Results 1 to 7 of 7
July 15th, 2009, 09:36 AM #1"Big" Networks -> "Legacy" Networks
I've always called the big three (LinkShare, CJ and Performics/Google) "big" networks, but as I was typing a post just a while ago, an even more accurate term hit me. They should really be called "legacy" networks.
Early on, they were the innovators in the industry. Now, they're the more established players and smaller players are doing most of the innovating. That says "legacy" to me.
For the most part, their technology is seriously outdated and they're very slow to respond to industry needs. That says "legacy" to me.
They have considerable overhead and aren't the lean, mean, agile companies that many of the up and coming companies in the industry are. That says "legacy" to me.
They seem to have lost touch with the small affiliates and merchants, have embraced special interests in the industry, and are focused almost exclusively on the largest players. That says "legacy" to me.
While they may be the largest right now, many of the "smaller" networks are closing in very quickly. That says "legacy" to me.
So, if you see me using the term "legacy networks", you'll know who I'm talking about and why I'm using that term.
July 15th, 2009, 09:53 AM #2
Cool description, Michael. I'm inclined to pick it up also. The "legacy" networks may also be described as the "old fashioned" networks. My little bit of production is not enough to put a "dent" in anyone's numbers, but I find the legacy players to be, as you said, outdated and unresponsive (I actually have to CALL one of them later today just to change a mailing address). Consequently, I do not care to work with them on a regular basis.
Bring on the "new kids on the block" such as ShareASale, Buy.at and AvantLink, and I'm a happy camper. In our industry new(er) does not mean inexperienced - it means innovative and responsive. That sounds like a good combination to me.
July 15th, 2009, 11:20 AM #3
What is strange is that the Legacy networks have so much more money to invest in innovation that they have an inherent advantage over the newer guys just struggling to pay the bills.
But it ultimately goes to the core of their beliefs. I doubt that SAS will ever stop innovating, even if one day they become as big as CJ or LS. Even if they become one of the Big Four, I don't think they will ever be considered a "Legacy" network.
Great post Michael!
July 15th, 2009, 01:11 PM #4
Great analysis. With GAN, it's even more annoying because they have a good reporting system with analytics but haven't incorporated that type of reporting within their affilaite network.
I might be missing something but it would make sense that they would have improved on the old and sluggish performics platform.
July 15th, 2009, 03:11 PM #5
I am not a fan of giving them legendary tag at all, it makes them sound like they earned a certain level of status. I would rather call them "also rans" like they use for racehorses that finish last.
July 15th, 2009, 03:29 PM #6
- Join Date
- January 18th, 2005
Legacy. Not "legendary" (although some of their screw-ups are legendary), but "legacy."
When I hear the word "legacy" in the world of technology, I think of something that we're going to be "stuck with" and using (or supporting) for a while longer, even though we don't much like it.
July 15th, 2009, 08:34 PM #7
By markwelch in forum Other Affiliate NetworksReplies: 1Last Post: December 8th, 2008, 05:27 PM
By Michael Nunez in forum AffiliateManager.comReplies: 0Last Post: February 5th, 2007, 03:18 PM
By Chocolate_Chicken in forum GoldenCANReplies: 2Last Post: July 29th, 2005, 01:51 PM