[lutusp]

Yes -- but my book isn't a traditional, mass-printed book like that under discussion. When someone orders a copy of my book, one copy gets printed and shipped. Unlike in traditional publishing, there are no piles of my book in a warehouse, awaiting sale.

And I have to tell you, this new publishing model is going to wipe out the old model (so-called "dead-tree publishing"). And pretty soon, even that model will fall before the e-book model, where no "book" is printed at all, ever.

But as a writer I've dealt with various aspects of the old-style publishing business over a period of decades, not all with respect to books.

[ahoyhere]

So you've offered a results-guaranteed return policy for your book, and you had a bad experience? I'd love to hear more.

[lutusp]

No, my reply to you wasn't about claims made in a book, only to say that I had some experience with publishing.

[ahoyhere]

I see. So where do your very strong assertions about the folly of money-back guarantees come from? Data? Experience? Do you have friends who've done it?

I ask because I have lots of experience with it -- with 4 products offering total money-back guarantees -- and have insight into more than 10 friends' businesses with similar guarantees, and not a single one of us have had experience with refund abuse like you describe. Nor is it ever mentioned as an issue among the larger communities which offer that type of product for sale.

As patio11 said, your statements are testable, and if you test them, you will find them false.

[lutusp]

> So where do your very strong assertions about the folly of money-back guarantees come from?

What assertion was that? I never said what you claim. I invite you to locate me decrying "the folly of money-back guarantees", anywhere.

Try to read more carefully, before objecting to something no one said.

> your statements are testable, and if you test them, you will find them false.

Great -- you invent something I never said, then try to hold me responsible for it. Definitely science in action.

[ahoyhere]

I was simply summarizing. Here are your exact words:

"3. The problem is that the remaining 20% can take you at your word, demand a refund, explain that the book was lost in a fire, and succeed in wiping out your profit.

4. Worse, someone might say your claim moved your book from the category of an ordinary caveat-emptor purchase, to a guarantee of success, and demand consequential damages. Very bad, and you made it possible."

With your bulleted list you suggested that 20% of people would take advantage of a return policy (obliterating your presumed 20% profit margin), and on top of that, you might get sued.

If that's not "folly" by your definition, what is?

But because you cried foul, let me be explicit, step by step, with what you "actually" said:

#3. Where's your experience, evidence, or data to suggest that a 20% return rate is common or likely -- even with a results guarantee?

#4. Please provide credible examples of an (e)book author or video course producer being sued for damages above and beyond their refunded money-back guarantee, based on the premise of results promised not being delivered. (Other reasons for lawsuits wouldn't count.)

If you have evidence, I'd really love to see it, because it impacts my business.

[lutusp]

First, IANAL.

Next, how can you not see that I'm comparing the OP's performance claim ("I'm serious about refunding anyone who ends up not being able to raise their client rates") to a simple money-back guarantee -- "If you're not happy, I'll give you back your money." I have to say there is a world of difference between the two, and others have made the same point in this thread.

> Please provide credible examples of an (e)book author or video course producer being sued for damages above and beyond their refunded money-back guarantee

Sure, no problem, since they practically grow on trees:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Trudeau

Quote: "Trudeau's activities have been the subject of both criminal and civil action. He was convicted of larceny and credit card fraud in the early 1990s, and in 1998 he was sued by U.S. Federal Trade Commission for making false or misleading claims in his infomercials promoting his book,'The Weight-Loss Cure "They" Don't Want You to Know About [emphasis added]. In 2004, he settled that action, by agreeing to pay a $500,000 fine and consenting to a lifetime ban on promoting products other than his books via infomercials [not mentioned in this article is that he was required to be truthful about the contents of his books]. [1] On Nov. 29, 2011, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a $37.6 million fine levied against him for violating that 2004 settlement [by lying about the contents of his books]. Additionally, on remand, the district court modified its final order, requiring that he post a $2 million bond before engaging in future infomercial advertising."

The above example is someone who made performance claims about his books and lost. Second example -- Greg Mortenson:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/19/greg-mortenson-sued...

Quote: "Regardless of whether claims are true that author Greg Mortenson fabricated portions of "Three Cups of Tea," neither he nor his publisher can be held liable because the First Amendment protects exaggerations or lies in memoirs, his publisher's attorney said Wednesday.

Penguin Group (USA) attorney Jonathan Herman and attorneys for Mortenson, co-author David Oliver Relin and Mortenson's charity, the Central Asia Institute, asked a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit filed by four people who bought Mortenson's bestselling books."

Notice about this case, that the lawsuit was dismissed because the claims are all in a book, and while fund-raising, Mortenson never claimed anything beyond the book's content, thus he is protected by the First Amendment.

I could give dozens of examples like those above. The basic thread that runs through all of them is if it is between the covers of a book, in most cases you're safe. But if you make claims while promoting the book, unless they are absolutely bulletproof, someone might sue you. This doesn't mean you have to misbehave to get sued -- people sue on bogus grounds all the time. My point is it's best to avoid opening yourself up to a lawsuit by careless "commercial speech":

http://blj.ucdavis.edu/archives/vol-5-no-2/Commercial-Speech...

I won't try to summarize the complex law on this issue, except to say that commercial speech is not First Amendment speech.

> If that's not "folly" by your definition, what is?

I never even used the word "folly". What's my incentive to let you put words in my mouth?

And I hope this helps.