176 New Posts Today

[TheHoff]

Scott Jangro will be delivering this petition to Commission Junction. Sign it and give them your opinion on LMI:

http://www.jangro.com/cj-petition.php

[Adam Ward]

Bump

[Cheesehead]

Moderators, could you make this a sticky?

[MichaelColey]

Great idea! I meant to do that earlier, but I forgot. It's done now.

[Trust]

Jangro would be nice for a little extra exposure at Reve. You are a blogger there.

[sjangro]

I know, trust. I put as much time as I can into it today doing what's there so far. If nobody else does, I will post. In the meantime, keep spreading the word.

[Trust]

When you have time, I doubt anybody else there would post about it.

[waytogo]

i will voice my vote directly using the cj interface.

the internet open petition is great, but i ain't going into something (again) that will expose (or has the potential of exposing) my sites to rogue affiliates.

if you are to do the same thing, mention Scott's petition when you're writing to cj so that cj will know we are one in this.

[Trust]

You don't have to list your sites, so how would it expose them?

[waytogo]

Originally Posted by TrustNo1

You don't have to list your sites, so how would it expose them?

your personal info still has to be on file, right?

exposure need not be immediate, nor explicit. get my drift?

[Trust]

No, if you want it private you can have it that way. And if you're worried about the email address, don't use the one you use at CJ. It's just a link petition, it's just people telling CJ what they want. Whatever you're comfortable with.

[waytogo]

Originally Posted by TrustNo1

if you want it private you can have it that way. And if you're worried about the email address, don't use the one you use at CJ. It's just a link petition, it's just people telling CJ what they want. Whatever you're comfortable with.

if i want my profile private, "I" will be the one to control the privacy, not other people who can change their mind later ... or use them in their own private endeavors.

a petition full of unverifiable pseudonyms, or fly-by-night email addresses, doesn't hold much weight. so one needs to come out personally and be counted. and i can do that (using the cj interface) without going into unnecessary additional risks.

[Trust]

"Whatever you're comfortable with."

[Trust]

Scott, you could make the comment section wider, on my screen the Location column is wider than the comment column. I see over 1/3 of white space to the right. Not a biggie, just makes it easier to read.

[Kellie aka Ms. B]

As Trust said, you need to do what you feel comfortable with. Although, Jangro doesn't need to use an Internet petition to scrape info if he wanted to go down the road of using it for his own personal endeavors (granted others have done that). Jangro doing something like that would surprise the heck out of me and there's not too much in this Industry that actually surprises me anymore.

I do think that the number of people who have signed the petition speaks louder than the actual number. There is a concern (because of things that have happened in the past) that make many affiliates very protective of their information. To see people feeling strongly enough about this issue to sign an Internet petition says quite a bit IMO. To see so many people in this Industry actually agreeing on a subject says a whole lot in this Industry. How often have we ever seen such in the past? Not very often.

Kudos to you Scott for taking the time and the initiative. Even if CJ winds up not taking any action, I still think it is important that you gave people the opportunity and those who wanted to were able to sign it and voice their opinion in a more formal unified manner.

[waytogo]

Originally Posted by TrustNo1

"Whatever you're comfortable with."

An alternative to the open petition would be

1. to designate an "Email CJ Day" (how about tuesday, the 6/6/6),

2. wherein all of us will log-in to our CJ accounts on that day, and send an email to cj using their interface,

3. have the same 'subject' for the email (like, NO TO LMI PETITION)

4. have the first line of the email body as NO, and the second line will be your own reasons.

[Andy Rodriguez]

Originally Posted by Kellie aka Ms. B

Kudos to you Scott for taking the time and the initiative. Even if CJ winds up not taking any action, I still think it is important that you gave people the opportunity and those who wanted to were able to sign it and voice their opinion in a more formal unified manner.

Ditto....

Folks, I have known Scott a long, long time. Any data is safe in his hands...
Scott adheres to the highest of ethics in this industry....

[bintaz]

Why does it have to be an either or?

Do both.

[Trust]

You could do that too waytogo, whatever you're comfortable with. That day you want to designate everybody email CJ is the day they get an XL trash bin. It's why in the podcast they want people to use Ask A Question. It's about control. They can take those messages and pick which ones they want to respond to and have another CJ employee asking CJ employee questions of their choosing. It's why they will never have a moderated thread here. Podcast = control. I would love for them to come here and ask them how they wound up at less than 1% having javascript disabled, then people can throw up screen shots and link to stats that say otherwise. And why they tell people LS is going to have javascript only links too when the LS moderator said they aren't. Among other things. As far as emailing, I've been emailing my top merchants since that's who I do business with and they should know their partners aren't happy.

[waytogo]

Originally Posted by bintaz

Why does it have to be an either or?

Do both.

who said that it has to be "either or"?

the private petition is for those who do not feel comfortable with the open one.

for those who are comfortable with doing both, why not?

[MichaelColey]

Ditto what Andy said. Scott is very ethical.

The only information he's asking for is a name and email address (and optionally your location and a comment). What nefarious use do you think anyone would have with that? You disclose that much when you send someone an email.

[waytogo]

This has nothing to do with Scott's integrity. I'm sure, he's ethical.

This has everything to do with protecting one's business.

[sjangro]

trust: layout changed for your reading pleasure.
kellie, andy, michael: thanks.
wtg: you got to go with your gut. cool with me.

But here's why I did this like this...

I get the feeling that people who are making decisions don't have their eyes as open as they should of the impact of these decisions. I also get the feeling that they have some very good reasons for doing what they're doing, and I think those drivers are getting much more visibility.

Some people there are surely saying (screaming), "this is going to be a disaster", but a person can only push so hard before feeling like their job is in danger.

As for an email campaign: Emails that go to CJ's AAQ get spread out over a number of support reps. In order for anyone but the support reps to see those emails, they need to be pulled out, summarized, and presented. The full impact is not being felt by anyone but the poor front-line guys.

The petition isn't perfect either but it is what it is and anyone can look at it, all the way up to the CEO. I did my best to require as little info as possible and make it easy.

I'm pleased with the level of professionalism people are exhibiting with their comments. I haven't deleted one. That adds to the message, imo. And I don't think anyone can really argue the authenticity of the names and emails. It might not pass an Earnst & Young audit, but it'll serve it's purpose.

I'm probaby not the most popular guy in some parts of CJ right now, but I hope that they'll get over that and see this as some good information that they didn't have before. I know what it's like on that side and I hate to think that I'm making anybody's job tougher. But this is too important to just roll over.

I wanted to wait for more technical details because I am confident that pubs will be given much more control than people think, but those details are slow coming. Personally, I'm pretty confident that I could work around just about anything they throw at us technically, but I'd rather not jump through those hoops.

Thanks to those who have signed. And thanks for getting the word out.

[MichaelColey]

Originally Posted by sjangro

I'm probably not the most popular guy in some parts of CJ right now, but I hope that they'll get over that and see this as some good information that they didn't have before. I know what it's like on that side and I hate to think that I'm making anybody's job tougher. But this is too important to just roll over.

I bet you're more popular there right now than I am, though!

I think it's important to realize that nobody is criticizing the LMI to try to hurt CJ (or anyone at CJ). We're critical of it because we think it's a very bad idea and that it will hurt affiliates (and thus CJ). Many of us make a lot of money through CJ (and make CJ a lot of money in the process), and are very wary of anything that jeopardizes that. I want CJ to succeed and grow. I feel very strongly that LMI will cause the opposite.

I'm sure there are people at CJ who are strongly behind the LMI and who are greatly offended and threatened by the criticism. I truly feel for those people. It's nothing personal, though.

I have no doubt that they had good intentions with LMI. I have no doubt that LMI was designed to address specific needs and requests. But this is not the right solution.

CJ really needs to put together an Affiliate Advisory Board (and probably a Merchant Advisory Board as well). With initiatives like this, it's obvious that they are out of touch with the needs of their affiliates.

[MoneyBusiness]

Good job Scott. The effort, as of this moment, is probably one of the only things us affiliates and merchants have going for us. I gave my 2-cents with bit of an edge. Maybe this list will wake some of the sleepers out there...