# Amazon Associates: Only for select states



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

So I finally decided if I'm running a book blog and linking to Amazon a lot, I might as well make some money off it. Went to join Amazon Associates and get told:

Residents of CO are not eligible to participate in the Associates program.

Note: Residents of Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, Missouri, or Rhode Island are not eligible to participate in the Associates program.

WTH? I'm half tempted to stop linking to them now - why should they benefit from me if they won't let me benefit from them?


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

It is not Amazon's fault.  It is because of a state law.  That is why you can't be an associate.


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

cinisajoy said:


> It is not Amazon's fault. It is because of a state law. That is why you can't be an associate.


Well, Book Depository will take me as an affiliate so there must be a way around it.


----------



## thewitt (Dec 5, 2014)

Some states require you to have a formal presence or office of some kind in the state in order to offer affiliate services.  Maine requires this.


----------



## TheGapBetweenMerlons (Jun 2, 2011)

history_lover said:


> Well, Book Depository will take me as an affiliate so there must be a way around it.


That doesn't really mean much, because there are so many angles to this. I'm assuming you're talking about the .com based in the UK, and there's no way to compare what a foreign company is currently doing and what a US company is legally allowed to do (or how it chooses to adjust its operations to remain compliant with the multitude of state laws).

It's possible that Book Depository is doing something illegal (with or without realizing it). It's possible your state is unaware of what they are doing (whether it's legal or not). It's possible that the international nature of the situation and the relative unimportance (to your state) of Book Depository compared to the domestic behemoth of Amazon made (or would make) your state decide it's not worth bothering with. It's possible that the state law only relates to US companies.

The affiliate program offered by Amazon is "OK" but I can see a lot of room for improvement in it. Unless you're sending a _lot_ of traffic to them, I don't think you should expect to earn much from it. So, since they aren't letting you in anyway, you can either continue linking to them without compensation (perhaps because doing so will make your readers happy, which is more important anyway) or you can diversify where you link. If it's not particularly easier to link to Amazon than others, then you could choose at random where you link, or round-robin your links to spread the attention, or choose some other approach.


----------



## Jac1106 (Jan 13, 2012)

You can try using an affiliate aggregator such as http://skimlinks.com/.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

If I recall correctly, the reason Amazon doesn't allow residents in certain states to be affiliates, has to do with how those states define 'nexus'.

General rule is, if the company has a physical presence in the state, they have a 'nexus' and they are required by law to withhold the sales taxes for purchases by residents of that state. This actually makes the process easier for the consumer because otherwise, technically, they're supposed to keep track of their out-of-state purchases on which no sales tax was paid, and report and remit such taxes to the state on an annual basis. Realistically, of course, most residents don't bother even trying to comply, and may not even know they're supposed to. From the state's point of view, they're losing revenue to an entity they have no legislative control over.

Colorado, California, and a few others decided to redefine 'nexus' a few years ago to try to fix this.  They said that, because Amazon has affiliates in the state -- people who just have the 'buy through me' links on their web pages -- Amazon therefor has a nexus so are required to collect and remit sales taxes on all purchases from state residents. The goal was to increase revenue -- sort of force Amazon to do their collection for them, since their residents were ignoring the law. Plus, local businesses felt like it made it more fair since, of course, they DID have to collect and remit sales taxes.

Real Result: Amazon said, "o.k. if that's how you feel, we won't allow residents of your state to be affiliates". 

Bottom line: only change is that residents of those states can no longer earn money -- on which the state can tax them -- by being an Amazon affiliate. 'Regular' people still buy from the Zon but don't bother to keep track or pay the money annually. So no extra revenue is generated. In fact, it could be argued, that there is a net LOSS in revenue since some residents have lost an income stream they'd previously had.


----------

