Understanding Bait and Switch Advertising in the EDU Sector
Knowing where and how your school appears is virtually a full-time job in and of itself in the vast community of online marketing. Whether or not your school contracts with a third-party vendor for the purpose of lead generation and online presence, the unauthorized use of your brand is a consistent problem.
Many schools are typically unaware of the extent of their brands’ presence on third-party websites and lead forms. Even institutions that do not buy leads still exist on the web and lead forms are readily available when paired with certain key terms. Unauthorized use of your school name allows room for the possibility of bait and switch techniques.
You might ask yourself:
- We don’t work with this website, so how heavily is it actually trafficked?
- How many potential students per month or per year are utilizing the lead form found on this page?
- Since we don’t purchase online leads, who receives this information?
- What is done with lead information after it is submitted by the prospective student?
Deceptive advertising is a growing problem in the EDU space, and it is important to stay ahead of the game. A prospective student’s information in the hands of someone else or a competitor is of no use to you and can serve as a direct cut to your company’s revenue.
In order to prevent the possibility of baiting and switching of your brand, it is important to employ routine monitoring to identify how and where your school is being advertised. If you buy leads from online vendors, confirm that sites you find are part of their affiliate networks and that they’re meeting compliance regulations.
To learn more about compliance monitoring and brand management, call 888-547-7110 or email IntegriShield today.
FTC Joins the Fight Against Private Sector Schools
The FTC joined forces this week with the Obama administration’s fight against private sector colleges. The agency released new guidelines this week in hopes to crack down on deceptive advertising, promotions, marketing and sales made by private sector colleges featuring vocational programs.
The new guidelines followed the tip sheet recently released by the FTC to help veterans better scrutinize private sector colleges, in hopes the same guidelines can help all students.
Seven of the eight comments received by the FTC submitted by numerous accrediting agencies were in favor of retaining the guidelines noting, “Many instances of fraud in the industry and urged that the guides be strengthened and enforced more vigorously.” APSCU however commented against retaining all guidelines, suggesting rather retain the guidelines only for unaccredited or unlicensed institutions stating that the guidelines were unnecessary, “and would create additional burdens for institutions that are licensed by a stat or accredited by a DOE recognized accrediting agency.”
Overall the Commission proposed four modifications to the guidelines including:
- Guides addressing misrepresentations of salaries, job placement, completion rates and time frames.
- Guides addressing misleading statements indicating that a program would render a student eligible to take a licensing exam.
- Guides stating that misrepresenting a student’s admissions test score as a deceptive practice, hindering their success to complete the program.
- Guides to address transfer of credits, assistance to language barriers, source of funding for student loans and crime statistics.
The FTC’s new guidelines went effective November 18th 2013. Contact IntegriShield today and make sure your institution is in compliance with the new guidelines.
The Risk of Infringement
Maintaining the integrity of brands online has become a difficult task for many companies with limited resources and expertise of online copyright infringement. The internet offers an enormous platform for third-party websites to infringe upon privileged material for the purposes of financial gain. Isolating infringing material online and enforcing timely action to remove infringing items from Internet Service Provider’s websites can be tedious and inefficient. Brands with online presence are at risk of having their privileged material copied, recorded, or imported causing significant financial losses.
Bloombergi reported, in June 2013, that a man named Li Xiang plead guilty to copyright conspiracy in Wilmington, Delaware resulting in a sentence of 12 years. The government estimated that Xiang’s web-based business infringed upon a total retail value of over $100 million in software products from U.S. based companies, and sold to customers all over the globe. Xiang operated out of Chengdu, the capital of the Sichuan providence of Southwest China.
Case U.S. v. Li, 10-cr-112, U.S. District Court, District of Delaware (Wilmington).
In August, 2013, The New York Timesii published an article explaining the extensive copyright infringement of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. The MTA is North America’s largest transportation network based in New York, and issues approximately “600 notices a year for copyright infringements to protect trademarks on trainline logos and other system imagery” (Flegenheimer, M.T.A.)iii. All of the MTA’s subway, rail, and maps are copyright protected, and violators range from desperate artists to the upper echelons of the online retail industry. The MTA’s licensing income is a heavily needed source of revenue for the New York transportation system’s bottom line, but the authority has not been able to place a precise value on its losses from copyright infringement.
Copyright infringement in the digital era poses a great risk for brands to protect their privileged material online from anonymous users around the world. Companies need the right resources, time, and expertise to protect themselves and their bottom lines.
ii http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/nyregion/c-train-cafe-the-mta-may-put-up-a-fight.html?_r=0
iii Flegenheimer, Matt. “M.T.A. Guards Against Copyright Infringement.” The New York Times. 23 August
2013. Web. 4 November 2013.
Employment Verification: Accuracy Required
Accreditation agencies are cracking down on inaccurate job placement figures and claims made by private sector colleges. Just in the last few months numerous colleges have fallen victim in Federal Trade Commission and Department of Education accusations. Resulting in large fines and loss of accreditation needed for federal financial aid. In August 2013 Career Education Corp. settled a $10.25 million settlement with the New York attorney general for allegedly inflating job placement rates. Are your institution’s job placement rates accurate and up-to-date? Avoid the large penalties and ensure your figures meet accrediting agency standards by utilizing a third-party unbiased employment verification service.
IntegriShield’s Employment Verification service seeks and contacts all graduates to verify employment and provide up-to-date and accurate post-graduation employment information for clients. IntegriShield’s verification experts collect all information based on client needs and accrediting body standards, to guarantee the correct information is provided for annual accreditation audits. Tracking graduates is a time consuming task that is crucial for accurate reporting. IntegriShield provides weekly and monthly reports tracking the number of employed students, unemployed students, reasons for unemployment and number of waived placements to save your Career Service Department time and money.
Providing inflated or inaccurate graduate employment information is detrimental to your school’s accreditation standings, reputation and finances. Contact IntegriShield today to ensure your graduate employment information meets the expected standards.
Telephone Consumer Protection Act 2013 Updates: Are You Prepared?
Telephone Consumer Protection Act 2013 Updates: Are you Prepared?
Effective October 16, 2013: the Federal Communications Commission’s rules implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Federal Communications Commission’s TCPA rules will require “prior express written consent” before a business may:
- Send advertising or telemarketing text messages using an “automatic telephone dialing system”;
- Initiate an advertising or telemarketing phone call to a mobile phone number using an ATDS or an artificial or prerecorded voice;
- Initiate a telephone call to a residential line for commercial purposes (unless those commercial purposes do not introduce an advertisement or constitute telemarketing).
The FCC’s new rules will also eliminate the “Established business relationship” exemption no longer relieving advertisers of prior unambiguous written consent requirement also, effective on October 16th. In most instances, only “prior express consent” is required. Prior written consent should be a clear and conspicuous disclosure requesting the consumer’s consent to be contacted.
What This Means for Companies?
Advertisers will be held responsible for all unsolicited telemarketing and autodialed calls and messages. Each unsolicited call or message will now require prior written consent from consumers that must be maintained by the advertiser for at least for four years.
Proof of internet provided consent includes but is not limited to:
- Email, website form, text message, telephone key press, or voice mail
- Website pages that contain consumer consent language and fields.
- Associated screenshot of the consent webpage as seen by the consumer where contact information is collected.
- Complete data record submitted by consumer with time and date stamp.
The TCPA enables individuals to file lawsuits against companies that place telemarketing calls or use autodialers without prior consent from the consumer. The FCC’s definition of “autodialer” is very broad leaving many advertisers unknowingly at risk. Once effective the majority of the “opt-in” language that you are currently using will not meet the new rigorous cell consent standards. Penalties range from $500 – $1,500 per unsolicited call or message. October 16th is right around the corner, IntegriShield can ensure that your company is prepared.