Flogs

[stussy5555]

Do any of you ever feel bad when people leave comments on your flogs like "you're a scam" or "this shit doesn't work, i want the number to return this product" etc.?

Maybe thats why the comments are turned off on most? For some reason it gets to me. But my shop is still open. :evil_laughter:

 

[Mike619]

business is business, leave the ethics at home

 

[Cut]

Its kinda of funny, cause some people will comment saying they got the product from me stating they got this product XXXXXX and its nothing like the product im promoting. But whatever they can easily read the T&C and call you a scammer all day but by law you are not.

 

[stussy5555]

Its kinda of funny, cause some people will comment saying they got the product from me stating they got this product XXXXXX and its nothing like the product im promoting. But whatever they can easily read the T&C and call you a scammer all day but by law you are not.

There are no terms and conditions on the "Flogs" about the product and its effectiveness. And you don't think a fabricated story is a scam?

I'm not arguing just curious as to why you see it differently.

 

[Cut]

Some do have terms and conditions if you are smart you would do that. Something along the lines "This is an Advertisment" but people can do what they want and take the risk.

 

[thunderlips]

T&C's are there... FTW!!!

 

[Dispel]

See, these questions probably wouldn't even cross your mind if you weren't so sober.

 

[xmcp123]

T&C isn't protection. Jesus. Read the FTC rules before you guys start pretending you know what you're talking about.
They look at the whole picture, not the details.

As the Commission noted in the Cigarette rule, "The nature, appearance, or intended use of a product may create an impression on the mind of the consumer... and if the impression is false, and if the seller does not take adequate steps to correct it, he is responsible for an unlawful deception." Cigarette Rule Statement of Basis and Purpose, 29 Fed. Reg. 8324, 8352 (July 2, 1964).

Source:FTC Deception Policy Statement
So essentially if people consistently get the wrong idea, it doesn't matter. Adequate steps imply that you inform them to the point where they know, not that it's simply available.

The Commission believes that to be deceptive the representation, omission or practice must be likely to mislead reasonable consumers under the circumstances. n19 The test is whether the consumer's interpretation or reaction is reasonable. n20 When representations or sales practices are targeted to a specific audience, the Commission determines the effect of the practice on a reasonable member of that group. In evaluating a particular practice, the Commission considers the totality of the practice in determining how reasonable consumers are likely to respond.

Or From their Guide on online advertising:

Disclosures that are required to prevent an ad from being misleading, to ensure that consumers receive material information about the terms of a transaction or to further public policy goals, must be clear and conspicuous. In evaluating whether disclosures are likely to be clear and conspicuous in online ads, advertisers should consider the placement of the disclosure in an ad and its proximity to the relevant claim. Additional considerations include: the prominence of the disclosure; whether items in other parts of the ad distract attention from the disclosure; whether the ad is so lengthy that the disclosure needs to be repeated; whether disclosures in audio messages are presented in an adequate volume and cadence and visual disclosures appear for a sufficient duration; and, whether the language of the disclosure is understandable to the intended audience.

I'm not rushing out to change my LPs, but it's something to keep in mind.

 

[mstef]

I find it absolutely hilarious...

Especially when someone emails me thinking that I actually sold them the product, not just misrepresented it. If you're that fuckin stupid, then you just deserve to be fucked.

 

[bitsdawg]

Well, off topic - but I am sick of all of the comments from JoAnn's weight loss blog in my spam bucket. Give up, already.

 

[sgtryan]

Those comments all motivate me even more.

 

[bobsoap]

if the impression is false, and if the seller does not take adequate steps to correct it, he is responsible for an unlawful deception

Does the promoter (ie affiliate) qualify as the "seller" in this case?

advertisers should consider the placement of the disclosure in an ad and its proximity to the relevant claim. Additional considerations include: the prominence of the disclosure; whether items in other parts of the ad distract attention from the disclosure; whether the ad is so lengthy that the disclosure needs to be repeated

The way this is worded, there is no absolute statement as to what is considered prominent enough - one could argue that one has considered such issues and finds them to meet the requirements. Not being a lawyer, just trying to think along those lines. I didn't read the whole paper though, it may be clarified elsewhere.

 

[xmcp123]

Does the promoter (ie affiliate) qualify as the "seller" in this case?

Yeah, it appears so from what I've read.
Though they seem to be much less aggressive with affs? It's pretty tricky to pick apart.

The way this is worded, there is no absolute statement as to what is considered prominent enough - one could argue that one has considered such issues and finds them to meet the requirements. Not being a lawyer, just trying to think along those lines. I didn't read the whole paper though, it may be clarified elsewhere.

That's the point. If they gave us exact rules, we'd find a way around them. So they don't. That's the whole deal with them looking at the ad/website as a whole rather than picking it apart for individual details too I'd suspect.

 

[stussy5555]

T&C isn't protection. Jesus. Read the FTC rules before you guys start pretending you know what you're talking about.
They look at the whole picture, not the details.
Source:FTC Deception Policy Statement
So essentially if people consistently get the wrong idea, it doesn't matter. Adequate steps imply that you inform them to the point where they know, not that it's simply available.

Or From their Guide on online advertising:


I'm not rushing out to change my LPs, but it's something to keep in mind.

Do you have T&C's on your site? And if so, are they near the "free trial" links?

 

[xmcp123]

Do you have T&C's on your site? And if so, are they near the "free trial" links?

I do have a T&C. But also when I set up the page I try and imagine myself defending it with a straight face. If I can do it with a straight face, I let it live.

Like for an example how about these for grants (bolding for emphasis on important differences, not the same bolding as on the LP)
Description 1: "Get product completely free, just pay shipping"
Description 2: "Today you can try product free, just cover the cost of shipping"..."They also have a fantastic membership site for their customers that's free to access for 14 days. Be sure to check it out; nearly everyone we surveyed considered it to be exceptionally useful, and continued to use their account even long after the trial ran out"

Not perfect copy, but that's not the point. The point is that there's eloquent ways to give them the idea that the free trial does run out, and there's some kind of product other than just the part they get immediately.

If you smack them in the face with "You're going to get billed large amounts if you forget to cancel" yeah, you're going to lose conversions. But damn. There's more than one way to skin a cat. Some of which are at least defensible.

The other thing is only quantifying the problem, not the results the solution gave. So like "I was 50 pounds overweight" and making it clear the product helped, but not saying "I lost 45 pounds" on the LP (I don't care as much about text ads).
The idea is just that people expect the product to work to the same degree as the example/blog. So if you can make those expectations a little more broad, the product doesn't have to deliver the same results, just has to deliver something (success is relative).

Once again, these can hurt conversions some, especially if not done right. But if done well, they could probably reduce some complaints. And that's what gets people in trouble. Complaints. Not the violation itself.

I can't say I've done this 100% of the time, but I'm getting better.

 

[stussy5555]

I do have a T&C. But also when I set up the page I try and imagine myself defending it with a straight face. If I can do it with a straight face, I let it live.

Like for an example how about these for grants (bolding for emphasis on important differences, not the same bolding as on the LP)
Description 1: "Get product completely free, just pay shipping"
Description 2: "Today you can try product free, just cover the cost of shipping"..."They also have a fantastic membership site for their customers that's free to access for 14 days. Be sure to check it out; nearly everyone we surveyed considered it to be exceptionally useful, and continued to use their account even long after the trial ran out"

Not perfect copy, but that's not the point. The point is that there's eloquent ways to give them the idea that the free trial does run out, and there's some kind of product other than just the part they get immediately.

If you smack them in the face with "You're going to get billed large amounts if you forget to cancel" yeah, you're going to lose conversions. But damn. There's more than one way to skin a cat. Some of which are at least defensible.

The other thing is only quantifying the problem, not the results the solution gave. So like "I was 50 pounds overweight" and making it clear the product helped, but not saying "I lost 45 pounds" on the LP (I don't care as much about text ads).
The idea is just that people expect the product to work to the same degree as the example/blog. So if you can make those expectations a little more broad, the product doesn't have to deliver the same results, just has to deliver something (success is relative).

Once again, these can hurt conversions some, especially if not done right. But if done well, they could probably reduce some complaints. And that's what gets people in trouble. Complaints. Not the violation itself.

I can't say I've done this 100% of the time, but I'm getting better.

Excellent insight and clever marketing.

+rep

 

[mberman84]

T&C isn't protection. Jesus. Read the FTC rules before you guys start pretending you know what you're talking about.
They look at the whole picture, not the details.
Source:FTC Deception Policy Statement
So essentially if people consistently get the wrong idea, it doesn't matter. Adequate steps imply that you inform them to the point where they know, not that it's simply available.

Or From their Guide on online advertising:


I'm not rushing out to change my LPs, but it's something to keep in mind.

i didnt know that...thanks for the heads up

so what are the steps to take to protect yourself...or at least to the best of your ability ?

i already have an LLC....what else can i be doing?

 

[xmcp123]

i didnt know that...thanks for the heads up

so what are the steps to take to protect yourself...or at least to the best of your ability ?

i already have an LLC....what else can i be doing?

I'm not a lawyer. But that'd be a good question to ask one
Personally, I'd just read over as many FTC docs that are related to your business as you can. I wouldn't slave over them, but at least know them.
If you have a campaign that's getting really big, I'd make a decent effort to bring it to where it should be. It gets kind of tricky though. Like if I'm using compliant or arguably compliant pages, and the merchant isn't, is that on me? I don't know. Either way;
Advertising and Marketing on the Internet: Rules of the Road
Prenotification Negative Option Plans (Rebilling)
FTC GUIDES CONCERNING USE OF ENDORSEMENTS AND TESTIMONIALS IN ADVERTISING (Flogs/Blog Style LP)
Dietary Supplements: An Advertising Guide for Industry (Good for a lot beyond weightloss. Implied claims especially)

 

[bobsoap]

That's the point. If they gave us exact rules, we'd find a way around them. So they don't. That's the whole deal with them looking at the ad/website as a whole rather than picking it apart for individual details too I'd suspect.

I see your point, but I don't think that's the whole story. Let's say they came up with a rule that goes somewhat like this (purely hpothetical):

1) For rebill offers, you have to state the rebill policy in black text which has to be min. 0.3 inches in letter height, within a box with a white background and a 0.3 in, black border. The outmost border of the box must be max. 2 in away from the submit button. If there are multiple submit buttons or links on the page, each one has to be equipped with the same box. If the button is above the fold on a 1024x768 screen, the box must be above the fold as well.

2) The box has to state a) "REBILL PRODUCT" in red capitals, b) the absolute amount of the recurring cost, in USD, in numerical digits with a leading "$", with the trailing text either "per week" or "per month", depending on your rebill policy.

3) This policy also applies for rebill offers that allow a free trial, or another period during which product is offered at a reduced cost, or during which its cost is waived, or any other type of "testing" period.

Could you find a way around that?

I'd reason that if they wanted to place restrictions at such a level, they certainly would, and the restrictions would be effective. There is no incentive to do that though - there are cons though. There's no customer protection lobby that can match up with any economically oriented lobby. So they do what makes them keep their faces while accomodating the nature of our system and society.

In other words: generally speaking, they make ripping people off rather easy.

 

[xmcp123]

I see your point, but I don't think that's the whole story. Let's say they came up with a rule that goes somewhat like this (purely hpothetical):



Could you find a way around that?

I'd reason that if they wanted to place restrictions at such a level, they certainly would, and the restrictions would be effective. There is no incentive to do that though - there are cons though. There's no customer protection lobby that can match up with any economically oriented lobby. So they do what makes them keep their faces while accomodating the nature of our system and society.

In other words: generally speaking, they make ripping people off rather easy.

I think that's absolutely not the case. I think they're a beurocracy with way too many cases to reasonably handle all of them, so they only pick the low hanging fruit.
This is the shit that makes you not the low hanging fruit.
And the reason they don't place restrictions of that level on us is that they can't do so without affecting businesses that can keep their damn phone lines open and have a similar practice (girls gone wild, magazines, etc).

The thing about it is though, is that the FTC restrictions also serve as a standard that other companies(Google, facebook, etc) feel obliged to hold us to when it gets ridiculous.

I'm not saying to put a 8x3 inch banner on the pages that say it rebills, or to be the FTCs bitch or anything like that. I'm saying if you want to keep running these things without them getting banned all the fucking time, try doing a few things to put yourself at least in the gray area. Give the companies some plausible way to allow us to keep running our ads.

If people would've shown even a touch of class with Acai, I'd bet we could still run it right now on adwords...Like if people bothered to:

1. at least modify the LP they jacked (or you know, make your own).
2. Pay the fucking $2 for a stock photo instead of ripping one an LP or from a random myspace whose owner is going to raise a big stink.
3. Not duplicate ads exactly. At least modifying a line or two. Or once again, write your own. Whichever.
4. If the offer is a little deceptive, just using language like I showed above that will lower the anger level and kinda introduce the idea of a continuing product(even if not introducing the billing for it). So if they come back to your page they say "Oh, I guess I missed that" and not "WHAT THE FUCK where is the bbb/ftc/google complaint/whatthefuckever"

I mean, if people had even done any combination of 2 of those 4 things shit would've been much better.
You think these companies don't want our money? Of course they do. But everyone (I'll share some guilt here; I'm no saint) was too godamn stupid to be able to make that a possibility.

Competitive intelligence and learning from observation is fine. Just don't be stupid.