Results 1 to 23 of 23
  1. #1
    Full Member bwc's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Rock Town USA
    Posts
    403
    Affiliate TERMS of Service for Merchants & Networks
    I just had a thought . . . this coincides with the new thinking from the other CJ thread where new terms are being addressed . . .

    WHAT IF we were to post on our website(s) our TERMS for using us as affiliates, and WE ALL were to START CHARGING MERCHANTS a fee in the event that they do not convert. And another fee for IF they decide to end their program before a 6 month period. And another fee for making us change out our links because of their errors.

    Anyone else want to add to these new Terms? I'm semi-serious here. How many years do we run a merchant and never receive a dime for promoting them? There should be a FEE to start using affiliates from a network. To be fair, the Fee could be refunded in the event they start converting. They make a $50 deposit into our account within the network and have to work it off. If they don't, we keep the balance. If they leave, we keep the balance. If they cause us to have to perform idiotic rework due to images or some other crap, we keep the whole fee . . . shit . . . I'm starting to like this . . . should we start a new thread with a STICKY????

  2. #2
    Life is Supposed to be Fun! Rexanne's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    12,360
    I'm all for charging a merchant to be on my site. It comes down to selling them ad space, not working on the 'if come' for them with no recourse if they don't convert or if they screw us outta commissions which we'll never know about because we can't check. If we have the traffic and the loyal visitors, they should pay us UPFRONT to rent space on our prime property.

    Merchants who convert are fine to maintain as affiliate partners but we should be very selective who gets space on our sites. Think of it as owning prime real estate and renting space to merchants. I love this idea and think it's time we changed our outlook to take control of our sites and not remain beholden to merchants and networks for "giving" us the "opportunity" to sell their merchandise and help them with name branding and recognition. I won't mention names, but I finally, after a few years of sending thousands of visitors DAILY to 2 of the biggest corporate merchants online, removed them from my pages in total frustration. I made NO sales and knew that I was getting screwed. They don't care one lick. I had them on my site, thinking it was good for me to show an affiliation wiht such grand names in my niche world. I'm much happier since I gave up thinking they were doing ME a favor. The merchants who replaced them on my pages started converting overnight.

    This has been my rant for more than 8 years. I'm completely sick of it and urge you all to consider your power and what your site's success is worth. Merchants should pay us an up front fee to get their linsk on our pages and then work out a commission for sales over and above the initial fee to set them up or simply buy monthly space on our pages or all of what you originally said, bwc.

    I'm all for it! As Dawgfighter says: GAME ON!
    Peace,

    Rexanne

    Rexanne.com
    Loving Everyone's Child Creates Magic


  3. #3
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Nunya, Business
    Posts
    23,684
    "WHAT IF we were to post on our website(s) our TERMS for using us as affiliates, and WE ALL were to START CHARGING MERCHANTS a fee in the event that they do not convert. "

    You would have a site with no merchants.

    The only time I see merchants paying to be on sites are on established sites that can drive sales.

  4. #4
    AM Navigator Geno Prussakov's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 10th, 2005
    Location
    Washington D.C. Metro Area
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Rexanne
    I'm all for charging a merchant to be on my site. It comes down to selling them ad space, not working on the 'if come' for them with no recourse if they don't convert or if they screw us outta commissions which we'll never know about because we can't check. If we have the traffic and the loyal visitors, they should pay us UPFRONT to rent space on our prime property.

    Merchants who convert are fine to maintain as affiliate partners but we should be very selective who gets space on our sites.
    It'll be hard to make "them" pay, Rexanne (or should I say: it'll be hard to find those that are willing to pay ). It's like those paid inclusion directories. They all died out... I am still getting proposals from "prospective affiliates" that want me to be on their sites for my money ("at a discounted fee of only $295.95 a year"). Only $295.95 a year for one affiliate that might not do a thing to promote me beyond putting my banner among a thousand of others?! There is much more to the affiliate-merchant partnership than money. Most serious merchants have already paying much to reach out to affiliates. I am sure, they (we) are looking for serious approach on affiliates' part too.

    I wonder what other affiliates around here think (about the whole idea of charging merchants)...

    Geno

  5. #5
    AM Navigator Geno Prussakov's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 10th, 2005
    Location
    Washington D.C. Metro Area
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by TrustNo1
    "WHAT IF we were to post on our website(s) our TERMS for using us as affiliates, and WE ALL were to START CHARGING MERCHANTS a fee in the event that they do not convert. "

    You would have a site with no merchants.


    Exactly, TrustNo1.

    Geno

  6. #6
    Life is Supposed to be Fun! Rexanne's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    12,360
    Quote Originally Posted by Geno - RussianLegacy


    There is much more to the affiliate-merchant partnership than money. Most serious merchants have already paying much to reach out to affiliates. I am sure, they (we) are looking for serious approach on affiliates' part too.

    I wonder what other affiliates around here think (about the whole idea of charging merchants)...

    Geno


    Geno,

    A good converting merchant is not the issue and I'm assuming publishers on ABW are as serious as Martha Stewart's ankle bracelet, just as merchants are serious about making money and feeding their families.

    I also think it IS about the money, more than anything, although establishing good relationships between merchants and publishers is vital, too. It's about good business and protecting our own butts & livelihoods and not having to be subjected to the crap we have to swallow with shady networks, parasites allowed to flourish and thieving merchants. Publishers have the traffic and the loyalty of our visitors. I think we've earned the right and respect to be paid for space on our pages up front, just as some merchants have the right to expect our respect when they run an honest, clean affiliate program, which we do.

    TrustNo1, I AM talking about publishers who have substantial and proven sites and traffic and who are not being compensated fairly either because of nasties in the networks or merchant tricks. I think an honest merchant who sees a site's potential to bring them solid targeted traffic wouldn't have a problem with this concept. It's like buying an ad in a popular magazine or well-placed billboard. Merchants do this all the time and even get a tax deduction.

    The merchant would have the choice of where to advertise and publishers the choice to have that merchant on their pages or not, depending on their niche and visitor's needs or wants. If they think a site has potential, a merchant should gladly pay what would probably be much less than eventual commission payouts to secure prime placement on a publisher's site. If the initial month of advertising performs well, merchants can continue to advertise. If not, they don't.

    The publisher then doesn't have to be a nervous wreck, wondering how many sales are being hijacked and/or not reported or if a consumer has deleted their cookies or if tracking is actually working, etc.

    It's really a win/win situation, just not a concept that has been embraced fully on the 'Net, yet. It is also not a bash on merchants, as it might seem. It's about publishers getting the respect they deserve for their efforts and site success without all the insanity with which we're currently faced.

    Had affiliate marketing not turned into a free-for-all with parasites, SPAM-ophiles and idiotic network rules, this would not even be an issue and we'd all be here toasting our deserved mutual success.

    OK, y'all ... I'm going to shut up now and go to sleep. It's a school night.
    Peace,

    Rexanne

    Rexanne.com
    Loving Everyone's Child Creates Magic


  7. #7
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Nunya, Business
    Posts
    23,684
    Ah such a negative view: shady networks, parasites allowed to flourish, thieving merchants, parasites, SPAM-ophiles, and idiotic network rules. There are plenty of merchants that i probably would make more via the affiliate marketing route, getting paid for performance than them paying me to advertise on my site. If they don't perform for me, i just remove them and go on to the next one. I will say i do have a few that don't have affiliate programs and get paid just to have links up to them. They're small mom and pop types and it works out fine.

    The problem is most affiliates don't have "substantial and proven sites and traffic" Most sign up, make pages and hope the SE's give them some good listings. Merchants aren't going to take the risk and pay upfront for something that may never deliver. Why would they? Merchants love the affiliate marketing model because they only pay if you perform, no risk with that. Where this can work and some do this is with established sites, affiliates who have worked their sites up as a brand and their site visitors are their customers, something like a Fatwallet. An established site that can drive sales the very day they put up links.
    If I was a merchant i would just stick with the affiliate marketing model and for those that can drive sales offer an attractive commission percentage.

  8. #8
    MasterMike HardwareGeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    3,810
    Quote Originally Posted by Geno - RussianLegacy


    It'll be hard to make "them" pay, Rexanne (or should I say: it'll be hard to find those that are willing to pay ). It's like those paid inclusion directories. They all died out... I am still getting proposals from "prospective affiliates" that want me to be on their sites for my money ("at a discounted fee of only $295.95 a year"). Only $295.95 a year for one affiliate that might not do a thing to promote me beyond putting my banner among a thousand of others?! There is much more to the affiliate-merchant partnership than money. Most serious merchants have already paying much to reach out to affiliates. I am sure, they (we) are looking for serious approach on affiliates' part too.

    I wonder what other affiliates around here think (about the whole idea of charging merchants)...

    Geno
    Geez thats no money lol. I get 300 a month for a 125x125 banner that gets like 4 CLICKS a day

  9. #9
    AM Navigator Geno Prussakov's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 10th, 2005
    Location
    Washington D.C. Metro Area
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by HardwareGeek
    Geez thats no money lol. I get 300 a month for a 125x125 banner that gets like 4 CLICKS a day
    What did you say the name of the silly merchant was?!

    What's the secret? Are you not providing them with any stats?

    G.

  10. #10
    2005 Linkshare Golden Link Award Winner  ecomcity's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    St Clair Shores MI.
    Posts
    17,328
    I agree with a slotting fee approach for merchants seeking showcase exposure on an established site. Part of a merchants expense in having an AM is to require the AM recruit real value-add affiliates. That part of the job description shouldn't be passed off to the dismal recruitment efforts of the networks. ( They only actively recruit for the BHOs and Supers)

    My gripe is AM's (other then those like Andy Rodriguez) have no faith that their merchants can continuously convert targeted affiliate traffic at a rate above natural SERP traffic. Many do not even know what the standalone merchant's site's conversion ratio is to base a comparision upon. Even Andy makes mistakes by partnering with merchants who's natural conversion ratio sucks. It takes a real desperate merchant to affiliate enable his site, when general SERP traffic sees no real purchasing value from his offerings. Perfume on a Pig approach.

    Personally I love finding sites who target a merchants higher conversion demographic, willing to take a measley slotting fee in lew of an affiliate commission. Heck I'll even build them a turn key HTML promo page and watch that page convert 24/7 at a 1/20 clip. No deceptive tricks for clicks, diluting the natural conversion ratio with junk traffic, are involved in the decision. I'll even get the merchant to pay for PPCSE (Adwords/Overture) to drive traffic to that slot fee page as a worthwhile ROI expense.

    It pisses me off when I see some major merchants, employing every shanky affiliate cookie trickster, who end up with a total affiliate sales force that converts well below their sites natural traffic ratio. This forces them to cater to the cookie cannons and incenters killing off the tracking cookie of their real value add affiliates. It then becomes impossible to calculate/publish their targeted affiliate traffic's conversion ratio. My high conversion merchant clients demand the shoppers have a choice in whether they choose to click on that merchants link. The forced click cookie wanks and deceptive click inducing advertising, takes the shopper choice out of the mix in their rush to gouge the high conversion merchant. Documented results shows a Merchant like Overstock ( natural sites conversion ratio at 1/75) can't deploy an affiliate sales force averaging 1/250 using better targeting of referral shoppers.

    Amazing that this industries most vocal advocate, yelling for a level playing field, can't recruit more then 3 ABW affiliates into the highest converting product merchant's program. Those 3, and the other 10, do get paid on an average conversion ratio of 1/20 year after year. Makes one wonder if the goal of affiliate marketing isn't to eat your competitors with cookie cannons and well learned tricks for clicks and Point of Sale attack dogs.
    Webmaster's... Mike and Charlie

    "What have you done today to put real value into a referral click...from a shoppers viewpoint!"

  11. #11
    Outsourced Program Manager Chris -  AMWSO's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    11,273
    They make a $50 deposit into our account within the network and have to work it off. If they don't, we keep the balance.
    If I could pay $50 and be guaranteed that a partner be active and have a quality promotion in place within 30 days then I'd be VERY GLAD to pay $50 to every affiliate that signed up... the key here being the aspects that Trust covered already

    I'd not be investing money to be listed on a banner farm or site that is out of context with the products on offer.

    Cheers

    Chris
    Affiliate Marketing by AMWSO. Skype - chrissanderson ::: TEL 1-720-336-1784 ::: www.amwso.net
    Join our affiliate programs :Vaper Empire, Iolo, Art of Tea, or See ALL our Programs here

  12. #12
    Life is Supposed to be Fun! Rexanne's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    12,360
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris - AMWSO
    If I could pay $50 and be guaranteed that a partner be active and have a quality promotion in place within 30 days then I'd be VERY GLAD to pay $50 to every affiliate that signed up... the key here being the aspects that Trust covered already

    I'd not be investing money to be listed on a banner farm or site that is out of context with the products on offer.

    Cheers

    Chris
    Exactly my point, Chris. Thank you for "getting it." Serious publishers are not looking to screw merchants out of a few bucks with a one shot payment, no more than honest merchants are looking to shaft publishers out of honestly earned commissions.

    I will point out again that we are not discussing "banner farm,"
    fly-by-night publishers but ESTABLISHED, SERIOUS web masters. A noob could well become one of these performing publishers, too. There is always a choice whether to advertise on a specific web site. And if a merchant chose to advertise on a parasitic type site, so be it. At least there would be no way to hijack another publisher's commissions.

    Valuable affiliate partners, running reputable and established web sites are an asset to a merchant who fits into the publisher's targeted market just as reputable merchants and networks are an asset to good publishers.

    With trust in third party networks, this relationship would flourish, such as with SAS. I think those who are opposed to this idea are not taking into consideration that we are not grouping all merchants and networks in the "bad egg" basket. This current discussion has come about because of our mistrust and concern over the problematic practices currently running rampant in our industry.

    It's about trying to make partnerships viable for both parties in an uncomplicated and practical manner. The responsibility then falls to the publisher to ensure a positive and performing environment for merchants advertising on their pages. Just as we are now free to remove affiliate links that do not perform, merchants are free to either renew or stop an ad campaign with a publisher. It would be easy for a merchant to monitor traffic coming from a paid placement. No one is hiding "tracking" and a publisher's performance is easily evaluated.

    Commissionable relationships need not be shunned altogether. If a merchant and network is performing well for all parties involved, these become non issues. And yes, publishers stand to earn more from a solid commissionable relationship. Again, this would not even be an issue if there weren't the current inherent problems plaguing our industry.

    A trusted third party to act as a "broker" would be an added benefit and a nice niche to expand for an enterprising soul. I nominate Haiko. :-) There are others doing this but it seems the ad brokers currently operating online could be greatly improved. Turn a portion of ABW into a meeting ground for web masters and merchants. Haiko, we could have a "trusted publishers" section on ABW, too. :-) Then merchants could then come in here and ***** about lousy publisher's performance. - How would THAT feel? ;-)
    Peace,

    Rexanne

    Rexanne.com
    Loving Everyone's Child Creates Magic


  13. #13
    2005 Linkshare Golden Link Award Winner  ecomcity's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    St Clair Shores MI.
    Posts
    17,328
    Rexanne touched upon one of the differences that seperates the Safe Haven Network model from all others. Making it impossible to NOT report sales, and publishing each merchants average networkwide conversion ratio, would allow a merchant to come out and chastize a SHN affiliate for sending junk traffic.
    Webmaster's... Mike and Charlie

    "What have you done today to put real value into a referral click...from a shoppers viewpoint!"

  14. #14
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Nunya, Business
    Posts
    23,684
    Just curious why you go around keep posting about the Safe Haven Network when it was pointed out many times that it's parasitic? Plus you have stuff in there merchants and affiliates will never go for. Like merchants not being able to give their affiliates coupons or only allowing certain products etc. I know it sounds nice Safe Haven, comfy, safe, secure, but I haven't seen one merchant take a look at what you actually have down and say they like it. Plus it's parasitic. Plus you already have "safe" networks. You got small ones like AffiliateFuel, medium ones like SAS and a big one coming over Buy.at.

  15. #15
    2005 Linkshare Golden Link Award Winner  ecomcity's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    St Clair Shores MI.
    Posts
    17,328
    Quote Originally Posted by TrustNo1
    Just curious why you go around keep posting about the Safe Haven Network when it was pointed out many times that it's parasitic? Plus you have stuff in there merchants and affiliates will never go for. Like merchants not being able to give their affiliates coupons or only allowing certain products etc. I know it sounds nice Safe Haven, comfy, safe, secure, but I haven't seen one merchant take a look at what you actually have down and say they like it. Plus it's parasitic. Plus you already have "safe" networks. You got small ones like AffiliateFuel, medium ones like SAS and a big one coming over Buy.at.
    It's not parasitic in any way... www.ecomcity.com/safehaven-network.htm and allows affiliate to post links to coupons on that merchant's coupon/special offer landing page. The model does prod affiliates to meet, or beat, the average conversion ratio posted in the Stats by any legit means.
    Webmaster's... Mike and Charlie

    "What have you done today to put real value into a referral click...from a shoppers viewpoint!"

  16. #16
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Nunya, Business
    Posts
    23,684
    "It's not parasitic in any way"

    Yeah it is, BLFH said so and so have others that went thru it. When they pointed it out, you never came back to those old threads.

    So besides being parasitic some other problems:

    "For merchants with more then 500 products. Only the top selling 30% of products they offer in each product category can be placed into their SHN ecatalog."

    Don't think merchants or affiliates would like that kind of limitation. What about the other 70%? Why would i want the same 30% everybody else has?

    "Incentives cannot be used in affiliate creatives nor given to SHN affiliates to use on their pages"

    That won't fly. It's ridiculous. You use incentives on your own site, free shipping, coupons etc.

    "Merchants may daily backup their SHN ecatalog, but are not permitted to give this database file to affiliates for use to build complete mirrored sites. Use of this database feed to power a Product Showcase Creator or similar application is acceptable and encouraged."

    Won't fly either. Some affiliates use feeds in good ways and wouldn't want that limitation of only being able to use it thru certain applications.

    Some of the other stuff is good and basic. But that page you linked too is just a skeleton outline, no meat.

  17. #17
    Moderator BurgerBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    jacked by sylon www.sylonddos.weebly.com
    Posts
    9,618
    Talking
    Then merchants could then come in here and ***** about lousy publisher's performance. - How would THAT feel?
    And if the merchants asked for their money back we could refuse to send it and tell them - YOU ARE NOT VERIFIED.

    Vietnam Veteran 1966-1970 USASA
    ABW Forum Rules - Advertise At ABW

  18. #18
    MasterMike HardwareGeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    3,810
    Quote Originally Posted by Geno - RussianLegacy


    What did you say the name of the silly merchant was?!

    What's the secret? Are you not providing them with any stats?

    G.
    Oh they see stats as it was a PO order through a advertising agency so they see the stats.

    but the merchant is really a computer hardware parts maker and sell nothing on their site they just show the products they make and there is a where to buy link.

  19. #19
    AM Navigator Geno Prussakov's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 10th, 2005
    Location
    Washington D.C. Metro Area
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by HardwareGeek
    Oh they see stats as it was a PO order through a advertising agency so they see the stats.

    but the merchant is really a computer hardware parts maker and sell nothing on their site they just show the products they make and there is a where to buy link.
    Sweet, HardwareGeek!

    Geno

  20. #20
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,420
    50 Bucks = chicken feed
    They show me the SERP and I'll show them the money.

  21. #21
    2005 Linkshare Golden Link Award Winner  ecomcity's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    St Clair Shores MI.
    Posts
    17,328
    Quote Originally Posted by TrustNo1
    "It's not parasitic in any way"

    Yeah it is, BLFH said so and so have others that went thru it. When they pointed it out, you never came back to those old threads.

    So besides being parasitic some other problems:

    "For merchants with more then 500 products. Only the top selling 30% of products they offer in each product category can be placed into their SHN ecatalog."

    Don't think merchants or affiliates would like that kind of limitation. What about the other 70%? Why would i want the same 30% everybody else has?

    "Incentives cannot be used in affiliate creatives nor given to SHN affiliates to use on their pages"

    That won't fly. It's ridiculous. You use incentives on your own site, free shipping, coupons etc.

    "Merchants may daily backup their SHN ecatalog, but are not permitted to give this database file to affiliates for use to build complete mirrored sites. Use of this database feed to power a Product Showcase Creator or similar application is acceptable and encouraged."

    Won't fly either. Some affiliates use feeds in good ways and wouldn't want that limitation of only being able to use it thru certain applications.

    Some of the other stuff is good and basic. But that page you linked too is just a skeleton outline, no meat.
    Merchants compete for value-add affiliate prime exposure by the SHN publishing their conversion ratio. It is good business sense to feature their top sellers to pad this conversion ratio. They have their other site's ecatalog to push the deadwood products via advertising networks. No feeds will be given as SERP cannon fodder (nor SE alogo penalities) to affiliates so 30% of inventory or 100% makes no difference. GoldenCan and PSC's compliment individual product, banners, and textual links not limiting any SHN affiliates creativity. Building great shopper friendly natural SERP pages is what seperates to high earners from the so so affiliates.

    All studies show the least confusing and most widely accepted incentive for all shoppers is a FREE FREIGHT offer. The SHN cart will be streamlined by not having any section for inserting coupons & rebate spiff codes. It will accept advertised FREE FREIGHT or Free freight on orders over XX$$$. Someone has to ween coupon/rebate/cash back loyality club affiliates from being totally reliant on attacking merchants and customers at the point of sale. Those who don't have the budget of the top 20 couponers have to resort to tricks for clicks. Whats wrong with building some shopper friendly pages for merchants, with a published conversion ratio, that push their product/price/services??
    Webmaster's... Mike and Charlie

    "What have you done today to put real value into a referral click...from a shoppers viewpoint!"

  22. #22
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Nunya, Business
    Posts
    23,684
    Don't see any merchants clammoring to get in your make believe network. Any merchants here who have read Mike's plan and would agree to it? Anybody? Can't give feeds to your affiliates, can't give promotions to them to use, can only give them the top 30% selling products, forget the other 70%. Nothing like have the same 30% as every other affiliate. Great plan. So when is this network launching?

  23. #23
    2005 Linkshare Golden Link Award Winner  ecomcity's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    St Clair Shores MI.
    Posts
    17,328
    Angry
    Quote Originally Posted by TrustNo1
    Don't see any merchants clammoring to get in your make believe network. Any merchants here who have read Mike's plan and would agree to it? Anybody? Can't give feeds to your affiliates, can't give promotions to them to use, can only give them the top 30% selling products, forget the other 70%. Nothing like have the same 30% as every other affiliate. Great plan. So when is this network launching?
    And your plan to restore 100% Trust in the network/merchant reporting of sales is.... ? Your plan to pin point converting merchants deserving of prime affiliate page exposure.....is ? Your friggin plan to seperate/wean and monitize every coupon/deal/feed/incentive webmaster from their spammy site builds by rewarding them for making shopper/SERP friendly pages...is? Put your plan in out in the open unless you secretly wish your competitors die a quick death before they join in supporting a real plan you can't attack at the point of sale!
    Webmaster's... Mike and Charlie

    "What have you done today to put real value into a referral click...from a shoppers viewpoint!"

  24. Newsletter Signup

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 21
    Last Post: August 9th, 2006, 07:39 PM
  2. LMI & New Terms from Existing Merchants
    By deepestblue in forum Commission Junction - CJ
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: June 21st, 2006, 10:58 PM
  3. Affiliate Terms of Service
    By zendozen in forum Midnight Cafe'
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 15th, 2005, 03:13 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
  •