Bezos-Owned Washington Post Embeds Amazon Buy-It-Now Buttons Mid-sentence 136
McGruber writes: While reading a story in the Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post, I saw that the paper had begun embedding Amazon Buy-It-Now links in the middle of story sentences. For example, in this article, a sentence about the sales figures for differing covers of The Great Gatsby read: At Politics and Prose, the traditional [BUY IT NOW] version — featuring the iconic eyes floating on a blue background — sold better than the DiCaprio [BUY IT NOW] cover. This change follows the July news of much larger than expected losses at Amazon and a 10-percent decline in the Amazon's stock value. In related news, the Post reports that the literary executor of George Orwell's estate has accused Amazon.com of doublespeak after they cited one of Orwell's essays in their ebook pricing debate with Hachette and other publishers.
It's not going to work (Score:5, Insightful)
All advertising eventually repels people. It's only a matter of time before someone seizes the opportunity and takes your customers away. Ads associate you with cheapness. There is no coming back from a reputation as an ad whore.
On a side note: Be thankful for ad blockers. I hold quite a few sites in undeserved regard because I don't see the ads.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Ad blockers repel content providers....
Re: (Score:1)
Bitcoin is falling in value so rapidly that it doesn't work. Ads are still the best way of paying for content, other than Slashdot-style subscriptions.
Re: (Score:2)
Welfare is only fair if everybody gets it equally, not just the needy, and pays for food, and on top of it you can have a job, and buy like a fancier place than provided by welfare, or fancier food.
Re: (Score:2)
Welfare is only fair if everybody gets it equally, not just the needy, and pays for food, and on top of it you can have a job, and buy like a fancier place than provided by welfare, or fancier food.
'
'No it's not fair, it's a matter of policy. Capitalism is "fair" -- you get money for doing others favours, and can buy favours in return. Any kind of tax or welfare disrupts this and is inherently unfair in this view. Most people don't, however, agree with the capitalistic definition of "favours" (or what ever
Re: (Score:1)
So in your opinion we should stop sending out welfare checks - and unemployment checks, which are like welfare checks for white people, that don't carry the same level of "shame" as straight welfare, after all, you did pay into the unemployment insurance fund and now it's payback time - and let people starve if they can't find a job, or a way to do favors for others?
Re:It's not going to work (Score:4, Interesting)
This is factually incorrect. Even assuming single payer medical care is done separately and paid for all the welfare in the US a generous (Obama's)probable discretionary budget [nationalpriorities.org] generously proportioned (assume 100% of labor, agriculture, housing, veterans benefits, and internal affairs budget go to welfare) gives 320 billion to welfare. Divided by the population of the US that's a little over $1000 per person. Now add mandatory spending (the above link includes this information) and assume 100% of food and social security spending counts as welfare, again divide by the population of the US. That's about $4400 per person. Total: $5400 per person and that assumes not a cent is needed for program administration. Your proposed amount of basic income comes to $450 per person, per month. If you want that to rise to a number people can live on you're going to have to significantly raise taxes or print 33 to 50 percent more money.
Given the percentage of people who cannot be profitably employed today and given the rate at which technology is increasing that percentage I believe basic income is an absolute necessity. But we need to be realistic at how much it costs and create a realistic plan for implementing it.
Or just, y'know... (Score:1)
Just repurpose the IRS to pay it out as a yearly lump sump, like those 600 dollar economic stimulus checks they were pushing a few years back. Coincidentally didn't that pretty well retroactively afford mocking by Futurama for that 'greenback' episode? That option wouldn't cost significantly more in overhead than the IRS already does. If you could add some sort of e-checking option for the IRS to direct deposit it to a citizen provided account attached to their SSN/tax info, you could cut the costs even fur
Re: (Score:1)
- $5500 x 330,000,000 people = 1,815,000,000,000, or 1815 billion, not 181 billion like you say. That's $1.8 trillion dollars, quite a bit of dough these days. But in places like NYC $5500 does not cover your rent for a single month, let alone a full year.
- I'm not a big fan of sterilization. Or offering to anyone to relocate from the US, which is the "great melting pot." As in good luck trying to keep your identity here, we'll blend you down and dissolve you. I could understand relocating somebody away fro
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that this would be a very cost effective and simple way to administer the program, ideal in every way. Furthermore since a tax cut (even an unearned âoeearned incomeâ tax credit) is politically much more viable.
Re: (Score:1)
Of course everyone dreaming about becoming a millionaire, and the prevalence of hookers or hooker like people, is also what's wrong with America, that invites things like 9-11. There is two sides to every story, to Norway, and to America: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. That's both of them.
Re: (Score:1)
You're dead wrong that a UBI would eliminate the incentive of illegal immigration? Are you kidding me? The US already can't keep the floodgates closed, they keep leaking all over the place, life really sucks in the rest of the world, because they make you work for peanuts there, but a lot of immigrants come here, and can't find a job, and have to pay huge cost of living, and say it was better back where they came from, like Mexico, or Bangladesh, where doctors were cheaper, housing was affordable, and even
Re: (Score:1)
I could live on 450/mo right now, in my present setup, if I did not have to drive anywhere. But I'd have to drop Internet service, maybe even natural gas, and keep rent, electric, and food. Oh and no insurance of any kind, of course. But that's like that already. I would also not have to pay taxes other than sales. I'd have to be eating a lot of rice though, but it would be doable.
And on an income like that, in a different housing situation, I'd be a millionaire in the sticks, where, if you can get CAUV, pr
Re: (Score:1)
I would need a basement to try things out, start selling them on Ebay, craigslist, west side market, and similar open markets, and only if it grows, could I afford to move out of the basement and lease a space, and hire employees, only once I have something tangible and direct on paper. You can't start a business living in an apartment where you can't tap into the gas line to feed a lab Bunsen burner for instance, because the landlord does not want that, it's in the contract. Or you can't tap into the plumb
Re: (Score:1)
Rent is an exterminator of human life. Rent is supposed to be temporary, not permanent, but some people's idea is that it's supposed to be permanent. And even if they had rent to own as a general trend, I'd be absolutely not interested in rent to owning my present place, because it's in a huge property tax area. Even for free I would not want to assume the property taxes on the house, let alone pay money for it.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't think it's a second currency needed as much as there needs to be an organizer for small change transactions... there's a reason why candy bars went to $1 or more, allowing a 40 cent transaction via debit card isn't profitable. PayPal's an example of such a thing, but it's reputation has been trashed in the past.
Re: (Score:2)
Emusic charges 48 cents a song, and the supply is so immense, that the pressure on that huge, 48 cents downward is tremendous, as I could buy, instead of 24 songs on $12/mo, I don't know, 1000 songs? The sellers eager to get a piece of the pie, any tiny bit of piece, instead of all of nothing for one of them, like in a raffle ticket, are many. Such is the situation with intellectual property where the creativity of the public is let loose by opening the floodgates. Prices go to zero. I mean I see gorgeous f
Re: (Score:1)
I don't think you need a new currency for that... just providers willing to track fractions of a penny. Right now, there's nobody offering that service, but it could be implemented once somebody figures out the right way to charge fees for that.
Re: (Score:1)
Does it really matter?
P.S. Substance abuse is for retards. I never been drunk in my entire life, let alone high. I don't smoke either.
Re: (Score:2)
Bitcoin is falling in value so rapidly that it doesn't work.
Wrong.
https://coinbase.com/charts [coinbase.com]
Re: (Score:1)
That's a roller-coaster chart. Two incidents of being propped up... then a solid downhill with a few bumps for the rest of the time. Wasn't this near a zero three years ago? Guess where it's headed back to...
Re: (Score:2)
That's a roller-coaster chart. Two incidents of being propped up... then a solid downhill with a few bumps for the rest of the time. Wasn't this near a zero three years ago? Guess where it's headed back to...
It was near zero when it started out, it slowly but surely climbed, and then it sky rocketed once the frenzy started.
There's a lot of motion if you're a speculator looking to day trade, but if you're actually using Bitcoin then it's been comparable to about $500 for several months.
The current period is actually the longest, most stable one it's ever had since the masses learned of it.
Exchanges (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Also have fun waiting 20 minutes for your microtransaction to clear.
The alternative answer is simpler: I simply don't care enough about most content providers to mourn or want to prevent their passing. They shut down, some other group opens up, better luck next time convincing me you aren't completely disposable. This is what newspapers are slowly discovering: the pay walls go up, and then you realize that they basically just report whatever is on someone's blog anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
It simply isn't worth the effort to cheat on a microtransaction.
Will it be worth the effort to be paid by one? The processor will want a cut, the currency exchange will want a cut (twice), the people keeping the system secure will want a cut ... just because the amount per transaction is tiny doesn't mean the cost per transaction will scale down similarly. And if the value of the currency is unstable, you'll have to run every flippin transaction through the currency exchange. Otherwise subscribers or the processor will game the system.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't the point of Bitcoin that there is no processor? You buy a plugin for your ecommerce backend that accepts Bitcoin and et voila. Then you can exchange into your favourite currency after X days or when the wallet reaches Y amount. Or you can pay out Bitcoin directly for example by using it for all your expenses such as equipment and hosting fees, and just convert what is left over as a dividend (for now, though so many places are starting to accept it you may not need to exchange at all).
Phiillip.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the exposure the publisher wants. Daily if they are paranoid, or weekly seems sensible. As Bitcoin spreads the volatility goes down. Then it could be monthly. But you are missing both the points I made. You can now spend Bitcoin a lot of places, so you can spend directly from your Bitcoin account as (a) it reduces the amount of time you are holding it and (b) there are zero transaction costs for both parties making it currently the world's best currency for transactions. The second is that it doe
Re: (Score:1)
The thing is, blocking Slashdot ads can cause you to miss things. I wouldn't know about UDoo or their obvious problem without that ad.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's no problems as it makes is a mutual repulsion society. That form of advertising earned Washington post a complete script and cookie block https://addons.mozilla.org/en-... [mozilla.org] from me, and if the page shows up blank from now on that's no problem for me. Now if script blocker https://addons.mozilla.org/en-... [mozilla.org] would only add notes that show up for a blocked script so you can remember why you blocked it. I also target advertising companies that are complicit in marketing stupidity and kill their scri
Re: (Score:1)
"So you're the cookie-blocker coming from IP address......" Sorry, sites will figure out who you are somehow.
Re: (Score:2)
I also kill ad bureau cookies routinely for exactly that reason but hey if they behave themselves there is no problem don't and they have successfully achieved anti-marketing with my loathing of the product/company marketed, the site that hosted the ad and the add bureau that served the ad. Two out of the three immediately lose and the last one eventually loses over the long term.
Re:It's not going to work (Score:4, Insightful)
All advertising eventually repels people.
Exactly. This is why, throughout history, companies that advertize have consistently failed, while companies that just sit back and wait for the world to beat a path to their door have prospered. Clearly, advertising doesn't work.
Ads associate you with cheapness
So true. This is why companies like Louis Vuitton and Gucci, by advertising heavily, devalue their products, and only make pennies on the dollar compared to unadvertised brands available from eBay and shipped from China.
Re: (Score:1)
+1 for the snark.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Snark that misses the point.
He wasn't talking about companies that buy ads, he's talking about companies the sell ads c.f. "ad whore."
Re: (Score:2)
Snark that misses the point.
He wasn't talking about companies that buy ads, he's talking about companies the sell ads c.f. "ad whore."
Yeah, he's talking about successful companies. While correlation isn't causation, I have to admit he has a point.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, that's not entirely true. The companies you mention advertise heavily in certain circles and not at all in most. Doing that, web style, would indeed make them seem cheap. As to the unadvertised brands, if you're talking about knockoff copies, it's been my observational experience that many people actually seek those things out because they don't want to pay for the actual brands but they want people to think they did. Our government, which spends more money on tracking crap like that down than the
Re:It's not going to work (Score:4, Insightful)
Spammy advertising doesn't work and repels customers. Spam email, annoying product placement, animated/interactive adverts and the like put people off eventually. That's why you don't get "1ouis Vvitt0n" emails, or at least not from Louis Vuitton.
Re: (Score:2)
All advertising eventually repels people.
That's kind of delusional. People still watch the super bowl for the commercials, after all.
Re: (Score:1)
Only because professional sports is even more repulsive, and there isn't much else on at that time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I agree that ads are distracting, and they do decrease my enjoyment of reading, but not so much that I need to block them or refuse to look at material with advertisements.
"Cheapness" is also something that is a false value. If I have a reason to trust the words on the page of a story with distracting formatting and ads as being a higher class of journalism than something in a pristine, well formatted, advertisement-less site, I will continue to read the sloppy site and glean what I can from it. I will al
Re: (Score:3)
There is no coming back from a reputation as an ad whore.
Unless of course you are actually advertising prostitution...
NSFW - http://www.sherisranch.com/ [sherisranch.com]
in which case being "an ad whore" is exactly what you were shooting for!
What took them so long? (Score:5, Funny)
So apparently Washington Post has joined the Amazon Affiliates program.... that's so 1990s of them!
Amazon Prime (Score:2)
The initial stories of the purchase made sure to note that this was a "personal purchase" by Bezos. If WP is going to embed ads, is a digital subscription going to become part of Amazon Prime?
Re:Amazon Prime (Score:4, Insightful)
It doesn't matter if the Washington Post is personally owned or not - Bezos' personal fortune is dependent on both it and on Amazon.com, and he's the one calling the shots with both companies. So this attempt to use one of his companies to drive business to another of his companies shouldn't be surprising.
Bezos asks for more U.S. government corruption? (Score:4, Interesting)
Bezos apparently bought the Washington Post so that he can use it to try to force legislators to give him attention. The U.S. is becoming even more a rich-get-richer country.
The subjects of the spam messages:
{SPECIAL PREVIEW} Summer Sale: JUST $19 -- SAVE UP TO 81% OFF -- for One Year of Unlimited Digital Access!
{24 HOURS ONLY} Summer Sale: JUST $19 -- SAVE UP TO 81% OFF -- for One Year of Unlimited Digital Access!
{EXTENDED} Summer Sale: JUST $19 -- SAVE UP TO 81% OFF -- for One Year of Unlimited Digital Access!
I think it is a very effective advertising campaign. The effect will be that people will try to avoid buying things from Amazon. Also, after the "Summer Sale", digital access to the Washington Post will cost $100 per year!
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody is forcing you to read the Washington Post. Nobody is forcing you to buy anything from Amazon. You can easily avoid both of them, if you want, without any harm or negative effects to yourself. So what's the big deal here?
Just because neither of us hangs out with him doesn't mean I don't get to tell you what a giant douchebag Jeff Bezos is. That's one of the joys of the First Amendment, my friend! Freedom of speech is the freedom to bitch inanely about things that don't directly affect you.
You, of course, are equally free to tell me to shut the fuck up, or to take your own advice and not bitch about something that doesn't interest or affect you....
... But if you do decide to keep talking about the problem, and maybe even abo
They already do this... (Score:1)
They already do this with things such as stock quotes. They put "Apple" in there, and it automatically adds the ticker symbol, the day's performance, and a link to more information.
I don't see how this is any different.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Stock exchanges make money, and trading stocks is a way for companies and investors to make (or lose, but that's not the hope) money. It's an inline ad for the stock of the company being mentioned. A very well hidden inline ad, but an ad nonetheless.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Sure they do. If someone wanted to know where to get more information about the referenced item and buy it, that's added value.
It's only not added value if that's not something you want to do. Just as if, if you are not interested in the stock or its performance, it adds no value for you.
The argument here is not about whether it adds value - it does. The argument is over the type of value it adds, the cost of that value, and whether the added value is worth the cost - which is considerable.
Re: (Score:2)
New Amazon patent: (Score:1)
One-Click boo boo
Accuse me a being materialistic whore but... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not having a serious problem with this.
I hate today's commercials so much, I mute them if I can't fast forward them, and am almost forced to only watch DVR'ed content, and tend to avoid watching live TV now. I run adblock. When its a site I go to frequently, I whitelist it, and quickly block it again once I see an ad that does popups, or automatically plays audio/video, or otherwise detracts from my reading.
I would go nuts if a "buy it now" button popped up while reading fiction, but this is a newspaper article. I don't find the button intrusive, because I'm not trying to follow artistic nuance in a newspaper article. It doesn't really take up the screen, and they're placed in front of products to sell, namely "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" and "The Great Gatsby".
It seems to me no more intrusive than a banner ad, and I'm much more annoyed at large rectangular ads that break up article paragraphs. So what am I missing here?
Re:Accuse me a being materialistic whore but... (Score:4, Interesting)
It seems to me no more intrusive than a banner ad, and I'm much more annoyed at large rectangular ads that break up article paragraphs. So what am I missing here?
IMO, the apparent conflict of interest. In an ideal free market, ad placements are competitive. Exclusive deals between entities which enjoy very large market-shares in their respective markets have a high probability of inhibiting GDP growth in the long run, according to both empirical and theoretical economics.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the anti-competitive nature of such vertical integration is bad for the economy. The links are also bad for the individual because of their distraction, because they turn an independent information source into a sales force, and because they give preferential treatment to one particular vendor.
But Slashdot does something similar with its book reviews.
The Paper that brought down a President (Score:3)
Major influence peddlers of the past, major newspaper owners were often more interested in the power derived from an ability to shape public opinion than the bottom line...although they were a great deal more profitable before instantaneous news became impossible to compete with.
Bezos is de
Re: (Score:2)
Bezos is dealing with the challenge of ushering the decaying giant into the new World, and in some fashion, that includes monetizing the operation. A button for Amazon purchases? Were you expecting a Rakuten link?
Identifying and understanding the reason that an inefficient trade agreement occurs does not make it efficient. I know why a scorpion stings me, but I do not consider it a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Identifying and understanding the reason that an inefficient trade agreement occurs does not make it efficient.
Identifying and understanding are the keystone to education and betterment.
I know why a scorpion stings me, but I do not consider it a good thing.
Therein lies the behavior modification. Good and bad aside, you damn sure learn not to place your stingables in harm's way of another scorpion.
Re: (Score:2)
Therein lies the behavior modification. Good and bad aside, you damn sure learn not to place your stingables in harm's way of another scorpion.
Seems reasonable. What's the next step; how do you recommend we do it? In this case, the stingable is the market economy, and the scorpion is collusive trade. How do we move our economic system out of the way of Bezos' actions?
less intrusive (Score:3)
i have my problems with Amazon, but I'm glad this is happening
it's a way for owners of newspapers to make their online portion profitable without affecting editorial funciton
see, print has never been "dead"...it's always been a failure of the business model of the owners of the paper...usually based on a complete misunderstanding of **how to make money from the internet**
status quo in tech says, "scape personal data from users to deliver custom ads & char
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not having a serious problem with this.
Did you know that Politics and Prose [politics-prose.com] is the best independent bookstore in Washington and, IMHO, one of the best bookstores in the country? The Politics and Prose wikipedia page says it original co-owners "became known as literary tastemakers." [wikipedia.org]
Consider that as you re-read the example I choose for the summary:
At Politics and Prose, the traditional [AMAZON BUY IT NOW] version — featuring the iconic eyes floating on a blue background — sold better than the DiCaprio [AMAZON BUY IT NOW] cover.
Do you see the problem now?
I'll end with a shout-out to the NPR program On The Media [onthemedia.org] - I look forward to hearing OTM cover this issue!
(This post not edited by Brooke.)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you see the problem now?
Not even a little. The whole point of owning a newspaper is the ability to print whatever crap you want to. If Bezos wants to use his pet paper to pimp Amazon to the few dozen elderly people who still read it, more power to him. Individuals who own newspapers publishing what they want is the very essence of the First Amendment.
Are you offended that Democratic-party-publishing-organ WaPo is being used for dirty, dirty profits? Suggesting people listen to Democratic-party-publishing-organ NPR to get their
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't bother me then. Doesn't bother me now. In future WaPo articles, I expect my eyes to glaze by them as if they didn't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
New Washington Post headlines . . .
"Hurricanes to slam the entire US coasts . . . and the stuff in between!" [click here to buy a hurricane survival kit]
"Martians land in Washington and attack the White House!" [click here to buy guns and ammo]
"Ebola epidemic hits US!" [click here to buy skin lightening cream, because only white folks will get the vaccine]
Re: (Score:2)
When newspaper articles are written so as to be conducive to advertizing, they are fiction of the worst sort.
Re: (Score:1)
Same as it ever was.
There was a period after the Watergate Scandal when it became popular to hold journalists up to high esteem for reasons that have never really been explained. While essentially, Journalism School majors are people who flunked out of Calculus, and THEN were also rejected by the English department.
Wow, seriously - that is annoying (Score:5, Insightful)
There were a LOT of those "buy it now" links scattered all through the article!
If I were a Washington Post subscriber, I might very well cancel my subscription over something like that - it completely breaks up the flow of the article. That's highly annoying.
Re:Wow, seriously - that is annoying (Score:5, Insightful)
Bwahahahhaha!! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The content-sales line has been blurred beyond repair. In-text ads like this has been a dream of the ad buyers since day one of the web, and they're starting to become acceptable. It's now inappropriate to talk about a title in Amazon's collection without a hyperlink to that page, and Amazon will gladly pay on a sale of that item from a customer that comes that way.
Re: (Score:2)
The content-sales line has been blurred beyond repair.
this is the difference between content creation and journalism. Go read buzzfeed or huffpo if that's what you expect of your news.
It's now inappropriate to talk about a title in Amazon's collection without a hyperlink to that page, and Amazon will gladly pay on a sale of that item from a customer that comes that way.
I've never seen this before in a respectable news source. Nytimes, WaPo, and LATimes are the 3 top-tier papers in the nation.
Re: (Score:1)
It wasn't possible until Amazon wrote an API that notices a title an inserts the correct listing on their site. Remember, Bezos owns both WaPo and Amazon....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree; if all ads were as small and inconspicuous as these are, I would even consider getting rid of Adblock altogether to support the content providers. I prefer these instead of banners, even if the links do break up the flow somewhat.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not sure these buttons belong to the Wash Post (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Slate is the national online magazine that the Post bought from Microsoft about a decade ago. So, it's a co-owned property. Seems like they programed the Post's website whenever a title is mentioned, link to the appropriate Amazon page.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Per Wikipedia,
Slate is a United States English language online current affairs and culture magazine created in 1996 by former New Republic editor Michael Kinsley, initially under the ownership of Microsoft as part of MSN. On 21 December 2004 it was purchased by The Washington Post Company.
So, if Bezos owns the Washington Post and the Washington Post owns Slate, well, there we have it. WaPo's using the "slatmag-20" affiliate ID to simplify things for accounting purposes, I guess.
Re: (Score:1)
In another thread, somebody pointed out that it was the Washington Post was divested from the Washington Post Company, leaving it as The Slate Group because they sold the piece that generated the company name.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Bezos bought the Washington Post newspaper and online version, but he did not buy the Washington Post Company, which owns slate.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/mon... [slate.com]
--quote--
First, Slate is a property of the Washington Post Company but is not part of the Washington Post. Neither it nor Foreign Policy nor the Root have been sold. In fact, Bezos isn't even buying the building in which the Post is currently located.
--end quote--
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Okay... so Washington Post Company sold the Washington Post... how confusing. Thanks for the correction.
Get used to it (Score:1)
There are ads (buy now) everywhere in the modern world (buy now).
From billboards, to clothes, the drink you are holding, to the car that just passed you on the road, its invaded every part of our lives. Everyone is competing for your attention 24/7. Its not going away.
Lost chance (Score:3)
Impressive! (Score:2)
Why the fuss? (Score:4, Interesting)
Just add 'washingtonpost.com##.buyitnow' to your adblocker and never see it again.
I don't care who does it for what reason, if it's the owner, his son or his dog, I just block it as soon as I see it.
So what? (Score:2)
I really [GET FREE SATOSHI EVERY HOUR! [freebitco.in]] don't see what [GET FREE SATOSHI FOR WATCHING ADS! [coinad.com]] the problem is [GET FREE SATOSHI FROM FAUCETS! [landofbitcoin.com]] with this system.
Buy It Now is an Ebay trademark (Score:1)