December 1st has come and gone, marking the day when the new FTC Guidelines for Affiliate Marketing Disclosure, Compliance, and Testimonial “Typicality” came into effect.
If you sell or endorse ANYTHING online, these guidelines DO affect you – from innocent AdSense to full-on product launch case-studies – the FTC is Big Brothering the HEYELL out of the web.
Or… are they?
Funny-Man and Hawaiian Shirt-wearing Voodoo-Child Jim Edwards actually wrestled a FTC spokesperson into explaining what this new devilry is all about – and he managed to crack a joke without blowing the Earth out of it’s orbit – which is a mighty trick for a government official.
Having said that – I MUST call shenanigans – during one part of the interview, Mr. FTC said that they cannot impose fines for violations.
Oh REALLLLLY????? I know some folks that might beg to differ. Regardless, it’s an interview worth listening to end to end.
TO get it, you must promise to do 2 things:
- Thank Jim Edwards for doing all of us this favor (You can leave a comment on his blog where the interview lives).
- Mention that I sent you. I think Jim wants me dead – so this is my way of showing him that there’s no hard feelings about burning down his…. oh never mind.
Here’s the link – No Opt in or anything!
http://www.igottatellyou.com/blog/ftc-change-interview/
Come Back here (To this blog) and discuss your feelings about the interview – I’d like to hear if you think it’s going to have a massive effect on your business or not.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 25 comments… read them below or add one }
I gotta say that this guy did not fill me with confidence! He seemed more like the kind of people that he says they are trying to get off the net. You know, a little slippery and hard to nail down!
I mentioned this on another site, but was nicely told that this is how it is so grow up. Whaaaaa!!!
Hey Andy, thanks for posting this ~ it’s really great to know where we stand.
Hey Andy,
Thanks for the email about this. I hope I now have a better idea as to what to expect after the recent changes.
They don’t “fine” you Andy. They “sue” you. Then you “settle” and “agree to pay” so that they don’t shove that broom handle any farther in.
Thanks Pirate Dan – now I understand. The broom handle metaphor made all the difference.
I’m starting to think the FTC and Google are in cahoots together!
Is Dan endorsing broom handles? What is the typical result?
I worked for several government agencies like the FTC. What one person sees as OK, another person will say its not. I can only speak from my experience working for “The Man”. There is always someone in the office who will point out where someone else in the office made a mistake.
Another problem we always had were rule changes (or to put it in “The Man” speak, clarifications) which were internal only. And, there’s the boss of the boss of the boss final word.
Example, my supervisor was not sure of something I was confused about. My supervisor did not know the answer so they asked their supervisor. Their supervisor clarified things for us in writing. Well we thought they clarified things for us. When another government agency indicated the reasons they were going after that person, all clarifications changed. My supervisor went into the system and changed my ticket.
I was working for an agency which collected revenue for the federal government. A change in the “CLARIFICATION” put well over six figures in the federal government’s piggy bank.
Alot of what is said in this interview seems reasonable to me. The one that doesn’t is the use of testimonials. It seems nearly impossible to gather the data that would represent a “typical result”. It certainly wouldn’t be a cost efficient endeavor.
My question is this: Does this stuff only apply to the net? What about all of those informercials that are like 50% testimonials? Will this be the end of that Jeff Paul program with the dude that made $40,000 his first week? Or is there a double standard?
(nothing against Jeff Paul here…that’s just the example that comes to mind. But I do think that infomercial is misleading..and that’s putting it mildly.)
Naive Semantics … You cant legislate or re-enforce the current legislation in one country in the world … them expect some human beings to stop acting like human beings.
You cant alter they way humans act until you can comprehend the way they think …
Legislation in many, many occasions deals with the symptoms and not the cause.
Thanks for posting this, Andy. It’s imminently useful for folks to get info “from the source.”
Here’s the good news for marketers, the news that doesn’t seem to be getting out: You can STILL use testimonials. You just have to get the data to prove what your “typical results” are. How do you that? Simply, easily, and inexpensively, with surveys. So I’m happy, because the FTC just wrote a prescription for my business!
Thanks, Andy. My takeaway from the interview was more about common sense. Hope that will trump some of the major weirdness!
No doubt there will be court decisions (some of those may be the shenanigans), but common decency and best practices could get a boost. Most of us have been in the good guys’ tent all along, anyway.
I actually heard this awhile ago from Jim, but it’s nice to know that important things don’t just die. Thanks for reminding everyone Andy, THIS IS VERY SERIOUS BUSINESS!
I have someone that is very close under audit RIGHT NOW. They are already in the signing of documents back and forth, or like Dan said, how far would you like us to shove this up there son, we got all day and NOTHIN BUT TIME AND MONEY… oh and by the way it’s your money that I’m kickin your own ass with…. ooooowwww, how does that feel boy!
Seriously though, The FTC is supposed to be the watch dog for the consumers! They are supposed to act upon complaints and resolves issues of bad business practices. The funny thing is, I HAVE FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE, that they do what they see fit, WITHOUT ANY CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AT ALL. Hear is how I know, oh… this has already been by a Federal judge to for hearing, so it’s not just words (thought I should let you know).
When asked to produce any allegations of wrong doing, or complaints in any fashion, as should be your right if you can possibly go to jail and get fines up the wazoo for something, the FTC had this…………
) me now!
…………………….. ……… ………. …….. Ooohh, guess…. NOTHING!!!!! Not one complaint, not one shred of proof of wrong doing, but, well I guess I shouldn’t get to far into this, but I hope everyone can hear (or I guess read
DECEMBER 1ST IS NOT THE LAST STOP! It is really just a warm up. Please don’t take this as some conspiracy theory stuff and I don’t check behind my door when I walk into the house or knock three times on my own door before I walk in.
In all seriousness. The FTC has a few more things in the works. One of the big ones they are holding back on is in the wings so they can see how the Supreme Court Rules on a particular upcoming case within the next 12 months. What this will mean is TOTAL FREE REIGN FOR INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THEY SAY AND HOW THEY DEEM IT APPLIES. It’s really kinda scary stuff if you step back and think about it.
Take this for what it is worth, but be on the look out, and don’t ever say that you where not warned. Not to be political or anything, but it is never good when government is to big and has control over to much. I don’t care if your left, right, upside-down or inside out, big government is bad and just handing over control is never a good thing for the masses. The
FTC almost has this type of control, with more to come.
Get informed, Get Educated, Get Active (maybe Jeff Johnson can make a plugin for this.. haha) If you don’t care, why should anyone else.
Love your stuff Andy and getter dunnnn…
Best wishes,
But Let’s Say X
Thanks, Andy, for pointing over to Jim’s blog. I listened to the interview and had questions which Nola, above, may have answered. I suspected what she says is very true. She “clarified” it for me. And thank you for doing your good work, Andy.
Hey Andy:
I just finished listening to Jim’s FTC interview. I’m very impressed with the depth of Mr. Cleland’s coverage of the issues involved and the overall tone of the FTC “interpretations.”
My business is, as yet, very small so the impact will be minimal, but as I believe in respecting my customers and giving them as much information as they need to make sound buying decisions, I can only applaud the FTC’s efforts to protect consumers from nefarious business practices.
Obviously many will have a greater amount of “maintenance” to perform than others, but overall I think the vast majority of businesses will be strengthened by the effort.
Les Leslie
Listening to the whole interview, I found that all the hype and fear that was originally circulating was simply unfounded. The regulations haven’t changed. The penalties haven’t changed. There is no massive fine that can be accessed. As an international seller of roller skates, I think that we will find that, in the beginning, there may be a disadvantage for those who walk the line, but over time, buyers on the internet will come to realize that the US has these rules in place and that will strengthen the credibility of US eComm sites over their international competitors.
Just took my website down. I got a call from our TGA in Australia. I have a health product which people have to come to a clinic to get. I was told I couldn’t use testimonials because in their definition it’s advertising and if I left the site up I’d be fined or even jailed.
Don’t think you have it all to yourself with dumb beutocrats in the US. We have them too.
That sucks Pete – I hope you were able to modify the site to come into compliance.
As far as affiliate marketing is going tactics have changed. The gurus used to tell you to hide your affiliate link, because some people take offense. Infact I even bought a cloaker from Jim Edwards a couple of years ago. Now you are obliged to let people know that your link is an affiliate link. Personally I’ve just written an affiliate disclosure on my blog which I think should cover it.
Thanks for the heads up on this Andy. That was great interview done by someone who knows how to conduct an interview. Also, some really good information that clears up some of the questions regarding disclosure.
Those of you in the hype and promise business have a lot more to deal with compared to those of us who sell physical products from original manufactures is seems. What will be interesting to watch is how enforcement rolls out over the next months and years.
Hopefully I will stop getting those emails saying that I can earn thousands in just a few days for only minutes a day.
yogiwan
Chef Wannabee
Talk about Big Brother… “discretionary enforcement”!? This is all so objective it will in essence give the FTC carte blanche to skewer anyone it wants to, and of course be able to protect anyone it wants to as well. Hey… does anyone out there remember McCarthy? What merchant (or service provider) in this country does not receive free merchandise, and then sell that company’s product to his clientele? Is a doctor now supposed to tell his patients he gets free product (and can get a cut as well in some instances), or is a hospital supposed to disclose that it derives profit from the prescriptions they fill for their “affiliate” doctor’s who get the free samples? Why should someone who owns a blog or a website about bicycles for instance have to go through all these hoops, but someone who owns a physical bicycle store not have to? FTC regulations should apply equally to virtual and physical merchants, otherwise they are discriminatory (obviously in favor of property owners). And if you carry the FTC “clarifications” to their logical extreme, the major offenders of all this are Google, network talkshows, and all of the Shopping Channels on TV. The ladies on the shopping channels for sure are nothing short of paid shills, and Google PPC by the FTC’s own definition is the biggest super affiliate of them all… not to mention that Google “slaps” affiliates and manipulates ad placement based on how much a company pays, not on how truthful their ads are. But in the infinite wisdom of the FTC’s discretionary power, I really doubt the FTC would even consider either of them as a threat to the general public, but in essence they are the biggest, most deceptive advertisers of all. This, like most other government regulations, is designed to “protect the wealth of the wealthy” by throttling competition.
Three quick things:
1) This ruling bites. The “between the lines” writing is essentially saying the American public is too stupid to discern good from bad and should not be held responsible for their own action. Therefore as the all powerful government, we shall step in and “protect” the public from themselves so they can continue a life of dependence upon their government.
2) X in his comments above is correct. It is serious. Not because it’s right, but because it is now part of the fabric of American business. So, you either conform and learn to do business this way, or get your butt sued off. The FTC is the new IRS.
3) I’m not down on Jim Edwards, but I got weary of him kissing up to the FTC official in the video. It was very thick. Jim may make a nice buck or two with his business, but if that doesn’t work out, I’m sure there is a job at the FTC waiting for him.
Oh man, this got my blood boiling! What’s really frustrating are these comments like “good info, thanks!” The only light in the tunnel was Dan Thies broomstick metaphor, which shows a bit what all ‘agencies’ are about – initiating violence.
Reasonable men, if they have a disagreement, sit together and work it out and come to a mutually acceptable agreement. Not agencies! They work like bullies: “We tell you how it is, and if you don’t do was we say – - – you know where the broomstick is, and how long it is!”
Still, we can learn from them: they came up with the idea that we don’t negotiate with terrorists. That is a good policy particularly if applied to them, because they are, in fact, the terrorists, a they initiate force. You don’t think what they do is initiating force? Think again: they issue a fine (or sue you, which is the same because the courts belong to them and are paid by them), and you don’t pay. Then you see that it IS force – just play it through in your mind.
The only reason I write this is to plant this little seed in your mind, that you all see that ‘agencies’ are agencies not for us but only for themselves, that they are not our friends that will protect consumers. That’s just double talk to hide the fact that they are taking more control by threat of stealing and imprisonment.
Yes, follow the rules (for now) but keep in mind, that the tyrants are not here to help you.
A slave master can only stay what he is as long as the slave behaves as a slave – stop being a slave. Resist with every fiber, without the need to put yourself in danger, but resists, don’t see them as the benefactor.
And above all, see them as different from you. They are not one of us, where we all work together to make the world a better place. See that anybody who has the idea to know better than you, how to live your life, is to be met with at least suspicion.
Andy, Edit the previous post or post this… either way…
I was wrong to be critical of Jim for the way he conducted the interview. He is a stand-up guy and KUDOS to him for doing the call…
As for the FTC guy… he IS pathetic and should get a real job
Again, Jim Edwards… great job… FTC take your arbitrary rules and…
Joe
Joe – you are awesome. Edit complete.