FTC Government Grant Press Conference
- Thread starter unfadable858
- Start date
- Status
Actually, no. There's a difference between exaggerating results (or call it lying) and lying about the product. Even though a majority will not lose substantial amounts of weight using acai and colon cleanse, it is possible. Will everyone get a check from the government after signing up to a grant offer? Obviously not, but there -are- grants and loans available from the government. And believe it or not, not everyone is a poor sucker looking for a free check, there are small business owners that have more realistic expectations and are just looking for some help to get started. Hell, most mainstream advertising will exaggerate results.
The difference with promoting stimulus grants/checks/money for the average customer is that there is NO such thing. Why do you think grant offers have been getting away with it for so long and stimulus ones have been called out after not even 2 or 3 months?
Also, I wish people would stop throwing blog landers in general into the stimulus mess. While they have their own share of issues, the reason they were included is because some were using domains like officialstimulusgrants.com or whatever it was, it can clearly be seen on the PS slide from the press conference. Which was the second issue: Which dipshit thought it would be a great idea to imply some sort of government association?
This will probably be lost in the general hysteria any way, but there a 2 things that people should take away from this:
- Don't lie about your/the product
- Don't imply a government association
And bonus item for advertisers:
Don't hide your terms, don't hide your price in the terms (seventy three ninety nine, really?), have support that can be contacted, let them cancel or give refunds, don't be ridiculous in your pricing.
Not that the latter is anything new, and not like a lot of advertisers actually follow these guidelines. Oh well.
But yeah, this has nothing to do with grant offers and nothing to do with blog landers.
I'm looking to sue McDonalds now. I bought a Big Mac today, and it didn't look anything like the one I saw on TV. Also - Ford is on my list because I don't really get 22 mpg with my car - I'm lucky to get 18mpg. Maybe I should sue the dealership, since they are the ones that made that claim in trying to convince me to buy. Plus, everytime I flip past QVC they convince me to buy about $10 worth of quarters for just $29.95 because supplies are limited. Wouldn't want to miss out on that. Oh yeah, Chase just raised my interest rate. They say it was in the fine print, but that's not fair. You can't expect me to read that.
Gosh, I never realized advertising could be so deceptive until blog landers came along.
Give me a fucking break.
Gosh, I never realized advertising could be so deceptive until blog landers came along.
Give me a fucking break.
A better comparison would be you bought a big mac, but instead they gave you 8 sesame seeds, then beat the fuck out of you with a tire iron.
(once again this is for 'stimulus' crap, not "blog" landers in general)
Or 3 sesame seeds, and a flight to dubai (mandatory 4 year sentence)
source: BBC NEWS | UK | Tourists warned of UAE drug laws
HarveyJ
He is - THE CACTUS!
I'm thinking that the people complaining would probably be better off going into marketing real products. You know, the kinds that aren't a con in one way or another.
It's not a "morally right" thing so much as it is that when you have a customer that orders something like, for argument's sake, a carbon steel bike frame, and they get a carbon steel bike frame, they're not going to complain how they didn't read the fine print that it didn't come with the tiers, a seat, and a hot chick riding it.
I'll admit, it's nowhere near as lucrative because you're not going after idiots, but it is a hell of a lot less stressful and unless the product delivered is actually spray painted cardboard bike frame, there's not really anywhere along the way that it's deceptive.
It's not a "morally right" thing so much as it is that when you have a customer that orders something like, for argument's sake, a carbon steel bike frame, and they get a carbon steel bike frame, they're not going to complain how they didn't read the fine print that it didn't come with the tiers, a seat, and a hot chick riding it.
I'll admit, it's nowhere near as lucrative because you're not going after idiots, but it is a hell of a lot less stressful and unless the product delivered is actually spray painted cardboard bike frame, there's not really anywhere along the way that it's deceptive.
I'd pay to see that, really I would.
Sorry to bump this thread, but given the QVC reference couldn't resist.
QVC paying $7.5M to settle false claims case with Federal Trade Commission - New Mexico Business Weekly:
I'd be interested to see how much revenue they did on these products to yield a $7.5m infraction. $500m?
I was thinking that too. They prob paid way more than that on their taxes for these earnings alone. Technically even the gov is taking a chunk of these ill gotten earnings with that 1.5 million civil penalty.
Hard products? You mean George Foreman's grill or the ab blaster?...homey please.
Don't feel sorry for these "rebill victims". They can, and most often do, apply a chargeback and keep the product to boot. These are the same pieces of shit that caused the housing crisis by buying homes they couldn't afford....yet they are the first ones to be bailed out by Obama.
Don't feel sorry for these "rebill victims". They can, and most often do, apply a chargeback and keep the product to boot. These are the same pieces of shit that caused the housing crisis by buying homes they couldn't afford....yet they are the first ones to be bailed out by Obama.
Ding. Ding. Ding.
The same fucking idiots I'm paying out of my pocket for to offset their "interest only" loans, bank stupidity, etc. Despite the fact that all my shit is buttoned up, bills paid on time, not over extending myself, etc. It's time for me to get some of that (MY) money back.
- Status