Results 1 to 25 of 26
August 18th, 2005, 04:14 PM #1A plea to all Commission Junction merchants
Please consider setting your program up on the Shareasale platform, in addition to Commission Junction. See, I am not even asking anybody to leave CJ, just to PLEASE consider running your program on Shareasale at the same time....
Setup cost is less than the cost of running a classified ad in a city newspaper, and the exposure is permanent; it does not expire in one week like the print ad would. This cost item can be recouped on just one day's sales from a productive affiliate.
There is NO MONTHLY FEE. You only pay for actual sales activity. If nothing gets sold, you don't have a bill to pay.
See if you can find ONE instance of an affiliate voicing trust-related concerns about Shareasale. Every network has it's own quirks and occasional glitches, but Shareasale is the only one that does not have trust-related issues.
August 18th, 2005, 04:18 PM #2
- Join Date
- January 18th, 2005
After 4 years, we left 8/10/2005
August 18th, 2005, 05:40 PM #3
August 18th, 2005, 08:22 PM #4
Do it today!!!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!
August 18th, 2005, 10:55 PM #5
:Originally Posted by SSanf
DO IT!!! DO IT!!!Ebudae
August 18th, 2005, 11:12 PM #6
Wow, people are really starting to get fed up with cj. It is like the beginning of the downfall of an empire!
August 18th, 2005, 11:24 PM #7
Starting? It started almost two years ago.
It's just taken this long to reach the point where panhandling in the desert is a more reliable income generation strategy than building sites with CJ links.
August 19th, 2005, 02:57 AM #8panhandling in the desert is a more reliable income generation strategy than building sites with CJ links
August 23rd, 2005, 12:08 PM #9
Can someone please list out their version of pros/cons of one network vs. the other (and please don't say "upgrades that suck 'cuz we already know all about what's going on there... LOL)
Thanks in advance to all who may reply.
August 23rd, 2005, 12:56 PM #10
Commission Junction used to be the best network bar none. They had the best Account Manager, complete with reversal rates and individual product EPCs. Product search was slow, but it was easy to navigate, and the important information was easy to find, right at your fingertips.
Then they started upgrading. Gone were the individual product EPCs that helped affiliates identify what products were hot and what products were duds. Then went the reversal rates on merchants. Again, that helped affiliates identify good merchants and dud merchants.
Then came the more complex Account Manager, which is too wide to fit most screens without scrolling sideways, (something we learned to avoid in Website Building 101), and the reports took longer and longer to load.
I remember Todd saying that the individual product EPCs weren't possible, going forward, because of the amount of resources those figures consumed. Yet how many duplicate items do merchants have? They should be made to clean out all the old junk, and remove products that don't sell.
Note to merchants: If it's on your shelf, dusty, and the packaging is starting to rot, it's a dud.
If CJ would bring back a faster, more efficient Account Manager, make merchants dump the junk, give affiliates EPC and reversal data, we'd all make a lot more money, and be able to use our time more efficiently.
I would hate to see a mass exodus from a network by merchants, especially at this time of year, but CJ needs to start listening to their affiliates and remembering that without us there is no CJ.
August 23rd, 2005, 01:55 PM #11
Can someone please list out their version of pros/cons of one network vs. the other
- Join Date
- January 18th, 2005
- Palm Springs, CA
CJ has a better interface than SAS.
CJ is bigger and has more well known merchants.
TRUST - affiliates no longer trust CJ
Parasites - Despite documented proof of how parasites operate, CJ actively encourages parasites on their network that steal from both affiliates and merchants. Not something a 'neutral third party' should do.
Norton/Zone Alarm/other blockers - because it promotes parasites, CJ is on the list as adware so CJ's links are being blocked by Norton and the cookies cleaned out by places like Zone Alarm.
Tracking - regardless of what is said, tracking sure seems like it's affected sometimes.
Communication - it's great that Todd comes here and it's appreciated but it feels that CJ doesn't listen to or work with affiliates as partners. They see affiliates as expendable complainers who they have to put up with and 'manage' (unless we're a parasite) and don't look at us or treat us as partners who, since we're in the trenches, actually have some good ideas and insight into the business.
Along those same lines it doesn't seem as if any of the things CJ does these days is for the benefit of affiliates. We get thrown some bones now and then but basically we are treated like a necessary evil they have to put up with to do business, not valued partners.
CJ could be GREAT but that won't happen until affiliates are confident that our links won't be blocked and our cookie will actually be the one that's credited for a sale we've earned, and until we are assured that we will be credited and paid for every sale we make.
Anti-parasite - affiliates trust SAS to keep the parasites out. This means more money in our pocket.
Adware Blockers - as far as I know SAS isn't on any list of "bad" links to block.
Tracking - trusted
Communication - Brian is in here all the time asking what suggestions we have and how SAS could be made better AND he takes many of our suggestions.
Interface isn't as polished as CJ's.
Merchants go offline without notice.
Auto-deposit should be required of all merchants
Basically, what it boils down to is CJ has a better set up and more polished system, but affiliates no longer trust that they will get paid for all their work with CJ and when affiliates do point out ways others are stealing our commissions, CJ turns a blind eye.
With SAS, their system may not be as good, but we know we will get paid and trust and communication isn't an issue.
A lot of affiliates are fed up with CJ and others don't like SAS, so as a merchant I would suggest running both to get the affiliates who can help your program who prefer one network over the other, or if you can only go with one network, go with SAS.
August 23rd, 2005, 02:25 PM #12SAS Pros:
TRUST is the first word and the last word.
August 23rd, 2005, 05:13 PM #13
You didn't even mention the free tools from SAS. Great product showcase creator so you can make niche pages with many merchants on the fly and FREE data feeds!!!!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!
August 23rd, 2005, 05:47 PM #14
August 23rd, 2005, 06:48 PM #15
If I were a merchant and was at CJ..
I would strongly consider moving to SAS. Simply because I wouldn't want my "GOOD NAME" associated with any site listed on SYMANTECS website as a ADWARE/SPYWARE program. This is REALLY bad for business and should be the biggest concern for merchants. CJ promotes ADWARE/SPYWARE programs to their merchants and this should be a huge red flag. Because of this the CJ links are being blocked by so many different programs it is hard to keep up with, and some ISP's are directly blocking those urls based on SYMANTECS RECCOMENDATIONS. This cuts into your profit "BIGTIME" more so than you would imagine. How many people try to get to your site through CJ links that simply cannot, and when they find out that the reason is because your urls are being blocked by Norton or Zone Alarm or directly from their OWN ISP.. what kind of confidence in YOUR Business should they have? Why would they even consider putting in their credit card numbers into a site that is associated with malicious programs?
In My Opinion - This should be your main concern. You work hard to get a good reputation and you want to keep it. But, your association with CJ and their parasitic affiliates is hendering you from truely being an honest upfront 100% legit online store. The biggest thing you have going for you is word of mouth and the word is spreading that these malicious programs are something to avoid. If you are associated with these malicious programs through CJ then eventually your site will be a site to AVOID rather than bookmark. Is that something that you want for your business?
AVOID THE INEVITABLE and Move To SAS.....
August 23rd, 2005, 07:18 PM #16
I forgot about this when I made my previous post, but does anyone else remember that CJ used to have a drop-down selection box that allowed you to choose the size ad you were searching for? I LOVED THAT! It also went away during one of the "upgrades."
August 23rd, 2005, 11:05 PM #17
Oh, man. That's gone, now? I used it just a few months ago.
August 23rd, 2005, 11:13 PM #18
Originally Posted by RugmanAM
- Join Date
- January 18th, 2005
August 24th, 2005, 06:00 PM #19
While switching from one network to another, merchants might want to consider going with an in-house platform.
In any case, use the opportunity to do a complete re-evaluation of your affiliate strategy, what works, what doesn't, what features do you and your affiliates wish for, is a network what you need or can you handle it yourself + maybe some outsourced resources?
Peter[URL=http://www.typoassassin.com/?utm_source=abestweb&utm_medium=forum&utm_content=p&utm_campaign=sig]Are these affiliates stealing from you?[/URL]
August 24th, 2005, 06:18 PM #20
August 25th, 2005, 12:56 AM #21
- Join Date
- January 18th, 2005
Who is the biggest merchant on SAS currently? Any names?
My frustration with SAS is simple, wading through all the complete crap. My time is more valuable than wading throug all of that crap. (maybe i am missing this) - but make it easy for me to filter everything based on if a merchant is real or not - making money, reporting, active etc. Past that ability, I simply don't have the time to wade through all the crap. Did I mention how many crap merchants are on SAS? Maybe brian should clean house if he wants to take the next step.
I don't even mind small merchants, but man is there alot of crap on SAS.
August 25th, 2005, 01:21 AM #22
Whatcha getting at chet?================================================================
Been away, now I'm back. Not as much, but I'm back & starting from scratch. Where I was, was fantastic. Where I am now, less so. Things have changed, become harder. So have I. Game ON!!!
August 25th, 2005, 02:44 AM #23
Things I still like about CJ:
1. Merchants don't go offline periodically
2. When a merchant leaves, I am alerted with notifications of "invalid links"
3. I have always been paid, always
One of my sites uses a lot of different merchants and the "invalid links" report is extremely valuable, so much so that I try to stick with mostly CJ merchants. Not trying to aggravate all you that are having difficulties but rather trying to drop a hint as to some nice features that other networks or indies should consider.This World is Not My Home
We're gonna go inside, we're gonna go outside, inside and outside. . . And then we're gonna go go go and we're not gonna stop til we get across that goalline! Quotes from the movie Rudy, 1993
August 25th, 2005, 04:22 AM #24
"Merchants don't go offline periodically"
Yes they do.
August 25th, 2005, 06:40 AM #25Can someone please list out their version of pros/cons of one network vs. the other (and please don't say "upgrades that suck 'cuz we already know all about what's going on there... LOL)
Pros of CJ:
The payment happens, usually right on time. Delays are highly unusual. Direct deposit enabled.
Most merchants have a site that people would conceivably shop at (as opposed to "just some" merchants who look ready to do business).
The interface is better (when it works). They actually expect people to keep doing more of the same kind of thing they were doing--no being bounced to dead-end screens. It's fairly intuitive.
They still seem to have big dreams and big plans. Although this isn't as prominent as a few years ago, there's still an energy there... Kind of hard to communicate this point; I suppose you could say I like the atmosphere of the place (for the most part).
Pros of SAS:
They know how to pay, too. And they have direct deposit, too.
Escrow account. SAS takes risk for any credit given.
Merchants are there, that the whole wide world isn't already trying to promote.
Brian's response to problems ISN'T to stick his head in the sand.
It's fun to see little merchants become more clueful and grow as time passes.
CONS of CJ:
They MESS WITH their site on approximately a yearly basis, usually for what turns out to be no significant reason. And the changeover is ALWAYS accompanied by fubarrage. I can't "not mention upgrades that suck," because the constant interface-meddling and resultant crashing IS what sucks.
Their PR (public relations) sucks.
Parasites scare affs away. (But, that effect has been a PRO at times. Nothing like having eβates as the only other competitor willing to enter the arena... )
The "tracking is never affected" line is not convincing, even to me. Especially when everything else that has to do with code, they fiddle with until it crashes! Unlike some others, I don't think they'd intentionally mess the tracking up, but an up(?)grade attempt on that part of the code seems like something they just couldn't have resisted all this time.
Used an SE spammer's trick to avoid N*rton blocking. This'd be okay in itself (IMO), but, they seem to NOT have boughten more than one round of extra domains. That last part's bad. Multiple rounds of domains should be "in the can" at all times, to ensure unbroken presence despite bans.
They don't seem to be fully comfortable with either whitehat or black. I always pick up ambivalence lately, as evidenced by misses like I mentioned in the above paragraph, anti-parasitic measures which are then scaled back, kicking parasites out one door while signing iffy toolbars on as merchants through the other, etc. It's like there's multiple strong personalities there, each trying to yank the company in a different direction.
CONS of SaS:
There's a lot of merchants there with sites that look like they belong on Tripod, who probably can't sell water to Ethiopia. (No I don't think a higher fee is the answer. But a merchant-centric FAQ of "improve your results with SAS" tips [that really is just tips on improving conversions on the merchant site] might help this.)
No integrated feed (as in, all joined merchants in the same feed, one single file--like the one I get from CJ).
The interface makes it hard to do things in succession. It needs a "workflow improvement." I hesitate to say that it "sucks," though, because Performics is THE title holder in that regard. It needs help, though.
They count robotic clicks, which messes up EPC reporting something awful.
There is some kind of manual sales crediting some merchants can do--which I've seen come up in complaints about certain merchants (who don't get around to getting those sales credited too often). It should be totally automated with no option for nonautomatic crediting of normal sales. (Of course, there should always be options to credit affs with *more* sales! But standard sales should all show right up.)There is no knowledge that is not power. ~Hemingway
By brandonmbeard in forum Paid Announcements and AdvertisingReplies: 0Last Post: April 2nd, 2012, 09:57 AM
By UncleScooter in forum ShareASale - SASReplies: 21Last Post: November 12th, 2004, 09:41 AM
By Nature Boy in forum Andy Rodriguez ConsultingReplies: 3Last Post: October 17th, 2004, 06:20 PM
By juliepareira in forum Commission Junction - CJReplies: 0Last Post: April 29th, 2004, 12:02 AM
By Edwin in forum Commission Junction - CJReplies: 15Last Post: October 13th, 2002, 12:23 PM