Nifty biz model that avoids (?) FTC "problem"?...

[TimothyW]

Note: I AM NOT A LAWYER! If you want legal advice, seek a professional advisor!

Now my idea -- The FTC rules apply to marketers, BUT (it seems) the rules do NOT apply to advertising media. That's why goolge does not have to disclose they get $$ when an adsense ad is clicked on. The $$ goolge gets comes from the ADVERTISER (marketer), NOT the consumer.

Can't you use your iming skills to set up sites with great seo + traffic, etc. Then sell (rent!) THAT SPACE (that site) *TO* the person who IS selling that product -- that way you are an affiliate (sorta) -- without actually being an affiliate. Then the $$ YOU are getting (for getting traffic to the site), comes from the marketer, NOT the consumer -- this effectively ABSOLVES you of having to comply with the FTC rules. You DO NOT have to disclose that you are being paid, because the $$ you are getting is NOT coming (directly) from the consumer!

Basically you are being paid (by the marketer) to spread the word (cyberly) about the product/service. The site you get traffic to, is a "cyberbrochure" for the item the marketer is selling -- and you are effectively being paid (by the marketer) to "distribute" that brochure to as many people as possible, etc.

BASIC NOTION -- change your biz model from selling STUFF to **selling ADVERTISING SPACE!**

Anyhow -- just an idea to discuss.

Cheers.

-- TW

PS: The definition being used of "affiliate" is, of course, absurd. Any advertising media/conduit is of course ALSO an affiliate -- not a DIRECT affiliate maybe -- but the $$$ google gets for, say, adwords, APPARENTLY comes from the advertiser/marketer. But -- that's not really so. The $$ of course ultimately comes from the CONSUMER -- there's nowhere ELSE for it to come FROM!!! So, in essence, google *IS* getting a 'commission' from the sales. So what if the normal scripts for doling out affiliate commissions were changed to the following model...

Consumer buys item. Marketer (seller) gets 100% of the $$. Then, later, from "their own" $$, an advertising "fee" is paid to the "non"-affiliate. In other words, the payout model/script pays the "non"-affiliate directly from the "overall" account of the marketer/seller -- and that 'commission' is paid "by" the marketer (from his/her overall account), and *NOT* directly by the consumer. Then, THEORETICALLY, the consumer is NOT paying the "non"-affiliate (directly) -- thereby avoidng the need to disclose the 'commission" to the consumer.

If this theory does NOT work, then presumably google *WOULD* have to disclose the $$ they make on adwords (for the same reasons).

No?

[Steven Carl Kelly]

TW:

You really don't have to worry about all sorts of ways to "get around" the FTC. I won't go into full detail here, I did so in another thread:

An FTC thread that you REALLY should read

[TimothyW]

Hi SCK -- yes, I read your other thread -- and I agree with it. That thread talks about the use of testimonials.

What I'm talking about here is the need to disclose one's status as an affiliate who stands to profit from a sale.

If one changes one's model from selling stuff to selling ad space, the need to disclose financial gain is avoided (seemingly).

You don't address that aspect in your other thread.

-- TW

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Ok, gotcha.