[Antonios]

Originally Posted by PatriciaS

I certainly understand the desire -- and need -- to clean things up a bit relative to claims being made about income to be made with this or that spectacular, never-seen-before offer from stellar marketers, and endorse the effort.

However, after reading through this thread to this point, I'm not convinced that the owners/administrators really have a firm handle on WHAT it is they want and need to do, or perhaps HOW to do what they want and need to do.

I thought I'd offer what I think is a useful analogy from a niche that also has to deal with a Federal governing agency -- alternative health products and the FDA. Whether you personally "believe in" herbs and other nutritional supplements, in my experience they have great efficacy if you have the right thing for the right problem and take them in the right doses. That said, the problem becomes making claims for the products which, like the income statements here and elsewhere, may be true or not, ay apply to individuals who becomes customers or not.

What the FDA allows -- thankfully -- is "testimonials," in the form of people's individual stories of what a particular herb, herbal formula or supplement did for them. So if I happen to be selling Purple Loosestrife as an herbal supplement, I wouldn't be able to say: your blood pressure will drop with this tincture, but I could say: MY blood pressure dropped from x to x wit this herb. And I could also use the stories of other people.

Personally, I see no reason why that can't work here--- "I made X amount of dollars over y period of time with this method" is no guarantee of anything, especially if the claim (and the forum) provides an explicit earnings disclaimer.

I especially think this is important since to my way of thinking, WSOs without any indication of how much can be made -- under the best of circumstances, perhaps -- would be pretty meaningless. I mean, would anyone want to buy a product outlining a method for which even the cleverest marketers with large and responsive mailing lists only make a few bucks a week or even less?? That's the best we can expect if ALL mentions of income potential are banned.

Just a thought.

Excellent presentation.

Would this be considered an indirect claim?

What about fake testimonials?

And if testimonials are real, how to separate those from experienced marketers that have huge lists (jv's) from newbies with no lists?

Example: There is a famous book from a bestselling author that says that he made several thousands of dollars in 24 hours in certain mmo starting from scratch.

What he doesn't disclaim is that he used his mailing list of thousands of subscribers built from his many years at online marketing to send the offer too.

Will a newbie make that money, not in 24 hours, but in a year? Of course not!

Testimonial real, but misleading for a newbie.

Sincerely,

Antonios

PS: To be truthful, the bestseller author in reality didn't start from SCRATCH, he already had a several thousand subscribers mailing list, that although, not created through this mmo, mailing lists are considered part of an mmo.

[iMassMarket]

Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill

That would be against the TOS of many payment processors. If I were a mod, I wouldn't want anyone's login info anyway. If something bad happened in that time frame the mod would be the first one blamed.

And besides, it wouldn't necessarily prove the income was from the method/system being sold in the WSO.




It is a statement, but it's a statement that makes a claim. Adding "YOU CAN TOO" makes it an income guarantee. Without the guarantee it's just a claim. You're claiming you earned X amount.

Yes it is a statement that makes a claim but all statements make a claim. It's hot outside is both a statement and a claim. I wear orange underwear is both a statement and a claim. Will you think it's hot outside? I don't know you may be a cold blooded. Will you go out and buy orange underwear? I don't know. You may very well do so because I am a pretty cool guy and you want to be like me.

Anyhow, in no way does someone saying they made $1000 doing XYZ legally imply you will too unless it is so stated. If it's not stated that you or everyone can do the same than you are assuming you can do it on your own.

[Antonios]

Originally Posted by iMassMarket

Yes it is a statement that makes a claim but all statements make a claim. It's hot outside is both a statement and a claim. I wear orange underwear is both a statement and a claim. Will you think it's hot outside? I don't know you may be a cold blooded. Will you go out and buy orange underwear? I don't know. You may very well do so because I am a pretty cool guy and you want to be like me.

Anyhow, in no way does someone saying they made $1000 doing XYZ legally imply you will too unless it is so stated. If it's not stated that you or everyone can do the same than you are assuming you can do it on your own.

Those "YOU CAN TOO" claims are very misleading!

A college or high school dropout, a waiter, drunkman, pizza boy, father of three living in a van, or husband living with his inlaws can do things in desperation that most typical guys and gals won't have the mental, emotional, dedication, staying power to do it.

Education or no education is not indication of how a person or individual will perform.

There are people with doctoral degrees in business administration (PhD or DBA) that are complete failures as business owners. They were trained to be employees, not employers, And there are school dropouts that head huge international corporations.

Many of them got their college degrees after being a CEO of their corporations. It doesn't seem right to have a school dropout managing other people with master's and PhD's degrees.

So: it is not correct to claim that just because you were a strong drug user that reached bottom, and you climbed the success ladder, that others can do it, too!

Most people, typical, normal people, won't be able to do it!

Sincerely,

Antonios

[ajaxmike]

This has been an interesting read with many valid point made on all sides. As a newbie I bought many products that failed to deliver on the results claimed - not good for me or WF. I eventually learned that there was likely some catch to get the required results, like having huge responsive list, an army of eager affiliates lined up, an enormous advertising budget, significant human resources, or a whole bunch of knowledge that was not included in the WSO. Consequently, I bought fewer WSOs as I increasingly distrusted them. As I associated with more experienced marketer I learned that most WSOs target gullible newbies who are incapable of evaluating the claims.

However, if income claims are not made, it makes it very difficult for me decide if the WSO is worth it. I want to know if the product works, what results I can expect, and what I have to have/do to get the predicted results. I don't just want the gross income claim, I want the expenses side too. I think it would be difficult to sell WSOs if income claims were banned completely and WF might find that revenue decreases. Perhaps there is a way to force the seller to reveal expenses and resources used to generate the income.

[PaidAllDay]

Originally Posted by ajaxmike

This has been an interesting read with many valid point made on all sides. As a newbie I bought many products that failed to deliver on the results claimed - not good for me or WF. I eventually learned that there was likely some catch to get the required results, like having huge responsive list, an army of eager affiliates lined up, an enormous advertising budget, significant human resources, or a whole bunch of knowledge that was not included in the WSO. Consequently, I bought fewer WSOs as I increasingly distrusted them. As I associated with more experienced marketer I learned that most WSOs target gullible newbies who are incapable of evaluating the claims.

However, if income claims are not made, it makes it very difficult for me decide if the WSO is worth it. I want to know if the product works, what results I can expect, and what I have to have/do to get the predicted results. I don't just want the gross income claim, I want the expenses side too. I think it would be difficult to sell WSOs if income claims were banned completely and WF might find that revenue decreases. Perhaps there is a way to force the seller to reveal expenses and resources used to generate the income.

I don't think having accurate income claims will solve your problem. It sounds like you already know what they are using against you. But everyone joins the food chain somewhere so put your toe in the ring and get started.

Having a "no income claims" rule could be a great new advantage for someone just starting out (fair play).

[Bayo]

I believe some of these moves will prevent the forum from further slippage and increase the quality of the products offered. For far too long things have been constantly in decline.

I foresee 2015 being the year that many people that have abandoned making special offers continue again without worrying about having to compete with ridiculous claims from people who are just out to make a fast buck or getting lumped in with them.

Well done!

BAYO

[Dennis Gaskill]

Further to the "no income claims" discussion, will that apply to subsequent posts the seller makes in the thread?

For example, when someone asks the seller how much he's made using his system, is he allowed to answer with specific dollar amounts? If so, then you might as well allow income claims because every shyster that sells here will either have a shill ask it for him or he'll ask it of himself with a second account.

[iMassMarket]

Originally Posted by Antonios

Those "YOU CAN TOO" claims are very misleading!

A college or high school dropout, a waiter, drunkman, pizza boy, father of three living in a van, or husband living with his inlaws can do things in desperation that most typical guys and gals won't have the mental, emotional, dedication, staying power to do it.

Education or no education is not indication of how a person or individual will perform.

There are people with doctoral degrees in business administration (PhD or DBA) that are complete failures as business owners. They were trained to be employees, not employers, And there are school dropouts that head huge international corporations.

Many of them got their college degrees after being a CEO of their corporations. It doesn't seem right to have a school dropout managing other people with master's and PhD's degrees.

So: it is not correct to claim that just because you were a strong drug user that reached bottom, and you climbed the success ladder, that others can do it, too!

Most people, typical, normal people, won't be able to do it!

Sincerely,

Antonios

Really don't know what your point. My point is it's NOT illegal to make claims period. What the Warrior Forum does is OK with me. It's their forum. NO Biggie. But don't confuse the route they take as what I was saying.

Claims can be made legally, PERIOD. Not here with the new rules but it's not illegal and anyone trying to associate the two are sadly, sadly mistaken.

Under FTC guidelines if sellers make any claims about how much money you might make, they have to provide a disclosure document.

And if the seller makes a claim about how much money you can make... Than under the rule, they have to provide a separate document called a EARNINGS CLAIM STATEMENT REQUIRED BY LAW. (yup that has to be the title. Every word) Which must include;

- the name of the person making the claim and the date;
- the specifics of the claim;
- the start and end date those earnings were achieved;
- the number and percentage of people who got those results or better;
- any information about those people that may differ from you – for example, the part of the country where they live;
- and a statement that you can get written proof of the seller's earning claims if you ask for it

Again, the FTC does NOT prohibit you from making claims. Just when you do make a claim that claims others will make money or have the same success - then you are required to provide all possible info to prove the claim and not that you're just b.s. ing.

But don't take my word for it and no one should. Just visit ftc.gov for an explanation of what you can or can not do.

Don't assume what the Warrior forum does is what the FTC requires. It's the Warrior Forums right to tell YOU what they want and expect.

But trying to insinuate to people that making claims are illegal is a false claim in itself. You jus can't do it here even if you abide by the FTC laws. Simple as that.

Now on to banning the rest of the claims. Because it's not just the outrageous income claims here... there's the far out SEO claims... Youtube, offline and yadda yadda marketing claims. The Plugins that never work... the video software that takes longer than 2 minutes to create a video.... etc. etc. etc.

What? too close to home for some.

[GlenH]

Originally Posted by Bayo

I believe some of these moves will prevent the forum from further slippage and increase the quality of the products offered. For far too long things have been constantly in decline.

I foresee 2015 being the year that many people that have abandoned making special offers continue again without worrying about having to compete with ridiculous claims from people who are just out to make a fast buck or getting lumped in with them.

Well done!

BAYO

I would also hope that many of those members who abandoned the WSO section because of the ‘loose rules’ and the questionable quality of many of products that seemed to take over the WSO listings of late, will gradually come back and at least look to see if real change has been implemented.

That can only be good for the forum as a whole.

[GlenH]

Originally Posted by GlenH

Or will it be the case that when a vendor ‘bumps’ a thread, that thread will be assessed for ‘income claims’ and if the thread violates the new rule, then the ‘bump’ won’t be allowed until the thread is changed.

Originally Posted by danieljb

This will be rolled out to existing offers in the coming days and weeks. No new offers that contravene any rules will be approved henceforth.

Daniel, can you elaborate on how you'll be assessing existing WSO offers re the incomes claim rule.

[writingwonder]

Thank you, this will increase the quality of the WSOs immensely!

Originally Posted by Alaister

Hi everyone,

We have decided to completely rewrite the rules for our Warrior Special Offer marketplace. We are focusing on building a high quality marketplace with special deals for our community that can not be found elsewhere.

Please make sure you read all of the new rules before posting your WSO. All new offers will be moderated based on these new rules.

New Warrior Special Offer (WSO) Rules

Some notable changes include:

Rule #3: Free Offers

If your product is free, then this is to be posted in the Warrior Forum Classified Ads sub-forum.

Rule #16: Buy Buttons Must Be Present

To sell a WSO in the WSO Section of the forum, your offer must have a Buy Button that takes the user to a checkout. This link cannot take the user to your website, an order form or an opt-in page.

This rule does not apply to other sections, such as Warriors for Hire or Classified Ads.

Rule #17: Income Claims & Guarantees

Sellers that make income claims may be asked to provide proof of income prior to their offer being approved. Sellers are strictly prohibited from offering income guarantees. This will be strictly enforced to protect the Warrior community.

Rule #23: Warrior Forum trademark

Sellers are not to use the Warrior Forum logo, branding or name in their sales copy. The name of your product should not imply that the product is affiliated with the Warrior Forum in any way.

Examples include using the Warrior Forum logo in sales copy or including the word "Warrior" in the product title.

[Antonios]

Originally Posted by iMassMarket

Really don't know what your point. My point is it's NOT illegal to make claims period. What the Warrior Forum does is OK with me. It's their forum. NO Biggie. But don't confuse the route they take as what I was saying.

Claims can be made legally, PERIOD. Not here with the new rules but it's not illegal and anyone trying to associate the two are sadly, sadly mistaken.

Under FTC guidelines if sellers make any claims about how much money you might make, they have to provide a disclosure document.

And if the seller makes a claim about how much money you can make... Than under the rule, they have to provide a separate document called a EARNINGS CLAIM STATEMENT REQUIRED BY LAW. (yup that has to be the title. Every word) Which must include;

- the name of the person making the claim and the date;
- the specifics of the claim;
- the start and end date those earnings were achieved;
- the number and percentage of people who got those results or better;
- any information about those people that may differ from you – for example, the part of the country where they live;
- and a statement that you can get written proof of the seller's earning claims if you ask for it

Again, the FTC does NOT prohibit you from making claims. Just when you do make a claim that claims others will make money or have the same success - then you are required to provide all possible info to prove the claim and not that you're just b.s. ing.

But don't take my word for it and no one should. Just visit ftc.gov for an explanation of what you can or can not do.

Don't assume what the Warrior forum does is what the FTC requires. It's the Warrior Forums right to tell YOU what they want and expect.

But trying to insinuate to people that making claims are illegal is a false claim in itself. You jus can't do it here even if you abide by the FTC laws. Simple as that.

Now on to banning the rest of the claims. Because it's not just the outrageous income claims here... there's the far out SEO claims... Youtube, offline and yadda yadda marketing claims. The Plugins that never work... the video software that takes longer than 2 minutes to create a video.... etc. etc. etc.

What? too close to home for some.

I wasn't necessarily referring to illegal activities in claims, but claims that necessarily don't apply to most people.

In reality, very few people make real money online. Most will fail, not because they don't have the potential, but because they don't have the staying power or capacity.

Anybody can build a business online in two minutes.

The problem is generating income, and more precisely, generating profits.

What I mean is just because somebody, of any type of background, has had success online it doesn't mean that everybody else will, too, following whatever s/he did.

Typical, normal, everyday people will never make a profit online. They don't have the dedication to gain it.

And, I understand, that the FTC, in additional to what you mention, they require that when incomes are claim that a list of earnings by income levels in the specific program be stated.

That is: how much do the great earners get, the average earner, most program participants, and amount of people that don't make a cent. And this in time frames: one month, six months, a year.

Requiring proof of income claims is a very sticky issue. There are many variables in this equation.

Let's say that I proof that my claims are real, will this guarantee that another person will reach that income, too?

Of course not, like other WF posts have stated, I could have a huge list, an army of affiliates, many jv's, a huge advertising budget, a very sophisticated seo, traffic generating system, great outsourcing, etc,, etc. Things that most online marketers, or wannabees, don't have and don't even know exists.

Like the disclaimer, that is included at the bottom of a sales page in small letters and blurred:

... that income claims or results are not typical. And that you will probably not make as much, or that you could make more. And that there is no guarantee that you will make any money.

And these disclaimers are included after the salesletter is trying to imply all the contrary: that anybody can make money with whatever system is being promoted. Isn't this contradictory? Having contradictions in the salesletter with the disclaimer is OK?

Most people don't read those things. They don't even read TOS, and start complaining that they couldn't get a refund, when the TOS clearly indicates that there are NO REFUNDS.

Probably, the best for protection of the newbie buyer is no income claims.

If everybody is following this rule, then there is no advantage or disadvantage.

Sincerely,

Antonios

[Antonios]

Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill

Further to the "no income claims" discussion, will that apply to subsequent posts the seller makes in the thread?

For example, when someone asks the seller how much he's made using his system, is he allowed to answer with specific dollar amounts? If so, then you might as well allow income claims because every shyster that sells here will either have a shill ask it for him or he'll ask it of himself with a second account.

Excellent point.

If we continue with all the issues that a claimer or non-claimer brings up, we will end up with a legal presentation of various pages, like those term of service (tos) that some sophisticated companies have trying to cover every possibility that could present itself.

The human being is a very complicated being. It establishes so many rules for everything that it sophocates: how to seat, eat, dress, greet, etc., correctly.

Most of this thread has consumed a lot of posts on the "claims" issue only.

Wow!

And this is for real in every aspect of the human being.

Stablishing rules that will apply to everybody and that is just, honest, and unharming to the innocent is almost impossible.

This claims issue is trying to protect the buyer, but the seller needs protection, too.

Having it protective for both sides is not reality real.

The administration is trying to do the right thing, and I bet that they didn't had the minimum idea that this "right thing" would bring such a long lasting thread.

It's impossible to satisfy everybody, that's human nature.

The easiest thing for administration is try the non-claims rule, and see what happens.

Sincerely,

Antonios

[Antonios]

Originally Posted by Bayo

I believe some of these moves will prevent the forum from further slippage and increase the quality of the products offered. For far too long things have been constantly in decline.

I foresee 2015 being the year that many people that have abandoned making special offers continue again without worrying about having to compete with ridiculous claims from people who are just out to make a fast buck or getting lumped in with them.

Well done!

BAYO

I understand that the opposite will happen with the "fake claims" WSO creators. They will abandon the WF and go somewhere else where they can keep those fake claims.

This is what happened with ClickBank when they established more strick rules for vendors.

I understand that fake vendors left CB and went to other less restrictive processors, like ClickSure and JvZoo, and others.

You can't stop them, is like drug raids, they move to other communities.

The important thing is that the WF regains its reliability.

When I first started in WF I thought that WSO's were genuine since they were sold through the WF. What a great surprise to have bought products and services that were "WORST" then those found elsewhere.

I learn that in the WF one had to be more careful when buying products and services then when buying elsewhere, because crap sellers took advantage of the newbie belief that WSO's where genuine because it was sold through the WF, and the WF was promoted as the place to be for online marketers that wanted real online success.

What a disgrace!

I think that this thread will make the WF a more reliable place to buy things.

One thing that can be taken into account is the refund rate of a WSO, to evaluate it and ask the seller explanations and corrections or even suspending the WSO altogether.

I know that WSO sellers have had their accounts banned, but they create another one with different personal information. A different profile.

This is, and will continue to be, a continuous project: maintaining the WF reliability.

Sincerely,

Antonios

[Debbie Kennedy-Crook]

I think the new rules are a good move that will eventually improve the integrity of the WSO forum.

BUT here is what's really annoying..

As I write this response there are approx 50 WSO's on the first page of the WSO forum.

About 23 of these are making income claims.

About 4 of them are Free WSO's

Many of the 23 making income claims are WSO's that have been around for a long time with literally thousands of views.

So it's obvious that the sellers of these are continually bumping their threads to get them back on the first page. ( I presume before they get removed )

So if anyone wants to post a WSO today that abides by the new rules they are just going to get lost amongst all of these.

Not to mention the fact that their 'new rule abiding' WSO's are going to drop off the first page almost immediately because of this constant ' bumping' of the old ones.

Unless of course the creators who abide by the new rules are willing to spend alot of money bumping their own WSO's to try and keep up with the competition.

So I suppose my questions are ..

Why does it seem that you are not applying these rules to existing WSO's also?

Is it because this Thread Bumping Mania is earning you alot of money in extra fees at the moment?

When are you going to make the 'OLD' WSO creators remove their income claims to make it fairer for the new WSO creators?

[Antonios]

Originally Posted by Bayo

I believe some of these moves will prevent the forum from further slippage and increase the quality of the products offered. For far too long things have been constantly in decline.

I foresee 2015 being the year that many people that have abandoned making special offers continue again without worrying about having to compete with ridiculous claims from people who are just out to make a fast buck or getting lumped in with them.

Well done!

BAYO

That's a real great advantage for legitimate WSO Creators!

One of the most difficult, and sometimes, impossible competion to beat are those of illegal, dishonest, over hyped and ridiculous offers.

Because those crap offers are presentated with all the psychological selling power, legal and mostly illegal, unethical, immoral ways that a product or service can be presented.

They go through and block all reasoning of a human being and head straight to the greed, fears, wanting, and needs of an individual. Emotions are stirred and empower the mind and brain of the reader, viewer and/or listener of the presentation. And when emotions, and not reason, dominates a person, there is no going back.

Emotions by instinct and nature dominate reason. That's why wars, crimes, corruption, abuse, maltreatment to children, animals, women, old age, Nature exists!

It's almost impossible for a legitimate, honest online marketer to succeed online when a professional crap seller is competing with him/her.

Specially, newbies, and even long time online seekers are entramped with the "shiny object", "one click to riches", "magical button", "do nothing to millions", etc., syndrome.

If your ethical, honest, legitimate, buyer protective, it is almost impossible to compete with all the crap sellers outthere. Most people won't believe you when you tell them the truth.

Most people want the "snake oil" cure all instant treatment.

The WF can become a safe place for legitimate and honest online marketers and protective of buyers.

Buyers have to be protected, most of them don't know better, even after going through several bad, and horrible experiences. Most will even blame the whole online system.

They don't even realize that the same thing happen in the brick and mortar business world.

Sincerely,

Antonios

[Tim Dini]

Glad to see these positive changes, especially the new "income claim" rules.

[Daystar11]

Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckharris
Send me a link, I'll buy two! :-)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jalexanderseo
New sales copy revised to be compliant with WSO rule you might make money you might not I can't tell you because the WF would ban me from selling this to you if I did. So nothing secretive here as that would also ban me but I can't tell you about it because that would ban me. But buy my stuff anyways and see whats inside.


Unfortunately this is a blind offer... and would be against forum rules.

CHECKMATE! lol

[diogoim]

Hi Daniel,

What is the position of warrior forum regarding the new VAT policy changes in the EU? Will you adapt your payment platform to reflect these new events?

With Regards

Diogo de Castro

[iMassMarket]

Originally Posted by Antonios

Let's say that I proof that my claims are real, will this guarantee that another person will reach that income, too?

I understand your point. I do not disagree.

Now can the average person get to number one on Google? No. Can Joe blow buy the latest video software and create a quality video in two minutes? Hardly. Can someone with little online experience buy a photoshop course and have it mastered in 24 hours? Uh...no. Can Bill from Ohio buy some super-duper offline course and sell like a rabid rabbit? Certainly not. Can a shy college student buy the latest mobile software and create a mobile site, then turn around and sell it to a local business tomorrow for $497? Chances are slim to none. Or can a single mom with no experience but an idea buy a WSO wordpress theme and build a traffic sucking online store in 30 minutes? Absolutely not.

My point is not just the MMO claims.

It was all B.S. claims.

In reality I was making a point that if I said I made 1 million dollars last year doing XYZ and could prove it... doesn't mean you will or can if I haven't stated so.

Which brought me to correcting those individuals who chimed in otherwise that the FTC does NOT restrict claims. They restrict how you use them. Some members even incorrectly stated this is why the Warrior forum made the change. No. From all the posts and rule change. it was the only solution they found to solve their problem was to end ALL income claims because they haven't the time or resources to check who is truthful and who is faking it. Not that the law said so...

Then on top of checking claims... they didn't want the added chore of ensuring that everyone was following the law. Which is fine by me. Now let's work on all the other B.S. claims as I mentioned above. Eliminate ALL of them. One is just as bad as the other especially in the eyes of the law.

And my other point is if you are going to make a income claim somewhere other than this forum, follow the law. It has nothing to do with whether this forum or other forums put in place their own rules. I was pointing out issues to those who were incorrectly telling others what you can and can not do. Simple as that.

Originally Posted by Antonios

Of course not, like other WF posts have stated, I could have a huge list, an army of affiliates, many jv's, a huge advertising budget, a very sophisticated seo, traffic generating system, great outsourcing, etc,, etc. Things that most online marketers, or wannabees, don't have and don't even know exists.

This is why the FTC requires you to disclaim this if that is the case. Even down to the part of the country you live as it too can have an effect. So follow the law when making such claims.

Originally Posted by Antonios

Like the disclaimer, that is included at the bottom of a sales page in small letters and blurred:

... that income claims or results are not typical. And that you will probably not make as much, or that you could make more. And that there is no guarantee that you will make any money.

And these disclaimers are included after the salesletter is trying to imply all the contrary: that anybody can make money with whatever system is being promoted. Isn't this contradictory? Having contradictions in the salesletter with the disclaimer is OK?

Again, follow the law because the above is NOT AT ALL. The FTC requires minimum text sizes, and WHERE you to post a claim there must be a disclaimer near the claim that is visible and * not typical results is NOT IN ANY WAY acceptable. Please visit ftc.gov for a more in depth explanation of what is and what isn't acceptable. You just gave a great example of what is not acceptable.

Originally Posted by Antonios

Most people don't read those things. They don't even read TOS, and start complaining that they couldn't get a refund, when the TOS clearly indicates that there are NO REFUNDS.

Probably, the best for protection of the newbie buyer is no income claims.

No argument there. Most people don't read ANYTHING and the Government needs to protect them for their own safety at your expense. But that has nothing to do with my point.

[RichBeck]

Originally Posted by PatriciaS

Personally, I see no reason why that can't work here--- "I made X amount of dollars over y period of time with this method" is no guarantee of anything, especially if the claim (and the forum) provides an explicit earnings disclaimer.

I especially think this is important since to my way of thinking, WSOs without any indication of how much can be made -- under the best of circumstances, perhaps -- would be pretty meaningless. I mean, would anyone want to buy a product outlining a method for which even the cleverest marketers with large and responsive mailing lists only make a few bucks a week or even less?? That's the best we can expect if ALL mentions of income potential are banned.

Just a thought.

I disagree with this line of thinking....

Any income statements create a myriad of problems......

Then, it comes down to who can "stretch the truth"... the farthest to make more sales... I been around here long enough to see people who could stretch a piece of gum from Boston to LA. :-)

Instead of buying the product based on the Sales Page with a clear description, people are buying based on what the seller says he made.....

We can add flashing lights to read "results not typical" or "not guaranteed".... But, the income statements are still there....

If they are really "not typical" or "not guaranteed," why bother with income statements at all?

[Kay King]

I just looked at a WSO posted YESTERDAY - with what looked to me like income claims.

As someone who has seen a LOT of WSO sales copy I quickly listed:

1. income claims - more than one
2. doesn't say what it IS except a "recurring cash system"
3. seller is brand new to the forum so no history and no credibility as yet
4. Sales copy is written in a way that is commonly seen with English second language from Asian countries...but sellers list a US state as residence.

Point is - this WSO apparently passed through the new lookie-loo system and was approved. That tells me the new rules aren't that tough.

[GlenH]

Originally Posted by RichBeck

I disagree with this line of thinking....

Any income statements create a myriad of problems......

Then, it comes down to who can "stretch the truth"... the farthest to make more sales... I been around here long enough to see people who could stretch a piece of gum from Boston to LA. :-)

Instead of buying the product based on the Sales Page with a clear description, people are buying based on what the seller says he made.....

We can add flashing lights to read "results not typical" or "not guaranteed".... But, the income statements are still there....

If they are really "not typical" or "not guaranteed," why bother with income statements at all?

Many of the last dozen or so posts have long arguments and comments as to what should, and what should not be allowed in as an income claim by ‘admin’

To me that highlights that disallowing income claims altogether will save a whole lot of disagreements between admin and vendors who will inevitably have different interpretations of the rule.

[GlenH]

Originally Posted by Kay King

I just looked at a WSO posted YESTERDAY - with what looked to me like income claims.

As someone who has seen a LOT of WSO sales copy I quickly listed:

1. income claims - more than one
2. doesn't say what it IS except a "recurring cash system"
3. seller is brand new to the forum so no history and no credibility as yet
4. Sales copy is written in a way that is commonly seen with English second language from Asian countries...but sellers list a US state as residence.

Point is - this WSO apparently passed through the new lookie-loo system and was approved. That tells me the new rules aren't that tough.

I also noted this WSO

Alaister and Daniel, if you set the 'income claims' policy, then you need to make sure your approval staff police the policy.

No wimping out already guys.

[Cliff Carrigan]

I'm a software developer so the new rule about automation bots pretty much puts me out of the game here on WF. I'm ok with that of course. I can live with it.

I just wanted to chime in on the "income claim" topic. I just read 3 pages of posts almost entirely about that one little thing.

As a proficient ad copy writer, you do not need to "say it", all you need to do is paint the picture in the readers mind.

Example1: How I made $1000 selling chicken lips! [WF say no, you can't use that]

Example2 : Can You Really Make $1000 Selling Chick Lips? [Oops! Will WF accept or reject? It clearly isn't an income claim, yet it clearly paints the picture in your mind that you might be able to make $1000 selling those chicken lips!]

Exmaple3: I'm Not Going To Claim I Made $1000 Selling Chicken Lips - Not When I Can Show You How I Built A List Of 41,000 Chicken Lip Buyers ![Another WF head scratcher. You made no income claim while you painted the income picture in the readers mind]

So good patrons of WF, stop worrying about the little "income claims" rule. A litte ad copy goes a long way.

-That's just my 2-cents, and you were probably grossly over charged.-

[iMassMarket]

Originally Posted by Cliff Carrigan

I'm a software developer so the new rule about automation bots pretty much puts me out of the game here on WF. I'm ok with that of course. I can live with it.

I just wanted to chime in on the "income claim" topic. I just read 3 pages of posts almost entirely about that one little thing.

As a proficient ad copy writer, you do not need to "say it", all you need to do is paint the picture in the readers mind.

Example1: How I made $1000 selling chicken lips! [WF say no, you can't use that]

Example2 : Can You Really Make $1000 Selling Chick Lips? [Oops! Will WF accept or reject? It clearly isn't an income claim, yet it clearly paints the picture in your mind that you might be able to make $1000 selling those chicken lips!]

Exmaple3: I'm Not Going To Claim I Made $1000 Selling Chicken Lips - Not When I Can Show You How I Built A List Of 41,000 Chicken Lip Buyers ![Another WF head scratcher. You made no income claim while you painted the income picture in the readers mind]

So good patrons of WF, stop worrying about the little "income claims" rule. A litte ad copy goes a long way.

-That's just my 2-cents, and you were probably grossly over charged.-

Exactly.

And showing how you built a list of 41,000 is not saying the buyer can too. Just as if making the claim I will show you how "I" made $1000 -- but can't use that claim here.

Now, just get the point across that your 41,000 list is worth something to the buyer and not just a bunch of names racking up autoresponder fees lol

[midasmarketing]

Is this gonna apply to the spammy ads still showing at the top of the page?

[Cali16]

Originally Posted by Kay King

I just looked at a WSO posted YESTERDAY - with what looked to me like income claims.

That WSO is the epitome of what the new rules are supposed to eliminate.

Maybe the mods aren't fully up to speed on the new rules yet....?

[GlenH]

Originally Posted by Cliff Carrigan

I'm a software developer so the new rule about automation bots pretty much puts me out of the game here on WF. I'm ok with that of course. I can live with it.
.-

Alaister,

I also develop software applications and I think the term ‘automation bot’ (and I hate that word’ bot’) needs to be clarified.

I only ever heard of the term ‘bot’ to be associated with ‘spammy’ type tools.

Legitimate software is developed to automate a particular process.

It could be any perfectly legitimate process that is being automated with a piece of software.

When I read your list on Rule #5 it seems you are excluding vendors with any legitimate software application to sell as WSO.

In fact, as I see it, under the current exclusions listed in Rule #5, a widely used, and highly credible software application like ‘Camtasia Studio’ (which automates the process of producing videos) would not be approved as WSO

I hope this rule can be further refined to allow those WF vendors who offer perfectly legitimate software applications to be approved.

[Ron Killian]

Absolutely LOVE the new rules! Maybe the junk can finally be eliminated?

And a good idea to get things under control before some one else steps in with a hammer.

Thank you WF team!

[diffie11]

I have read at least 50 posts concerning the rule changes and agree with all of them. The one glaring rule change I don't see is when promising support in the sales copy, there is none, you can't even get an email back from the vendor. I joined the forum because I have never made a dime online and thought maybe joining one of the most revered sites online might change that. Sadly, such has not been the case. I clearly recognize there are people hear who want to help others, but when your priority is putting together another WSO to promote there simply isn't enough time for support. Maybe there should be a way for vendors to PROVE there WSO's work with proper support. I hope no one is offended by my post as that is not my purpose here. When PDF's and videos don't answer the questions one might have, a simple email or skype would sure go a long way. Thanks, I'm stepping down from my soapbox now.

[Coach Comeback]

Some of the new rules are great and they make sense.

However, some are just downright silly!

Rule #12: Off-Site Reviews

Sellers must not link to off-site reviews or review videos from within a WSO thread.

Not really even sure I understand the value of not allowing review videos or testimonials in the sales thread? Using review videos in copy has been around for ages? Just really curious as to who benefits from removing videos? How does this protect the buyers?

If It is a misinterpretation of the rule then I will take that. The way it reads is not clear to me. Pardon my ignorance. Is it just saying you cannot "LINK" to videos or you cannot emebed them in the threads either?

Rule #23: Warrior Forum trademark

Sellers are not to use the Warrior Forum logo, branding or name in their sales copy. The name of your product should not imply that the product is affiliated with the Warrior Forum in any way.

Examples include using the Warrior Forum logo in sales copy or including the word "Warrior" in the product title.

It's not like it is "amazon" or "Kindle" or "ipod" or "facebook" I understand not using the logo... Or even the full "WARRIOR FORUM" connected

but....

You can't trademark a real word. There is no patent or trademark violation on the word "warrior". In copy, it is used to call out your audience. So they know who you are talking to so that you can further relate the product to them.

It is not used to pretend there is an association or sponsored by the website. All of the facebook marketing products that came out and people had "Facebook" in their title... I don't think many buyers purchased the product because they thought it was products and sponsored by Facebook directly.

But I am not here to dispute the rules. Bottom line, you guys can do what you want and your numbers will tell you if it is a positive change or a negative change.

The groovy thing about building your own business is,... platforms change all the time. When you control your own assets you can pick up and move somewhere else and adjust and business is moderately effected. So I wish you guys all the best with your updates and if I wish to use the platform in the future, I will simply adjust accordingly.

Good luck to you all and happy new year

[Alaister]

Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill

Further to the "no income claims" discussion, will that apply to subsequent posts the seller makes in the thread?

For example, when someone asks the seller how much he's made using his system, is he allowed to answer with specific dollar amounts? If so, then you might as well allow income claims because every shyster that sells here will either have a shill ask it for him or he'll ask it of himself with a second account.

This is a great point Dennis and I agree with you in regards to the income claims in replies. These won't be allowed either.

Originally Posted by Debbie Kennedy-Crook

So I suppose my questions are ..

Why does it seem that you are not applying these rules to existing WSO's also?

Is it because this Thread Bumping Mania is earning you alot of money in extra fees at the moment?

When are you going to make the 'OLD' WSO creators remove their income claims to make it fairer for the new WSO creators?

Thanks for your thoughts Debbie.
The new rules apply to all WSOs, existing and new ones. We are making sure all new WSOs that are submitted comply with the rules. Over the next few weeks are also going through and cleaning up the existing WSOs in the section. This is a process that will take some time.

We've developed these rules with the community and the WSO marketplace in mind. Our highest priority is to offer a great place for buyers to browse and purchase legitimate Internet marketing products and a place for sellers to be able to distribute their products.

We are currently in the process of going through and cleaning up the existing WSOs.

Originally Posted by diogoim

Hi Daniel,

What is the position of warrior forum regarding the new VAT policy changes in the EU? Will you adapt your payment platform to reflect these new events?

With Regards

Diogo de Castro

Yeh we are looking into these VAT changes and how we can incorporate them in Warrior Payments.

Originally Posted by midasmarketing

Is this gonna apply to the spammy ads still showing at the top of the page?

These new rules apply only to the WSO section. We will also be creating a set of guidelines and rules for the advertising on the site. These advertising rules will also not allow income claims.

Originally Posted by GlenH

Alaister,

I also develop software applications and I think the term ‘automation bot’ (and I hate that word’ bot’) needs to be clarified.

I only ever heard of the term ‘bot’ to be associated with ‘spammy’ type tools.

Legitimate software is developed to automate a particular process.

It could be any perfectly legitimate process that is being automated with a piece of software.

When I read your list on Rule #5 it seems you are excluding vendors with any legitimate software application to sell as WSO.

In fact, as I see it, under the current exclusions listed in Rule #5, a widely used, and highly credible software application like ‘Camtasia Studio’ (which automates the process of producing videos) would not be approved as WSO

I hope this rule can be further refined to allow those WF vendors who offer perfectly legitimate software applications to be approved.

Hi Glen, this is a good point. The purpose of this rule is to prevent people from selling tools that break the terms and conditions of other sites or services. I understand where you and a some other people are coming from in regards to offering legitimate automation tools. I'll be amending this rule.

[jubilee]

My apologies for the LONG post to all reading the following...

I DO have a question in this long post and it is concerning the following rule:

"Rule #16: Buy Buttons Must Be Present

To sell a WSO in the WSO Section of the forum, your offer must have a Buy Button that takes the user to a checkout. This link cannot take the user to your website, an order form or an opt-in page.

This rule does not apply to other sections, such as Warriors for Hire or Classified Ads."

In the past I have used WarriorPlus and JVZoo to offer my WSOs. 99% of the time I leaned towards WarriorPlus as the payment system to use the Buy button from not only because it allowed me to control the buyer's experience with regards to enhancing the purchase with an OTO or Upsell, automated the adding of my buyers to a segmented list plus allowed me to direct my buying traffic through the funnels I set up but more importantly because a lot of my products were Video Tutorials which could total 500 megs, 1 gig or more so I was able, through WarriorPlus, to send them to a link which WarriorPlus masked and protected for me. I also was able to get valuable stats through WarriorPlus including stats to combat Refund Bandits because in my case there were a few rare occasions where I had to prove to Paypal that the buyer had downloaded the product when they stated they hadn't or were attempting to share it. Paypal would accept screen captures, in my case, from the WarriorPlus system as "evidence" that someone had downloaded the product or tried to share the download based on the IP tracking and you would see various IP addresses had downloaded the product either in a short time frame or from different geographic regions after checking them.

Now we pride ourselves on excellent support even providing our personal phone numbers to customers to insure they could get a question answered or if they needed support in any way. Never really had problems there either because we provided so much value in the product and did over deliver on what we sold that our phones hardly ever rang and I mean hardly ever. We take care of our reputation here (my husband and I).

So with all that said which Payment Processors other than Warrior Payments can we use since we are now no longer allowed to send our buyers to our own Landing Pages, and Order Form or Opt In page after purchases are made? Am I confused or incorrect here?

Is there an approved list for "carts" you are allowing or recommend??

I know I can set up something like DAP or InstaMember for the delivery of my products but much preferred using the WarriorPlus system because of all it included with not only the security, sales and tracking data but additional promotion through other affiliates via their own network which JVZoo was also good for plus it didn't hurt to get the blessing of having Mike Lantz on board and he mailed for you. That would certainly give one a huge boost in sales.

So in summary regaridng my question... I can no longer offer a WSO which would allow me to enhance the purchase with an OTO, Upsell or Downsell based on the new rule of not allowing the Buy Button to forward buyers to my own sites or order forms or am I not understanding this correctly?

Thanks for your time,
Jubilee

[danieljb]

Thanks all for your continued interest.

In regards to the points raised:

I just looked at a WSO posted YESTERDAY - with what looked to me like income claims.

As someone who has seen a LOT of WSO sales copy I quickly listed:

1. income claims - more than one
2. doesn't say what it IS except a "recurring cash system"
3. seller is brand new to the forum so no history and no credibility as yet
4. Sales copy is written in a way that is commonly seen with English second language from Asian countries...but sellers list a US state as residence.

Point is - this WSO apparently passed through the new lookie-loo system and was approved. That tells me the new rules aren't that tough.

I also noted this WSO

Alaister and Daniel, if you set the 'income claims' policy, then you need to make sure your approval staff police the policy.

No wimping out already guys.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. We found that the seller changed the offer post approval. Appropriate action has been taken.

It could be any perfectly legitimate process that is being automated with a piece of software.

Just to add to Alaister's point, each software and its function will be addressed on a case by case basis. We're ultimately looking at the intent of the software.

Not really even sure I understand the value of not allowing review videos or testimonials in the sales thread? Using review videos in copy has been around for ages? Just really curious as to who benefits from removing videos? How does this protect the buyers?

This has always been a rule. Embedding a video is fine, but not to link to external sites for a review. This is similar to Rule 16.

It is not used to pretend there is an association or sponsored by the website. All of the facebook marketing products that came out and people had "Facebook" in their title... I don't think many buyers purchased the product because they thought it was products and sponsored by Facebook directly.

We are yet to see a purpose for using the term except to imply association. Each offer will be assessed on its own merit.

So in summary regaridng my question... I can no longer offer a WSO which would allow me to enhance the purchase with an OTO, Upsell or Downsell based on the new rule of not allowing the Buy Button to forward buyers to my own sites or order forms or am I not understanding this correctly?

A buy button needs to be on the sales page. When the user presses it, it should take the user to a checkout page. You can offer OTOs as long as it adheres to this, which most platforms do, including Warrior Payments.

The overarching intent of the rule is to prevent sellers from using the WSO marketplace as a means to drive traffic to their website, rather than having a special offer for sale.

[jubilee]

Thanks for answering my question above.

Jubilee

[GlenH]

Originally Posted by Alaister

This is a great point Dennis and I agree with you in regards to the income claims in replies. These won't be allowed either.



Thanks for your thoughts Debbie.
The new rules apply to all WSOs, existing and new ones. We are making sure all new WSOs that are submitted comply with the rules. Over the next few weeks are also going through and cleaning up the existing WSOs in the section. This is a process that will take some time.

We've developed these rules with the community and the WSO marketplace in mind. Our highest priority is to offer a great place for buyers to browse and purchase legitimate Internet marketing products and a place for sellers to be able to distribute their products.

We are currently in the process of going through and cleaning up the existing WSOs.



Yeh we are looking into these VAT changes and how we can incorporate them in Warrior Payments.



These new rules apply only to the WSO section. We will also be creating a set of guidelines and rules for the advertising on the site. These advertising rules will also not allow income claims.



Hi Glen, this is a good point. The purpose of this rule is to prevent people from selling tools that break the terms and conditions of other sites or services. I understand where you and a some other people are coming from in regards to offering legitimate automation tools. I'll be amending this rule.

Thanks Alaister..

That is very good news for those of us who develop 'legitimate' software products.

Personally, I'll be returning to doing WSO's again for my software products.

I gave that up long ago when I saw the WSO section getting out of control.

[Paul Myers]

Coach,

Just really curious as to who benefits from removing videos?

The sellers and legit affiliates. Posting reviews that are embedded in the thread was okay under the old rules (and probably still is under the new ones). The problem was people linking to offsite reviews and setting a cookie or linking back to the thread with an affiliate link, thus effectively hijacking sales from the sellers or the affiliates who originally directed people to the product.

There is no patent or trademark violation on the word "warrior".

They didn't say you can't use it elsewhere. Just not here. And if they want to forbid paragraphs that start with vowels, they can. It's certainly not out of line for them to forbid things that might suggest a link to or endorsement by the forum ON the forum.


Paul

[Coach Comeback]

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

The problem was people linking to offsite reviews and setting a cookie or linking back to the thread with an affiliate link, thus effectively hijacking sales from the sellers or the affiliates who originally directed people to the product.

WOW! Excuse my naivety lol. I had never even heard of such things. But I reckon stuff like this is done all the time.

Just had a student ask me how to use proxies the other day. I had no freaking clue. Not a techy guy at all.

I create information products that help people get from where they are to where they want to be. That is all. Anything else is beyond me.

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

They didn't say you can't use it (the word warrior) elsewhere. Just not here. And if they want to forbid paragraphs that start with vowels, they can. It's certainly not out of line for them to forbid things that might suggest a link to or endorsement by the forum ON the forum.


Paul

This I 100% agree. that is why I said I am not here to debate the new rules. Just ask for clarity. Ultimately it is their site and they have the right to impose any rules they deem necessary. I respect that and what you guys are trying to do wholeheartedly!

Up to us to comply or go somewhere else. Simple enough. Rules always change. Those who sit and complain and bicker stay stuck. Those who adjust, adapt, look for solutions and keep moving forward continue to strive.

This is going to be an interesting year for us all

[Paul Myers]

James,

I had never even heard of such things. But I reckon stuff like this is done all the time.

Yep. It was being taught in some "coaching" systems for a while, and had become very common. That's why we put the rule in place originally.

There are some real sleazy types out there who'll do pretty much anything to grab what someone else has earned...

Looks from the posts above like Freelancer interprets the rule the same way we did previously.


Paul

[Coach Comeback]

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

James,Yep. It was being taught in some "coaching" systems for a while, and had become very common. That's why we put the rule in place originally.

There are some real sleazy types out there who'll do pretty much anything to grab what someone else has earned...

Looks from the posts above like Freelancer interprets the rule the same way we did previously.


Paul

Makes perfect sense to me now Paul. Thank you for taking the time to clear this up for me.

Will likely take a bit more than that to get rid of me lol (assuming that was the only goal of these entire updates)

[Paul Myers]

Somehow I don't think you're one of the people they're trying to get rid of, James.

[Kay King]

We found that the seller changed the offer post approval. Appropriate action has been taken.

I was impressed with how quickly you took care of that one. It's concerning that a new WF member read the new rules...then immediately violated those rules.

You may need to add "teeth" in the form of consequences to anyone who edits his WSO trying to get around the rules - like a ban on running any WSOs for 6 months or forever.

I wonder if it's possible to "flag" any WSO that is edited so mods can take a quick look at changes....or to lock it so it can't be edited.

[jubilee]

The wonderful Mr. Paul Myers... always gives great advice and always willing to share his awesome wisdom. Long time no chat Paul. Glad to see you're still helping those of us who have questions and need clarification from time to time. Hope you have an awesome New Year.

God bless you and yours.
Jubilee

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

James,Yep. It was being taught in some "coaching" systems for a while, and had become very common. That's why we put the rule in place originally.

There are some real sleazy types out there who'll do pretty much anything to grab what someone else has earned...

Looks from the posts above like Freelancer interprets the rule the same way we did previously.


Paul

[GlenH]

Originally Posted by Kay King

I was impressed with how quickly you took care of that one. It's concerning that a new WF member read the new rules...then immediately violated those rules.

You may need to add "teeth" in the form of consequences to anyone who edits his WSO trying to get around the rules - like a ban on running any WSOs for 6 months or forever.

I wonder if it's possible to "flag" any WSO that is edited so mods can take a quick look at changes....or to lock it so it can't be edited.

I'm in agreement with Kay..

When a member has their WSO disapproved, and they change it to comply with the rules, but then change it back to the original after it's approved, is really is a 'sleazy act',

People who attempt that, aren't really the sort of people we'd like to see as members here.

So at the very least, a long ban on posting any WSO should be more than in order.

[colofisherman]

interesting that the first thing I see when reading the special rules is this ad for Do You Want to make your first 3,000 online this month. See attached jpg from the forum. I would like to see these kind of spammy junk ads banned too.

[Mark Singletary]

Originally Posted by colofisherman

interesting that the first thing I see when reading the special rules is this ad for Do You Want to make your first 3,000 online this month. See attached jpg from the forum. I would like to see these kind of spammy junk ads banned too.

The admins have said that they will be implementing rules for those banner ads in the coming weeks. Now the focus is on cleaning up the WSO section and then they will tackle other areas that need improvements.

Mark

[Grazina Ajana Szewczyk]

Rule #23: Warrior Forum trademark

Sellers are not to use the Warrior Forum logo, branding or name in their sales copy. The name of your product should not imply that the product is affiliated with the Warrior Forum in any way.

Examples include using the Warrior Forum logo in sales copy or including the word "Warrior" in the product title.

I agree that that people who manage the forum and take responsibilityfor its quality have the right to make some tough decisions, and that some of those may not be popular.

But it seems a bit unfair that honest sellers may have to wonder how to create a program about making money online without claiming they made money online - because of a few con artists.

We were duped once, too, bought a WSO and OTO that was promising long term coaching and support, after a couple of initial emails the lady disappeared. A couple of pages of "WTF" and increasingly concerned comments from other conned Warrior finally convinced us that we lost the money, and that's that.

But that didn't change my faith in the Warrior Forum, and my fellow Warriors. There are quite a few of us here, from all walks of life, and it's a great tribe we belong to.

Warrior Forum is a very special place, there's nothing else like it. A few dishonest people won't change how I feel about being a Warrior. And I resent the fact that I'm not allowed to proudly call my new course or system a Warrior's something or other in case I was driven by some base, despicable motives when I all I want is to make profit and help other people

You could say, what the heck, just call it a ninja or pirate or musketeer or something. But that's not a point. What worries me is this part

Examples include using the Warrior Forum logo in sales copy or including the word "Warrior" in the product title.

Maybe we won't be allowed to call ourselves Warriors anymore. I'm a Warrior and I have no right to use this word, well that sucks.

[Rus Sells]

I asked about this rule but perhaps it got missed?

Rule #18: Forced email opt ins

Sellers are not to force email opt ins from customers to gain access to their product. While you are allowed to request the customer to subscribe to your mailing list, this should not be the only way the customer may gain access to your product or service.

Some special offers are delivered via a membership site which requires buyers to register at the site to gain access to the materials.

Is this deemed a forced opt in, and if not can we amend that rule to clearly differentiate please?

[Mark Singletary]

Yes it needs clearing up and yes there are situations where an email before the product is available must be entered.

However, I read somewhere where some were saying they would start putting everything behind a membership script in order to "force" the email capture and get around the new rules - even for those things that don't need it and where they aren't doing it today.

Mark

Originally Posted by Rus Sells

I asked about this rule but perhaps it got missed?

Rule #18: Forced email opt ins

Sellers are not to force email opt ins from customers to gain access to their product. While you are allowed to request the customer to subscribe to your mailing list, this should not be the only way the customer may gain access to your product or service.

Some special offers are delivered via a membership site which requires buyers to register at the site to gain access to the materials.

Is this deemed a forced opt in, and if not can we amend that rule to clearly differentiate please?