Forget Flogs...Say Hello to SPAMAZINES!

I agree ... looks great, probably converts well. As long as it's not one of the programs that charge your credit card monthly before you realize what is happening ... good for them. I like it better than the fake blog model.

I fail to see how it is a scam on continuity when right there in LARGE letters, large on my screen at least, it says that YOU WILL BE BILLED 39.95, PLUS 9.95 AND ANOTHER 7.95 IF YOU DO NOT CANCEL WITHIN 7 DAYS...how is that scamming? Anyone with any sense would not use their actual credit card, maybe use a pre-paid card or something. But, anytime someone writes, in your face, we are taking your money, and you call it a scam, i find that kind of unfair.

In essence the FTC has always required the disclosure. A careful reading of the FTC's policy statement on deception would indicate that:
FTC POLICY STATEMENT ON DECEPTION

However, that being said, having provided research to the FTC and talked extensively to one of the senior litigators there the "net impression" to consumers in many instances takes into account the target demographic which is set out in part 2 of the statement:

"Second, we examine the practice from the perspective of a consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances. If the representation or practice affects or is directed primarily to a particular group, the Commission examines reasonableness from the perspective of that group."

No matter what new guidelines come out, if you want to understand how the FTC thinks about deception, start with their policy statement.

Now, more recently the FTC has more specifically said that they WILL be going after bloggers (and most likely any site owner) that does not disclose any form of compensation (this goes WAY beyond the original discussion about this two years ago).

From the real ;-) Washington Post:
"But they would need to think twice if, for instance, they praise parenting books they've just read and include links to buy them at a retailer like Amazon.com Inc.

That's because the guidelines also would cover the broader and common practice of affiliate marketing, in which bloggers and other sites get a commission when someone clicks on a link that leads to a purchase at a retailer. In such cases, merchants also would be responsible for actions by their sales agents - including a network of bloggers."

Washington Post article link:
FTC plans to monitor blogs for claims, payments

Brian Clark of CopyBlogger just did a good article about it here:
Affiliate Marketing Disclosure

And just to be clear, Peter Kafka of All Things Digital said in his article on the matter:

"So I called up Rich Cleland, the assistant director in the FTC's division of advertising practices who was quoted in the AP story about the move, to make sure he hadn't been misquoted. Did the FTC really want to spend time making sure that people who make a five cent commission on the sale of a 99 cent MP3 spell out that relationship to their readers? Answer: Yes. Yes, they do."

His full article is here:
Adding an Amazon or Apple Affiliate Link to Your Blog the Feds Want to Know

Now in my opinion this all is just going to tilt the playing field way into the scammers' favor, because:

1) AG's are very politically motivated so they are less likely to go after really shrewd scammers than easier "marks".
2) I don't know if the same is true for the FTC, but I suspect at some level it is.

One last thing - alot of the fake news sites are NOT putting an advertisement disclaimer on them.
PLUS, most them that do have "Advertisements" on the right which makes it seem like the main area is NOT an advertisment.

I saw a different approach to the use of TV logos a few days ago: they had the logos (as seens on tv) but they presented real tv sites transcripts. The target was weight loss i think...

Something like this:

CNN
"weight loss pills are selling like hot cakes
cause they work so well bla bla bal"

ABC
"weight loss products are very good
and bla bla bla"

So, they used these to gain trust - even when they presented just a few lines on text, of a article that didn't talked about the product, you know?

But the trust is there.