Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    ABW Founder Haiko de Poel, Jr.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    21,609
    Here's two questions from the archives for discussion
    I've been going through the archives (old posts) and in doing so had a few thoughts ....let's see if any of it makes sense ... I'm not trying to create any mass hysteria, nor add to the conspiracy theories, just wanted some real feedback from the group.

    1. In 2003 CJ removed the charge back data from merchant detail pages -

    The 3 month EPC reflects chargeback percentage, conversion rate, and numerous other factors in what we feel is the most meaningful fashion
    Was this to hide the fact that sales that were credited to both Affiliates and parasites sales were being reversed on the affiliate and credited to be credited to the parasite? If the reversal rates were actually depicted the rates would be sky high, as a result, CJ created and implemented the EPC metric so that they report yet hide or can hide the truth in the tracking issues.

    2. Norton blocking - CJ did nothing about this for years ... But they didn't show a loss in sales. Why? The parasites still read the page and saw the links / merchant names and popped, result - end user clicks on parasite link and purchases - sales still made.

    Thoughts?
    Continued Success,

    Haiko
    The secret of success is constancy of purpose ~ Disraeli

  2. #2
    Life is Supposed to be Fun! Rexanne's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    12,360
    Quote Originally Posted by Haiko de Poel, Jr.


    Thoughts?
    Just one:

    Peace,

    Rexanne

    Rexanne.com
    Loving Everyone's Child Creates Magic


  3. #3
    notary sojac Herb ԿԬ's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Central/Western NY State
    Posts
    7,741
    Lightbulb
    I guess it would be possible. Wish we could know for sure.

    So they finally got caught? re: some kind of payout in January.

  4. #4
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Nunya, Business
    Posts
    23,684
    Could have been pressure from merchants because it could reflect poorly on them, see this complaint sometimes from merchants at SAS. Where they have to reverse because of fraud or something, which is a good thing but that reversal makes them look bad. As an affiliate I liked that stat but can see how the merchants wouldn't. The reversals could be legit, I believe most are but you always have some sneaky ones in the bunch. So you can't see their overall reversal percentage in the network but you can still see reversals that you get in your own stats.

  5. #5
    ABW Ambassador Joshua's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 17th, 2006
    Posts
    854
    Quote Originally Posted by Haiko de Poel, Jr.
    I've been going through the archives (old posts) and in doing so had a few thoughts ....let's see if any of it makes sense ... I'm not trying to create any mass hysteria, nor add to the conspiracy theories, just wanted some real feedback from the group.

    1. In 2003 CJ removed the charge back data from merchant detail pages -



    Was this to hide the fact that sales that were credited to both Affiliates and parasites sales were being reversed on the affiliate and credited to be credited to the parasite? If the reversal rates were actually depicted the rates would be sky high, as a result, CJ created and implemented the EPC metric so that they report yet hide or can hide the truth in the tracking issues.
    1. Haiko, are you saying that back in the day (or now?), advertisers would somehow credit both an affiliate and a parasite in CJ with the sale, and would then reverse the first sale (because it was a duplicate), and keep it credited to the parasite? Only one affiliate can be credited at a time for a merchant (last click), and even if two affiliates were able to be credited, only one commission can be attributed to a unique order ID.

    As for reversal rates, I think that fraud could be a reason why reversal rates would be bad to show. In a program that I worked on a while back, fraud occasionally came in at volumes that were greater than the number of legitimate sales in a month. Maybe a compromise would be to list reversal rates, but exclude those reversed for fraud. That could have a lot of issues with hosting affiliate programs, though.

    2. Norton blocking - CJ did nothing about this for years ... But they didn't show a loss in sales. Why? The parasites still read the page and saw the links / merchant names and popped, result - end user clicks on parasite link and purchases - sales still made.
    2. If Norton is blocking a CJ link, a parasite in CJ isn't going to be able to set a cookie, either. If a cookie is blocked, but a link works, CJ will show a loss in sales (since they get paid when a commission is paid), but the merchant will still get the sale. Am I reading that right, or did I miss something? These conversations started well before I frequented ABW (though not before I was in the industry), so I may be misinterpreting something.

  6. #6
    ABW Founder Haiko de Poel, Jr.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    21,609
    Quote Originally Posted by Joshua
    1. Haiko, are you saying that back in the day (or now?),
    Back in the day.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joshua
    advertisers would somehow credit both an affiliate and a parasite in CJ with the sale, and would then reverse the first sale (because it was a duplicate), and keep it credited to the parasite? Only one affiliate can be credited at a time for a merchant (last click), and even if two affiliates were able to be credited, only one commission can be attributed to a unique order ID.
    Right, only problem is that when a parasite ran their transaction reports they would claim X, y or Z sale and if that was already credited to Affiliate A then CJ would reverse the sale and credit it to the parasite, such a reversal would skew the chargeback data so they switched to EPC stats which could obfuscate the real numbers.


    Quote Originally Posted by Joshua
    2. If Norton is blocking a CJ link, a parasite in CJ isn't going to be able to set a cookie, either. If a cookie is blocked, but a link works, CJ will show a loss in sales (since they get paid when a commission is paid), but the merchant will still get the sale. Am I reading that right, or did I miss something? These conversations started well before I frequented ABW (though not before I was in the industry), so I may be misinterpreting something.
    Parasites set their own cookie and match their stats to the networks, they actually have better tracking than the networks because they aren't blocked by any AV software.

    I'm not saying any of this happened, per se, I'm just throwing this out there for discussion.
    Continued Success,

    Haiko
    The secret of success is constancy of purpose ~ Disraeli

  7. #7
    Advocate mellie's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    1,925
    I think that the charge back rate is probably so skewed in many cases that it is not reliable measure. While I like to look at it, I don't give it much weight. I'd like to think that it was removed because it had little value and they thought EPC would be an improved indicator for everyone. Merchants & network look better, improved image. Affiliates have to try and understand what value, if any, EPC has.

    As for the Norton issue, I would probably have to agree that there most likely appeared to be less of an impact of Norton blocking sales if the parasites tracking was given weight by the network and sales were credited.
    Melanie
    President - Affiliate Advocacy 2008 ShareaSale Performance Industry Advocate Award, 2009 Affiliate Summit Pinnacle Award - Affiliate Advocate
    Affiliate Advocacy
    NYAffiliateVoice Seery Writing

  8. #8
    ABW Veteran Mr. Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    6,795
    2. Norton blocking - CJ did nothing about this for years ... But they didn't show a loss in sales. Why? The parasites still read the page and saw the links / merchant names and popped, result - end user clicks on parasite link and purchases - sales still made.

    Thoughts?
    Parasites set their own cookie and match their stats to the networks, they actually have better tracking than the networks because they aren't blocked by any AV software.

    I'm not saying any of this happened, per se, I'm just throwing this out there for discussion.
    Parasites or no parasites, my main thought is that after all that we went thru back then, with that no-r-ton software blocking the affiliate links on CJ, even when they too were using CJ to promote their products, there is no way in hell that I would ever promote, use, or praise that product. I don't even care if their 2009 version is now the best thing out there, like it's being promoted on another thread here.

    Was this to hide the fact that sales that were credited to both Affiliates and parasites sales were being reversed on the affiliate and credited to be credited to the parasite? If the reversal rates were actually depicted the rates would be sky high, as a result, CJ created and implemented the EPC metric so that they report yet hide or can hide the truth in the tracking issues.
    Well, I don't really know how and who is getting away with what, but there is a limit to how much bs I will put up with any merchant, and also with any network.

    I may have some good sales with any merchant that is on dual network, but if I think I am getting screwed out of some of my commissions, like it happen to me a couple of years ago on SAS, with a merchant that is also on CJ, I would just drop that merchant after a just a couple of those mysterious reversals because of duplicate sales that were not made from my links.

    I don't care about normal and reasonal reversals, because that is part of doing business, and I know that there could be many good reasons for the customers to return the orders, even if they buy something else or not. But, if it's because someone else got credited with that order after I already have that sale listed on my account, then it's when I start to keep an extra eye on that merchant, because I don't believe in coincidences either.

  9. #9
    Resident Genius and Staunch Capitalist Leader's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    12,817
    Quote Originally Posted by Haiko
    1) Was this to hide the fact that sales that were credited to both Affiliates and parasites sales were being reversed on the affiliate and credited to be credited to the parasite? If the reversal rates were actually depicted the rates would be sky high, as a result, CJ created and implemented the EPC metric so that they report yet hide or can hide the truth in the tracking issues.

    2. Norton blocking - CJ did nothing about this for years ... But they didn't show a loss in sales. Why? The parasites still read the page and saw the links / merchant names and popped, result - end user clicks on parasite link and purchases - sales still made.
    1) I think that was to protect plain, out-and-out reversal maniacs. No special concerns for parasites. Crooks who reverse a ridiculous amount of transactions (sometimes over 30%, a few even up in the 50-80% range or more) did not like that fact being made obvious. So the figure disappeared.

    As for legit reversals, most merchants at CJ seem big enough that a normal amount of reversing shouldn't make their reversal rate look absolutely atrocious. But that figure showed many merchants who, they would have us believe, get 1/3 to 1/2 of their stuff returned...

    2) Norton...I didn't notice a big dropoff in conversion ratio from that (despite refraining from resorting to parasiteware), so I'm not surprised that CJ didn't. Maybe people didn't like the links they were clicking going to nowhere, and soon disabled that "feature." It's irritating to click something that looks like a link and not have it respond right!
    There is no knowledge that is not power. ~Hemingway

  10. Newsletter Signup

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Archives
    By Haiko de Poel, Jr. in forum Midnight Cafe'
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 20th, 2001, 02:35 PM
  2. Archives
    By Haiko de Poel, Jr. in forum Domains & Hosting
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 20th, 2001, 02:34 PM
  3. Archives
    By Haiko de Poel, Jr. in forum Programming / Datafeeds / Tools
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 20th, 2001, 02:32 PM
  4. Archives
    By Haiko de Poel, Jr. in forum Search Engine Optimization
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 20th, 2001, 02:31 PM

Posting Permissions

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