You are here: Home / Social Media / Why Affiliate Vendors Need to Start Taking the Rap

Why Affiliate Vendors Need to Start Taking the Rap

January 24, 2011 37 Comments
55 Shares 55 Shares ×

Affiliate marketing masks

There’s a lot of news about disclosure online at the minute.

I’ve written about it a ton of times (and spoke about it over at Joe Hackman’s radio show), and smart bloggers like Lorelle are giving some great tips on how bloggers (and other online network users) should go about disclosing their affiliate or professional relationships (thanks to Christina Kingston for the heads-up on Lorelle’s post).

It’s becoming even more important as the U.K. joins the U.S. in cracking down on non-disclosed social updates, whether it’s on your blog, Twitter, Facebook, or anywhere else.

Simply put, if you’re using your platform to promote a service or product on behalf of someone else, you need to state that relationship clearly. Unfortunately, many bloggers and social network users are failing to do this – and the blame’s not entirely theirs.

Instead, it’s the affiliate vendors who are letting their affiliate marketers down.

Yes, You Do Have a Responsibility

I once asked a vendor about their approach to disclosure. The vendor in question makes a product, and a lot of people sell it as part of an affiliate scheme. The product’s very popular, so the vendor has probably made a nice amount of income from it.

I’d seen a lot of tweets and blog posts about this product, where it was clear the affiliate link was being used but not disclosed. I asked the vendor if they were aware, and why they weren’t being more vocal in ensuring affiliate links were disclosed. The vendor’s response?

“Of course, we’d prefer all links to be disclosed. But it’s not our job to police all our affiliates to make sure they’re adhering to the guidelines.”

I disagree and call BS on that.

The minute you make someone a salesperson for your company – which is exactly what an affiliate seller is – you have a responsibility to make sure they’re representing your company properly, and that they’re not breaking any laws in the process of that representation.

It’s your responsibility to make sure that they’re aware of any online regulations, especially in the wake of the FTC and ASA rulings in their respective countries. Saying you have it covered in your Terms and Conditions is an easy out, as we all know how often people read the small print (hint – not a lot).

If you’re not making it clear to your sellers what they need to be aware of, you’re setting them up for legal action or, at the very least, a need to take down their promotion of your products.

But there’s another reason why you, the vendor behind the affiliate program, needs to make sure your bloggers, tweeters or whatever, are disclosing their affiliation to you. The FTC doesn’t really care about the bloggers.

Instead, the FTC will be coming after you.

Bloggers 1, Vendors 0

In the most recent update to their guidelines, the FTC makes it clear who’ll suffer for non-disclosure. “We’re not monitoring bloggers and we have no plans to. If law enforcement becomes necessary, our focus will be advertisers, not endorsers – just as it’s always been.”

Of course, this shouldn’t be taken that bloggers no longer have to disclose – that’s still a given, as it is with Twitter, Facebook and other social network updates. However, it does mean that vendors can no longer claim to have no responsibility to “police affiliates”, because it won’t be the affiliates who get taken to court for non-disclosure – it’ll be the vendors themselves.

The funny thing is, the vendors can make it easier on themselves with just a simple, big bold piece of copy that all new affiliates see when they sign up to an affiliate program:

“Due to regulations regarding the disclosure of beneficial partnerships, we must ask you to make sure you disclose any affiliate links when talking about our product, regardless of where you are.”

This covers everyone – even if they live in a country that doesn’t require disclosure at the minute – and the affiliate can’t say they weren’t aware of the regulations, because they’ve agreed to them before being allowed to become part of the affiliate program.

PR and marketing programs could also adopt this approach, so any bloggers or Twitter users, etc, that are part of a promotional program know they have to make sure they’re not misleading anyone with their promotional updates.

Heck, it’d even offer those vendors moaning about policing their affiliates a fix, since they’ve made it clear and simple to understand what’s required from their affiliates, as opposed to being hidden in some small print.

I don’t know – seems kinda simple to me. How about you?

image: poropitia outside the box

Join over 11,000 smart subscribers

Get my latest updates delivered straight to your Inbox as soon as they're published (I respect your privacy and will never spam you)

55 Shares Twitter 38 Facebook 13 Google+ 0 Buffer 0 Buffer LinkedIn 4 Email -- Email to a friend 55 Shares ×
Filed Under: Social Media Tagged With:
About Danny

Danny Brown is Chief Technologist at ArCompany and an award-winning marketer and blogger. His blog is recognized as the #1 marketing blog in the world by HubSpot. Danny is also co-author of Influence Marketing: How to Create, Manage and Measure Brand Influencers in Social Media Marketing.

72 comments
  Livefyre
Newest | Oldest
Dennis Lively
Dennis Lively

Hey there Danny!

Been hip deep in alligators on a new project all day but I wanted to get into this conversation.

My entire business, up to this point, relies upon affiliates. I have 817 of them...or should I say I HAD 817 affiliates.

Over the last 2+ weeks, my VAs and I have been doing some investigative work and have discovered that 44 affiliates were putting MY business at risk with their linking procedures.

I sent those affiliates a nice but firm letter asking them to stop with the non-disclosure method of linking to my products. My solution, if they couldn't figure out how to sell my products without hiding their affiliate status from the potential buyers, was to delete them from my affiliate script database. I gave them 10 days to rectify things with their methods...until the 31st of this month. So far, 14 have changed their linking ways, at least for now, and will receive some extra vigilance from us. 30 have not responded or changed their linking methods. I hate to loose 30 affiliates but I'll easily take that over loosing my entire business to a cease and desist order and enforcement measures.

From a marketers standpoint, I feel that if, in my affiliate agreement, I demand that an affiliate of mine must comply with FTC disclosure rules, I have a signed agreement to that effect and can show good faith efforts to enforce that demand...the affiliate should be at fault, not me!

Several fellow marketers are following my situation closely since they have many affiliates also.

Bloggers must be held to the same ethical code and demands as information creators like myself. If bloggers and reviewers and the like are held to a lesser set of rules, my only defense will be to go back to selling all my products on my own sites and through my own marketing efforts which I have full control of.

That would be a shame. Each month, I send affiliate commissions out of over $150,000.00 I really would hate to see my affiliates, some of which have been with me for 15 years, loose that kind of income because of the actions of just a few.

Sorry so long-winded.

Dennis Lively

Danny
Danny

Wow, Dennis, talk about ethical - kudos, sir (though sorry to see that it's taking something so drastic to make the point clear).

Where do you see the biggest disconnect - the FTC not making guidelines clear enough; vendors not educating affiliates properly; dubious vendors ignoring the FTC (and similar rulings) altogether; or a mix of the three?

Really curious to hear from a successful vendor's standpoint. Cheers, sir!

Dennis Lively
Dennis Lively

Thanks for the kind comments, they're much appreciated.

3 things...1. the lack of consistent action on the part of the FTC (many people getting away with things in plain sight) 2. lazy vendors or rather, greedy vendors. (if you make your affiliates have some ethics, you won't have many affiliates!) 3.lazy AND greedy affiliates it's just easier to take a chance (with someone else's business by the way)on getting caught by the vendor and perhaps being de-affiliate-ized. All the guilty affiliate has to do is go find another, less picky, vendor.

Most vendors are so thrilled to have affiliates selling for them that they're afraid to say anything to them about ethics in any way. Guess they'll have to learn.

I WILL start calling bloggers (privately at least at first) on non-disclosure issues for mentions that are clearly money-making for them. That's only fair!

Good conversation here as always!

Dennis

Danny
Danny

I guess that's probably one of the biggest issues, Dennis - like you say, the affiliate themselves don't really care whether your business goes under or not, they'll just move to a new program (at least, the cruddy ones will).

Maybe the FTC needs to amend the policy to show they will go after bloggers that deliberately flaunt the law. Seems unfair when a vendor does everything right but still suffers.

Thanks for the food for thought, sir, appreciate it.

Dennis Lively
Dennis Lively

Hey there Danny!

Been hip deep in alligators on a new project all day but I wanted to get into this conversation.

My entire business, up to this point, relies upon affiliates. I have 817 of them...or should I say I HAD 817 affiliates.

Over the last 2+ weeks, my VAs and I have been doing some investigative work and have discovered that 44 affiliates were putting MY business at risk with their linking procedures.

I sent those affiliates a nice but firm letter asking them to stop with the non-disclosure method of linking to my products. My solution, if they couldn't figure out how to sell my products without hiding their affiliate status from the potential buyers, was to delete them from my affiliate script database. I gave them 10 days to rectify things with their methods...until the 31st of this month. So far, 14 have changed their linking ways, at least for now, and will receive some extra vigilance from us. 30 have not responded or changed their linking methods. I hate to loose 30 affiliates but I'll easily take that over loosing my entire business to a cease and desist order and enforcement measures.

From a marketers standpoint, I feel that if, in my affiliate agreement, I demand that an affiliate of mine must comply with FTC disclosure rules, I have a signed agreement to that effect and can show good faith efforts to enforce that demand...the affiliate should be at fault, not me!

Several fellow marketers are following my situation closely since they have many affiliates also.

Bloggers must be held to the same ethical code and demands as information creators like myself. If bloggers and reviewers and the like are held to a lesser set of rules, my only defense will be to go back to selling all my products on my own sites and through my own marketing efforts which I have full control of.

That would be a shame. Each month, I send affiliate commissions out of over $150,000.00 I really would hate to see my affiliates, some of which have been with me for 15 years, loose that kind of income because of the actions of just a few.

Sorry so long-winded.

Dennis Lively

Dennis Lively
Dennis Lively

Hey there Danny! Been hip deep in alligators on a new project all day but I wanted to get into this conversation. My entire business, up to this point, relies upon affiliates. I have 817 of them...or should I say I HAD 817 affiliates. Over the last 2+ weeks, my VAs and I have been doing some investigative work and have discovered that 44 affiliates were putting MY business at risk with their linking procedures. I sent those affiliates a nice but firm letter asking them to stop with the non-disclosure method of linking to my products. My solution, if they couldn't figure out how to sell my products without hiding their affiliate status from the potential buyers, was to delete them from my affiliate script database. I gave them 10 days to rectify things with their methods...until the 31st of this month. So far, 14 have changed their linking ways, at least for now, and will receive some extra vigilance from us. 30 have not responded or changed their linking methods. I hate to loose 30 affiliates but I'll easily take that over loosing my entire business to a cease and desist order and enforcement measures. From a marketers standpoint, I feel that if, in my affiliate agreement, I demand that an affiliate of mine must comply with FTC disclosure rules, I have a signed agreement to that effect and can show good faith efforts to enforce that demand...the affiliate should be at fault, not me! Several fellow marketers are following my situation closely since they have many affiliates also. Bloggers must be held to the same ethical code and demands as information creators like myself. If bloggers and reviewers and the like are held to a lesser set of rules, my only defense will be to go back to selling all my products on my own sites and through my own marketing efforts which I have full control of. That would be a shame. Each month, I send affiliate commissions out of over $150,000.00 I really would hate to see my affiliates, some of which have been with me for 15 years, loose that kind of income because of the actions of just a few. Sorry so long-winded. Dennis Lively

Danny
Danny

Wow, Dennis, talk about ethical - kudos, sir (though sorry to see that it's taking something so drastic to make the point clear). Where do you see the biggest disconnect - the FTC not making guidelines clear enough; vendors not educating affiliates properly; dubious vendors ignoring the FTC (and similar rulings) altogether; or a mix of the three? Really curious to hear from a successful vendor's standpoint. Cheers, sir!

Dennis Lively
Dennis Lively

Thanks for the kind comments, they're much appreciated. 3 things...1. the lack of consistent action on the part of the FTC (many people getting away with things in plain sight) 2. lazy vendors or rather, greedy vendors. (if you make your affiliates have some ethics, you won't have many affiliates!) 3.lazy AND greedy affiliates it's just easier to take a chance (with someone else's business by the way)on getting caught by the vendor and perhaps being de-affiliate-ized. All the guilty affiliate has to do is go find another, less picky, vendor. Most vendors are so thrilled to have affiliates selling for them that they're afraid to say anything to them about ethics in any way. Guess they'll have to learn. I WILL start calling bloggers (privately at least at first) on non-disclosure issues for mentions that are clearly money-making for them. That's only fair! Good conversation here as always! Dennis

Danny
Danny

I guess that's probably one of the biggest issues, Dennis - like you say, the affiliate themselves don't really care whether your business goes under or not, they'll just move to a new program (at least, the cruddy ones will). Maybe the FTC needs to amend the policy to show they will go after bloggers that deliberately flaunt the law. Seems unfair when a vendor does everything right but still suffers. Thanks for the food for thought, sir, appreciate it.

Jackie Lampugnano
Jackie Lampugnano

Great post Danny and I agree with you when it's more straightforward--aka sales rep is promoting their product, said sales rep should disclose that they work for the company.

My question: what do you think about PR professionals? If we tweet out a news article that mentions our clients, is that unethical? Even if we don't mention the client name?

I know some agencies have internal policies about this but many don't. As a PR person, I constantly wonder if/when I'm crossing the line with this. Should ALL PR agencies implement their own rules here? Are they to blame as much as the affiliate vendors you're referring to?

Danny
Danny

That's a great question, Jackie. Did the client win an award or get media coverage because of you? Will you benefit from their new coverage? Are you being employed to promote the company across channels, regardless of whether it's your own campaign or not?

We always err on the side of safety, and disclose every time. That way, no-one is left in any doubt as to why you're promoting that news story, etc, as much.

Cheers!

Howie at Sky Pulse Media
Howie at Sky Pulse Media

I just blogged last week in reaction to this. Someone works for Company A. He is very well known in Social Media. He read a fast Company article about a client that is very polarizing in terms of their business ethics. The article was about a good deed. It was not his account personally.

The problem is 140 Characters. When he inserted 'client' as he should. I took it as his personal account and since I dislike the Brand immensely reacted on Twitter challenging their client for hypocrisy.

I took the tweet as 'Look at my client aren't they so good'. When reality was he just tweeted the Fast Company article because his employer had the account. And this person was gracious to clear things up with me and we both were left happy even though my statement on the Brand and the premise of PR stood intact.

I think you should be very clear in your purpose and transparent. Sometimes tweeting about clients comes across as very vane or gartuitous like my example above.

Howie at Sky Pulse Media
Howie at Sky Pulse Media

I don't shun links when they are disclosed. For many reasons. But mainly the news could be interesting and we all want to stay on top of developments in our industries. And as long as it is not a shameless plug it might have value. If you used a client as a case study, which I have done I am even more likely to read it.

Danny
Danny

Often, I actually click these types of links more (the disclosed ones). The way I figure, they've been honest enough to disclose, so there's a good chance they'll be (relatively) unbiased too.

'Course, the link often makes that thinking irrelevant, but there's always hope for the next one... ;-)

Danny
Danny

Often, I actually click these types of links more (the disclosed ones). The way I figure, they've been honest enough to disclose, so there's a good chance they'll be (relatively) unbiased too.

'Course, the link often makes that thinking irrelevant, but there's always hope for the next one... ;-)

Jackie Lampugnano
Jackie Lampugnano

Thanks for the thoughts on that. I agree with both of you. I never know what to do (so I normally avoid sharing).

On one hand, I want to share the news because I care about the client and it's my job to get the word out. On the other hand, it just seems shady to do that as an alleged "third party."

I suppose it's one thing if I'm tweeting a link to a release where I'm listed as a contact, but for the most part tweeting client news stories without full disclosure just seems like something that will get you in trouble.

Do you find that you avoid reading tweets when someone includes "(client)" to disclose that it's their client? I sometimes think they're a biased source. Maybe that's just me being cynical...after all, we microblog or FB "like" things based on our own personal opinions.

This is definitely an example of blurred lines between ethical and unethical. Too bad "intentions" can't be taken into consideration.

Jackie Lampugnano
Jackie Lampugnano

Thanks for the thoughts on that. I agree with both of you. I never know what to do (so I normally avoid sharing).

On one hand, I want to share the news because I care about the client and it's my job to get the word out. On the other hand, it just seems shady to do that as an alleged "third party."

I suppose it's one thing if I'm tweeting a link to a release where I'm listed as a contact, but for the most part tweeting client news stories without full disclosure just seems like something that will get you in trouble.

Do you find that you avoid reading tweets when someone includes "(client)" to disclose that it's their client? I sometimes think they're a biased source. Maybe that's just me being cynical...after all, we microblog or FB "like" things based on our own personal opinions.

This is definitely an example of blurred lines between ethical and unethical. Too bad "intentions" can't be taken into consideration.

Jackie Lampugnano
Jackie Lampugnano

Great post Danny and I agree with you when it's more straightforward--aka sales rep is promoting their product, said sales rep should disclose that they work for the company. My question: what do you think about PR professionals? If we tweet out a news article that mentions our clients, is that unethical? Even if we don't mention the client name? I know some agencies have internal policies about this but many don't. As a PR person, I constantly wonder if/when I'm crossing the line with this. Should ALL PR agencies implement their own rules here? Are they to blame as much as the affiliate vendors you're referring to?

Danny
Danny

That's a great question, Jackie. Did the client win an award or get media coverage because of you? Will you benefit from their new coverage? Are you being employed to promote the company across channels, regardless of whether it's your own campaign or not? We always err on the side of safety, and disclose every time. That way, no-one is left in any doubt as to why you're promoting that news story, etc, as much. Cheers!

Howie at Sky Pulse Media
Howie at Sky Pulse Media

I just blogged last week in reaction to this. Someone works for Company A. He is very well known in Social Media. He read a fast Company article about a client that is very polarizing in terms of their business ethics. The article was about a good deed. It was not his account personally. The problem is 140 Characters. When he inserted 'client' as he should. I took it as his personal account and since I dislike the Brand immensely reacted on Twitter challenging their client for hypocrisy. I took the tweet as 'Look at my client aren't they so good'. When reality was he just tweeted the Fast Company article because his employer had the account. And this person was gracious to clear things up with me and we both were left happy even though my statement on the Brand and the premise of PR stood intact. I think you should be very clear in your purpose and transparent. Sometimes tweeting about clients comes across as very vane or gartuitous like my example above.

Howie at Sky Pulse Media
Howie at Sky Pulse Media

I don't shun links when they are disclosed. For many reasons. But mainly the news could be interesting and we all want to stay on top of developments in our industries. And as long as it is not a shameless plug it might have value. If you used a client as a case study, which I have done I am even more likely to read it.

Danny
Danny

Often, I actually click these types of links more (the disclosed ones). The way I figure, they've been honest enough to disclose, so there's a good chance they'll be (relatively) unbiased too. 'Course, the link often makes that thinking irrelevant, but there's always hope for the next one... ;-)

Jackie Lampugnano
Jackie Lampugnano

Thanks for the thoughts on that. I agree with both of you. I never know what to do (so I normally avoid sharing). On one hand, I want to share the news because I care about the client and it's my job to get the word out. On the other hand, it just seems shady to do that as an alleged "third party." I suppose it's one thing if I'm tweeting a link to a release where I'm listed as a contact, but for the most part tweeting client news stories without full disclosure just seems like something that will get you in trouble. Do you find that you avoid reading tweets when someone includes "(client)" to disclose that it's their client? I sometimes think they're a biased source. Maybe that's just me being cynical...after all, we microblog or FB "like" things based on our own personal opinions. This is definitely an example of blurred lines between ethical and unethical. Too bad "intentions" can't be taken into consideration.

Ann Marie van den Hurk
Ann Marie van den Hurk

The key for me is public trust. Disclosure is so important for readers of blogs to know if a product is being sold to them.

Danny
Danny

Couldn't agree more, Ann Marie - if you can't be honest with the very people who make your blog what it is, what's the point?

Ann Marie van den Hurk
Ann Marie van den Hurk

The key for me is public trust. Disclosure is so important for readers of blogs to know if a product is being sold to them.

Danny
Danny

Couldn't agree more, Ann Marie - if you can't be honest with the very people who make your blog what it is, what's the point?

Keith Davis
Keith Davis

Hi Danny
Bang... that graphic stopped me in my tracks.
Love it.

Back on topic - looks to me as though you have provided the vendors with the perfect piece of text to add to their agreements.

All they have to do is cut... and paste.
And you aren't even charging them.

Danny
Danny

Hey, good point - I should have made that a premium sentence! ;-)

Keith Davis
Keith Davis

Hi Danny Bang... that graphic stopped me in my tracks. Love it. Back on topic - looks to me as though you have provided the vendors with the perfect piece of text to add to their agreements. All they have to do is cut... and paste. And you aren't even charging them.

Danny
Danny

Hey, good point - I should have made that a premium sentence! ;-)

Annie
Annie

Great post. Got me thinking about setting up a set of guidelines for bloggers I work with. I was very inspired by Ogilvy's blogger outreach code of ethics: http://blog.ogilvypr.com/2007/09/creating-a-blogger-outreach-code-of-ethics-take-1/ - covers disclosure and lots of other issues.

Danny
Danny

Thanks for sharing that, Annie, that's a great starting point for others to build from. I know at Bonsai, we'd rather lose a blogger (or not work with one) and keep honesty, as opposed to a potential backlash for the brands we're representing. And that's not even taking the ethics question into account... ;-)

Annie
Annie

Great post. Got me thinking about setting up a set of guidelines for bloggers I work with. I was very inspired by Ogilvy's blogger outreach code of ethics: http://blog.ogilvypr.com/2007/09/creating-a-blogger-outreach-code-of-ethics-take-1/ - covers disclosure and lots of other issues.

Danny
Danny

Thanks for sharing that, Annie, that's a great starting point for others to build from.

I know at Bonsai, we'd rather lose a blogger (or not work with one) and keep honesty, as opposed to a potential backlash for the brands we're representing. And that's not even taking the ethics question into account... ;-)

Yvette
Yvette

I promote as an affiliate to my peeps products/services in my industry that I am proud to share. I've had direct experience with these individuals or they have helped me and I want others to know about them. How do you suggest I inform people that I'm an affiliate promoter while letting them know I sincerely back these services? THx :)

Danny
Danny

Hi Yvette,

A couple of ways to inform would be to have a disclosure at the end of your post (if you were promoting on a blog, for example). Something like: "The links used in this post are affiliate links, so I make a percentage of any sale. However, I firmly believe in this product's benefits, which is why I'm sharing with you." Or similar (doesn't need to be as wordy).

You can also have a Disclosure Page that advises of your relationships and how they might impact your reviews:

http://bestbloggingtipsonline.com/disclosure/

Hope this helps!

Yvette
Yvette

that's great pointers thx!

Yvette
Yvette

I promote as an affiliate to my peeps products/services in my industry that I am proud to share. I've had direct experience with these individuals or they have helped me and I want others to know about them. How do you suggest I inform people that I'm an affiliate promoter while letting them know I sincerely back these services? THx :)

Danny
Danny

Hi Yvette, A couple of ways to inform would be to have a disclosure at the end of your post (if you were promoting on a blog, for example). Something like: "The links used in this post are affiliate links, so I make a percentage of any sale. However, I firmly believe in this product's benefits, which is why I'm sharing with you." Or similar (doesn't need to be as wordy). You can also have a Disclosure Page that advises of your relationships and how they might impact your reviews: http://bestbloggingtipsonline.com/disclosure/ Hope this helps!

Yvette
Yvette

that's great pointers thx!

Charles Tutt
Charles Tutt

How many times is a ton? Sorry, I didn't get past that question in your article.

Danny
Danny

Ah well, always the next time, eh Charles? ;-)

Charles Tutt
Charles Tutt

How many times is a ton? Sorry, I didn't get past that question in your article.

Danny
Danny

Ah well, always the next time, eh Charles? ;-)

Dino Dogan
Dino Dogan

You make some great points Danny. FTC may be monitoring the affiliates and not bloggers. However, as a blogger, I personally dont care what FTC, affiliates, or human laws have to say about it.

My only responsibility is to the reader. I want to be known as someone who is transparent to my readers. So I consider it in my own best personal interest to not only disclose but be totally transparent.

People get hung up on details, laws, regulations, as if these things are always correct. They're not.

One thing thats always correct is the right thing to do and we all know what that is. This is simple ethics.

Sorry...I dont mean to go on and on...and I dont mean to preach, but if we all stopped being so damn corporatized and litigious, I think we'd be better off as a society.

I know it seams like Im reaching here, but we dont live in a vacuum and all these things are related.

Anyways, great post, loved reading your take on it.

Danny
Danny

Agree completely, Dino - every blogger should automatically care and be nothing but honest; that should be a given.

Unfortunately that's not the case (as Jim points out so well above), and it's for reasons like that, and many others like them, that we need the FTC and comparable organizations to stamp out the crud.

Dino Dogan
Dino Dogan

I understand the urge to appoint a policing body but if history is any example –and it always is- its never effective.

Chinese gov decreed that most fams can have only one baby. Since boy-children are more valued in their culture, as soon as x-ray machines were able to tell the gender of the fetus, fams decided to abort female babies.

This now left Chins lop sided with too many men and too few women.

Whenever this happens within populations, crime and prostitution increase systemically.

You cant police intention, and if you do, it always has unintended consequences.

Danny
Danny

While I see the point you're trying to make, Dino, I think they're different examples. Population control is a bit different from disclosing a link's true nature and, while not popular or always right, especially when it comes to gender control, can sadly be needed.

Any advertising and professional relationship needs to be disclosed when in business. Being an affiliate is business - break the law, suffer the consequences.

Dino Dogan
Dino Dogan

This now left China*

Your comment system doesnt have edit function...errr lol

Dino Dogan
Dino Dogan

I understand the urge to appoint a policing body but if history is any example –and it always is- its never effective.

Chinese gov decreed that most fams can have only one baby. Since boy-children are more valued in their culture, as soon as x-ray machines were able to tell the gender of the fetus, fams decided to abort female babies.

This now left Chins lop sided with too many men and too few women.

Whenever this happens within populations, crime and prostitution increase systemically.

You cant police intention, and if you do, it always has unintended consequences.

Danny
Danny

While I see the point you're trying to make, Dino, I think they're different examples. Population control is a bit different from disclosing a link's true nature and, while not popular or always right, especially when it comes to gender control, can sadly be needed.

Any advertising and professional relationship needs to be disclosed when in business. Being an affiliate is business - break the law, suffer the consequences.

Dino Dogan
Dino Dogan

This now left China*

Your comment system doesnt have edit function...errr lol

Trackbacks

  1. Affiliate Marketing –How You Can Start Your Home Internet Business | a great job on the internet says:
    January 24, 2011 at 4:04 pm

    [...] Why Affiliate Vendors Need to Start Taking the Rap | Danny Brown [...]

  2. Why Affiliate Vendors Need to Start Taking the Rap | Danny Brown - - Money On Demand says:
    January 24, 2011 at 5:29 pm

    [...] Visit link: Why Affiliate Vendors Need to Start Taking the Rap | Danny Brown [...]

  3. Affiliate Marketing Manual | Affiliate Marketing Elite says:
    January 25, 2011 at 4:23 am

    [...] Why Affiliate Vendors Need to Start Taking the Rap | Danny Brown [...]

  4. A Distinct Blueprint To Stop Failure With Affiliate Marketing | Buying Investment Properties says:
    February 3, 2011 at 4:48 pm

    [...] Why Affiliate Vendors Need to Start Taking the Rap | Danny Brown [...]

  5. A Day In The Life Of An Affiliate Vendor I Care About Affiliates & Customers says:
    May 10, 2011 at 8:01 am

    [...] the marketing day.Is that success looming in the distance or what?P.S. Don’t forget about the affiliate disclosure part. Key in nowadays Internet economy.P.P.S. Read this for approaching potential affiliates. [...]


55 Shares Twitter 38 Facebook 13 Google+ 0 Buffer 0 Buffer LinkedIn 4 Email -- Email to a friend 55 Shares ×