This guy is unreal. The following is from him this morning.
Quote:
The simple option would be that we either keep your affiliate link up and
you work with us to highlight your special offers to our users (even if this
is free delivery, money off specific items etc) or as you have done ask us
to remove your affiliate link. If the later, we will inform and advise our
600,000 monthly users that we no longer recommend you.
You might want to check this for yourself, but the above examples imo is contrary to Advertising Standard guidelines and you have a strong case to make a complaint to ASA who can then take action.
20.1 Although comparative claims are permitted, marketing communications that include comparisons with identifiable competitors and/or their products should not discredit or denigrate the products, trade marks, trade names, other distinguishing marks, activities or circumstances of competitors. Other marketing communications should not unfairly attack or discredit businesses or their products.
I suspect the word Jrisby was thinking of was "Blackmail".
But of course that's also illegal so let's not argue about it.
That said, I'm open to persuasion on the "If you mention my site, it should be a link" argument.
To make an offline parallel, if the Independent says "a report in The Times says ..." no right thinking person would expect the Independent to include a copy of The Times, or even to tell the reader where to find a copy of The Times. So why should a website that mentions another have to provide a link to that other site?
Am I missing something?
Is that an unfair comparison?
I suspect the word Jrisby was thinking of was "Blackmail".
But of course that's also illegal so let's not argue about it.
That said, I'm open to persuasion on the "If you mention my site, it should be a link" argument.
To make an offline parallel, if the Independent says "a report in The Times says ..." no right thinking person would expect the Independent to include a copy of The Times, or even to tell the reader where to find a copy of The Times. So why should a website that mentions another have to provide a link to that other site?
Am I missing something?
Is that an unfair comparison?
Hi km8.
Not quite sure what you mean there? I don't want our site linked to or mentioned from his site. He was misleading people that he had vouchers for our site when none existed which is why I asked him to stop. He responded (after months) by putting up the rubbish mentioned earlier. Totally unprofessional imho.
I was suggesting that Hpop's guess of "illegal" was not the word you had in mind and that "blackmail" was closer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrisby
He responded (after months) by putting up the rubbish mentioned earlier. Totally unprofessional imho.
That's agreed too and, as I say, it sounds like blackmail to me.
Then I went on to speculate whether a mention of one website on another site should, by right, be a hyperlink. (as raised in Jamcamuk's and Frostie's earlier posts)
I know that's a different question and I apologise for diverting the thread. Sorry.
