Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 17th, 2005
    (Todd quote extracts only from public posts at ABW)

    Todd Extract - "The windows hosting product is a loss leader for them and they do not pay a commission on those sales."

    Todd Extract - "they intentionally never enabled the tracking since they do not make any money on the service/product and never intended to pay commissions on it."

    Todd Extract - "If we determine that an advertiser has intentionally disabled their tracking, we would probably permanently deactivate them for breech of contract."

    "Disabled" and "intentionally never enabled" in this case, may had common consequences. TERM Violation & breech of contract.

    By Contract, a merchant is not allowed to violate TERMS, internal commercial reasons and revenue objetives justifications are not validators to break the public TERM.

    If a merchant want to change te commission rules to exclude some actions that were included in the original TERM (like New cutomer complete online sale) they must first change the term and then change the commission rules.

    It is kind of ridiculous for me to explain this, since it is a common sense practice in bussines to modify contract clauses when bussines model & rules change in order to avoid complaints and judicial problems when someone says that someone is not respecting the contract terms.

    As they intentionally disabled (or avoid enabling) tracking for that product to not pay comms for that product, it is clear that they have violated the terms since the new product introduction time, because they intentionally decided to avoid payment for one New cutomer complete online sale action.

    Since they are a big comm payer with good EPC and a lot of active affiliates, and may be this was a 1 man decision and not a corporate one, I have thought and found a solution for them to compensate with only the affiliate revenue loss (Harm) caused by their TERM Violation caused by intentional actions although may be without realizing the affiliate harm or Term Violation because of incompetence or ignorance about TERM status or obligations.

    Ethical Solution proposal for iPowerWeb TERM Violation

    A violation in TERMS deserves a compensation for the loss revenue at least, so a minimum ethical resolution should be to pay an estimated compensantion to all affiliates based on the % of windows hosting sold, if windows hosting meant 5% of sales during the last 6 months (or product age) then all affiliates should be compensated with an entra 5% bonus for the TERM Violation time-frame (in the example, 5% applied to the last 6 months sales commissions)

    I am not saying they wanted to cheat afiliates, but I feel harm & unfair treatment, specially because they wanted to TEST product sales with (hidden) free afiliate advertisment, that behavior is not contemplated as a TERM violation exception by CJ TOS.
    Fer(nando) - US & EU Marketing

  2. #2
    Super Sh!t Stirrer SSanf's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Todd has already told us the ethical solution.
    If we determine that an advertiser has intentionally disabled their tracking, we would probably permanently deactivate them for breech of contract.

    Todd Crawford
    Commission Junction
    Probably?? Would you really?? especially if they are one of your biggest accounts??

    Try me.

    Todd Crawford
    Commission Junction

    We're trying you, Todd

    There is absolutely no way this could have NOT been deliberate!

    Now, we will find out if your words mean anything at all or if you and CJ are just blowing wind our direction. The moment of truth has come.
    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!

  3. #3
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 17th, 2005
    May be I omitted some important points to be fair...

    The other non-tracking issues seem to be only due to recurring actions that are non-commisionable by the TERM.

    The previous incident with this product has been very recently, just a couple of days before I reported it, so it is probable that they were going to fix it.

    There is no proof of intentionally harm to affiliates. Just proof of Harm.

    It is the Merchant responsability (Not CJ) to update the TERM to reflect current bussines.
    Fer(nando) - US & EU Marketing

  4. #4
    Join Date
    January 17th, 2005
    I don't know whether the affiliate manager will be happy if I post the email here.
    if anyone think this is not appropriate, I will delete it.

    Today I got the commission, and obviously they know they don't track that at all.
    "My name,

    This account was for our Windows service. Windows is not part of our core competency and we are not looking to heavily promote it so we do not have commission for this service. I will provide you with commission for this one time but I will not be able to in the future.

    Please let me know if there is anything else that I can do for you, "

  5. Newsletter Signup

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. PPC doubt FWEs 1 term and Gs term didnot match with FWEs keyword EPC
    By indianaff in forum Commission Junction - CJ
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: March 25th, 2008, 11:25 AM
  2. iPowerWeb Official Answer to Ethical Solution proposal
    By Fer in forum Commission Junction - CJ
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: June 14th, 2004, 09:44 AM
  3. iPowerweb - Any try them????
    By JadaKiss in forum Domains & Hosting
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: March 18th, 2002, 06:44 AM
    By jq in forum Domains & Hosting
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: November 23rd, 2001, 04:10 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