Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 30
  1. #1
    Newbie
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    15
    Ok I've been promoting Xoxide.com for awhile and guess what... they bailed from CJ 2 months ago. So CJ decides to allow the merchant to go 2 months with a negative ballance by extending their transactions and keeping them alive in the system. Everything looks fine and dandy to me so I just keep sending in the traffic and making sales. After CJ finally decides they aren't gonna get paid, they just reverse ALL MY SALES for the month of march and send me this:

    It seems that the advertiser has been disabled within our system as you know. In this situation we seem to have exteneded your transactions while waiting for a deposit from Xoxide.com in order to not upset your relationship with this advertiser.

    It seems that since then we have had limited contact with Xoxide.com. We reccomend that you doccument your transactions outstanding including the recent corrections and contact Xoxide.com directly to recover these transactions. The contact information listed on their site is


    I am truely sorry that I can't offer you a better answer than this. Please keep me informaed with their response so that I can add it to your account information.


    WHo is responsible here? I think CJ should eat it since they kept em alive with out being paid for 2 and a half months!

  2. #2
    Affiliate Miester my2cents's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    far far away....
    Posts
    2,161
    YOu have several options...

    1>continue to fuss about this and get no where...

    2>contct the merchant in question and try to resolve the problem... (which is what you should have done instead of this post)

    3> repalce the merchant and move on because it's a dead issue...

    4> continue to fuss..... (which is what you will most likely do...)

    almost forgot... did you ever read the CJ TOS??

    CJ owes you nothing bot even the response you got....

    Welcome to the world of business......

    JOe
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    that's my2cents, 'cuz I'm a legend in my own mind....

  3. #3
    ABW Ambassador Ron Bechdolt's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Affiliateville, USA
    Posts
    7,927
    I'm afraid Joe is right.

    Frankly, I prefer the complaining route , but in this case I think contacting the merchant is the best route. If they give you any grief, threaten them in any way you legally can.

    Good luck. Let us know how it turns out.
    Ron Bechdolt | Affiliate Program Management Consultant
    7 Days A Week Marketing

  4. #4
    Super Sh!t Stirrer SSanf's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    9,944
    Somehow, I think it is wrong to extend credit to a merchant without the consent and knowledge of the third party to the contract, in this case the affiliate.

    When CJ extends credit to an advertiser the very least that is owed to the affiliate is notification that the merchant is in the hole and may not pay. Anything less is an abrogation of CJs fiduciary responsibility.

    Where is CJs concern about not upsetting the relationship with the affiliates?

    This is just another example of the high handed way that network treats us.

    We absolutely need more networks to choose from. Competition for us would be darned good for them.
    Comments are opinion unless otherwise noted. Remember, pillage first. Then burn. Half of all people in the world have IQs under 100. You best learn to trust ol' SSanf!

  5. #5
    Newbie
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    15
    my2cents,

    1) This isn't fussing. I'm talking about thousands of dollars not your typical 2 cents. Also its important to bring these issues to those involved so that situations like this don't persist on going unnoticed.

    2) I have contacted the merchant, and wouldn't have even bothered to make this post if that wasn't a dead end. Thanks for asking! You know what they say about assumptions in the business world.

    3) Replace the merchant and move on? Yeah a sack of hammers could have managed to figure that one out. But its far from a dead issue.

    4) Continue to fuss? Why should I? Its only money.

    5)TOS? Did you read it is the question. There is no clear definition concerning this circumstance. Both sides could be argued.

    6) I've been on the merchant side of CJ and know how they handle a low producing merchant that doesn’t pay.

    Thanks for welcoming me to the business world my friend. I hope that the rest of the business world assumes as much as you do and rolls over as easily. Next

    7-days,

    Thanks for wanting to know how it turns out. I will post it here.

  6. #6
    Newbie
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    15
    SSanf,

    "Somehow, I think it is wrong to extend credit to a merchant without the consent and knowledge of the third party to the contract, in this case the affiliate."

    I couldn’t agree more. And for over 2 months is outrageous when your making a significant number of sales.

    "Where is CJs concern about not upsetting the relationship with the affiliates?"

    Right, well they have already lost the merchant, do they now want to lose the affiliates too? They took a gamble on extending credit to the advertiser on the premise they would eventually pay...all at the affiliates expense! Its just bad business and its not typical of CJ to do this. I’ve been with them for years on both sides and never seen it. They usually deactivate a merchant’s account quickly once in the negatives.

  7. #7
    ABW Ambassador Snib's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    5,303
    This is a really interesting situation. While I can't provide too much advice, I recommend talking to a lawyer. If thousands are involved, it makes sense to invest some money on getting them back.

    I'm curious too, let us know how it turns out!

    - Scott
    Hatred stirs up strife, But love covers all transgressions.

  8. #8
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    4,423
    quote:
    So CJ decides to allow the merchant to go 2 months with a negative ballance by extending their transactions and keeping them alive in the system. Everything looks fine and dandy to me so I just keep sending in the traffic and making sales.


    They extended all their payments and you kept sending them traffic? For two months? And you are going to mock others for not understanding the business world?

    Instead of playing smart, you left all your money on the table and went double or nothing with someone who was already screwing you?

    While it sucks, and I feel bad for anyone not getting what was owed them - the prudent thing would have been to take action 2 months ago. Since that is long gone, and your sense of action doesn't seem honed - no sense on beating up on people here offering you advice. Because the only real helpful advice could have been given two months ago, and you never gave it to yourself.

    Chet

  9. #9
    Newbie
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    15
    Chez Noir,

    I'm not beating up anyone here. I appreciate constructive criticism, but when advice consist of things like " 4> continue to fuss..... (which is what you will most likely do...)" I believe I'm well within my rights to start my sarcasm.

    As far as your comment:

    "They extended all their payments and you kept sending them traffic? For two months? And you are going to mock others for not understanding the business world?"

    I believe that merchants in CJ all wake up one day and realize that they can extend transactions for previous months sales. There is no red flag when this happens as its truly a cost sensitive issue to pay commissions when it comes down to customers returning merchandise 30 days later. In fact almost all merchants I deal with extend transactions for this period of time. So why would I think I'm getting screwed? There was no way to tell until all an entire months worth of sales were reversed. Does this make sense?

  10. #10
    Resident Genius and Staunch Capitalist Leader's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    12,817
    quote:
    There was no way to tell until all an entire months worth of sales were reversed.~Silicon


    Get Reports --> Transactions Extended Due to Nonpayment --> Generate Report

    This report is found on the middle right side of the Get Reports screen. It's on the same dropdown as the "Deactivated Advertisers" report.

    It's that "due to nonpayment" part that's key. The regular transaction report doesn't tell which are regular extensions and which are plainly deadbeat extensions.

    quote:
    When CJ extends credit to an advertiser the very least that is owed to the affiliate is notification that the merchant is in the hole and may not pay. ~Ssanf


    Yes. The "extended due to nonpayment" report is some notification, but it's a fire alarm. There should also be a smoke detector.

    I remember that in threads in the past, Todd expressed some concern that merchants who are extended credit, but always get the payment in before extensions happen, would be unfairly painted as deadbeats.

    Also, merchants who do NOT get credit were chicken that some people would wonder if there was some bad reason that they weren't credit-worthy.

    CJ needs to find a way past these merchant PR (public relations, not pagerank) issues that also allows for disclosure of whether a merchant is operating on credit.

    quote:
    So CJ decides to allow the merchant to go 2 months with a negative ballance by extending their transactions and keeping them alive in the system.~Silicon


    Yeah, that sucks, but when they tried deactivating deadbeats sooner a couple of years ago, affiliates actually b*tched! They complained because merchants who were only a couple of days late were getting deactivated, causing massive amounts of dead links for merchants who would usually end up paying fairly quickly. People would rip the links and then a day or so later the merchant would be back! So affiliates were complaining about that.

    Personally I think that when the money runs out the links should die, but due to all the complaints CJ changed it so the deadbeats could ride longer. I think they overdid it; I could see holding off the kill button for a week or so but 2 months is BS IMO.
    There is no knowledge that is not power. ~Hemingway

  11. #11
    ABW Ambassador Andy's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    4,178
    I believe CJ has a responsibility to police its network better. Merchants who don't pay should somehow be flagged so affiliates know what's going on. A merchant doesn't need to be deactivated for running behind on payment for a few days, but to let it go for months is unacceptable.

    I was under the impression that if a merchant is active in the CJ network, the funds to pay commissions are deposited with CJ to be paid out at the appropriate time.

    While CJ doesn't want to upset our relationship with a deadbeat advertiser, apparently they have no issue with letting their publishers run ads and make sales for the deadbeats, either. This is a waste of our time and efforts. Real estate on our sites is too valuable for this. Since publishers have no way of knowing whether a merchant is paid up or not, it's CJ's responsibility to find a way to keep us advised.

    Andy

  12. #12
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    737
    A similar thing happened with my husband and me with BeFree. They were promoting a new merchant called "EfastAdvance". We signed up, promoted them. The first month, we just missed their minimum to get paid. The next month, my husband made it. With BeFree though, it's always delayed, so we kept promoting them. Finally, we had a great month, and the money was deferred to the next month. Now, you'd think with a new merchant that they'd have cash on hand already to pay us. NOPE.

    We emailed Befree, who basically told us it's our problem and they have no responsibility. Of course, our links were taken down immediately (a loss of almost 2k). They did nothing and even months after we stopped promoting them and notified BeFree about them, they were still showing up on their list.

    I agree, that the affiliate company has some responsibility to us. They make a fortune anyway, paying on their deadbeat clients (or at least partial payment) would be goodwill on their part. Afterall, they do charge a signup fee.

    They always want to cast the blame on us. Anone else ever notice that? We tried the merchant, of course, they ignored the emails. What else is new?

    Robin

    ps...Abestweb needs a forum just for deadbeat (non-paying) merchants. Or do they already have one?

  13. #13
    Resident Genius and Staunch Capitalist Leader's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    12,817
    quote:
    Abestweb needs a forum just for deadbeat (non-paying) merchants. Or do they already have one?


    Even though the Merchant Fraud Forum allows all kinds of fraud reports, nonpayment fits there as it is indeed a kind of "skullduggery" as the forum description puts it!
    There is no knowledge that is not power. ~Hemingway

  14. #14
    Full Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    441
    I remember just a month or two ago when several of us here had all our Zone Lab sales reversed for February. I contacted the AM right away, and also contacted CJ. I didn't get a reply from CJ.

    The AM replied that he was looking into the matter and would get back to me. A week later, no news, and still no word from CJ. All links were still active and we were never notified by CJ that the merchant had been extended or why. If we hadn't looked for it in reports, we would have never known. Eventually the payment was received and all sales showed up again.

    While I don't think CJ should bear the financial responsibility to pay affiliates for non-payment by merchants, they should at least have the decency to let all affiliates know what's going on. If it's a long-time merchant with a good payment history, affiliates have the option to keep the links active and hope for the best, as well as CJ.

    If it's a brand new merchant or one with little or bad payment history, the links should be deactivated on the spot until the money is received. Why allow affiliates to continue to make sales when CJ KNOWS that there's a possibility that they'll never be paid?

    Why should affiliates suffer financially for sending traffic to the merchant in good faith just because CJ chooses to stay quiet about the whole issue? Affiliates are the biggest losers in this. Merchants should NOT benefit from sales sent to them from any network if they don't pay.

    If the network chooses not to inform the concerned affiliates, then the network is just as much at fault.

    Not every affiliate of every network visit this board to see what's going on. Many could be newbies or just don't know all the ins and out of the reports available in CJ. Is it their fault? To a small extent, yes. But the whole Zone Lab issue took a few weeks to resolve and CJ NEVER replied to my request. Thank God they have an AM who is responsive!

    And I used to think SFI had the lousiest customer service online when they took a week, and sometimes more to reply... but the reply always came. CJ beats them in the lousy help/support category by a loooooooong shot!

    Catwoman

  15. #15
    Newbie
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    3,219
    QUESTION?


    Exactly where in the CJ policy does it state CJ has the right to extend credit on behalf of the affiliate?


    If by some obscure chance you did sign an agreement with CJ to extend all your financial decisions to them - well then they WIN!

    If you did not sign any such contract well them CJ PAY UP!

  16. #16
    Newbie
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    3,219
    quote:
    Originally posted by Leader:
    Yeah, that sucks, but when they tried deactivating deadbeats sooner a couple of years ago, affiliates actually b*tched! They complained because merchants who were only a couple of days late were getting deactivated, causing massive amounts of dead links for merchants who would usually end up paying fairly quickly. People would rip the links and then a day or so later the merchant would be back! So affiliates were complaining about that.


    When a merchant I liked went dead -- I CALLED, then gave them a nice riot act: PAY ON TIME AND THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN....

    When CJ decided to extend credit on my behalf --- THAT IS NOT RIGHT! And should be debated within a court of LAW!

  17. #17
    Full Member jarec2001's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Poverty Corners, USA
    Posts
    211
    I just find it interesting that 2 sales were involved that generated thousands of dollars in revenue. I never checked out that merchant, but maybe this is one boat that I'm glad that I missed.

    Silicon, Good Luck with recovering your money.

  18. #18
    Internet Cowboy
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    4,662
    Shareasale actually flags merchants who are low on funds. It is easy to see who those merchants are.
    There is no reason CJ couldn't do this and maybe some of these could be avoided.
    Scott


  19. #19
    Super Sh!t Stirrer SSanf's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    9,944
    The "extended due to nonpayment" report is useless to affiliates who may have been putting up pages for that merchant during they time they were given credit. No doubt, many people added links in good faith and never had any chance of getting paid. They were given no information what-so-ever. This is plain and simply wrong.

    CJ should stop worrying so much about kissing merchant's butts at our expense. Is it hard to understand why I am always so down on CJ? Face it, we are very low on their priorities.

    I like they way that SAS does it. If a merchant is not solvent, they are directed to a default page of my making until the money is back in the account. That way, I do not have broken links and have a chance to send the customer elsewhere but the negligent merchant gets no sales until the money is received. It is a very good way to get them to cough up the bucks FAST when those sales stop coming. And, if the money doesn't appear fast, you know something is up with the merchant.

    SAS at least came up with a solution to keep us from being robbed this way and to get the merchants to pay up if they want to stay with the program. What has CJ done? They left us hang out to dry, that's what.

    I do wish someone would talk to a lawyer about this one. It seems shady, to me, for them to extend credit on behalf of the third party to the contract and not even notify the third party that they have done that.

    Hasn't anyone here got a son, "the lawyer"?
    Comments are opinion unless otherwise noted. Remember, pillage first. Then burn. Half of all people in the world have IQs under 100. You best learn to trust ol' SSanf!

  20. #20
    ABW Founder Haiko de Poel, Jr.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    21,609
    Silicon,

    PM me if you want me to call Xoxide.com

    I really get fumed when CJ allows the merchant to go negative or on credit ... it happens waay too much, it definitely is a violation of the fiduciary responsibility they have as a "trusted third party" as basically they are aiding Xoxide.com in performing wire fraud, IMO.
    Continued Success,

    Haiko
    The secret of success is constancy of purpose ~ Disraeli

  21. #21
    Full Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    461
    Kudos Haiko!

    I actually deleted a post late last night because I always seem to be posting negatively when it comes to CJ.

    I actually do want to think positive on the future, and my future especially, in affiliate marketing. However it is my opinion that if we are allowing networks (CJ being the one that comes especially to mind) to make back room arrangements while cutting out the average affiliate which is unethical and maybe even crossing the line of what is lawful(offline certainly), then something has got to break and the average affiliate will be the one getting the raw deal at the end.

    To say just move on to the next merchant is N.G. with certain and many issues . That IMO is NOT the answer to protecting the integrity of our hard work. A signal must be sent that we are going to do something about the wrong or the wrong will never be right and we will only have ourselves to blame.

    That is my opinion and turn on the soap box for today.

  22. #22
    ABW Ambassador qball0213's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,158
    Well if you do call them, tell them everyone wants paid, once they reverse April's transactions, then I'll be out a couple grand as well. And to those who say it's our fault for not noticing, how many times do you all check merchants that you've been dealing with for a long time, I admit I don't hardly ever check up on most of them so I didn't notice the extended transactions, but most of them have always paid me. If I get hung out on this one, that will be about 4000 I've lost because CJ allows this stuff to happen, with KBtoys and now xoxide, if they don't have money to cover it and you are extending credit, we should know as soon as possible.

  23. #23
    Newbie
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    3,219
    I have contacted a friend (prosecuting attorney) to ask about this, and they want names, places and so on ....

    IT’S A CRIME CJ!

    Extending credit on behalf of a third party without notifying the third party is defiantly against the law.


    This is not only about getting paid --- it’s also about what CJ is doing

  24. #24
    Resident Genius and Staunch Capitalist Leader's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    12,817
    First of all--I wasn't saying that deadbeats should be allowed to ride, or that anyone should be able to extend credit on our behalf.

    I thought I'd seen some legalese which would *legalize* it, and I remember some of the reaction from them having a faster deactivation cycle, but that doesn't mean I think it's "okay" to let deadbeats ride. I think all deadbeats should jump right off a pier right away whether they are at CJ or not.

    When I looked at the Terms to answer the below quote, though, it seems that there is NOT the clause I remembered.

    quote:
    Exactly where in the CJ policy does it state CJ has the right to extend credit on behalf of the affiliate?


    If by some obscure chance you did sign an agreement with CJ to extend all your financial decisions to them - well then they WIN!



    Well obviously they don't come out and say it like THAT! That wouldn't be proper legalese!

    I was going to post the part I remembered, but when I looked again (d*mn, they stuck the Terms in some stupid scrolly box on the signup page!) it seems that the part about extending due to merchant nonpayment and giving the specifics for that isn't in the publisher agreement! I know I saw it at one point, so either I'm missing it, it's been changed, or it's in the advertiser agreement. And we didn't agree to the advertiser agreement, so that'd be irrelevant anyway.

    It does say that "CJ shall have no obligation to make payment of any Payouts for which CJ has not received payment from the relevant Advertiser. If CJ elects, in its own discretion, not to make payment to You for amounts not received from an Advertiser, those amounts shall not be included in the Minimum Balance Amount. Your recourse for any earned Payouts not received by CJ and not paid to You shall be to make a claim against the relevant Advertiser(s) and CJ disclaims any and all liability for such payment."

    But that doesn't say ANYTHING about extending credit on our behalf.

    I may have missed something, but it looks like them extending credit on our behalf is indeed completely bogus from a legal standpoint as well as being bogus from a regular standpoint!
    There is no knowledge that is not power. ~Hemingway

  25. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    95
    quote:
    Why allow affiliates to continue to make sales when CJ KNOWS that there's a possibility that they'll never be paid?



    Maybe because CJ still gets their money through their monthly fees to merchant(s).

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Linkshare owes me money and I don't know what to do...
    By clipper in forum Rakuten LinkShare - LS
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: December 29th, 2008, 12:04 AM
  2. Who owes the Money, BeFree or Ziff Davis?
    By HardwareGeek in forum Commission Junction - CJ
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: November 15th, 2005, 02:10 PM
  3. Ethnic Grocer owes us an apology . . .
    By Herb ԿԬ in forum Commission Junction - CJ
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: July 22nd, 2005, 07:39 PM
  4. A merchant owes me money and I'm mad
    By SSanf in forum Midnight Cafe'
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: November 16th, 2004, 02:37 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
  •