homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / Advertising / Affiliates
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: eljefe3 & skibum

Affiliates Forum

Amazon Invites California Affiliates to Return
Invites Former Affiliates to re-enroll

 8:32 pm on Oct 3, 2011 (gmt 0)

Official Amazon announcement posted here [affiliate-program.amazon.com].

California recently enacted a law (AB 155) that allows us to re-open the Amazon Associates program for residents of California. As a result, we have invited all California Associates whose accounts were closed due to prior legislation to re-enroll in the Associates Program.

...Only Californian Associates whose accounts were closed by Amazon as a result of the now-repealed earlier law (AB X28 1) are eligible to re-enroll.



 9:40 pm on Oct 3, 2011 (gmt 0)

I received that email.

After they abruptly dropped my account without warning, causing me to manually remove over 1200 product links, thus rebuilding webpage architecture over the next week, I will never do affiliate product sales for them ever again.


 11:04 am on Oct 5, 2011 (gmt 0)

@ Keyplyr, I was not Amazon who caused the issue. It was Gov. Jerry Brown and his party which created the new tax which would have caused you to report each sale and be taxed for it.


 11:55 am on Oct 5, 2011 (gmt 0)

Why not in CT?


 2:13 pm on Oct 5, 2011 (gmt 0)

Why not in CT?

Because CA produces about $1.9 trillion, or 13%, of the United States gross domestic product (GDP) and are in the top 10 highest income producing places worldwide. Lots of Amazon vendors and affiliates live in CA and I'm sure when they pulled out it slammed their bottom line hard.

CT on the other hand, is down around 60, not much of an incentive.




FWIW, most of the other affiliates programs that pulled out have already begged to be forgiven when they saw their profits tank as well, Amazon was the longest holdout.


 3:03 pm on Oct 5, 2011 (gmt 0)

No thanks, I found alternatives and they are less volatile. My value as an affiliate didn't change, i'm sorry you got blinded to that fact by tax issues Amazon.


 7:28 pm on Oct 5, 2011 (gmt 0)

So no new signups? I wonder what the logic is with that?


 7:36 pm on Oct 5, 2011 (gmt 0)

new tax

Not this again. Read your California tax law.


 7:39 pm on Oct 5, 2011 (gmt 0)

Why not in CT?

Because California reached an agreement to not apply the law for a set period of time. Has Connecticut repealed their law?

Amazon sought to delay the introduction of the law so as to lobby for a Federal solution, which would be easier to deal with than a state by state hodge podge of laws.


 7:42 pm on Oct 5, 2011 (gmt 0)

MB - we could take it back a step - California has a referendum process that makes it relatively easy to get an item on the ballot and Amazon was pulling out all the stops to sponsor a referendum, so the legislature ran scared.


 8:18 pm on Oct 5, 2011 (gmt 0)

@ frontpage

Pure BS. It was Amazon that did this to their affiliates. It was they who didn't want to pay to play. Like so many big businesses today that want everything but don't want to pay their share.

I report every sale and pay the tax, always have. I feel fortunate to be able to live and do business in California.


 8:41 pm on Oct 5, 2011 (gmt 0)

MB, ergophobe
Thanks for the info
and No, no way such a repeal could happen here.


 9:03 pm on Oct 5, 2011 (gmt 0)

keyplayer :) someone who groks it .


 10:20 pm on Oct 7, 2011 (gmt 0)

I'd say it is a big win for eCommerce.

Can't always bend over backwards for secret hand-shaking , tax grabbing socialists.

Amazon stuck it for the rest of us, small ecommerce folks outside California who have no legal muscle and be forced to either terminate CA affiliates or play ridiculously complex CA tax calculation game.

keyplyr, consider moving your business out of Taxifornia. Business-minded folks do that to get ahead in their business. Jeff Bezos, BTW, moved to Seattle from NYC to start Amazon, imagine where he would be now had he not done so or moved to CA - his company probably be now owned by Barnes & Noble ...


 12:06 am on Oct 8, 2011 (gmt 0)

Can't always bend over backwards for secret hand-shaking , tax grabbing socialists.

Give it a rest. Isn't eight years enough to show you that your economic theories are a disaster and a failure? Open your eyes and look around. After eight years of bending over for the corporate thieves all we got to show for it is extreme soreness in the area where we keep our wallets.

After eight bitter years of watching our economy get trashed I'm ready for a change. The word socialism in the context you used it is utter nonsense. Open your dictionary and read the definition before you sling around words with more than two syllables. ;)


 1:45 am on Oct 8, 2011 (gmt 0)

whose accounts were closed due to prior legislation

The corporate spin is strong in this one. They willingly chose to close those accounts. Affiliates should find a more loyal partner, not as ready to sacrifice the little guys when trying to protect their interests.

tax grabbing socialists

Oh noes, not the socialists! Fact is, americans are getting screwed by big corporations, the middle class is eroding and in place you will get a class of very rich and everybody else, like in 3rd world countries. They should welcome more socialist policies that look out for them.


 3:24 pm on Oct 10, 2011 (gmt 0)

Why do people keep saying "Amazon didn't want to pay their fair share?" It's not a tax ON Amazon. Read and understand the following:

Residents of CA and most states are required to pay sales tax to their state (called a "use tax") for goods bought out of state. They're supposed to do this voluntarily, but since few people know that and the sales aren't reported to your state (except on things like cars), few people do it.

States are wanting Amazon to collect taxes for them - and every other little business online - as a way to work around how residents get out of their lawful duty to pay that tax. In other words, "Amazon, please be our cop! In exchange you get, well... nothing. Just shut up and do what we tell you."

You see, in 1992, the Senate ruled that ONLY IF a company gets benefits from operating in a state should they have to collect sales tax for that state. Meaning: if you have a shop in CA, so CA cops and fire depts and other services are there for you, and CA residents are flocking to you, then for those "benefits", you must collect sales tax for CA. That's only fair.

But online changes everything, because now a company like Amazon can get the benefit of customers from California without operating physically in CA - so they do NOT have the benefit of CA tax-funded services, the way Wal-Mart does. I think everyone's in agreement that we need to redefine how businesses "operate" in states, but the way the states are going about it is PATENTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Believe me, the last thing you want, particularly if you're not in CA, is precedent for the state of California telling you how to run your business. Sacramento couldn't manage a household of four on an income of 7 figures without declaring bankruptcy.

So Amazon is seeking a federal solution - if Congress imposes some kind of online sales tax, then the states get what they want in a CONSTITUTIONAL way, and only CONGRESS is telling online businesses how to run themselves. That's a much more business-friendly solution for everybody. Shame on the states and the big box coalition for ever trying to go about it any other way. I think you'll find their real aim was never a "level playing field", but to kill a lot of affiliate links that were positioning Amazon at the top of the SE's. I've been over this six ways from Sunday, and that is the ONLY benefit I can come up with from all this for Wal-Mart and Pals.

Amazon's cutting off of affiliates was the only way for them to pressure California and thereby make Congress see that this needs to be addressed already (and California was the only state big enough to make it a federal issue). Congress has been talking about this for a decade or more, but not getting anything done.

It inconvenienced me, too, but I was happy to get back into the Amazon affiliate program, because it converts better than any others on several products I deal with. I'm kind of glad I was shut out for a quarter, though, because I did discover some great replacements for Amazon. Considering they or any other business can shut their affiliate program completely down anytime they want, it's always good to have other baskets ready to hold your eggs.

But I still have to support Amazon taking a stand against flagrantly unconstitutional attempts to bully them into doing service to states that do no service for them.


 6:52 pm on Oct 10, 2011 (gmt 0)

Thank you! I'm glad someone has not only boned up on the issues, but has taken the time to share it.

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  

Home / Forums Index / Advertising / Affiliates
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved