doing it the right way are affected.

            Try not over reacting - it makes the discussion a lot more enjoyable.
            #1: The FTC complaint is against 10 companies (I use that term loosely) .... nothing blanket about 10 companies
            #2: Nobody has actually come out and said ... I should be able to advertise any way that I want to advertise any way that I want to ... oh wait ...

            Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

            The sheep are bleating again. Do we have the the right to present sales presentations as we see fit?

            Hell no. Not any more.
            Originally Posted by DOWORKSON View Post

            Theres no point in answering your question because we all know the answer and that is IRRELEVANT. You are either a marketer or a do-gooder.

            Marketer = $$$$$$$$$$$$$

            Do-Gooder = 0/$$$

            Sorry for the rant, but people saying flogs/farticles don't work tics me off.

            Here is how they are making money:

            Gullible people + emotional problem + Instant answer to all their problems = BANK.

            Period.

            Is it right? No.. Are people making money with it? More than you can fathom and it's A LOT easier to convert than red fleece long sleeve hoodies.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3836519].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Jeremy Kelsall
              Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

              #1: The FTC complaint is against 10 companies (I use that term loosely) .... nothing blanket about 10 companies
              10 companies is what the actual document is about - the comments that have followed have largely been blanket type comments...


              As far as the 2 things you quoted - count me in on the number of people who believe that we should be able to advertise however we see fit. If someone does something wrong, then they should get in trouble, etc etc etc

              It's just like the clickbank thing...

              Because of a couple of idiots, everyone who wants to list a product has to jump through fricken hoops...

              Instead of just banning the offenders, you make it difficult for everyone? How the hell does that make sense?
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3836572].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
                Banned
                Originally Posted by Jeremy Kelsall View Post

                10 companies is what the actual document is about - the comments that have followed have largely been blanket type comments...


                As far as the 2 things you quoted - count me in on the number of people who believe that we should be able to advertise however we see fit. If someone does something wrong, then they should get in trouble, etc etc etc

                It's just like the clickbank thing...

                Because of a couple of idiots, everyone who wants to list a product has to jump through fricken hoops...

                Instead of just banning the offenders, you make it difficult for everyone? How the hell does that make sense?
                I don't make it difficult for anyone. Companies who over-react to these crackdowns make it difficult. I'm all for getting the bad guys instead of making rules that affect honest business people. The FTC is just enforcing rules that already exist and taking action against specific people as they find them. It's the ad networks that get all antsy about it and make it difficult for those who don't use deceptive advertising.

                It's the same type of reaction we're seeing from content farms, article directories, etc. Because of Panda, it's nearly impossible to use free websites such as Hub page, EzineArticles, etc. They are now practically useless to a lot of marketers. It's an over-reaction.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3836591].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author paulie888
                Originally Posted by Jeremy Kelsall View Post

                10 companies is what the actual document is about - the comments that have followed have largely been blanket type comments...


                As far as the 2 things you quoted - count me in on the number of people who believe that we should be able to advertise however we see fit. If someone does something wrong, then they should get in trouble, etc etc etc

                It's just like the clickbank thing...

                Because of a couple of idiots, everyone who wants to list a product has to jump through fricken hoops...

                Instead of just banning the offenders, you make it difficult for everyone? How the hell does that make sense?
                There's a sickening, but familiar pattern that occurs every time here. Every time the FTC issues some kind of ruling or makes some kind of declaration, it tends to make everyone overreact (from the networks down to the affiliates), and this causes a fallout in the market which usually takes at least several months to settle down.

                This very same phenomenon happened the year before last when the FTC tried to crack down on trial billing for the CPA offers. I feel that this occurs because the FTC is typically so vague in what its statements apply to, and this is why everyone tends to overreact - because they do not know what to expect.
                Signature
                >>> Features Jason Fladlien, John S. Rhodes, Justin Brooke, Sean I. Mitchell, Reed Floren and Brad Gosse! <<<
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3838233].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author KenThompson
                  Originally Posted by paulie888 View Post

                  I feel that this occurs because the FTC is typically so vague in what its statements apply to...
                  ^^^ This. Absolutely.

                  (LOL... been dying to do that. Seems to be the trend.)

                  You're right Paul, and I think it's like that because (it seems) they
                  could hamstring themselves if they make the written words too
                  precise. Plus there are so many different situations.

                  Vague rules are everywhere, and they work to everybody's favor
                  or so it seems. All depends on the particulars of the situation.


                  Ken

                  PS - ^^^ That. Like that?
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3838705].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Zero
    About bloody time.
    Hopefully now we won't be seeing any more of those stupid clickbank products that also use this tactic. Its just lazy lazy marketing and outright dishonest.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3838268].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Eric Lorence
    Well, maybe the "top ten" companies have to worry ...

    Or top 20 or whatever ... but by then they will have already made their millions?

    Have million dollar legal teams rushing to their defense.

    These characters will be back in a few years with the next "miracle herb" ...

    While, as usual ... the vast majority of "scams" will be perpetrated by the other 99% grinding their way to the top.

    This won't stop 'em, never has, never will.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3838659].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kevin_Hutto
    For all the people who want more government involvement in business, go read Atlas Shrugged. We are moving further and further from a capitalistic economic system these days. I would at least hope that some people on a make money forum would understand that it is a slippery slope. The same gov't that you cheer as they pile drive one person's business could easily come knocking on your door one day. And there will be nobody left but you.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3838798].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author KenThompson
      Originally Posted by Kevin_Hutto View Post

      For all the people who want more government involvement in business, go read Atlas Shrugged. We are moving further and further from a capitalistic economic system these days. I would at least hope that some people on a make money forum would understand that it is a slippery slope. The same gov't that you cheer as they pile drive one person's business could easily come knocking on your door one day. And there will be nobody left but you.

      Kevin,

      I read Atlas Shrugged a long time ago. Great book. But the
      thesis of that book is still as applicable today as it was when she
      wrote it.

      It's not amusing, but I can't help but feel amused.


      Ken
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3838827].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author myob
        Originally Posted by KenThompson View Post

        I read Atlas Shrugged a long time ago. Great book. But the
        thesis of that book is still as applicable today as it was when she
        wrote it.

        It's not amusing, but I can't help but feel amused.


        Ken
        The book's thesis seems to be applicable even more so today. It has even been made into a movie, which means it may be coming soon to a TV near you. Would the publisher dare to advertise it "As Seen on TV"?
        Signature
        “If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants.” – Isaac Newton
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3838979].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author DireStraits
          Originally Posted by myob View Post

          The book's thesis seems to be applicable even more so today. It has even been made into a movie, which means it may be coming soon to a TV near you. Would the publisher dare to advertise it "As Seen on TV"?
          Is that Tom Cruise in your avatar, Paul?

          He's not in the movie, is he?

          Gosh, I hope not.

          Speaking of which, Tom Cruise is a prime example of when "As Seen On TV" (or being seen on TV) can backfire and ruin - rather than bolster - a reputation.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3839044].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author myob
            Good eye, but actually most people think its Taylor Schilling, who plays Dagny Taggart.
            Signature
            “If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants.” – Isaac Newton
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3839160].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author KenThompson
          Originally Posted by myob View Post

          The book's thesis seems to be applicable even more so today. It has even been made into a movie, which means it may be coming soon to a TV near you. Would the publisher dare to advertise it "As Seen on TV"?
          Totally out of the loop with movies and TV. lol

          That's a long book. I would watch the movie just out of curiosity to
          see if they do a good job of it.


          Ken
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3839322].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author tortoise
    As I see it, the problem is not that they advertise, it's that they l-i-e. People like that are the reason 90% of my email gets deleted. Marketing is great, lying is not. I've met some people in marketing that are so shady, if you shake hands with them, you'd better count your fingers afterwards!
    Signature

    Need quality articles written quickly? click here

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3838875].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kevin_Hutto
    I always pictured Liam Neeson as the perfect Hank Reardon... And Gina Davis for some reason as Dagny Taggart... I would have a hard time watching the movie because I have had this cast in my head for about 20 years :-)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3839376].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author The Copy Nazi
    Banned
    Opt-in here to get this report that 1 million others have already downloaded. Their typical results have been 0 and there is absolutely nothing in this that you probably don't know if you've been doing whatever it is your trying to do for a week or two.
    I'm nicking this. I think it will work gangbusters. With a few tweaks -

    Hey Noob! Opt-in here to get this half-baked report that 1 million other dreamers have already downloaded. Their typical results have been Zip and there is absolutely nothing in this that you probably don't know already if you have half a brain.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3845187].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author StevenJones
    Finally! I really like what the FTC is doing, as they seperate the genuine marketers from the deceiving kind.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3845275].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author judith
    FTC is for Americans, this is the World Wide Web
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3845485].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dagaul101
    It used to be those fake news were restricted to the likes of celebrity gossip on Twitter, but it becomes inevitable for businesses and individual to start using it for their own gain, so it comes as no surprise for the FTC to start crackign down on it
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3845497].message }}

Trending Topics