Sorry in advance for the long post. It took me a while to read through the ad and think everything through. I'm skeptical of it, and at first I thought it was because the ad has a lot of red flags: warning signs that might be a sign of misleading advertisement, but they are not proof of it.
Red Flag #1: The words "millionaire", "die", and "war", are hyperbolic and intended to produce an emotional response.
Red Flag #2: There's a value-building presentation prior to the mention of the price.
Red Flag #3: A limited-time offer for a discount or a special deal will always increase the perception of time pressure.
None of these things mean the product is automatically bad or that it's a rip-off.
In order for something to actually be a rip-off, the person selling it has to either fail to deliver on a promise as advertised, or not deliver fair value for the dollar. So I read the ad through twice more and focused on exactly what was being promised.
The ad is promising marketing techniques and tools. It explicitly says that significant effort will be required from the school owner. That's either a fair warning, or an excuse in advance to shift the blame to the person receiving the advice if for some reason they aren't able to make it work.
I saw a "double your income" claim, but then I did some math and realized that two times zero is still zero. That promise doesn't sound difficult to keep for a school that's either brand new or in serious trouble.
Now, if for some reason the advertised tools and strategies are not delivered, or if they're unusable due to format, legality, ethics, etc., that could be considered a ripoff. Otherwise, it all boils down to whether the customer gets fair value for the dollar.
Fair value (or full value) for the dollar occurs when the actual benefit of what's being bought equals or exceeds the actual cost to the buyer.
Luckily, it's easy to calculate the benefit of a marketing program. You take the total fees from the new students attracted by the marketing campaign, within perhaps a year. Do not count existing students or students who join for reasons unrelated to the marketing. Then you subtract any extra cost (if any) associated with serving these extra customers. Do not count changes in income due to regular attrition, but do subtract any students lost due to marketing (which, if done ethically, should be zero).
The actual cost of implementing what you learn in an event like this is the cost of attending the event (including travel) plus whatever it costs in airtime or postage or labor to implement the strategies taught at the event.
If cost > benefit, people feel ripped off.
If cost = benefit, people feel like they have fair value.
If cost < benefit, people believe they got a good deal.
Anything not related to these equations, such as up-selling, long speeches, or people choosing to not try the techniques they're being taught, might be annoying but it's not actually a ripoff.
So in order to not be a ripoff, an event like this must:
* Deliver the tools and instructions promised, and
* Ensure the attendee has the wherewithal to use the tools and instructions legally and ethically, and
* Cause the attendee to bring in enough new business to exceed the total cost of attending the event, implementing the strategies in a legal and ethical way, and paying whatever variable costs are associated with serving the new customers.
That's a tall order, and it's the biggest reason why I'm skeptical.
