In Part 1 of our MLM Special Deal s

In Part 1 of our MLM Special Deal series, we covered the basic concepts about the need for disclosures when it comes to business development agreements. In this article, I provide specific strategies to help companies and distributors navigate the water.

When does a deal need to be disclosed?

In their FAQs, the FTC provides some practical tips for when to disclose and how. Note, after my original article was published in December of 2014, the FTC has since updated their website with more content specifically for network marketers (which means they’re paying attention). The page is titled The FTC’s Revised Endorsement Guides: What People Are Asking. On this page, the FTC writes, “If there’s a connection between the endorser and the marketer of the product that would affect how people evaluate the endorsement, it should be disclosed.” The main question: In a network marketing context, when does a “connection” affect how people would evaluate the networker’s endorsement of the company? The answer, in my opinion: When the connection involves EXTRA COMPENSATION that’s not available to average participants considering the program.

It’s a point worth repeating: Disclosure is required when the connection involves EXTRA COMPENSATION that’s not available to average participants considering the program.

This brings up another question…how is “extra” defined? If a networker was flown in by the company, is this extra? If a networker is given a monthly budget to fly around America to recruit leaders, is this extra? If a networker purchased a position and is given a serious advantage by way of the placement, is this extra? In the FAQ document, the FTC offers a little guidance by writing, “[W]hat’s clear to you may not be clear to everyone visiting your site, and the FTC evaluates ads from the perspective of reasonable consumers.” When in doubt, the FTC recommends disclosure. In my opinion, “EXTRA COMPENSATION” should be defined as additional revenue opportunities that are not available in the general pay plan.

It’s another point worth repeating: “EXTRA COMPENSATION” should be defined as additional revenue opportunities that are not available in the general pay plan. This would include being given volume in a leg, signing bonuses, additional pay on gross volume points, extra cash for travel, being able to work multiple positions, etc. This would not apply to a corporate fly-in, free convention tickets or even being given free product (in my opinion). It boils down to a simple question: What fact, if known by a reasonable consumer, would affect the endorsement? If those being recruited knew of the existence of a special deal, they’d be in a better position to make a decision. The FTC views marketing from the perspective of a “reasonable consumer.” If a reasonable consumer would be intrigued to know the existence extra incentives, disclose

The FTC provides another example to give us guidance on when disclosure is required. The FTC writes, “A famous athlete has thousands of followers on Twitter and is well-known as a spokesperson for a particular product. Does he have to disclose that he’s being paid every time he tweets about the product? [Answer] It depends on whether his readers understand he’s being paid to endorse that product. If they know he’s a paid endorser, no disclosure is needed. But if a significant number of his readers don’t know that, a disclosure would be needed. Determining whether followers are aware of a relationship could be tricky in many cases, so a disclosure is recommended.

Now What?

This is where the rubber meets the road. I have written ad nauseam about the requirements for disclosure. I have even shed some light as to WHEN disclosure is required. It’s now time to discuss HOW the disclosures should happen.

The FTC specifically has a section on its page titled “How Should I Make the Disclosure?” The FTC writes, “It’s always been the law that . . . if an endorser has been paid or given something of value to tout the marketer’s product – the ad is misleading unless the connection is made clear.” What does “clear” mean? In the FTC’s disclosure guidelines, they require “Clear and Conspicuous” disclosures and explain that disclosures need to be “as close as possible to the triggering claim.” When it comes to the definition of “clear,” it boils down to readability.

This likely raises the question: How often does a networker need to disclose that he or she received additional compensation? Is a networker required to constantly disclose this fact every time he or she recruits someone? Remember, disclosures need to be close to the triggering claim. So the unfortunate answer is “yes.” In its FAQ, the FTC posed a question about whether a single disclosure on a website would work when there were several “triggering claims” throughout the site. The FTC writes, “A single disclosure doesn’t really do it because people visiting your site might [see individual statements] or watch individual videos without seeing the disclosure on your home page.” This rule is consistent with the FTC’s position with income claims. If a fact would weigh into a prospect’s decision to join, it needs to be disclosed.

Am I naive enough to think that networkers will constantly disclose their special deals? No. But if these deals are going to continue, and if there’s a company out there that really wants to disclose the existence of deals, I would recommend the following: they create a special designation for deal recipients.

We can start with a simple symbol, like a Plus sign i.e. Bronze Plus (or Bronze+). They should list all of their + people on a separate page on the website. The + distributors could promote their presence on the page as a badge of honor. This would remove pressure from the networker to constantly disclose and transfer pressure to the company. It can also be added to the enrollment process where the prospect checks a box, confirming that they understand their sponsor is receiving compensation beyond the traditional pay plan. The company will need to make it clear that the “+” is a sign that signifies payment terms beyond the compensation plan. The specifics of the deal, though material in my opinion, need not be mentioned. The message will spread and prospects will be in a position to discover the existence of deals. This simple measure would be a large step forward in the right direction. Candidly, I’m hopeful the DSA takes measures to end the practice completely. We’ll see.

Conclusion

Is it perfect? No. Is it better than nothing? Yes. Is it easy to implement? Absolutely. There’s no need to make it complicated. In fact, the FTC has said that simple is good. They wrote, “What matters is effective communication, not legalese. A disclosure like “Company X sent me [name of product] to try, and I think it’s great” gives your readers the information they need.”

It’s that simple.

This is a word for prospective distributors: DO NOT JOIN A COMPANY THAT YOU KNOW CUTS DEALS, BUT REFUSES TO DISCLOSE. DO…NOT…JOIN!! It’s a symptom of cancer

When does a deal need to be disclosed?

In their FAQs, the FTC provides some practical tips for when to disclose and how. Note, after my original article was published in December of 2014, the FTC has since updated their website with more content specifically for network marketers (which means they’re paying attention). The page is titled The FTC’s Revised Endorsement Guides: What People Are Asking. On this page, the FTC writes, “If there’s a connection between the endorser and the marketer of the product that would affect how people evaluate the endorsement, it should be disclosed.” The main question: In a network marketing context, when does a “connection” affect how people would evaluate the networker’s endorsement of the company? The answer, in my opinion: When the connection involves EXTRA COMPENSATION that’s not available to average participants considering the program.

It’s a point worth repeating: Disclosure is required when the connection involves EXTRA COMPENSATION that’s not available to average participants considering the program.

This brings up another question…how is “extra” defined? If a networker was flown in by the company, is this extra? If a networker is given a monthly budget to fly around America to recruit leaders, is this extra? If a networker purchased a position and is given a serious advantage by way of the placement, is this extra? In the FAQ document, the FTC offers a little guidance by writing, “[W]hat’s clear to you may not be clear to everyone visiting your site, and the FTC evaluates ads from the perspective of reasonable consumers.” When in doubt, the FTC recommends disclosure. In my opinion, “EXTRA COMPENSATION” should be defined as additional revenue opportunities that are not available in the general pay plan.

It’s another point worth repeating: “EXTRA COMPENSATION” should be defined as additional revenue opportunities that are not available in the general pay plan. This would include being given volume in a leg, signing bonuses, additional pay on gross volume points, extra cash for travel, being able to work multiple positions, etc. This would not apply to a corporate fly-in, free convention tickets or even being given free product (in my opinion). It boils down to a simple question: What fact, if known by a reasonable consumer, would affect the endorsement? If those being recruited knew of the existence of a special deal, they’d be in a better position to make a decision. The FTC views marketing from the perspective of a “reasonable consumer.” If a reasonable consumer would be intrigued to know the existence extra incentives, disclose

The FTC provides another example to give us guidance on when disclosure is required. The FTC writes, “A famous athlete has thousands of followers on Twitter and is well-known as a spokesperson for a particular product. Does he have to disclose that he’s being paid every time he tweets about the product? [Answer] It depends on whether his readers understand he’s being paid to endorse that product. If they know he’s a paid endorser, no disclosure is needed. But if a significant number of his readers don’t know that, a disclosure would be needed. Determining whether followers are aware of a relationship could be tricky in many cases, so a disclosure is recommended.

Now What?

This is where the rubber meets the road. I have written ad nauseam about the requirements for disclosure. I have even shed some light as to WHEN disclosure is required. It’s now time to discuss HOW the disclosures should happen.

The FTC specifically has a section on its page titled “How Should I Make the Disclosure?” The FTC writes, “It’s always been the law that . . . if an endorser has been paid or given something of value to tout the marketer’s product – the ad is misleading unless the connection is made clear.” What does “clear” mean? In the FTC’s disclosure guidelines, they require “Clear and Conspicuous” disclosures and explain that disclosures need to be “as close as possible to the triggering claim.” When it comes to the definition of “clear,” it boils down to readability.

This likely raises the question: How often does a networker need to disclose that he or she received additional compensation? Is a networker required to constantly disclose this fact every time he or she recruits someone? Remember, disclosures need to be close to the triggering claim. So the unfortunate answer is “yes.” In its FAQ, the FTC posed a question about whether a single disclosure on a website would work when there were several “triggering claims” throughout the site. The FTC writes, “A single disclosure doesn’t really do it because people visiting your site might [see individual statements] or watch individual videos without seeing the disclosure on your home page.” This rule is consistent with the FTC’s position with income claims. If a fact would weigh into a prospect’s decision to join, it needs to be disclosed.

Am I naive enough to think that networkers will constantly disclose their special deals? No. But if these deals are going to continue, and if there’s a company out there that really wants to disclose the existence of deals, I would recommend the following: they create a special designation for deal recipients.

We can start with a simple symbol, like a Plus sign i.e. Bronze Plus (or Bronze+). They should list all of their + people on a separate page on the website. The + distributors could promote their presence on the page as a badge of honor. This would remove pressure from the networker to constantly disclose and transfer pressure to the company. It can also be added to the enrollment process where the prospect checks a box, confirming that they understand their sponsor is receiving compensation beyond the traditional pay plan. The company will need to make it clear that the “+” is a sign that signifies payment terms beyond the compensation plan. The specifics of the deal, though material in my opinion, need not be mentioned. The message will spread and prospects will be in a position to discover the existence of deals. This simple measure would be a large step forward in the right direction. Candidly, I’m hopeful the DSA takes measures to end the practice completely. We’ll see.

Conclusion

Is it perfect? No. Is it better than nothing? Yes. Is it easy to implement? Absolutely. There’s no need to make it complicated. In fact, the FTC has said that simple is good. They wrote, “What matters is effective communication, not legalese. A disclosure like “Company X sent me [name of product] to try, and I think it’s great” gives your readers the information they need.”

It’s that simple.

This is a word for prospective distributors: DO NOT JOIN A COMPANY THAT YOU KNOW CUTS DEALS, BUT REFUSES TO DISCLOSE. DO…NOT…JOIN!! It’s a symptom of cancer

0/5000

Dari: -

Ke: -

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1: [Salinan]

Disalin!

In Part 1 of our MLM Special Deal series, we covered the basic concepts about the need for disclosures when it comes to business development agreements. In this article, I provide specific strategies to help companies and distributors navigate the water.When does a deal need to be disclosed?In their FAQs, the FTC provides some practical tips for when to disclose and how. Note, after my original article was published in December of 2014, the FTC has since updated their website with more content specifically for network marketers (which means they’re paying attention). The page is titled The FTC’s Revised Endorsement Guides: What People Are Asking. On this page, the FTC writes, “If there’s a connection between the endorser and the marketer of the product that would affect how people evaluate the endorsement, it should be disclosed.” The main question: In a network marketing context, when does a “connection” affect how people would evaluate the networker’s endorsement of the company? The answer, in my opinion: When the connection involves EXTRA COMPENSATION that’s not available to average participants considering the program.It’s a point worth repeating: Disclosure is required when the connection involves EXTRA COMPENSATION that’s not available to average participants considering the program.This brings up another question…how is “extra” defined? If a networker was flown in by the company, is this extra? If a networker is given a monthly budget to fly around America to recruit leaders, is this extra? If a networker purchased a position and is given a serious advantage by way of the placement, is this extra? In the FAQ document, the FTC offers a little guidance by writing, “[W]hat’s clear to you may not be clear to everyone visiting your site, and the FTC evaluates ads from the perspective of reasonable consumers.” When in doubt, the FTC recommends disclosure. In my opinion, “EXTRA COMPENSATION” should be defined as additional revenue opportunities that are not available in the general pay plan.It’s another point worth repeating: “EXTRA COMPENSATION” should be defined as additional revenue opportunities that are not available in the general pay plan. This would include being given volume in a leg, signing bonuses, additional pay on gross volume points, extra cash for travel, being able to work multiple positions, etc. This would not apply to a corporate fly-in, free convention tickets or even being given free product (in my opinion). It boils down to a simple question: What fact, if known by a reasonable consumer, would affect the endorsement? If those being recruited knew of the existence of a special deal, they’d be in a better position to make a decision. The FTC views marketing from the perspective of a “reasonable consumer.” If a reasonable consumer would be intrigued to know the existence extra incentives, discloseThe FTC provides another example to give us guidance on when disclosure is required. The FTC writes, “A famous athlete has thousands of followers on Twitter and is well-known as a spokesperson for a particular product. Does he have to disclose that he’s being paid every time he tweets about the product? [Answer] It depends on whether his readers understand he’s being paid to endorse that product. If they know he’s a paid endorser, no disclosure is needed. But if a significant number of his readers don’t know that, a disclosure would be needed. Determining whether followers are aware of a relationship could be tricky in many cases, so a disclosure is recommended.Now What?This is where the rubber meets the road. I have written ad nauseam about the requirements for disclosure. I have even shed some light as to WHEN disclosure is required. It’s now time to discuss HOW the disclosures should happen.The FTC specifically has a section on its page titled “How Should I Make the Disclosure?” The FTC writes, “It’s always been the law that . . . if an endorser has been paid or given something of value to tout the marketer’s product – the ad is misleading unless the connection is made clear.” What does “clear” mean? In the FTC’s disclosure guidelines, they require “Clear and Conspicuous” disclosures and explain that disclosures need to be “as close as possible to the triggering claim.” When it comes to the definition of “clear,” it boils down to readability.This likely raises the question: How often does a networker need to disclose that he or she received additional compensation? Is a networker required to constantly disclose this fact every time he or she recruits someone? Remember, disclosures need to be close to the triggering claim. So the unfortunate answer is “yes.” In its FAQ, the FTC posed a question about whether a single disclosure on a website would work when there were several “triggering claims” throughout the site. The FTC writes, “A single disclosure doesn’t really do it because people visiting your site might [see individual statements] or watch individual videos without seeing the disclosure on your home page.” This rule is consistent with the FTC’s position with income claims. If a fact would weigh into a prospect’s decision to join, it needs to be disclosed.Am I naive enough to think that networkers will constantly disclose their special deals? No. But if these deals are going to continue, and if there’s a company out there that really wants to disclose the existence of deals, I would recommend the following: they create a special designation for deal recipients.We can start with a simple symbol, like a Plus sign i.e. Bronze Plus (or Bronze+). They should list all of their + people on a separate page on the website. The + distributors could promote their presence on the page as a badge of honor. This would remove pressure from the networker to constantly disclose and transfer pressure to the company. It can also be added to the enrollment process where the prospect checks a box, confirming that they understand their sponsor is receiving compensation beyond the traditional pay plan. The company will need to make it clear that the “+” is a sign that signifies payment terms beyond the compensation plan. The specifics of the deal, though material in my opinion, need not be mentioned. The message will spread and prospects will be in a position to discover the existence of deals. This simple measure would be a large step forward in the right direction. Candidly, I’m hopeful the DSA takes measures to end the practice completely. We’ll see.ConclusionIs it perfect? No. Is it better than nothing? Yes. Is it easy to implement? Absolutely. There’s no need to make it complicated. In fact, the FTC has said that simple is good. They wrote, “What matters is effective communication, not legalese. A disclosure like “Company X sent me [name of product] to try, and I think it’s great” gives your readers the information they need.”It’s that simple.
This is a word for prospective distributors: DO NOT JOIN A COMPANY THAT YOU KNOW CUTS DEALS, BUT REFUSES TO DISCLOSE. DO…NOT…JOIN!! It’s a symptom of cancer

Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 2:[Salinan]

Disalin!

Dalam Bagian 1 dari seri MLM Penawaran Khusus kami, kami tertutup konsep dasar tentang perlunya pengungkapan ketika datang ke perjanjian pengembangan bisnis. Pada artikel ini, saya memberikan strategi khusus untuk membantu perusahaan dan distributor menavigasi air. Kapan kebutuhan kesepakatan untuk diungkapkan? Di FAQ mereka, FTC memberikan beberapa tips praktis untuk saat untuk mengungkapkan dan bagaimana. Catatan, setelah artikel asli saya diterbitkan pada bulan Desember 2014, FTC telah sejak diperbarui website mereka dengan lebih banyak konten khusus untuk pemasar jaringan (yang berarti mereka membayar perhatian). Halaman ini berjudul Panduan Pengesahan Revisi FTC: Apa Orang Apakah Mengajukan. Pada halaman ini, FTC menulis, "Jika ada hubungan antara endorser dan pemasar produk yang akan mempengaruhi bagaimana orang menilai dukungan, itu harus diungkapkan." Pertanyaan utama: Dalam konteks pemasaran jaringan, saat melakukan "koneksi" mempengaruhi bagaimana orang akan mengevaluasi dukungan networker itu perusahaan? Jawabannya, menurut pendapat saya. Bila sambungan melibatkan KOMPENSASI EXTRA itu tidak tersedia untuk peserta rata-rata mengingat program Ini adalah titik layak mengulangi. Pengungkapan diperlukan saat sambungan melibatkan KOMPENSASI EXTRA itu tidak tersedia untuk peserta rata-rata mengingat program ini membawa up pertanyaan lain ... bagaimana "ekstra" didefinisikan? Jika networker sebuah diterbangkan oleh perusahaan, apakah ini ekstra? Jika networker yang diberikan anggaran bulanan untuk terbang di sekitar Amerika untuk merekrut pemimpin, apakah ini ekstra? Jika networker sebuah dibeli posisi dan diberikan keuntungan yang serius dengan cara penempatan, apakah ini ekstra? Dalam FAQ dokumen, FTC menawarkan sedikit petunjuk dengan menulis, "[W] topi yang jelas untuk Anda mungkin tidak jelas bagi semua orang yang mengunjungi situs Anda, dan FTC mengevaluasi iklan dari perspektif konsumen yang wajar." Jika ragu, yang FTC merekomendasikan pengungkapan. Menurut pendapat saya, "KOMPENSASI EXTRA" harus didefinisikan sebagai peluang pendapatan tambahan yang tidak tersedia dalam rencana membayar umum. Ini titik lain layak mengulangi: "KOMPENSASI EXTRA" harus didefinisikan sebagai peluang pendapatan tambahan yang tidak tersedia di bayar umum Rencana. Hal ini termasuk menjadi diberikan volume kaki, bonus penandatanganan, membayar tambahan pada poin volume kotor, uang ekstra untuk perjalanan, dapat bekerja beberapa posisi, dll ini tidak akan berlaku untuk terbang di perusahaan, tiket konvensi gratis atau bahkan yang diberikan produk gratis (menurut saya). Itu bermuara pada sebuah pertanyaan sederhana: Apa yang sebenarnya, jika diketahui oleh konsumen yang wajar, akan mempengaruhi dukungan itu? Jika mereka direkrut mengetahui keberadaan dari kesepakatan khusus, mereka akan berada dalam posisi yang lebih baik untuk membuat keputusan. FTC memandang pemasaran dari perspektif "konsumen yang wajar." Jika seorang konsumen yang wajar akan tertarik untuk mengetahui adanya insentif ekstra, mengungkapkan FTC memberikan contoh lain untuk memberikan bimbingan pada saat pengungkapan diperlukan. FTC menulis, "Seorang atlet terkenal memiliki ribuan pengikut di Twitter dan terkenal sebagai juru bicara untuk produk tertentu. Apakah dia harus mengungkapkan bahwa dia dibayar setiap kali dia tweet tentang produk? [Jawaban] Hal ini tergantung pada apakah pembacanya mengerti dia dibayar untuk mendukung produk tersebut. Jika mereka tahu dia seorang endorser dibayar, tidak ada pengungkapan diperlukan. Tetapi jika sejumlah besar pembacanya tidak tahu bahwa, pengungkapan akan diperlukan. Menentukan apakah pengikut menyadari hubungan bisa menjadi rumit dalam banyak kasus, sehingga pengungkapan dianjurkan. Sekarang Apa? Di sinilah karet memenuhi jalan. Saya telah menulis memuakkan tentang persyaratan untuk pengungkapan. Aku bahkan telah menumpahkan beberapa lampu untuk KETIKA pengungkapan diperlukan. Sekarang saatnya untuk membahas CARA pengungkapan harus terjadi. FTC khusus memiliki bagian pada halaman yang berjudul "Bagaimana saya harus membuat Keterbukaan itu?" FTC menulis, "Ini selalu menjadi hukum itu. . . jika endorser telah dibayar atau diberi sesuatu yang bernilai untuk mempromosikan produk pemasar - iklan menyesatkan kecuali sambungan dibuat jelas "Apa" jelas "berarti.? Dalam pedoman pengungkapan FTC, mereka membutuhkan "Clear dan mencolok" pengungkapan dan menjelaskan bahwa pengungkapan harus "sedekat mungkin dengan klaim memicu." Ketika datang ke definisi "jelas," itu bermuara pada pembacaan. Ini kemungkinan menimbulkan pertanyaan: Seberapa sering kebutuhan networker untuk mengungkapkan bahwa ia menerima kompensasi tambahan? Adalah networker diperlukan untuk terus mengungkapkan fakta ini setiap kali dia merekrut seseorang? Ingat, pengungkapan harus dekat dengan klaim memicu. Jadi jawaban disayangkan adalah "ya." Dalam FAQ, FTC mengajukan pertanyaan tentang apakah pengungkapan tunggal pada sebuah situs web akan bekerja ketika ada beberapa "memicu klaim" di seluruh situs. FTC menulis, "Sebuah pengungkapan tunggal tidak benar-benar melakukannya karena orang-orang mengunjungi situs Anda mungkin [lihat pernyataan individu] atau menonton video individu tanpa melihat pengungkapan di halaman rumah Anda." Aturan ini konsisten dengan posisi FTC dengan klaim pendapatan . Jika fakta akan berat ke dalam keputusan prospek untuk bergabung, perlu diungkapkan. Apakah saya cukup naif untuk berpikir bahwa networkers akan terus mengungkapkan penawaran khusus mereka? No Tapi jika penawaran ini akan terus berlanjut, dan jika ada perusahaan di luar sana yang benar-benar ingin mengungkapkan adanya penawaran, saya akan merekomendasikan sebagai berikut:. Mereka menciptakan sebutan khusus untuk penerima kesepakatan Kita bisa mulai dengan simbol sederhana , seperti tanda Ditambah yaitu Bronze Plus (atau Bronze +). Mereka harus daftar semua + orang-orang mereka pada halaman terpisah di website. Distributor + bisa mempromosikan kehadiran mereka di halaman sebagai lencana kehormatan. Ini akan menghapus tekanan dari networker untuk terus mengungkapkan dan tekanan transfer ke perusahaan. Hal ini juga dapat ditambahkan ke proses pendaftaran di mana prospek memeriksa kotak, mengkonfirmasikan bahwa mereka memahami sponsor mereka menerima kompensasi di luar rencana membayar tradisional. Perusahaan akan perlu untuk membuat jelas bahwa "+" adalah tanda yang menandakan syarat pembayaran di luar rencana kompensasi. Spesifik dari kesepakatan itu, meskipun materi menurut saya, tidak perlu disebutkan. Pesan akan menyebar dan prospek akan berada dalam posisi untuk menemukan keberadaan penawaran. Ukuran sederhana ini akan menjadi langkah besar ke depan ke arah yang benar. Terang, aku berharap DSA mengambil langkah-langkah untuk mengakhiri praktek sepenuhnya. Kita akan lihat. Kesimpulan Apakah sempurna? Tidak Apakah lebih baik daripada tidak sama sekali? Iya nih. Apakah mudah untuk menerapkan? Benar-benar. Tidak perlu untuk membuatnya rumit. Bahkan, FTC mengatakan bahwa sederhana adalah baik. Mereka menulis, "Yang penting adalah komunikasi yang efektif, tidak legalese. Sebuah pengungkapan seperti "Perusahaan X mengirim saya [nama produk] untuk mencoba, dan saya pikir itu bagus" memberikan pembaca Anda informasi yang mereka butuhkan ". Sesederhana itu. Ini adalah kata untuk calon distributor: JANGAN BERGABUNG PERUSAHAAN A YANG ANDA TAHU CUTS DEALS, TAPI menolak untuk mengungkapkan. JANGAN ... TIDAK ... BERGABUNG !! Ini merupakan gejala kanker

Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 3:[Salinan]

Disalin!

Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..

Bahasa lainnya

Dukungan alat penerjemahan: Afrikans, Albania, Amhara, Arab, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahasa Indonesia, Basque, Belanda, Belarussia, Bengali, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Burma, Cebuano, Ceko, Chichewa, China, Cina Tradisional, Denmark, Deteksi bahasa, Esperanto, Estonia, Farsi, Finlandia, Frisia, Gaelig, Gaelik Skotlandia, Galisia, Georgia, Gujarati, Hausa, Hawaii, Hindi, Hmong, Ibrani, Igbo, Inggris, Islan, Italia, Jawa, Jepang, Jerman, Kannada, Katala, Kazak, Khmer, Kinyarwanda, Kirghiz, Klingon, Korea, Korsika, Kreol Haiti, Kroat, Kurdi, Laos, Latin, Latvia, Lituania, Luksemburg, Magyar, Makedonia, Malagasi, Malayalam, Malta, Maori, Marathi, Melayu, Mongol, Nepal, Norsk, Odia (Oriya), Pashto, Polandia, Portugis, Prancis, Punjabi, Rumania, Rusia, Samoa, Serb, Sesotho, Shona, Sindhi, Sinhala, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somali, Spanyol, Sunda, Swahili, Swensk, Tagalog, Tajik, Tamil, Tatar, Telugu, Thai, Turki, Turkmen, Ukraina, Urdu, Uyghur, Uzbek, Vietnam, Wales, Xhosa, Yiddi, Yoruba, Yunani, Zulu, Bahasa terjemahan.