It sounds pretty simple to me, they're basically saying don't do this:
And you'll be fine.
- Mods: this is from the lawsuit, which is public record but if you think it's outing an LP then go ahead and remove it.
Attorney General Madigan Files Suit Against local affiliate marketer
- Thread starter pocketrockets
- Start date
It sounds pretty simple to me, they're basically saying don't do this:
And you'll be fine.
- Mods: this is from the lawsuit, which is public record but if you think it's outing an LP then go ahead and remove it.
They aren't "basically" saying that. They are saying don't use fake blogs or news article sites to promote their offers. There's their official communication to their affiliates and then there is your incorrect interpretation. If they did indeed mean to say something different, they should clarify it. Until then I would be wary to run traffic to them. But feel free to run their offers, you should basically get paid.
Yeah, there's a farticle mentioned in the pdf as well, which isn't a part of this investigation but they are definitely monitoring this kinda stuff.
The next level of affiliate prophylactic is to not use a Harpo TM.
...and stay away from rebills until the heat blows over.
Everyone seems to have an opinion, so heres mine.
The lawsuit isnt saying that continuity programs are bad, they are saying that those companies they went after hid terms, billed incorrectly and failed to deliver the product as mentioned (within the trial period). Nothing about the model itself but rather how those individual companies ran their model.
What surprises me the most and should shock everyone who is a publisher on this forum is in the Larby case it seems like they are saying he knowingly promoted offers that didnt disclose the terms to consumers. This is very interesting for affiliates because if they can prove their argument it now makes the affiliate liable for an advertisers actions of hiding terms or downplaying what the real costs are.
To me it seems like the AG wants precedent to go after other affiliate marketers for the actions of advertisers. As a publisher you should make sure the offers you promote disclose the terms properly, have a clear refund policy, and follow what they say. It shouldnt take 2 weeks to get your free trial sample.
Its time to be responsible marketers, and not just look for the quick buck if you wish to make a career/living in performance marketing.
The lawsuit isnt saying that continuity programs are bad, they are saying that those companies they went after hid terms, billed incorrectly and failed to deliver the product as mentioned (within the trial period). Nothing about the model itself but rather how those individual companies ran their model.
What surprises me the most and should shock everyone who is a publisher on this forum is in the Larby case it seems like they are saying he knowingly promoted offers that didnt disclose the terms to consumers. This is very interesting for affiliates because if they can prove their argument it now makes the affiliate liable for an advertisers actions of hiding terms or downplaying what the real costs are.
To me it seems like the AG wants precedent to go after other affiliate marketers for the actions of advertisers. As a publisher you should make sure the offers you promote disclose the terms properly, have a clear refund policy, and follow what they say. It shouldnt take 2 weeks to get your free trial sample.
Its time to be responsible marketers, and not just look for the quick buck if you wish to make a career/living in performance marketing.
Mike's got it right here. No one is going to ban continuity programs (though, I could see the irrational move of saying "acai continuity is bad", but we'd just move on to something else) because that'd toss out all kinds of legitimate and quasi-legitimate companies. This is going to directly attack the guys who sell snake oil, cross-sell and auto-upsell on everything a dozen times, and then outsource their cancellation department to a blackhole in another galaxy.
This is absolutely correct, and may set a very bad precedent for us.
I'm pretty sure Larby was also an advertiser. But they're saying that too ^^. But if he was also an advertiser then he was part of the transaction. Affiliates are not part of the transaction between the consumer and the merchant.
See, the problem is that in the very nature of the Internet, an advertiser could be totally legitimate at one point and change after you've set up an LP. Should the affiliate really be held responsible for the advertiser's bad decisions?
That's not really what this is about at this point though, I don't think. Its about people setting up flogs pretending they're independent reviewers and outright lying to users.
Right. Continuity is fine, as run by reputable vendors such as The Economist, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, Blockbuster, NetFlix, etc. No argument there.
What about the networks that knowingly promoted the offers? hmmm? Oh, or perhaps they didn't know! Gasp!
Whither the responsibility of the networks? How is it that the responsibility rests only upon the marketers' shoulders?
Don't get me wrong, I don't promote this sort of stuff myself ... BUT only last week I was contacted by an AM (with a network that I'm not actively promoting) with a bunch of links to berryz blogs that he thought I should copy and promote.
Sorry, but if a network can't or won't properly vet these offers, what value do you offer affiliates in the first place? Our contracts and agreements are with the network, NOT the advertiser. My only connection with the advertiser in this relationship is through a network. How about the network becoming a "responsible marketer" too? Where is the network's responsibility in all of this? What about all of those emails and IMs from network AMs pushing certain approaches that are now deemed actionable by the AGs and FTC?
Hell, most advertisers promote various offers under very different identities, so it's next to impossible to know that when we might decide to skip one sketchy advertiser only to find ourselves falling into the lap of the SAME advertiser with another offer but with very different corporate information. Opacity, AKA murkiness, as opposed to transparency.
If your network is promoting this garbage, you are as culpable as the floggers.
Please note that my reference to "network" above is general, not specific to Copeac.
Flogs aren't going anywhere.
Plenty of companies use commercials with actors and have been doing so forever. It's nothing new and enforcing something like that would be impossible.
The reality is this is about Harpo protecting it's clients (and getting retribution for what they feel like has damaged their rep)
Bottom line: the people who they're targeting are the one's who are blatantly using their names and images in their ads and lp's.
When push comes to shove you can say whatever you want in the first person if it's accurate. (I saw this on Oprah)
Of course don't take advice from anonymous people on a forum.
Consult your counsel. I did
Plenty of companies use commercials with actors and have been doing so forever. It's nothing new and enforcing something like that would be impossible.
The reality is this is about Harpo protecting it's clients (and getting retribution for what they feel like has damaged their rep)
Bottom line: the people who they're targeting are the one's who are blatantly using their names and images in their ads and lp's.
When push comes to shove you can say whatever you want in the first person if it's accurate. (I saw this on Oprah)
Of course don't take advice from anonymous people on a forum.
Consult your counsel. I did
Everyone may or may not have some responsibility in the chain, i am not saying who is responsible, i just pointed out what the complaint said.
Ok, but the following is your admonishment, not mine.
And I'll repeat my question: Where is the network in all of this "responsible marketing"?
Last edited:
Ugh, sinewave why do you even care where the networks are in all of this? Just let it play out and be decent marketers.
I'm under the silly assumption the networks I work with (all majors) have legal teams and compliance departments that approve offers.
I see no reason why a rebill should be illegal, or outlawed, if it states it's a rebill clearly on the lander. This is really up to the courts to decide. I've seen some here say it doesnt matter if you state the person will get rebilled or not, it's still illegel, to that I say bullshit.
I feel and hope the offers really being targeted are the blatant rip off Advertisers who are not accepting product cancellations and not clearly stating what happens to the consumer (side note: how do the network legal teams even confirm this?)
As a pub, I try and make sure an offer is legit before I mail it. But the real problem is, I have no set of guidelines telling me what's OK or not. If I scroll to the bottom of a lander and see the Ts and Cs clearly outlined, I personally feel good, but whats the rule of thumb? Any attempt at rebilling is to be outlawed?
The courts will decide this, I wish instead of all this BS the FTC simply contacted the networks and/or posted on their offical website, stated clearly, SIMPLE GUIDELINES. Here are the rules. Do not accept Advertisers who do ANYTHING but these rules, or we'll come after you. That would have made things much clearer for all
yeah me too. In fact I was under the impression that there is some scrutiny applied.
yeah me too. Instead the networks seem to be throwing up their hands and admonishing US to now become "responsible marketers", as though their hands were tied when it came to their aggressively promoting the crap in the first place.
I have gobs of emails and IMs with communications from networks encouraging me to promote certain garbage in certain ways. I chose not to promote that certain garbage or in certain ways.
I don't appreciate being admonished to now become a "responsible marketer" by a network if they have not been a decent advocate for a "responsible marketing" themselves, much less taking some responsibility toward vetting offers.
Like, this is such a big surprise? Didn't the network read the sales page themselves ... prior to telling affiliates that they should read carefully?
Sorry. I don't run these offers myself, but seeing a network owner asking affiliates to do the work that they themselves should do suggests to me that they're not providing value as a middleman.
The offers being targeted in the recent FTC/AG actions were never in my network. We review offers and traffic sources to conform to our standards, our standards differ from others, so as a marketer yourself you owe it to yourself to do your due diligence in creating a campaign
I also subscribe to the rule that if an advertiser supplies creatives to us and on to our publishers, that advertiser is responsible for their content in the creative,
Its election time in IL, the AG needs a big case for re-election, what bigger case than one coupled with Oprah. She obviously converts right?
Your argument of shouldnt the network protect me, sounds like the consumers who bought Acai or other free trial products who fail to read the terms but wants someone else to watch out for them, as a marketer you have a responsibility to follow laws/regulations/rules/etc... and to protect yourself.
If your AM asked you to jump off a bridge to get a higher payout, would you do it?
But why should we have to? I trust you, Mike. I trust the other networks I run with. Because theyre majors, so to speak. But are you saying we should be second guessing you and your legal team and double checking something when we're led to believe, if it exists on your network, it must be legal, compliant, and OK to run? Where do we draw the line? Are you saying we shouldnt trust your legal team and compliance?
Please don't say "Consult your lawyer" because we all know that's BS. If I consulted a lawyer for the 50 offers I run, with 10-20 new offers being added every week, I'd be losing more than I'm making.
For major networks (like yourselves) I think most pubs are OK in assuming it wouldnt be on your network unless it was approved and monitored by your legal/compliance team. If thats anything from the truth, let me know now.
P.S. So far I'm assuming the subpoenas were issued to a bunch of the lower end shadier networks who were given warnings to stop running specific offers and continued doing them anyway. Most of the majors I've already talked to and theyre in the clear (for now)