Generally speaking, that would be considered fraudulent advertising. Geico can't say "the average person saved $xxx switching from allstate to us" unless it was true
Well, like I stated, i would market it as a great product while leaving out the part about the non responders ...
For example:
45 people take product X, while 15 had no response, 30 had great responses, so Im swinging on those 30, not the 15. I am not telling a flat out lie when I say that 30 people had great results using product x, that is the flat out truth.
We have no idea what the drive was behind Ap having an ad such as the one mentioned in the mag. My guess would be to spark interest, maybe? But i am positive that the effects/results which the write up mentions is based on the very BEST responders of the product while leaving out the ones who had no response or very little. It's not fraudulent; they just didn't include certain information
I've had a few people who have tried some of my marketing tactics and products and have had great success selling the ideas behind them. Some have made a couple of hundred a month, some have pulled in $4,000 in a month, yet when I market any idea it goes out as "make 2,000 a month working 2 hrs a day" or something that catches the eye such as that, but only because I know people that have ACTUALLY done it.
True, it's rare, and I've only seen it happen, like, once or twice, but it has still happened. So it gets marketed as the "next big deal"
