It's an ebook with worksheets and additional case studies / interviews from freelancers who charge a lot (most notably: Amy Hoy and Thomas Fuchs).
Take a screenshot of this comment as witness, but I'm serious about refunding anyone who ends up not being able to raise their client rates. Paying for stuff that doesn't deliver value is dumb.
> Take a screenshot of this comment as witness, but I'm serious about refunding anyone who ends up not being able to raise their client rates.
Some advice -- you really, really don't want to do this. You don't need to guarantee results to sell a worthwhile book, and IMHO you shouldn't.
Here's why:
1. Let's say you have a profit margin of 20% on your book overall -- printing costs, promotion, etc. versus income.
2. Let's also say that 80% of your book's readers do increase their client base as you claim.
3. The problem is that the remaining 20% can take you at your word, demand a refund, explain that the book was lost in a fire, and succeed in wiping out your profit.
4. Worse, someone might say your claim moved your book from the category of an ordinary caveat-emptor purchase, to a guarantee of success, and demand consequential damages. Very bad, and you made it possible.
It works like this: Because of the First Amendment, an author can say virtually anything in a book -- anything. But when you make a claim about a book's contents to motivate sales, you short-circuit First Amendment protections -- you turn your book from a freely expressed opinion, to a method with a guaranteed outcome. Very bad idea.
> Paying for stuff that doesn't deliver value is dumb.
Not as dumb as making an unnecessary claim that has a potentially disastrous outcome.
Just my opinion, expressed in words, with no guarantees.
You believe something about people's behavior which is a testable proposition about the nature of material reality, like "If you push an apple off a table it will accelerate to the nearest cat." The scientific method exists. Have no worries, your apples and profits are both safe, because both those theories are absolutely false.
Quote: "Commercial speech holds a special place in First Amendment analysis. It is not an unprotected category of speech, nor is it afforded the same level of protection as non-commercial speech. In addition, there are sub-categories within commercial speech. Truthful commercial speech is afforded protection while false or deceptive commercial speech is not protected."
Here is another account that makes the same point:
Quote: "In 2004, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) banned Kevin Trudeau from appearing in any infomercial promoting any product except publications, which are protected by the First Amendment, provided he did not misrepresent the content of the publication."
What these rulings mean is that the contents of a book are protected by the First Amendment, but promotional claims about the book are not.
Interesting that you would mention the scientific method, then offer no evidence for your theory.
I said what I did because I have seen it happen countless times in a long career that has included a lot of writing. I have the evidence. When someone makes a performance claim about the contents of a book, the book then becomes nearly irrelevant to the outcome, which hinges on the claim.
Money-back guarantees virtually invariably raise sales in A/B tests. I have never seen one decreases sales in a statistically significant fashion. I have never seen a guarantee meaningfully increase refund rates. (No customer of mine has refund rates worth mentioning. I will literally mail paper checks to people who bought my software five years ago and my refund rate is below ~2%.) If you have data to the contrary, I bow to the data.
As it happens, I have a product launch coming up. I will offer a money back guarantee, and I will do it in an A/B test. If I am wrong, and the guarantee statistically significantly decreases sales, I will a) have a cow and b) donate a cow to charity. If I am right, you don't have to do anything, because being consistently right at this sort of prediction makes propositional bets with authors a distinctly inferior way to increase one's income versus just being consistently right at this sort of thing.
> Money-back guarantees virtually invariably raise sales in A/B tests.
The original poster didn't make a money-back guarantee, as in "If you aren't happy with my book, I will refund." Instead he made a claim about increasing the number of clients, i.e. a performance claim ("I'm serious about refunding anyone who ends up not being able to raise their client rates."). Here's the law on that issue:
Quote: "Commercial speech holds a special place in First Amendment analysis. It is not an unprotected category of speech, nor is it afforded the same level of protection as non-commercial speech. In addition, there are sub-categories within commercial speech. Truthful commercial speech is afforded protection while false or deceptive commercial speech is not protected."
Here is another account that makes the same point:
Quote: "In 2004, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) banned Kevin Trudeau from appearing in any infomercial promoting any product except publications, which are protected by the First Amendment, provided he did not misrepresent the content of the publication."
What these rulings mean is that the contents of a book are protected by the First Amendment, but promotional claims about the book are not.
You keep talking about "commercial speech" being different from "non-commercial speech", as if that explains your claim that "If you aren't happy with my book, I will refund." (claim A) is a safe thing to say, but "I'm serious about refunding anyone who ends up not being able to raise their client rates." (claim B) isn't.
But both claim A and claim B look like commercial speech to me!
Both are promises to provide refunds under certain specified conditions. One, claim A, offers refunds under the broad and hard to dis-prove condition of "aren't happy with the book", while claim B offers refunds under a somewhat narrower and slightly easier to verify condition of "not able to raise rates". How is claim B more dangerous than claim A?
And comparing commercial speech vs. the contents of a book is irrelevant, since neither claim A nor claim B is contained within a book.
> But both claim A and claim B look like commercial speech to me!
One of them offer a refund without making any kind of claim, the other makes a claim about the contents of the book and about what outcome purchasers have a right to expect. They are treated differently under the law.
But I can see you are simply not going to get this, no matter how many cases I quote for you, how many legal decisions.
> How is claim B more dangerous than claim A?
One of the statements offer a refund without making any kind of claim about the book's effect. The other makes a claim about the book's effect.
Imagine you are a doctor, offering a miracle cure that is in the pages of a book. To one group you say, "If you're not happy with my book, I will give you your money back."
To the other you say, "My book provides a cure for cancer. If your cancer isn't cured, I will give you your money back."
The first pitch is protected under the First Amendment because it doesn't describe the book's contents or effect, and therefore it doesn't matter what the book says. The second doesn't have First Amendment protection, because it's commercial speech that makes a claim about the contents of the book. In the second case, the author makes the mistake of making a claim about the book and its contents in his promotion, outside the protection of the First Amendment.
Quote: "Trudeau insisted his First Amendment rights were being infringed, and began advertising books rather than diet supplements in new infomercials ... [but] the new ruling requires Trudeau to give back all the money he made from selling books during the infomercial ban."
The reason Trudeau lost his case, even though he was selling books, is because he didn't just sell the books, he described what the reader should expect from them in his pitches. It was on this basis that the court ruled against him.
Are you seriously comparing a guy who says "Raise your professional service rates or your money back" to a guy peddling a snake oil cancer cure… or are you trolling to see what shakes out?
The person's reason for speaking isn't the issue, the law is the only issue. My point is performance claims are actionable, but the contents of a book are not.
Do you really think people only initiate legal actions when someone has actually misrepresented something? That's naive. My point was the OP was taking an unnecessary risk, when he could simply have said "If you're not happy, I'll refund your money."
I'm doubtful about points 2 and 3 since it doesn't match my observations of how people really act†, but point 4 really sounds out there. Like, anybody can sue over anything. Does this meaningfully increase your risk? It's really hard to imagine some lawsuit-happy fellow who would sue you if you offered them a refund but not if you didn't offer a refund. Have you actually seen much of this?
† My experience is that people tend to be very lazy about things like mail-in rebates and and money-back guarantees, passing them up even when they're perfectly entitled.
You're #4 seems legally dubious at best. I can't imagine any court in the land upholding the idea that purchasing any education material with an implied promise of results grants the purchaser 'consequential damages'.
An easy smell test for this idea is the "get rich quick in real estate" infomercial.
Quote: "Commercial speech holds a special place in First Amendment analysis. It is not an unprotected category of speech, nor is it afforded the same level of protection as non-commercial speech. In addition, there are sub-categories within commercial speech. Truthful commercial speech is afforded protection while false or deceptive commercial speech is not protected."
Here is another account that makes the same point:
Quote: "In 2004, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) banned Kevin Trudeau from appearing in any infomercial promoting any product except publications, which are protected by the First Amendment, provided he did not misrepresent the content of the publication."
What these rulings mean is that the contents of a book are protected by the First Amendment, but promotional claims about the book are not.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment - the bit about making a guarantee that your product will do X really does make sense when put like that.
Ultimately, I realize a few things 1) relatively few people take up money back guarantee offers and 2) I do want to ensure that people are happy with their purchase. Maybe there's a better way of doing that than ensuring some outcome?
Yes -- but my book isn't a traditional, mass-printed book like that under discussion. When someone orders a copy of my book, one copy gets printed and shipped. Unlike in traditional publishing, there are no piles of my book in a warehouse, awaiting sale.
And I have to tell you, this new publishing model is going to wipe out the old model (so-called "dead-tree publishing"). And pretty soon, even that model will fall before the e-book model, where no "book" is printed at all, ever.
But as a writer I've dealt with various aspects of the old-style publishing business over a period of decades, not all with respect to books.
I see. So where do your very strong assertions about the folly of money-back guarantees come from? Data? Experience? Do you have friends who've done it?
I ask because I have lots of experience with it -- with 4 products offering total money-back guarantees -- and have insight into more than 10 friends' businesses with similar guarantees, and not a single one of us have had experience with refund abuse like you describe. Nor is it ever mentioned as an issue among the larger communities which offer that type of product for sale.
As patio11 said, your statements are testable, and if you test them, you will find them false.
I was simply summarizing. Here are your exact words:
"3. The problem is that the remaining 20% can take you at your word, demand a refund, explain that the book was lost in a fire, and succeed in wiping out your profit.
4. Worse, someone might say your claim moved your book from the category of an ordinary caveat-emptor purchase, to a guarantee of success, and demand consequential damages. Very bad, and you made it possible."
With your bulleted list you suggested that 20% of people would take advantage of a return policy (obliterating your presumed 20% profit margin), and on top of that, you might get sued.
If that's not "folly" by your definition, what is?
But because you cried foul, let me be explicit, step by step, with what you "actually" said:
#3. Where's your experience, evidence, or data to suggest that a 20% return rate is common or likely -- even with a results guarantee?
#4. Please provide credible examples of an (e)book author or video course producer being sued for damages above and beyond their refunded money-back guarantee, based on the premise of results promised not being delivered. (Other reasons for lawsuits wouldn't count.)
If you have evidence, I'd really love to see it, because it impacts my business.
Next, how can you not see that I'm comparing the OP's performance claim ("I'm serious about refunding anyone who ends up not being able to raise their client rates") to a simple money-back guarantee -- "If you're not happy, I'll give you back your money." I have to say there is a world of difference between the two, and others have made the same point in this thread.
> Please provide credible examples of an (e)book author or video course producer being sued for damages above and beyond their refunded money-back guarantee
Sure, no problem, since they practically grow on trees:
Quote: "Trudeau's activities have been the subject of both criminal and civil action. He was convicted of larceny and credit card fraud in the early 1990s, and in 1998 he was sued by U.S. Federal Trade Commission for making false or misleading claims in his infomercials promoting his book,'The Weight-Loss Cure "They" Don't Want You to Know About [emphasis added]. In 2004, he settled that action, by agreeing to pay a $500,000 fine and consenting to a lifetime ban on promoting products other than his books via infomercials [not mentioned in this article is that he was required to be truthful about the contents of his books]. [1] On Nov. 29, 2011, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a $37.6 million fine levied against him for violating that 2004 settlement [by lying about the contents of his books]. Additionally, on remand, the district court modified its final order, requiring that he post a $2 million bond before engaging in future infomercial advertising."
The above example is someone who made performance claims about his books and lost. Second example -- Greg Mortenson:
Quote: "Regardless of whether claims are true that author Greg Mortenson fabricated portions of "Three Cups of Tea," neither he nor his publisher can be held liable because the First Amendment protects exaggerations or lies in memoirs, his publisher's attorney said Wednesday.
Penguin Group (USA) attorney Jonathan Herman and attorneys for Mortenson, co-author David Oliver Relin and Mortenson's charity, the Central Asia Institute, asked a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit filed by four people who bought Mortenson's bestselling books."
Notice about this case, that the lawsuit was dismissed because the claims are all in a book, and while fund-raising, Mortenson never claimed anything beyond the book's content, thus he is protected by the First Amendment.
I could give dozens of examples like those above. The basic thread that runs through all of them is if it is between the covers of a book, in most cases you're safe. But if you make claims while promoting the book, unless they are absolutely bulletproof, someone might sue you. This doesn't mean you have to misbehave to get sued -- people sue on bogus grounds all the time. My point is it's best to avoid opening yourself up to a lawsuit by careless "commercial speech":
The debate wasn't, isn't, has never been about whether "commercial speech is First Amendment speech."
The debate is whether you have evidence to support your claims that it's a very risky and legally actionable idea to offer a refund if people don't see results. Assuming that the offer is truthful.
You have not offered any.
You've found one case where a person was sued for hawking a cancer cure and rapid weight loss, but even so, the lawsuits were over flat out lies inherent in the product and not any kind of results-or-money-back guarantee.
It's pretty amazing. No matter how often I ask for evidence for this assertion of yours, you manage to change the topic. I salute you. You would make an excellent press secretary.
> The debate wasn't, isn't, has never been about whether "commercial speech is First Amendment speech."
Yes, as a matter of fact, it is. The OP was making a mistake by making a performance claim about his book. By doing so, he abandoned the First Amendment protection of the book's contents.
If he had said "money back if you're not happy" but without referring to the book's contents, that could hardly get him in trouble. But by referring to the book's contents and anticipated effect, he opened himself up to people who might like to hold him accountable for the book's contents, something they cannot do if he doesn't refer to the book's contents.
Because of First Amendment protections, it's not possible to hold someone responsible for a book's contents, unless the person makes claims about the contents as part of his sales pitch. This is what got Kevin Trudeau in trouble, even though he was selling books (he believed he was protected, but for the reasons I have just given, he wasn't).
> You've found one case where a person was sued for hawking a cancer cure and rapid weight loss, but even so, the lawsuits were over flat out lies inherent in the product
No, the problem wasn't lies, the problem was the location of the lies. You can lie in a book, but you cannot lie in a sales pitch. Kevin Trudeau either didn't know this or didn't care.
Greg Mortenson wrote a book called "Three Cups of Tea," and raised millions for his charitable activities. Investigators then discovered that his book is a pack of lies, but because it's a book, he couldn't be sued (Mortenson never told the lies outside his book).
Quote: "First Amendment expert and general counsel of the First Amendment Lawyers Association Wayne Giampietro calls those claims absurd, reports the AP.
“It’s his story. It purports to be his experiences. He can say it any way he wants to say. He has the right to publish anything he wants about himself,” Giampietro said. “The idea that you can be sued because perhaps they don’t like what you wrote, for whatever reason, is absurd.” "
My point? If it's between the covers of a book, it doesn't matter what you say, you're protected. If it's part of a sales pitch, someone can try to sue you, and not all plaintiffs are angels.
It is entirely about the difference between protected speech and commercial speech. In a book, you can say anything. In a pitch, you cannot. Very simple.
> No matter how often I ask for evidence for this assertion of yours, you manage to change the topic.
You're the one trying to change the topic. You just tried to claim this isn't about the difference between constitutionally protected and commercial speech. But that is the only issue.
> I'm serious about refunding anyone who ends up not being able to raise their client rates.
Since someone who doesn't understand constitutional law downvoted my original post, I want to try again to make you aware of something. Here is a quotation from a page the cites the constitutional law on the issue of performance claims:
Quote: "Commercial speech holds a special place in First Amendment analysis. It is not an unprotected category of speech, nor is it afforded the same level of protection as non-commercial speech. In addition, there are sub-categories within commercial speech. Truthful commercial speech is afforded protection while false or deceptive commercial speech is not protected." (Emphasis added.)
Here is another account that makes the same point:
Quote: "In 2004, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) banned Kevin Trudeau from appearing in any infomercial promoting any product except publications, which are protected by the First Amendment, provided he did not misrepresent the content of the publication."
What these rulings mean is that the contents of a book are protected by the First Amendment, but promotional claims about the book are not.
Also, saying "If you aren't happy with my book, I will refund your money" isn't a claim about the book's contents. Saying "I'm serious about refunding anyone who ends up not being able to raise their client rates" is a claim about the book's contents, and its effect. The second is a problem, the first isn't.
Take a screenshot of this comment as witness, but I'm serious about refunding anyone who ends up not being able to raise their client rates. Paying for stuff that doesn't deliver value is dumb.