We, the affiliates, associates, publishers and partners, have a semantics problem. We’re not on the same page.
There has been a lot of talk about the state taxes that are impacting the industry, but this issue is tough to track, since everybody seems to call it something different.
I’ve been calling it the advertising tax for quite a while, as have a number of others. Then there is the affiliate tax, the Amazon tax (popular in the media), and the Internet retail tax.
And it’s 1, 2, 3… what are we fighting for?
Seriously, if we are going to have a coordinated effort against these taxes moving forward, we should agree on a name.
{ 10 comments }
@Donald Chantry:
There are laws in a number of states – you can see details in the presentation at http://blog.affiliatetip.com/archives/advertising-tax-presentation-in-baltimore/
buy.at put together materials to address proposed state laws or proactively contact state legislators if there isn’t currently activity in your state: http://blog.affiliatetip.com/archives/take-action-against-the-advertising-tax/
What is the proposed Tax Law? Who is advocating it? (if Federal, Is it an HR- Proposal or a Senate Proposal) and where can it be seen? Does it have a formal title at this time? What is the target date for action on the proposed Law?
A little of the above would be helpful in trying to intelegently address the problem with our legislators.
The other reason to use Advertising tax, is to drive home the fact that affiliates aren’t sales people and don’t sell – they do advertising. Other types of advertising mediums like TV and magazines do not create nexus, so affiliate advertising should not either.
Affiliate tax confuses people and a number of affiliates new to this issue have thought it’s the affiliate that is either being taxed or forced to collect tax. I know, it does not make sense, but I’ve seen numerous blog and forum comments where this has caused confusion.
I too wish we could all decide, because every time I blog about “the tax” I feel like I need to cover all the bases to be sure people relate and know what I’m talking about. I agree with Shawn that calling it the “advertising tax” is best.
I was thinking about it since the time I posted the above comment, and I agree with you both.
To add to what Shawn is saying, the very usage of the term “affiliate” in this phrase may do affiliate marketers a disservice. I bet, most anyone who sees it for the first time in the online marketing context makes an immediate parallel with how the term is being used in traditional business (or as a “subsidiary”)
@Geno Prussakov:
The purpose in my focusing on advertising is in explaining it to a broader audience. The term affiliate means nothing to most people, and when communicating the issue to legislators, the last thing we want to do is make it abstract.
@Geno — technically, because the verbiage is written so broadly, nexus can be construed as more than just affiliate marketers. It could potentially affect folks that perform other advertising functions for the merchants, such as search marketers, etc. The language is so ambiguous that who knows how far it can be taken.
I believe that the one we’re fighting is the Internet affiliate tax. It is not an “advertising tax” because affiliates are being unjustly singled out from the cohort of all other “advertising” channels that merchants use (if we call it a “selective advertising tax” it would be more appropriate). It is neither an “Amazon” or an “Internet retail” tax. I believe we should keep it focused on affiliates.
Two cents: In my conversations on and off-line, the phrase I’ve been using is “Internet Advertising Tax”.
Hey Shawn, I think your right. I’ve heard the tax referred to several ways and it’s time to give it one name and stick with it.
How about the “stick it to the little guys tax”, lol
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }