Skip to content
Adrythm
Working with an agency

Typical results

results not typical / individual results may vary / representative results / case study claims

In short

Typical results is the standard a testimonial has to meet before it can be advertised. The FTC Endorsement Guides treat a specific result as a claim about what customers will generally achieve, and the Commission tested the usual disclaimers. Neither one reduced that impression, so a caveat does not fix an unrepresentative case study.

Start with what the Guides are. The Guides in this part represent administrative interpretations of laws enforced by the Federal Trade Commission, applied to the use of endorsements and testimonials in advertising. Their first rule is the obvious one: endorsements must reflect the honest opinions, findings, beliefs, or experience of the endorser. The rule that catches people is the second one. A testimonial about results on a key attribute of a product will likely be read as representative of what consumers will generally achieve with the advertised product in actual, albeit variable, conditions of use.

The familiar caveat does not solve this, and that is a tested finding rather than an opinion. The Commission ran advertisements whose testimonials clearly and prominently carried either a short disclaimer or a stronger one telling readers they were unlikely to have similar results. Neither disclosure adequately reduced the communication that the experiences depicted are generally representative.

The worked example in the Guides is worth reading slowly. A heat pump company runs endorsements from three people whose monthly utility bills went down by $100, $125, and $150, respectively. Nothing about the testimonials is false. The problem is the arithmetic underneath them, because fewer than 20% of purchasers will save $100 or more. The advertisement therefore conveys a saving the advertiser cannot substantiate, and the Guides say plainly that a disclosure of the results not typical kind is insufficient to prevent it from being deceptive.

That leaves two ways out, and the FTC states them in plain words. Have adequate proof to back up the claim that the results shown in the ad are typical, or clearly and conspicuously disclose the generally expected performance in the circumstances shown in the ad. So the answer is a number, not a caveat. And the burden does not shift to the person who gave the testimonial: an advertiser may be liable for a deceptive endorsement even when the endorser is not liable.

In practice

This runs in both directions. It is the standard your own testimonials page has to meet, and it is the question worth putting to any case study you are shown: is this the typical result, and if not, what is? A firm that has the second number will give it to you. A firm that has only the first one will reach for a caveat, which is exactly the move the Commission tested and found ineffective.

Not the same as

A disclaimer
A disclaimer is a sentence added to an advertisement. The standard here is evidence about what customers generally get, and the Guides describe the disclaimer as insufficient on its own.
Disclosing a material connection
A separate section covers telling people about a connection between the advertiser and the endorser. That is about who paid. This is about whether the result is representative. Both can apply to the same testimonial.

Why it matters to you

Every proposal you read is built from somebody's best case, and a best case is not evidence of what you will get. The Guides hand you a specific question that separates a representative outcome from a selected one, and they put the work of answering it on whoever is running the advertisement rather than on you.

What to ask or check

  1. 01Is the result in this case study typical, or the strongest one available?
  2. 02What is the generally expected outcome for a business like mine, expressed as a number?
  3. 03How many clients does that best case come out of?

What people get wrong

That adding a line saying results are not typical makes an unrepresentative testimonial acceptable. The Commission tested that wording and a stronger version of it, and reports that neither reduced the impression that the results shown were representative.

Red flags

  • A results page with no statement of what an ordinary outcome looks like.
  • A caveat doing the work a number should be doing.
  • Named wins with no indication of how many clients they came out of.

Who owns it

The advertiser. The Guides place the substantiation on whoever runs the advertisement, and say an advertiser may be liable even when the endorser is not.

Where you will see it

On the results page of almost every marketing firm, and on your own testimonials page.

Hiring an SEO

Google publishes its own advice on hiring an SEO, and it is blunter than most agency marketing. No one can guarantee a number one ranking, a claimed special relationship with Google is a warning sign, and you remain responsible for what anyone you hire does to your site.

Incentivized reviews

An incentivized review is one a customer wrote after being offered something for it. The FTC rule does not ban that. It bans conditioning the incentive, expressly or by implication, on the review expressing a particular sentiment. Adding a disclosure does not fix a five-star requirement.

Review suppression

Review suppression is hiding or removing customer reviews based on how negative they are. The FTC rule allows moderation as long as the criteria are applied equally regardless of sentiment. What it prohibits is implying the reviews you display represent all of them, and using false accusations or threats to get one taken down.

Trademark

A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol or design that identifies your goods or services and indicates where they come from. It is not ownership of the word itself. The USPTO is blunt about that: rights attach to how the word is used with your specific goods or services, not to the word in general.

Consumer Review Fairness Act

The Consumer Review Fairness Act voids contract terms that stop customers reviewing you. A provision of a standard-form contract is void from the start if it bars a review, penalizes one, or takes the reviewer's intellectual property. Removing abusive or irrelevant content is still allowed.

Account ownership

Account ownership decides who keeps the advertising account and its history when an agency relationship ends. Google lets anyone with administrative access unlink from a manager account at any time. Microsoft names the fix when the account was created in the wrong place, and lists what cannot be moved.

Want this explained against your own numbers?

Twenty minutes, a straight answer, and no follow-up sequence if you decide not to work with us.