Disqus - Latest Comments for michael_webster

Re: Is This The End of Affiliate Marketing?

michael_webster — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:34:37 -0000

Michel, you are correct. If a marketer doesn't have studies and information which would describe the typical consumer performance or history, then the typical disclaimer will be ineffective.

Since most marketers are collecting this information, the use of the disclaimer should trigger two things. First, the consumer should ask for evidence about the typical consumer's history with the product, and flee when it is not forthcoming. Second, the consumer should then report to the FTC that marketer was a) using a disclaimer and b) did not have the relevant history or evidence.

One thing that will probably slow down the FTC's reach is that these guidelines are formulated by a different division within the FTC than the division which would typically regulate affiliate marketers, or business opportunity sellers.

Re: Is This The End of Affiliate Marketing?

michael_webster — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:27:55 -0000

It would not be the CRTC that would be following the FTC's lead, it would be the Competition Bureau.

As to whether the FTC can regulate you effectively, being in Canada but having a US audience, I suggest that you take a look at the long line of telemarketing cases brought against Canadian scammers whose targets were Americans. The FTC took jurisdiction.

The FTC, like all regulatory agencies, is complaint driven. You would have notice about these complaints long before the FTC a) ever heard of them or b) acted upon them.

Affiliate programs in the future will be run more like franchises and less like independent contractors since the liability to the trade mark holder is joint for misleading advertising.

Re: ECJ Advocate General: Google Sale of Adwords Not Per Se Unlawful

michael_webster — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 12:28:47 -0000

I think that the fact that "The Advocate General considered whether Google would have a mere "host" defence under Article 14 of the E-Commerce Directive to the charge of joint liability with the advertiser. He takes the view that, although Google is an information services provider in respect of both its AdWord service and its search engine service, only in respect of the latter was Google a neutral host" is also an important feature of the decision.

Re: Those pesky animal spirits

michael_webster — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:51:18 -0000

My sense is that both you and Krugman are talking past each other.

See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/aug/30/key...

Hope this isn't a double post.

Re: Those pesky animal spirits

michael_webster — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:50:25 -0000

I am curious as to how your story of what Keynes meant matches up with Krugman recent post, http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/aug/30/key...

My sense is that you are both talking past each other.

Re: The Real Take-away from the Madoff Scandal

michael_webster — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:17:55 -0000

I don't think that this is problem for regulators. BM through a variety of techniques was engaged in the standard something for nothing gambit.

Greed is neither necessary nor sufficient, in my view.

What is necessary is that the mark never thinks: "what is in it for the other guy?".

If BM was touting an 10-12% return with no volatility, he didn't need private money. BM could have established a new savings and loan system: lend at 2% and earn 10-12%, borrowing from public banks and "earning" from his "trades".

A private lender to BM made no sense, if the private lender thought "what it is in it for BM?". The only sensible conclusion was that there was something screwy with the economics of the deal.

{Kid Yellow used to say that he was happy to take money from marks that thought they had tumbled to a fixed race: the mark was happy to think he was screwing the horse operators, public, and track. The Kid was happy to offer the other side of that bet.)

Re: A Few Sunday Thoughts: Common Sense, Disruption and Hope

michael_webster — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 12:18:46 -0000

The 3% rule was clearly abused, but many of the energy projects Enron valued using mark to market were long term, uncertain at best, and capital intensive.

Even without abusing the 3% loophole, Enron would have been forced to come with grander and grander projects each year to maintaining earnings, under mark to market.

That is why I think that for Enron the principle driver for accounting fraud was the use of mm, which conveniently paid out huge stock options to their board of directors.

Re: A Few Sunday Thoughts: Common Sense, Disruption and Hope

michael_webster — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 11:13:36 -0000

Didn't Enron abuse the mark-to-market - stealing from the future to pad today's accounting profits? You need to have a more nuanced view about when mm is good, and when it can be abused as fraud, in my opinion.

Re: The Case for Derivatives

michael_webster — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:41:51 -0000

Who would or ought to take the other side of the interest rate swap on bond that the construction company issued?

Shouldn't it logically be someone who a) has to issue a floating rate bond, but b) has fixed revenue, which doesn't fluctuate with GNP? Who would that be?

Re: Insights from a Derivatives Salesman

michael_webster — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 21:50:41 -0000

You write: "Centralized clearinghouses for trading and margin management would have eliminated almost all the factors associated with the current financial crisis"

Alright, I will bite: how would have this prevented the housing bubble?

Re: Psystar wants to force Apple to open up

michael_webster — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 20:47:13 -0000

Matthew, your position is the one currently accepted, in both Canada and the US.

The Whole Foods case strikes most US Anti-Trust lawyers as nutsy.

But I think that there is something to it: what is a market for a product without considering how the major player advertised for their consumers?

Re: Psystar wants to force Apple to open up

michael_webster — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 20:28:30 -0000

Matthew, the FTC lost the first round in their battle and then had it reversed.

I don't believe that we can predict US Anti-Trust decisions from looking at the Competition Tribunal.

But it will be interesting to follow, certainly Apple has tried to carve out its own market, and in the market ties software and hardware together.

Re: Psystar wants to force Apple to open up

michael_webster — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 16:09:38 -0000

You might want to follow the Whole Foods FTC action in which they are maintaining that the relevant market for Whole Foods is the small high end natural market

Re: Plugin Error?

michael_webster — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 17:01:12 -0000

Thanks, I will do so.

Michael

Re: How Much is A Bratz Worth?

michael_webster — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 11:02:15 -0000

Thanks for this, I checked and you are correct. Only $20 million. Bad loss, if you ask me. Surely $20 million was on the table!

Re: How Much is A Bratz Worth?

michael_webster — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 23:07:57 -0000

I think that you are right on the numbers.

Never could understand why Mattel didn't realize that Carter was on to something great and perhaps the greatest reward for both companies would be a cross-license with a lot of contrived infighting to revitalize the Barbie brand.

Re: Hey, where’s your journalism licence?

michael_webster — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 21:16:33 -0000

The Soviet Union and North Korea had licensing boards?

That is just silly.

The question is one of maintaining reputation.

Self-regulation is always that device which wards off even more onerous government regulation.

Re: Treating Ads Like Tip Jars Is Wrong

michael_webster — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 21:11:13 -0000

Google Adsense promises to provide links so useful that your readers will want to click on them.

Seth was pointing out to that crowd of people that are "too cool" to follow adsense links that may be that should check out the Google value proposition.

Re: Hey, where’s your journalism licence?

michael_webster — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:16:04 -0000

Uh, actually the entire article said:

"But unlike those other professions, journalism — at least in the United States — has never adopted uniform self-regulating standards. There are commonly accepted ethical principles — two source confirmation of controversial information or the balanced reporting of both sides of a story, for example, but adhering to the principles is voluntary. There is no licensing, testing, mandatory education or boards of review. Most other professions do a poor job of self-regulation, but at least they have mechanisms to regulate themselves. Journalists do not."

Hazinski is arguing that journalists ought to self-regulate, if they don't want to become just another entry at scope.com

I thought he was making a pretty good point about reputation devices and the availability of self-regulation to establish credibility.