Often, when a typical marketer is looking to get into a market, they dive right in and often fail far more than they succeed. It doesn’t have to be that way. Just by doing some “quick math” in your head and a few searches can greatly help you determine if you should proceed with that $500.00 ad spend in AdWords as a test in the market. When you find a potential market, spend just ten minutes. That’s it, just ten. Remember, sometimes a great market just won’t convert well for your offer … it happens and it is best to know as soon as possible if the market is a dud. And to figure that out just do these steps first:

In this example, I will use ClickBank, which sells mostly eBooks. You can apply these steps to any affiliate program or network.

Step One: Write down the industry, exact eBook name and author.

Step Two: Write down the commission per sale.

Step Three: Based on an aggressive conversion ratio of 3%, project revenue. (while I realize that 3% seems high, it is what you should expect with the right targeted keywords, the right product and the right landing page).

Step Four: Write down your “break even” point in terms of Cost Per Click (CPC).

Step Five: Open the Keyword Tool in Google AdWords

Step Six: Enter the “main keyword” or the merchant’s site

Step Seven: Show Estimated CPC, Search Volume Trends and Highest Volume Occurred In (drop down “Choose Columns to Display)

Step Eight: Change Match Type to “Exact” (we don’t want non-qualified clicks)

Step Nine: Sort by Estimated CPC (highest first)

Step Ten: Scroll down to the range of the break even point you wrote down in Step Four. You must have at least 300 in Search Volume from the month prior to consider using the keyword phrase. This will give you ten potential searchers per day.

Step Eleven: Verify that at least 100 clicks per day can be had with the keywords which match the above criteria.

Step Twelve: Re-run “Traffic Estimator” and target the actual product name and the author’s name and look for traffic estimates of ten clicks or more.

Let’s do an example together:

1. Dog Training. Kingdom of Pets: SitStayFetch by Daniel Stevens

2. $31.23

3. $93.69 ($31.23 x 3) 3 sales is based on 100 visitors at 3% conversion (most will state that this conversion ratio is too high, but because we will focus on the keywords that sell, this is the minimum that you should expect).

4. $0.94 ($93.69/100) Paying $0.94 per click would “break even” on the campaign.

5. N/A

6. I prefer to target the merchant’s site, as it often gives me a faster pull of effective keywords. I can also use SpyFu. So I put in: http://www.kingdomofpets.com/

7-9. N/A

10. The first section is keywords related to “how to train” which is the focus of the site and the keywords we want to focus on to sell the guide. Here are the ones that I selected:

how to train dog ($0.96) 74,000. Yes, this is above the range, but just barely and it is highly focused.
how to train my dog ($.90) 3,600
how to train a puppy ($0.80) 27,100
how to train puppies ($0.56) 3,600

The other sections? You can target them, but you will need to create a new landing page for each because each has a different market and we want to keep our conversions as high as possible. Here are some ideas:

“dog training collar” – this would be an eCommerce product sale rather than an informational eBook.

“dog trainer” – with the slumping economy, many could be looking to “moonlight” to help make ends meet. This could spur you to create your own product on how to make a career out of being a dog trainer. There is plenty of information to pull from on the web and being the merchant often is the ticket you have been looking for.

“dog bark” – this is a problem. By targeting your landing page to show how the problem can be solved quickly, easily and affordably is what the prospect is seeking.

This is where “out of the box” thinking comes in. Business opportunities can come anytime and anywhere, but you must seize the opportunity.

11. Verified. On the conservative side, 3,000 searches per day should result in at least 100 clicks.

12. Searching for “kingdom of pets”, “sitstayfetch”, “sit stay fetch” and “daniel stevens” did not return results which were usable.

With the above, it can be assumed since we can get over 100 clicks per day at around the break even point that this would be a product worth pursuing. A $50-$300.00 PPC test would be worthwhile.

PPC Tip: Make your bids half of what the top bid is, so if you do this, then you can target keywords at DOUBLE your break-even point to gain more qualified click throughs.

One of the biggest mistakes that most marketers make is they have a good product or service and they just “throw it up there” and hope the prospect can “connect the dots” and buy it.

Stop being lazy.

In this short 9-minute video I explain the power of Framing Your Offers and how it can be a great persuasive technique. Of course, the concept has been well known for thousands of years, but Mark Joyner puts a unique spin on it.

Increase your conversions by 6 fold by framing your offer. I’ve been doing it for years and swear by it. I’ll be showing an actual example of a campaign in the coming weeks.

I was a speaker at PubCon today for a session on affiliate marketing.

PubCon: Hot Topics in the Affiliate Space

So, what I decided to do was give the same type of advice I received at PubCon over four years ago that really jump-started my campaigns. It wasn’t that I had to get smarter, I just had to DO stuff. Stop the whining, the bitching and the moaning and just get stuff done. It worked.

If you’d like a great summary of my presentation, Lisa Barone over at OutSpoken Media, did a great write-up.

I’ll have more about PubCon tomorrow. The three hour time difference is still messing with me.

Photo courtesy of Scott Hendison, one of the best SEO consultants out there.

A few years ago Google first “slapped” thin affiliate sites with low quality scores, and now, webmasters are complaining again because their “high quality” review sites just got “slapped”.

What do I mean by “slapped”? A Quality Score of 10 being reduced to 1. That’s a slap right in the wallet, because what use to cost $0.50 a click, not is $20.00.

Ouch.

First things first, many “experts” are claiming that finally the time has come when Google is going to “stamp out” affiliate marketing because it isn’t a real business. Hold on now … not a real business? Really? Then why, might I ask, does Google OWN an affiliate network?!?!

They don’t hate affiliates, they just hate the lazy ones.

Fact: This issue is with AdWords not the Organic listings.

Testing Results: Of the dozens of affiliate review sites I have, not one of them was slapped in AdWords. Not one.

I also had the opportunity to review sites that did get slapped, and you know what? All of them were awful. They weren’t high quality, they didn’t add value, and they looked like they were built with a content scrapper tool. If you are serious about affiliate market, then get serious about it.

Every program I do my #1 goal is to have a better site than the merchant. Why? Because I know that if my site looks better and performs better, they will want to buy it.

Note: This issue has nothing to do with “cloaked links” or “redirects” according to my testing.

If this comes off as a complete rant, so be it. I’m upset. I’m angry. Mostly, just when you thought elected public officials couldn’t get any worse, they do this. And I bet you if you look at their resumes, they were responsible for the construction of this child playground slide.

North Carolina Lawmakers Creation

What am I upset about? Lawmakers in North Carolina are following the lead of those in New York and Rhode Island by instituting an affiliate tax or otherwise known as the “Amazon Tax”. What is it? Basically, if you are an affiliate, the merchant has to collect sales tax on the sale and submit it to the state where you are a resident. Mind you, not where the purchaser of the product lives, but you, as the affiliate. If that sounds stupid and idiotic, you’d be right.

Now, if you were the merchant, what would you do? Would you collect the sales taxes and cause extra burdens to be on your company? I wouldn’t either. The easier solution? Terminate the relationship with every affiliate in those states. And now, it is happening in my home state of North Carolina. I have already had seven affiliate relationships terminated which account for over 40% of our revenues. That’s significant – especially in this economy.

I know I will find a solution, even if it means moving my company out of this state. But while finding a solution for my business is my chief concern, I am also concerned that states tend to be copycats and this can soon spread to all states. If you’re an affiliate, this can literally crush your business overnight.

The bill goes before the governor on July 15th. The best way to stop this spread of “idiot politics” is to stop it from being passed in North Carolina. If it fails, other states may drop interest in the tax.

What can you do?

Two things:

1) Sign this online petition. At the time of this writing there were 832 signers. We need a lot more to get their attention.

2) Even if you are NOT a resident of North Carolina, you can fill out this form to be delivered to the governor’s office. On the drop down option for the Subject, choose Taxes & Revenue. Be direct, to the point, but most of all professional.

Forward this post to as many people as you can. I didn’t take this to seriously last month when it was discussed, but now I face reality by having my income severely reduced. Take a few minutes of your day to support this to avoid going through what I am right now.

Last November, the FTC stated they were concerned over the sheer number of complaints due to false endorsements and testimonials on blogs, forums posts, and other web media. They proposed to change their policy and require major changes in the industry. They took comments from the public through March. Here is a brief summary of what they propose to change:

- not allowing paid blog reviews
- not allowing product reviews when the product was supplied to reviewer for free if it isn’t disclosed the product was received for free
- posts made on forums or message board by affiliate without disclosing they are an affiliate
- testimonial section also including negative testimonials

While most of it is legal mumbo-jumbo, I have included the official statements from the FTC on this proposed change with my commentary included:

§ 255.0 Purpose and definitions.

(a) The Guides in this part represent administrative interpretations of laws enforced by the Federal Trade Commission for the guidance of the public in conducting its affairs in conformity with legal requirements. Specifically, the Guides address the application of Section 5 of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45) to the use of endorsements and testimonials in advertising.

The Guides provide the basis for voluntary compliance with the law by advertisers and endorsers. Practices inconsistent with these Guides may result in corrective action by the Commission under Section 5 if, after investigation, the Commission has reason to believe that the practices fall within the scope of conduct declared unlawful by the statute.

The Guides set forth the general principles that the Commission will use in evaluating endorsements and testimonials, together with examples illustrating the application of those principles. The Guides do not purport to cover every possible use of endorsements in advertising. Whether a particular endorsement or testimonial is deceptive will depend on the specific factual circumstances of the advertisement at issue.

JW: This is solid in my view, but how enforceable will it be? How many people will the FTC employ to police this? Or will they just rely on complaints and then investigate each one individually? It isn’t clear. However, I feel we all hope this does curb the obvious “fake” testimonials such as the one below that is still one of my favorites all-time.

Obvious Fake Testimonials

If the new FTC regulations get rid of testimonials, it would be a good thing, but I just don’t see it happening. I would be an endless job due to all the idiot webmasters out there.

(b) For purposes of this part, an endorsement means any advertising message (including verbal statements, demonstrations, or depictions of the name, signature, likeness or other identifying personal characteristics of an individual or the name or seal of an organization) that consumers are likely to believe reflects the opinions, beliefs, findings, or experiences of a party other than the sponsoring advertiser, even if the views expressed by that party are identical to those of the sponsoring advertiser.

The party whose opinions, beliefs, findings, or experience the message appears to reflect will be called the endorser and may be an individual, group, or institution.

(c) The Commission intends to treat endorsements and testimonials identically in the context of its enforcement of the Federal Trade Commission Act and for purposes of this part. The term endorsements is therefore generally used hereinafter to cover both terms and situations.

(d) For purposes of this part, the term product includes any product, service, company or industry.

(e) For purposes of this part, an expert is an individual, group, or institution possessing, as a result of experience, study, or training, knowledge of a particular subject, which knowledge is superior to what ordinary individuals generally acquire.

* Example 1:

A film critic’s review of a movie is excerpted in an advertisement. When so used, the review meets the definition of an endorsement because it is viewed by readers as a statement of the critic’s own opinions and not those of the film producer, distributor, or exhibitor.

Any alteration in or quotation from the text of the review that does not fairly reflect its substance would be a violation of the standards set by this part because it would distort the endorser’s opinion. [See § 255.1(b).]

JW: In other words, it is fine for a film critic’s words to be used even though he attended the movie for free because he has not financial gain if you attend the movie or not based on his review.

* Example 2:

A TV commercial depicts two women in a supermarket buying a laundry detergent. The women are not identified outside the context of the advertisement. One comments to the other how clean her brand makes her family’s clothes, and the other then comments that she will try it because she has not been fully satisfied with her own brand.

This obvious fictional dramatization of a real life situation would not be an endorsement.

JW: I can just see now the rise in “real life situation” videos done by affiliate marketers in Supermarkets. “Hey John, didn’t you used to have a bald spot?” “Yes Jim, I did, but when I used this crappy shampoo, my hair grew back, my ED was cured, and I stopped bouncing checks because money just magically appeared in my bank account.” This example can be abused, that is clear.

* Example 3:

In an advertisement for a pain remedy, an announcer who is not familiar to consumers except as a spokesman for the advertising drug company praises the drug’s ability to deliver fast and lasting pain relief. He purports to speak, not on the basis of his own opinions, but rather in the place of and on behalf of the drug company. The announcer’s statements would not be considered an endorsement.

Again, this is open for abuse.

* Example 4:

A manufacturer of automobile tires hires a well-known professional automobile racing driver to deliver its advertising message in television commercials. In these commercials, the driver speaks of the smooth ride, strength, and long life of the tires.

Even though the message is not expressly declared to be the personal opinion of the driver, it may nevertheless constitute an endorsement of the tires. Many consumers will recognize this individual as being primarily a racing driver and not merely a spokesperson or announcer for the advertiser. Accordingly, they may well believe the driver would not speak for an automotive product unless he actually believed in what he was saying and had personal knowledge sufficient to form that belief.

Hence, they would think that the advertising message reflects the driver’s personal views. This attribution of the underlying views to the driver brings the advertisement within the definition of an endorsement for purposes of this part.

JW: While I agree that this qualifies as an endorsement, I also believe that most consumers are not stupid enough to believe had this person not received a big fat check from the manufacturer, they wouldn’t be on camera “endorsing” the product.

* Example 5:

A television advertisement for a particular brand of golf balls shows a prominent and well-recognized professional golfer practicing numerous drives off the tee. This would be an endorsement by the golfer even though she makes no verbal statement in the advertisement.

* Example 6:

An infomercial for a home fitness system is hosted by a well known entertainer. During the infomercial, the entertainer demonstrates the machine and states that it is the most effective and easy-to-use home exercise machine that she has ever tried. Even if she is reading from a script, this statement would be an endorsement, because consumers are likely to believe it reflects the entertainer’s views.

* Example 7:

A television advertisement for a housewares store features a well-known female comedian and a well-known male baseball player engaging in light-hearted banter about products each one intends to purchase for the other. The comedian says that she will buy him a Brand X, portable, high-definition television so he can finally see the strike zone. He says that he will get her a Brand Y juicer so she can make juice with all the fruit and vegetables thrown at her during her performances.

The comedian and baseball player are not likely to be deemed endorsers because consumers will likely realize that the individuals are not expressing their own views.

§ 255.1 General considerations.

(a) Endorsements must reflect the honest opinions, findings, beliefs, or experience of the endorser. Furthermore, an endorsement may not convey any express or implied representation that would be deceptive if made directly by the advertiser. [See subsections 255.2(a) and (b) regarding substantiation of representations conveyed by consumer endorsements. See also Example 3 to Guide 3 (section 255.3) illustrating how a valid endorsement by an expert endorser may constitute all or part of an advertiser’s substantiation, depending on the claim.]

(b) The endorsement message need not be phrased in the exact words of the endorser, unless the advertisement affirmatively so represents.

However, the endorsement may not be presented out of context or reworded so as to distort in any way the endorser’s opinion or experience with the product. An advertiser may use an endorsement of an expert or celebrity only so long as it has good reason to believe that the endorser continues to subscribe to the views presented.

An advertiser may satisfy this obligation by securing the endorser’s views at reasonable intervals where reasonableness will be determined by such factors as new information on the performance or effectiveness of the product, a material alteration in the product, changes in the performance of competitors’ products, and the advertiser’s contract commitments.

(c) When the advertisement represents that the endorser uses the endorsed product, the endorser must have been a bona fide user of it at the time the endorsement was given. Additionally, the advertiser may continue to run the advertisement only so long as it has good reason to believe that the endorser remains a bona fide user of the product. [See section 255.1(b) regarding the "good reason to believe" requirement.]

(d) Advertisers are subject to liability for false or unsubstantiated statements made through endorsements, or for failing to disclose material connections between themselves and their endorsers [see section 255.5]. Endorsers also may be liable for statements made in the course of their endorsements.

* Example 1:

A building contractor states in an advertisement that he uses the advertiser’s exterior house paint because of its remarkable quick drying properties and durability. This endorsement must comply with the pertinent requirements of Section 255.3 (Expert Endorsements). Subsequently, the advertiser reformulates its paint to enable it to cover exterior surfaces with only one coat. Prior to continued use of the contractor’s endorsement, the advertiser must contact the contractor in order to determine whether the contractor would continue to specify the paint and to subscribe to the views presented previously.

JW: How is this going to be monitored? Reality check: it won’t.

* Example 2:

A television advertisement portrays a woman seated at a desk on which rest five unmarked computer keyboards. An announcer says, “We asked X, an administrative assistant for over ten years, to try these five unmarked keyboards and tell us which one she liked best.” The advertisement portrays X typing on each keyboard and then picking the advertiser’s brand. The announcer asks her why, and X gives her reasons.

This endorsement would probably not represent that X actually uses the advertiser’s keyboard at work. In addition, the endorsement also may be required to meet the standards of Section 255.3 (Expert Endorsements).

* Example 3:

An ad for an acne treatment features a dermatologist who claims that the product is “clinically proven” to work. Before giving the endorsement, she received a write-up of the clinical study in question, which indicates flaws in the design and conduct of the study that are so serious that they preclude any conclusions about the efficacy of the product.

The dermatologist is subject to liability for the false statements she made in the advertisement. The advertiser is also liable for misrepresentations made through the endorsement.

JW: Hopefully this is not something new and has been regulated for some time.

* Example 4:

A well-known celebrity appears in an infomercial for an oven roasting bag that purportedly cooks every chicken perfectly in thirty minutes. During the shooting of the infomercial, the celebrity watches five attempts to cook chickens using the bag. In each attempt, the chicken is undercooked after thirty minutes and requires sixty minutes of cooking time.

In the commercial, the celebrity places an uncooked chicken in the oven roasting bag and places the bag in one oven. He then takes a chicken roasting bag from a second oven, removes from the bag what appears to be a perfectly cooked chicken, tastes the chicken, and says that if you want perfect chicken every time, in just thirty minutes, this is the product you need. A significant percentage of consumers are likely to believe the celebrity’s statements represent his own views even though he is reading from a script.

The celebrity is subject to liability for his statement about the product. The advertiser is also liable for misrepresentations made through the endorsement.

JW: This happens more than you think and the celebrity is not so much concerned with the failed product in the demo as “it will just be fixed in post-production”. If these issues can’t be monitored currently, I don’t see how these changes are going to be monitored with any type of effectiveness.

* Example 5:

A skin care products advertiser participates in a blog advertising service. The service matches up advertisers with bloggers who will promote the advertiser’s products on their personal blogs. The advertiser requests that a blogger try a new body lotion and write a review of the product on her blog.

Although the advertiser does not make any specific claims about the lotion’s ability to cure skin conditions and the blogger does not ask the advertiser whether there is substantiation for the claim, in her review the blogger writes that the lotion cures eczema and recommends the product to her blog readers who suffer from this condition.

The advertiser is subject to liability for false or unsubstantiated statements made through the blogger’s endorsement. The blogger also is subject to liability for representations made in the course of her endorsement.

The blogger is also liable if she fails to disclose clearly and conspicuously that she is being paid for her services. [See section 255.5.]

In order to limit its potential liability, the advertiser should ensure that the advertising service provides guidance and training to its bloggers concerning the need to ensure that statements they make are truthful and substantiated. The advertiser should also monitor bloggers who are being paid to promote its products and take steps necessary to halt the continued publication of deceptive representations when they are discovered.

JW: The blogger must state they were paid for the review. Hmmm. How many bloggers are actually going to do this and how will it be regulated? Think about how many new sites and marketing campaigns are being launched on a daily basis. The work load will continue to pile up with no end in sight.

Devil’s Advocate: What if a person is paid by the advertiser to review the product, they do, and they comment on an unknown blog that they were paid by the advertiser to review the product, but another blogger, who just happens to be affiliated with Blogger #1 reposts the review on a HEAVILY visited blog. Was the system just compromised? I think so. Bloggers are smart. Marketers are smart. They will figure out ways around this “red tape” the FTC is trying to impose.

Section 255.2 Consumer endorsements.

(a) An advertisement employing endorsements by one or more consumers about the performance of an advertised product or service will be interpreted as representing that the product or service is effective for the purpose depicted in the advertisement. Therefore, the advertiser must possess and rely upon adequate substantiation, including, when appropriate, competent and reliable scientific evidence, to support such claims made through endorsements in the same manner the advertiser would be required to do if it had made the representation directly, i.e., without using endorsements. Consumer endorsements themselves are not competent and reliable scientific evidence.

(b) An advertisement containing an endorsement relating the experience of one or more consumers on a central or key attribute of the product or service also will likely be interpreted as representing that the endorser’s experience is representative of what consumers will generally achieve with the advertised product in actual, albeit variable, conditions of use.

Therefore, an advertiser should possess and rely upon adequate substantiation for this representation. If the advertiser does not have substantiation that the endorser’s experience is representative of what consumers will generally achieve, the advertisement should clearly and conspicuously disclose the generally expected performance in the depicted circumstances, and the advertiser must possess and rely on adequate substantiation for that representation.

(c) Advertisements presenting endorsements by what are represented, directly or by implication, to be “actual consumers” should utilize actual consumers in both the audio and video, or clearly and conspicuously disclose that the persons in such advertisements are not actual consumers of the advertised product.

* Example 1:

A brochure for a baldness treatment consists entirely of testimonials from satisfied customers who say that after using the product, they had amazing hair growth and their hair is as thick and strong as it was when they were teenagers.

The advertiser must have competent and reliable scientific evidence that its product is effective in producing new hair growth. The ad will also likely communicate that the endorsers’ experiences are representative of what new users of the product can generally expect.

Therefore, even if the advertiser includes a disclaimer such as, “Notice: These testimonials do not prove our product works. You should not expect to have similar results,” the ad is likely to be deceptive unless the advertiser has adequate substantiation that new users typically will experience results similar to those experienced by the testimonialists.

* Example 2:

An advertisement disseminated by a company that sells heat pumps presents endorsements from three individuals who state that after installing the company’s heat pump in their homes, their monthly utility bills went down by $100, $125, and $150, respectively.

The ad will likely be interpreted as conveying that such savings are representative of what consumers who buy the company’s heat pump can generally expect. The advertiser does not have substantiation for that representation because, in fact, less than 20% of purchasers will save $100 or more.

A disclosure such as, “Results not typical” or, “These testimonials are based on the experiences of a few people and you are not likely to have similar results” is insufficient to prevent this ad from being deceptive because consumers will still interpret the ad as conveying that the specified savings are representative of what consumers can generally expect. The ad is less likely to be deceptive if it clearly and conspicuously discloses the generally expected savings and the advertiser has adequate substantiation that homeowners can achieve those results.

There are multiple ways that such a disclosure could be phrased, e.g., “the average homeowner saves $35 per month,” “the typical family saves $50 per month during cold months and $20 per month in warm months,” or “most families save 10% on their utility bills.”

* Example 3:

An advertisement for a cholesterol-lowering product features an individual who claims that his serum cholesterol went down by 120 points and does not mention having made any lifestyle changes. A well-conducted clinical study shows that the product reduces the cholesterol levels of individuals with elevated cholesterol by an average of 15% and the advertisement clearly and conspicuously discloses this fact.

Despite the presence of this disclosure, the advertisement would be deceptive if the advertiser does not have adequate substantiation that the product can produce the specific results claimed by the endorser (i.e., a 120-point drop in serum cholesterol without any lifestyle changes).

JW: Let’s be serious here. If you saw an ad that someone claimed they had a 120-point drop in their cholesterol WITHOUT any lifestyle changes and you believed it, you deserve to get ripped off. Period. We have become too dependent on a “magic pill” to cure the damage caused by our poor lifestyles. The same is with losing weight. You can’t lose weight if you continue to eat poorly and not exercise.

* Example 4:

An advertisement for a weight-loss product features a formerly obese woman. She says in the ad, “Every day, I drank 2 WeightAway shakes, only ate raw vegetables, and exercised vigorously for six hours at the gym. By the end of six months, I had gone from 250 pounds to 140 pounds.” The advertisement accurately describes the woman’s experience, and such a result is within the range that would be generally experienced by an extremely overweight individual who consumed WeightAway shakes, only ate raw vegetables, and exercised as the endorser did.

JW: I doubt I will live to see the day a weight loss product is advertised in this manner. Why? Because it wouldn’t sell.

Because the endorser clearly describes the limited and truly exceptional circumstances under which she achieved her results, the ad does not convey that consumers who weigh substantially less or use WeightAway under less extreme circumstances should generally expect to lose something in the vicinity of 110 pounds in six months.

The advertiser must have substantiation, however, for any performance claims conveyed by the endorsement (e.g., that WeightAway is an effective weight loss product). If, in the alternative, the advertisement simply says that the endorser lost 110 pounds in six months using WeightAway together with diet and exercise, the advertisement would likely convey that her results were representative of what consumers can generally expect to lose with WeightAway.

* Example 5:

An advertisement presents the results of a poll of consumers who have used the advertiser’s cake mixes as well as their own recipes. The results purport to show that the majority believed that their families could not tell the difference between the advertised mix and their own cakes baked from scratch. Many of the consumers are actually pictured in the advertisement along with relevant, quoted portions of their statements endorsing the product. This use of the results of a poll or survey of consumers represents that this is the typical result that ordinary consumers can expect from the advertiser’s cake mix.

* Example 6:

An advertisement purports to portray a “hidden camera” situation in a crowded cafeteria at breakfast time. A spokesperson for the advertiser asks a series of actual patrons of the cafeteria for their spontaneous, honest opinions of the advertiser’s recently introduced breakfast cereal.

Even though the words “hidden camera” are not displayed on the screen, and even though none of the actual patrons is specifically identified during the advertisement, the net impression conveyed to consumers may well be that these are actual customers, and not actors. If actors have been employed, this fact should be clearly and conspicuously disclosed.

* Example 7:

An advertisement for a recently released motion picture shows three individuals coming out of a theater, each of whom gives a positive statement about the movie. These individuals are actual consumers expressing their personal views about the movie. The advertiser does not need to have substantiation that their views are representative of the opinions that most consumers will have about the movie because this advertisement is not likely to convey a typicality message.

If the motion picture studio had approached these individuals outside the theater and offered them free tickets if they would talk about the movie on camera afterwards, that arrangement should be clearly and conspicuously disclosed. [See section 255.5.]

JW: Any movie fan knows this fact: Anytime an ad for a movie includes “candid comments” from people coming out of the movie that are glowing and positive, the movie is going to suck.

Section 255.3 Expert endorsements.

(a) Whenever an advertisement represents, directly or by implication, that the endorser is an expert with respect to the endorsement message, then the endorser’s qualifications must in fact give the endorser the expertise that he or she is represented as possessing with respect to the endorsement.

(b) Although the expert may, in endorsing a product, take into account factors not within his or her expertise (e.g., matters of taste or price), the endorsement must be supported by an actual exercise of that expertise in evaluating product features or characteristics with respect to which he or she is expert and which are relevant to an ordinary consumer’s use of or experience with the product and are available to the ordinary consumer.

This evaluation must have included an examination or testing of the product at least as extensive as someone with the same degree of expertise would normally need to conduct in order to support the conclusions presented in the endorsement. To the extent that the advertisement implies that the endorsement was based upon a comparison, such comparison must have been included in the expert’s evaluation; and as a result of such comparison, the expert must have concluded that, with respect to those features on which he or she is expert and which are relevant and available to an ordinary consumer, the endorsed product is at least equal overall to the competitors’ products.

Moreover, where the net impression created by the endorsement is that the advertised product is superior to other products with respect to any such feature or features, then the expert must in fact have found such superiority. [See section 255.1(d) regarding the liability of endorsers.]

* Example 1:

An endorsement of a particular automobile by one described as an “engineer” implies that the endorser’s professional training and experience are such that he is well acquainted with the design and performance of automobiles. If the endorser’s field is, for example, chemical engineering, the endorsement would be deceptive.

JW: Well, duh.

* Example 2:

An endorser of a hearing aid is simply referred to as “Doctor” during the course of an advertisement. The ad likely implies that the endorser is a medical doctor with substantial experience in the area of hearing. If the endorser is not a medical doctor with substantial experience in audiology, the endorsement would likely be deceptive.

A non-medical “doctor” (e.g., an individual with a Ph.D. in exercise physiology) or a physician without substantial experience in the area of hearing can endorse the product, but if the endorser is referred to as “doctor,” the advertisement must make clear the nature and limits of the endorser’s expertise.

* Example 3:

A manufacturer of automobile parts advertises that its products are approved by the “American Institute of Science.” From its name, consumers would infer that the “American Institute of Science” is a bona fide independent testing organization with expertise in judging automobile parts and that, as such, it would not approve any automobile part without first testing its efficacy by means of valid scientific methods.

If the American Institute of Science is not such a bona fide independent testing organization (e.g., if it was established and operated by an automotive parts manufacturer), the endorsement would be deceptive.

Even if the American Institute of Science is an independent bona fide expert testing organization, the endorsement may nevertheless be deceptive unless the Institute has conducted valid scientific tests of the advertised products and the test results support the endorsement message.

* Example 4:

A manufacturer of a nonprescription drug product represents that its product has been selected over competing products by a large metropolitan hospital. The hospital has selected the product because the manufacturer, unlike its competitors, has packaged each dose of the product separately.

This package form is not generally available to the public. Under the circumstances, the endorsement would be deceptive because the basis for the hospital’s choice—convenience of packaging— is neither relevant nor available to consumers, and the basis for the hospital’s decision is not disclosed to consumers.

* Example 5:

A woman who is identified as the president of a commercial “home cleaning service” states in a television advertisement that the service uses a particular brand of cleanser, instead of leading competitors it has tried, because of this brand’s performance.

Because cleaning services extensively use cleansers in the course of their business, the ad likely conveys that the president has knowledge superior to that of ordinary consumers. Accordingly, the president’s statement will be deemed to be an expert endorsement. The service must, of course, actually use the endorsed cleanser. In addition, because the advertisement implies that the cleaning service has experience with a reasonable number of leading competitors to the advertised cleanser, the service must, in fact, have such experience, and, on the basis of its expertise, it must have determined that the cleaning ability of the endorsed cleanser is at least equal (or superior, if such is the net impression conveyed by the advertisement) to that of leading competitors’ products with which the service has had experience and which remain reasonably available to it.

Because in this example the cleaning service’s president makes no mention that the endorsed cleanser was “chosen,” “selected,” or otherwise evaluated in side-by-side comparisons against its competitors, it is sufficient if the service has relied solely upon its accumulated experience in evaluating cleansers without having performed side-by-side or scientific comparisons.

* Example 6:

A medical doctor states in an advertisement for a drug that the product will safely allow consumers to lower their cholesterol by 50 points. If the materials the doctor reviewed were merely letters from satisfied consumers or the results of a rodent study, the endorsement would be deceptive assuming that those materials are not what others with the same degree of expertise would consider adequate to support this conclusion about the product’s safety and efficacy.

Section 255.4 Endorsements by organizations.

Endorsements by organizations, especially expert ones, are viewed as representing the judgment of a group whose collective experience exceeds that of any individual member, and whose judgments are generally free of the sort of subjective factors that vary from individual to individual.

Therefore, an organization’s endorsement must be reached by a process sufficient to ensure that the endorsement fairly reflects the collective judgment of the organization. Moreover, if an organization is represented as being expert, then, in conjunction with a proper exercise of its expertise in evaluating the product under section 255.3 (expert endorsements), it must utilize an expert or experts recognized as such by the organization or standards previously adopted by the organization and suitable for judging the relevant merits of such products. [See section 255.1(d) regarding the liability of endorsers.]

* Example:

A mattress seller advertises that its product is endorsed by a chiropractic association. Because the association would be regarded as expert with respect to judging mattresses, its endorsement must be supported by an evaluation by an expert or experts recognized as such by the organization, or by compliance with standards previously adopted by the organization and aimed at measuring the performance of mattresses in general and not designed with the unique features of the advertised mattress in mind. (See also section 255.3, Example 5.)

Section 255.5 Disclosure of material connections.

When there exists a connection between the endorser and the seller of the advertised product that might materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement (i.e., the connection is not reasonably expected by the audience), such connection must be fully disclosed.

For example, when the endorser is neither represented in the advertisement as an expert nor is known to a significant portion of the viewing public, then the advertiser should clearly and conspicuously disclose either the payment or promise of compensation prior to and in exchange for the endorsement or the fact that the endorser knew or had reasons to know or to believe that if the endorsement favors the advertised product some benefit, such as an appearance on TV, would be extended to the endorser. Additional guidance concerning endorsements by celebrities and experts is provided by the examples below.

* Example 1:

A drug company commissions research on its product by an outside organization. The drug company determines the overall subject of the research (e.g., to test the efficacy of a newly developed product) and pays a substantial share of the expenses of the research project, but the research organization determines the protocol for the study and is responsible for conducting it. A subsequent advertisement by the drug company mentions the research results as the “findings” of that research organization.

Where, as here, the design and conduct of the research project are controlled by the outside research organization, the weight consumers place on the reported results would not likely be materially affected by knowing that the advertiser had funded the project. Therefore, the advertiser’s payment of expenses to the research organization need not be disclosed in this advertisement.

* Example 2:

A film star endorses a particular food product. The endorsement regards only points of taste and individual preference. This endorsement must, of course, comply with section 255.1; but regardless of whether the star’s compensation for the commercial is a $1 million cash payment or a royalty for each product sold by the advertiser during the next year, no disclosure is required because such payments likely are ordinarily expected by viewers.

* Example 3:

During an appearance by a well-known professional tennis player on a television talk show, the host comments that the past few months have been the best of her career and during this time she has risen to her highest level ever in the rankings. She responds by attributing the improvement in her game to the fact that she is seeing the ball better than she used to, ever since having laser vision correction surgery at a clinic that she identifies by name.

She continues talking about the ease of the procedure, the kindness of the clinic’s doctors, her speedy recovery, and how she can now engage in a variety of activities without glasses, including driving at night. The athlete does not disclose that, even though she does not appear in commercials for the clinic, she has a contractual relationship with it, and her contract pays her for speaking publicly about her surgery when she can do so.

Consumers would not expect that a celebrity discussing a medical procedure in a television interview to be paid for doing so, and knowledge of such payments would likely affect the weight or credibility consumers give to the celebrity’s endorsement. Without a clear and conspicuous disclosure that the athlete has been engaged as a spokesperson for the clinic, this endorsement is likely to be deceptive. Furthermore, if consumers are likely to take away from her story that her experience was typical of those who undergo the same procedure at the clinic, the advertiser must have substantiation for that claim.

Assume that during that same appearance, the tennis player is wearing clothes bearing the insignia of an athletic wear company with whom she also has an endorsement contract. Although this contract requires that she wear the company’s clothes not only on the court but also in public appearances, when possible, she does not mention them or the company during her appearance on the show. No disclosure is required because no representation is being made about the clothes in this context.

* Example 4:

An ad for an anti-snoring product features a physician who says that he has seen dozens of products come on the market over the years and, in his opinion, this is the best ever.

Consumers would expect the physician to be reasonably compensated for his appearance in the ad. Consumers are unlikely, however, to expect that the physician receives a percentage of gross product sales or that he owns part of the company, and either of these facts would likely materially affect the credibility that consumers attach to the endorsement.

Accordingly, the advertisement should clearly and conspicuously disclose such a connection between the company and the physician.

* Example 5:

An actual patron of a restaurant, who is neither known to the public nor presented as an expert, is shown seated at the counter. He is asked for his “spontaneous” opinion of a new food product served in the restaurant.

Assume, first, that the advertiser had posted a sign on the door of the restaurant informing all who entered that day that patrons would be interviewed by the advertiser as part of its TV promotion of its new soy protein “steak.” This notification would materially affect the weight or credibility of the patron’s endorsement, and, therefore, viewers of the advertisement should be clearly and conspicuously informed of the circumstances under which the endorsement was obtained.

Assume, in the alternative, that the advertiser had not posted a sign on the door of the restaurant, but had informed all interviewed customers of the “hidden camera” only after interviews were completed and the customers had no reason to know or believe that their response was being recorded for use in an advertisement. Even if patrons were also told that they would be paid for allowing the use of their opinions in advertising, these facts need not be disclosed.

* Example 6:

An infomercial producer wants to include consumer endorsements for an automotive additive product featured in her commercial, but because the product has not yet been sold, there are no consumer users.

The producer’s staff reviews the profiles of individuals interested in working as “extras” in commercials and identifies several who are interested in automobiles. The extras are asked to use the product for several weeks and then report back to the producer. They are told that if they are selected to endorse the product in the producer’s infomercial, they will receive a small payment.

Viewers would not expect that these “consumer endorsers” are actors who were asked to use the product so that they could appear in the commercial or that they were compensated. Because the advertisement fails to disclose these facts, it is deceptive.

* Example 7:

A college student who has earned a reputation as a video game expert maintains a personal weblog or “blog” where he posts entries about his gaming experiences. Readers of his blog frequently seek his opinions about video game hardware and software.

As it has done in the past, the manufacturer of a newly released video game system sends the student a free copy of the system and asks him to write about it on his blog. He tests the new gaming system and writes a favorable review.

The readers of his blog are unlikely to expect that he has received the video game system free of charge in exchange for his review of the product, and given the value of the video game system, this fact would likely materially affect the credibility they attach to his endorsement. Accordingly, the blogger should clearly and conspicuously disclose that he received the gaming system free of charge.

* Example 8:

An online message board designated for discussions of new music download technology is frequented by MP3 player enthusiasts. They exchange information about new products, utilities, and the functionality of numerous playback devices.

Unbeknownst to the message board community, an employee of a leading playback device manufacturer has been posting messages on the discussion board promoting the manufacturer’s product. Knowledge of this poster’s employment likely would affect the weight or credibility of her endorsement. Therefore, the poster should clearly and conspicuously disclose her relationship to the manufacturer to members and readers of the message board.

* Example 9:

A young man signs up to be part of a “street team” program in which points are awarded each time a team member talks to his or her friends about a particular advertiser’s products. Team members can then exchange their points for prizes, such as concert tickets or electronics. These incentives would materially affect the weight or credibility of the team member’s endorsements. They should be clearly and conspicuously disclosed, and the advertiser should take steps to ensure that these disclosures are being provided.

Jackie Bates from LinkConnector “sat” down with me and answered ten questions. I’ve been an affiliate for over a decade now and it’s been many years since I’ve worked with an affiliate network. For this piece I “re-signed” up with five of the top networks, and all five agreed to do an interview, however, LinkConnector was the only network to follow through.

Regardless if you are new in the business or you’re a veteran like me, the insights Jackie shares are well worth reading. I give my commentary throughout to give you my view points of Jackie’s answers.

Q: What benefits does an affiliate receive by working with a network vs. working straight with the merchant?

By working with an Affiliate Marketing Network, an affiliate will reap many benefits:

• The affiliate will not have to negotiate individual merchant contracts. Instead, they will benefit from having access to a large and diverse group of merchant programs with pre-negotiated terms and payouts.

  JW: This is more important than you may realize. I’ve negotiated my fair share of contracts with merchants and most of them have not only been painful, but expensive. Often, you’ll incur thousands of dollars in legal fees before you even start to market the product.

• The network typically organizes its merchant programs by industry category and makes them searchable by keyword. Finding the best-matched programs should be an easy task for the affiliate.

  JW: For example, if you were going to put together a review site, because they are organized by category, you can find the 3-4 products you need to fill your review site with all with one network. This makes the “admin” side of affiliate/CPA marketing easier.

• The network provides standardized, reliable tracking across all merchant campaigns. An affiliate can also have custom integration of their tracking system across all campaigns.

  JW: Their tracking is good, as long as you use their image pixel tracker. I found in my testing that if you just used the a href string only and did a redirect or a “bounce,” the tracking would be lost. This is most commonly found in their “naked link” technology. It should be noted that while this is a drawback on how I prefer to drive traffic, Tara McCommons and Susan Bridgers, my contacts at LinkConnector, both went out of their way to work on a solution or workaround with what I wanted to accomplish. It is something Commission Junction has never done for me.

• The network provides access to a management console with standardized, consolidated reporting across all merchant campaigns.
• An affiliate receives one convenient check each month for all merchant earnings. The affiliate can depend on regular, predictable payments.

  JW: Getting paid on-time is a must as an affiliate, as often there is a 30-45 day waiting period from when you make the sale to when you get paid. For example, a few years ago when LinkShare had internal problems and affiliate didn’t get paid for a few months put tremendous stress on affiliates. I’ve never experienced an issue getting paid by LinkConnector.

• The network pushes for fair validation from its merchants and provides fraud control.
• The network chases down payments on behalf of its affiliates.

  JW: In other words, if the merchant isn’t paying commissions, LinkConnector steps in and ensures it happens. I still have an ongoing issues with a substantial payment Yahoo! owes me through Commission Junction dating back May of 2007.

Q: What are the main “Points of Difference” that separates LinkConnector from the other networks?

One key way LinkConnector differentiates itself from other networks is through its affiliate support. Affiliates are equal partners in the LinkConnector Network. Unlike most other networks, LinkConnector employs a dedicated Affiliate Relations team that provides steadfast support and representation to its affiliates. They negotiate for higher payouts and more competitive terms and provide technical support. LinkConnector also remains dedicated to developing new tools and technologies that enable affiliates to optimize their campaigns and streamline their workload. These include the Affiliate Widget Builder, Affiliate Connections™, and LinkConnector’s Promotions Feed.

JW: I can personally attest to this. Of the five networks I “tested” over the last 30 days, one of the things I did was I started at least one campaign with each network, found a problem (or created one), called for resolution, then stopped marketing the campaign. The support at LinkConnector was the only one of the five who returned every call the same business day (often within an hour) and they are the only network who has followed up with me asking what they can do to get the dead campaign active again.

LinkConnector sets itself apart, further, with its base of Internet Retailer Top 500 Merchants and big industry brands, such as Getty Images, Peapod, PRWeb, and Reunion.com (soon to be MyLife.com). Affiliates will find many top-performing and exclusive offers across a multitude of niches that they will not find in other networks.

LinkConnector also sets itself apart with its focus on quality over quantity. With its in-depth fraud protection systems in place and strict policies concerning fraudulent behavior (for both merchants and affiliates), LinkConnector disengages from mainstream thinking. This philosophy enables LinkConnector to place a strong emphasis on long-term, sustainable relationships.

Q: How does LinkConnector handle fraud and have you seen an increase/decrease over the last six months?

LinkConnector employs a zero tolerance fraud policy—a “one strike and you’re out” policy. LinkConnector removes any merchant or affiliate deemed to be fraudulent from its network entirely (not just the campaigns they were participating in). LinkConnector’s fraud policy is backed by several proprietary technologies, including Front Door Fraud Protection, Source Checker, Click Validation, and Data Pattern Matching.

LinkConnector has seen an increase in fraudulent applicants over the last six months and has responded by tightening up its criteria rules for inclusion in the network. LinkConnector manages all the network applications through its Front Door Fraud Protection (FDFP) system, which prevents affiliates that are likely to commit fraud from entering the network. Currently, FDFP rejects about 60% of all affiliate applicants.

JW: One of the biggest issues with fraud right now is using Craig’s List to hire “secret shoppers” with disposable Visa cards to make purchases online and the affiliate getting the lead payout. I’ll stop the example there as I don’t want to give anyone ideas, but it is good to see a company with a zero tolerance policy with fraud … as it is getting worse it seems.

Q: Do you work with new Affiliates/CPA marketers?

Yes. We welcome the opportunity to work with new affiliate partners.

Q: Do you offer online training for new affiliates?

LinkConnector has an Affiliate Relations team in place to support active affiliates. They address affiliates’ questions and concerns and provide some training on LinkConnector’s interface and technologies. LinkConnector also provides Help documentation inside the interface as a quick reference for its merchants and affiliates. However, at this time, LinkConnector does not offer in-depth online training.

We plan to create a Resource Center, providing tips and access to trusted vendors for affiliates and merchants. This is still in the development phase.

JW: This is one of the weakest areas in LinkConnector. Their help system needs to be upgraded, and having a Resource Center would be a huge plus.

Q: What are a few resources you would recommend for a new affiliate vs. a veteran affiliate?

New affiliates would benefit from these resources:

Forums:
5Star
Affiliates4U
AffSpot
WickedFire

Free Tools, Tips & Articles:
Affiliate Tips
Alexa Rankings
DigitalPoint
Google Trends
Google Webmaster Tools
KeywordSpy – Keyword Research
Market Leap – Search Engine Marketing Tools
SitePoint
Technorati – Blog Tools
Wordtracker – Keyword Research

Affiliate Programs Directory:
AssociatePrograms.com

LinkConnector Tools:
Affiliate Widget Builder
Affiliate Connectionsâ„¢
Coupons & Promotions Feed (inside the LinkConnector interface)

Seasoned affiliates would also benefit from these tools and from staying plugged into the Affiliate Marketing forums, such as those listed above.

Q: What three things would you most recommend to someone just breaking into this business?

Be a marketer. Learn about the merchant products and services you are promoting and find out how to pre-qualify your audience. Also, find products and offers you are passionate about and believe in. This will make learning about them and believing in them a much more enjoyable and smoother process. It will also go a long way in preventing burnout.

Affiliates also must work as professionals if they are to have success with merchants and Affiliate Marketing Networks. This is an understanding most Super Affiliates now embrace.

Affiliates who desire success must weather the blows. Rules will change in PPC search engines, merchants will drop their campaigns or restrict new keywords, and organic search engine rules will change. Affiliates must be able to continuously stay abreast of the latest trends in search engine marketing and affiliate marketing. They must constantly learn, grow, and ride through the bumps.

JW: Great advice. For some reason, CPA and Affiliate marketing at the rep of “just throw up a site, send traffic and make money.” It’s like any other business. It takes skill, perseverance and common sense. Appeal to the prospect with a solution that makes sense to them with an offer they can understand and more often than not, you’ll be successful.

Q: Do you offer exclusive offers or increased incentives for top-tier (5-star) affiliates?

Yes. While LinkConnector does not require exclusivity of its merchants, many merchants do choose to work exclusively with LinkConnector, or run exclusive campaigns, coupons, or payouts with LinkConnector. While these campaigns are open to all affiliates, LinkConnector Affiliates that earn in the top percentage will have their own personal affiliate managers. These dedicated managers will advocate on behalf of their affiliates and negotiate for increased payouts and improved terms. Top performing affiliates may also benefit from more frequent payments and exclusive tools like the real-time reporting console.

JW: Take it from me, when you are testing, having real-time reporting is a must.

Q: What, in your opinion, are the top 2-3 reasons affiliates fail?

Affiliates that try to game the system will ensure they are not long term players. By not adhering to merchant search engine marketing guidelines (e.g., bidding on restricted keywords), or generating fraudulent lead traffic, for example, affiliates will find themselves ousted out of merchant programs and affiliate networks.

Affiliates also must treat their affiliate programs as they would a ‘real job’. They must do extensive research, learning all caveats of the industry, and continue to do so. Without this constantly refreshing knowledge base to draw on, affiliates will be defenseless in a quickly evolving industry.

Also, affiliates must put their affiliate managers to work for them. By not doing so, they will leave opportunities on the table and will work harder for fewer results.

Q: Have you seen any notable changes with the current recession in the CPA space?

CPA, in terms of lead generation, is only one portion of our business, and recent changes have not been significant. The effect of the recession on CPA in terms of Pay-for-Performance Marketing or Affiliate Marketing, has also been small from what we have observed. While some merchants have been forced to place more stringent budget caps on their affiliate efforts, for the most part, we have found that the Pay-for-Performance model has effectively safeguarded against the poor economy.

Also, with a volatile economy, more consumers may be going online to shop around and seek out coupons and better deals. This market has created an exceptional opportunity for couponing affiliate marketers. Coupons are essential marketing tools for merchants to provide their affiliates with in this economy.

To mitigate risk in this economic climate, it is also important to establish high quality, trusted partnerships between merchants, affiliates, and the network. This in turn establishes sustainable relationships—the type that will last through any economic condition.

JW: Personally, I have seen a SIGNIFICANT difference in conversion rates over the last three months, but mostly in the month of February. Any product over $79.00 had taken a HUGE hit in terms of conversion – even with “no risk” offers or coupons. Prospects are clicking, but they aren’t buying. Many affiliates are seeing their margins getting squeezed. If the trend continues in March, there could be a huge change in the market as many affiliates will drop out.

I want to personally thank Jackie from LinkConnector for taking the time and giving us more insight in the CPA/Affiliate space from the Network’s perspective. I highly recommend joining the LinkConnector network by clicking the link below. Yes, it is an affiliate link and any money made from this Blog post will be donated to charity.

Join the LinkConnector Network