Ok, I put this topic here because I couldn't really figure out where else to put it. And, since everyone here is obviously an Internet user, I don't need to include any links to "prove" that the topic I'm posting about exists. We all know about this stuff...... (Disclaimer over)

On the Internet we are constantly being bombarded with offers of "free" stuff. Probably some of those offers have even shown up here on AD, and that's not a knock at AD, it is the nature of the beast with Internet advertising these days. Plasma TV, free software, new computer, vacations, you name it. All "free". Hell of a deal right? Sure sounds good to me.

So, be honest now, how many of you have actually attempted to get one of these things for free? Raise your hands. Ok, now look around the room. Those with their hands down are suspect. For those with their hands down who are truly being honest with us I would suggest for the purposes of this debate that they respond to one of these "free stuff" ads using a fake name and address and a throw-away E-mail account and see what happens. The rest of us know. IT'S A SCAM.

First of all they take you to a bunch of "product surveys" asking you if you want to receive information on various products which basically means you add your name to a spam list. To opt out, you need to specifically select "no" (I'm working on a macro to do that and I'll be spamming to sell that one in the near future ). I'll give it to anyone here for "free" though..... if you answer a few questions.... And, after about 10 screens of opting out of survey's, you get to the "you're almost done" page. Great! That 42" plasma TV is going to look great in my living room! Opps! Spoke too soon.... Now you have to buy something to "qualify" for the "free offer". How does that work? How is something "free" if you have to buy something to get it? It's kind of like offering a free MP3 player to people and "forgetting" to tell them up front that it comes in a $40,000 car and you have to buy the car first. Try pulling something like that in the "real world" and you're going to get a nice visit and chat with the local DA. But, on the Internet, anything goes. Or so it seems.

So, my questions for debate here are the following......

Should Congress pass a "truth in advertising" law for the Internet?

If so, how should it be enforced? Criminal or a Civil Class action lawsuit?

Bonus question: Has anyone here ever truly received something "free" from an Internet ad?


(Note to the moderators: If there is a better forum for this, please feel free to move it)


Aquilla

In today’s “Pop Culture” image is everything. To have the right look, the right logo, the right slogan and jingle, is all important. Armed with such advertisements one can sell anything from peanuts to Presidents. Indeed, in the slick world of Madison Avenue, it is not the product but the promotion that matters; for people are so gullible that they will believe anything - and buy it! It pays to advertise; it is no different on the internet.

But, it is different on the Internet.

Let's say you get a coupon in the mail for a free hamburger at the local fast food joint. That's all it says, "Free hamburger". Ok, great, so you take your coupon to the place and present it and instead of giving you your free hamburger, they ask you to take a 20 page survey. Ok, so you fill out the survey and then, and only then do they tell you that in order to get the free hamburger, you have to buy another hamburger first. So, it's not really "free" after all. And, that's deceptive advertising and illegal in "real life". That's why coupons have the fine print with "terms and conditions" printed on them. Not so on the Internet. Let's look at a case study I did on the Internet in preparation for this post and see if this is deceptive advertising or not. I think it is...


I received an E-Mail from the Apple Developers Connection advertising their new OSX release 'Leopard". Ok, no problem, I'm a member of ADC, I use it every day in my work and it's a terrific resource. Part of that E-Mail is an advertisement from a website called "MisterSurvey.com" that offers a free copy of Leopard.



That's a copy of the offer from the E-Mail.

Ok, so I click on their ad and it takes me to the their website where they are offering Leopard for free. Great! So what do I have to do to get it? According to the website (and I'm purposely not including that link), all I have to do is enter my E-Mail address, shipping address and step 3: I'm almost done.



That's what the banner says. Ok, so I do step 1 - E-Mail address with a Gmail account I don't care about. Shipping address to... well, I won't say to where, but it wasn't mine and I'm al most done right? No, I'm not. Next I have to fill out 10 pages of offers for spam from various companies. Check no on every one and then, and only then comes the kicker... You have to purchase something from one of their clients in order to "qualify". Some kind of "free" offer right? In the real world we'd call it fraud or at least deceptive advertising. I think it's fraud because they've gained something of value from me (my E-Mail address which they turn around and sell and I'll get to that in a minute) for nothing in return other than an empty promise.

Ok, so I checked out their website.... In their "about us" page, they talk about all kinds of "Free*" stuff. Note the asterisk. Here's a sample.....



First time I saw the asterisk, it wasn't in the original ADC ad. So, what does it mean? Read the fine print at the bottom, light gray over white.......



"Completion of all requirements" includes the purchase of a product. So much for free. That's the deceptive advertising part. I had to specifically look at their website even to find the asterisk. Now, what about the fraud?

As I stated above I went through their "survey" using a throw away E-Mail address. I didn't complete the offer because I didn't want to buy their product, but they sure sold my name. I checked this morning in that account and already offers from their "survey" were showing up in the In Box. So, it seems to me they gained something of value from me without fulfilling their end of the bargain. But, that's the Internet I guess. So, should the FTC step in on this one?


Aquilla

Thank you, Nemo for, yet again, a most eloquent non-answer to the questions. When do you announce your candidacy?




Should Congress pass a "truth in advertising" law for the Internet?
I would love to see a "truth in advertising" law for the internet. The internet is a marketplace like any other. Right now, finding deals on the internet is like goint to a bazaar in Morocco. You might get a great deal, you might be drugged, robbed and dumped in an alley.

If so, how should it be enforced? Criminal or a Civil Class action lawsuit?
How are "truth in advertising" laws handled for non-internet advertisers? I think they should be handled in the same way.

Maybe the FTC can regulate Internet advertising that originates in the US, or maybe advertising from foreign servers that access the US-side backbones. Not sure how a firewall would detect the advertising though.

I have tried out one of these deals just to see where it turns out bogus. For me my time is valuable, no matter what, not being hourly or salary. But I donate it here because it makes a nice break from the grind. As for giving me something free, just send cash please.

The following things I have found to be truly free: the beauty of nature, heartaches, open source software, trash, drug tests (free for me), true love, faith & hope, uncanned air, some rocks (they're being claimed at an astonishing rate), bird droppings (look out! look out!), outside critters who visit (deer, fox, racoons, skunks, a bear now and then), and death, although it leaves expenses for others if you're not careful. I've probably missed a few other truly free things.

Everything else costs. Oh well.

Advertising does work. It's a shame. That's why I don't do ad writing gigs except for my own stuff. It's honest too, keeps the clients happy and asking for more. With commodities it's different, so you get the fake come-ons and the misleading language.

Should Congress pass a "truth in advertising" law for the Internet?
If so, how should it be enforced? Criminal or a Civil Class action lawsuit?

The consequences of such an act, regardless of how it was "enforced," would be to run U.S. based Internet advertisers, and the tax money they bring in, into another country. This is simple to do, cheap, and would have no impact on the ads you see on any web sites, U.S. or otherwise. They wouldn't even necessarily need to close their physical U.S. offices (they they bothered to have any in the first place.) The ads you see aren't necessarily hosted in the U.S., but rather brought in from another server, which could be anywhere on Earth. U.S. law doesn't apply to web business hosted in other countries.

As an example, when they made online gambling illegal in the U.S., at the behest of U.S. casino operators, they drove those online casino out of the country, along with their tax income, and yet there are just as many online casino as ever, and the worst any U.S gambler endured was the hassle of choosing a new site (presuming the same old site didn't just relocate overseas.)

So the real question you should be asking is whether the the U.S deserves to get any tax money at all from Internet business, since we obviously don't understand the relationship between U.S. law and the Internet? Why would any business choose to operate out of the U.S., when Eastern Europe, or any number of economically hungry nations, will give you massive incentives to host out of their nation, with few legal restrictions, and you don't even have to visit!

Bonus question: Has anyone here ever truly received something "free" from an Internet ad?

I read an article about a fella that worked these systems hard, and did end up getting quite a bit of free stuff. It's almost a full-time job, but it will payoff, so long as you read the agreements carefully, and abide by the terms (which generally means subscribing to "free trial" pay sites that auto-bill, so he needed to keep accurate, extensive notes on what he had signed up for, and remember to end his memberships before he was charged.

The way it works now in the "real world" as opposed to the Internet is that the FTC typically goes after the client, not the ad agency. The theory behind this is that the agency is in effect a hired agent of the client and that any claims made by that agency are made in behalf of the client. So, the client is ultimately responsible and if they are doing business in the US, they fall under the jurisdiction of the FTC. From the website I referenced in my "case study' above.....



I doubt seriously that any of those companies would welcome an investigation by the FTC into fraudulent or deceptive practices being conducted on their behalf. If you can remove them as a client for an off-shore ad agency, you remove a major source of income for that agency.


Aquilla

I would take it a step further and include spyware, adware, and trojans to the mix. Not all advertisements use them, but many do. Also, even if you say "no" to the offers, you still get a bombardment of spam emails.

In my opinion, though, it is these horrible tactics that make internet advertising profitable. If they were more regulated, there would be no profit, and all the free email services such as hotmail, free sites like myspace, free storage websites, etc.... would become pay sites. Personally, I'd rather have free services on the internet and never click on an advertisement than have to pay ten bucks a month for every site I use now just so I don't have to look at them.

I disagree with you, Ataal. I think such nefarious practices actually make Internet advertising less profitable than it could be and the proof is in what your wrote.



If you're not clicking then the cash register ain't ringing. And you're not clicking because you don't trust the ad in the first place, even though it might be something you're interested in purchasing. That overall lack of trust in the truthfulness of Internet advertising hurts the honest people out there who are offering goods and services for a fair price. It would seem to me that those people would be on the front lines calling for the Internet to get cleaned up and perhaps some of them are. But, as more people opt out of making "the click" as you have, there's going to be problems in the future for Internet advertising.

Aquilla

Should Congress pass a "truth in advertising" law for the Internet?

As tempting as it is to grow the government to enforce yet more regulation...

If so, how should it be enforced? Criminal or a Civil Class action lawsuit?

I think what you've hit on here, Aquilla, is really an idea for a startup. Similar to how anti-virus/anti-malware companies work, you could provide both an application and a service for people to buy to automatically vet untruthful advertisements. I'd much rather have a free-market solution to this problem than create yet more government infrastructure.

Bonus question: Has anyone here ever truly received something "free" from an Internet ad?

I haven't. But, then I'm not a very good consumer; I don't buy much. I don't click on ads that much either.

I follow your logic. My point is that while I may not click on those ads, some people do, and if it makes me selfish to want free services at the expense of others, so be it. That may sound harsh, but I'm not going to pay for an email account, nor will I pay for a site like myspace just so I don't have to look at a free month supply of Viagra ad.

I've never understood why telemarketing and internet advertisement is so profitable. I have never in my life known anyone that has actually bought something from either of them. I would love to find someone who has to ask them a few questions. Maybe someone here has? Do tell!

I certainly didn't mean to imply that you are "selfish" or anything like that, Ataal. Quite the contrary. You're a savvy Internet user who knows a scam when they see one. And as more and more people "wise up" to the scams and stop clicking on the ads, all of the ads even the legit ones, what's going to happen to the Internet? Who is going to end up paying for it?

Just as an example. Let's say I have a business offering a service to people on the Internet and as a promotional thing I decide to contract with Mike here on AD to offer a free sample of my work on his website. It's all legit. You send me what information I need and I'll show you a sample of what I can do with it. Hopefully, you will like what I do and end up buying my services. Best case. You try it, you like it, you buy it. You're happy. I get business, I perform the service promised, you're happy, I make money, I'm happy. Mike runs the ad, he gets paid, he's happy. And, life goes on in the AD world with at least three happy campers. But, there is another scenario......

You come here, see the ad and the word "free sample" and because of the scammers out there figure it's just another scam. So, you don't take me up on my offer, don't purchase my service, don't click on my ad. You figure that's a pretty cool service, something I could use, but there must be a catch. So, now you're not a happy camper. You didn't buy from me so I'm not a happy camper, and I'm not buying any more ads from Mike because I'm not making any money from them, so he's not a happy camper. Three unhappy campers here on AD........ Kinda like the aftermath of the 2004 election...

Now, I would like to see the private sector handle this problem on their own and I'm open to ideas on how to do that. But, in the absence of some kind of solution from there, I'm wondering if governmental intervention might not be appropriate for at least the short term.


Aquilla

I didn't mean to imply you thought I was selfish, it was more of a self-reflective observance. I just don't want to have to have yet another bill. It's bad enough that basic cable doesn't include any cable news channels such as cnn or fox anymore and yet I'm paying the same price now as I did ten years ago when MTV, Nickelodeon, and CNN were all still covered under basic cable. Been to the movies lately? It's twenty bucks per person if you want a drink and some twizzlers, too. I'm not even thirty yet and I used to be able to go to a movie and get a drink for five bucks. This is a little off-topic, I know, but everything has shot up in price so much that the thought of having to pay ten bucks a month for email makes me sick to my stomach.

I do see your point that with the number of scams out there today, even the legit advertisers are going to go belly up. When that happens, websites are going to have to charge. We certainly don't hold internet advertisers to the same standards as we do for those we see in newspapers and our mail. As was said before, servers are many times located outside the U.S., even the website's servers that those advertisements are on are sometimes located outside the U.S. as well. I'm not a big fan of international government, but the internet may be an exception to that rule.

A little off topic, but this might have a slight bit of relevance. A couple months ago, Torrentspy's website had a lawsuit filed against them and have now denied access(although there are ways around it) to the search function of the site from any IP address residing in the United States. If you go to the forums, there are a lot of angry americans, and a lot of canadians, germans, and the like calling us whiny. Fast forward to now, the site has gone downhill because it relies on a lot of american based torrents, such as games, movies, etc... Now it's the canadians and germans "whining". With no international standard on the internet, one lawsuit from only one country can have an enormous effect on websites. We may start seeing this kind of thing going on regarding internet advertising soon.

If the internet advertising constitutes unfair or deceptive practices that are likely to cause substantial consumer injury to the public, it would be subject to legal action by the Federal Trade Commission for injunctive and other relief under Sections 5 and 13(b ) of the Federal Trace Commission Act. Such actions would be brought in the United States District Court having subject matter jurisdiction under the provisions of 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a) and (n), 53(b ), and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337(a) and 1345; and venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b ) and (c ).