DISQUS

Brian Clark · 3 years ago

I"m no fan of PayPerPost, but I was shocked at the refusal of prominent affiliate marketing folks to even entertain the fact (not possibility) that existing endorsement laws apply to some forms of affiliate marketing. I'm not sure, however, that PayPerPost is highlighting that issue out of genuine concern for consumer protection.

Scott Karp · 3 years ago

Brian, I think it's a pretty safe bet that PayPerPost is highlighting the issue with affiliate marketing for less than altruistic reasons.

Brian Clark · 3 years ago

I'd also be willing to bet that a site wide disclosure isn't going to legally cut it for PayPerPost bloggers. People love to assume that law is all about technicalities, but they are confusing procedural rules with substantive law. The latter is much more about common sense than people might think.

I think the FTC will use a similar test to the one you've outlined above, if it ever comes to that (and that remains to be seen). Given the small amounts of money that these bloggers are willing to accept for these posts, it would be extremely sad to see one of them become the FTC poster child for improper disclosure practices.

Howard Owens · 3 years ago

I've been thinking that the next time I want to write about some new gadget I like, I'm not to explicitly state "this is NOT a pay-for-post," just to avoid any confusion or speculation ... just to maintain the credibility of my independent recommendation.

Jim Kukral · 3 years ago

Nobody has been more vocal or critical than I have of PPP. I'm with everyone else, this is a good step, but I call for more.

Blame Me, I Saved PPP, Where's My Check?

I call a truce, almost. Here's the deal, you (PPP) need to require each blogger to put disclosure either at the beginning or end of their blog post, not just put the disclosure badge anywhere on the page. Only then will it be truly noticed and work in the reader's favor.

And you, Copyblogger, I will follow you to the ends of the Internets with that ftc affiliate marketing nonsense. :) Let it die, only you and a handful of others think it has anything to do with affiliate marketing. The PPP guys are desparate to point the arrow away from the target they put on their back through their own PR success. Don't believe the hype!

Brian Clark · 3 years ago

>>only you and a handful of others think it has anything to do with affiliate marketing.

Yeah, and we're all lawyers. :)

Matt Cutts · 3 years ago

Hold on, you took my Google ads image and trimmed out the border that separates the search results from the ads.

I agree with you about PPP though. From Google's perspective, paid posts should include machine-readable disclosure in the form of nofollow attributes on paid hyperlinks.

Scott Karp · 3 years ago

Matt, I put up your original image -- while the shadding for the ads above the organic results is certainly helpful, I don't think a lightly colored, one pixel line makes up for the loss of the shaded boxes on the right -- especially since the ads are now formated to look EXACTLY the same as the organic results.

owen mack · 3 years ago

We just conducted an interview covering some of these issues with Mary Engle of the FTC at the recent WOMMA Summit 2.

See the video here:
http://www.cobrandit.com/blog/2006/12/mary_engl...

Matt Cutts · 2 years ago

Thanks for loading the original image. Besides the border, the original image makes it a little more clear that those ads are over on the right-hand side of the page.

Allen Harp · 2 years ago

I agree, if it isn't clear it is wrong. It is much more difficult to sell when you are perfectly clear, but once your visitors become familiar with your reputation then clear is what they demand and appreciate. Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between fact and fiction or review and sales pitch. But to survive long term, the clarity must prevail.