You May Be at Risk, Don’t Let the FTC Shut You Down, Part 1
Recently, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) started investigating some common, although not exactly ethical, marketing practices but ones you may unknowingly and innocently do.
I did some research to make sure I’m not potentially at risk and, while not a lawyer, I don’t think I am.
I also don’t think most marketers would find themselves purposely at risk but the practices are common enough that you might not even know you were so I wanted you to know about this so you could look at your business before it was too late.
Anyway, there are a couple of investigations that are of particular interest to me and other Internet Marketers.
The first is…
FTC’s Complaint Against Fake Blogs
I’ve seen these more and more, particularly in the last 12 to 18 months.
These are blogs that are being put up by marketers purporting to be a personal blog of an individual when, of course, they are just a shady marketing ploy.
Frequently dozens or hundreds of these blogs will be created by the same person or company using a different person’s name on each one.
One tip off is that how similar the content it, sometimes its even identical, but even when it isn’t it’s very close and will use the same images (or a small set of images), YouTube videos, same testimonials, etc.
And when I say the same, I really man that. You’ll see the picture of, say, a woman on one blog with one name and the exact same picture on 10 other blogs all with different name. This works because the Internet is so big that most people would never see this.
They even use fake comments on the blog, raving about the product of course, and if someone puts in a negative comment they don’t remove it but use a technique called “IP filtering” which means the only people who sees the comments is people with the same IP address; that means the only person who sees it is the person who wrote it so they think it is on the blog but nobody else sees.
Don’t think that’s true or possible, think again.
Let me tell you it is a trivial piece of programming code and is easy to test it. Find one of those sites and post a scathing comment about how big of a scam the product is.
Go back later and you will see the comment. Then go to a Starbucks or Internet café or even ask you brother 3 states over to look and they will not see it.
“So What?”
Yeah, I can hear you saying that. You’re saying you don’t do that, you’ve never do that so it doesn’t concern you.
Well, my friend, you know how the government tends to react in these situations. They go for overkill to try to protect everyone in all situations.
There are two common marketing techniques that that may be affected by this. Now I do say “MAY be affected” because the investigations is still going on and no ruling or decisions have been made.
The first is review sites which many use as almost a fake blog.
Many marketers create review sites and act as “independent third-parties” putting in a positive review of a particular product and include lots of affiliate links.
It looks like just some person tried a product, liked it and is recommending it whereas it is really just a large advertisement with affiliate links.
Heck, I’ve seen these pages on personal blogs also. I’m even planning on having some reviews on my blogs in the future, although they aren’t going to be “fake”.
These techniques are very effective and newspapers and magazines have a variant of this when the ad it meant to look like an article or editorial but is really an ad; infomercials are also a form of this marketing technique.
In print and other media the FTC requires a notification that it is an advertisement but on the Internet there is no such ruling.
Soon there may be.
My understanding is that the FTC is looking to make explicit disclosure mandatory, like in other marketing channels; particularly on affiliate promotions.
Not only that I heard that they may extend this to social media sites as these are particularly used for this type of thing. So you Facebook page or Squidoo lenses or even you Tweets may require explicit disclosure that the lens or tweet or whatever is advertising.
The second possibility that I’ve heard mention, and it seems a logical extension to the other things, is that cloaked affiliate links would be illegal.
It does make some sense because the real purpose of a cloaked link is to make it seem like it isn’t an affiliate link at all.
I know you’re screaming, “no, it is to protect my commissions!”
I agree and I use them the same way, in fact, I cloak the links whether it is an affiliate link or not (I do this for 2 reasons, the first is to have a consistency with the links and the second is to make it so people don’t know which are affiliate links and which are not).
But truthfully, if someone wanted to steal you of your commission (whether just deny you or to take it for themselves) it would be super simple to do.
Various simple techniques like using 2 browsers or 2 computers or clearing cookies or anonymous browsing all make it really easy to make sure you don’t get the commission.
But still, cloaking links is prevalent and I, like many others, recommend it to everyone even if it s sad statement on human nature.
It is possible that the FTC will make it illegal to cloak your link. Personally, I don’t think this is likely but still it is something you should be aware of.
That’s it for this time, the next post (probably tomorrow) will look at the other FTC investigation.
It’s another on I am sure you’ve seen, probably had done to you and possibly do yourself.
Please leave me a comment about your thoughts and how ruling might affect you.
Talk soon,
The “Shameless” (but “Ethical”) Marketer
http://www.Twitter.com/DavidHusnian
http://www.8-8-8Sale.com
http://www.MusicForInternetMarketers.com
http://www.SecretsOfGoogleAdwords.com
http://www.MadMondaySale.com
http://www.2ForTuesdaySale.com
.
[...] there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic.In my last post, I talked about recent U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) investigations into certain marketing [...]
[...] of blogs post about the FTC investigations that could have implications on Internet Marketers; see You May Be at Risk, Don’t Let the FTC Shut You Down, Part 1 and You May Also Be at Risk for This, Don’t Let the FTC Shut You Down, Part [...]
In print and other media the FTC requires a notification that it is an advertisement but on the Internet there is no such ruling.
Soon there may be.
False!
The FTC has never explicitly excluded the “New Media” from this. Non-disclosure has been illegal in the US, regardless of the media used, for quite some time.
Many other Con-Artist like tactics used by internet marketers are just as illegal, it may be time to clean up. The current administration is going to need every revenue source it can find.
Stephen,
I’m not a lawyer, nor have I read the particular laws or guidelines, but if the FTC felt they needed to do something specific then maybe they felt that existing guidelines were not sufficient.
Don’t know but they weren’t going after anyone they were talking about how to make it so they could go after people which suggests to me that they felt that they currently it was allowed on the Internet.
Maybe the laws read that if something isn’t explicitly said then it isn’t illegal.
Like I said, I don’t know just looking at the actions the people in power are taking, as well as the actions marketers were taking.
David