Results 1 to 18 of 18
May 17th, 2005, 07:29 PM #1
Thanks for the heads up
- Join Date
- May 13th, 2005
I just signed up for my very first affilliate program using cj's
Now after reading some of the posts in this thread I am going to cancel that subscription.
I am sure they have many honest merchants in their system. but if they allow scumware to operate then they are scum themselves and I for one wont be doing business with them.
Thanks for the heads up.
May 17th, 2005, 09:37 PM #2ummmm . . .
it's not that simple. you should try merchants at CJ that fit your site and cull later according to how they convert.
and use the search function here on the ABW Forum to see if we've busted any of your potential merchants.
May 17th, 2005, 10:49 PM #3Originally Posted by Herb ԿԬ
It's not that simple.
There are some clean merchants on CJ that you can join and make some real money.
You just have to check them out before you apply.
One very important tip:
When you're on the merchant details page, before you click apply, just open a new window to that merchant site.
If you get any pop-up, any ActiveX prompt, or any cookie that is not for that merchant site or for that merchant visitor counter,... RUN, don't walk, just run out of there and look for another merchant on the same category.
May 17th, 2005, 10:57 PM #4
- Join Date
- May 13th, 2005
Its not the merchants I worry about as my post states I am sure that most are good.
but when I read articles like the ebates affiliate skimming one (scumware) and the Globat one plus other articles that are less than complimentary, I turn my back.
If enough affiliates did that then cj's would be forced to get their act together and deal with their affiliates honestly and prevent them from being ripped by subversive measures.
You pay the price and CJ's reap the rewards.
If there is no affilliate program out there that is clean then I will simply move on and develop my own site and offerings.
Sorry if this sounds stiff, but I really Really hate people who allow scumware to operate. I spend enough of my time trying to clean it off my friends machines, I won't support it even if its by indifference.
May 17th, 2005, 11:07 PM #5Originally Posted by SoTempting
That's like saying if people would stop shopping at Wal Mart maybe they'd actually hire english-speaking people and keep their stores clean. CJ has the market cornered to a certain extent, and they're so much better than LinkShare that people aren't going to just ditch them. It's going to take legislation or some other regulator crackdown before CJ will change its ways.
May 18th, 2005, 12:42 AM #6
- Join Date
- May 13th, 2005
so if there is a problem let someone else solve it, is that the answer?
May 18th, 2005, 01:21 AM #7
Dude... calm down and be realistic. You can feel free to wrestle the 800 pound gorilla, but you'd be better off supporting the current legal action and other ongoings that have been happening lately to bring attention to the really bad apples. CJ is a business and feels that it makes sense to allow a certain number of questionable affiliates remain in the program. That we can all disagree with. However, the vast majority of affiliates are great people trying to earn a living, and CJ provides that opportunity for them, albeit at a lower level of performance than might be seen if ebates and its ilk weren't around. It's not an all or nothing game though.
CJ is playing its game of allowing those bad apples to remain with the assumption (I assume) that its cash flow, profit levels, etc. will be better served. While we'd all like to see CJ boot them, they apparently think that the revenue can't be replaced immediately with other affilate income. They're probably right as only a percentage (how big or small is the question) of the revenue that those services drive is "stolen", despite what ecomcity or others have to say about it.
So, like I said before, it's going to take some sort of legislation or regulator crackdown (on the thieves) before CJ will do anything (and even then it might just be in compliance rather than in integrity). You can go run to SAS if you'd like, but until SAS can convert CJ merchants to its program, I'm sticking with CJ and it's crappy servers.
May 18th, 2005, 02:16 AM #8Originally Posted by SoTempting
Not that I would have left CJ anyway. I prefer to keep my guns pointed away from my own feet!There is no knowledge that is not power. ~Hemingway
May 18th, 2005, 03:48 PM #9SoTempting is SoRight
If we all thought this way, cj would begin to respond. Why should they make changes for people who they know are only going to vent, vent, vent and keep right on putting up cj links.
They have figured by now - No Matter How Many Parasites, No Matter How Many "Tracking Problems", after the first few days, the trusting affiliates will be back looking for more links to place on their websites.
Sure no (wo)man is an island, but by golly, 1000 (wo)men make up some pretty solid ground.
If only temporarily, dump them.
If you are making pretty good money with a merchant, deal with them directly
Forget a 'Trusted Third Party'.
If you are not making good money with them, what good are they anyway???
May 18th, 2005, 03:57 PM #10And Another Thing...
SoTempting is telling you all, that (S)he is not going to deal with cj. Most everyone is trying to encourage them to stay.
To get money their stolen??
And Yes...It is that easy
Just W A L K A W A Y
I was called greedy because I wanted to make multiple pages of the same product
I think greedy is when you stay with a company that let others steal your paycheck just because they are the biggest company in their catagory.
I would like to make a few true dollars, than a few more questionable dollars.
By questionable I mean-Did I make more, did the parasites steal any, was tracking affected while I was asleep...???
May 18th, 2005, 04:43 PM #11
Good riddance then.... people aren't going to leave in masses and that's a fact. You can fight your battle and make no money while doing it, but ditching CJ altogether isn't a viable option for many people that use it, and make good money using it. There's no incentive for many to leave, and until there is a way to quantify what the parasites are taking, we can't be sure what exactly they're taking. A drop in sales because of a crappy website or poor marketing isn't the fault of parasites, and many are inclined to blame everyone but themselves for a drop in sales. But dropping CJ entirely isn't the solution. They are in business to make money and will keep putting up with the parasites until they think they will make more by really purging them. We just have to deal with it and fight it through other channels like legislators and the press. Just my 2c though of course...
May 18th, 2005, 05:05 PM #12
I compare the large networks to a dirty swimming pool full of swimmers. People started going in the pool years ago when it was clean, then the pool is cleaned less and less and gradually gets scummier everyday. The swimmers say--- "why not swim...I havent got sick yet"!
Then a new person walks by and says "no way am I gettin' in there!"
May 18th, 2005, 06:20 PM #13
Not a bad analogy... but new swimmers need not fear. Plenty of money can still be made, and avoiding certain merchants can make it a little more hassle-free...
May 18th, 2005, 06:46 PM #14
Rather than a scummed pool I think it's more like an ocean.
There are indeed sharks, but you're missing out on some good surfing if you stay out of the entire ocean because of them.There is no knowledge that is not power. ~Hemingway
May 18th, 2005, 07:46 PM #15
is the surf up, yet?
May 18th, 2005, 10:58 PM #16
- Join Date
- January 17th, 2005
At the moment I fear the misguided shotgun approach banning all marketing cookies as scumwear or spywear (cf Norton...) then I do the parasites. The Nortons and the government will block a whole bunch more of our sales than all of the parasites combined. Its a good idea to not do business with any blatent partners of parasites but is there a viable defense for the spywear blocking of CJ's servers?
May 19th, 2005, 08:34 AM #17
>>>Its a good idea to not do business with any blatent partners of parasites but is there a viable defense for the spywear blocking of CJ's servers?<<<
spyware doesn't block the servers. and adware will pop up and serve a different ad right over yours. what blocks the graphics on the servers are well-meaning ad blocker programs like Norton . . .
the public said "we don't want ads popping up on our computers." they probably meant the annoying popups, but Norton went all the way and blocked certain urls and graphics specified in urls as standard ad sizes. this became the default installation. anyone using that installation sees very few ads, no matter how legitimate they are. I think this is starting to get fixed, but people will be slow to upgrade again.
some of the networks are partners of parasites, unfortunately. that seems to be changing.
May 19th, 2005, 08:35 AM #18Originally Posted by micheck