25 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
25 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Is This Legal? Sort of farticle/advertorial

by ably
20 replies
Hi everyone,

I keep stumbling on this types of adverts, not sure what the proper name for these are, farticles? advertorials?

Am I breaking any rule by posting the following? If so please let me know, anyway here it is:
consumerlifestylestips.com/uk/look_younger/

I am pretty sure that I am not outing anybody as most of you have probably already seen this, it has been running for at least a couple of years.

It's basically a single page website forged to make you believe that it's actually a living website full of content. Note how every single detail is ingeniously crafted to give the impression of a real website, like the "weather" box or the fake menu full of options which do not lead anywhere except possibly to the product page, the comments, the innuendos to real magazines and people etc. you get the idea.

I thought that the FTC and most ad-networks did not allow these types of ads, however I keep seeing them everywhere...

I am pretty sure up until not long ago I saw them advertised also on FB, not sure if anything change guideline-wise. Pretty sure Google wouldn't allow them. However many other minor networks are accepting them because obviously they work, probably very well.

Is anybody (legally) using similar techniques profitably?
What is the border line between a legitimate and a deceiving advertorial in your opinion?
#farticle or advertorial #legal #sort
  • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
    A day or so ago, there was a thread asking what a "flog" was. In online marketing terms, the site you posted is the quintessential example of a 'flog' (fake blog) or 'splog' (spam blog). The only trick they missed was a localizer to insert the city/weather of the ISP used to access the page.

    From a cursory look at the underlying source code, the links appear to be php redirects for a pair of CPA offers for free trials of the product.

    Whether the page in question is legal is up to the UK equivalent of the FCC. The ethics are definitely questionable, though.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7616466].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Shadowflux
    Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

    The FTC does not allow you to make fraudulent claims. They are not the advertising style police.

    They would be well over worked if they were!
    Signature
    Native Advertising Specialist
    Dangerously Effective
    Always Discreet
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7616951].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Green Moon
    Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

    The FTC does not allow you to make fraudulent claims. They are not the advertising style police.
    While it's true that the FTC does not police something that is purely style, advertising style can be deceptive and the FTC does police deceptive advertising, not just fraudulent claims. For example, the rules requiring disclosure of financial relationships behind endorsements apply even if the endorsements are 100% honest. The idea is that failing to disclose that a relationship exists is deceptive even if the endorsement is objective because a buyer might give less weight to an endorsement if he or she were aware of the relationship.

    With regard to "fake news" specifically, the FTC has taken action: FTC Seeks to Halt 10 Operators of Fake News Sites from Making Deceptive Claims About **** Berry Weight Loss Products. The site the OP cited clearly violates the same FTC guidelines as the **** berry sites that it went after.

    Whether a fake news site violates and laws or regulations in UK is a question someone in the UK can address.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7617188].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    GM - a fake news site is not the same as a just designing an ad to look like a website.

    I don't see this as any different than the ads that show "newspaper" article ads. I'd like to call it unethical - and in my mind it is, but...............

    How much should we have to babysit an adult. Disclaimers are provided by law - and we should be able to expect an adult to be responsible for at least a little due diligence when spending money. While the ads are misleading, it doesn't take a rocket scientists to figure them out. As long as the disclaimers are placed at the bottom of the ad in accordance with law, if someone is not lucid enough to discern that something is an advertizement and not "news" or a "website" even though the disclaimers are there, how much should we have to worry about whether that person gets "taken"? While I scorn unethical marketing and feel honesty is the only way to run a business, I'm also getting real burned out on the idea that adults need "protection" from something that they'd be able to figure out themselves with a minimal amount of effort.

    While I'm no lawyer, I can't see that type of ad design being illegal if there is no deception in the text - and the legal disclaimers are there. Still - I don't think it's a good idea because people may perceive it as an attempt to deceive and that wins your business no patronage.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7617197].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Green Moon
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      GM - a fake news site is not the same as a just designing an ad to look like a website.

      I don't see this as any different than the ads that show "newspaper" article ads. I'd like to call it unethical - and in my mind it is, but...............
      Here is a quote from the FTC press release cited above:

      The FTC complaints allege that typical fake news sites have titles such as "News 6 News Alerts," "Health News Health Alerts," or "Health 5 Beat Health News." The sites often include the names and logos of major media outlets - such as ABC, Fox News, CBS, CNN, USA Today, and Consumer Reports - and falsely represent that the reports on the sites have been seen on these networks. An investigative-sounding headline on one such site proclaims "**** Berry Diet Exposed: Miracle Diet or Scam?" The sub-headline reads, "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."
      Now let's look at the site referred to by the OP:
      • The site includes the names and logos of major media outlets: "As seen in Cosmopolitan, Vogue and Cosmetic Surgery Magazine"
      • Purports to be from a legitimate news outlet: "Like us, here at Channel 4 ..."
      • Purports to be an investigative report: "Michelle investigates a local mum's discovery of clever tricks to get a celebrity look for less than £6"
      • Contains fake comments that stay the same but the dates they were supposedly posted automatically change to make them look like they were just posted

      This site appears to have virtually the same deceptive tactics as the sites that the FTC went after.

      For anyone who thinks that presenting a sales page as an investigative report, pretending that the article comes from a legitimate news outlet, making up case studies, creating fake testimonials, etc... is ethical, all I can say is those are the people who give internet marketing a bad name and hurt all of the rest of us.

      For those like HeySal, who seems to agree that the site is not ethical (or at least not good business practice) but believes such a site IS legal, I believe you are wrong. You may see a distinction, but I don't.

      For those of you are think this is not something within the scope of the FTC, you are dead wrong about the FTC not having the power or the will to go after deceptive advertising - they have a whole bureau that does just that. I hope you never have to found that out the hard way.

      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      ... I'm no lawyer ...
      Most of the opinions on this site as to whether something is legal are opinions of people who are NOT lawyers. Think twice before emulating some questionable practice based simply on someone on this forum seeing nothing wrong with it. If in doubt, talk to a real lawyer.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7621836].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Sylonious
        Getting back to the OP's question.

        Originally Posted by ably View Post

        Is anybody (legally) using similar techniques profitably?
        What is the border line between a legitimate and a deceiving advertorial in your opinion?
        I've seen some sites TRY to be profitable and follow the rules. Not having a "News" theme, Fox/NBC buttons and no fake testimonials/comments is pretty much a no brainer.

        Here's a really good example of someone who is TRYING their best to follow the rules.

        With all that he's still probably NOT working within the guidelines of the FTC.

        The FTC hasn't done much to curb the rise of flogs. Hell, the flog market has grown exponentially since the FTC started their "crack down".

        News sites like Reuters have made an effort to filter out the bad seeds, BUT the floggers have adjusted and come back even stronger with the arbitrage curation/linkbait websites.

        Example Arbitrage Sites:
        Arbitrage 1
        Arbitrage 2
        Arbitrage 3

        You've probably seen sites like that on Fox News, TMZ, huffington post etc.

        These sites are everywhere now. They have extremely low bounce rates and a real social following despite the fact that they are made solely for advertising flogs. You can barely tell the difference between a well done arbitrage site and a "real" gossip blog sometimes.

        How many of you even knew that these were arbitrage sites and not real news sites?

        Typical profits for these affiliate companies is $200 million a year. So this type of stuff will never go away. The big news sites like huffpost/AOL get a big cut of that and the FTC won't bother them so this won't go away anytime soon.

        Originally Posted by Green Moon View Post

        Most of the opinions on this site as to whether something is legal are opinions of people who are NOT lawyers. Think twice before emulating some questionable practice based simply on someone on this forum seeing nothing wrong with it. If in doubt, talk to a real lawyer.
        The FTC went to great lengths to expalin the guidelines in laymen's terms and spread the message about disclosure so that marketer's couldn't use that excuse (not having a high priced lawyer to explain it to them). The FTC rules were pretty straight forward. Anyone doing mental gymnastics around the idea of honest advertising is clearly making the choice to break the rules.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7622744].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
    Banned
    What is a farticle? lol.
    Sorry, had to ask.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7617219].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Sylonious
    The REAL problem is the clearly photo shopped "before and after" pictures on the right hand side.

    And yes, this is against forum rules. You can't out anybody's site. You can do a screen capture instead and blur out the name of the site.

    Is anybody (legally) using similar techniques profitably?
    What is the border line between a legitimate and a deceiving advertorial in your opinion?
    Simply making a recommendation without full disclosure (above the fold) is against the FTC guidelines. That alone would kill your conversions. No one is going to spend that kind of money on media buys with a big conversion killing disclosure in the the middle of their copy.

    But, even without the disclosure the conversions wouldn't be nearly as good without the photoshopped "after" pictures and exagerated benefits in the copy.

    Alternatively people are doing premium press releases. Press Releases work in a similar manner if it gets picked up by Google, Yahoo news, and other large outlets, but at a far lesser scale. Usually the traffic you get from press releases are from trusted sites (just like with media buys). You can't do any selling in Press Release content, but you can talk about an event related to what you are selling and link back to your site. It's easy to do this without breaking FTC guidelines.

    You have to make sure the Press Release site gets real traffic. It can't be some obscure Press Release site.

    If done correctly you could make some sales, but nothing earth shattering.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7617253].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author J. P.
    I would think that most of us who have been interested in marketing, recognizes this sort of a CPA style ad. In American magazines, there would be some sort of a small print line about "advertising supplement". I don't think there's anything wrong with it, unless there are guarantees, and no disclaimers. That's where you'll run into trouble with the FTC.
    Signature

    8 Steps to Guaranteed Profits is launching September 10th. Check back for WSO information

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7617254].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Sylonious
      Originally Posted by J. P. View Post

      I would think that most of us who have been interested in marketing, recognizes this sort of a CPA style ad. In American magazines, there would be some sort of a small print line about "advertising supplement". I don't think there's anything wrong with it, unless there are guarantees, and no disclaimers. That's where you'll run into trouble with the FTC.
      Yeah, I find it weird that in print media they can have a little disclosure in small print, but the FTC guidelines requires webmasters to put it above the fold.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7617304].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author SunilTanna
    The real issue is lying or honesty, not the style of presentation.

    Lying to make a sale is basically fraud, pretty much everywhere.

    If you feel that you have to lie to sell your product, I would suggest you find something else to sell.

    I haven't looked Op's site, so can't make a judgement on the specifics, but it shouldn't be rocket science for the Op himself to figure out whether he is being honest or being dishonest/deceptive/lying. Green moon seems to have given some very worthwhile suggestions about the kind of things to consider.

    Questions about legal compliance should be the next question, but only after the first one has been satisfactorily answered.
    Signature
    ClickBank Vendor?
    - Protect Your Thank You Pages & Downloads
    - Give Your Affiliates Multiple Landing Pages (Video Demo)
    - Killer Graphics for Your Site
    SPECIAL WSO PRICES FOR WARRIORS + GET THE "CLICKBANK DISCOUNT" TOO!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7621957].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    The FTC sees a lot of sites like that, and HAS shut many down! There ARE laws in the US against fake ads and fake links. If you have a fake link, like the weather to another ad, that is just IDIOTIC! The search engines will often AUTOMATICALLY catch that and give it a VERY low rating for anything meaningful. It LOOKS DUMB! It will mess your stats up! MOST people will simply click AWAY! If you advertise one product, and link to a similar product, the FTC may have a problem with it. Technically it is bait and switch.

    Basically, if you state things to induce a person to be more likely to buy your product, and they are not true, you HAVE violated FTC rules. And some fines can be severe.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7623363].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author brentb
    News ads apply to many in an industry I am currently involved heavily in. Its not a clear cut rule "NO news style ads" but there are certain things that are not allowed, and certain things that are still allowed, enough so to still be able to pull it off effectively. I decided not to go there after getting into it deep figuring only a matter of time before they get even more strict. But definitely read the actual rules before you do this. I don't remember the specifics.

    But really, the FCC has or will soon be doing away with "Up to $200" ie Spin the wheel and get up to $200! or Lose up to 10lbs in a week. Why? Most people assume it means you WILL get $200 or WILL lose 10lbs, like you are guaranteed the maximum results, end of story! Sorry but if you think that, you are a moron. It is plain english. Someday the FCC will dumb it down so much, all purchases will need to be approved by the FCC. It is ridiculous!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7623465].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by brentb View Post

      News ads apply to many in an industry I am currently involved heavily in. Its not a clear cut rule "NO news style ads" but there are certain things that are not allowed, and certain things that are still allowed, enough so to still be able to pull it off effectively. I decided not to go there after getting into it deep figuring only a matter of time before they get even more strict. But definitely read the actual rules before you do this. I don't remember the specifics.

      But really, the FCC has or will soon be doing away with "Up to $200" ie Spin the wheel and get up to $200! or Lose up to 10lbs in a week. Why? Most people assume it means you WILL get $200 or WILL lose 10lbs, like you are guaranteed the maximum results, end of story! Sorry but if you think that, you are a moron. It is plain english. Someday the FCC will dumb it down so much, all purchases will need to be approved by the FCC. It is ridiculous!
      Last I heard, UP TO ads were legal as long as you COULD reasonably get up to that much. Too many LIE though. BTW I don't believe the FCC does ANY of that. That isn't their job. The FTC does.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7633670].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ably
    Thank you guys, this was a great discussion! I am glad I am not the only one to think that such ads are plain deceptive and that they represent a typical example of why the I.M. community gets such a bad reputation sometimes.

    Unfortunately I see these ads on top sites, of the caliber of livestrong.com, howstuffworks.com, ehow.com etc. all the time, and I cannot help thinking that they (and the ad-netowks they use) are indirectly nurturing them because they benefit from the revenue they generate.

    Thanks
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7633550].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dayne Dylan
    Banned
    So I'm curious, wouldn't this site be one of those websites that the FTC might have a problem with?

    If you notice, every single "article" on the site has links to affiliate programs. I've noticed this site advertised all over the place, so I'm sure they are making bank...

    LifestyleJournal —

    Thoughts?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9090794].message }}

Trending Topics