98% Of Salesletters To Become Illegal Soon? What's The Warrior Solution? :)

I think JayXtreme is on the right track: don't make false/hyped up promises and you should be ok.

-

Well I only create and sell my own products, so no worries here as my sales letters are truthful and have no hype or madeup income statements. Testimonials are from those that actually use my sites, products, or services..

So safe here...

James

lol ... exactly. This doesn't worry me at all. I hate fake testimonials and false income- weight-results, claims.

exactly my thoughts....you beat me to it.....seriously...if you're not putting out good sh1t...then quit it already. Sad they had to create a law to enforce people into not being dirtbags in their pitching process...

However, it does seem to be a very interesting topic for adcopy gurus...how artfully vague can they be...without dropping those big goofy # bombs.

In any new and open environment there is a time when the chaos and mayhem comes under scrutiny. I for one believe this change will serve us well since a fundamental piece of the sales process is TRUST... If our online world becomes synonymous with DISTRUST we may all have to go back and get real jobs!!!

No just the American ones:p

Looks like someone just selected you all for a major disadvantage.

Although I expect this will be totally unenforceable, I hope so anyway.

@ Tyrus,
The new law is actually a total overhaul of the whole "disclaimer" process that was put in place in the 80's.

That's why they are going to put this in place.

@Michael

Nada.

Jared actually DID lose 245 pounds. It's just that HIS RESULTS were not typical...

There are already plenty of laws in place that work just fine for unlawful claims...this is a whole new level.

It doesn't matter how great your product is - you will have a very hard time selling it without good sales copy. Good products do not sell themselves.

STOP copying my headlines, Jack!

Yeah but Jack they cannot tell you to put exact typical results in the headline... At the bottom of the sales page or under your screen shot earnings is sufficuent and that's no different that infomercials...

Mike Hill

PS. This is no big deal... unless a sales letter is flat out lying about results... If that's the case then I welcome this change with open arms

@Marian,
Good question.

The way it is being presented right now according to FTC's Richard Cleland "You not only have to say that it is extreme, but exactly how extreme."

The whole thing is going to rise and fall on the definition of extreme.

Also, ads will have to include "generally expected results"....

This is an actual example from the bill:

• Example 2: An advertisement disseminated by a company that sells heat pumps presents endorsements from three individuals who state that after installing the company's heat pump in their homes, their monthly utility bills went down by $100, $125, and $150, respectively.
  The ad will likely be interpreted as conveying that such savings are representative of what consumers who buy the company's heat pump can generally expect. The advertiser does not have substantiation for that representation because, in fact, less than 20% of purchasers will save $100 or more.
  A disclosure such as, "Results not typical" or, "These testimonials are based on the experiences of a few people and you are not likely to have similar results" is insufficient to prevent this ad from being deceptive because consumers will still interpret the ad as conveying that the specified savings are representative of what consumers can generally expect. The ad is less likely to be deceptive if it clearly and conspicuously discloses the generally expected savings and the advertiser has adequate substantiation that homeowners can achieve those results.
  There are multiple ways that such a disclosure could be phrased, e.g., "the average homeowner saves $35 per month," "the typical family saves $50 per month during cold months and $20 per month in warm months," or "most families save 10% on their utility bills."

Oh good grief man, if you don't like the 7 days, how about this one.

"Discover How To Become A Killer Affiliate Marketer In Less Time Than It
Takes Superman To Fly To Mars"

There. That's about as unspecific and as off the wall as you're going to
get and, at the same time (test it of course), get prospects to read
what's coming next.

Hey, you know...I should test this one out.

Please...any copywriter worth his salt has nothing to worry about when it
comes to this "law" IF it becomes a law.

See "Truth in Storytelling," at Truth in Storytelling - TalkBiz News.


Paul

Again...

The new regulation would be aimed at dishonesty...but the issue here is the use of real testimonials...from real people...who had non-typical results. (regardless of the level of energy they put into the process.)

If, by 'anywhere else', you mean Nigeria, yes. Most European countries, however, have long had much stricter advertising laws than we do. My German friend couldn't let her site go live until she'd nailed permission for an Albert Schweitzer quote. And she had to have her entire street address listed, including postal code.

Of course she also got a nice government start up loan for her small business plus six free months of professional marketing coaching. That's a deal I'd take.

* Note to self: always check out marketers response to threads like this before buying anything from them.

Yeah...that was another thought.

They mentioned "scientific research" at some point...and I was thinking PAPERWORK.

I think this point alone will be very difficult to manage.

Almost correct...it would also matter for any warrior wishing to do business with any U.S. Company (Google, Yahoo, MSN, GoDaddy, Hostgator) as well as transactions involving U.S. customers.

There's about 468 people that maybe we can put out of work in November of 2010.

"That's what governments are for -- getting in a man's way." - Malcolm Reynolds Firefly

Spoken like a champ!

Most people in business are not violating copyright, a select few may do so flagrantly or because they aren't educated, but it's hardly a standard.

Most people here aren't aware of "asset forfeiture" laws in the US.

In short, if the FTC accuses you of something they can easily claim that all of your assets were acquired due to your accused crime and they can freeze your bank accounts, and take everything you own leaving you essentially homeless.

Then try fighting federal prosecutors without a penny in your pocket to hire a lawyer.

The FTC is already out of control, as is most of the government...they do not need more ambiguous laws on their side.

Now wouldn't that be a hoot.

To have the government pass a law like this based on that logic. "Freedom of speech is not freedom to lie and make outlandish claims"

Maybe they should start enforcing the new laws on politicians first.

If a marketer lies and makes outlandish claims, how many people will be hurt by it? A hundred? A thousand? A hundred thousand? If a marketer claims I can make a million dollars in seven days on a product with a sixty day money-back guarantee, there's no real problem so long as the seller honors the guarantee (which is a separate issue), no?

On the other hand, if a political candidate lies and makes outlandish claims, how do I get my refund when the product (i.e., the elected candidate) doesn't deliver?

If we want to enforce truth in advertising (which is not really what this law is about, as "results not typical" is pretty clear, or should be), how about we start with political ads? Why should politicians be allowed to get away with stuff marketers cannot?

If marketing campaigns were run like political campaigns, our jails would probably be overflowing with marketers.

Please note that I am in no way supporting dishonest or deceptive marketing practices. Far from it. But, I think there is a difference between saying someone made a million dollars using your product with a disclaimer that such results are not typical if that claim is true and saying someone made a million dollars using your system when it's not true. The latter is dishonest while the former is honest.

To me, as I understand it, this new law is not about truth in advertising so much as it is about hand-holding consumers and generally treating them like young children unable to make informed decisions for themselves.

If we've come to the point in this country where "results not typical" reads the same as "results are typical," we really need to focus on improving reading comprehension and critical thinking skills in the education system and not on developing new laws designed to protect people from needing such skills.

yep, as the saying goes;

so many mistake freedom for license.

Also, am I the only (maybe paranoid) one that recognises some real, concrete and obvious steps of the long predicted corporate hegemony of the internet?

Tom

They will just find something else to tax or raise taxes on ...

James

David, you're right. And you know why you're right?

That's human nature.

We don't act on things until they become a reality. And usually by that
time, it's too late.

Remember the Poseidon Adventure?

Nobody believed that the ship was going to sink other than a few. Then
the water came pouring in and everybody began to panic. The few who
did listen, they were the ones who survived.

It's the same thing with people who get house alarms. Most don't do it
until they've been robbed that first time. I should know...I was one of
them.

Now, I wouldn't dream of not paying for my service.

Human nature...it will never change.

Dmitry,

What I was trying to point out to the original poster was that just because he lived in Germany didn't mean he wouldn't be affected...because chances are that a lot of "services" he used were U.S. companies...so therefore they would be required to comply with the law.

For instance, let's say someone in Singapore decides to just say "screw it with the new U.S. law" and goes ahead with business as usual.

The FTC could very easily threaten ClickBank, PayPal, Google, or anyone else that marketer is "working" with...since those companies ARE based in the U.S.

Make sense?

.

@ Thomas,
I agree that this is a long stretch...but when it comes to the FTC, or any U.S. government agency, the rulebook just doesn't seem to exist.

Case in point...I just heard today from a top copywriter, of an FTC case where not only the marketer was charged and prosecutor...but the printer who printed the piece as well.

Yeah, that's unusual...but it's also happened.

@JonStein
I would have wholeheartedly agreed with you not very long ago...and I do hope you are 100% correct...

But it seems like a "storm is brewing" on the horizon...and I think it all comes down to one word...CONTROL



.

Diet programs: Most of them say "Take this pill/powder, supplement, etc..."AND EXERCISE ON A REGULAR BASIS".

If people would actually follow most any diet plan, without straying from it, they would lose weight, and a good amount of it. The problem is that most people are TOO LAZY, that's how they got FAT in the first place! Of course there is the rare medical exception, but this is the case for 99% of the population.

So the "typical" results for any diet plan (or any legit internet marketing product) aren't going to represent the true value of the product, or reflect on the quality of the product itself. Because the truth is, they work, it just takes people getting off their butt and TAKING ACTION.

If they want "typical" results posted, are those the typical results of a lazy person, or someone who took action and followed everything step-by-step?

Why should any business suffer because the customer was lazy? That's the problem I have with the whole thing.

You bet!

If you are ever audited they will find every cent you made, unless you figured out a way to receive cash over the internet.

No, pharmaceuticals will LOVE this regulation.

It will destroy their non-pharmaceutical competition and through selective enforcement absolutely nothing will happen to the pill pushing pharmaceutical companies.

They can kill people and the government doesn't care. They get caught falsifying studies, people die, and someone gets a slap on the wrist.

The point is the little guy always gets stomped and the big boys do as they please...no more laws or regulations are needed for the small business.

Fraud is already illegal and other damages can be remedied via civil suit.

The "results not typical" bit isn't going to be good enough under these new rules, because apparently "results not typical" actually means "these are the typical results you can expect to get from this product" (according to the FTC's example, anyway).

Not to turn this into a political discussion.. but since when does anyone in Washington care what the people think? Unless you're paying for their campaign, all your congresscritters are going to do when you send them a letter or petition is thank you for your input (if even that), disregard it and vote the way they're being paid to vote. Try it some time and tell me I'm wrong. Unfortunately as long as so many people believe in this fake two party "lesser of two evils" system the politicians have set up, that's the way things will always be.

When you're dealing with faceless bureaucracies like the FTC, IRS, etc.. it's even worse. They don't even have to pretend to care about your input to get your vote come election time.

What is the difference between promissing earnings of $1000s a month
after reading an ebook and scam?

If you've ever targeted an ad to someone in the US, or sold to someone in the US...you've done business in the US. The FTC has argued this.

Now in reality are they more likely to go after those in the US? Probably, ya.

Besides, in business the US sets the pace...if this passes in the US I would expect Canada, UK, NZ, etc. to follow suit. This is just overall bad, ambiguous laws help no one and lead to selective enforcement.

I could see why. If I saw something like "results not typcial" or something more specific that the FTC is TRYING to implement regarding testimonials I would say to myself, "I can do better than that guy" and still buy the product.

someone posted above...it's about control. This is NOT a good law.

read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. If you've already read it, then you probably understand.

I do believe that this won't just affect US marketers. This will affect all of us eventually.

lol... I was having this very discussion with an old timer marketing guy just yesterday. His statement was that if the FTC is worried about claims in advertising, then how come they don't throw every politician in DC into prison?

Oooops, There may be a few FTC violations in the above post...

"You" say "about time" (re: this legislation) First, can you show us acurate statistics to prove this statement? How did you scientifically come to the determination that it is "about time"? If this is not a scientific fact, but your own opinion, have you conducted a scientific survey to see what "everyone else" thinks? This statement seems to imply that your scentiments are the norm which could be misleading to some. Can you show us statistics to verify what everyone else thinks as well? Readers need to know the complete facts, not just one persons view.

When you refer to the "general IM ethos..." can you direct us to the current scientific studies that were performed which prove this as a factual statement? Once again, if this is merely your opinion, I'm afraid that we will have to see the opinions of every other person who is alive to be able to get an accurate representation of the validity this viewpoint.

You say "Sales letters are often horribly misleading" what exactly do you mean when you say "often" and "horribly misleading"? Can you define the terms "often" and "horribly misleading" as well as verify these statements with actual statistics?

Also the statement "In the bricks and mortar world this cannot and does not happen..." I'm sure that you have the statistics to prove this statement. In the event that there is no actual scientific proof which would verify this statement, I'm afraid this may be another FTC violation. Should people be allowed to write statements that can not be proven?

The statement "If you have a sales letter that would fail these tests..." can you clarify the tests that you are referring to as well as what is considered as "failing"? Who designed these "tests" and were they qualified to do so? May we see the scientific study that proves failing said tests would justify one not being allowed to "put it up"? If this is your personal opinion, I'm afraid that the readers will need to see the opinions of every other person alive so that they can make an educated choice when reading this.

When you say "A good product sells itself..." could you clarify this statement? What exactly does "good" mean? What studies did you refer to when defining a "good" product? What do you mean when you say "sells itself"" Are you saying that if I wrote an ebook that fit your description of "good" that I could do nothing more than write it and somehow people would approach me to purchase it? The FTC may find this statement a tad misleading. No? If this is your experience, I'm afraid that the readers will need to also see every other internet marketers experience regarding products selling themselves to be able to make an educated decision regarding this statement.

Regarding the statement "Everyone should be offering..." Are statistics available to prove this statement? Dictionarydotcom defines "everyone" as every person, everybody. Comatose people are clearly included in the term "everyone". can you show us statistics that prove comatose people should be doing this? If you make a statement referring to everyone, and knowingly are misrepresenting the facts, this is an obvious violation. I'm afraid this statement is clearly misleading and a violation of FTC regulations.

Clearly there is a need for more and stricter laws and regulations to prevent this type of information from being published online. (j/k)

I was just wondering the samething here, IM'ers outside the little US
does this affect our business.

It might do if we host our businesses in US territory, then that will subject
our businesses to US laws, I think...

--David