Be warned of Amazing Media! I showed banner of them and they paid for a while without any problems.

But after they cut the earnings twice in the last half year (from 1 $ for 1000 views to 0,5 $ and then to 0,25 $) they now suddenly closed my account and are not willing to pay anything (see attached mail).


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: <adsupport@amazingmedia.com>
An: <x@x.x>
Gesendet: Montag, 30. Juli 2001 16:43
Betreff: Your Amazing Media Account


> Dear X,
>
> We greatly appreciate the business you have provided Amazing Media.
> Unfortunately, due to current market conditions, we have determined
> that we are no longer in need of the advertising inventory available
> on your site under the login xxx. Therefore, we must cancel your
> account. If you have accumulated $50.00 in earnings as of the date of
> this notice, you will be compensated for ad appearances (please refer to
> http://www.amazingmedia.com/publishers/payment.jsp ).
>
> Please remove the Amazing Media advertising code from your site(s)
> immediately, as you will not be compensated for any appearances after
> July 31st.
>
> It has been a pleasure doing business with you.
>
>
> Regards,
> Amazing Media Publisher Network
>

This is something a lot of people are seeing. They are not the first and not the last :(

At least they appear to be trying to do something and explain if you will be getting anything. I hear a lot now are just not sending money with no real explanation. So they are stuck with no money and no idea if its comming.

Well.. can you blame them?

I mean come on the market condition is not the best there was in the last years so it's a good thing that they are notifying you and not just using your impressions without paying.

I think what they did is fair.


Cheers!

Originally posted by logus
Well.. can you blame them?

I mean come on the market condition is not the best there was in the last years so it's a good thing that they are notifying you and not just using your impressions without paying.

I think what they did is fair.

Cheers! Hmm, perhaps what they did was more honourable than most but a contract is a contract. Market conditions not withstanding. I'd send them an invoice for the amount outstanding.

Just my 2penneth worth but the only way they could claim "no payment" was if they were bankrupt which I suspect they weren't... although admittedly they may be close.

Before you claim they have to pay you I would read the fine print most online companys have a few important lines in there that go along we can change the rules at anytime with out notice and we can change the amount we owe affiliates at anytime without notice if it is in the best interest of the company.

So basically they can do what they did and actually I have to say that I am glad (not that you are out of money) that a company actually took the time to tell you why. :smokin:

You're right, a contact is a contract and if you look at it, I'm sure the contract says that:

1) they can drop you at any time
2) they won't pay unless you're over the minimum

The really honorable thing to do would be to pay even if you were below the minimum if the cancel you. However lots of ad networks have done the same recently. And of course you're talking less than $50 so it's not really anything to get too upset about.

Originally posted by jnestor
You're right, a contact is a contract and if you look at it, I'm sure the contract says that:

1) they can drop you at any time
2) they won't pay unless you're over the minimum

The really honorable thing to do would be to pay even if you were below the minimum if the cancel you. However lots of ad networks have done the same recently. And of course you're talking less than $50 so it's not really anything to get too upset about.
Yeah, point taken but at the same time just because it's in the contract doesn't make it legal.

There's a lot of talk about this sort of thing going on amongst a few students I know studying law. It's become common place for companies to put in clauses that are blatantly not based in law nor defendable in any way shape or form. It's simply a scare tactic and unfortunately it often works.

In this particular case I wouldn't know but I've learned to take the TOS with a pinch of salt.

As for the law somethings are legal as soon as you sign on the dotted line regardless of how stupid or meaningless it may be. Several years ago I was in the process of incorporating a business and through the process I was asking about the legal stand point on this and that. One of the the things that my lawyer did was he held up a blue pen and said we both know that this pen is blue in colour but if we wrote up a contract to refer to the colour of this pen as red and signed it then from a legal point of view this blue pen would actually be red to us.

On the flip side of the coin there are certian rights that are so basic that you can not sign them away in any contract. :smokin:

Originally posted by Dollac
As for the law somethings are legal as soon as you sign on the dotted line regardless of how stupid or meaningless it may be
Hmm, yeah know what you mean there... however I'm always in awe of Scottish law as they would probably take your "blue=red" example and beat it about the lawyer in questions head. Common sense prevails more than normal there...

Actually I guess that's my point... what may be the case in one country or even state does not necessarily hold sway in others.

Originally posted by Dollac
As for the law somethings are legal as soon as you sign on the dotted line regardless of how stupid or meaningless it may be. That's actually not the case. Your "the pen is red" example might hold up, because you're simply defining terms that would be used in the contract. But it's certainly possible for some elements within a contract not to hold up under a legal test. That's why most contracts contain language to the effect that the finding of any part of the contract to be unenforceable (the term usually used; a finding that the law cannot be used to enforce that part of the agreement) does not invalidate the contract as a whole or any other point within it.

As WebSnail pointed out, it's not uncommon for a company to write terms into a contract or agreement that are more restrictive than could be expected to be held up in court, on the assumtion that most people wouldn't bother to challenge them in case of a disagreement involving a relatively small amount of money.

The two points mentioned here, though, are very common within contracts and it's hard to imagine that they haven't already faced and withstood legal tests.

Of course, we don't even know that they are part of the Amazing Media agreement, so I suppose this is a little off topic.

The good old days of online banner advertising are gone. :o

That is just it what stands up in one country will not stand up in another country. In province that I reside (in Canada) you are legally forced to purchase no fault insurance for you vechile (maditory insurance from goverment owned insurance company) and about 6 years ago I was hit head on by a vechile that turn the wrong way and started to travel the wrong way down a one way street. The end result was I was found 20% at fault for the accident.

Why, well the goverment owned insurance company that you legal have to buy no fault insurance from (among other things) can not legal settle a vechile insurance claim without assigning fault (but we have to purchase no fault insurance) and I was assessed at 20% at fault by their argument that I was partly at fault for not anticinpating that a vechile may suddenly start travelling the wrong way down the street.

I know this is really off topic here but I am giving this as an example as how to each country is different, would what I described stand up in your country, well it does where I am. :smokin:

I hate when laws or guidelines defy common sense.