The End Of Affiliate Marketing?
- Thread starter jakecohen
- Start date
- Status
Good luck, the sheer volume of sites makes it impossible to police the entire thing. Add to that, they don't have jurisdiction outside the US. They'll hit the low hanging fruit first, find it's not cost efficient, and some new bureaucrat will come in and pull the plug on the entire thing.
Well it certainly affects splogs, and also affects the basic promotion of email/zip submits.
If this shit actually does go down, then it's not like they'll stop at (s)blogs, LP's in general with "intention to profit based on fake reviews" will be next...
@bb_wolfe - I agree that they aren't going to be able to take down everyone. But if you are located in the US it's extremely dissatisfying to know that they could take you down and have the authority to do so...
ok, moment of fucking truth.
we're all pissed that the FTC are being assholes. cracking down on flogs. subpoenas, all that stuff. Why are we pissed? because it's making us money. and it's technically legal for the time being. I love flogs as much as any other affiliate but we are caught up in the money and forget to see the other side. Can you really call the US government assholes for cracking down on people that blatantly lie to their visitors in an attempt to monetize their stupidity? You have to admit, it's a dick move on our part as well ...
Let me put it this way. You are about to meet your fiance's parents for the first time. You want them to see how much of a good and legitimate person you are. They ask what you do. Does this sound like the response you would give - "I make websites claiming to be a person that I am not, giving a fake testimonial for a product I did not use so I can make a commission. I rely on the fact that the user will not read the TOS ortherwise there is no way in hell they would buy." No, the response you would realistically give, and probably do to anyone who you don't want to think of you as an asshole, you will probably leave the flog part out.
Now trust me, I pray and pray that I'm still able to make flogs for the rest of my life without being forced to stop. But if I were the government, or anyone who is not in any way related to online marketing, I would think that everyone who sets up flogs are assholes and would take action to stop it if I had the option.
I say ... pray that it doesn't happen. But don't be so ignorant to blame the government if it does.
we're all pissed that the FTC are being assholes. cracking down on flogs. subpoenas, all that stuff. Why are we pissed? because it's making us money. and it's technically legal for the time being. I love flogs as much as any other affiliate but we are caught up in the money and forget to see the other side. Can you really call the US government assholes for cracking down on people that blatantly lie to their visitors in an attempt to monetize their stupidity? You have to admit, it's a dick move on our part as well ...
Let me put it this way. You are about to meet your fiance's parents for the first time. You want them to see how much of a good and legitimate person you are. They ask what you do. Does this sound like the response you would give - "I make websites claiming to be a person that I am not, giving a fake testimonial for a product I did not use so I can make a commission. I rely on the fact that the user will not read the TOS ortherwise there is no way in hell they would buy." No, the response you would realistically give, and probably do to anyone who you don't want to think of you as an asshole, you will probably leave the flog part out.
Now trust me, I pray and pray that I'm still able to make flogs for the rest of my life without being forced to stop. But if I were the government, or anyone who is not in any way related to online marketing, I would think that everyone who sets up flogs are assholes and would take action to stop it if I had the option.
I say ... pray that it doesn't happen. But don't be so ignorant to blame the government if it does.
from the present guidelines:
"Advertisements presenting endorsements by what are represented to be “actual
consumers” should utilize actual consumers, or clearly and conspicuously disclose that the persons are not actual consumers."
from the new:
"
Example 5: A skin care products advertiser participates in a blog advertising service.
The service matches up advertisers with bloggers who will promote the advertiser’s
products on their personal blogs. The advertiser requests that a blogger try a new body
lotion and write a review of the product on her blog. Although the advertiser does not
make any specific claims about the lotion’s ability to cure skin conditions and the
blogger does not ask the advertiser whether there is substantiation for the claim, in her
review the blogger writes that the lotion cures eczema and recommends the product to
her blog readers who suffer from this condition. The advertiser is subject to liability for
false or unsubstantiated statements made through the blogger’s endorsement. The
blogger also is subject to liability for representations made in the course of her
endorsement. The blogger is also liable if she fails to disclose clearly and conspicuously
that she is being paid for her services."
this is such horseshit, why should the advertiser be responsible for the blogger's false claims? this will lead to a few things new with AM, specifically advertisers will now say "NO FLOGS"
"Advertisements presenting endorsements by what are represented to be “actual
consumers” should utilize actual consumers, or clearly and conspicuously disclose that the persons are not actual consumers."
from the new:
"
Example 5: A skin care products advertiser participates in a blog advertising service.
The service matches up advertisers with bloggers who will promote the advertiser’s
products on their personal blogs. The advertiser requests that a blogger try a new body
lotion and write a review of the product on her blog. Although the advertiser does not
make any specific claims about the lotion’s ability to cure skin conditions and the
blogger does not ask the advertiser whether there is substantiation for the claim, in her
review the blogger writes that the lotion cures eczema and recommends the product to
her blog readers who suffer from this condition. The advertiser is subject to liability for
false or unsubstantiated statements made through the blogger’s endorsement. The
blogger also is subject to liability for representations made in the course of her
endorsement. The blogger is also liable if she fails to disclose clearly and conspicuously
that she is being paid for her services."
this is such horseshit, why should the advertiser be responsible for the blogger's false claims? this will lead to a few things new with AM, specifically advertisers will now say "NO FLOGS"
This is such a waste of a thread
Most flogs already have "we get paid by the advertiser" as a part of the disclaimer that nobody reads. We're more covered than the people at TechCrunch who blog about their friends' startups so they can all circle jerk each other.
Most flogs already have "we get paid by the advertiser" as a part of the disclaimer that nobody reads. We're more covered than the people at TechCrunch who blog about their friends' startups so they can all circle jerk each other.
- Status