Shaving Sponsors
 

Having read a few posts in other threads that seem to suggest most $35 PSU programs are shaving, is there a LEGAL responsibility to make the affiliate aware of this? Or is OK to have it hidden away in the terms & agreements somewhere?

Please discuss.

It's a part of the business. No company has ever openly admitted they shave nor will they ever.

I'm not sure on the law in this area, but in business offline i think it's walking a bit of a tightrope. Is there deciet involved to the extent that a poorly concieved disclaimer/set of terms could allow legal action though?

I can see this isn't a topic people like to delve into too deeply.

Some sponsors ($35 signup) have enough money not to even need to shave (Silvercash). Ones just getting started probably have to to keep the business going

I completely agree with you there.. some of the well established companies with good investments and 'real money' in the bank can/should afford not to.

It's not a part of any business to steal.

that's a bit of a defeatest attitude. "they steal from me, I just have to accept it"

Sorry, but I don't see you ever accomplishing anything significant with your life if you think this way.

As for the legal responsibility, sure they're supposed to be giving you exactly what the business terms say they'll give you. However, to shave off some nickles and dimes here and there.... they can make small amounts from individuals that'll add up to large sums for them.

This means that unless all affiliates join together to file a lawsuit, it's just not worth it. For me to sue over a few hundred bucks is laughable.

Also, you'd have to prove without a shadow of a doubt that you have been stolen from. They just have to provide the shadow of doubt and they're free to go.

It's amazing how many people have difficulty grasping this concept.

Shave them back.. filter your paysite clicks through a full page ad for the site, to really pre-qualify, and buy a geotargetting script, and send the 3rd world countries to a dialer yourself. ;)

... or just be lazy and come to GFY and bitch about how broke you are, your signup ratios suck, etc etc...

webmasters have admitted shaving and are still doing biz to this day, altho it is very rare! :2 cents:

To many sponsors got caught into the number games with people like Ron Levi and got in over their head. Paying $35 a person on trials is insane, especially considering the members areas of most of these sites. The numbers dont add up, and hence why they must shave to run their operations.

How does that make a difference??? Doesn't it just make the shaving they do on their end even more concentrated??? Regardless of what a webmaster does with geotargetting / dialiers / and other filters.

No matter what anyone says it is illegal. They are agreeing to pay you for your traffic that they choose to show you when it's convenient for them. There is no court that would agree with hiding a payment/commission from someone when the contract says 'we pay you XX amount of dollars for each and every signup' or 'you are paid for the lifetime of the members'.



Quite frankly - I think in a way the credit card processors or 3rd party software companies can also be held liable for assisting in the illegal act of by:
1) making the software with the 'illegal' function available
2) allowing it to continue
3) by withholding the information from the referring webmaster if asked for the information.

This is what i'm interested in, the LEGALITY of shaving without notice. (although i think to get away with it in court you'd need more than a disclaimer broadly including it as a possibility.)

we pay 35 per trial, but they are 5 dollar trials. well, 4.95 so its pretty much the same as payin 25 on a dollar join. we could switch to that if you guys think it would do better?

Are you saying you shave signups/clicks because it works better?

no, im sayin we pay 35 on trials and how we can afford to do so. its the same as payin 25 on a 1 dollar trials when we pay 35 on 5 dollar trials

make sense?

Shaving sponsors are out there. The way sponsors run their programs is not something webmasters can control so the best way to deal with them, is just by using and sticking with the sponsors that give you the best results with your traffic.

I would think so 2. Just wait until Mr. John goes after one of the big guys for fraud. It will happen..:glugglug

gotcha

thats why we can only afford to pay $25 per sign up .... see sig and from our references you can find out what kind of people we are...you can even come visit us if your in California or meet me at the conference...Vegas we had the booth with the black hummer..will be at the phoenix forum in April and then will have a booth in San deigo at the Cybernet Expo....also speaking at one of the panels....what comes around goes around...shavers are the type of people who wont be around because of their crook attitude...thats one of the reasons why we have been in this industry since 1995 and before that with pay-per-call audiotext business since 1989...pioneers :-)

This thread was put down to discuss the legality of shaving and the legal responsibilities that come with it, not to insinuate any programs in particular shave thier affiliates payout.

I guess i'll need to make some real legal enquiries elsewhere to find out more on this subject.

I'm inclined to think that the processors would be held liable too - maybe 'aiding and abetting' helping the illegal act come to realize itself - facilitating the illegal act (by building a program meant to do something illegal) and conspiring to keep it under wraps. I could be wrong (or misunderstand the aiding and abetting term)

It will take one person with money & balls to kill the shave option by taking a sponsor to court and then dragging the processor or the maker of the 3rd party affiliate software - once there is a precedent the rest will comply for fear of getting sued by the masses of webmasters who've been getting it up the bum for x-amoutn of years - this will in turn bring everyone in check to paying you what you are worth and for the traffic you've sent.

I get ignored so much on this board. :(

I agree with you 100% - so who do you attack first? The processor (cuz we know it's built in the system)? The 3rd party affiliate software that also has it built in the system? Or the sponsor? Also, wouldn't the lawyer be asking for all audited accounting books for all the years? They surely will have the accounting firms subpoenaed too, right? Anyhow......just some food for thought for the programs shaving and the ones aiding them - there will be a time when someone gets pissed off enough and gets a group of webmasters to go after you. Why not clean up your act before?


As for being ignored - don't feel bad, I'm usually the thread killer - I'm usually the one who has the last post :-))

I'm guessing there is no 'fair trading or securities commision' that enforces and regulates this type of law. I'm also guessing if there isn't now, it wont be long before there is.

epic cash shaves

see sig

When something is unregulated and then abused - it isn't long before someone from the outside comes in to 'put order' to it. Why not regulate things from the inside out instead of the outside in? We know the problems - why not correct them before someone comes in and corrects it - but then imposes so many other things that really are of no benefit other than to themselves?

sweet, already joined. it's always nice to see an honest sponsor :-)

good idea. hard to implement, but a good idea and not impossible.

Terms of service arent an agreement to pay you. They pretty much say sponsors can pay you what they want, change the amount they pay, or pay you nothing for any reason they see fit, and you have no legal claim at all that would likely stand up in court.

One of the main reason for the terms and conditions is to protect sponsors from being sued. They arent there to gurantee webmasters will get paid. Quite the opposite.

Oldtimer - I understand their terms of service - however if three signups come in and they decide (unbeknownst to you) that you are going to be paid for only one of them - but their terms of service says they pay for all traffic ...yadda...yadda...yadda....but not for fraud and spam and what not... If those three signups weren't spam - were good credit cards - have rebilled for three years and what not, I'd love to see this challenged in court and a judge agreeing that they can change their minds like their underwear (or depending on their budget for the next show) on how many legal joins to pay you for - especially if they kept you on their program after the fact and not kicked you out.

Does Visa/Mastercard decide to keep the money and not pay the merchant 2 out of 3 times?

I could be wrong oldtimer, I'm just not agreeing with taking it up the ass when it's not on my terms.

If you lead us to believe that we are being paid for traffic to your program - don't fuck us over - plain and friggen simple. Cut your costs - rework your budgets and live within your means. Pay people the sales that they are sending you.

You have no clue what your talking about.Acually no... It really is illegal. Even if its in there terms hidden somewhere. Its still deceptive and could be considered illegal in many states.

Thanks JC I always knew you were around to help me out :) heheh......... Amen

I didnt say it was fair, Im just showing you what sponsors Terms of Service really say when you you remove all the lawyers double talk. :)

To be fair, sponsors HAVE to have those terms to protect themselves from scamming webmasters. The only way to force a sponsor to pay, is to get them to sign a term of service written by YOUR lawyer.

I'm sure it will have to be fought harder in court - but I still believe there is a fighting chance. Like I stated in the other posts - I could be wrong but I'm interested to know if anyone has taken a sponsor to court regarding these TOSs?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by monro

It's not a part of any business to steal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It's amazing how many people have difficulty grasping this concept.


GREED........ :(

I agree with you on the TOS issue. I'm just wondering about the 'false advertising' side of things also.

Maybe the future will see affiliates being accredited by a 3rd party where having jumped through many hoops would then be enlisted by affiliation programs as honest and 'non-shaveable' webmasters. I doubt it, but it's a possibility.

When working with a new sponsor I always have five of my buddies sign up through my link.
Its very rare that I get paid for four signups or more. If they give me four or more I am staying with the sponsor.
Its an investement but I think it pays back.

Yes, that's an interesting idea, would work great if the sponsor didn't have honeymoon periods shave free capability / policy.

That's the thing - just like processors have 'extra scrubbing days' there are sponsors that have 'extra smooth shaving' days/weeks/months.

\Em*bez"zle*ment\, n.
The fraudulent appropriation of property by a person to whom
it has been intrusted; as, the embezzlement by a clerk of his
employer's; embezzlement of public funds by the public
officer having them in charge.

Note: Larceny denotes a taking, by fraud or stealth, from
another's possession; embezzlement denotes an
appropriation, by fraud or stealth, of property already
in the wrongdoer's possession. In England and in most
of the United States embezzlement is made indictable by
statute.


but doesnt seem to apply in this biz

Like oldtimer said, this is basically all void because of the TOS which helps to cover against legal action. So, if you read the TOS it's usually saying they can effectivley 'steal' from you / pay you what they want etc and there's nothing you can do and you're in agreement with that.

Another interesting part is any deception/false advertising type issue.

Not totally true :)

There isn't any reason why any company should shave - many do tho - I will give the reason why below -
First, look at what a site can make from a single join - (And both failed joins and non-comittals) 30% chance of a cross sale - 30% chance of member area upsell, and by constant spamming afterwards - Probably around 3 joins to other programmes -

Problems arise with niche sites - When the programme has a shit members area, and few sites to sell that join on to - (or rather, few sites willing to pay for that join) - This is the area where you see webmasters complaining of being canned for no reason, and programmes blaming them for sending 40 joins all of which cancelled - (If it was for general/amateur traffic, they wouldn't even consider canning).

I'm sure a lot of people would like it to be illegal or atleast illegal without specific notification; before of the possibility, as it occurs and included in any stats available to the affiliate.

If programs are shaving because they can't get their shit correct, they should get out of the business and stop making other people pay for their own incompetencies.

Maybe a 3rd party webmaster resource could be provided by 'shave testing' - 'shave rating' affliliate programs.
:2 cents: