Calling Out All Affiliate Networks: When Will You Give Up Personal Info?

[PSU4Life]

I wont answer for all networks but in most standard agreements it will state that your information will be given up for a subpoena or if you violated any third parties rights.

In the context of the FTC coming knocking, i would guess that any .network will eventually give your information to them either willingly or by force.

The best way to avoid that is to play by the rules. In our world the FTC will enforce whats called section 5 of their code which relates to misleading and false advertisements. You want to ensure that your ads are not false or misleading. You cant say you will lose 40lbs in a week if there is no documentation proving it. Without proof that Becky exists the (insertnamehereweightlossblog.com) technique could be considered misleading.

Also if you think the FTC is working on something that has gotten big in the past two months you are probably very wrong. The FTC investigates for a long time before they do anything, and it usually takes them years to identify something to investigate. Look at how long ringtones ran, or debt consolidation companies, enron, travel clubs, etc...

For affiliates make sure you are not misleading or being false to consumers. It is OK to use logos of news outlets if the product was featured on it, its OK to set up your own review site as its your opinion. But its not OK to make claims that are not true.

The FTC will subpoena your host for your information, not the networks. Ad networks act as a basic conduit for advertisements, similar to the newspapers, magazines, or TV commercials. The networks involvement is non-existent in this issue.

Everyones paranoia will kill the diet space before it even starts, you guys need to operate under one rule, make sure your ads are truthful, if they are you have nothing to worry about, if the product really helps you to flush pounds is not your concern, the company is the one asserting those claims you are taking their materials and distributing it, if its wrong its the advertiser who has to deal with it.

I would say there are close to 25K orders of acai a DAY, 750K a month, do you think the 86 complaints you see online are a lot in comparison? if you spent $750K and made $86 is it a lot?

And the complaints are due to growing pains more than anything, if you want to do something about the complaints stop marketing the offer for a week

Mike, great post. I'm just looking for some more clarification on whats allowed and what isn't. I've always been paranoid about this stuff since lawyers will pick apart anything. I'm not trying to be a dick with the below I'm just trying to make a point.

Could all the problems be solved by doing what Barman said:

regarding this whole thing, figured i'd just throw this idea out here... have a link to saying "This is an advertisement" linking to a page basically explaining that some truths were stretched, this shit is made up, etc etc, use at your own risk.

Put it on the bottom right of your page in some pretty hard to read text .... might cover you in the long run

On the Copeac home page it says, “Guaranteed Top Payouts - The best paid affiliates”

If we look at this on a basic level, this would be misleading since you are guaranteeing the top payouts and the best paid affiliates. An affiliate could sign up under the false impression that Copeac has the top payouts but when he checks with other networks this isn't the case.

I'm assuming your legal link Untitled Document takes care of this. Part of the legal doc says, “THE WEB SITE, INCLUDING ALL CONTENT MADE AVAILABLE ON OR ACCESSED THROUGH THE WEB SITE, IS PROVIDED "AS IS". TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMISSIBLE BY LAW, INTERMARK MEDIA MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND WHATSOEVER FOR THE CONTENT ON THE WEB SITE.”

Which seems to say we are not responsible for anything this site says. Should we as affiliates just ad a legal link to every site we have with a huge disclaimer covering us from any liability?

If the legal link doesn't cover us, how do we know our ads are truthful? Say I want my adcopy to say lose 5 pounds in a week. Where do I go to see that the product I'm promoting can actually make that happen? Its not like the merchant gives us a booklet of everything the product can do. If we have to just go off the merchants LP we do not have much info to work with. By doing anything else we would be misleading consumers unless we actually had documentation of us or someone losing 5 pounds in a week. What does the law require as documentation. Is this some official documentation that we need lawyers/FTC officials to look at before we can make a claim?

If this is really how it is then almost all ads and landing pages are misleading. Because no affiliate has the time or resources to verify every sentence on their ad or site is 100% backed up by what the merchant says or by their own documentation. If things work this way our hands are tied and all ads and LPs would be basically the same.

Type: “make money” into Google. Look at the paid search results.

$75K - $100K Guaranteed
Make $400 in 24 Hours
Turn $3.23/day into $900/day
We got scammed 14 Times

These are all parts of paid ads I see. From what you wrote I take it these are all misleading unless each person responsible for the ad or the company they are advertising for has documentation. And to what extent does this documentation apply?

A bit off topic but does relate.
Could the network owners explain how they stop affiliates from getting each other banned. Say Joe and Tim are competing in the widget niche. Joe is sick of having to share his profits with Tim and wants the whole niche to himself. All he'd have to do is get Tim banned from his affiliate network. What is stopping Joe or what do the networks have in place to prevent Joe from filing out tons of fraud leads, spaming social networks, or doing anything else with Tims affiliate link to get him banned?

This also relates to the FTC and giving out info on affiliates. Just because some affiliates link ties him to an action doesn't mean he's the one promoting the link. Anyone can promote anyone elses affiliate link.

Sorry, I'm paranoid. I want to know legit affiliates are protected in these cases.

 

[ricdes]

A bit off topic but does relate.
Could the network owners explain how they stop affiliates from getting each other banned. Say Joe and Tim are competing in the widget niche. Joe is sick of having to share his profits with Tim and wants the whole niche to himself. All he'd have to do is get Tim banned from his affiliate network. What is stopping Joe or what do the networks have in place to prevent Joe from filing out tons of fraud leads, spaming social networks, or doing anything else with Tims affiliate link to get him banned?

This also relates to the FTC and giving out info on affiliates. Just because some affiliates link ties him to an action doesn't mean he's the one promoting the link. Anyone can promote anyone elses affiliate link.

Sorry, I'm paranoid. I want to know legit affiliates are protected in these cases.

Good question. Would cost Joe a shitload of time and cash, depending on the network.


Overall I'm pretty happy with these answers that I have gotten from some networks I do run quite volume with. I just wonder, like you PSU, if a simple disclaimer at the bottom of the page could help to prevent having problems with the FTC.

I mean, I live in Switzerland. But what if the FTC wants to get me really bad? Nothing would probably happen. But being prosecuted sucks, no matter where you are.

I think that some guys are overreacting. Cmon, like some people already said: Ringtones and other really shady stuff has been around for years and not a lot of guys got a call by the FTC if you compare it to the amount of leads that are still being driven.

 

[AdHustler]

Awesome thread so far. Great to see how different networks have slightly different views on privacy. Even though by now most that have read all these posts might just make their post about what the majority of us agree with.

They might, but when shit hits the fan and an affiliates info is given away, it will make them look pretty bad down the line.

 

[MaxSteve]

Could the network owners explain how they stop affiliates from getting each other banned. Say Joe and Tim are competing in the widget niche. Joe is sick of having to share his profits with Tim and wants the whole niche to himself. All he'd have to do is get Tim banned from his affiliate network. What is stopping Joe or what do the networks have in place to prevent Joe from filing out tons of fraud leads, spaming social networks, or doing anything else with Tims affiliate link to get him banned?

It wouldn't be that easy for Joe to get Tim banned. Assuming Tim has been with his network for a while (based on your example), a network wouldn't ban an affiliate with a history of quality leads if things suddenly went fraudulent. A discussion with Tim would be started to find out what's going on and eventually the real problem would be discovered and addressed.

 

[MaxSteve]

I strongly disagree with Steve and ROIShareTeam in regard to being fucked over. I do not believe that should waive the right of privacy at all. That says to me "I'm all for privacy, unless they fuck me". I think people who intentionally fuck you should be terminated, then you deal with them LEGALLY if need be. Don't go around handing their info out willy nilly to get one over back.

What would be the justification for protecting the privacy of a thief? This is not the type of thing that would typically be happening in the off-line world.

Legally speaking, by violating the network's affiliate terms and conditions, the affiliate has voided the contract they've entered with the network and is no longer offered the protection the contract has given them.

Lastly, I want to clarify the "fuck with me, I'll fuck with you statement". My intent certainly isn't to harass the affiliate, launch a DOS attack against them, beat up their kids, or any unacceptable stuff like that. My intent is to hand the info to the merchant so the merchant can legally take civil action against the affiliate should they so choose.

 

[brentdev]

Lastly, I want to clarify the "fuck with me, I'll fuck with you statement". My intent certainly isn't to harass the affiliate, launch a DOS attack against them, beat up their kids, or any unacceptable stuff like that. My intent is to hand the info to the merchant so the merchant can legally take civil action against the affiliate should they so choose.

Oh come on now.... we all know that you hate their kids...

 

[Firelead]

"from my cold dead hands." I won't give up any affiliate's info without a subpoena.

 

[ianternet]

this is a load of information especially form the networks - funny how one of my projects almost talks about the new blog style LPs

 

[mkrongel]

Mike, great post. I'm just looking for some more clarification on whats allowed and what isn't. I've always been paranoid about this stuff since lawyers will pick apart anything. I'm not trying to be a dick with the below I'm just trying to make a point.

Could all the problems be solved by doing what Barman said:



On the Copeac home page it says, “Guaranteed Top Payouts - The best paid affiliates”

If we look at this on a basic level, this would be misleading since you are guaranteeing the top payouts and the best paid affiliates. An affiliate could sign up under the false impression that Copeac has the top payouts but when he checks with other networks this isn't the case.

I'm assuming your legal link Untitled Document takes care of this. Part of the legal doc says, “THE WEB SITE, INCLUDING ALL CONTENT MADE AVAILABLE ON OR ACCESSED THROUGH THE WEB SITE, IS PROVIDED "AS IS". TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMISSIBLE BY LAW, INTERMARK MEDIA MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND WHATSOEVER FOR THE CONTENT ON THE WEB SITE.”

Which seems to say we are not responsible for anything this site says. Should we as affiliates just ad a legal link to every site we have with a huge disclaimer covering us from any liability?

If the legal link doesn't cover us, how do we know our ads are truthful? Say I want my adcopy to say lose 5 pounds in a week. Where do I go to see that the product I'm promoting can actually make that happen? Its not like the merchant gives us a booklet of everything the product can do. If we have to just go off the merchants LP we do not have much info to work with. By doing anything else we would be misleading consumers unless we actually had documentation of us or someone losing 5 pounds in a week. What does the law require as documentation. Is this some official documentation that we need lawyers/FTC officials to look at before we can make a claim?

If this is really how it is then almost all ads and landing pages are misleading. Because no affiliate has the time or resources to verify every sentence on their ad or site is 100% backed up by what the merchant says or by their own documentation. If things work this way our hands are tied and all ads and LPs would be basically the same.

Type: “make money” into Google. Look at the paid search results.

$75K - $100K Guaranteed
Make $400 in 24 Hours
Turn $3.23/day into $900/day
We got scammed 14 Times

These are all parts of paid ads I see. From what you wrote I take it these are all misleading unless each person responsible for the ad or the company they are advertising for has documentation. And to what extent does this documentation apply?

A bit off topic but does relate.
Could the network owners explain how they stop affiliates from getting each other banned. Say Joe and Tim are competing in the widget niche. Joe is sick of having to share his profits with Tim and wants the whole niche to himself. All he'd have to do is get Tim banned from his affiliate network. What is stopping Joe or what do the networks have in place to prevent Joe from filing out tons of fraud leads, spaming social networks, or doing anything else with Tims affiliate link to get him banned?

This also relates to the FTC and giving out info on affiliates. Just because some affiliates link ties him to an action doesn't mean he's the one promoting the link. Anyone can promote anyone elses affiliate link.

Sorry, I'm paranoid. I want to know legit affiliates are protected in these cases.

There are about 15 qustions in your post. We wrote a whitepaper a few years ago about misleading and deceptive marketing online you can find it here http://www.intermarkmedia.com/docs/whitepapers2.pdf you should also do your own research as we are not lawyers who specialize in this stuff

In regards to the highest payouts, best paid affiliates, stuff on our site our legal disclaimer does not protect us against that. However knowing what other networks make percentage wise i would be confident in our claims. Some networks are part of public companies and their earnings are there for all to see, its amazing to see how many make 25-35% margins off affiliates but still offer payouts at or close to what they get, so on face value we may not appear to be higher than network B but in terms of yield, our affiliates make more.

 

[mike@azoogle]

This is Mike, from AzoogleAds. I don't post in WF often, though as Jon can attest I'm on it multiple times a day. Here are the conditions under which we would divulge publisher information:

1) A lawful subpoena
2) In some circumstances, a written demand from a regulatory agency (Attorney Generals office; FTC) or
3) Where it is obvious the affiliate is engaging in illegal marketing practices and/or violating our terms and conditions, e.g., engaged in outright spam; stealing images or creatives from third parties.

 

[rgordon83]

regarding this whole thing, figured i'd just throw this idea out here... have a link to saying "This is an advertisement" linking to a page basically explaining that some truths were stretched, this shit is made up, etc etc, use at your own risk.

Put it on the bottom right of your page in some pretty hard to read text .... might cover you in the long run

I was thinking about this as well a few weeks ago. Kind of like how advertorials have it above the article. Seems like it's a little extra protection to have that...

 

[motivebrendan]

i agree with you 100%! Networks must protect the publishers and giving any information is not good. We have faced this a few times and we will never give up info about a publisher unless they give us permission or the person asking has legal right to get it -- and that legal right to get that info is very hard to get..

 

[allco]

Legally speaking, by violating the network's affiliate terms and conditions, the affiliate has voided the contract they've entered with the network and is no longer offered the protection the contract has given them.

Do you have a clause in the form of "confidentiality" or other rules, in your TOS, detailing this?

If not, would be a good idea to do so.

I'm not condoning the criminal activity, at all. But grey area can/may bite you. And lawyers are really good at exploiting holes, in effort to defend their client - and counter attack with an existing law (if there is one).

Just making a small point that there's a difference in one's moral judgements (and actions) and actually stating this and it's consequences in a written contract - so the other party is fully aware of it.

 

[motivebrendan]

Mike i agree on 1. and 3.

1) A lawful subpoena
3) Where it is obvious the affiliate is engaging in illegal marketing practices and/or violating our terms and conditions, e.g., engaged in outright spam; stealing images or creatives from third parties.

we as networks have a obligation to protect the publisher, and we should not give up any info unless there is either a legal action via a subpoena or obvious illegal practices and if that is the case the publisher will be the first to know that we are investigating and may release their info.

 

[lukem]

Maybe this is an apples to oranges comparison, but what happens if an Advertiser demands that a Network reveal the identity of an affiliate? And what does a Network do when that Advertiser threatens to withhold payment?

Not exactly the same thing as the FTC dropping by to say hello, but while we're on the subject of privacy...

 

[AdHustler]

Maybe this is an apples to oranges comparison, but what happens if an Advertiser demands that a Network reveal the identity of an affiliate? And what does a Network do when that Advertiser threatens to withhold payment?

Not exactly the same thing as the FTC dropping by to say hello, but while we're on the subject of privacy...

Good question, I bet you most networks fold pretty easily if that's the case.

 

[ROIShareTeam]

Good question, I bet you most networks fold pretty easily if that's the case.

Yes, that is a much harder situation. In this situation, speaking from a business person's view, you would have to evaluate what decision is most beneficial for your company and the majority of it's affiliates. If a single advertiser is paying out $250,000 monthly to my affiliates, and they threaten to withhold the $250k this month unless I expose a single affiliate, then I must make a decision that would affect the least amount of affiliates. If you think back to your senses, an advertiser wouldn't be requesting that a specific affiliate be exposed, unless they violated any regulation, so this means that the affiliate was not generating leads properly. There is simply no reason to penalize the other affiliates for a total sum of $250k for a single affiliate, especially an affiliate that broke the rules. Even though, that 200k would trickle down and would have to be removed from my pockets, costing my company.

I can give an example from an affiliate's point of view. Let's say I was promoting an offer at some network, and I was generating a pretty decent amount of volume this month. Then I receive an email from my affiliate manager saying that the advertiser I was promoting does not want to pay out for any leads this month, since the network declines to provide information on one affiliate that broke the rules. My very first reply, and like many of yours would be to ask why should we get penalized for someone elses actions.

In this whole situation there are 4 parties. Advertiser, Network, Affiliates, Conflict Affiliate. For the Advertiser, Network and other Affiliates, it is most wanted for that one affiliate's information be provided to the advertiser. Each for it's own reason. The only party that would go against this would be that conflicting affiliate. So really; you looking at a 3:1 vote.

 

[Reedo]

Reed here at Neverblue. I haven’t posted much but keep a close eye on things. Thought I would weigh in on this from Neverblue’s perspective.

Everyone at Neverblue understands our responsibility to insulate affiliates from a lot of hassles coming from authorities, advertisers, random lawyers and the likes. We think this insulation is a great benefit associated with strength in numbers and a fundamental value a network can provide.

We would only consider releasing personal information when forcibly required by either:

1) A court ordered subpoena,
2) Official written demands from the FTC or other government agency
3) And in limited cases undisputed evidence of illegal marketing practices brought forth by a major stakeholder (eg. MySpace related to spamming ect.)

The above mentioned situations almost never occur and in our experience almost every inquiring party, including some government agencies, is willing to negotiate and compromise with a ‘cease’ plus a formal written response.

If the FTC comes knocking with the right paperwork you have to know something serious must be up and I think most networks would have to answer the door.

At Neverblue we take this responsibility very seriously. However, to avoid this threat and hassle for everyone we both, network and affiliate, just need to make smart decisions, respect the affiliate marketing ecosystem, the role of the network, and the role of the affiliate. If we are creative but play within the boundaries none of us have anything to worry about.

 

[Sohan]

What would be the justification for protecting the privacy of a thief? This is not the type of thing that would typically be happening in the off-line world.

Legally speaking, by violating the network's affiliate terms and conditions, the affiliate has voided the contract they've entered with the network and is no longer offered the protection the contract has given them.

Lastly, I want to clarify the "fuck with me, I'll fuck with you statement". My intent certainly isn't to harass the affiliate, launch a DOS attack against them, beat up their kids, or any unacceptable stuff like that. My intent is to hand the info to the merchant so the merchant can legally take civil action against the affiliate should they so choose.

Well, I assumed you meant the DOS shit etc. My bad.

I'm all for privacy as long as the affiliate isn't pulling of fraud, and costing advertisers and others thousands of dollars. Though, I would probably catch up with the affiliate and his fraudulent dealings before the advertiser sends in a taunting complaint. If it comes to some affiliate using a copyrighted image, or using celebs on their landing pages; then I'll protect their privacy until the FTC comes to my door with a subpoena. But as soon as they start taking money out of people's wallets fraudulently, that is where the privacy is broken.

Also, not to mention, that affiliates should not view the network as their scapegoat. A network is there to make it more difficult for the FTC or advertiser contact the affiliate, but not to shield them away from any fraudulent dealings, or take the blame for it. Fuck, I surely don't want to take the blame for an affiliate sending in thousands of fake leads, since it has no benefit to any party, besides his.

And heck, I surely don't want to set any terms that favor fraudulent affiliates. If the person is an honest affiliate, doesn't blatantly rip us off or anyone else, then he deserves privacy.

Good points you make there.

 

[Deliguy]

Great thread. That covers azoogle, firelead, maxbounty (sorta), ads4dough, copeac, Motive Interactive, convert2media, roishare and advaliant if I'm counting correctly and they all seem pretty well in agreement with mike's policy.

And I can probably answer for Clickbooth:
1) Anyone who talks trash about us on a forum