The Testimonial on the Brochure
A credit union sponsors your financial education workshops and, as part of the sponsorship agreement, asks for marketing copy. The draft brochure includes a quote attributed to a former participant: 'This class raised my credit score 120 points in two months!' The participant did say something like this, but you know her score rose partly because she simultaneously paid down a collections account with a tax refund. The brochure also prints 'Guaranteed results' and shows the credit union's logo above the words 'approved by' your program. Your program's standards require accurate representation of outcomes and clear disclosure of sponsor relationships. The credit union says the copy is 'just marketing' and that removing it may jeopardize next year's $15,000 sponsorship.
1. Evaluate each of the three problematic elements (testimonial, 'guaranteed results,' implied approval) against standards of accuracy and sponsor disclosure, and state what must change.
Read the worked answer
Testimonial: the quote is factually incomplete in a way that misleads. Attributing a 120-point rise to the class when a tax-refund payoff was a material co-cause presents a causal claim the program cannot support. Accuracy standards require either omitting the causal implication or adding context ('my score rose after I completed the class and also paid off a collections account'). Anecdotes may be used but must not be framed as typical or as proof of effect.
'Guaranteed results': this is an absolute outcome promise no financial education program can honor, since results depend on learner behavior and circumstances. It must be removed.
Implied approval: placing the sponsor's logo above 'approved by' your program reverses the relationship - it suggests the sponsor endorses or governs your curriculum, or that you endorse the sponsor's products. Sponsor relationships must be disclosed as sponsorship, not as approval. Required change: a clear disclosure such as 'Sponsored by [credit union]. Sponsorship does not constitute endorsement of products or services, and the sponsor does not control curriculum content.'
2. The credit union threatens to pull the $15,000. How should you weigh the funding against the standards, and what counterproposal would you make?
Read the worked answer
Funding does not suspend the standards; accepting money conditioned on misleading claims converts a sponsorship into a purchase of your credibility, which harms learners and ultimately the sponsor's reputation too. The correct weighing is: accurate copy is non-negotiable; the format of disclosure is negotiable.
Counterproposal: keep the sponsorship, replace the testimonial with an accurately framed one, delete 'guaranteed results,' and replace 'approved by' with a proper sponsorship disclosure plus a brief 'what the research says' statement about realistic timelines for score change. Offer the credit union co-branding that is truthful - 'Workshops made possible by [credit union]' - and, if they want outcome data, offer to share aggregate, consented, de-identified results. If they still insist on the misleading copy, decline that element and document why; losing $15,000 is preferable to publishing claims you know to be false. Note the practical point: a sponsor demanding false claims is a liability risk to itself, which is a legitimate argument to put to them.