So, just a few minutes ago, I got this in my inbox:

To Daniel Clark:

As a participant in one of Newegg?s Advertiser Programs offered through Commission Junction, you may be aware that Newegg does not accept affiliates into any of its Advertiser Programs if the affiliates have sales tax nexus with North Carolina or Rhode Island.

An affiliate has sales tax nexus with a particular state if the affiliate has either (a) an office, residence or other physical presence in that state, or (b) activities in that state by the affiliate, its employees or a person or business with which it has some sort of contractual or agency relationship, which are sufficient to require the affiliate to collect and remit that state?s sales tax under state and federal law.

Based upon the information you have provided to us, we have determined that you do not have sales tax nexus with either North Carolina or Rhode Island and are treating you accordingly. However, please notify us immediately if you have nexus with either of these states.

Thank you for your cooperation

Hideaki Kondo
Affiliate Marketing Manager

Did they just really send me an email to tell me that they double checked and found that I’m not in a state where I’d have nexus? I dig NewEgg, and I’m sure Hideaki Kondo is a nice person; this just struck me as, well, odd.

Last Friday, August 13th, I flew up to New York City to attend two events: Audience Conference and Affiliate Summit East 2010.

Most of what I wrote while there was posted over at Geek Dads Weekly, but before I give you the links, check this out:

That’s me on stage at Carolines. Yeah, that Carolines. I can’t say I killed ‘em, and I almost got yanked off stage when I said I was going to pitch something (a bad turn of phrase – I wasn’t really pitching anything, just announcing a charity project). But I can say that I was on-stage at Carolines, which is pretty damn cool.

Okay, here are some links to what I wrote while in New York. There’s still more to be written, especially about Audience Conference, and I’ll update with links to those posts later on.

• Geek Dads Weekly at Affiliate Summit East 2010
• Attention! This Book Will Fight Breast Cancer
• Affiliate Summit East 2010 – Day 1
• Geek Dads Weekly #28 – Live From Affiliate Summit East 2010
• John Chow and James Thompson, the Beer Funnel!
• Beer and Cupcakes in the Blogger Lounge!

I’ve just submitted my details to confirm my slot as a speaker at Affiliate Summit East 2010, happening August 15-17 of this year. The panel is called Podcasting 101, and it’s led by Trisha Lyn Fawver, a blogger (TrishaLyn.com) and podcaster (Affiliate Marketing Fanatics).

Also on the panel? Joe Magennis, my partner on Geek Dads Weekly! Our third on the show, Drew Bennett, is up for another panel at the conference, and speakers are only allowed one panel each.

The published panel description is as follows:

Podcasting 101
Session 1d
Location: Room 4
Time: 12:00pm-1:00pm

In this era of self-publishing, anyone – including you – can produce a podcast (and make money doing it!) Come learn the basics of producing, monetizing, hosting and promoting your very own podcast.

Experience level: Beginner
Target audience: Affiliates/Publishers
Niche/vertical: Podcasting

We’re up first on the 15th! Well, along with three other sessions in that time slot. I’m not actually sure if that’s a good thing… but I suppose if I start to get nervous, I can remind myself that I’m getting it out of the way early so I can enjoy the rest of the conference.

I sat on an impromptu panel at Summit West in Las Vegas back in January, as part of the GeekCast.fm Live! session. It was a lot of fun, and I’m sure this panel will be, too. Fun and informative, that’s our goal.

Are you planning on going to Summit? I’d love to say hello.

Update: shortly after I posted this, it was announced that Drew’s panel has been approved and scheduled. He’s on Tuesday at 2pm with Murray Newlands and Eric Schechter, and the session is called How Bloggers Can Successfully Connect with Audiences.

Earlier today I went to the state capital building in Santa Fe, New Mexico to speak out about House Bill 50, the New Mexico equivalent of the “Amazon Tax”. This is my account of the afternoon I spent in the halls of government.

On Thursday, January 28, 2010, I attended the meeting of the House Business and Industry Committee. The meeting was scheduled for 1:30pm in room 309 at the state capital building in Santa Fe. Right up front, let me say that I’m not familiar with the terminology and procedures of government committees. I apologize in advance for mangling the terminology and mean no insult by it.

It was a close call, but I made it to the meeting room on time. I was, in fact, the first person in. I thought for sure that it would be a pretty empty room, since I was alone there (except for a few staffers) just a few minutes before 1:30. Apparently, they don’t believe in starting anywhere near the posted time, however. More citizens and lobbyists filed in, but no House members showed up until 2:30. I overheard someone say that they were just late getting back from lunch. I hope that wasn’t the case.

The committee room was much like you may have seen on television, only at a much smaller scale. The committee members sat in a semi-circle facing the audience, and there was a table with a microphone in the center of the room facing them. This table was used by the authors of the bills to answer questions put forth by the committee.

The committee roster was as follows: Jim R. Trujillo (D), Eliseo Lee Alcon (D), Jose A. Campos (D), Dona G. Irwin (D), Andrew J. Barreras (D), Sandra D. Jeff (D), Vice Chair Thomas A. Garcia (D), Chairwoman Debbie A. Rodella (D), Thomas C. Taylor (Minority Floor Leader, R), Jane E. Powdrell-Culbert (R), Keith Gardner (Minority Whip, R) and Shirley A. Tyler (R). The team has a combined batting average of .351, and has won several division pennants.

House Bill 50, the Internet Sales Gross Receipts Bill, was third on the agenda. I won’t bore you with the details of the first two bills; you can read my raw notes at ABestWeb. Suffice to say, it would be nearly 4pm by the time HB50 was discussed.

The bill’s author, Representative Eleanor Chavez (D, District 13, Bernalillo County), took her seat in the center of the room, with an “expert witness” by her side. I regret that I did not make a note of the gentleman’s name. Chairwoman Rodella began the proceedings. Representative Chavez gave us an overview of the bill, and then the audience was asked for opinions.

Supporters of the bill went first – about ten in all. Each raised his or her hand, was acknowledged by the chair, and stood up to give an opinion. Each supporter gave a variation of the same message: I support this bill because I represent [a cause] and the state needs more money to support [the cause]. Not one of them spoke to the particulars of the bill itself or the impact it would have on residents of New Mexico or the businesses that the bill would affect.

Opponents of the bill went next – of which I was the only one. I made my case, that I am a small businessperson in New Mexico, and that the state would not see any additional revenue because the companies the bill seeks to affect would simply terminate their relationships with me rather than collect the sales tax. The state would not benefit, and I would lose the income that I earn working online.

For the following 45 minutes or so, I listened to the debate between the committee members and Representative Chavez and her “expert witness”. It became apparent very quickly that Rep. Chavez was merely copying the basics of the bill from New York and that neither she nor her witness were knowledgeable about the internet, affiliate marketing, taxation, or how the three are related. It was clear at the outset that three committee members were against the measure (others would follow).

Representative Keith Gardner (R) was clearly against the bill, and he had my favorite quote of the afternoon, which I’ll paraphrase here because I neglected to write it down in its entirety: the way this bill is written, wouldn’t Google also be considered to have a nexus in New Mexico because they also refer buyers to sellers?

Vice Chair Thomas Garcia (D) made another great point when he noted that the way the bill was written, simply telling Representative Campos that he bought his tie at a site online (I forget which site he named) would create a nexus. The response from the “expert witness” was that the threshold of $10,000 in the bill would take care of that, but the larger point was made: threshold or not, word of mouth was written into the bill.

In the end, it became clear that the majority of the committee members were not in favor of the bill. Representatives Gardner, Powdrell-Culbert, Taylor, Garcia, Campos, and Trujillo seem to be firmly against it. Chairwoman Rodella asked some pointed questions, but I did not get a sense that she was firmly for or against the bill. The balance of the Representatives had little or nothing to say during the proceedings.

A motion to table the bill was made by Representative Gardner and it was seconded by Representative Powdrell-Culbert. The motion was objected to by Representatives Trujillo, Campos and Alcon, but in a 7-4 vote, the objection was defeated and the bill was tabled. Again, I’m not familiar with the jargon and this was my first time watching a government body in action, so I’m probably mangling the terminology.

Several Representatives mentioned, at various times in the process, that they might support the bill but didn’t for a various reasons: it was too broad, it was too vague, or it wasn’t enforceable. Nobody seemed to be of the opinion that the redefinition of nexus was itself a bad idea, or that taxing online sales was a bad idea. A better-written bill might have passed. My opinion is that unless we have a larger affiliate industry turnout if or when this bill comes back, we could see a very different result.

I did not get any face time with any of the Representatives because once a bill has been resolved, they move on to the next order of business. There were several other bills on the agenda and I had already been there for almost three-and-a-half hours. I needed to get on the road home, as I wasn’t too keen on driving over an hour in the kind of snow we were getting yesterday.

I’ll be following up with Rebecca Madigan of the Performance Marketing Association and will post any other information I have as I get it.

I consider yesterday a win for our industry, and I’m proud to have been a part of it.

Over at the Geek Dads Weekly site, I’ve just posted a one-hour recap of Affiliate Summit West 2010, the affiliate marketing conference that I’ve just returned home from. The event was incredible – I really have no complaints about it at all, which is itself incredible. Previous Summits have always had a negative aspect or two, whether it was a problem with a fellow attendee, a problem with a session or the schedule, or overall lack of benefit to my efforts at the time (not a reflection of the quality of the show, but a statement about my own lack of discipline). This time around was pitch perfect. I made a lot of great contacts, shored up some sponsorships for Geek Dads Weekly, had a great time with every single person I met there – I’m so high on this thing I’m going to be talking about it for months (probably just in time for Summit East in New York in August).

Check out the show, I hope you find it informative and helpful – or at least entertaining!

Also, for those interested in the blog I maintained during Summit, it’s located at danielmclark.tumblr.com. Lots of good stuff there, too.

It was one year ago that I launched what was to be my greatest online achievement: Earn a Million a Day. I remember that day well…

The setting was the annual ShareASale Think Tank event. I was there, as I am now, and I was thinking about how I could share my vast, vast knowledge with the world. I was thinking about the millions of dollars I earn every day and how I could show the no-talent, unskilled, idiot masses how to do the same. I wanted to “give back” to the community. That’s how generous I am.

I decided to offer up my vast, vast knowledge to the world for the low price of… well, I don’t want to spoil the surprise. Head over to Earn a Million a Day and learn how you too can be wealthy beyond your wildest imagination. Srsly. A million. Every day. Go. I can’t be held responsible if you don’t take it upon yourself to be awesome.

According to a few sources (here, here and here), the previously discussed $11,000 fine for not disclosing relationships with companies that bloggers review or link to isn’t quite real. Good to know – let’s hope that it stays that way. This bears watching, though. If you’re in the affiliate marketing space, keep an eye on these developments and prepare yourself – and start disclosing!

It’s official: the government is in the business of fining bloggers who don’t play by their poorly defined rules of disclosure.

Back in June I wrote an article describing how the United States government was gearing up to go after bloggers that don’t disclose income or freebies from companies that they write product or service reviews about. In a nutshell, if I were to write a post extolling the virtues of Walkers Shortbread Cookies, I could be fined $11,000 for not telling my readers that the link I provided is an affiliate link and that I could earn a commission if a reader bought some cookies through that link.

I provide a disclaimer and disclosure statement on a page called Linking Practices. On that page I describe what being an affiliate marketer means and that many of the links on this site are affiliate links. That should be enough to clear me with the Federal Trade Commission, right?

Who knows??

According to a story at Mashable.com, the FTC created rules (they call them guidelines) that are so vague they’d be laughable if the fine wasn’t so extraordinarily high.

It’s eleven grand per post

This site (in its current form) is just over two years old and has 107 published posts. The vast majority don’t have any affiliate links at all, but let’s say, for the sake of the discussion, that they did. The new FTC rules say that they could fine me $11,000 per post, for a grand total of $1,177,000. That’s right, over a million dollars. I have other sites that earn more than this one. This site isn’t a moneymaker for me, it’s something that I enjoy doing and occasionally throw some affiliate links into – I haven’t earned more than a few hundred bucks on it in two years. $11,000 per post? Really?

This begs the question: are past posts subject to these rules? There are blogs with hundreds – thousands – more posts than I have. Do those blog owners need to go back and edit each post to add a disclosure? Are site-wide disclosures, like the one I use on this site, good enough?

Apparently, the FTC isn’t telling.

Fortunately – or unfortunately, as time will tell – this isn’t over. The new rules go into effect December 1st. We’ll see how it shakes out, but I have a feeling the FTC is overstepping itself this time.

This morning I remembered that Shawn Collins had started a contest on 99 Designs for a new GeekCast.fm logo. I headed over to the contest page to see what was going on with it, and was a little surprised that a winner had already been chosen (I thought the contest was going to run longer). There were 26 logo entries, and I think that the best one was picked.

A clip of GeekCast.fm's New Logo

Click on through to GeekCast.fm to see the full logo, and while you’re there, check out the latest episode of Geek Dads @ Home! This week, Joe and I talk about Ted Kennedy, Winter’s first day of school, and more. Good stuff.

Few things in the affiliate marketing industry infuriate me more than hearing someone say, for whatever reason, “I may have to go out and get a real job”. In the ongoing fight with various state legislatures, the tax scheme commonly called the “Amazon tax” seeks to use affiliates of online merchants as definitions of nexuses for said merchants. Doing so allows states to mandate the collection of sales taxes on purchases made by state residents online. That’s the super short explanation. The longer explanation is more complicated.

As an affiliate myself, I come down strongly on the side of the industry in saying that it is unfair and possibly unconstitutional to use affiliates in this way. We’re not a nexus. We’re not a “physical presence” for the companies that we drive traffic to. It is important for lawmakers to understand that they are killing small businesses and hurting families when they attempt to pass these laws. Online merchants are severing ties with affiliates in some states to avoid compliance with these bad laws while they are being fought in the courts. Some small business owners are losing their livelihoods as a result.

Nothing hurts our cause more than an affiliate who denigrates our industry by essentially calling it a hobby or flight of fancy. In an article called State may sue Web retailers published at citizen-times.com, affiliate Bobby Coggins says:

“I may have to get a real job.”

A real job? You might have to get a real job? What you’re doing is a real job! This is why the state lawmakers are able to run roughshod over our industry. This is why people like Melanie Seery are tearing their hair out trying to drum up support from affiliates, merchants and networks. This is why it’s so damn hard to get people to take us seriously.

We provide a valid, valuable service. We deserve respect. We do a real job.