Proactive or Paranoid: As Seen On...

Roundabout

Roundabout

Banned
Apr 20, 2009
3,500
125
0
About every lander I see has the symbols for:

NYTimes
Esquire
AOL
CNN
USA Today
Forbes
msn-Yahoo

All strung out horizontally, usually above the fold, with "As Seen On".

So, is this something that will eventually bite everyone in the ass in the near/far future? I doubt many of us who do these on their landers actually checked to see if the offer theyre promoting was on these media outlets. I'd bet many people just find that horizontal compilation of media logos and slap it on their page.

So.. Paranoid (don't worry about it) or ProActive (time to start thinking about ditching them)?
 


I know when I used to create LPs for clients they'd ask for that section to be added, when I asked them what logos they wanted they'd say "doesn't matter". So no, barely anybody actually checks.
 
I tell clients to take an ad out in whatever news outlets they use as seen in on their landers.

As long as you buy a cheap ad you can legally say as seen in ... NYT, US Today, etc..
 
  • Like
Reactions: volknet
IANAL but I'm going with bite you in the ass. It's not a matter of truthfulness, did this product actually appear on CNN. It's a matter of did I get approval from CNN to use their trademark for commercial gain.
 
Yeah but when you see "As Seen on Forbes" for example, does it mean Forbes wrote a review in praise of the product? What if Forbes wrote about how the public should avoid that particular offer (e.g. it's a scam), so the Advertiser rationalizes "well, my offer WAS mentioned in Forbes" and all of us suckers promote it "as seen on Forbes?"

I guess this all falls under the category of "how far should a pub go" for due diligence. I personally don't have the time to research all that crap, that will be my defense before the judge. :-)
 
Roundabout said:
Yeah but when you see "As Seen on Forbes" for example, does it mean Forbes wrote a review in praise of the product? What if Forbes wrote about how the public should avoid that particular offer (e.g. it's a scam), so the Advertiser rationalizes "well, my offer WAS mentioned in Forbes" and all of us suckers promote it "as seen on Forbes?"

I guess this all falls under the category of "how far should a pub go" for due diligence. I personally don't have the time to research all that crap, that will be my defense before the judge. :-)
Click to expand...

If you ran in ad in Forbes (online or off), it's completely legit to say "As Seen in Forbes".
 
Garrett said:
If you ran in ad in Forbes (online or off), it's completely legit to say "As Seen in Forbes".
Click to expand...

Ok, I wasnt even thinking of it from that angle. I was thinking "As Seen In Forbes" means Forbes wrote a review/story about the offer, not that you took an ad out in the publication. That alone could be considered deceptive advertising.

EDIT: So this means if I were take an Acai ad out in Oprahs "O" magazine, and they accepted it, I could say "As seen in Oprah's O Magazine"? You dont think that alone would have me at the top of the suit list?
 
As seen in, just says its been seen there, it doesnt say the context, thats the subjective part that the consumer assumes its context and bases their decision on it.

Just like youre assuming the context, it could be bad, good, or just an ad, but its been seen there so the content is accurate.
 
Roundabout said:
Ok, I wasnt even thinking of it from that angle. I was thinking "As Seen In Forbes" means Forbes wrote a review/story about the offer, not that you took an ad out in the publication. That alone could be considered deceptive advertising.
Click to expand...

Its not deceptive at all because an ad is Forbes is true that its been seen there. Youre assuming that its an article but it doesnt say, forbes wrote an article :)

Power of words and their explicit meaning, most people add words to what they see
 
Roundabout said:
EDIT: So this means if I were take an Acai ad out in Oprahs "O" magazine, and they accepted it, I could say "As seen in Oprah's O Magazine"? You dont think that alone would have me at the top of the suit list?
Click to expand...

Nope its true. Your product was seen in her magazine.
 
mkrongel said:
Its not deceptive at all because an ad is Forbes is true that its been seen there. Youre assuming that its an article but it doesnt say, forbes wrote an article
Click to expand...

Playing devil's advocate here, mainly because you almost have to, to be a step ahead of what shit is gonna fall one day soon, but, I dunno Mike.. that seems pretty deceptive to me, especially using their trademarked logos to make that claim...

Nope its true. Your product was seen in her magazine.
Click to expand...

And the Acai product was seen on her tv-show. And all you had to do was have Oprahs face on your lander and you were nailed. Please explain the difference.
 
mkrongel said:
I tell clients to take an ad out in whatever news outlets they use as seen in on their landers.

As long as you buy a cheap ad you can legally say as seen in ... NYT, US Today, etc..
Click to expand...

Under that reasoning it would okay to throw "As Seen on Wickedfire" with the WickedFire logo on the landing page of a shitty make monies online ebook because they posted a thread in SBT. Somehow I think WickedFire would have a different perspective if the tables were turned.

You're missing the whole trademark infringement issue. I'm not saying it's not cut and dry in either direction, it's a gray area.
 
Roundabout said:
Playing devil's advocate here, mainly because you almost have to, to be a step ahead of what shit is gonna fall one day soon, but, I dunno Mike.. that seems pretty deceptive to me, especially using their trademarked logos to make that claim...



And the Acai product was seen on her tv-show. And all you had to do was have Oprahs face on your lander and you were nailed. Please explain the difference.
Click to expand...

Try running CNNRecommendsAcai.com, claiming CNN.com and various news casters recommend the product or used it personally, and let me know how it goes.
 
Roundabout said:
Playing devil's advocate here, mainly because you almost have to, to be a step ahead of what shit is gonna fall one day soon, but, I dunno Mike.. that seems pretty deceptive to me, especially using their trademarked logos to make that claim...
Click to expand...
You could argue that there is no way anyone could confuse CNN with an acai berry manufacturer, so their trademark is unenforceable in that realm. Apple claimed that people could not confuse their computers with Beatle's music so they could legally rip-off their logo.

But, from Wikipedia:
Under trademark law, dilution occurs either when unauthorized use of a mark "blurs" the "distinctive nature of the mark" or "tarnishes it." Likelihood of confusion is not required. 15 U.S.C §§ 1127, 1125(c)

So they still have the grounds to sue the piss out of you...

Roundabout said:
And the Acai product was seen on her tv-show. And all you had to do was have Oprahs face on your lander and you were nailed. Please explain the difference.
Click to expand...


From Exercise Caution With Celebrity Images | Art Business News | Find Articles at BNET

"the law makes liable a person who uses a personality's name, voice, photograph or likeness in any manner or in products, merchandise or goods or for the purpose of advertising, selling or soliciting purchases without consent."

Pretty fuckin cut & dry there.
 
Of course you can get sued over it. Even if you think you're in the right (and even if technically, you are), it usually comes down to the pressure of who has the better lawyers and the larger budget to protect their image. AT&T was able to get mobile advertisers to remove its logos from their LPs, even though technically the service does work with AT&T.
 
Just checked about 20 random landers and about 5 of them said "As Seen And Trusted By" with the logos beside them. Doh!
 
Im not a lawyer but I did do 3 years in law school with an aim to be corporate lawyer. To be honest, it's outright illegal in my opinion, it's blatantly deceiving the consumer to believe the big brands support some shitty product, which of course damages their brand.

Safe or Sorry? That's a different story - first they'll have to decide it's financially worth it for them to sue a bunch of individuals (that can be VERY bad for a big corps image, especially if they come out to look like bullies). Then there is the matter of finding everyone doing it, and that's a hell of a task in itself.
 
considering this practice spans nearly EVERY industry (look at a few refinance lead gen sites at the top of PPC at the moment) along with a ton of others I'd wager you're MUCH more likely to get a C&D here before a lawsuit.

Do you have express written permission to use their logo/trademark? No. Are you making as outlandish an 'endorsement' as "O's Brazilian Secret" with her mug on there? Not in my eyes.

"As seen and TRUSTED" gets a lot sketchier since to me it implies endorsement versus simply "as seen" - like as seen on TV.

Given the exhibits in the O suit thus far with call to actions of "Dr. Z - match me with your recommended resv product" or whatnot there is pushing the line, and BLATANTLY crossing it.

One pisses off someone to the point of saying 'knock this shit off' - the other damages their brand and they go buck wild. Given the posts on here months ago about Harp0 C&D's this cannot honestly be shocking given some of the ads/LP's in the exhibits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom