Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    Affiliate Manager PaulS's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    647
    O.k., I had a really weird idea (perhaps not original, I didn't actually search old threads to make sure this hasn't been discussed before... ).

    As we all know, merchants and publishers are so sick of the garbage that CJ lets into its program that - sooner or later - they'll start spreading off into other affiliate programs, or form direct partnerships with Clean partners.

    If CJ was smart, they'd form two CJs... Clean and Dirty (for lack of a better word). Those who want to run a clean program, sign up for the Clean program (where all of the "questionable" behaviour is forbidden).

    Clean publishers find clean merchants and visa-versa.

    Those who don't care where the traffic/sales come from can sign up for the Dirty program.

    This would keep the two worlds separate, stop the issues of needing to constantly police programs, allow CJ to keep it's neutral status of what is "permitted" and what isn't...

    And - this would give CJ a chance to see how profitable a Clean program can be for EVERYONE!

    I'm sure it would never happen, but what the heck...

    Paul

  2. #2
    ABW Founder Haiko de Poel, Jr.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    21,609
    I actually suggested this two years ago.
    Continued Success,

    Haiko
    The secret of success is constancy of purpose ~ Disraeli

  3. #3
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Nunya, Business
    Posts
    23,684
    True that networks let "garbage" in but it's up to the merchants if they let that garbage into their program. Most merchants have auto accept and don't even take the time to check who they're letting in. Plus what we might consider dirty can be squeaky clean to CJ.

  4. #4
    ABW Ambassador cditty's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Memphis TN
    Posts
    1,434
    Good idea, except in doing so, they would admit to allowing parasites and dirty merchants take advantage of their affiliates. That would make them look bad to stock holders and open them up for lawsuits.

    Chris
    Recycled Talent - Architects of custom scripts and snippets, perfectly written to suit any need. We stay on top of the latest technology so you don't have to.
    Total Stupidity - Shining light on stupid things.

  5. #5
    Full Member ahmar's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    481
    quote:
    Originally posted by cditty:
    Good idea, except in doing so, they would admit to allowing parasites and dirty merchants take advantage of their affiliates. That would make them look bad to stock holders and open them up for lawsuits.

    Chris


    Ditto as Chris said. And thats why I dont see it happening. Nobody wants to admit openly that they are running a program that allows suspicious activities. Bad is alway hidden inside a nicely wrapped cover.
    <DT>[size=1][color=navy]"The best measure of a man's honesty isn't his income tax return.[/color][/size]<DT>[size=1][color=navy]It's the zero adjust on his bathroom scale." Arthur C. Clark[/color][/size]</DT>

  6. #6
    Affiliate Manager PaulS's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    647
    Oh well, it was a thought...

    Paul

  7. #7
    Affiliate Manager PaulS's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    647
    quote:
    Originally posted by TrustNo1:

    True that networks let "garbage" in but it's up to the merchants if they let that garbage into their program. Most merchants have auto accept and don't even take the time to check who they're letting in. Plus what we might consider dirty can be squeaky clean to CJ.





    Except I've seen cases (and I think you have too) where people - both merchants and publishers - KNOW it's wrong, but are lured by the fast-cash aspect.

    The problem, as I see it, is two fold:

    One - there is that there is a certain level of ignorance (both on the merchant side and on the publisher side)... those who aren't aware of the problem and/or its implication. Because if all publishers were aware of the problem, then merchants with Spyware in their program would have no-one else in their program.

    Two - there are plenty on both sides who are fully aware of what they are doing and the implications of such to "clean" players, but simply don't care.

    It means that we need to educate "One" and avoid "Two".... I don't think it's a simple as "merchants must avoid Two..."

    At least IMHO.

    Paul

  8. #8
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Winterpeg, the Mosquito Capital of Canada
    Posts
    2,299
    NEVER

    We know they are there
    To legitimize them and accept them no way

    If the networks would just say no and put an end to allowing this type of marketing there would be no need for this. The affiliate is the one who pays the price while the networks turn a blind eye

  9. #9
    ABW Veteran Student Heyder's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    5,482
    I thought that's what they were going to do with befree.

  10. Newsletter Signup

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. New Also [Split Off]
    By Ronald Marva - SEOP in forum Introduce Yourself
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: August 27th, 2008, 01:16 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
  •