Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    687
    I suspect that this has been discussed before but I have been thinking about it over the weekend.

    Did cj ever give a reason as to why they removed this information from the affiliates view. I often wonder why cj sends e-mails to us encouraging us to pick our merchants carefully, do our research etc. By removing this reversal information it COMPLETELY protects the merchants. It allows them to reverse left and right and unsuspecting affiliates get sucked into these programs for months before they decide that it is time to leave.

    I wonder if it was at the merchants request that this information be removed from our view? It had to have been. I wonder if the reversals have increased since this visual information has been removed?

  2. #2
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,356
    No matter how bad a merchant sucks, they still have to pay a monthly fee to CJ.

    If a merchant cannot attract enough affiliates to justify paying that monthly fee, they may discontinue use of CJ services.

    If affiliates cannot see a sucky merchant's reversal stats, they are more likely to put up links for that merchant.

    Which makes it more economically feasible for the merchant to continue using CJ's services.

    See? CJ might be crazy, but they're not stupid.

  3. #3
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    687
    quote:
    Originally posted by Chief_Bobbit:
    No matter how bad a merchant sucks, they still have to pay a monthly fee to CJ.

    If a merchant cannot attract enough affiliates to justify paying that monthly fee, they may discontinue use of CJ services.

    If affiliates cannot see a sucky merchant's reversal stats, they are more likely to put up links for that merchant.

    Which makes it more economically feasible for the merchant to continue using CJ's services.

    See? CJ might be crazy, but they're not stupid.


    It's really amazing because cj loses out when merchants reverse. CJ must have spent a lot of time looking at their statistics and realized that the monthly fees were worth more $ to them than a merchant who reverses most of their sales. I wonder what the monthly fees are?

    I don't remember; did cj ever give a reason why they removed the reversal information? Did they announce something? Because, I just remember one day looking at a merchants information and not seeing it.

  4. #4
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    843
    I can see how some merchants would be at a disadvantage if reversal data was given. Some merchants deal with products that are more likely to be returned, or ones that people with bad credit will be more attracted to.

    But still, the publishers/marketers should be perceived to be intelligent enough to know that certain merchants would normally have higher reversal rates because of the merchandise or service they sell.

    I can only conclude then that the removal of reversal data is an elusive move to mask shady and unproductive merchants.

    It is a much bigger disadvantage to smaller and/or newbie publishers, therefore you won't see very many rants by the bigger affliates here concerning this.

  5. #5
    ABW Ambassador Andy's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    4,178
    infoseeker,

    I'm assuming you are referring to the reversal percentages that CJ used to provide. I seem to remember Todd indicating that the reversal percentages weren't accurate, and weren't fair to all merchants, because the merchants who batch transactions would always have a lower percentage than the ones who posted in real time.

    Or some such hogwash.

    I think there should be a flat number indicating how many transactions out of each hundred are reversed. A "15" would indicate 15 reversals out of every hundred sales.

    Of course, removing this information completely was very harmful to all of the affiliates, it was basically an invitation to steal to the merchants, but it's pretty evident by now that affiliates don't matter at all to CJ. The EPC figures are supposed to tell the whole story, and we all know they really don't.

    Plus, how many loser merchants have low EPCs at CJ? Nothing is ever done about them, at least until they quit paying CJ, then they get deactivated. If the owe affiliates money, well that's just too bad.

    Andy

  6. #6
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    843
    quote:
    Andy wrote:

    it's pretty evident by now that affiliates don't matter at all to CJ


    and I'm the one who is notorious for trashing CJ

    Yes, it is an invitation for CJ merchants to steal ...but we have to consider that CJ is by nature a magnet for dishonest merchants. They have an unhealthy for us mentality of acquiring large numbers of merchants, without any real requirement of them being honest to their affiliates.

    The majority of merchants from other networks and inhouse programs have never at any time offered reversal data to me ..but have always been honest relative to most CJ merchants.



    ----------------------------------
    Is it CJ that makes a merchant go bad? Or is CJ a magnet for bad merchants? I'd say alittle of both.

  7. Newsletter Signup

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. When a reversal is not a reversal
    By justnet in forum ShareASale - SAS
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: June 15th, 2011, 07:23 PM
  2. A Reversal
    By Witzer in forum ShareASale - SAS
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: January 27th, 2010, 01:37 PM
  3. OK, who did the reversal?
    By SSanf in forum ShareASale - SAS
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: September 19th, 2004, 02:54 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
  •