CHR September 1, 2010 at 11:55 pm
They are both separate and intertwined.
I believe you’re asking about traditional affiliates who use unique codes in their links leading to the the main domains (FTD.com, etc…) to allow for order tracking – so the affiliates receive credit for helping generate orders. A few of those affiliates use shady practices, but most follow the rules and act ethically.
In the case of AB 2076, it addresses free-standing affiliates who actually process the orders themselves and pass them through wire services to local florists for fulfillment. Those orders can get mixed in with main site orders – especially when a local florist refuses to fill for one of the deceptive companies. The order can get re-routed to the same shop under the main company name’s account.
The wire services allow these ‘absentee florists’ to sell under many, many different ‘company’ names – and let them send through their networks under entirely different business names, too – so local florists don’t know the true origins of orders – until we’re caught in the middle of complaints.
One of the
worst examples of rogue florist affiliates occurred a couple years ago when hundreds of Google Maps listings (for some of the most popular florists in the US) were hijacked by an affiliate marketer. It took months for some of the shops to get their listings back – and several have never recovered their positions in local search to this day.