FTC Publishes New Endorsement Guidelines

[NCMedia]

If you're in the US, and you're an affiliate, you might want to look over your campaigns. If you're in the clear, you might still want to read this. Kinda ridiculous if you ask me, and should apply to all genres of media - where as most tv ads, infomercials, print ads, and tradeshow booths would SINK.

FTC Publishes Final Guides Governing Endorsements, Testimonials


N.

[Capler]

Indeed BS... However note:

The Guides are administrative interpretations of the law intended to help advertisers comply with the Federal Trade Commission Act; they are not binding law themselves.

No new "law" was enacted and please... who's going to police all this garbage?

[bruusk]

Thanks Norb, this kind of stuff is boring to read and annoying to comply with, but very important to know for all of us.

Indeed BS... However note:


No new "law" was enacted and please... who's going to police all this garbage?

I can tell you one party who will policing this like an obedient little dog: Google. Watch out for slaps on your adwords if not complying (I already have disclaimers in place that state that I get a monetary compensation from the products I endorse, and that therefore all my recommendations should be regarded as biased)

Also, this *could* affect SEO rankings in the longer run. (Although Google cares far less for compliance of natural results as they are not involved in the advertising part of it so they feel they can't be blamed, I mean sued.)

[Capler]

I can tell you one party who will policing this like an obedient little dog: Google. Watch out for slaps on your adwords if not complying (I already have disclaimers in place that state that I get a monetary compensation from the products I endorse, and that therefore all my recommendations should be regarded as biased)

While I do kind of agree Google can keyword filter for celebs, how are they going to sniff out fake testimonials... maybe a some manual reviews? I doubt it will do much.

As far as disclaimers, you're smart to have them - but EVERYONE should have a private policy & T/C... google often ponys up extra QS anyway.

But I guess it's all a bit of a moot point in that I don't use anything that could cause a problem anyway. Good to point out stuff like this tho.

[bruusk]

While I do kind of agree Google can keyword filter for celebs, how are they going to sniff out fake testimonials... maybe a some manual reviews? I doubt it will do much.

As far as disclaimers, you're smart to have them - but EVERYONE should have a private policy & T/C... google often ponys up extra QS anyway.

But I guess it's all a bit of a moot point in that I don't use anything that could cause a problem anyway. Good to point out stuff like this tho.

You are right on the fake testis point - Will be hard to police.

But the part where the FTC demands opennes about you earning money from endorsing a product, well thats easy for G to check.

If you are paying for adwords clicks, there must be money in it for you. So if you don't disclaim the fact that you are getting paid for that positive "review".. Well it doesnt even take a human reviewer to sniff that out IMO. Although they have plenty of those as well.

So they would just need to flag those with a bot, send reviewers there to be sure, and slap you.

Since the last time I got slapped I have made a big point of over-complying with everything G thinks is important. And if the FTC thinks it's important, you bet G does so too.

Can't wait until Yahoo and MSN teaming up is going forward.. If I can stop licking the *** of Google I will be one happy camper again.

Yeah that sound kinda bitter.. Must be the taste of G's *** in my mouth :P

[vinruna]

I already got this mail in my inbox. I was wondering wtf. But now it makes sense. There are no active campaigns but still they have sent this message. May be there are some campaigns that are paused or something.

Dear AdWords Advertiser,

We’re writing to let you know about a change to Google's advertising policies that could affect your AdWords account.

Beginning in the coming weeks, we'll no longer accept ads that promote Unacceptable Business Practices. This includes, but is

not limited to, negative option or unclear billing, the sale of normally free items or services, and false celebrity

endorsements.

Our system identified your account as potentially affected by this policy change, specifically as it relates to negative

option or unclear billing. Negative option billing specifically relates to sites that offer free trials, services, or other

offers in conjunction with a subscription service. Sites in violation of this policy automatically enter users into a

subscription if they do not cancel within the pre-determined trial period. In order to comply, these pages must contain an

opt-in checkbox that contains the price and billing interval of the subscription service on the page where a user enters

their billing information.

When we make this change any URLs in violation of this policy may be submitted for Landing Page Quality disabling. Once this

has been completed you will have 10 days to make any necessary changes to your website in order to comply before the

disabling will take effect. We ask that you make changes to your ads and/or website to comply, so that your campaigns can

continue to run.

As a business, Google must make decisions regarding the advertising we accept. We've given much thought to our stance on this

content, as well as the potential effect our policy decision could have on AdWords advertisers, and we apologize for any

inconvenience it may cause you.

Sincerely,

The Google AdWords Team

[bruusk]

[...] Beginning in the coming weeks, we'll no longer accept ads that promote Unacceptable Business Practices. [...] The Google AdWords Team

LOL to me that reads:

[...] Prior to the coming weeks, we were accepting ads that promote Unacceptable Business Practices. [...] The Google AdWords Team

Woops..

[vinruna]

LOL to me that reads: Woops..

Lol mate ..

[NCMedia]

Lol mate ..

This.

[Chri5123]

I remember a similar thing happened in the U.K although not as big a scale, basically the law they put forward was to stop Holiday companies posting good reviews about themselves on holiday review sites, no doubt we will catch up with this law as well.

Also I think as more and more people start working online they will tax everything!

They have already started in some ways!

Chris

[bluffspot]

...ya know... I am waiting to see the first email scam some a-hole sends to an unwitting site owner... you know its going to happen - emails will be sent using the ftc letterhead advising they will shut the site down if they don't register and send $20 or something like that....wait for it.... wait for it.... same thing happened when they issued stimulus cheques -

I think they just need to let ICANN do the regulating and the BBB - this is too big for them to reign in.

[SirKhan]

Well, they will tax everything? I thought they were already taxing everything, just not everyone confesses everything ;-) The FTC thing is a good one IMO, I always like to play clean, my stomach just doesn't take anything else :-(

[cliqz]

This ties in to my thread about testimonials.

So I am assuming this means we have to get real testimonials for our sites. We can't just make them up and put a disclaimer saying "results not typical" anymore.

So where do you get product testimonials from?

[koncorps]

This ties in to my thread about testimonials.

So I am assuming this means we have to get real testimonials for our sites. We can't just make them up and put a disclaimer saying "results not typical" anymore.

So where do you get product testimonials from?

Want REAL people? Want REAL results? Then you need Bowflex home gym technology.

I can review your product if you actually want testimonials.

[NCMedia]

lols ^

Cliqz, simply get family, friends, and if you must - pay for them (and put disclaimers saying so). A few notes though

* This only affects those living in the USA (or perhaps servers located there too...)

* This is HUGE news for the CPA world too, as this ties into the google slap above for all rebills and shady offers (most cpa offers). I think it will affect them more than the CPS world. We tend to think the CB slate is all full of dirty comic book ad style products, while the CPA's focus on very detailed and complex models that are WAY shadier, with a cleaner 'looking' front end. I could CARE LESS for the communities that frown on digital CPS though - let them call it the ebook retard route, as their offers continue to get chopped and slapped.

[Vadym]

I'm not worried about the taxing.

After all, Canada is YEARS behind in everything that is Internet.

Hell, spam is still legal here.

[MedicAffiliate]

Well, if the FTC decides to confiscate my computer..I can only say good luck sifting through the decades worth of porn mates...

[Vadym]

Well, if the FTC decides to confiscate my computer..I can only say good luck sifting through the decades worth of porn mates...

I'd use my dual citizenship, kick a couple of people in the nuts, and then peace it to Ukraine.

Good luck finding me in my element

[NCMedia]

Here is some more double standard BS - read this, then look at the ads they serve LOL

FTC targets bloggers, celebrities in advertising - Oct. 6, 2009



Looks like there's going to be a flurry of people changing their landers/sales pages/testimonials etc.

[MedicAffiliate]

"Your lapdogs may follow me across the Ural mountains if they dare" is actually a line from one of the classiest pornz I've ever seen.

[Capler]

But enforcement could prove difficult. Cleland said the FTC won't be hiring new personnel to monitor blogs, creating a "game of whack-a-mole" for regulators, given the numbers involved. As a result, the FTC said it is more likely to go after advertisers rather than bloggers to ensure ad companies are giving product reviewers proper instructions about disclosure compliance.

^_^

Just like ringtones... it will be the networks & advertisers that get hit for the most part.

[MedicAffiliate]

I read this in some lawyer's blog...if an affiliate makes outrageous claims about a product, it's more likely the publisher himself who gets affected. After all, you're just a little aff trying to make a few bucks for the richass publisher so who do you think they're going to go after first?. IMO the worst we'll get is a strong warning before they go any further.

[stewmath]

so how does this affect people like me in the UK?

[JeremyWaller]

Here's Frank Kern's take on it:

http://masscontrolsite.com/blog/?p=59

FTC Declares Shenanigans On All Kinds Of Stuff!

OK. Before we begin, let me make the following disclaimer: I AM NOT A LAWYER, NONE OF THIS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED LEGAL ADVICE.

(Duh!)

Onward…

Most people think the new FTC guidelines are aimed at stopping those fake blog sites.

You know the ones, right? Where the “blogger” is a totally non existent person and it’s just some made up story to promote a CPA offer?

I’m sure you’ve seen them.

Here’s a list of fake weight loss blogs
Weight Loss Scam Sites | Weight Loss Weapons

…And here’s a list of fake “Make Money” blogs:
M) Fake money making stories…|

And while I’m sure these fake blogs played a major role in the FTC ruling, all those people telling you that this is all about blogs …
ARE WRONG.

Here’s the deal:

First, if you’re getting paid to sell something on a blog, yeah, you should go ahead and let people know. Maybe mention it in the TOS, or maybe say something like, “If you decide to get this thing, click this link first and they’ll pay me a little commission money so I can finally retire to that little fishing village in Mexico!” (<---Like I said, this is not legal advice! Get advice on this from a real lawyer and NOT me.)

Personally, I don't think the whole "blog thing" is that big of a deal for REAL marketers like us and I think it'll be super easy to comply with the FTC.
BUT HERE’S WHAT THEY’RE NOT TELLING YOU.

These new guidelines are a whole lot more serious than this blog business.

They also cover how you can use testimonials …and this is likely to PERMANENTLY change the way we do business.

Here’s the interpretation straight from my FTC lawyer, Gary:

“…The most significant change to the revised guides is the deletion of the “safe harbor” that has long allowed advertisers to use testimonials who reported specific successful experiences with an advertised product or service as long as the advertiser included a disclaimer such as “Results not typical.” Under the revised Guides, advertisements that feature a consumer and convey his or her experience with a product or service as typical when that is not the case will be required to clearly disclose the results that consumers can generally expect.”

Umm …right. Here’s the “Kern Translation”:

Let’s say you sell an exercise DVD.

And let’s say you’ve got a customer …we’ll call her “Patsy” …let’s say Patsy followed your DVD to the letter, worked out like crazy, watched what she ate, and lost 950 pounds.

Now, let’s say Patsy wrote you a testimonial and said “I lost 950 pounds thanks to this DVD!”.

Nothing weird there, right?

Up until these guidelines came out, you could be really safe by simply putting the standard “results not typical” disclaimer on your site. You’ve seen it 100 times, right?

It goes something like this: “Results not typical. Your results may vary.”

No big deal …up until now.

Here’s the key phrase form the “official” paragraph above:

required to clearly disclose the results that consumers can generally expect.


What this means is that if you have a testimonial where someone gets an amazing result using your product, you’ve got to follow it up by saying something like this:
Results not typical. The average user uses this DVD as a coaster for their Big Gulp and never loses any weight at all.

And frankly, even doing that might be dangerous if you say “the average user uses this DVD as a coaster” because the FTC could theoretically argue that …well, you’re implying that therefore all anyone has to do is NOT use the DVD as a coaster and they’ll lose 950 pounds.

See? Easy to screw that one up.

Here’s more from my man Gary: “The FTC also said that it believes that it is “likely” that testimonials that present the specific experiences of a product user (e.g., the number of pounds or inches lost) will be viewed as claiming that those experiences are typical of what consumers will generally experience.”

Mmm hmm. Trouble with a capitol “T” right there, buddy.

Here’s the sentence that get’s you: viewed as claiming that those experiences are typical of what consumers will generally experience

In my opinion, this means that if you say Pasty lost 950 pounds, the FTC will view this as you saying the TYPICAL USER will lose 950 pounds.

And if you don’t have documented proof out the wazoo showing that the typical user loses 950 pounds, you’re hosed.
Here’s what this means to you

OK. Basically, if you use a testimonial that shows someone really hitting it out of the park, you can’t say “results not typical”.

You gotta say something like “Results not typical. The average user experiences XYZ.”

And if you don’t know what the average user’s results are, you’d either better find out …or simply not use these types of testimonials at all.

But this doesn’t mean that ALL testimonials are this serious. From what I understand, you don’t have to worry about any disclaimers if you’re using testimonials where your customers simply say they like your product, like you, and are happy with their purchase.

…It’s only when you’re conveying a specific result.
Here’s my advice

COMPLY, BY GOD!!

Look. Many marketers are going to scheme for days on how to “get around” this new ruling.

Don’t waste your time. You don’t “get around” the FTC. If you’re worried that a certain testimonial will get you in trouble, don’t use it.

In my experience, testimonials are overrated anyway.

My Mass Control sales video didn’t have any (but I did use them in pre-launch. I won’t do that any more.)

And our current “Screw Google” promotion doesn’t have any either.

If you deliver enough value BEFORE asking for the sale, you should be able to sell plenty of stuff forever.

We’re SUPER lucky as Internet Marketers because when you build a list, you can constantly be providing great value for your subscribers for free …and when it’s time for you to sell something, they don’t need too much convincing.

Anyway - that’s my take on this whole FTC thing.

Hopefully, it clears things up for you and will help you keep your nose clean!

Frank

P.S. I almost forgot to make this point. Any time you have a major change in marketing like this, you’ll see a big drop off in competition.

Lots of people will either screw themselves by not complying with the new regulations, or they’ll try to comply but fail to sell anything because they’re not delivering enough up-front value. Or they’ll just say, “aww …to hell with it” and quit.

All three of these scenarios do nothing but clear the way for you to get more customers by eliminating your competition.

Selling stuff is easy. All you gotta do is give away stuff that makes people happy …and then sell stuff that makes ‘em even happier.

No over-the-top testimonials needed :-)

Now get out there and make some money!

*** If you enjoyed reading this blog, your results are not typical. The average reader eventually says to himself, “Shit. I shoulda just watched Family Guy or something.” Absolutely nothing in this post should be considered legal or professional advice. Seek the care and advice of a normal and sane person.

[stewmath]

i heard this only really affects affiliates in the USA. What about affiliates outside of the USA like UK etc

[cliqz]

i heard this only really affects affiliates in the USA. What about affiliates outside of the USA like UK etc

It will affect you in that any place you normally go to buy advertising that will target US visitors (Adwords, Yahoo, Social Networks, etc..) will now have stricter guidelines and will probably disapprove your ads making it harder to get traffic.


My thing is this though.... If I am selling my own product I should be able to GUARANTEE my product will have beautiful women approaching you to give you oral pleasure if I want so long as I have a money back guarantee and I honor it!!

This seems like I can't hype my product up without telling them "oh by the way everything I just said was bullshit so you probably shouldn't waste your money".

[antantnz]

on a lighter note ... i guess that means we won't be hearing about Jared and his subway diet anymore

on the more serious side ... i think we all knew this was coming

[NCMedia]

You guys are going to love this...


Randall Rothenberg's Open Letter to FTC

As you're undoubtedly aware, the revised “Guides,” an update of principles the Commission originally established in 1980, have generated a firestorm of controversy within the ad-supported interactive media industry. Of particular concern are footnotes, asides, and elaborations in the Guides – as well as reported commentary by Commission staff – which indicate that opinions published by individuals have less protection than speech promulgated by large corporations; that “traditional” distribution channels deserve more protection than innovative online channels; and, finally, that the Internet, the cheapest, freest, most accessible communications medium ever invented, should have less freedom than other media.

It’s the Commission’s own words that have sewn this controversy and confusion. On pages 47 and 48 of the 81-page Guides, your staff

" acknowledges that bloggers may be subject to different disclosure requirements than reviewers in traditional media. In general, under usual circumstances, the Commission does not consider reviews published in traditional media (i.e., where a newspaper, magazine, or television or radio station with independent editorial responsibility assigns an employee to review various products or services as part of his or her official duties, and then publishes those reviews) to be sponsored advertising messages. […]
In contrast, if a blogger’s statement on his personal blog or elsewhere (e.g., the site of an online retailer of electronic products) qualifies as an “endorsement” – i.e., as a sponsored message – due to the blogger’s relationship with the advertiser or the value of the merchandise he has received and has been asked to review by that advertiser, knowing these facts might affect the weight consumers give to his review."

With all due respect, Mr. Chairman: Huh? Does the FTC really intend to probe America’s opinion-mongering apparatus this closely? Do you have a team of Freuds and Jungs able to examine “the weight” consumers give such opinion – and the way they weigh that weight?

N.

[terryq9317]

Good, im glad someone is paying attention. Cause i missed that completely. this was for Norb's most recent post above mine.

[Ashley]

Ok - I've just been hit up with this..

Here's the official guide I got sent.. http://www.ftc.gov/os/2009/10/091005...esfnnotice.pdf

It's a long read.

(How come these guys never make a guide that's simple? Instead of using all these BS words around the sentence lol.)

So - I need your advice. If I use a testi just saying I like you, your product, it was a cool way to spend $97.. am I clean?It seems that things are good until you mention figures and results in testi's.

[4pawing]

Isn't there some kind of site service connecting people willing to review for 10$ and video themselves doing it?
probably not good for intimate stuff, but a stock testimonial archive for a small community of marketers willining to pay for it just might do it. now pitch their voice in some sound editor and you got all the people you need.