Today, it was revealed that a high profile Internet / direct response marketing company has been  “hiding” its forced continuity program.

In other words, rather than tell people upfront that they’d be billed a certain amount of money per month on an ongoing basis until they cancel their subscription… this company has NOT been warning people, and has, instead, been billing their credit cards regardless.

It’s NOT on.

Now I’m a fan of forced continuity - it’s good for creating a regular stream of income for the company, and it’s good for the customer who doesn’t have to worry about ensuring their subscription or membership is paid up. But not obtaining the customer’s express consent before putting them onto continuity is downright illegal, unethical and BAD marketing.

I hope this particular company - and certain others that have adopted similar practices - is taking notice of the uproar on the blogs and forums about their tactics. Certain people are an inch away from filing complaints with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission.

But I don’t want to see this company go down. The company’s founder is a legend in direct response marketing and I’ve personally learned a lot from him. I want him to continue providing the top-notch marketing advice he’s renowned for!

And frankly, I don’t want this company to undermine the concept of continuity. The more these underhanded tactics go on, the more people will be reluctant to go on any kind of continuity billing program - even one where it is clearly explained to them, and where they can back out (without a hassle) at any time.

Misleading and deceptive conduct is illegal in Australia under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth).

What’s misleading and deceptive conduct? Well, according to the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) it’s any kind of conduct or behavior that could give a customer the wrong impression.

Does that sound a bit vague to you? I mean, in some circumstances it may be obvious that an advertisement is conveying a misleading impression. For example, a property ad that shows the picture of the neighbouring house  is likely to be misleading! But in other circumstances, there may be a fine line between “emphasizing the positives” and being misleading. There may also be a fine line between spelling every single thing out to a potential customer and stating only the main points.

As a result of all this, misleading and deceptive conduct is one of the - if not the most - litigated area of consumer protection law in Australia.

And there’s often a lot of money at stake, with the potential for severe fines, the payment of compensation, and the need to pull expensive advertising campaigns among the many possibilities a company may face if it’s found to have engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct.

Because of the threat of these penalties, etc most large Australian companies get all their advertising and promotional materials reviewed by lawyers to ensure they’re not likely to mislead or deceive.

But let’s forget about the law for a moment and agree on one thing: misleading and deceptive advertising is bad marketing.

Surely the aim of marketing is to profitably attract, satisfy and retain a customer by providing them with a product or service that meets their needs (or wants).

So how, exactly, is promising them something that you can’t or don’t intend to deliver good marketing? Call me old fashioned, but I wouldn’t think that misleading and deceiving a customer is a good way to satisfy or retain them long term. In fact, I would have thought that doing so would lead to customer complaints, customers leaving and bad-mouthing the company, and the company failing to keep its customers long term.

And that’s precisely what happens to companies that go for the “quick fix” by misleading and deceiving customers into thinking they’re getting one thing… and then delivering another (inferior) thing.

So what about the situation where it’s not so clear whether or not something is misleading or not? Well, my rule of thumb is that if people are debating about it within the company… the warning bells are ringing!

Customers are likely to have even less clarity over whether or not something is misleading or deceptive or not than the product managers and marketers, so you’re probably risking complaints and possible legal action by persisting with something that’s “on the edge.”

By all means take marketing risks, but don’t take legal risks.

If there’s one genuine “thought leader” in the Internet marketing niche, it’s most certainly Rich Schefren.

Last year, starting with the Internet Marketing Manifesto, Rich brought out a series of reports that “told it how it is” when it comes to the chances of someone building wealth through selling on the web. Among other things, he made the distinction between “opportunist” on the lookout for the latest “get rich quick scheme” and the “entrepreneur” who genuinely wants to build a business that has and offers value. Needless to say, entrepreneurs are the ones who build lasting wealth… while opportunists end up with nothing but dreams that never get realized. Rich explains why in the Internet Marketing Manifesto and the reports that followed.

Earlier this year, Rich Schefren released the Attention Age Doctrine Part 1, and just now he’s followed it up with the Attention Age Doctrine Part 2.

==> Attention Age Doctrine Part 2

What can I say - the Attention Age Doctrine Part 2 is a must-read for anyone who wants an insight into the current trends in Internet marketing (and marketing in general). Rich has already shown exemplary foresight with his observations in previous reports. Just as convincing are the arguments he makes in the Attention Age Doctrine Part 2.

Arguments about what? Arguments about how to build a successful business FAST… despite the mounting competitive pressures you face online.

Along with Eben Pagan, who I’ve mentioned in a previous post, Rich Schefren is one of the few Internet marketing authorities - or, if you prefer “Internet marketing gurus” - who I listen to. I urge you to do the same. Get the report here:

==> Attention Age Doctrine Part 2

And let’s discuss some of it in future posts.