[Dennis Gaskill]

Originally Posted by danieljb

Thanks for the post, this is what I meant. Another way of putting it is:

Was the income made through Warrior Payments?

Yes: Then sellers can talk about their income with figures in their copy. We will verify the accuracy.

No: Then sellers cannot make income claims because we cannot verify this.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but...

If the only income claims a seller can make is if the product is sold through Warrior Payments, then doesn't that in turn mean the only income claims a seller can make is about how much their WSO has earned?

If that's true, then the only MMO offers that could have a relevant income claim would be for products that teach how to make money selling WSO's.

It should also be noted that income does not equal profits. A person could, in theory, have a Warrior Forum verified income of $5k for a product, but if the seller spent $6k on traffic he actually lost a grand.

Someone buying that product because of a verified income of $5k might not be too happy to find they keep losing money trying to implement it.

[Cali16]

Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill

If that's true, then the only MMO offers that could have a relevant income claim would be for products that teach how to make money selling WSO's.

Seems there's an echo in here, Dennis.... (Sorry, couldn't resist!)

Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill

It should also be noted that income does not equal profits.

True. Perhaps the term income should be changed to "net profit".

[Rus Sells]

Wait what?

So my next WSO is how one can make money doing Google helpouts and that I've personally made 5K a month doing it.

Please tell me how selling my WSO through the Warrior Payments platform helps any one verify my claim?

All you can verify are the sales you've processed through the platform and that has nothing to do with my income claim.

It doesn't and just like Dennis said, you'd have to actually have a WSO ABOUT making money with WSO's, which by the way I'm VERY MUCH against! For other reasons though, but yeah.

[NetSensei]

While I share some of the same concerns expressed on this thread... I am also inclined to look at it from a different angle. WF no doubt has come to a point where income claims are expected and buyers are leery if none are presented.

At the same time however, most are jaded and think that those very income claims are somehow faked. So while they expect them, they also feel frustration from not knowing if the claims are real or faked.

I think it is possible that the WF not allowing most wso's to make income claims is an opportunity to get the buyers to look for other cues to help them understand if it is a good offer for them or not.

It may cause some confusion and difficulty at first, but I think if it became the standard that it would not be long before the buyers would understand, that no claims are part of the rules of the forum.

Then, both buyers and sellers could focus on other ways to show the prospects that the information is valuable and worth purchasing.

As has been amply demonstrated in this thread and others, no matter what is done to verify, there are other variables that will let clever marketers get around the income verification.

And even when the income proofs are real... they are still not a demonstration of how well it will help the buyer to get similar results.

Case in point... someone makes a wso and they show their results. They are well known, with many products that they have sold, they have influence, perceived authority, contacts and experience.

The buyer has none of those things, and they buy the product... follow all the steps and still fail to get hardly any or perhaps no results what so ever. Why? Because the experienced marketer sent an email to his list of affiliate and jv partners suggesting they promote it... some do and so the results are great.

But the buyer follows all the steps, but is an unknown, has no list of buyers or affiliate partners and so their attempt is a complete failure.

It is so easy for the experienced marketer to use proof of income... but that serves little real proof of the wso offering to be one that the buyer can succeed with.

As marketers I think it is our responsibility to create products that can get results for the buyers. When we make such a product, then I believe that its value can be amply demonstrated in the sales thread without income claims. Income claims which under the best of circumstances are poor proof that it can or will be similarly successful for the buyer.

Mark

[TimothyW]

Originally Posted by NetSensei

While I share some of the same concerns expressed on this thread... I am also inclined to look at it from a different angle. WF no doubt has come to a point where income claims are expected and buyers are leery if none are presented.

At the same time however, most are jaded and think that those very income claims are somehow faked. So while they expect them, they also feel frustration from not knowing if the claims are real or faked.

I think it is possible that the WF not allowing most wso's to make income claims is an opportunity to get the buyers to look for other cues to help them understand if it is a good offer for them or not.

It may cause some confusion and difficulty at first, but I think if it became the standard that it would not be long before the buyers would understand, that no claims are part of the rules of the forum.

Then, both buyers and sellers could focus on other ways to show the prospects that the information is valuable and worth purchasing.

As has been amply demonstrated in this thread and others, no matter what is done to verify, there are other variables that will let clever marketers get around the income verification.

And even when the income proofs are real... they are still not a demonstration of how well it will help the buyer to get similar results.

Case in point... someone makes a wso and they show their results. They are well known, with many products that they have sold, they have influence, perceived authority, contacts and experience.

The buyer has none of those things, and they buy the product... follow all the steps and still fail to get hardly any or perhaps no results what so ever. Why? Because the experienced marketer sent an email to his list of affiliate and jv partners suggesting they promote it... some do and so the results are great.

But the buyer follows all the steps, but is an unknown, has no list of buyers or affiliate partners and so their attempt is a complete failure.

It is so easy for the experienced marketer to use proof of income... but that serves little real proof of the wso offering to be one that the buyer can succeed with.

As marketers I think it is our responsibility to create products that can get results for the buyers. When we make such a product, then I believe that its value can be amply demonstrated in the sales thread without income claims. Income claims which under the best of circumstances are poor proof that it can or will be similarly successful for the buyer.

Mark

Good post + reasoning, Mark. You have your head screwed on straight.

The only real value to "income claims / proof" is that it (theoretically) shows that it IS possible to make (any/SOME) $$ using the method(s) being sold. As opposed to method(s) where it's really NOT possible to make some/ANY $$.

I don't think any clear minded person would ever assume that he/she would be *guaranteed* to make a certain amount of $$ -- or in many cases, believe that it is even LIKELY that a certain amount of $$ will be made.

Personally, I see WSOs all the time that have PLENTY of income "proof," and I still say to myself, "Lame! That will NEVER WORK in the real world!" Conversely, I've seen plenty of WSOs that have no "income proof," and I assess that they have the ring of truth, and I say to myself, "Now THAT makes sense! I think that WOULD make me some $$."

Everyone must assess, in their own mind, what the possibilities, risks, expenses, etc. are, in any particular case. This individual assessment can (and SHOULD) be made WITHOUT needing to see "income claims / proof."

In other words, y'gotta use your own judgment + common sense when deciding what WSOs to buy -- with or without "actual" income claims or proof!

-- TW

[luckyman2k]

Originally Posted by Alaister

Rule #16: Buy Buttons Must Be Present

To sell a WSO in the WSO Section of the forum, your offer must have a Buy Button that takes the user to a checkout. This link cannot take the user to your website, an order form or an opt-in page.

This rule does not apply to other sections, such as Warriors for Hire or Classified Ads.

Hello

One doubt. We are using 2checkout. Due to 2checkout Policy, we can sell from our website. We can't use There Buy Buttons any where else.

My question is, how we can use 2checkout or Blue Snap to sell On WSO Section ?

My request is, Please change this rule, "To sell a WSO in the WSO Section of the forum, your offer must have a Buy Button that takes the user to a checkout. "

Thanks

[Diana Lane]

To be honest, I find the WSO Forum a lot harder to read than the others because of all the income claims. All those dollar signs and figures just make it look like a badly-formatted knitting pattern to me and it's more difficult to maintain my concentration if I'm looking for something specific - I often have to make a conscious effort to stop my mind from wandering. It's the entries without an income claim that stick out for me, possibly because I take one man's income claim about as seriously as the idea that two identical shops in different parts of town will be make the same amount of money and so am practically blind to any figures given.

I realise I'm probably in the minority, but there is a small chance that some people might actually do better with their offers once the WSO forum stops looking like it's sinking under a tidal wave of competing dollar signs and comes across as a bit 'cleaner'.

[rosetrees]

I rarely come here any more, but was curious after receiving the email about the new rules. One of which, apparently, states no income claims in WSOs. I just went to the WSO forum and 3 of the first 10 products have income claims in their heading.

[Greedy]

Great Stuff. Some need changes.

[efhale]

Within #4
"Reviews must be of the product, not the seller nor the seller’s previous products."

Good job!

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by PaidAllDay

It means you can't imply that they will make an income if they purchase your product. You can still show your income and claim it was from the method. But you will need a disclaimer stating that results aren't typical, no results are guaranteed. This is pretty standard stuff I'm actually surprised it never existed on this forum before.

Even though as its been pointed out thats wrong I think I more grasp what you guys call income claims (not that heavy into MMO). Its what I would call specified income claims. I guess newer people will eventually figure it out.

[chuckharris]

I wonder why this in #5 "Automation Bots"

There are MANY cases where automation just makes sense. We write a lot of bots that have 100% legitimate use. It's called working smarter, not harder.

[Rus Sells]

I think that the existing way the WSO forum is set up has contributed to the problem of the big income claims that we often see in the WSO thread titles, right.

So obviously the WSO title appears on the overview page or whatever it's called so all the titles are competing against 49 other titles for a click through.

Now it used to be that a WSO couldn't be bumped until it hit the 3rd page but now those rules have changed and you can bump the second it drop's off the 1st page.

So now I believe what will happen is that WSO's will be dropping off the first page even faster then before, so if you ask me its a total disservice to those who've posted a WSO and only serves to increase the advertising revenue for the forum itself.

Intended or not the consequences for vendors will be that they won't get any value at all for their ad spend.

Income claims or not, if the forum is taking money for advertising space they have a duty to their advertisers as well, not only buyers.

Honestly I'm not sure there is any implied duty to buyers at all "UNLESS" membership became paid instead of free.

[Kay King]

Thanks for the post, this is what I meant. Another way of putting it is:

Was the income made through Warrior Payments?

Yes: Then sellers can talk about their income with figures in their copy. We will verify the accuracy.

No: Then sellers cannot make income claims because we cannot verify this.

Someone who has been running/bumping multiple WSOs in the MMO field making promises of easy/fast/big money...and running all their sales through the fairly new Warrior Pay system....could be "verified".

A member who is highly successful OUTSIDE the WF with years of profitable business experience - could not be "verified" here because he's not a serial WSO-seller.

Over the years I've known marketers who made their income ONLY through running WSOs and selling directly to members in this forum. Outside the WF, they earned squat. Those aren't people I want to buy from.

[chuckharris]

Originally Posted by Rus Sells

I think that the existing way the WSO forum is set up has contributed to the problem of the big income claims that we often see in the WSO thread titles, right.

So obviously the WSO title appears on the overview page or whatever it's called so all the titles are competing against 49 other titles for a click through.

Now it used to be that a WSO couldn't be bumped until it hit the 3rd page but now those rules have changed and you can bump the second it drop's off the 1st page.

So now I believe what will happen is that WSO's will be dropping off the first page even faster then before, so if you ask me its a total disservice to those who've posted a WSO and only serves to increase the advertising revenue for the forum itself.

Intended or not the consequences for vendors will be that they won't get any value at all for their ad spend.

Income claims or not, if the forum is taking money for advertising space they have a duty to their advertisers as well, not only buyers.

Honestly I'm not sure there is any implied duty to buyers at all "UNLESS" membership became paid instead of free.

I agree, bumping available once the ad falls off of the first page seems like a backward step to me and certainly won't add any value to running ads.

IMHO, ads moving so fast off of the first page is probably the primary reason that many depend on affiliate relationships rather than the forum. I would think the idea would be to bring value to advertisers again and then they would want to advertise more right?

I think such a short bump would do just the opposite and will again just increase the speed of the thread.

[igrowyourbiz]

Awesome....long needed changes

Gj alaistair

[maxqsoft]

Information like this is great for new comers like myself. Since I usually find it difficult to find and understand the rules. For example I recently posted a email marketing 13 video course which was remove and considered as Spam.
Is it ok to include videos in post?

[Coby]

Some positive steps in the right direction!

While I have used many "Free WSO" to build my business and will miss that option but am glad to see some steps being taken about all the income claims that plague our industry.

Good work FL!

Cheers,
Coby

[Trivum]

Originally Posted by Alaister

Rule #17: Income Claims & Guarantees

Sellers that make income claims may be asked to provide proof of income prior to their offer being approved. Sellers are strictly prohibited from offering income guarantees. This will be strictly enforced to protect the Warrior community.

This is a good one, and sorely needed. However, I hope it extends to things like, "Make $45,967 a week for only $7!"

Not sure if that's considered a "claim" or a "guarantee," but WSO's are rife with that kind of BS, and they make the whole site look cheap and scammy.

[Dog Rescuer]

Not trying to be snarky but there are Rule #17's up all over the place:
http://i.imgur.com/txA1fL3.jpg

[Steve B]

It would seem appropriate to me that you extend the "no income claims" rule to the "scammy" banner ads that grace the top and bottom of the main discussion forum. You know, the ones that cost $100/day and typically make outrageous income claims. If removing income claims from the WSO section is a positive step (which I agree it is) why should that not be extended to the rest of the forum?

Steve

[franchiseguy]

Would a picture of me sitting in my Ferrari, surrounded by babes smiling with a mouthful of Gold teeth be construed as an earnings claim? Just sayin'

[RichBeck]

Originally Posted by PaidAllDay

Okay so we should hire auditors to verify income claims?

What if I show you $500 in adwords spending and say I made $5,000 because I didn't show you the $6,000 I spend on Bing? Case closed end of story wake up it won't work. You aren't buying a business you're buying a WSO.

I'm writing those who are "remotely business savvy" will want to know this...

Don't believe me? Head over to the WSO section.... You'll see many of them where potential buyers ask about expenses... It is VERY common.

If you're claiming you "made money," it is reasonable to expect "Auditors" or whoever "verifies" to verify both income and expenses....

If the FTC came by and actually looked a WSO with income claims, they may view it as a biz op.... which has a long list of legal requirements in the US of A.

In the end, I'm simply in favor of what Paul suggested.... No income claims.... It makes things simple.

[RichBeck]

Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill

It should also be noted that income does not equal profits. A person could, in theory, have a Warrior Forum verified income of $5k for a product, but if the seller spent $6k on traffic he actually lost a grand.

Someone buying that product because of a verified income of $5k might not be too happy to find they keep losing money trying to implement it.

Spot on..... Report both income and expenses which lead to net income.... or nothing.

[jalexanderseo]

New sales copy revised to be compliant with WSO rule you might make money you might not I can't tell you because the WF would ban me from selling this to you if I did. So nothing secretive here as that would also ban me but I can't tell you about it because that would ban me. But buy my stuff anyways and see whats inside.

[faisalmaximus]

Will these rules be applicable to existing WSOs ? or only for the new WSO which will be posted from now ?

[chrisuchi]

perfect, love this development, a lot of fake income claims

[ProsperityNow]

I could see how they could enforce using "Warrior " or Warrior Forum "on the Warrior Forum website that they own.

2. However, I doubt very seriously that Warrior Forum could have any legal right or recourse to the word "Warrior" being used on another website that is not owned by the Warrior Forum.

3."Warrior" is such a general word, that has been in existences for hundreds of years before there was a Warrior Forum website.

I checked Google for the name warrior and there were tons of variety of websites using warrior for many products, services etc. Even Amazon, Twitter and Facebook popped up under the word "warrior.

Just my opinion..

[wordpressmania]

Originally Posted by Alaister

Hi everyone,

Rule #16: Buy Buttons Must Be Present

To sell a WSO in the WSO Section of the forum, your offer must have a Buy Button that takes the user to a checkout. This link cannot take the user to your website, an order form or an opt-in page.

This rule does not apply to other sections, such as Warriors for Hire or Classified Ads.

I believe the new rule will make the Forum more clean. Specially not allowing people to claim about earning $$$$$$$$ without proved by a trustworthy way . I am sure it will save a lot of newbie at the long run.

I only have one complain.....That is about buy button. I use Fastspring as my payment processor. It does not allow me to send people directly to their cart page other than from my website. So I usually send people to a specific page from where they can go to the payment processor.

So, I think you would be kind to ensure that people like me can use WSO section. Other than it seems I will not be able to release any WSO in near future until paypal comes to my country ( may be within next few years )

Thanks
Sabbir

[Mark Singletary]

I can see both sides of the issue.

On the one hand, how can I convince potential customers that the technique I have been using really does have the potential to help save their mortgage or help them have that long awaited second honeymoon or send their kids to college without presenting some real numbers or potential numbers. This new rule will hurt many sellers who now cannot share those numbers.

On the other hand, anyone that is half decent and uses common sense can see that many of the existing claims are untruthful, unrealistic, or unsustainable.

If it was all 100% on the up and up, the sellers need to be sharing their techniques with Congress because with the numbers, promises, and hype we have enough right here to overcome world hunger and poverty. This is especially true once you realize, according to many of these promises that a customer needs no knowledge nor website, the technique can be done from anywhere, and there is no risk of saturation.

Those kinds of claims, along with *perceived* scammy marketing techniques, have given the WF a bad name and reputation amongst many.

For example, there have been some threads lately about churn and burn email marketing.

Yes we all understand that it's not technically spam to get 3 emails a day because we agreed to share our email address for the free report or whatever. But the mothers (regular people) of the people that are doing it would call it spamming (or worse) too. Yet some here never take the side of the consumer - it's their fault for signing up. We say to new emailers with questions "you aren't your market so it doesn't matter if YOU don't like getting 3 emails a day or having 5 downsells or 14 popups - it works so just do what works!" This is hilarious when at the same time there have been many posts recommending throw away email addresses when signing up for said free report. Talk about hypocritical.

Regular folks would be saying their computer must be infected because they can't leave a site (with all the exit popups) yet some say it works so they keep doing it and keep getting the same bad rep. Then someone pointed out that they and others, marketers, use software to block ads. Again, we don't like it but we impose it on others.

Likewise, someone complains about a WSO and some are quick to pull the "buyer beware" card because everyone's hands are tied and the WF is just an advertising platform. Then we try to overcome the perception of being ripped off by throwing out the "if you learned one tiny tidbit you didn't know then you weren't scammed" line.

That attitude (amongst many here but not all by any means) isn't helping the WF. Those WSOs, while paying the bills, aren't helping the reputation of the WF either in many cases.

Note that above I'm not calling anyone a scammer or spammer. I'm talking about regular folks and the perception or feeling that many have of this place. Don't believe me? Get some of your real friends on some email lists or invite them to the WSO forum. Some of the guys I"m talking about above will say to that "well they aren't my target market so..."

This kind of "correction" always happens and always effects even those that aren't "guilty."

Look at all the rules along with all the complaining about Google, Youtube, FB, Craigslist, etc. For example, your FB account may be in danger of a shutdown (if it even remotely feels suspicious no matter if you've done anything wrong or not) because someone else decided to open 300 FB accounts with fake profile info and pretty girls as the profile pic. That may have been learned on the WF.

My email address was recently sold or shared several times by these wonderful friends that post here after I trusted them with my email address. It works, right - all about the numbers.

I am glad to see the changes - they are much more "regular folks" friendly. However, I hope that FL hasn't bitten off more than they can chew with these much needed changes but a most assuredly decreased income. Before the balance was maybe too much in the favor of the marketer/seller and now the balance has shifted to be more on the consumer side - some say too much.

In the end, I hope it all balances out and we can have a win-win-win experience here for all.

Mark

[Terry Jett]

Bravo! Just might be enough to get me back to the WF when time permits.

[chuckharris]

Originally Posted by jalexanderseo

New sales copy revised to be compliant with WSO rule you might make money you might not I can't tell you because the WF would ban me from selling this to you if I did. So nothing secretive here as that would also ban me but I can't tell you about it because that would ban me. But buy my stuff anyways and see whats inside.

Send me a link, I'll buy two! :-)

[GlenH]

Originally Posted by RichBeck

In the end, I'm simply in favor of what Paul suggested.... No income claims.... It makes things simple.

No income claims, Period. IMO that is the way to go.

Then there is no need for the 'admin police' to have to validate a WSO (or not).


I’m also wondering when and how all these current threads listed with ‘income claims rules will be weeded out of the WSO’s section.

Since they are already in the WSO section, the vendor could ‘bump’ them forever if they wanted to.

Or will it be the case that when a vendor ‘bumps’ a thread, that thread will be assessed for ‘income claims’ and if the thread violates the new rule, then the ‘bump’ won’t be allowed until the thread is changed.

[benjamenjuan]

It's really not that hard to prove you made money with a particular technique with no screenshots or videos. You'd have to provide temp login info for a mod. I'd be fine with that, as long as there's an agreement that the mod will not use your log in creds for anything else. Then change the password after approval.

Thanks for the awesome changes it's good to see some application of some long overdue improvements.

[iMassMarket]

Originally Posted by chuckharris

Send me a link, I'll buy two! :-)

Originally Posted by jalexanderseo

New sales copy revised to be compliant with WSO rule you might make money you might not I can't tell you because the WF would ban me from selling this to you if I did. So nothing secretive here as that would also ban me but I can't tell you about it because that would ban me. But buy my stuff anyways and see whats inside.

Unfortunately this is a blind offer... and would be against forum rules.

[iMassMarket]

Originally Posted by RichBeck

From an Accounting perspective, net income is the only way.....

If you were looking into buying a "real" business and they told you they "made" $500,000 a year, you wouldn't want to know their yearly expenses?

It is the same with MMO methods....

If the seller "makes" $50,000.... $35,000 goes to Affiliates.... $5,000 goes to paid traffic... The seller can say in his sales letter and other marketing materials he "made" $50,000?

In MMO, that may make sense... In the "real" business world, everyone wants net income.

Yes... during the discovery process you would review all factors related to net profit. Not typically revealed in the sales listing unless explicitly noted. If that were the case mergers would be done over lunch and not months.

Anywho... Books and income are faked in the real world every single day with plenty of lawsuits to back it up.

[danieljb]

Thank you all for your input regarding the new rules, particular Rule 17.

Eliminating questionable income claims is one of the most important features of the new rules. We know that a lot of buyers are potentially being misled with current income claims and promises of income if the buyer were to purchase the WSO.

Here are some examples to clarify what is an income claim:
- Make $100 per day in 7 minutes.
- I made $100 by selling eBooks.
- Earn $100 every time you press this button.
- I made $100 selling a domain.
- Make $100-$15000 per month by buying a website from me.
- Make $5+ in 30 days.

Under the new rules, any such statement is not permitted in the WSO Marketplace, which includes all sub-forums.

We require all sellers to read through the rules thoroughly and adjust any offers accordingly.

Many of these rules have been in place for some time. Their presence in the new rules means that these rules will be addressed for sellers who are not adhering to them.

In answer to the specific questions raised here:

It would seem appropriate to me that you extend the "no income claims" rule to the "scammy" banner ads that grace the top and bottom of the main discussion forum. You know, the ones that cost $100/day and typically make outrageous income claims. If removing income claims from the WSO section is a positive step (which I agree it is) why should that not be extended to the rest of the forum?

This will be addressed in the coming weeks.

Will these rules be applicable to existing WSOs ? or only for the new WSO which will be posted from now ?

This is applicable to all WSOs.

This is a good one, and sorely needed. However, I hope it extends to things like, "Make $45,967 a week for only $7!"

Not sure if that's considered a "claim" or a "guarantee," but WSO's are rife with that kind of BS, and they make the whole site look cheap and scammy.

This is definitely an income claim, which is the kind of misleading statement that we’re addressing with the new rules. No new offers with such claims will be approved. Sellers must adjust their existing offers.

Bravo! Just might be enough to get me back to the WF when time permits.

Great. We're changing the rules so potential buyers can feel secure browsing the offers in the WSO marketplace while knowing they can pick up a great deal on IM related products.

I’m also wondering when and how all these current threads listed with ‘income claims rules will be weeded out of the WSO’s section.

Since they are already in the WSO section, the vendor could ‘bump’ them forever if they wanted to.

This will be rolled out to existing offers in the coming days and weeks. No new offers that contravene any rules will be approved henceforth.

[GlenH]

Originally Posted by Diana Lane

To be honest, I find the WSO Forum a lot harder to read than the others because of all the income claims. All those dollar signs and figures just make it look like a badly-formatted knitting pattern to me and it's more difficult to maintain my concentration if I'm looking for something specific - I often have to make a conscious effort to stop my mind from wandering. It's the entries without an income claim that stick out for me, possibly because I take one man's income claim about as seriously as the idea that two identical shops in different parts of town will be make the same amount of money and so am practically blind to any figures given.

I agree. Trying to read that WSO section today makes your head spin.

I realise I'm probably in the minority, but there is a small chance that some people might actually do better with their offers once the WSO forum stops looking like it's sinking under a tidal wave of competing dollar signs and comes across as a bit 'cleaner'.

Let's hope that's the case, because it's about as a bad as it can get now.

[MKWeb2]

This link cannot take the user to your website, an order form or an opt-in page

I use Delavo to manage all of my products and it is integrated with the WF. Will that no longer be an option?

[iMassMarket]

Originally Posted by GlenH

No income claims, Period. IMO that is the way to go.

Then there is no need for the 'admin police' to have to validate a WSO (or not).


I’m also wondering when and how all these current threads listed with ‘income claims rules will be weeded out of the WSO’s section.

Since they are already in the WSO section, the vendor could ‘bump’ them forever if they wanted to.

Or will it be the case that when a vendor ‘bumps’ a thread, that thread will be assessed for ‘income claims’ and if the thread violates the new rule, then the ‘bump’ won’t be allowed until the thread is changed.

Agreed.

If you are going to lay down the hammer on claims then just make it no claims period. No banner ads with income claims. No WSO's with income claims. No claims period like;

How to rank #1 in Google in 5 hours 20 minutes and 18 seconds while eating a sandwich with one arm tied behind your back and locked in a room with a hungry Pit Bull."

How to get 50,000 clicks from 1 cent Facebook ads even if you working on a commodore 64 with a 300 Baud modem in your Gam-Gam's basement.

How to become an offline expert in your own hometown even if you flunked common core, don't know a darn thing about business and your tattooed body looks like a treasure map to lost Egyptian crypts.

If claims like these examples above (admittedly overly exaggerated) can't be proved to a moderator... then these statements are blindly being approved by the "Warrior Forum" so to speak.

Originally Posted by franchiseguy

Would a picture of me sitting in my Ferrari, surrounded by babes smiling with a mouthful of Gold teeth be construed as an earnings claim? Just sayin'

Nope. Just construed your a big d#$che

Originally Posted by danieljb

We have revised rule #17:

Rule #17: Income Claims & Guarantees

Sellers are not to make claims around income that has been made unless this income can be verified through Warrior Payments. Sellers are not permitted to make claims about or imply that income will result from purchasing a WSO. This will be strictly enforced to protect the Warrior community.

The only time income claims will be permitted is when in reference to a product being sold on Warrior Payments, as this is the only platform we can confirm accuracy.

This would only matter or make any sense if the product was selling "How to bank (insert big claim dollar figure here) selling WSO's (oops-- just violated endorsement rule). And even then, you just opened yourself up to being classified as a pyramid scheme. Not only that - but being endorsed by the very forum itself.

And how can anyone prove the method sold was the method used to produce those results?

You can't.

[highper]

I love that people now need to provide proof for their claims. So many people are full of BS its not even funny.

[abrandt]

Howdy, Alaister & danieljb:

I have been a WF Member since 2003. I have issued few WSO returns in the last 10+ years.

However I purchased a WSO yesterday from a well known WSO author (who I trusted)... which has proven to be quite DECEPTIVE... (with more than enough evidence available posted by Member inquiries - RE: the subject matter of the WSO.) In fact, I did not even download the report after I clearly understood the WSO subject matter.

After clearly documenting my case directly to this WSO author... he did REFUND me this evening... however he has left such a bad taste due to his email comments... that I would like to pursue this issue with Warrior Forum... for the purpose of helping the NEW WSO RULES become meaningful for 2015 and forward.

HOW and WHERE would you ask WF Members file a well-documented complaint?

Thank you in advance for a prompt response.

~ Alan

[JoeBradley]

While I understand that the Warrior Forum can not verify offers that have not been made through Warrior payments it is surely unbalanced and discriminatory for sellers not to be allowed to discuss income made outside the Warrior forum. I know that there has to be control and the current situation should not be allowed to continue but it needs to be done on an equal basis.

While spurious income claims should be discouraged and as much as possible prevented, genuine offers with proof of income should be allowable even if payment was not made through Warrior payments, assuming sufficient proof is provided when challenged. Failure to allow these genuine offers air time is doing a dis-service not just to the promoters but also to people who would like to be made aware of them.

From a legal standpoint, the Warrior Forum, even after checking claims to whatever extent practical should not endorse or confirm earnings even if the figures are available from Warrior payments and the forum should also include a statement on the offer pages stating that it does not endorse any income statements or other guarantees made by the promoter of the offer.

[iMassMarket]

Originally Posted by danieljb

Thank you all for your input regarding the new rules, particular Rule 17.

Eliminating questionable income claims is one of the most important features of the new rules. We know that a lot of buyers are potentially being misled with current income claims and promises of income if the buyer were to purchase the WSO.

Here are some examples to clarify what is an income claim:
- Make $100 per day in 7 minutes.
- I made $100 by selling eBooks.
- Earn $100 every time you press this button.
- I made $100 selling a domain.
- Make $100-$15000 per month by buying a website from me.
- Make $5+ in 30 days.

Under the new rules, any such statement is not permitted in the WSO Marketplace, which includes all sub-forums.
.

Ummm... not exactly true.

"I made $100 by selling ebooks" is not an income claim. It's a statement. It would only be a claim if it stated "I made $100 selling ebooks and YOU CAN TOO."

Same as for "I made $100 selling a domain" no way implies you will too unless so stated.

Don't get me wrong. I understand this is being done for the better good of the forum and the protection of it's members. However, if there is no foreseeable way for the Warrior Forum to verify income claims without banning all income claims then I think we should just ban ALL claims altogether.

If not, I see an even bigger onslaught of bogus claims from SEO rankings, 1-click plugin wonders to Facebook Fan Page trickery and instant Kindle success taking over the WSO section. I mean seriously, do you really think those who make unsubstantiated MMO claims are just going to go away?

[Diana Lane]

Originally Posted by iMassMarket

This would only matter or make any sense if the product was selling "How to bank (insert big claim dollar figure here) selling WSO's (oops-- just violated endorsement rule). And even then, you just opened yourself up to being classified as a pyramid scheme. Not only that - but being endorsed by the very forum itself.

And how can anyone prove the method sold was the method used to produce those results?

You can't.

I agree. The exception to the new income claims rule is the only thing about it that bothers me. Income claims might generally indicate that an offer lacks the substance to stand alone without them, but it doesn't automatically follow that those offers that can make a case for themselves without one are golden. I'd be amazed if there weren't junk offers made in the past by marketers who have managed to make bundles of sales for a product without resorting to income claims.

This won't change in an hurry, and neither will the behaviour of many of the duped buyers who would rather wave goodbye to their money than acknowledge their own gullibility by seeking a refund, or keep quiet instead of risk being shouted down by a 'respected' seller and his or her clique on the sales thread. Yet as long as that seller can use Warrior Payments to reel in enough buyers, he can go on to make an income claim that will receive an endorsement from the Warrior Forum.

Of course (and this is where the exception really starts to fall apart and get daft for me), his offer will have to relate to how great his method is for pushing WSOs as the Warrior Forum can't verify anything else. The money he made from combating the effect of penguins and pandas by scrubbing Google down with a wet Facebook page is what's relevant to the sale as far as the buyer is concerned, not how much he made by flogging the method, but since that's the only information the forum can verify then the next WSO he tries to make money from is going to be about how to make money from a WSO. Using Warrior Payments. Handy since he couldn't have provided data to back up the power of The Wet Facebook Page Method anyway.

I'll admit that my cynical self thought at first that the exception was an attempt to claw back any money lost in the implementation of the new rules by pushing the Warrior Payments platform a bit a harder, but since no-one could seriously think that a page selling little else but WSOs teaching how to sell WSOs will do any more for the reputation of the forum than a page full of income claims, there's obviously something I'm not seeing.

Until someone points it out to me, I'm in full agreement with those who say the forum should do away with income claims altogether.

[Antonios]

Originally Posted by RichBeck

From an Accounting perspective, net income is the only way.....

If you were looking into buying a "real" business and they told you they "made" $500,000 a year, you wouldn't want to know their yearly expenses?

It is the same with MMO methods....

If the seller "makes" $50,000.... $35,000 goes to Affiliates.... $5,000 goes to paid traffic... The seller can say in his sales letter and other marketing materials he "made" $50,000?

In MMO, that may make sense... In the "real" business world, everyone wants net income.

We can use the business financial formula: income (earnings) - expenses = profit

Profit could be positive or negative. Negative is where a loss is experienced, that is, that expenses were more than income.

Income is any money going to ones account: being these of products and services sold by oneself or by affiliates.

Expenses is any money that goes out of ones account that is part of the business process: affiliate payments, ad campaigns, traffic, trainings, electricity, software bought, hardware bought, legal services, accounting services, taxes, internet service, hosting, domain name, autoresponders, memberships (examples: WF, BBB, US Chamber of Commerce, etc.), brick and mortar facilities, if any, etc.

If I state in my WSO that I had an income of $500,000, I bet you that to get to this amount of money I did had to make quite an investment to get there, in software, even outsourcing and specially in TRAFFIC. And if I was offering an affiliate program, probably 60 % or more of this went to affiliates commissions.

So that from that income I could end with a profit of $50,000 ????

I think that what we are considering here, specially for newbies, is "PROFITS" or net income.

Most newbies don't understand business principles and when they are presented with a screenshot (supposedly legit), they are looking at income, not PROFITS !!!

That marketer could have had a negative net income or negative profits (a loss), and it didn't show in the screenshots, and it still is income!

As seen by the comments of Warriors here, it is not easy to establish rules that can rule out all dishonest attempts of WSO creators.

But rules can reduce the incidence of dishonest offers.

Sincerely,

Antonios

[jalexanderseo]

Originally Posted by iMassMarket

Unfortunately this is a blind offer... and would be against forum rules.

I agree guess I have to say use this method but you can't make money because that would violate the WF rules so make sure you do nothing and lose money by taking no action today.

[Dennis Gaskill]

Originally Posted by benjamenjuan

It's really not that hard to prove you made money with a particular technique with no screenshots or videos. You'd have to provide temp login info for a mod.

That would be against the TOS of many payment processors. If I were a mod, I wouldn't want anyone's login info anyway. If something bad happened in that time frame the mod would be the first one blamed.

And besides, it wouldn't necessarily prove the income was from the method/system being sold in the WSO.

Originally Posted by iMassMarket

Ummm... not exactly true.

"I made $100 by selling ebooks" is not an income claim. It's a statement. It would only be a claim if it stated "I made $100 selling ebooks and YOU CAN TOO."

It is a statement, but it's a statement that makes a claim. Adding "YOU CAN TOO" makes it an income guarantee. Without the guarantee it's just a claim. You're claiming you earned X amount.

[iAmNameLess]

I don't understand why you won't be allowing scrapers and automation tools? I understand you don't want people selling tools that are used for spamming but that's not a software issue, that's a people issue.

Only real problem I have it the rule regarding software.

[PatriciaS]

I certainly understand the desire -- and need -- to clean things up a bit relative to claims being made about income to be made with this or that spectacular, never-seen-before offer from stellar marketers, and endorse the effort.

However, after reading through this thread to this point, I'm not convinced that the owners/administrators really have a firm handle on WHAT it is they want and need to do, or perhaps HOW to do what they want and need to do.

I thought I'd offer what I think is a useful analogy from a niche that also has to deal with a Federal governing agency -- alternative health products and the FDA. Whether you personally "believe in" herbs and other nutritional supplements, in my experience they have great efficacy if you have the right thing for the right problem and take them in the right doses. That said, the problem becomes making claims for the products which, like the income statements here and elsewhere, may be true or not, ay apply to individuals who becomes customers or not.

What the FDA allows -- thankfully -- is "testimonials," in the form of people's individual stories of what a particular herb, herbal formula or supplement did for them. So if I happen to be selling Purple Loosestrife as an herbal supplement, I wouldn't be able to say: your blood pressure will drop with this tincture, but I could say: MY blood pressure dropped from x to x wit this herb. And I could also use the stories of other people.

Personally, I see no reason why that can't work here--- "I made X amount of dollars over y period of time with this method" is no guarantee of anything, especially if the claim (and the forum) provides an explicit earnings disclaimer.

I especially think this is important since to my way of thinking, WSOs without any indication of how much can be made -- under the best of circumstances, perhaps -- would be pretty meaningless. I mean, would anyone want to buy a product outlining a method for which even the cleverest marketers with large and responsive mailing lists only make a few bucks a week or even less?? That's the best we can expect if ALL mentions of income potential are banned.

Just a thought.