While this does not have to do with any particular scam it has to do with the overall problems with affiliate marketing and affiliate marketers. This blog is not about affiliate marketing but it seems that we run into them a lot due to the CPA nature of scams and that they use affiliates to create fake blogs, deceptive landing pages, and more. So the question is should Affiliates be held liable for the scams they promote?
I say yes as these affiliates find high CPA offers and create misleading ads and landing pages that do not tell the truth, we have seen this in the dazzlesmile lawsuit and others recently where the fake blogs are not created by the company who is producing the product but by the affiliate promoting the product. These fake blogs or fake reviews are misleading and do not use fair marketing practices.
While the FTC is trying to crack down on these fake blogs and reviews what about landing pages that say free trial only shipping and handling but do not say anything about the auto ship and do not have it in the terms and conditions. When you are transported over to the payment page it is hidden there in the terms and conditions. But do people even pay attention to the fact they have been transported to a new site? They know when they click a link the page flashes and they are on a new page but they may not know they have been moved by an affiliate link to a new party who’s terms and conditions are not the same as the one they where on before.
We noticed in the dazzlesmile lawsuit however that one affiliate was named but I do not believe it was for the actions as an affiliate but other actions however, there are other affiliates using the dazzlesmile trademark and they are not on the lawsuit? Why not? Do they not have enough money to be considered in suing? Such as dazzlesmile.biz is owned by Nitro Web Media Pvt Ltd in India, should the trademark infringement go after this person? I say yes because the trademark is in the domain name and they are promoting dazzlesmile as the tooth whitening pens.
What are your thoughts? Should affiliate marketers have some protection or should they also be prone to lawsuits from the marketing practices they use. Would this force people into ethical affiliate marketing or am I the only one who believes in promoting products that will be of benefit to the people I am marketing too as well as keeping them safe from scams and identity theft.
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
That is a question that is multifaceted. I have marketed products in the past, such as weight loss programs, that I have never used myself. When picking out these products to promote I always checked the percentages of returns. If they were high I would not touch them, if there were very few returns then I would promote them, thinking that they were of some worth.
Normally, I try not promote any products that I do not try or purchase first to gain an understanding of the product and its worth.
I can understand how some affiliates have joined the marketplace and promoted Acai, Teeth whitening, and the Google Profit types of scams, without any knowledge of the products, other than what they have read. This is easy to do, especially when the network that you are working with is pushing these as high return sales and popular with the buying public.
These affiliates could be held liable for their own naivety, but to be fined for it would seem more than what is necessary. They should be warned, and made to cease the advertisements. Then, if they do not desist and continue, they should be held liable and be fined.
It is getting to the point of differentiating between the level of involvement each individual affiliate has with the network and the product that is being advertised.
For instance, I was tempted to advertise one of the first Google kits and the eBay kit when they first came out, over two years ago. But, after studying the Terms and Conditions and reading all of the fine print, I felt that they were concealing to much from the public, so I did not affiliate with them. This was a personal judgment call, many affiliates began promoting these same products heavily.
I do know of a few marketers that do affiliate with these types of scams, like the late Google Money Tree, and have never felt bad about their affiliation, or the money that they make at the expense of the victims.
These affiliates are quite knowledgeable with the scamming aspects of the products, yet continue to market them because of the potential monetary gains. In my mind they are nearly as culpable as the networks, but not as culpable as the product creators.
The elements involved are four tiered, and how do you separate the amount of involvement and knowledge within the affiliate group (level)? Where is the line drawn in holding individuals responsible?
Self policing has not worked to date. The only true way to police this is to get the major players, like Google, Yahoo, MSN, and the social network sites to refuse to place deceptive advertising on their pages and sites.
This has very little chance of success because to the revenue that will be lost. Greed and necessity both play into this, and will continue to do so.
A real life comparison is the advertising that continues on Television. Although the level of deception is not as grandiose as that of the Google Money Tree scam. It is still deceptive when they use actors to portray Doctors and professionals to convince the viewers of the authenticity of a product, or program.
I am sure that not all Television testimonials of before and after results are valid. Many of these are actors that may or may not have ever participated in or tried a particular product. Some famous personalities, not so famous actors and celebrities even receive royalties and percentages of the sales generated. Do we prosecute them as affiliates, when we know that the products claims are not valid, or at best extremely exaggerated?
That is not likely to ever happen.
.-= Raief´s last blog ..Links for 2009-12-01 [Digg] =-.
@Raief All good points, and I suppose that this could also be stopped by affiliate networks refusing to allow these types of operations into the ranks to begin with.
It’s sad to see that greed has overcome and in the end will always rule I suppose.
Yes, that would also help to deter the promoters, but that is when necessity can also enter into the equation. Some affiliate networks have relied upon the revenue from these ads for supporting their personnel. They have other products as well as the questionable ones, but to reduce their inventory would reduce their net earnings.
I do know of one affiliate network that seems to solely rely upon these scam products. This network would disappear overnight if they were to all pulled. Although, that would not be such a bad occurrence.
Have you read this related article? http://consumerist.com/2009/11/google-bans-scammy-advertisers-from-network.html
It is not very long, but produced a few interesting comments.
.-= Raief´s last blog ..Links for 2009-12-01 [Digg] =-.
I should have placed a link to the original article: http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/0s-1s-and-s/2009/11/17/google-does-non-evil-thing-bans-white-teeth-flat-stomachs?page=full
.-= Raief´s last blog ..Links for 2009-12-01 [Digg] =-.
I had seen that article before and was happy about it. I am glad Google is changing the way it bans and go after the advertiser not the AD, however there are a lot of advertisers advertising the same scam, going to ban them all? What about what that advertiser is pushing $100k or more to Google will they still ban them? That remains to be seen