Case Study: Accurate Copy (ClickFunnels)

The Facebook ad below is an example of a claim or call to action that would fall foul of the EMG’s code of practice for truthful, accurate copy.

12.  Accurate Copy

  • We commit to making all claims truthful and verifiable.
    • For example, we will not suggest that something applies universally if it does not.
  • We will not claim that an offer is the “only” one way to get a particular result — unless we can prove it really is.

Here is a screenshot of the ad as it appeared on Facebook.

Why Does the Ad Not Comply?

1. Misleading Claim of Universal Application

The text, “Abandon your website now for your business to survive” is misleading. It is claiming that whoever is viewing the ad should ditch their website or risk business failure.

That goes against the point in the Code of Practice that “we will not suggest that something applies universally if it does not”

In this case, with entire businesses running very well on website traffic (never mind how many are doing great with shopping carts and autoresponders), it is clearly taking hyperbole to the point of being untruthful.

In addition, adding the text, “for your business to survive” to any claim is simply irresponsible fearmongering.

How Could The Ad Be Made Compliant?

  1. Simply, the untrue claim should either be removed or qualified.
  2. The phrase “for your business to survive” should be removed, as the idea that switching from web/cart/autoresponders to ClickFunnels would prevent commercial failure cannot be proven to be true in even a minority of businesses, and certainly never in the general case.

It may be the case that — IF your marketing campaign or business matches a certain set of criteria — that switching ClickFunnels’ product may be more cost-effective, easier to manage, and even improve profitability. It may even be that, for a small minority of failing businesses, that changing technologies could help achieve a turnaround in fortunes. It is not our place to judge.

But it is clear that to claim that as a universal fact is highly irresponsible and unethcial