Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    Defender of Truth, Justice and the Affiliate Way
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    The Swamp
    Posts
    7,503
    Many people have expressed ideas and opinions regarding what they feel the Industry Standard should be. The posts are spread throughout many threads across the board. I would like this thread to be just for posting actual proprosals or the specific points of the standard that members feel are important. No debate or comment about the proposals or points, just a place where everyone can come and easily view all suggestions in one place easily. It is fine to debate the merits (or lack of) to what is posted here. I would just ask that you do it in one of the many other threads where the debate is already on going. That way we can have one clutter free thread where all the important info is easily accessible for member viewing.

    I would also ask the moderators to please assist in keeping this thread "pure" to the topic. If debate about proposals start showing up in this thread, please move the post to another appropriate thread.

    I will try and pick out some of the posts from other threads to get things going here. If I miss a post you've made, sorry no offense is meant. It's just that by the sheer volume of recent posts, it is very difficult to find the info. If you have posted elsewhere in the past, then please do repost here.

    Keep Your Hands Off My Cookies

  2. #2
    Defender of Truth, Justice and the Affiliate Way
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    The Swamp
    Posts
    7,503
    LinkShare Proposal

    Can be viewed here

    Keep Your Hands Off My Cookies

  3. #3
    Defender of Truth, Justice and the Affiliate Way
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    The Swamp
    Posts
    7,503
    Haiko's Proposal

    An official definition of ParasiteWare(TM) that would be written into the respective TOAs of EVERY ad network / solution provider, mine being ...

    ParasiteWare(TM) - is a program(s) or site(s) that specifically uses technology (bho's, browser plug-ins, auto homepage settings, pop ups or sliders or other means that become available) to retain or acquire new customers via contextual advertising on any site other than the credited affiliate's, advertiser's or merchant's site.

    Every existing affiliate who would fall into this category must immediately cease and desist such activity, notify their users of such and offer instructions on how to uninstall such technology within thirty days notice from the respective ad networks / solution providers. Failure to comply will result in complete removal from respective ad networks / solution providers and total forfeiture of any unpaid and future commissions sue such parasitic affiliate.

    As this will remove any chance of an affiliate's commissions being diverted, or their links/traffic hijacked we now need to address the merchant's concerns as these will be next.

    CPA (Cost per acquisition) is the least effective model EVER and once the parasites induce their visitors to install their programs they effectively are ruining the entire business model. The exploitation of these programs (usually under the guise of affinity marketing) is skewing the results and actual numbers of CPA because of the simple fact that they are creating LIFETIME cookies on all the merchant programs (eg. an end user downloads Upromise’s RemindU application and every time they go to merchant X's site, they will be paid for commissions on every sale, and not just the originating ones within the merchant's cookie duration).

    While, I can easily identify why a merchant would want to have an affinity group as an affiliate, I can not understand why any merchant would allow and alleged affinity group exploit affiliate marketing and the VALUE it brings to the table!

    Many networks are supportive of the Dupers and parasites, and that is only because they get their cut from such allowance, and they, subsequently actively promote them to unknowing merchants.

    In looking forward and as an attempt to address issues before they arise with both the merchants and parasites complaining, I'd humbly like to propose the creation of a new business model ... ECPC.

    ECPC will be a hybrid deal for the reformed parasitic companies and will be comprised of two integral parts ... 1) CPC as these companies basically have an incredible opportunity to [ethically] drive incredible amount of branding and clicks their primary remuneration should be for such. 2) and because they have the capacity to generate value via return purchases, they, also should be remunerated for such with a small percentage of sales (eg X% of the published offered commissions). This would be the "E" portion of the ECPC model. These alleged affinity groups must be acknowledged for the value they do and more importantly can provide without being parasitic.

    My proposed ECPC model allows for symbiosis in affiliate marketing and the growth of it as a real business model while terminating the current blatant exploitation!

    Yes, 5% of "Everyday" affiliates make money, that is for many reasons, including lack of knowledge (hopefully being addressed with message boards like ABW) parasites (who get a higher commission and steal traffic and links from them) and because there is no model for the parasites that allows for symbiosis in the marketplace... hopefully with my proposal we all can keep the earnings proportionate to the REAL FACTS of where the sales originate and accordingly where they should be credited.

    As it stands now, I find it pure collusion in theft when an ad network offers a higher commission to the parasites, looks the other way when affiliates complain and even worse that they ACTIVELY promote that merchants should bring the parasites and Dupers into the respective merchants program.

    Keep Your Hands Off My Cookies

  4. #4
    Defender of Truth, Justice and the Affiliate Way
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    The Swamp
    Posts
    7,503
    BeFree Proposal

    can be viewed here

    Keep Your Hands Off My Cookies

  5. #5
    Full Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    246
    A very good initiative.

    Without commenting on the Beefree and Haiko proposal, the following suggestions are based on the text in the LS proposal.


    1. I would like to see the definition of "diverting user attention" added somehow, in addition to "intercept, interfere, disrupt .. etc". The reason for this is the recent discussions about the icon in the system tray, the so-called "blinky". While some resemblance can be made between such an icon and the Shopping icon/bar in Netscape, as well as the Search option, the Media channel and the pre-installed shopping bookmarks in both Navigator and Internet Explorer (as you all know, some of these options are context-based, that is, what happens is based on what's on the current webpage), it's my opinion that an icon would only blink if it wants to divert user attention from the webpage. On the other hand, some would point out that they simply want to notify the user about something.

    I feel it's important to determine the difference between diverting the user and notifying the user. My suggestion would be that the system tray icon should:

    a) not blink/flash at all
    b) or, alternatively, that the icon can only change it's color, no blinking


    2. I would like to see a formulation that any use of a third party software application must be explicitly initiated by the user, *and* that the user must be informed of what's about to happen, so he/she can make an informed decision. In the case of the system icon, the user must first click the icon, then be informed of what's about to happen - with the option to cancel - before any redirecting can take place.


    3. No popups are allowed. Popups = intercept, interfere, disrupt, etc. This goes for both browser popups and popups from third party programs.


    4. A third party software application cannot append a button, a navigation bar, or other similar items to the browser interface. An icon in the system tray is the only thing allowed.

    This would also require changing the following (section 1, part a-iv) in LS proposal:

    from:
    "No Affiliate Application will – automatically or, without obtaining Web user's consent with full and prominent disclosure satisfactory to LinkShare at the time of the transaction, manually – enable a Web user to modify the operation of his or her browser .."

    to something like;:
    "No Affiliate Application will – automatically or manually – enable a Web user to modify the operation of his or her browser .."

    The reason for this change is that the software makers may obtain such "user consent" by hiding it deep down in a licence agreement or TOS, which the user must accept in order to install the software.


    5. When an affiliate (read: software application affiliate) is proven to have violated the terms of the agreement, the network of which the affiliate is a member shall within 3 business days deactive the account of that affiliate. The account will not be re-activated, and no new accounts shall be created, before the affiliate has fulfilled the requirements mentioned in LS proposal (section 2, part a). The network shall also notify other networks which have signed the agreement, and they shall do the same.

    6. Commisions which are earned in violation of the agreement shall be divided between the other, legit, affiliates in the network.

    7. If a network wants to redraw from the agreement, 6 months notice must be given.

    8. A formal forum must be created to handle the administration of the agreement.



    That's all I can think of for now.

    -- Less is more --

  6. Newsletter Signup

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Adwords Optimization Proposals
    By Trust in forum Search Engine Optimization
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: June 28th, 2006, 10:18 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
  •