I felt the interview was all over the place. However, I must say that in the end, shoemoney seemed to come round to Rand's way of thinking.
Wholesaler Man
· 2 years ago
I felt the interview was all over the place. However, I must say that in the end, shoemoney seemed to come round to Rand's way of thinking.
Business Blogger
· 2 years ago
Nice post Andy. Just found you post on Shoe's Blog.
Business Blogger
· 2 years ago
Nice post Andy. Just found you post on Shoe's Blog.
randfish
· 2 years ago
Andy, Like other folks, I found you through Shoemoney's blog, but while he feels that your content is very valuable and relevant to the discussion, I must say that I struggled to understand. Perhaps it's just different writing/comprehending styles, but the links you point to, while certainly interesting and valuable to bring to a discussion on disclosure, don't seem to address the singular issue that was up for debate:
Shoemoney - Taking money to blog about a product/service/company you were paid to blog about without disclosing the direct financial influence is OK
Rand - Nope, that's not OK. There are other gray areas and other places where disclosure should/should not be required, but that is clearly over the line.
And yet, while you say you agree with Shoemoney, there's a disclosure at the bottom of your page here. Is it just a case of "do what I say and not what I do?" Maybe you can explain it to me. Feel free to shoot me an email if you'd like.
AndyBeard
· 2 years ago
Rand I am saying for legal compliance (though I am not a lawyer, Brian Clark is and thinks affiliates need disclosure, and Mike Young another lawyer agreed, back in December) he now has some disclosure, he just needs to link to it.
Shoe could also include additional disclosure on a case by case basis where he feels it is appropriate, or when it is required by an advertiser, but he would be covered for all those unstated benefits that sometimes / might happen down the road, and for things like affiliate links.
In the case of SEOmoz, and I am a regular reader and believe you have a high level of integrity.
Post by post disclosure is a wonderful thing, but it rarely covers all those additional benefits of linking to or writing about someone.
Are you in a position to go back through 2 years worth of archives every time you sign a new customer, just in case you said something about them?
People rarely link to opposing views, they link to their friends, the sites they have in their bookmarks, and more often than not the people who share their views.
randfish
· 2 years ago
Andy, Like other folks, I found you through Shoemoney's blog, but while he feels that your content is very valuable and relevant to the discussion, I must say that I struggled to understand. Perhaps it's just different writing/comprehending styles, but the links you point to, while certainly interesting and valuable to bring to a discussion on disclosure, don't seem to address the singular issue that was up for debate:
Shoemoney - Taking money to blog about a product/service/company you were paid to blog about without disclosing the direct financial influence is OK
Rand - Nope, that's not OK. There are other gray areas and other places where disclosure should/should not be required, but that is clearly over the line.
And yet, while you say you agree with Shoemoney, there's a disclosure at the bottom of your page here. Is it just a case of "do what I say and not what I do?" Maybe you can explain it to me. Feel free to shoot me an email if you'd like.
AndyBeard
· 2 years ago
Rand I am saying for legal compliance (though I am not a lawyer, Brian Clark is and thinks affiliates need disclosure, and Mike Young another lawyer agreed, back in December) he now has some disclosure, he just needs to link to it.
Shoe could also include additional disclosure on a case by case basis where he feels it is appropriate, or when it is required by an advertiser, but he would be covered for all those unstated benefits that sometimes / might happen down the road, and for things like affiliate links.
In the case of SEOmoz, and I am a regular reader and believe you have a high level of integrity.
Post by post disclosure is a wonderful thing, but it rarely covers all those additional benefits of linking to or writing about someone.
Are you in a position to go back through 2 years worth of archives every time you sign a new customer, just in case you said something about them?
People rarely link to opposing views, they link to their friends, the sites they have in their bookmarks, and more often than not the people who share their views.
El Yanqui
· 2 years ago
I think disclosure is important. I like how you have it set up on your blog, where it's a fairly simple and unobtrusive link to a policy. The real problem has been that there have been blogs created to sell a product where they are written by a fictional character to do so. The blog is nothing short of an advertisement, yet those who visit it don't realize that. I think, ethically, disclosure is the right thing to do. It doesn't need to be taken to any extremes, it just needs to be accessible.
El Yanqui
· 2 years ago
I think disclosure is important. I like how you have it set up on your blog, where it's a fairly simple and unobtrusive link to a policy. The real problem has been that there have been blogs created to sell a product where they are written by a fictional character to do so. The blog is nothing short of an advertisement, yet those who visit it don't realize that. I think, ethically, disclosure is the right thing to do. It doesn't need to be taken to any extremes, it just needs to be accessible.
Jadehat
· 2 years ago
No paid opinions = no disclosure.
Nice and simple.
Jadehat
· 2 years ago
No paid opinions = no disclosure.
Nice and simple.
Tim
· 2 years ago
I wrote a similar post earlier this morning asking if there was a difference between bloggers writing about companies with which they have a business relationship vs. paid-posts. My contention is there is no difference, since most bloggers in such a position are there because of their blog and there is certainly an IMPLICIT expectation the company in question will receive blog coverage, even when it is not EXPLICITLY required. The net effect is exactly the same.
Company pays blogger for something. Blogger writes about the company. Or, if you prefer, Blogger writes about company. Company pays blogger something. Quid pro quo comes in many forms.
Your argument that all of these bloggers should have blanket disclosure policies is spot on.
Tim
· 2 years ago
I wrote a similar post earlier this morning asking if there was a difference between bloggers writing about companies with which they have a business relationship vs. paid-posts. My contention is there is no difference, since most bloggers in such a position are there because of their blog and there is certainly an IMPLICIT expectation the company in question will receive blog coverage, even when it is not EXPLICITLY required. The net effect is exactly the same.
Company pays blogger for something. Blogger writes about the company. Or, if you prefer, Blogger writes about company. Company pays blogger something. Quid pro quo comes in many forms.
Your argument that all of these bloggers should have blanket disclosure policies is spot on.
Michael Webster
· 2 years ago
What was annoying about the debate was that I had posted on Shoe's site material about the FTC's policy on testimonials.
Neither of them chose to read it before debating the topic, which I agree is more than pointless. You have to start from a basic understanding of the law. Your readers should probably start off with this article from copyblogger for an introduction.
On a different note, I found your observation about google very interesting and hope to see more critical commentary about google.
AndyBeard
· 2 years ago
As I mentioned above, around the same time there were a number of posts on the subject by lawyers, and the article by Mike Young on the Copywriters Blog is also a very good read.
The FTC considers it to be a deceptive trade practice to provide consumers with allegedly independent information that in fact is motivated by monetary and other incentives. According to Mary K. Engle at the FTC, “if you’re being paid, you should disclose that."
I bolded one part in that quote, but the interesting part in this debate is the "other incentives", plus also affiliate marketing has monetary incentive, just like writing a paid post, and maybe more so.
Michael Webster
· 2 years ago
Andy, I am also an attorney -from Ontario, which has in this case very similar laws to the U.S.
The point I raised several months ago was that there were at least two disclosure issues.
1. Section 5, of the FTC Act, pertaining to WOMA.
But also, more importantly for affiliate marketers who are marketing a system for earning money,
2. The new business opportunity rule promulgated by the FTC, which doesn't have the force of law yet. But it is will require a 2 page disclosure, which most affiliate marketers won't know about.
(There is a current biz op rule which probably won't catch most affiliate marketers.)
In conclusion, it is not just word of mouth that affiliate marketers selling systems for earning money have to be worried about.
And yes, the FTC goes after unregistered biz ops all the time.
Michael Webster
· 2 years ago
What was annoying about the debate was that I had posted on Shoe's site material about the FTC's policy on testimonials.
Neither of them chose to read it before debating the topic, which I agree is more than pointless. You have to start from a basic understanding of the law. Your readers should probably start off with this article from copyblogger for an introduction.
On a different note, I found your observation about google very interesting and hope to see more critical commentary about google.
AndyBeard
· 2 years ago
As I mentioned above, around the same time there were a number of posts on the subject by lawyers, and the article by Mike Young on the Copywriters Blog is also a very good read.
The FTC considers it to be a deceptive trade practice to provide consumers with allegedly independent information that in fact is motivated by monetary and other incentives. According to Mary K. Engle at the FTC, “if you’re being paid, you should disclose that."
I bolded one part in that quote, but the interesting part in this debate is the "other incentives", plus also affiliate marketing has monetary incentive, just like writing a paid post, and maybe more so.
Michael Webster
· 2 years ago
Andy, I am also an attorney -from Ontario, which has in this case very similar laws to the U.S.
The point I raised several months ago was that there were at least two disclosure issues.
1. Section 5, of the FTC Act, pertaining to WOMA.
But also, more importantly for affiliate marketers who are marketing a system for earning money,
2. The new business opportunity rule promulgated by the FTC, which doesn't have the force of law yet. But it is will require a 2 page disclosure, which most affiliate marketers won't know about.
(There is a current biz op rule which probably won't catch most affiliate marketers.)
In conclusion, it is not just word of mouth that affiliate marketers selling systems for earning money have to be worried about.
And yes, the FTC goes after unregistered biz ops all the time.
Amanda
· 2 years ago
I have to say I think full disclosure policy is best. I write a disclosure and I explain where the money goes. I dont like to let people think I'm whoring myself out there not so much as I care what they think I just dont want to lose readers if they notice more posts that are reviews or more ads occasionally when I need the extra money.
Amanda
· 2 years ago
I have to say I think full disclosure policy is best. I write a disclosure and I explain where the money goes. I dont like to let people think I'm whoring myself out there not so much as I care what they think I just dont want to lose readers if they notice more posts that are reviews or more ads occasionally when I need the extra money.
Bill Hartzer
· 2 years ago
Andy, it's about time someone call them out on this. I agree with you that they certainly didn't do a lot of fact-checking before the debate. But, consider that they didn't have a lot of time to do that fact-checking and research about the issue. Sometimes the best debates are those that come up on a whim.
I have to disagree with your remark about "regulations". How could you possibly call these disclosure requirements "regulations"? They are simply "requirements" that are made up by the company--and there are a lot of affiliate-related "companies" I won't do business with or "endorse" because of those silly "requirements".
I agree with you, Amanda--it's best to be honest with your readers and being honest means "full disclosure" when it's appropriate to do so.
El Yanqui, that's a good point--I agree that bloggers would make it a lot easier on themselves if they added a "disclosure policy" to their site. Perhaps just like "privacy policies" us bloggers should be adding "disclosure policies".
AndyBeard
· 2 years ago
Bill I do agree that Clickbank's interpretation of the law is their own. Other lawyers, one of whom has already commented here and not disagreed, and there are references to 2 other lawyers, have also spoken about this, and in the past I have also linked through to more.
Until these things are tested in court in the US, it is all interpretation.
Clickbank have decided that their affiliates should comply with the FTC documents they link to. Just because other affiliate networks haven't taken action might be because they haven't been dragged through the courts recently on other issues (e.g. CAN-SPAM complaints against some of their affiliates)
Clickbank definitely know about the golden rule of marketing - "Cover Your Ar*e"
If you can find me a lawyer who has specifically stated that this does not apply to affiliate marketing, in public, and who has extensive experience in internet law, I would be glad to read it and link through. I myself can point to lawyers who selectively avoid the subject, such as Michael Arrington, but I am not sure if he is practicing, and his specialisation.
I should note that Brian from Copyblogger used to work in Internet Law, and Mike Young specialises in it.
I also don't forget that my content gets distributed by email in 2 ways.
1. RSS subscription by email 2. Comment subscriptions
Both kinds of email can contain commercial messages, either from me, or sometimes from spammers.
I have links to contact details and my disclosure in feeds, and also have statements even in my comment subscriptions.
If you followed the link to my article on Feedburner, you might notice that I dragged them over the coals slightly because of CAN-SPAM compliance.
They have people who are non-practicing lawyers working in top management, you would expect them to have been in full compliance for years, yet getting a small change to allow you to include a commercial statement has been an uphill struggle.
I live in Poland, my company is registered in the UK, but I still have to run my business complying with US regulations, and the FTC is regulations, not whimsy.
Bill Hartzer
· 2 years ago
I understand the logic here. But, affiliates chooose to do business or not do business with companies like Clickbank. And it's my opinion that companies like Clickbank can make up any rules they want to. Since the affiliate is not a consumer then they don't have to do business with Clickbank--and vice versa. Clickbank deserves the right to pay or 'not pay' companies or individuals who send them traffic.
A company can decide that their affiliates must have a certain type of link on their site in order to get paid. They can decide whether or not the affiliate must disclose that they're an affiliate. Of course the affiliate shouldn't misrepresent themselves, though.
When it comes to disclosure, I don't personally think the USA's FTC can get involved--this is a business transaction that doesn't necessarily directly involves the consumer. It's a referral...and the consumer clicks on a link and goes on over to another site where such things should be disclosed (like guarantees, warranties, etc. etc.).
Bill Hartzer
· 2 years ago
Andy, it's about time someone call them out on this. I agree with you that they certainly didn't do a lot of fact-checking before the debate. But, consider that they didn't have a lot of time to do that fact-checking and research about the issue. Sometimes the best debates are those that come up on a whim.
I have to disagree with your remark about "regulations". How could you possibly call these disclosure requirements "regulations"? They are simply "requirements" that are made up by the company--and there are a lot of affiliate-related "companies" I won't do business with or "endorse" because of those silly "requirements".
I agree with you, Amanda--it's best to be honest with your readers and being honest means "full disclosure" when it's appropriate to do so.
El Yanqui, that's a good point--I agree that bloggers would make it a lot easier on themselves if they added a "disclosure policy" to their site. Perhaps just like "privacy policies" us bloggers should be adding "disclosure policies".
AndyBeard
· 2 years ago
Bill I do agree that Clickbank's interpretation of the law is their own. Other lawyers, one of whom has already commented here and not disagreed, and there are references to 2 other lawyers, have also spoken about this, and in the past I have also linked through to more.
Until these things are tested in court in the US, it is all interpretation.
Clickbank have decided that their affiliates should comply with the FTC documents they link to. Just because other affiliate networks haven't taken action might be because they haven't been dragged through the courts recently on other issues (e.g. CAN-SPAM complaints against some of their affiliates)
Clickbank definitely know about the golden rule of marketing - "Cover Your Ar*e"
If you can find me a lawyer who has specifically stated that this does not apply to affiliate marketing, in public, and who has extensive experience in internet law, I would be glad to read it and link through. I myself can point to lawyers who selectively avoid the subject, such as Michael Arrington, but I am not sure if he is practicing, and his specialisation.
I should note that Brian from Copyblogger used to work in Internet Law, and Mike Young specialises in it.
I also don't forget that my content gets distributed by email in 2 ways.
1. RSS subscription by email 2. Comment subscriptions
Both kinds of email can contain commercial messages, either from me, or sometimes from spammers.
I have links to contact details and my disclosure in feeds, and also have statements even in my comment subscriptions.
If you followed the link to my article on Feedburner, you might notice that I dragged them over the coals slightly because of CAN-SPAM compliance.
They have people who are non-practicing lawyers working in top management, you would expect them to have been in full compliance for years, yet getting a small change to allow you to include a commercial statement has been an uphill struggle.
I live in Poland, my company is registered in the UK, but I still have to run my business complying with US regulations, and the FTC is regulations, not whimsy.
Bill Hartzer
· 2 years ago
I understand the logic here. But, affiliates chooose to do business or not do business with companies like Clickbank. And it's my opinion that companies like Clickbank can make up any rules they want to. Since the affiliate is not a consumer then they don't have to do business with Clickbank--and vice versa. Clickbank deserves the right to pay or 'not pay' companies or individuals who send them traffic.
A company can decide that their affiliates must have a certain type of link on their site in order to get paid. They can decide whether or not the affiliate must disclose that they're an affiliate. Of course the affiliate shouldn't misrepresent themselves, though.
When it comes to disclosure, I don't personally think the USA's FTC can get involved--this is a business transaction that doesn't necessarily directly involves the consumer. It's a referral...and the consumer clicks on a link and goes on over to another site where such things should be disclosed (like guarantees, warranties, etc. etc.).
CVOS Netpaths
· 2 years ago
Any group receiving anything of value must disclose this fact. Here is an example from a nonprofit law center. Imagine if you just gave $1000 to charity and they neglected to disclose that they were buying the executives new plasma TVs latimes.com/news/local/orange/la-me-offices3jun03,1,5391459.story
I had to make the link to the LA Times unclickable, because a while ago I unearthed that they don't allow deep linking in their terms of service.
CVOS Netpaths
· 2 years ago
Any group receiving anything of value must disclose this fact. Here is an example from a nonprofit law center. Imagine if you just gave $1000 to charity and they neglected to disclose that they were buying the executives new plasma TVs latimes.com/news/local/orange/la-me-offices3jun03,1,5391459.story
I had to make the link to the LA Times unclickable, because a while ago I unearthed that they don't allow deep linking in their terms of service.
Money From Home
· 2 years ago
I am with shoemoney on this. You have to assume that if I am talking about it than I will directly or indirectly be making money from it.
AndyBeard
· 2 years ago
You mean you either tell people up front (a disclosure policy), or explain that to the FTC or a jury at a later date?
p.s. I have a comments policy too
Money From Home
· 2 years ago
I am with shoemoney on this. You have to assume that if I am talking about it than I will directly or indirectly be making money from it.
AndyBeard
· 2 years ago
You mean you either tell people up front (a disclosure policy), or explain that to the FTC or a jury at a later date?
p.s. I have a comments policy too
shazad
· 2 years ago
I think there is just too much information to regulate i mean how many opinions, recommendations or advertising can one distinguish between.
shazad
· 2 years ago
I think there is just too much information to regulate i mean how many opinions, recommendations or advertising can one distinguish between.
Fitness guy
· 2 years ago
In response to Shazad's comment: Isn't this exactly the reason a blanket disclosure statement is necessary?
Fitness guy
· 2 years ago
In response to Shazad's comment: Isn't this exactly the reason a blanket disclosure statement is necessary?
Chuck
· 2 years ago
I realize I'm late to the party on this, but this interview just finally made it to iTunes a couple days ago. I like and respect both Shoemoney and Rand Fishkin very much (not personally...don't know them...probably never will). But in different ways and in different reasons.
Jeremy is very much a street-level guy. He speaks very plainly, he's out there hustling for every dime he can pick up. He's got a high profile... but unlike John Chow, who seeks it out... Shoe just seems to draw attention because he's pretty flamboyant in his bluntness. He doesn't want anyone looking up to him. He investigates everything himself. I think that's just fine...and so is his "blanket disclosure". There's plenty of room in the world for scrappy guys like this... always challenging the status quo.
Rand is a completely different animal. His knowledge is solid, he's very well-spoken and chooses those words carefully. I love his stuff. Very informative. But his reputation is everything to him. You can't behave like a hustler and get people to throw 10K of their hard-earned money your way every month. And I believe his approach is the right one...in his case. He needs for people to know that his objectivity is not for sale. Otherwise, his business is gone.
Shoemoney couldn't give a rat's ass about his rep for the most part. Take away what he's accomplished so far...and he'll just get up and start from scratch tomorrow.
Of the two, I found myself identifying more closely with Rand. But, whether focused and on point and well-researched or not...I still enjoyed the discussion. The only downside was that they were clearly having a difficult time hearing each other on the phone. That made for some awkwards gaps, and some lapses in communication.
Chuck
· 2 years ago
I realize I'm late to the party on this, but this interview just finally made it to iTunes a couple days ago. I like and respect both Shoemoney and Rand Fishkin very much (not personally...don't know them...probably never will). But in different ways and in different reasons.
Jeremy is very much a street-level guy. He speaks very plainly, he's out there hustling for every dime he can pick up. He's got a high profile... but unlike John Chow, who seeks it out... Shoe just seems to draw attention because he's pretty flamboyant in his bluntness. He doesn't want anyone looking up to him. He investigates everything himself. I think that's just fine...and so is his "blanket disclosure". There's plenty of room in the world for scrappy guys like this... always challenging the status quo.
Rand is a completely different animal. His knowledge is solid, he's very well-spoken and chooses those words carefully. I love his stuff. Very informative. But his reputation is everything to him. You can't behave like a hustler and get people to throw 10K of their hard-earned money your way every month. And I believe his approach is the right one...in his case. He needs for people to know that his objectivity is not for sale. Otherwise, his business is gone.
Shoemoney couldn't give a rat's ass about his rep for the most part. Take away what he's accomplished so far...and he'll just get up and start from scratch tomorrow.
Of the two, I found myself identifying more closely with Rand. But, whether focused and on point and well-researched or not...I still enjoyed the discussion. The only downside was that they were clearly having a difficult time hearing each other on the phone. That made for some awkwards gaps, and some lapses in communication.
All Comments
Like other folks, I found you through Shoemoney's blog, but while he feels that your content is very valuable and relevant to the discussion, I must say that I struggled to understand. Perhaps it's just different writing/comprehending styles, but the links you point to, while certainly interesting and valuable to bring to a discussion on disclosure, don't seem to address the singular issue that was up for debate:
And yet, while you say you agree with Shoemoney, there's a disclosure at the bottom of your page here. Is it just a case of "do what I say and not what I do?" Maybe you can explain it to me. Feel free to shoot me an email if you'd like.
Shoe could also include additional disclosure on a case by case basis where he feels it is appropriate, or when it is required by an advertiser, but he would be covered for all those unstated benefits that sometimes / might happen down the road, and for things like affiliate links.
In the case of SEOmoz, and I am a regular reader and believe you have a high level of integrity.
Post by post disclosure is a wonderful thing, but it rarely covers all those additional benefits of linking to or writing about someone.
Are you in a position to go back through 2 years worth of archives every time you sign a new customer, just in case you said something about them?
People rarely link to opposing views, they link to their friends, the sites they have in their bookmarks, and more often than not the people who share their views.
Like other folks, I found you through Shoemoney's blog, but while he feels that your content is very valuable and relevant to the discussion, I must say that I struggled to understand. Perhaps it's just different writing/comprehending styles, but the links you point to, while certainly interesting and valuable to bring to a discussion on disclosure, don't seem to address the singular issue that was up for debate:
And yet, while you say you agree with Shoemoney, there's a disclosure at the bottom of your page here. Is it just a case of "do what I say and not what I do?" Maybe you can explain it to me. Feel free to shoot me an email if you'd like.
Shoe could also include additional disclosure on a case by case basis where he feels it is appropriate, or when it is required by an advertiser, but he would be covered for all those unstated benefits that sometimes / might happen down the road, and for things like affiliate links.
In the case of SEOmoz, and I am a regular reader and believe you have a high level of integrity.
Post by post disclosure is a wonderful thing, but it rarely covers all those additional benefits of linking to or writing about someone.
Are you in a position to go back through 2 years worth of archives every time you sign a new customer, just in case you said something about them?
People rarely link to opposing views, they link to their friends, the sites they have in their bookmarks, and more often than not the people who share their views.
The real problem has been that there have been blogs created to sell a product where they are written by a fictional character to do so. The blog is nothing short of an advertisement, yet those who visit it don't realize that.
I think, ethically, disclosure is the right thing to do. It doesn't need to be taken to any extremes, it just needs to be accessible.
The real problem has been that there have been blogs created to sell a product where they are written by a fictional character to do so. The blog is nothing short of an advertisement, yet those who visit it don't realize that.
I think, ethically, disclosure is the right thing to do. It doesn't need to be taken to any extremes, it just needs to be accessible.
Nice and simple.
Nice and simple.
Company pays blogger for something. Blogger writes about the company. Or, if you prefer, Blogger writes about company. Company pays blogger something. Quid pro quo comes in many forms.
Your argument that all of these bloggers should have blanket disclosure policies is spot on.
Company pays blogger for something. Blogger writes about the company. Or, if you prefer, Blogger writes about company. Company pays blogger something. Quid pro quo comes in many forms.
Your argument that all of these bloggers should have blanket disclosure policies is spot on.
Neither of them chose to read it before debating the topic, which I agree is more than pointless. You have to start from a basic understanding of the law. Your readers should probably start off with this article from copyblogger for an introduction.
On a different note, I found your observation about google very interesting and hope to see more critical commentary about google.
I bolded one part in that quote, but the interesting part in this debate is the "other incentives", plus also affiliate marketing has monetary incentive, just like writing a paid post, and maybe more so.
The point I raised several months ago was that there were at least two disclosure issues.
1. Section 5, of the FTC Act, pertaining to WOMA.
But also, more importantly for affiliate marketers who are marketing a system for earning money,
2. The new business opportunity rule promulgated by the FTC, which doesn't have the force of law yet. But it is will require a 2 page disclosure, which most affiliate marketers won't know about.
(There is a current biz op rule which probably won't catch most affiliate marketers.)
In conclusion, it is not just word of mouth that affiliate marketers selling systems for earning money have to be worried about.
And yes, the FTC goes after unregistered biz ops all the time.
Neither of them chose to read it before debating the topic, which I agree is more than pointless. You have to start from a basic understanding of the law. Your readers should probably start off with this article from copyblogger for an introduction.
On a different note, I found your observation about google very interesting and hope to see more critical commentary about google.
I bolded one part in that quote, but the interesting part in this debate is the "other incentives", plus also affiliate marketing has monetary incentive, just like writing a paid post, and maybe more so.
The point I raised several months ago was that there were at least two disclosure issues.
1. Section 5, of the FTC Act, pertaining to WOMA.
But also, more importantly for affiliate marketers who are marketing a system for earning money,
2. The new business opportunity rule promulgated by the FTC, which doesn't have the force of law yet. But it is will require a 2 page disclosure, which most affiliate marketers won't know about.
(There is a current biz op rule which probably won't catch most affiliate marketers.)
In conclusion, it is not just word of mouth that affiliate marketers selling systems for earning money have to be worried about.
And yes, the FTC goes after unregistered biz ops all the time.
I have to disagree with your remark about "regulations". How could you possibly call these disclosure requirements "regulations"? They are simply "requirements" that are made up by the company--and there are a lot of affiliate-related "companies" I won't do business with or "endorse" because of those silly "requirements".
I agree with you, Amanda--it's best to be honest with your readers and being honest means "full disclosure" when it's appropriate to do so.
El Yanqui, that's a good point--I agree that bloggers would make it a lot easier on themselves if they added a "disclosure policy" to their site. Perhaps just like "privacy policies" us bloggers should be adding "disclosure policies".
Other lawyers, one of whom has already commented here and not disagreed, and there are references to 2 other lawyers, have also spoken about this, and in the past I have also linked through to more.
Until these things are tested in court in the US, it is all interpretation.
Clickbank have decided that their affiliates should comply with the FTC documents they link to. Just because other affiliate networks haven't taken action might be because they haven't been dragged through the courts recently on other issues (e.g. CAN-SPAM complaints against some of their affiliates)
Clickbank definitely know about the golden rule of marketing - "Cover Your Ar*e"
If you can find me a lawyer who has specifically stated that this does not apply to affiliate marketing, in public, and who has extensive experience in internet law, I would be glad to read it and link through.
I myself can point to lawyers who selectively avoid the subject, such as Michael Arrington, but I am not sure if he is practicing, and his specialisation.
I should note that Brian from Copyblogger used to work in Internet Law, and Mike Young specialises in it.
I also don't forget that my content gets distributed by email in 2 ways.
1. RSS subscription by email
2. Comment subscriptions
Both kinds of email can contain commercial messages, either from me, or sometimes from spammers.
I have links to contact details and my disclosure in feeds, and also have statements even in my comment subscriptions.
If you followed the link to my article on Feedburner, you might notice that I dragged them over the coals slightly because of CAN-SPAM compliance.
They have people who are non-practicing lawyers working in top management, you would expect them to have been in full compliance for years, yet getting a small change to allow you to include a commercial statement has been an uphill struggle.
I live in Poland, my company is registered in the UK, but I still have to run my business complying with US regulations, and the FTC is regulations, not whimsy.
A company can decide that their affiliates must have a certain type of link on their site in order to get paid. They can decide whether or not the affiliate must disclose that they're an affiliate. Of course the affiliate shouldn't misrepresent themselves, though.
When it comes to disclosure, I don't personally think the USA's FTC can get involved--this is a business transaction that doesn't necessarily directly involves the consumer. It's a referral...and the consumer clicks on a link and goes on over to another site where such things should be disclosed (like guarantees, warranties, etc. etc.).
I have to disagree with your remark about "regulations". How could you possibly call these disclosure requirements "regulations"? They are simply "requirements" that are made up by the company--and there are a lot of affiliate-related "companies" I won't do business with or "endorse" because of those silly "requirements".
I agree with you, Amanda--it's best to be honest with your readers and being honest means "full disclosure" when it's appropriate to do so.
El Yanqui, that's a good point--I agree that bloggers would make it a lot easier on themselves if they added a "disclosure policy" to their site. Perhaps just like "privacy policies" us bloggers should be adding "disclosure policies".
Other lawyers, one of whom has already commented here and not disagreed, and there are references to 2 other lawyers, have also spoken about this, and in the past I have also linked through to more.
Until these things are tested in court in the US, it is all interpretation.
Clickbank have decided that their affiliates should comply with the FTC documents they link to. Just because other affiliate networks haven't taken action might be because they haven't been dragged through the courts recently on other issues (e.g. CAN-SPAM complaints against some of their affiliates)
Clickbank definitely know about the golden rule of marketing - "Cover Your Ar*e"
If you can find me a lawyer who has specifically stated that this does not apply to affiliate marketing, in public, and who has extensive experience in internet law, I would be glad to read it and link through.
I myself can point to lawyers who selectively avoid the subject, such as Michael Arrington, but I am not sure if he is practicing, and his specialisation.
I should note that Brian from Copyblogger used to work in Internet Law, and Mike Young specialises in it.
I also don't forget that my content gets distributed by email in 2 ways.
1. RSS subscription by email
2. Comment subscriptions
Both kinds of email can contain commercial messages, either from me, or sometimes from spammers.
I have links to contact details and my disclosure in feeds, and also have statements even in my comment subscriptions.
If you followed the link to my article on Feedburner, you might notice that I dragged them over the coals slightly because of CAN-SPAM compliance.
They have people who are non-practicing lawyers working in top management, you would expect them to have been in full compliance for years, yet getting a small change to allow you to include a commercial statement has been an uphill struggle.
I live in Poland, my company is registered in the UK, but I still have to run my business complying with US regulations, and the FTC is regulations, not whimsy.
A company can decide that their affiliates must have a certain type of link on their site in order to get paid. They can decide whether or not the affiliate must disclose that they're an affiliate. Of course the affiliate shouldn't misrepresent themselves, though.
When it comes to disclosure, I don't personally think the USA's FTC can get involved--this is a business transaction that doesn't necessarily directly involves the consumer. It's a referral...and the consumer clicks on a link and goes on over to another site where such things should be disclosed (like guarantees, warranties, etc. etc.).
http://allianceforjustice.org/blog/2007/05/news...
http://allianceforjustice.org/blog/2007/05/news...
p.s. I have a comments policy too
p.s. I have a comments policy too
Jeremy is very much a street-level guy. He speaks very plainly, he's out there hustling for every dime he can pick up. He's got a high profile... but unlike John Chow, who seeks it out... Shoe just seems to draw attention because he's pretty flamboyant in his bluntness. He doesn't want anyone looking up to him. He investigates everything himself. I think that's just fine...and so is his "blanket disclosure". There's plenty of room in the world for scrappy guys like this... always challenging the status quo.
Rand is a completely different animal. His knowledge is solid, he's very well-spoken and chooses those words carefully. I love his stuff. Very informative. But his reputation is everything to him. You can't behave like a hustler and get people to throw 10K of their hard-earned money your way every month. And I believe his approach is the right one...in his case. He needs for people to know that his objectivity is not for sale. Otherwise, his business is gone.
Shoemoney couldn't give a rat's ass about his rep for the most part. Take away what he's accomplished so far...and he'll just get up and start from scratch tomorrow.
Of the two, I found myself identifying more closely with Rand. But, whether focused and on point and well-researched or not...I still enjoyed the discussion. The only downside was that they were clearly having a difficult time hearing each other on the phone. That made for some awkwards gaps, and some lapses in communication.
Jeremy is very much a street-level guy. He speaks very plainly, he's out there hustling for every dime he can pick up. He's got a high profile... but unlike John Chow, who seeks it out... Shoe just seems to draw attention because he's pretty flamboyant in his bluntness. He doesn't want anyone looking up to him. He investigates everything himself. I think that's just fine...and so is his "blanket disclosure". There's plenty of room in the world for scrappy guys like this... always challenging the status quo.
Rand is a completely different animal. His knowledge is solid, he's very well-spoken and chooses those words carefully. I love his stuff. Very informative. But his reputation is everything to him. You can't behave like a hustler and get people to throw 10K of their hard-earned money your way every month. And I believe his approach is the right one...in his case. He needs for people to know that his objectivity is not for sale. Otherwise, his business is gone.
Shoemoney couldn't give a rat's ass about his rep for the most part. Take away what he's accomplished so far...and he'll just get up and start from scratch tomorrow.
Of the two, I found myself identifying more closely with Rand. But, whether focused and on point and well-researched or not...I still enjoyed the discussion. The only downside was that they were clearly having a difficult time hearing each other on the phone. That made for some awkwards gaps, and some lapses in communication.