Pouring Cash PTC. Look at these ridiculous terms! Of course we all know that their is enough money in PTC to offer $100 day.

Paid To Click (2-10 cents)
Paid To Read Ads (4-20 cents)
Paid to Sign Up (25 cents and up)
$2-60 cpm ptp
$100 daily referral contest
50%+ downline earnings on 1 level

The terms state...

I can't see anything on the main page to say it's ads only... they're still going to be luring people in who think it's really going to be cents and dollars that they're earning. Why not just be honest and have points instead of something people associate clearly with money?

We could put it in big bold letters on the front page (and have done it)... it doesn't matter. We got the same number of people writing about it when they had money in their accounts.

Members blindly check the box on the signup page saying they agree to terms that they don't even read.

We've tried a lot of stuff, none of it worked for the rare few that believe they'll get rich from a PTC site.

For the most part, people understand the concept and use the sites for what they are worth!


As for having points, same thing... it confuses people and makes them ask questions. We'd get the same number of people writing asking how to convert points to cash.

And which looks better



Or



Just because there's a few who persist in misunderstanding, I don't think is a very good excuse to purposely try to obscure the truth. There's always some people who think that 0.01 cents is 1 cent, so why not just let them think it is? Why bother making it clear that it's not 1 cent and just delete them if they don't understand if there will always be some who don't get it? It's false advertising in it's current state, you can't just hide something that vital in the TOS, you should make sure it's notated on the front page too at the very least imho.

How about a new washing powder that has in big letters that it cleans better than all the rest and then somewhere in the TOS it says that it's not new, it's not washing powder and it doesn't clean better than all the rest, but it does go in the washing machine so lets not confuse people with the truth if they're only going to think it is all those things anyway since that's what we said on the front of the packet in big bold letters?



So how do they find out it's ads only if you admit they aren't reading the TOS and it's not written on the main page, and there's a trick cashout button that they'll get deleted for pressing?

No where on the front of the site does it say a payout amount either. We're not trying to lure people in, thinking they'll get paid.

Technically, they are getting paid though... paid in advertising.

These scripts are fully automated for the advertiser's benefit. It's not possible to use points that way, because of this.

They're suppose to read the TOS before joining... they have to check a box on the signup page saying they did read it. Why is it our fault if they don't read it?

Some advertisers send their referrals straight to the signup page... they don't even see the front page.

We also have READ TERMS on the withdrawl page... so again... they'll READ THE TERMS.

If they don't... their redemption becomes a donation to the site for not reading and understanding the terms. No one is ever deleted for requesting payout.

A few will write here and there and ask about it, I'll tell them and then more often than not... I'll get a reply back asking what the purpose is. I explain and give suggestions... they're happy and know what to do!

It's not your fault if they don't read the TOS, it's their fault, but it's you that hid it somewhere you just said they're not reading.It's you that chose to make it deceptive, not them. Why have a cashout button that acts as a punishment for not reading or 'understanding' the TOS instead of simply explaining when they write in? Why do they need to be punished for it? Surely there's enough punishment in that they won't get cash as was promised on the front page?



If I say you can be paid $100 for doing something, is there not something implied there that would make you think you might actually receive $100 in cash rather than benefits?

They weren't promised a cash payout on the front of the site... where is the deception?

I could see if it said...

Paid To Click (2-10 cents)
Paid To Read Ads (4-20 cents)
Paid to Sign Up (25 cents and up)
$2-60 cpm ptp
$100 daily referral contest
50%+ downline earnings on 1 level
$50 Payout

But it doesn't!

What difference is it between the sites that delete members for clicking too many cheat links or for marking that they don't read english as an interest or on an admin message? Is that on the front page of the site... or in the terms?

At least with us, they get to keep their account.

I've stated numerical facts before about the % of people that don't get the concept... it's very few in comparison to the amount of people at some of our sites.

I regularly answer questions about how to utilize the sites and people appreciate what they can be used for.

Changing things because a couple of people don't get it... isn't what this industry is about. If that was the case, I suspect there wouldn't be a site out there that would stay the same longer than a day or 2.

In this case, it's not implied... it's assumed. Reading the terms would clarify for the assumer and state what is implied.

If you told me your were going to pay me $100 to post the next post, I would definitely question whether or not it was real money or something... cause it seems absurd.

Common sense goes a long way sometimes.

You'd make a good lawyer. This is misleading at best, some might say deceptive. Adding the words "No cash payouts, exchange for Ads only" to the home page would certainly clear things up.

At least you didn't open as a pay site and then change the terms.

Ok, how about you see a stereo on sale in a shop with a ticket that says $100. Do you think its implied to be cash or would you just assume that? Why would you assume it? Because of the dollar sign, maybe? Eg it is implied. If something says earn $100 of credit for ads, that is a lot clearer especially if there's a notation that the $100 is not transferable for cash, as most professional businesses would present it. This is PTR (PTC sorry), though.

Common sense is a cop out that I don't think is a good idea to try. Do the $10,000 payout sites say "use your common sense"? Are they acceptable because their TOS says "we reserve the right to not pay anyone for any reason or just because we don't want to, or we will pay out after a minimum waiting time of 300 years" Common sense says they won't pay, but people join, so the sites aren't doing anything wrong?

How many people get upset when common sense says they won't get paid in a site and then they don't get paid or the PO does a runner? Didn't the owner of this site do just that not long ago?

Honestly, we did test that out. JJ wanted to prove to me that it didn't matter.

We launched 2 sites on the same day... via the same advertising methods.

On one of the sites we put...

REDEEM FOR ADS ONLY

After a week, we had just about the same amount of members on the site with the text on the front as we did in the non-text front site. And once they had time to earn enough, we had the same amount of questions about how long payout takes... etc.


Our biggest problem is there are people out there lying, saying that they received payment from us. I got one ticket a couple of days ago where the guy said that a friend told him that he received payment.

If it WAS a stereo... then yes... I would assume it was possible.

This is the Paid To.. industry... not an electronics store!!!!!

Or a detergent factory, grocery store or whatever your next analogy is gonna be!


READ THE TERMS... everyone should do that regardless.


And as for digging a hole, my whole point is... only a couple of people have a problem understanding the concept. We have 1000s of members.... are you even 1 of them? It's not hard to understand. I very rarely get an angry support ticket about it... something is obviously working.


You want an example that touches close to home for you?

Is Rod going to quit giving away free referrals because people are complaining about them?

Just because a few people have a problem with something... doesn't make it wrong.

The analogy could be anything with a dollar sign in front of it.

Of course everyone should read the terms, but I don't agree when sites hide essential information in the terms and then admit that many members don't read the terms (so they won't see that information).

No, I'm not a member. I'm not a member of any sites that say they offer $100 per mail on the front page and then say something different in the TOS either but I still think that is wrong. A lot of people have a problem with those sites, even though some say they are great for redeeming ads and should be considered ads only. The programs that had $100 link on the front page then had in the TOS that it was really 1 cent or tenth cent were being honest as it was in the TOS? Or were they being deceptive? What is the difference if it says $100 referral contest or $100 per email? If those sites are generally considered wrong, why is this ok?

Rod hasn't said anything about this issue, there is no need to use him to attack me. I simply disagree with these methods. I didn't know who owned the site when I first read the thread. I do now, but that doesn't change my mind on the issue.

Rod was an analogy... and he has said something.

It wasn't an attack. Were you attacking the stereo or the washing detergent??

I was just trying to put it in your ballpark... cause you were in mine.


I'm also sorry that you don't think I have a right to defend myself and JJ.

You have every right to your opinion Wag, I've just tried to explain our position to the best of my ability. I'm sorry it's not good enough for you.


The fact is... no where on the site does it say we make cash payouts. We aren't misleading anyone besides those that assume we do.

I also didn't say MANY members, I explained that it's not that many that have a problem with it... over and over again. How many don't read the front page??


We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one Wag! I'm sorry!