Comments on: Will Affiliate Disclosures Become Required by Law?

By: erica Blackburn

erica Blackburn — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 06:06:23 +0000

Always love your posts. Really appreciate your sharing this information.

By: Money Affiliate Program

Money Affiliate Program — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 01:00:53 +0000

The idea of a money affiliate program arose back in the mid-1990’s when a large internet business decided to try posting advertisements on host websites, offering compensation to the site owners when they brought in new customers. Of course, other businesses were quick to recognize the opportunities presented by a money affiliate program, and a whole industry was soon born.

By: Personal injury lawyers

Personal injury lawyers — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 08:59:00 +0000

I really find Victor’s blog interesting with great articles I find this guy a good writer, congrats Blog Raters posting articles about some other bloggers speaks great about yours. This post is short but informative.

By: Opinions

Opinions — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 07:37:02 +0000

Well said, finally a good report on this stuff

By: Becky Newman

Becky Newman — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 19:02:35 +0000

Great post, look forward to more.

By: deep links

deep links — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 21:57:05 +0000

The trick, if there is such a thing, is variety. Make certain you collect a steady and varied collection of links

By: tony greene

tony greene — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 07:49:41 +0000

I honestly think this won’t go anywhere in the US legislature. There is already enough government intervention in free trade. Why would anyone stand for this garbage.

By: V7N Contextual Links - a First Impression Review

V7N Contextual Links - a First Impression Review — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 02:26:33 +0000

[...] It also could well end up being an illegal practice in some parts of the world with the recent statement of the FTC saying that ‘companies engaging in word-of-mouth marketing, in which people are compensated to promote products to their peers, must disclose those relationships’. [...]

By: seo roi

seo roi — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 04:59:43 +0000

i doubt it could be retroactive, for the reason you stated, and because this seems like it might come up under something like a criminal fraud statute, and there’s a legal maxim against retroactivity in criminal law

By: Dime para quien trabajas

Dime para quien trabajas — Sun, 17 Dec 2006 03:32:34 +0000

[...] Will Affiliate Disclosures Become Required by Law? Problogger [...]

By: Bill Kelm - Brokerblogger

Bill Kelm - Brokerblogger — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 12:04:35 +0000

Darren, the FTC’s take on deception is a topic I have studied for a while now, and I really like Brian Clark’s # 10 comment here. The FTC policy statement on deception from 10/14/83 can be applied to all forms of advertising and marketing, and will apply now to the Internet in a case by case progression, IMO. It says in the “Summary”: “Third, the representation, omission, or practice must be a “material” one. The basic question is whether the act or practice is likely to affect the consumer’s conduct or decision with regard to a product or service. If so, the practice is material, and consumer injury is likely, because consumers are likely to have chosen differently but for the deception.”
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/policystmt/ad-decept.htm

The “practice” could be affiliate links, the omission could be the lack of clear, conspicuous, complete, and comprehendable disclosure. Those four factors will determine what is or isn’t a disclosure. But as for enforcement, it probably will come from consumer advocate buyers who feel (right or wrong) that they have been deceived, as well as aggressive competitors. The FTC is limited in what it can do, in my opinion, from legal and “limited resource” perspectives, and their FTC Complaint Form is structured to deal with fraud involving a financial loss of some kind, but it does have an “Explain Your Problem” fill-in-box.
https://rn.ftc.gov/pls/dod/wsolcq$.startup?Z_ORG_CODE=PU01

IMO, there will eventually be pressure in the international community to have international standards adopted. Also, it probably will be retrospective if Internet users of search engines are abel to find older deep link affiliate promotions without having to go to archived web pages. Of course, this will all take time, but probably will eventually happen due to what was in CR Webwatch’s “A Matter of Trust: What Users Want From Web Sites” in 2002: “But the online reality today is that few Internet users say they can trust Web sites that offer products or services for sale or the sites that provide advice about which products or services to buy.”
http://www.consumerwebwatch.org/dynamic/web-credibility-reports-a-matter-of-trust-abstract.cfm

By: FTC | Word of Mouth and Affiliates - Andy Beard

FTC | Word of Mouth and Affiliates - Andy Beard — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 11:26:11 +0000

[...] For some reason I read Darren’s post today before Brian’s (who is a lawyer) – there is some interesting discussion in both threads. [...]

By: Gary Farrow

Gary Farrow — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 22:55:22 +0000

It seems that disclosure should be required. It would be a bear to police. Perhaps a regulatory agency could randomly test some bloggers for disclosure compliance. The selection criteria would have to be very circumscribed. It sounds very big brother but during the dot.com bust I saw people get burned for $1000’s in part because of word of mouth touts placed in chat rooms. If somebody is being paid to tout something, it should be disclosed.

Is this type of disclosure required by other entities/media? Unless things of changed, it’s certainly not required of brokerage houses which tout stocks on one hand and collecting underwriting fees with the other.

Gary

By: Kris Karkoski

Kris Karkoski — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 22:38:43 +0000

I don’t think I ever really thought about this concept before but I think it might actually be a good thing if run and managed properly. My biggest worries is that the few people who run unethical will get around the rules but all us legit bloggers will be affected by it.

By: Blake Schwendiman's Blog and Blook

Blake Schwendiman's Blog and Blook — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:45:32 +0000

Word-of-Mouth Hullabaloo…

Bloggers take note. Today there is a great buzz about Word of Mouth Marketing and how it may impact bloggers. Seth Godin, Darren Rouse and Brian Clark all wrote about this topic in the past day. When I see everyone……

By: Evolving Times » Affiliate Marketing May Require Disclosure

Evolving Times » Affiliate Marketing May Require Disclosure — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 18:13:12 +0000

[...] I just found a couple of posts on this interesting development in the world of affiliate marketing. One, at Copyblogger, the other at Problogger. [...]

By: Carolyn Manning

Carolyn Manning — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 14:46:42 +0000

“The comments of a stranger on a bus”???

By: Ralph Nunes

Ralph Nunes — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 14:19:36 +0000

The notice must be clear and conspicuous and must inform customers of
the type of information the financial entity collects, and whether and to whom it intends to disclose the information (both affiliate and non-affiliate disclosures). If the anticipated disclosure is not permitted under one of the enumerated business or law enforcement exceptions, the financial institution must obtain the consumer’s consent (“opt in”) prior to disclosing the information to a nonaffiliated third party. If the consumer does not affirmatively consent, the financial entity may not make the disclosure.

By: Brian Clark

Brian Clark — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 13:03:34 +0000

Jim, I’m reading this news as an attorney, not as a journalist, and I think my interpretation is correct. Affiliate marketing IS word of mouth marketing in many of its most effective forms. Think about it… WOM simply means recommended by a third party.

Just because they speak in terms of WOM instead of AM means very little from a legal perspective. What the FTC said is that recommending products or services for compensation without disclosure can been construed to fall within the very strict US laws already in place against deceptive advertising. That’s why companies send new ad copy to legal for a compliance check, but somehow the law doesn’t apply to affiliates?

There is no exception mentioned for contingent payments based on a sale actually being made. And why would there be? It’s either compensation without disclosure or it’s not, and it’s either deceptive or it’s not.

This may end up being something that amounts to very little from an enforcement standpoint, but if I had a one or more profitable “independent review” sites, I would be nervous.

By: Rt

Rt — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 12:08:57 +0000

It is more a matter of whether foreign businesses can be held accountable in foreign countries. The best example I can think of this is one I studied with Yahoo! where they provided information from their emails to the Chinese Govt which led to the prosecution of a Chinese citizen. Many US citizens thought this was wrong as it was anti privacy laws which US holds important but which China does not. The outcome being that Yahoo! in their TOS say that they will abide by the laws of any nation in which they operate. I don’t think this affiliate stuff will go this far though. Not by a long shot. Darren?