Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
JNandez presents his side of the story with upswing poker JNandez presents his side of the story with upswing poker

07-22-2018 , 09:29 PM
Joey didnt do anything wrong here. He was offered a great affiliate deal. Its not on him to worry about what % the creator of the content is getting compared to him. Good for Ingram to get a good deal on something with the many many hours of top end entertainment hes provided the community for free.
JNandez presents his side of the story with upswing poker Quote
07-22-2018 , 09:30 PM
lots of shots being fired itt, which makes me happy

but posts like that one ^^ make me happy too. congratulations!
JNandez presents his side of the story with upswing poker Quote
07-22-2018 , 09:34 PM
Joey just did not know how good friend Doug is to him.
JNandez presents his side of the story with upswing poker Quote
07-22-2018 , 09:35 PM
...previously replied to Joey...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strappz
No, none of this is your fault. Fernando and your deals were separate. If Upswing came to you and offered 25% on conversions from your affiliate status great. If what JNandez said was true that his 25% came after affiliate payments that's between him and Upswing. That doesn't fall on your shoulders.

Nobody on this forum should be putting any of the blame on you either. Details aside they were separate deals and it's not your responsibility to ensure Fernando negotiated a better deal for himself than Upswing was going to offer affiliates on those transactions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowfever
Joey didnt do anything wrong here. He was offered a great affiliate deal. Its not on him to worry about what % the creator of the content is getting compared to him. Good for Ingram to get a good deal on something with the many many hours of top end entertainment hes provided the community for free.

I made this same statement a few pages back. Joey has absolutely zero to do with the deals and or payments between Upswing and JNandez. Other than maybe explaining where the extra videos went he has nothing further to defend himself on.
JNandez presents his side of the story with upswing poker Quote
07-22-2018 , 09:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowfever
Joey didnt do anything wrong here. He was offered a great affiliate deal. Its not on him to worry about what % the creator of the content is getting compared to him. Good for Ingram to get a good deal on something with the many many hours of top end entertainment hes provided the community for free.
He's acting illegal as he should have disclosed his financial interest when recommending the course in his content. Even Instagram whores do so today as per Federal Trade Commision guidelines.


Suppose you meet someone who tells you about a great new product. She tells you it performs wonderfully and offers fantastic new features that nobody else has. Would that recommendation factor into your decision to buy the product? Probably.

Now suppose the person works for the company that sells the product – or has been paid by the company to tout the product. Would you want to know that when you’re evaluating the endorser’s glowing recommendation? You bet. That common-sense premise is at the heart of the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Endorsement Guides.

The Guides, at their core, reflect the basic truth-in-advertising principle that endorsements must be honest and not misleading. An endorsement must reflect the honest opinion of the endorser and can’t be used to make a claim that the product’s marketer couldn’t legally make.

In addition, the Guides say, if there’s a connection between an endorser and the marketer that consumers would not expect and it would affect how consumers evaluate the endorsement, that connection should be disclosed. For example, if an ad features an endorser who’s a relative or employee of the marketer, the ad is misleading unless the connection is made clear. The same is usually true if the endorser has been paid or given something of value to tout the product. The reason is obvious: Knowing about the connection is important information for anyone evaluating the endorsement.


https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/busi...liateornetwork
JNandez presents his side of the story with upswing poker Quote
07-22-2018 , 09:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Buble
He's acting illegal as he should have disclosed his financial interest when recommending the course in his content.
WTF do you think an affiliate link code means? Anyone with half a braincell would know when he was hyping it up on his podcast and social media upon release and saying checkout his affiliate code that he was getting money from the.. you guessed it.. affiliate code signup link

Last edited by TreadLightly; 07-22-2018 at 09:43 PM. Reason: lol
JNandez presents his side of the story with upswing poker Quote
07-22-2018 , 09:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Buble
He's acting illegal as he should have disclosed his financial interest when recommending the course in his content. Even Instagram whores do so today as per Federal Trade Commision guidelines.
he was providing an affiliate link in the content in which he was recommending the course. Is it not common knowledge that affiliates get paid?
JNandez presents his side of the story with upswing poker Quote
07-22-2018 , 09:49 PM
imagine thinking posting an affiliate link is an FTC violation. high stakes poker and DFS would die overnight
JNandez presents his side of the story with upswing poker Quote
07-22-2018 , 09:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Buble
He's acting illegal as he should have disclosed his financial interest when recommending the course in his content. Even Instagram whores do so today as per Federal Trade Commision guidelines.


Suppose you meet someone who tells you about a great new product. She tells you it performs wonderfully and offers fantastic new features that nobody else has. Would that recommendation factor into your decision to buy the product? Probably.

Now suppose the person works for the company that sells the product – or has been paid by the company to tout the product. Would you want to know that when you’re evaluating the endorser’s glowing recommendation? You bet. That common-sense premise is at the heart of the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Endorsement Guides.

The Guides, at their core, reflect the basic truth-in-advertising principle that endorsements must be honest and not misleading. An endorsement must reflect the honest opinion of the endorser and can’t be used to make a claim that the product’s marketer couldn’t legally make.

In addition, the Guides say, if there’s a connection between an endorser and the marketer that consumers would not expect and it would affect how consumers evaluate the endorsement, that connection should be disclosed. For example, if an ad features an endorser who’s a relative or employee of the marketer, the ad is misleading unless the connection is made clear. The same is usually true if the endorser has been paid or given something of value to tout the product. The reason is obvious: Knowing about the connection is important information for anyone evaluating the endorsement.


https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/busi...liateornetwork
When someone says "to purchase the PLO course click on the link in the description below and receive bonus material from me Chicago Joey" and it is a link that is an altered one and not a straightforward plain url address link to the company that is selling the PLO course, then is this not strongly inferring to the consumer that there is an affiliate or commission arrangement in place?

This would be my layman's defense anyway if I was Joey's defense counsel.

Edit: 3 other posters were making exactly the same point while I was typing it too!!
JNandez presents his side of the story with upswing poker Quote
07-22-2018 , 09:54 PM
Get the impression that Douglas is using the term "unethical" very liberally here, & this whole thing has amounted to a pretty serious defamation of character. He does this a lot; hints at a major breach of contract, &/or trust, &/or ethics, without being specific, which when all is later revealed, is far more subjective &/or minor than first presented.

But the damage has been done. Fernando should counter-sue
JNandez presents his side of the story with upswing poker Quote
07-22-2018 , 09:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mirage01
Most interesting part of the story is Doug staring weirdly at JNandez from the 2nd floor of his house and just letting him stand at the door without saying anything lol.
Agreed, Is this how you welcome a new content creator, who you talked to through skype only, at your house, who you never met in person, coming over from switserland? Seriously.


Quote:
Originally Posted by italianstang
Hi Doug!

Couple questions:

What's up with the story about ignoring JNandez and his bottle of scotch in your foyer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by delfins
This.
It seem very likely that people who signed via Joey would sing up anyway and they just burning money on some random first week 20-25% affiliate and it BS that it was taken from JNandez pocket.
It not like random Joey bonus videos was what pulled them over wall to pay 1000$ for poker videos.
I agree with all except the burning money. It lowers Jnandez cut and favors others..
JNandez presents his side of the story with upswing poker Quote
07-22-2018 , 09:58 PM
I am a big fan of Joey so I want to give him the benefit of the doubt but I am assuming there would have been non disclosure statements in their "contracts" which would have prevented them from knowing each others (Nandez and Joeys) remuneration from the Upswing lab. As a result, Joey would have not known about this situation until the conflict had heightened?

.... or am I just as naive as the other Joey fan boys? (i.e since Joey and Doug are good friends these non disclosures been ignored)
JNandez presents his side of the story with upswing poker Quote
07-22-2018 , 10:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SageDonkey
When someone says "to purchase the PLO course click on the link in the description below and receive bonus material from me Chicago Joey" and it is a link that is an altered one and not a straightforward plain url address link to the company that is selling the PLO course, then is this not strongly inferring to the consumer that there is an affiliate or commission arrangement in place?

This would be my layman's defense anyway if I was Joey's defense counsel.

Edit: 3 other posters were making exactly the same point while I was typing it too!!
No it doesn't strongly infer that. And even if it did that wouldn't be sufficient to satisfy the FTC's disclosure rules.
JNandez presents his side of the story with upswing poker Quote
07-22-2018 , 10:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stupor
he was providing an affiliate link in the content in which he was recommending the course. Is it not common knowledge that affiliates get paid?
Providing an affiliate link is clearly something else as having sponsered content.
You have to inform your viewers of sponsered content in the EU, dunno about US laws.
JNandez presents his side of the story with upswing poker Quote
07-22-2018 , 10:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stupor
he was providing an affiliate link in the content in which he was recommending the course. Is it not common knowledge that affiliates get paid?
Not according to the FTC.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stupor
he was providing an affiliate link in the content in which he was recommending the course. Is it not common knowledge that affiliates get paid?
Where exactly? Maybe sometimes he did, but not every time.



Quote:
Originally Posted by vinivici9586
imagine thinking posting an affiliate link is an FTC violation. high stakes poker and DFS would die overnight
There's really no question about it.

FTC:

Isn’t it common knowledge that bloggers are paid to tout products or that if you click a link on a blogger’s site to buy a product, the blogger will get a commission?

No. Some bloggers who mention products in their posts have no connection to the marketers of those products – they don’t receive anything for their reviews or get a commission. They simply recommend those products to their readers because they believe in them.

Moreover, the financial arrangements between some bloggers and advertisers may be apparent to industry insiders, but not to everyone else who reads a particular blog. Under the law, an act or practice is deceptive if it misleads “a significant minority” of consumers. Even if some readers are aware of these deals, many readers aren’t. That’s why disclosure is important.

Is “affiliate link” by itself an adequate disclosure? What about a “buy now” button?

Consumers might not understand that “affiliate link” means that the person placing the link is getting paid for purchases through the link. Similarly, a “buy now” button would not be adequate.



Per FTC rules Joey's illicit profits could be forfeited.

Last edited by Michael Buble; 07-22-2018 at 10:09 PM.
JNandez presents his side of the story with upswing poker Quote
07-22-2018 , 10:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jokerspades
Providing an affiliate link is clearly something else as having sponsered content.
You have to inform your viewers of sponsered content in the EU, dunno about US laws.
So what about when a celebrity, a sportsman endorses a product on a street poster saying it's good for your health, does it state on the poster or on the screen if it's a TV ad that the sports person has been paid to endorse it? I'm also applying this to a demonstration of a product by a celebrity during a magazine type TV show.

My feeling is that it doesn't, as there is an assumption that the general public are intelligent and experienced enough to know that the sports person is being paid to promote the product.
JNandez presents his side of the story with upswing poker Quote
07-22-2018 , 10:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Buble
Where exactly? Maybe sometimes he did, but not every time.
Well without the affiliate link he doesn't get paid so there is no financial benefit to him. Just touting the product or Jnandez wouldn't be a breach if he doesn't get anything for it would it?

Interesting info you provide from the FTC though
JNandez presents his side of the story with upswing poker Quote
07-22-2018 , 10:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SageDonkey
So what about when a celebrity, a sportsman for example endorses a product on a street poster saying that it is good for your health, does it state on the poster or on the screen that if it's a TV ad that the sports person has been paid to endorse it? I'm also applying this to a demonstration of a product by a celebrity during a magazine feature type TV show.

My feeling is that it doesn't, as there is an assumption that the general public are intelligent and experienced enough to know that the sports person is being paid to promote the product.
Those are clearly-delineated commercials.
JNandez presents his side of the story with upswing poker Quote
07-22-2018 , 10:15 PM
I was a member of the PLO-lab. When the news came out in January that Jnandez would leave after april, Doug made a statement that he would not charge existing customers any longer. That could very well explain the big gap in earnings for Jan-april. But i dont see how it would effect the december earnings.

Im also curious if the contract, or laws, allow him to do so, as this clearly cost Jnandez (and upswing) revenue.
JNandez presents his side of the story with upswing poker Quote
07-22-2018 , 10:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Buble
Not according to the FTC.


Where exactly? Maybe sometimes he did, but not every time.




There's really no question about it.

FTC:

Isn’t it common knowledge that bloggers are paid to tout products or that if you click a link on a blogger’s site to buy a product, the blogger will get a commission?

No. Some bloggers who mention products in their posts have no connection to the marketers of those products – they don’t receive anything for their reviews or get a commission. They simply recommend those products to their readers because they believe in them.

Moreover, the financial arrangements between some bloggers and advertisers may be apparent to industry insiders, but not to everyone else who reads a particular blog. Under the law, an act or practice is deceptive if it misleads “a significant minority” of consumers. Even if some readers are aware of these deals, many readers aren’t. That’s why disclosure is important.

Is “affiliate link” by itself an adequate disclosure? What about a “buy now” button?

Consumers might not understand that “affiliate link” means that the person placing the link is getting paid for purchases through the link. Similarly, a “buy now” button would not be adequate.



Per FTC rules Joey's illicit profits could be forfeited.
Joey is not a blogger, he is a poker specific YouTube content creator celebrity. So in effect he was giving a celebrity endorsement which I think would only mislead less than a significant minority of people.

The fact that he was throwing in his own content also indicated IMO that he must have had a financial interest in the purchase being made.
JNandez presents his side of the story with upswing poker Quote
07-22-2018 , 10:21 PM
Can we get more of those "more rake is better" memes?

Not the memes we want, but the memes we deserve
JNandez presents his side of the story with upswing poker Quote
07-22-2018 , 10:22 PM
Hi Everyone:

As a long time publisher in the poker/gambling field, I think I can use the "Cliff Notes" post by Dbk_killer to add a lot of worthwhile information to this thread. But first, a few disclosures:

1. Two Plus Two is also an Upswing affiliate and we get the exact same amount, 25 percent, that Joey Ingram gets.

2. I know both Doug Polk and Joey Ingram well and consider both of them to be good friends. I also know both Matt Colletta and Ryan Fees of Upswing Poker and have positive opinions of both of them.

3. A couple of years back, at The Upswing Poker Party that was held at The Wynn, I was quickly introduced to Fernando. But other than that I don't know him at all.

So here goes:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dbk_killer
Cliffs:

- Doug reached out to his fanboy Fernando offering to make the PLO University and Fernando agrees to 25% cut even though he feels it's way too small (business fish)
In our business, a 25 percent royalty rate is actually quite generous, especially for a first time author. To support this, over the years, our main competition was Cardoza Publishing who paid a standard royalty rate of 6 percent of the retail price to its authors, and since most books are sold at wholesale which is usually 50 or 55 percent off, this 6 percent is roughly equivalent to 12 percent on the Upswing Poker scale. Today, our main competition seems to be a relatively new company out of England, D&B Poker, and I've been told that they pay a royalty rate of 15 percent of the total revenue which again compares to the 25 percent that Fernando received. In the year 2000, when Two Plus Two first took on other authors (besides David Sklansky, Ray Zee, and myself) our initial royalty rate was just 20 percent of the total revenue that we received. And finally, when the Poker Boom began in 2003, I received a call from Prentice/Hall, who is a big national publisher, offering a 15 percent of total revenue to take over some of our books (which we immediately turned down) and Prentice/Hall were the ones who published Phil Hellmuth's initial book Play Poker Like the Pros. So it should be clear that Fernando got a good deal even if he doesn't understand that.

Quote:
-Fern lets them know that he feels 25% is too little but he accepts with the gentlemen's agreement that Fern later does more stuff for upswing and gets a cut of 50%-75%
The 50 to 75 percent from my perspective seems crazy. In fact, at 75 percent, it's my opinion that Upswing would lose money, and at 50 percent, I question whether Upswing would make enough money to even make the project worth doing. Everyone needs to realize that companies like Upswing (and Two Plus Two) have a lot of hidden expenses. This can include office space, accounting fees, attorney fees (and attorneys can be very expensive), equipment for video production, editing fees, and probably a lot more.

Quote:
- When course is done Fern learns that Joey has been hired as an affiliate, which is supposedly really weird to do in the first big week of sales (would expect to save affiliates to bump up the sales later when things cool down instead)
This shows that Fernando has no knowledge of how the affiliate market works. Affiliates are entitled to sell a product immediately. Also, in the case of Two Plus Two, before we ever knew that Upswing had a PLO course coming, we were already an Upswing affiliate, and part of our agreement with Upswing was to have the right to immediately sell any new product that they came out with, and to ensure maximum sales, this is the way Upswing wants to do it. Also, for another example, Amazon.com has lots of affiliates, and they don't tell these entities when a new top selling books comes along that they can't sell it immediately.

Quote:
- Joey gets 25% ($250) from every purchase made through affiliate link and then Fern gets 25% of the $750 left over
That's the way this business works. The affiliate takes their share first, and then Fernando gets 25 percent of the money that Upswing receives. As an example, many of our books have a $30 retail price, and when you go into a store like Barnes & Noble you'll pay $30 for the book. But we (Two Plus Two) only receives $15, and that's the amount the author's royalty is based on, and this is clearly explained in our contract. Now, I'm not privy to what the Upswing contract says, but I assume they have highly competent attorneys who have written this stuff clearly.

Quote:
- Fern pitches PLO Lab to stay up to date with solvers. Upswing agrees offering 30% cut and Fern is shocked because he thought they had the gentlemen's agreement that he gets more . Upswing insists he IS getting paid more than 25%.
And Upswing is clearly correct. Again, they would be crazy to pay the percentage that Fernando talks about. Furthermore, his initial 25 percent is already very generous. Now, publishers, like Upswing Poker will sometimes pay an author who has a successful product a higher royalty rate than they got on their first product, But given that Fernando is already getting a generous 25 percent, how much more should he get, and in my opinion 30 percent is fair.

Quote:
- Once again Joey is made affiliate in his favour over Fern and makes more money than Fern from affiliate sales.
Joey may make more on any specific sale he makes, but Fernando is going to make a whole lot more than Joey since Joey is only one of many sellers. In addition, why is Joey a good affiliate? That answer is easy, over time, and through a lot of hard work, he has built up a good reputation and a large following, and that's the type of affiliate a company like Upswing should want. And that's why Joey (and Two Plus Two) can get 25 percent per sale.

Quote:
The fact that only 5/140 affiliate signups were new (without having bought PLO University) makes it worse as Joey is basically getting paid twice for bringing in the same people.
As a former professional statistician, I cringe at this sort of argument. The problem with it is that Fernando is assuming that anyone who bought the original package would automatically sign up for the new package. I strongly doubt that this is the case. However, if Joey talks positively about the new product on some of his podcasts, and also brings Fernando on his show several times to talk about the new product, then you would expect the percentage of people who bought the first product to now also buy the second product to go up. So there is no way in my mind that Joey is getting paid twice in the sense that Fernando claims he is.

Quote:
- Fern tries to reason with upswing communicating his unhappiness and tries to negotiate now but they sternly shut down any discussion as the contract is signed
Well, I don't know anything this, but generally, once a contract is signed, it's final. Also, what if the product had done poorly and Upswing wanted to reduce the royalty rate they paid Fernando, do you think he would agree to this? I highly doubt it.

Quote:
- Also talked to Joey who he considered a friend but Joey also wasn't having any of it as Joey was making a ton of money (again "contract is signed").
I think it's clear that while Joey made a nice amount of money from the affiliate deal, Fernando made much more from the product in total than Joey. And yes, once an agreement is made and signed, that's the agreement. Perhaps Upswing might conclude that they gave Joey too large a cut. If that's the case, I suspect that when they make future affiliate agreements with other entities, they'll try to pay a lessor percentage.

Quote:
- Joey also pushed for a 3h podcast with Fern where he aggressively pushed PLO University for a quick money grab, promising he'd make additional videos which were never created
The three hour podcast with Fernando, for some of the reasons given above, has to be something that Fernando would want. Also, as Joey has posted elsewhere in this thread, he did make videos but has a few more to still do.

Quote:
- Later increasingly miserable Fern goes through the contract, finds the loophole and says he's leaving.
Unhappy authors are known to do this sort of thing. For some of you who may remember, Two Plus Two has a book called Professional No-Limit Hold 'em: Volume I. But something similar happened to us and Volume II was never produced. My comment is that just because an author is able to find a loophole, assuming one really exists, I can't help but wonder if the author is living up to the spirit of the agreement even if he happens to be legally right.

Quote:
- Upswing reacts very aggressively, threatening to sue and promising if Fern does this that they'll make sure he'll forever be hated and never work with anyone in poker ever again (Coletta allegedly said this IIRC)
I know nothing about this so can't comment directly here. But I do know that Upswing had to refund a bunch of money to those customers who asked for a refund, and for those interested, our affiliate money was also reduced by the appropriate amount to reflect the refunds.

Quote:
- Finally upswing realises they can't do anything legally as long as fern gives 3 months notice, which he did
Another thing I know nothing about so can't comment on.

Quote:
- Meanwhile fern is not getting paid for first of the 3 months. Talks to upswing, they say he'll get paid in total after the 3 months, he says ok.
Another thing I know nothing about so can't comment on.

Quote:
- Does not get paid (owed ~90k). Upswing pretty much plays dumb and later somehow offers only $1.2k for the total of 3 month's work. Fern feels bullied and pressured and doesn't want to go to court with a big American company so he just agrees and wants to be done with it.
Another thing I know nothing about so can't comment on.

Quote:
- He hasn't even been paid the $1.2k. Fine, he just wants to be done with it.
Another thing I know nothing about so can't comment on.

Quote:
- Fern wanted to find a way to, together with upswing, communicate the reasons he's leaving diplomatically to the customers well in advance before he leaves. Upswing first refused and wanted to leave it until late, but later seemingly accepted.
Another thing I know nothing about so can't comment on.

Quote:
- So Fern goes to bed under the impression that they'll all together communicate the news as easily as possible to the customers
Another thing I know nothing about so can't comment on.

Quote:
- However Doug goes back on his word and launches the big smearing attack on Fern, shutting him out of the fb group, when he knows fern is asleep and won't be able to respond in a few hours.
Again, I don't know much about this. But shutting Fernando out of the Facebook Group makes sense to me. He's not an Upswing author/instructor anymore, so why would they want him in their Facebook Group?

Quote:
Other random:

- When Fern first went to meet Doug in person in his house in Las Vegas he went with fees and another friend. Doug just talked to fees for 15min completely blanking Fern and not even looking at him while Fern was standing awkwadly with a bottle of whisky he brought as a gift, waiting to be acknowldeged. (they'd talked on skype obv prior to this)
This doesn't sound like the Doug Polk I know. But even if it did happen exactly as Fernando says, what difference does it make? It has nothing to do with the signed contract, and has nothing to do with how Upswing conducts their public business?

Quote:
- Fern at some point talked to an unnamed upswing member over skyped who in a manic state said (something like, not verbatim) "HAVE YOU MADE MORE VIDEOS? I HAVE SO MUCH MONEY BUT I NEED MORE."
I have no doubt something like this happened. The consensus is that the PLO product was a good product, and I would expect that the author/instructor would get compliments.

Quote:
- Fern was again increasingly uncomfortable with working in such an environment.

- Every time Fern tried to reason with Doug over skype he'd feel beaten since Doug is much more articulate in English and would never feel his concerns were properly acknowledged.

-Finally with the loophole thing Fern felt like he had the upper hand and it's at this point Doug really realised he's beaten and started ramping up the threats.
Another group of things I know nothing about so can't comment on.

Quote:
- Unnamed upswing member bought rio domain. I thought this was jmo so don't really get it, but I guess Doug, fees, or coletta bought it and had no-f***ks-given jmo to play like he did so upswing could save face (and avoid lawsuit??). Fern was very uncomfortable with this and let Galfond know
Again I know nothing about any of this except that Upswing and Run It Once are competitors and friction does sometimes develop between competitors. However, I also question what this has to do with the PLO course and the issues that Fernando raised

Quote:
Cliffs obviously subject to me misunderstanding or misremembering or missing important info, so probably still watch the video at 1.5x speed or something.
Also for those of you who want to see another perspective on some of this same material, I would recommend to read Post #95 by Joey Ingram. If you want to link directly to it just click below:

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...7&postcount=95

Best wishes,
Mason
JNandez presents his side of the story with upswing poker Quote
07-22-2018 , 10:24 PM
Thank God for those scarves. Here I was worried that the WSOP was over and the poker world would be slow
JNandez presents his side of the story with upswing poker Quote
07-22-2018 , 10:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SageDonkey
So what about when a celebrity, a sportsman endorses a product on a street poster saying it's good for your health, does it state on the poster or on the screen that if it's a TV ad that the sports person has been paid to endorse it? I'm also applying this to a demonstration of a product by a celebrity during a magazine type TV show.

My feeling is that it doesn't, as there is an assumption that the general public are intelligent and experienced enough to know that the sports person is being paid to promote the product.
FTC:

If it’s clear that what’s on your site is a paid advertisement, you don’t have to make additional disclosures. Just remember that what’s clear to you may not be clear to everyone visiting your site, and the FTC evaluates ads from the perspective of reasonable consumers.


A street poster would clearly be paid advertisement thus no additional disclosure needed.

The bar for intelligence of the public is very low. I don't necessarily agree with that, only stating that Joey did do something wrong as far as legality goes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stupor
Well without the affiliate link he doesn't get paid so there is no financial benefit to him. Just touting the product or Jnandez wouldn't be a breach if he doesn't get anything for it would it?
You have to disclose a financial relation with a product when you endorse it. Even when there's no link the financial relation with the product remains.
JNandez presents his side of the story with upswing poker Quote
07-22-2018 , 10:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pocket_zeros
Those are clearly-delineated commercials.
But it is not 100% clear if the celebrity is being paid, they might be doing it for free as a favour to the company because it is a friend of theirs or be motivated to do it for free because it helps public health or is in the public interest.

But you could well be correct in principle, in which case it comes down to what the definition of a "significant minority" is, 3%, 5%, 10%? and then how do you measure it?
JNandez presents his side of the story with upswing poker Quote

      
m