California Affiliates - A small bit of hope

1. 0

   Where To Buyposted 12 years ago

   This was posted at Abestweb by Rebecca Madigan of the Performance Marketing Association.
   
   "The California law was amended to include language similar to New York's approach, getting affiliates to sign affidavits swearing they aren't soliciting. You can't use email, social media or behavioral targeting, for example. The problem I see right now is that the Board of Equalization hasn't come out with regulations or guidelines on how this is supposed to work, and what they consider acceptable. In New York, that exemption process was created as part of the regulations process, which happened later.
   
   From a practicality matter, it potentially ties affiliates' hands quite a bit in terms of how you can and can't market. From a merchant's perspective, it is still risky. Even if an affiliate signs something swearing they won't do the forbidden marketing tactics, if caught, the merchant is held responsible. They will have nexus."
   
   That being said, the need for workarounds is understandable. I'll put a call into my contacts at the BOE to see what's up with this portion of the law, if regulations will be created and when. Unfortunately, the law is in place right now, so merchants may have to terminate anyway."
   
   Here's the Link http://www.abestweb.com/forums/californ … 202-2.html
   
   I hope it works out for all of you.

   replyreport
   1. 68

      celebritieposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks, this is interesting!

      replyreport
2. 60

   Mike Daleposted 12 years ago

   I've had several affiliate terminations over the last week here in CA, and have talked to associates who have had more. Unfortunately with government, it's almost impossible to undo what is done, and the idea in this article certainly won't help merchants feel at ease.
   
   As government becomes more omnipotent, getting their grubby, nasty fingers into everything that we do and own, we can expect more and more regulation, while being told it's in our best interest.
   
   Which sounds great to us!
   
   So we continue to elect these asshats.

   replyreport
3. 0

   Where To Buyposted 12 years ago

   The clause that allows affiliates IF they don't actively promote or engage with customers is a HUGE deal. Many affiliate programs have agreed to work with New York affiliates because of it. The affiliates in other states have absolutely no hope.
   
   However as Rebecca Madigan points out just a single misbehavin' affiliate could ruin it for everyone. Companies had to terminate quickly because the law was implemented so quickly. Had CA lawmakers made it effective in say 60 days, then companies could have had their legal department take a look and sort out their options. Perhaps even drafted additional legal requirements for CA residents.

   replyreport
4. 95

   wildernessposted 12 years ago

   There may another small ray of hope as well.  My local paper reprinted an article from the LA Times:
   
   http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-a … 7762.story
   
   Amazon says they will take it to the California people to get the new law negated.  An alternative is to fight it in court as unconstitutional as they are in New York.
   
   It doesn't look like Amazon is going to take this lying down - I wonder if we might see a consortium of internet sellers banding together in the efforts?

   replyreport
5. 85

   DzyMsLizzyposted 12 years ago

   So--since I've already received the termination e-mail from Amazon, is there even any point to leaving my Amazon capsules live?
   Perhaps I should go through my hubs and delete them all?  Why leave them if they are not going to do me any good?  (Not that they ever have, anyway--I've earned not one red cent from Amazon capsules--meaning not one person has purchased any item I've featured.)
   That may speak more to the fact that I am still struggling to attract ANY "organic" traffic--in my experience, HP seems to be little more than a mutual-admiration society.
   While I very much enjoy interacting with the other authors, reading their hubs and sharing comments, it is not in any way profitable in a monetary sense.  And if the waiver 'loophole' mentioned goes forward, it will make no difference at all to my non-earnings, if we would then suddenly be prohibited from calling attention to our articles.
   What a farcial mess!

   replyreport