Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1
    Newbie
    Join Date
    December 17th, 2007
    Posts
    12
    Is CJ dying?
    This mean no offense but I have seen some old advertisers on CJ are fed out of CJ, ex. websitesource.com. Most of them started out with their own affiliate system instead of using CJ and most of commission they offers are less than when they were on CJ.

    Is CJ dying?? I hope they will not because I preferred for standing on CJ instead of in-house affiliate program

    - More commission
    - More convenience in payment terms (direct deposit)
    - More tracking accuracy.

    What do you think?

  2. #2
    No Longer Banned!
    Join Date
    January 19th, 2008
    Location
    Wilmer, Texas 75172
    Posts
    939
    Quote Originally Posted by Puripong
    This mean no offense but I have seen some old advertisers on CJ are fed out of CJ, ex. websitesource.com. Most of them started out with their own affiliate system instead of using CJ and most of commission they offers are less than when they were on CJ.

    Is CJ dying?? I hope they will not because I preferred for standing on CJ instead of in-house affiliate program

    - More commission
    - More convenience in payment terms (direct deposit)
    - More tracking accuracy.

    What do you think?

    Yes. One of my top merchants told me that CJ will be crippled in a few years due to the 30% override and the piss poor service and the terrible customer svc cj provides the merchants. Many big guys he says can buy the soft ware for a few grand and pay a guy to run oit for far less than CJ charges and he says that Merchants, esp. him, are sick of cj and the rest of them.

    After all, once his out fit passes the lkearninbg curve, why does he need cj anymore ? He is already rich. So I guess it's bye bye CJ then ?

    I think the draw back will be that many tiny aff's {LIKE ME} will be locked out if we don't earn at least [x] every month. We'll start getting the weed treatment ?

    Steve
    DreamLinux.net | Registered Linux User 453976 | PM me to view our sites. It's a Google thing.

  3. #3
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Nunya, Business
    Posts
    23,684
    No it's not dying.

  4. #4
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    October 22nd, 2006
    Posts
    1,065
    Going inhouse for merchants may be cheaper, but recruiting good affiliates becomes challenging. Merchants staying with a network get the advantage of easy access to a pool of publishers. Inhouse pgms suffer from lack of trust, and rightly so, there being no 3rd party watchdog.

    CJ may die, but it won't be because the merchants go inhouse. It will be because, the merchants switched to a better network.

  5. #5
    .
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,973
    I don't think CJ is dying, either. I certainly agree that they AND their merchants and publishers would benefit greatly from a change in attitude and efforts to improve service to both constituencies. And of course, they face very significant competition from Google Affiliate Network (formerly Doubleclick/Performics/ConnectCommerce), simply because of the Google name.

    While I have shared many reasons why I dislike CJ, LS, and GAN, I don't forsee any of them "dying" any time soon. In contrast, I do believe that Kowabunga is continuing in a "death spiral."

    A decade ago, I was a strong advocate of "in-house" affiliate solutions, but several years ago I accepted that most affiliates are more comfortable having a "third party intermediary" whose financial interests are aligned with the affiliate (e.g. getting paid based on transactions being properly tracked), as well as the benefit of consolidated payment. For merchants with the technical skill to do so, I recommend doing both -- offering an in-house program for "select affiliates," plus a network program (ideally through ShareASale) for "most affiliates." Most merchants lack the required techical savvy to properly run "multiple" affiliate technologies concurrently, and should stick with a single affiliate program through a network.

    As noted elsewhere, the aggressive and clever tricks used by a few "unethical affiliates" have also increased the cost to properly manage an affiliate program (without proper management, some merchants will end up paying a few dishonest affiliates for many transactions that should properly be credited to other sources).

  6. #6
    Newbie
    Join Date
    December 17th, 2007
    Posts
    12
    I'm glad to hear that but I am curious on the main reason behind some old established advertisers fed out of network such as CJ, SAS. Is this because they want to pay lower commission to publishers or avoid to pay 30% to CJ?

  7. #7
    ABW Ambassador jodyq's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 28th, 2008
    Location
    Melbourne, Florida
    Posts
    660
    They have to pay 30% OMG, that seems a wee bit steep. Now I wonder if it is 30% per affiliate earnings???? Still that seems horribly steep.

  8. #8
    ABW Ambassador jodyq's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 28th, 2008
    Location
    Melbourne, Florida
    Posts
    660
    I actually agree, the customer service department reminds me of a whole bunch of people who really don't want to work there. Just pulling in their hours actually even worse is they sound like people who want to get fired so they can collect unemployment. That is probably where cj hires them is from a unemployment line.

  9. #9
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    March 2nd, 2007
    Posts
    1,470
    CJ is not dying definitely

    CJU is one of the best shows

    CJ employees are top notch in the industry (at least the ones I interacted)

  10. #10
    Newbie
    Join Date
    September 17th, 2008
    Location
    Located
    Posts
    8
    I've found CJ to be very good as my little operation grew....certainly, any big company is going to have difficulty moving as fast as the smaller and more nimble players, but they do very well regardless when it comes to higher-level stuff. However, it's hard for the little guys to make it with them and that is one thing that can hurt terribly

  11. #11
    .
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,973
    Puripong wrote: > "some old advertisers on CJ are _fed out_ of CJ" <
    and
    > "I am curious on the main reason behind some old established advertisers _fed out of_ network such as CJ, SAS." <
    (Emphasis added)

    I honestly don't understand this terminology "fed out" in your posts. From the context, I assume you meant to ask why some of CJ's (and SAS's) earlier advertisers have chosen to close their network affiliate programs, and instead have chosen to offer an "in-house" affiliate program instead.

    By posing the question as whether "CJ is dying," you've led folks to respond to that issue, and not to the underlying question you apparently intended to ask.

    There are many different reasons why merchants choose to switch from a "network" to an "in-house" affiliate program.

    Quite often, my conclusion is that merchants withdraw from a network because they don't know how to manage their program very well. For example, the merchant may have cash-flow problems that prevented them from properly funding the account (so that their network account was depleted and their program was suspended); or the merchant may simply not be doing a very good job of recruiting affiliates, so that there is no meaningful sales volume through the affiliate network. Some merchants are "expelled" from an affiliate network (not only for non-payment, but often for other issues -- such as excessive reversed transactions without valid reasons, or if the merchant is unable to resolve problems with transactions that aren't being properly tracked and credited to affiliates).

    CJ's minimum fees are also likely to be an issue for some merchants; SAS's minimum monthly fees are lower, but of course if the affiliate draws no sales after a year or two, it often makes no sense to continue an affiliate program even on SAS.

    The "override" fees (CJ charges 30% "on top of" the affiliate commissions earned, while ShareASale charges 20%) are unlikely to be a genuine reason for withdrawing from a network; in order for this to be an issue, the merchant has to have "meaningful" sales volume through affiliates, and if there are more than a few active affiliates accruing earnings, the cost to manage payment (writing checks or coordinating direct deposit, and dealing with payment questions, replacing lost checks, and issuing 1099 forms to affiliates) for an in-house program could easily exceed the network fees. However, if the merchant has only one or two "active" affiliates through a network, it might make sense to bring those affiliates "in-house," to eliminate the intermediary network fees. (Some affiliates are happy with this; some might refuse to make the transition if they are suspicious or skeptical of the merchant's motives).

    Finally, some merchants have chosen to abandon their "network" affiliate programs because of unethical affiliates who engage in improper tactics (such as trademark bidding); some merchants decide that they cannot invest the time and effort required to monitor such activities and expel such affiliates, and they may believe that an in-house program will be less vulnerable to such activities.

  12. #12
    Newbie
    Join Date
    December 17th, 2007
    Posts
    12
    Sorry for my bad english which cause you confused on some word. Thank you for your detailed explain. This is what I wanted.

    I'm always skeptical when I have to switch some merchant from network such as CJ or SAS to their in-house. I have a lack of trust on them but I have no choice because I have a reviews on them on my site and I cannot just let them pass when reader clicked on that link.

    Quote Originally Posted by markwelch
    Puripong wrote: > "some old advertisers on CJ are _fed out_ of CJ" <
    and
    > "I am curious on the main reason behind some old established advertisers _fed out of_ network such as CJ, SAS." <
    (Emphasis added)

    I honestly don't understand this terminology "fed out" in your posts. From the context, I assume you meant to ask why some of CJ's (and SAS's) earlier advertisers have chosen to close their network affiliate programs, and instead have chosen to offer an "in-house" affiliate program instead.

    By posing the question as whether "CJ is dying," you've led folks to respond to that issue, and not to the underlying question you apparently intended to ask.

    There are many different reasons why merchants choose to switch from a "network" to an "in-house" affiliate program.

    Quite often, my conclusion is that merchants withdraw from a network because they don't know how to manage their program very well. For example, the merchant may have cash-flow problems that prevented them from properly funding the account (so that their network account was depleted and their program was suspended); or the merchant may simply not be doing a very good job of recruiting affiliates, so that there is no meaningful sales volume through the affiliate network. Some merchants are "expelled" from an affiliate network (not only for non-payment, but often for other issues -- such as excessive reversed transactions without valid reasons, or if the merchant is unable to resolve problems with transactions that aren't being properly tracked and credited to affiliates).

    CJ's minimum fees are also likely to be an issue for some merchants; SAS's minimum monthly fees are lower, but of course if the affiliate draws no sales after a year or two, it often makes no sense to continue an affiliate program even on SAS.

    The "override" fees (CJ charges 30% "on top of" the affiliate commissions earned, while ShareASale charges 20%) are unlikely to be a genuine reason for withdrawing from a network; in order for this to be an issue, the merchant has to have "meaningful" sales volume through affiliates, and if there are more than a few active affiliates accruing earnings, the cost to manage payment (writing checks or coordinating direct deposit, and dealing with payment questions, replacing lost checks, and issuing 1099 forms to affiliates) for an in-house program could easily exceed the network fees. However, if the merchant has only one or two "active" affiliates through a network, it might make sense to bring those affiliates "in-house," to eliminate the intermediary network fees. (Some affiliates are happy with this; some might refuse to make the transition if they are suspicious or skeptical of the merchant's motives).

    Finally, some merchants have chosen to abandon their "network" affiliate programs because of unethical affiliates who engage in improper tactics (such as trademark bidding); some merchants decide that they cannot invest the time and effort required to monitor such activities and expel such affiliates, and they may believe that an in-house program will be less vulnerable to such activities.

  13. #13
    Affiliate Manager GlobalGolf-Amanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10th, 2008
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by jodyq
    They have to pay 30% OMG, that seems a wee bit steep. Now I wonder if it is 30% per affiliate earnings???? Still that seems horribly steep.
    Yes, it's 30% of affiliate commission totals. This is of course on top of the commissions themselves, which are paid to the affiliates.

    In addition, CJ charges for many of the services other networks do not charge for, e.g. datafeeds, Custom Terms, and other things.
    *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
    Amanda Moralis
    GlobalGolf.com | GolfShoesOnly.com | TaylorMadeGolfPreOwned.com
    [URL=https://signup.cj.com/member/brandedPublisherSignUp.do?air_refmerchantid=2132449]Join our affiliate program![/URL] | [URL=http://globalgolfaff.blogspot.com/]GlobalGolf & GSO Affiliate Blog[/URL] | [URL=http://feeds.feedburner.com/ggaffs/]Coupon Feed[/URL]

  14. #14
    ABW Ambassador Vrindavan's Avatar
    Join Date
    February 25th, 2003
    Posts
    1,902
    >> More commission

    lower i think,
    but there are many partnership options to choose from.

    >> - More convenience in payment terms (direct deposit)

    only cheque for my location, no dd

    >> More tracking accuracy.

    not so sure, i doubt,
    it varies from program to program too.

  15. Newsletter Signup

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. PPC Dying Everywhere ... Your Thoughts?
    By net4biz in forum Midnight Cafe'
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: June 3rd, 2009, 11:01 AM
  2. Dying to ask, so I will: Any plan for PopShops.com?
    By writerguy in forum BettyMills
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 16th, 2008, 01:33 PM
  3. Is Performics dying?
    By La_Valette in forum Google Affiliate Network - GAN
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: April 19th, 2006, 08:30 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •