November 23, 2009
The Farewell Tour…
By Jeff Walker
NOTE: over the last several years I’ve published
literally DOZENS of product launch Case Studies.
However, due to the new FTC regulations, in just a
few days I’ll be pulling those Case Studies off my
web site. This is my explanation of why I’m doing
so…
Ever since I first started publishing Product
Launch Formula I’ve had this not-so-sneaky way of
convincing people to buy it…
Basically I published one Case Study after another
that showed regular people with regular products
in regular niches who used PLF to successfully
launch their product.
In fact, I completely beat people down with the
Case Studies. What a concept… I kept sending
solid content, month after month after month. In
all, I published dozens of Case Studies in all
kinds of niches…
There was Randy Pryor with a “knitting” product,
Leslie Karsner with a “love letter” product, Orion
Williams with “photoshop tutorials”, John
Gallagher with a board game about “medicinal and
edible herbs and plants”, Kyle Battis in the
“fitness” niche, Neil Stafford with his DVD about
coaching youth soccer, Jason Moffat in the “poker”
niche, Valerie Young teaching women to quit their
jobs and pursue their passion, Jane Savoie in
“horse ballet”, Jeff Dyson with “marching band
accessories” and on and on and on.
I have to admit… this wasn’t some master plan
that I had when I first published Product Launch
Formula.
In fact, this all sorta happened by accident -
every time I went to a seminar I had a bunch more
people come up to me and tell me about their
launch… and tell me that they wanted to help me
out with a Case Study.
That was great for my marketing, of course.
But it was also INCREDIBLY gratifying - to have
people come up to you and tell you how you helped
them create a business, or turn their business
around, or make their dream a reality… that you
changed their lives… well that’s some powerful
stuff. In reality, it was downright amazing for
me.
To think that I had helped so many people with my
product… well, it really has been a dream come
true - and that’s why I’m so passionate and why I
get so excited when I’m sharing these Case
Studies. I love making that kind of impact on
people.
Sure, those Case Studies have helped me sell a lot
of copies of Product Launch Formula… after all,
I’m a marketer and I’m in the business of selling
my products.
But those Case Studies have also provided a huge
amount of value for FREE. I’ve had plenty of
people tell me they’ve done successful launches
based 100% on the free material I’ve published.
Unfortunately, the party is coming to a close -
which is the reason for the Farewell Tour for my
Case Studies…
On December 1st, the FTC is changing the rules
about testimonials… and I’ve got a feeling that
they’ll view my Case Studies as testimonials.
In the past I was able to publish these Case
Studies with the disclaimer that “results are not
typical”… but according to the new FTC rules,
that disclaimer will no longer do.
In order to keep publishing the Case Studies, I
will need to state what results ARE typical.
Unfortunately, the FTC has yet to define how I’m
supposed to measure or declare what’s typical…
and I’m not willing to be a test case.
That means I’ve been forced into a corner… I
can’t see any other course of action other than
pulling down all my Case Studies.
So come December 1st, they will all be going away.
In the meantime, I have approximately a week as I
write this blog post. During that time I’m going
to be re-releasing most (if not all) of those Case
Studies.
In fact, I’m even going to release some of the
full-blown major Case Studies that I have
previously only released to my best clients (ie,
my Product Launch Formula Owners)…
So, for this one last week, I hope you learn from
and enjoy these great Case Studies…
It was fun while it lasted.
To get all the Case Studies, you should join my
email list here:
And here’s the first full out Case Study that I’m
re-releasing:
John Gallagher and the Horizontal Helix
best regards,
Jeff Walker
Topics: Case studies, Video, updates |
62 Responses to “The Farewell Tour…”
Comments
« Three “mini” Case Studies… | Home | Four more case studies… »
November 23rd, 2009 at 5:50 am
Oh my god..so sad to hear that you are going to pull down all the Case studies.This is the first time I visit your blog,and I hope to learn more from you.I will support you.
November 23rd, 2009 at 5:51 am
So is there no way around it? I mean….those are not case studies for your product…. those are not case studies, are just studies of launches. That’s it. it’s free stuff to study launches…and that’s it.
So your product can be in the study of launches, without numbers, without typical results.
November 23rd, 2009 at 5:56 am
This is really sad. People afraid of fines and jail time for telling the truth. Using the truth to sell. What a concept. Jeff, I totally understand your choice. I’ve been wrong plenty of times before, and my online marketing has nowhere near the stature yours does. That is why, I’d like to propose an alternate solution: “Go in the opposite direction and absolutely claim your truth!” I believe we need people who do just that, instead of shirking into the shadows because of this FTC ruling. I believe we need people who hold their clients accountable for themselves, instead of creating mass double-standards. You could, for example, design a comment form for EVERY SINGLE ONE of your customers. You could ask them targeted questions and calculate the results. Questions could be 1) What percentage of PLF did you implement 2) From your own perspective, how thorough were you in following the PLF guidelines 3) How many months have you owned the product 4) How many total hours have you spent on your PLF-enabled business 5) How much money have you made where you can honestly say that PLF helped you make that money, etc. Then, you could actually calculate something like 9.75% of our customers generate more than $30,000 per year supported by PLF.
Now THAT, is transparency. AND, it enables you to position each testimonial in a calculated, tracked and completely honest AVERAGE result.
People know darn well that they need to apply themselves to get results, and frankly, those who “benefit” the most from these new “rules” would likely NEVER have the balls to create such transparency.
Hmmm…I think I’ll post this on my blog too…
Best,
Dainis W. Michel
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:04 am
I don’t understand, if your case studies are valid results that you can prove (i.e. you have the statements received from the people you posted), why you would pull them all down? Your not saying the average person can achieve those results. Can’t you just add a “these results are not typical” disclaimer?
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:06 am
Jeff have you ever thought about putting your case studies in like a membership area as a way to avoid taking it down?
Desmond
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:13 am
First it was the Romans ….
Then came th4e British …..
It appears that now the
Fall of the American Empire has begun !
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:14 am
Good Luck, Jeff. As you’re the real deal I’m sure your true colors will shine through the regulations. It may even help to slow down your competition!
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:20 am
I’m sorry to hear that.
I got into the interest of online Marketing when I first saw your videos almost 2 years ago.
Since then we doubled our online sales just with the ideas of you talk about in your videoes and what I got from Stompernet an Frank Kern, which I’d never heard about before watching your videos.
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:23 am
Jeff,
Your response to the 12/1 FTC position is practical and wise but also impressive . . .
This is a brilliant example of you, your business and how you do things . . .
Thank you.
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:24 am
OK, just posted on my blog. The article is called “Jeff Walker Cowers Under New FTC Rulings, And Now There Is One Notch Less Truth On the Internet.”
http://www.dainis.info/articles/jeff-walker-cowers-under-new-ftc-rulings
Again, I fully support and understand your stance. As critical as my article may seem, I am not criticizing your choice. As a 1st generation American, born to immigrant survivors of WWII, in my opinion, this ruling just deserves a closer look.
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:26 am
I’ve read some nonsense from you Gurus, but this is the peace de resistance of BS.
Why don’t you wait and see what the FTC does, if they even look at your site. You have managed to take an FTC rule and twist it in a way that may help you sell more product.
The FTC rule has nothing to do with Testimonials from other people on your own product. The Rule pertains to your giving testimonials on other peoples products so that you can make a affiliate commission on the sale of that other product to the people that you market to.
Jeff, I have seen some really good content on your site and a few items that I classify in the BS column but this one just moved to the top of the BS list.
The most interesting note in this comment is that you probably won’t publish it, other poor suckers will buy your product based on this BS and the FTC has no new rules about your ability and contol over the comments that you do post.
By being in control of what gets published in your forum and weeding out negative comments like this one, you are infact putting constaints on a consumers ability to make decisions on knowledge of the Pros and Cons of a particular product, service or idea. You are forcing consumers to make decisions only on the Pros and that is what the FTC is trying to stop.
Mike
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:28 am
wow jeff I know your kinda upset about what the FTC is doing…
But your Jeff Walker you’ll find a way out of this or you’ll try something new and it may not work out the first time. But us Internet Marketers never give up on any task we walk into.
Thanks,
Ricky
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:30 am
Who do these people think they are? Publish what you do from another country, once again an example of Americans that think they can rule the World. Sorry, the Internet is Global. Like you betting rules they are now driving expert internet marketers abroad
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:40 am
Had to give your readers a bit more to go on if they don’t have it already…
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 255
Guides Concerning the Use of
Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising http://bit.ly/kTZhe
Keeping up with the times.
Jon
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:51 am
Hi Jeff-
Thanks for the case studies.
The new FTC rules have forced many changes
on the marketing world, but it doesn’t mean
bad news for us, just new ways of disclosure.
Looking forward to reading the studies, as I’m sure they will be very helpful for anyone planning a launch.
All the best,
Motown Terri
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:18 am
Interesting Jeff.
While I agree with the spirit of the FTC rules, your interpretation shows the impact of unintended consequences.
By not allowing powerful testimonials and case studies, the FTC have hampered buyers from distinguishing great, proven products like the Product Launch Formula from over-priced, over-hyped stat.
That can’t be what they want surely and I can’t see how you can get typical numbers. And would they be typical numbers for people who use the training or just buy it?
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:36 am
[…] http://www.productlaunchformula.com/2/blog/?p=70 […]
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:44 am
Jeff…Since the heart of the PLF philosophy are the case studies…would we still be able to use them without breaking FTC’s new guidelines?
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:48 am
Hi Jeff,
Real shame that you’re having to do this. You’ve worked damn hard at your product, and those case studies were the best seller a marketer could ask for.
They truly are testament to how great your product is (I should know, I’m a customer of yours), and as intelligent human beings, we generally have the capacity for sound judgment to determine if those case studies/testimonials are fake or not. If one lacks that sound judgment, that is noone’s fault but their own or those that raised them.
Unfortunately, as is par for the course in this escalating slide toward total socialism, the government is stepping-in again, “protecting” the weak by hamstringing the great - either to win more votes, or because they’re ignorant enough not to know how we humans actually work. Or both.
Sorry for the rant, Jeff, but I really feel for you, because your product is great (you’re not alone here, of course), and in a free world, you would be free to sell it however the hell you like, whilst it’s up to us to make up our own minds whether to buy or not.
I really hope something can be done to turn the tides and free the human race, because it’s getting out of control, now. Humans - more so than any other animal - don’t do well when caged. I fear for our future. Unless something is done…
Good luck with your marketing, Jeff. I’ll continue to recommend your products, don’t worry.
To freedom,
Scotty Stevens
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:51 am
That Damm rule. How they ont people to estimate how mutch you will make.
Everybody is different and everybody takes different action.
They know that.
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:55 am
I guess the FTC thinks it’s being helpful.
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:00 am
I am a bit disappointed with these new FTC ruling although they can perhaps protect people from some level of fraud. But I ask myself: Will they apply to Infomercials too? Being so, what will happen to all the weight loss and training products we see on TV - will they have to show that 90% of people who use the product don´t lose weight or will put it back on within 6 months.
If the rules don´t affect TV is Internet Marketing being discriminated against?
Whatever happened to personal responsability . . .
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:06 am
Jeff: I spent a weekend a few weeks ago with your first version of Product Launch Formula which was loaned to me by a friend whom you know very well. I wanted to study your techniques in preparation for working with them to assist in several product launches. Better than any university business course I ever remember taking. I suppose this is my way of thanking you for sharing your knowledge in this area.
And thank you in advance for sharing these case studies. I am absolutely sure that a very many people will benefit from your generosity. You could have simply pulled the plug on this library and you chose not to take that route. You will likely never know how many lives have been changed with this single act of giving back.
Sincerely,
David Tomen
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:09 am
Hey Jeff,
I feel your pain.
While I can appreciate a watchful eye, to keep things more legitimate on the internet, the recent FTC rulings are overkill in my opinion and do more harm than good.
But, that said, the ball game has changed again. Thanks (genuinely) for always bring more value to the table and teaching me how to become better at what I do online.
Your case studies and pre-launch material is golden in my book.
Thanks,
Joe
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:10 am
how sad, after you were so generous. good luck with FTC. JB
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:20 am
Looking forward to better days ahead, politically speaking, Jeff! Good luck. I know you’ll continue being successful even without the “testiomonials”.
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:10 am
Hi Jeff,
I am sorry to hear that you have taken the decision to close down this part of your livelihood. But are you perhaps not over reacting to the new FTC guidelines?
After all, if you read their website at
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/endortest.shtm
they state that “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”.
So in the first place no way do you make out that your readers will achieve the same results as your case study examples. [Not that I am suggesting that you drop your disclaimers but I feel sure that you are not the target of these new guidelines.]
And secondly it is completely obvious that you use your method to encourage your readers to buy your product. The FTC are after those who appear to them to be
misleading their readers. This may be by not admitting that the product they are reviewing and giving such a glowing report about is one that they are affiliated to or being paid to endorse the product in some other way.
And the other type is where a brand new affiliate who has not sold a single copy of the ebook he is plugging, uses the owners puff [I earned $10,000 in two weeks] as if the affiliate and everyone else can still earn that kind of money now despite the fact that the ebook is being given away free on so many sites that anyone would be hard pressed to sell it at all let alone make $10,000 from it in their lifetime
never mind in two weeks.
You are doing nothing underhand and therefore have nothing to fear from the FTC guidelines.
Let me add a disclamer to that lol and say that I do not have sufficient knowledge of the thinking of the FTC people who introduced these guidelines
and consequently I am not responsible for any action of tha FTC on your company should you continue to use case studies as a means of inducing readers to purchase your products. If in doubt, please consult a qualified legal practitioner well versed in FTC legislation.
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:27 am
Thanks Jeff, that’s a very generous offer of you. You are very kind. Let’s just hope the FTC will be able to define “results are typical.”
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:43 am
Hey Jeff,
You know my story dude! I won’t post it here though… because it probably isn’t “typical results”
I think PLF is one of the best products EVER, and have recommended to MANY of my closest friends and colleagues!
Thanks for everything you’ve done, and all the help you’ve given me.
It’s a bummer that you’re going to have to pull all your incredible testimonials, but you know … results will continue to speak for themselves… even without all the testimonials!
Thanks again for everything dude.
Talk soon,
Ryan
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:20 am
I love your story. It always pays to help others, which I’ve been doing for years, but am leaving what I’m in, as it’s time to choose another topic.
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:27 am
Do you have any thoughts on how we might influence or stop completely the takeover of the web by the government disguised as “dogooders” to protect everyone from themselves? They fear all of this free information on this medium and there will be a concerted effort to control or at least diminish what to them will be threatning. What they really fear is the free flow of information that allows everyone the knowledge to make an informed decision.
Thank’s for sharing your knowledge with everyone. I am working on my first wed site for affiliate marketing, so I am nowhere close to doing a launch. I will download what information you put up and keep it for when I get to that stage.
Thank You
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:40 am
Savon,
The fall of the American Empire has certainly begun and has been accelerated in the past few months by the politicians (both democrats and republicans) in the nations capital.
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:45 am
good thing we live in a free country! NOT! The “way aound this” to take back the country from the socialists and get back to our COnstitution!
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:17 am
Jeff,
Why aren’t you putting this information inside a restricted potion of your website (like a membership website) and once or twice a week via autoresponder tell your mailing lists to visit the protected area for new and archived case studies? The FTC then becomes a NON-ISSUE.
Paul
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:17 am
Hey Jeff,
First off, I’m sorry to hear about you taking down your case studies. To be honest your case studies helped inspire me to get into the internet marketing field. I even went and did a product launch just from your free content and did quite well.
Now, something I don’t understand is why exactly do you have to remove the case studies. What is the exact rule for this new FTC thing? I mean, are we no longer allowed to have testimonials at all? Can someone please break this down because this doesn’t make sense.
I completely agree with another comment made earlier. Keep all your case studies testimonials on file. Create a list of people who would be able to vouche for your product and you if anything happened to you by the FTC. Also, don’t you have to someone complain to the FTC to get on their radar. I believe that is why Kern got into trouble because people were posing as him and someone complained.
Either way, your a great marketer, but even more a nice guy. I met you once at a event and you were just the nicest guy. You never once acted bigger then me or better. The reason you do well isn’t your product, it’s because you have a huge heart and care for people.
I stand by you and would testify to that effect if ever needed. I would actually spend my own dime to support you if you ever needed it because your product launch formula idea has changed my life and my business. Hell, still looking forward to buying it one day
If I can make money off of your case studies imagine what I could do with the course.
Josh Houghton
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:26 am
EH, FTC
What a great murderer of entrepreneurship you are.
The irony is that only bureaucrate like you, with
no business sense makes ridicoulous decision like this.
You should go into religion so it can be wash the envy plagued on you.
One thing is sure M. and Mrs. of he FTC, your Mom
must be verry proud of you in your funny police like costume.
Very often people like don’t know that they don’t
Chilling n’est-ce-pas
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:42 am
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by JeffWalker: Blog post: why the FTC regs are forcing me to pull all my Case Studies (ie, the Farewell Tour): http://tgli.de/Cd6…
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:43 am
[…] The Farewell Tour… | Product Launch Formula http://www.productlaunchformula.com/2/blog/?p=70 – view page – cached Share this with your friends: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. […]
November 23rd, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Hate to tell you this, Jim, but the Constitution EXPLICITLY gives the government the power to regulate interstate (and international) commerce. And that is exactly what the FTC is doing. The FTC has already gone after some of the same abuses on TV, radio, and in print ads, and nothing even hints that they will reduce those efforts. And all that being said, I agree with the others who say this retreat seems premature. The FTC procedure calls for little more than a polite letter being issued as a first round enforcement. Why not wait until the time (if ever) that you get such a letter before taking things down?
November 23rd, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Jeff it is too bad that you have to pull down your case studies. We’ve all enjoyed watching them and it really shows how normal, everyday people can use your product launch techniques to do great things in business. It’s nice seeing “real” people make this work for themselves in niche markets with information marketing and “real” physical products. It’s a nice change from the gazillionaire gurus that are thrown in our faces everyday by other people. Great job and I look forward to seeing what you do next.
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:05 pm
At this time, since no one knows how the FTC rules will be interpreted and enforced, it is wise for business owner to error on side of caution. If these new rules and their penalties fall under the jurisduction of fraud and racketerring civil charges, the risk is forfeiture of property. For those unfamiliar with forfeiture laws, this means gross gains (not net) from offending operation can be confiscated from the government. If the business has no assets, no problem. Under substitution rules in forfeiture laws, government will take your personal assets and those of your heirs equal to the value of “illegal” gains. There is so much more to this story and most of it is not good. Point is: Caution is good for the time being until business can see how these new rules are enforced. There are some lessons you do not want to learn the hard way.
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:58 pm
When in doubt get the advice of a good lawyer.
Note that the FTC has already backed off on the fines and that if this is a sponsored endorsement then you should be concerned. Based in my reading of this and advice I have this should not be an issue. Also FTC not applying this to other media also known as selective enforcement and therefor unconstitutional
November 23rd, 2009 at 5:00 pm
I have mixed feelings about the FTC rules. On one hand they are harsh BUT having so many times wasted my hard earned money on products that were nothing but garbage…I have to admit, this may, after all be a good ruling.
Jeff, even you said it in one of your videos of your last PLM launch, and I quote: “If your inbox is anything like mine, you see one bogus get-rich-quick scheme after another piling up in your inbox. Perhaps you’ve even bought a few of them. (I know I have.)”
Social Media is about transparency, and so is this FTC ruling. The ones that are really going to pay the consequences are those “get-rich-quick-scamers”…which if you think about it, opens huge possibilities for the rest of us who want to do the right thing and do it ethically and without any misleading hype.
…Jeff, I think if anyone is going to benefit from this ruling is you.
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Hey Jeff, I know what you are talking about. I have had the govt. media watch dogs on my case also. I was debating on doing the same thing for my members, one last blow out, then go on some desert island in the south pacific.
Most of these people who are defending the FTC have no freekin idea what they are talking about! The govt. is going to control every single aspect of our lives! They want bloggers to be “truth tellers”,when in fact everyone knows that blogging is an “opinion”, not facts.
Remember the days when a blogger, like Drudge, broke the Clinton scandal? Who is Matt Drudge, oh he is just a blogger, not the legitimate press!
The political winds of change have spoken. How do you like the “hope and change” now?
Hey guys, the FTC is going to make an example out of some one! Who’s it gonna be? You or the big Gurus? Dealing with some govt. pencil head geek, who has a secure job, is like dealing with the S.S. Nazis! You can’t tell them shit… you only have to submit! Resistance is Futile!
Sorry to see you go Jeff, maybe the American people will wake up before the “chains of bondage” are on their necks!
Doc
P.s Keep a diary, you grand children will want to know why and how they lost their freedom.
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:49 pm
Hi Jeff,
I agree with most of the comments above, as I am a Freedom Fighter of old!
Putting band-aids on problems never fixes anything.
It creates another arm of bureaucracy that must be fed, that’s all.
Good things will always rise to the top again & I’ll wager a guess(that’s still legal) that in 12 months time, Jeff will be able to strutt his stuff again.
I think he is wise to make a move now, he is employing his own PLF strategies here by doing even this!
We are rallying to his side, he’s giving, we are all involved, caring for him, connected in the “us v/s them” the baddies ploy…it’s great theater…watch & learn from the master as it unfolds!
Look, a Govt will try & take what they can, but already they have backed off. The people objected & they retreated.
They must have a reason for being, so…this is another try at it.
We have the same thing in Australia too, on both sides of politics.
Margaret Thatcher, ex British Prime Minister summed it up very succinctly…”Western Democracy is a 2 Party Dictatorship”
Best Wishes Jeff,
Poppie
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:34 pm
I have picked through the new FTC regulations, and it is clear to me that an earlier poster, Mike, is simply angry and uninformed.
Jeff’s case studies are subject to the new FTC regulations. If Jeff were to provide a case study describing how one of his clients used his product to cure themselves of cancer, he would be held to the same degree of liability that he would if he himself were to say, “My product cures cancer.” Testimonials/case studies are now held to the same standard as direct statements from the advertiser.
If what is true is that Jeff’s product only cures cancer sometimes then a testimonial/case study demonstrating how it cured one person can be treated as false advertising. This is where disclaimers come in.
What Jeff has said concerning disclaimers does appear incomplete to me, though. He is right that a disclaimer must now provide details concerning what typical results are, and that simply saying “these results are not typical” is not enough. What he does not address is that he may not need to make a disclaimer at all.
If Jeff’s case studies provide sufficient detail as to how his client used Jeff’s product to cure themselves of cancer then it is not necessary to provide a disclaimer. If it is clear in the case study that this client worked hard and lived healthy and took the advice of his doctors and used Jeff’s product at the same time, then no disclaimer is needed. If instead Jeff simply supplies a testimonial from a client that says, “Jeff’s product cured my cancer” then Jeff must supply disclaimers.
[[COMMENT FROM JEFF: Yes, you’re right… Mike is clearly angry and uninformed. With regards to your last three paragraphs above… well, I hope you’re correct. At this point I’m not willing to risk it… but I’ll be watching carefully to see how this is further clarified in the coming months.]]
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:05 pm
You’re a smart man, Jeff. Great way to start a promotion. Get some mailers in from your buddies, and make a bundle before you have to pull them down.
If you even HAVE to…
Don’t worry, man. Remember, this FTC thing is pursued mostly on “as reported” basis. I won’t tattle tale on you…
Marc
November 24th, 2009 at 12:01 am
Thanks Jeff for all the great case studies! They have been interesting and informative. But I’m sure you’ll find some innovative new ways to teach the world about internet marketing.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:30 am
Can’t you place a disclosure with each case study saying “These results are not typical”. That would be ok right?
November 24th, 2009 at 7:54 am
Hello Jeff,
I’m sorry to say that I think you’re drawing the wrong conclusions about what the FTC might do in your case.
For one thing, it’s open to you to contact them and ask for guidance. For another, even if you do fall foul of their rules, their first move will be to bring any alleged violation to your attention so you can remove the offending material if you accept their criticism.
Either way there’s no risk to you…unless you’re minded to fight.
It seems to me that the internet marketing community (if there is such a thing) has been good to you, and no-one is going to benefit if you duck out.
I know mine is a lone voice here, but I can’t go along with all this congratulatory bullshit. That’s not to say you aren’t a really nice guy; I’m sure you are. Salt of the earth, even.
But since it will cost you nothing to test the water, show us you’ve got balls and at least try to get some answers. One possible angle is that taken collectively, the results are typical for those who employ the system correctly. Clearly you cannot speak for those who didn’t report, or didn’t include work as part of the equation.
Also, you might retain the site dedicated to case studies. As the number of case studies increases,
so will your credibility. You could also make some references to the fact that effort is required (such as what the testators did to get their results).
So like it or not, that’s my view. It’s time for you to put something back in. Your enviable reputation might suffer if you don’t.
With all good wishes,
Anthony Harris
November 24th, 2009 at 8:24 am
I think this is a move to get to separating the real stuff from the frauds. People get inundated with ads from hundreds of marketers claiming they make tens of thousands of dollars each month doing this or that IM product. I too have email inbox full of this stuff. Honestly the industry itself lends itself to a certain gap in “credibility” with all these products with canned testimonials. Real or not, true or not it sends up alarms and cries of foul, and thats where the FTC is stepping in. Ex. One guy has a product where he says he has to pull the product before too many people start using it so get yours quick. Really? can you say scam i can. Its crap like that we don’t need.
November 24th, 2009 at 9:53 am
That’s really too bad- we are going to change our sites out and remove the customer testimonials as well- thinking about putting them into a low priced monthly membership forum.
I just recently used your original product launch formula for the first time- and it worked better than expected. On a list of only 2000, we spent a month emailing and building up excitement for our new hydrogen generators (the Hybrid Cell). We created an “event” and went live as a Pre-Launch for the parts coming in from the manufacturers.
In three days we sold out and had to scramble to reorder more parts, which allowed a secondary launch to those who missed out on the first. All told we did well over $50,000 for that launch BEFORE our product arrived from the manufacturers.
We’re gearing up for our next launch to our list of 5000 who have bought the book…
Your concept works well Jeff- it will become a regular part of our marketing strategy…
Thanks!
Save gas with our new Hybrid Cell Hydrogen Generators and HHO kits!
November 24th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
I think Jeff’s smart: Right now, if you don’t have the data to show what “typical results” are, then you’re on shaky ground, from what I can tell (although I’m certainly not a lawyer).
I think Dainis hit the nail on the head: The way to deal with is to do just what the FTC demands, which is to get proof. And surveys can do that, very easily. Once you get a survey system in place, you can HAVE the data the FTC is looking for.
So you can get testimonials quickly and easily, build case studies, AND get the statistical data that PROVE your products work. And those statistical data will support your case studies and testimonials–you use those as your “gauge” to be sure your case studies and testimonials are “in bounds.”
The trick to making this work, as Dainis also notes, is to word your questions really carefully. You need to know what you’re doing, but it certainly can be done–and without spending a ton of money.
November 26th, 2009 at 5:10 am
Jeff, you wrote “At this point I’m not willing to risk it…”
I outlined a completely transparent process above, and I will be implementing similar strategies at my websites. Full disclosure, Full transparency, and REAL testimonials.
Thank you so very much Jeanne…I appreciate your kind support!
Jeff, what do you think about my solution? Instead of cowering, instead of hiding, actually creating an indisputably fair customer results tally? If you did that, you may very well help shape the FTC’s rulings and create a fair space for honesty online.
Think of the collective outcry your satisfied customers would voice, if the FTC were to try to fine or imprison you. Think of how shamed the FTC would be. Think of the new power Internet Marketers have to influence policy and public opinion. Also, think of the whole thing happening without outcry, without fines, and without jail.
Just a fair “discussion” with the FTC and an outcome of undeniable integrity.
Sounds like a marketer’s dream come true actually. My position, though I will implement my strategies, may not be as far reaching as yours. That is why I am very curious about how you feel about my proposed solution.
November 26th, 2009 at 7:04 am
I don’t know whether to laugh at or feel sorry for some of the commentors here. The FTC isn’t socialist, you dumb bastard, their intention is to prevent misleading marketing. When you cherry-pick only your most ridiculously successful customers every visitor leaves with the impression that those are the results they will get too.
Jeff is better than most gurus in this regard - many others use each other as “case studies” when they know that the average user can’t achieve their results.
Anyway Jeff, I’m willing to bet you haven’t spent too much time actually contacting the FTC for clarification, or trying to co-operate with a rule designed to distinguish genuine businesses from Internet scammers. It does look pretty suspicious doesn’t it: anti-scam measure released; jeff walker case studies disappear!
Average = (customer 1 earnings)+(customer 2 earnings)
November 26th, 2009 at 7:06 am
…i’ll let the other commentors finish the rest of the formula
expect an answer within the next 5 years
November 26th, 2009 at 7:40 am
Firstly Jeff, thank you for publishing my earlier, critical comments.
I agree with Jeanne Hurlbert and Dainis about surveys, and would add that retaining the separate site I suggested as a ‘rolling reference’…a permanent record of satisfied customers who followed your teachings and succeeded.
Moreover, you could include a statement to explain what you are doing and that they’re just potted case studies. As the numbers grow, prospective purchasers you refer to the site can make their own judgements, and as Jeanne suggests, see increasingly typical results.
Yes, I know that’s what testimonials are for, but you can also include less glowing references, and if you discover genuine shortcomings in one edition of your course, you can address them in the next. You might even find a way of rewarding someone who brings errors to your attention (you could even build errors in for that purpose - er, I didn’t say that!).
Such a site could even take the form of a blog, accept pictures/video/audio and be owned by a different company, be on a different server and provide your main site with a backlink. And it could be structured as a separate legal entity
that merely publicises your successes and the success enjoyed by users of your products.
These are the lines I’ve been thinking along for myself, and I’m sure others will have had similar ideas. But we must try them out, or we’ll never know which, if any, are viable
Once again, with all good wishes,
Anthony Harris
November 26th, 2009 at 7:44 am
Please note: I had to correct the second paragraph with an additional phrase…please use this version. Thank you.
Firstly Jeff, thank you for publishing my earlier, critical comments.
I agree with Jeanne Hurlbert and Dainis about surveys, and would add that retaining the separate site I suggested as a ‘rolling reference’…a permanent record of satisfied customers who followed your teachings and succeeded, could be extremely useful.
Moreover, you could include a statement to explain what you are doing and that they’re just potted case studies. As the numbers grow, prospective purchasers you refer to the site can make their own judgements, and as Jeanne suggests, see increasingly typical results.
Yes, I know that’s what testimonials are for, but you can also include less glowing references, and if you discover genuine shortcomings in one edition of your course, you can address them in the next. You might even find a way of rewarding someone who brings errors to your attention (you could even build errors in for that purpose - er, I didn’t say that!).
Such a site could even take the form of a blog, accept pictures/video/audio and be owned by a different company, be on a different server and provide your main site with a backlink. And it could be structured as a separate legal entity
that merely publicises your successes and the success enjoyed by users of your products.
These are the lines I’ve been thinking along for myself, and I’m sure others will have had similar ideas. But we must try them out, or we’ll never know which, if any, are viable
Once again, with all good wishes,
Anthony Harris
November 27th, 2009 at 8:16 am
Wow! As a Brit and well used to the puerile level of “Nanny State” regulation over the last three terms of pathetic Labour government under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, I have some sympathy with the angst being displayed in many of the comments above.
However there is so MUCH mis- and dis-information contained therein that I felt it worthy of some (significant) comment starting with a bit of a jibe. *8)
1. Err! Last time I checked America has NEVER, EVER had an empire - the LAST true empire, to which someone alluded early on, was of course British. The largest ever, it covered around a third of the globe at its height … and … it’s GONE! Gone the same way of the Chinese, Japanese & Roman ones amongst others. On a related note it has always bemused me & made me wonder just exactly why the Chinese & Soviet Russians (in particular, but others also) perpetually & constantly refer to “American Imperialism”. Talk about a complete oxymoron and non-sequitur combined! Maybe though there are so many others (as some of those commenting above) who really believe the US has/had an empire - err! NO! NO! NO! So, to be clear then, there can be NO “end of the empire” to worry about (there never was one to begin with) … in this or any other FTC ruling!
2. Most, if not all, the numerous factual mis-statements and innuendo above about the FTC ruling itself can be corrected very easily for any/all who are interested simply by listening to the VERY comprehensive interview undertaken (how sensible - why not just ask?!) between Jim Edwards and the FTC’s senior representative Rich Cleland here: http://jimedwards.s3.amazonaws.com/ftc-advertising-interview/index.html
(Jeff I’m sure you know Jim - of him at least, if not personally - so I feel it would be useful for all concerned to broaden access to the information so can you please leave the link intact despite it being to a competitor’s site
)
3. The FTC ruling is NOT REALLY new but rather a clarification of existing rules/guidelines and they apply ONLY to companies that do business with US consumers AND have US operations, or use US companies as part of their (affected) business. In other words, British, Canadian - AND ALL OTHER non-US individuals, entities & companies that sell to US individuals but WITHOUT any other US entity involvement, are COMPLETELY unaffected by this ruling (as stated by Rich Cleland in his interview.
If any of those foreign entities has or uses US based operations (individual or company) as part of its sales to a US citizen then the FTC ONLY has jurisdiction over those US entities (again as stated in the interview).This should be pretty obvious to all.
This MIGHT mean however, that if you are non-US but use Clickbank, Paypal, or other US-based payment processor for example then you MAY find your business impacted because the FTC could potentially issue proceedings against those US entities to prevent your benefiting. You might also find a similar situation if you are selling an affiliate product from a US-based company (which clearly would fall under FTC jurisdiction) when you MAY find the FTC taking indirect action against you or your company by targeting that US entity requiring them to prevent your selling (promoting) their products. Otherwise the FTC is powerless against you. (I am of course ignoring the immense potential problems such action would create for any US entities concerned - especially where they are international in nature - e.g. Is my UK company paid by Clickbank US or Clickbank UK (or equally Paypal US or UK - all separate legal entities despite US parents). I suspect I would be able to issue suit against either/both the aforementioned if they should try to illegitimately refuse to make payments when no offence had occurred under British law.
In other words, if you sell your OWN product directly (even if originally it was a US supplied PLR product for example) & using a non-US-based payment processor from a non US-based Web Host then there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to fear from the FTC. They would have NO jurisdiction over you at all. This presents a practical problem to the FTC (again as stated in the interview) and will undoubtedly involve their working closely with foreign governments to thrash out some common (international) legislation AND policing.
Personally I don’t feel (like many here) that the FTC has got it right and they need to modify their current overly protective and somewhat draconian position to a more pragmatic one involving less of a “Nanny State” approach. No-one EVER really learns except by making mistakes and it is pure unadulterated folly of immense magnitude for ANY government to attempt to legislate against plain human stupidity.
Yes! Of course, we should both protect & legislate against BLATANT lying, obfuscation, misdirection, mis-selling etc. but come on, should we REALLY be trying to protect complete morons who are incapable of realising that when on-line and buying digital products (specifically) that the testimonials are being used to “sell” a product. Why (HOW) does it matter that the testimonial sits on MY site (as an affiliate) or the actual vendor’s page? Funny, I thought that’s EXACTLY what TV, Radio and media ads had been doing for most of the last century. Why are these numpties (bozos, dorks, dufusses) all of a sudden exposed to such massive risk that it requires such specifically prescribed actions?
As Einstein said:
“Only two things are infinite - the Universe and human capacity for stupidity … and I’m not certain about the Universe”
A little more (and BETTER) consumer education would be much more welcome than such legislation. I mean there are still STUPID, STUPID, STUPID people out there that buy into email scams such as the Nigerian money letters etc. HOW EXACTLY does one legislate against that kind of lunacy? I have a possible solution along the lines of compulsory Darwin awards - “You are STUPID beyond belief. You win today’s Darwin award. Please jump off this cliff to collect your award! Congratulations”
The historical (hysterical?) and ridiculous state of litigation & blame culture in the US that has already crossed the Atlantic should be a stark warning to what CAN happen when things are allowed to get out of control - and the culprits sit on BOTH sides of the legislative fence! I mean to say, a mother who sues a store because she injures herself falling over her own kids running out of control in the store … and wins … IN THE UK! Come on, perleez! How the hell did it even get past the opening statements in court? This same kind of STUPID over-reaction (either way) has the potential of being displayed in this FTC ruling. “Balanced legislation” should be the watchwords. I’m not sure the balance is right as it stands.
And yes! Let’s ALL fight the “Nanny State” but let’s not expect Jeff (or anyone else) to do it alone. Jeff has to protect his own business as he sees fit. Just ask Frank Kern if he would do things the same way the second time around knowing from bitter experience just exactly what the FTC can and will do.
Best regards.
November 27th, 2009 at 8:56 am
I agree that there is a lot of garbage out on the Internet and that we get a lot of garbage every day in email.
But as with the CAN-SPAM law which never had teeth to begin with, the new FTC law falls into the same category. Only enforceable when they receive a complaint because the US Government does not have the manpower or dollars to blanket enforce anything.
The new law will only hurt legitimate businesses not the “get rich quick scammers”. The scammers will just take the slap on the hand, move their service someplace else, re-word it and start over again.
I just don’t see how you can define “typical” to begin with because its a subjective term that differs from person to person. Perhaps that’s why there are no clear-cut guidelines to begin with.
Unfortunately its also a law that had to be created because people in general are stupid. They don’t use common sense, they don’t read the fine print, and they just don’t think in general. That if it’s written it must be true. And if you think I’m wrong, start reading the packaging and inserts on any product and see all the stupid warnings that companies have to put on there. Warnings that to me are just plain common sense in the first place. As an example because its the first one that came to mind: its scary to think that somebody out there wasn’t bright enough to realize that putting a cup of HOT coffee between their legs while driving might get them burned. Ah duhhhh.
That’s what this new law is….another scary law because somebody was too stupid to think for themselves.
Earning dollars requires work…. regardless of the subject matter. It always has and always will. That hasn’t changed in 6000 years.
The people in these case studies didn’t just magically snap their fingers and the money appeared. They invested time, effort and knowledge to earn what they did. That’s all the case studies are really. Proof that it is possible…that it can be done… nothing more. I’d be stupid to think I could duplicate their results exactly because I’m not them. My motivations and goals would be different.
In closing, what has always disturbed me about laws like this is that they are taking away my right and freedom to think for myself because somebody else doesn’t have the brain power to do it for themselves.
November 27th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
This is nothing more than a marketing ploy. Can’t believe you people can’t see that. Oh well, I’m sure they have made alot of money off this. Good job Jeff.
November 30th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
This is a bold and somewhat controversial move Jeff. Great for marketing
It will be interesting to see how much things change after Dec 1. Keep up the great work!
-Travis
http://www.MarketingProfessor.com