Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 60
  1. #1
    Member mrmerchant's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    137
    There Must Be a Better Way
    Hello, all...
    I've been thinking lately... given all of the events in 2005 and recent events in 2006, there is clearly a problem with how affiliates and marketers work together. Yes, networks have failed to keep marketers' interest in mind. Yes, networks continue to tell their clients: "all is well, trust in us" and marketers continue to buy into both pieces of this farcical statement -- all the while knowing better.

    But let's set aside the networks for a moment. Isn't *how* affiliates and marketers meet-up (and then link-up) to begin with important? I believe this to be at the core of many problems related to adware, affiliate-related fraud, etc. Yes... it's the problem that, I believed, could be addressed by the infamous product I launched last year (yes, I noticed that ABW noticed the change in opt-out policy and, yes, you really can opt out... which is the way it should have been to begin with).

    My I believe many of the industry's "fraud-like" problems (I'm lumping together cookie stuffing with adware, etc. etc.) occur *after* affiliates meet/link up with marketers. Isn't the process of "affiliate meets marketer" screwed up (deficient) and, hence, a good place to start?

    Start what? The process of creating a better way for affiliates to meet up with marketers -- one where their rights and (cringe) privacy concerns are balanced with the rights of marketers. I am confident that most here at ABW (if not all of you) feel that marketers have a right to know who their affiliates are... including his/her "risk characteristics." Also, as Linkshare suggests, marketers deserve a sense of "this affiliate is a real business entity." I think that's reasonable and sense that ABW, as a community, finds this to be reasonable too.

    There simply must be a better way for affiliates and marketers to seek each other out and qualify each other -- one that offers balance on both sides. Once affiliates and marketers hook up things would proceed differently... better IMO. At some point in my dream, a network simply tracks and reports and forgets about making promises that it knows it can't keep. And, yeah, they do a damn good (better than today) job at tracking and reporting... and are allowed to make a profit.

    Maybe I'm just dreaming.

  2. #2
    Internet Cowboy
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    4,662
    As long as we have sleazy affiliate managers and sleazy consultants (-cough-) to the affiliate marketing industry, there will be problems.

    Want to change things? Take a stance against adware. Insist that your clients who use adware publishers cease their relationship with them immediately.

    Take for example a program managed by one of your favorite affiliate managers. This program just joined CJ at a payout of 5%, but eBates claims to pay its victims 6%. WFT up with that?

    If you are serious about change, you need to change your ways and convince your cronies to follow suit. Until then you are only coming to ABW and blowing smoke up our ass!


  3. #3
    2005 Linkshare Golden Link Award Winner  ecomcity's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    St Clair Shores MI.
    Posts
    17,328
    mrmerchant there sure were a lot of eye openers for this industry in 2005. Growth in CPA aggregrators bypassing network transparency moves to prosper by hiding bad actors under their covers. Major legal moves to hold merchants responsible for the actions of their hired gun affiliates and AM's was a new issue. Ben's work to expose to the media the underbelly of the affiliate industry's condoning of double dipping and raping merchant commission pools, by payouts to enities on non-commissionable actions. Reaction by the networks is to sell out/chill out and circle their Super Affiliate wagons with monopoly moves, and performing SEM/SEO fee based services with insider network clickstream data.

    Meanwhile those employing ethical affiliate best practices, and new non-spammy creatives like GoldenCan and PSC showcase displays, are just sending their targeted visitors into a ever growing cookie minefield. To pay the incenters, couponers, livehelp hijackers, and other point of sale attack dogs, the merchants are using house cookies and other diversion tactics to stay profitable. NET result is the legit affiliate takes it in the shorts as all network protections go to the cookie cannons.

    I've talked over the years with the merchant marketers giving them more then just hints on how to legitimately increase conversions and help the smaller domain bound affiliates get rewarded for their customer facing pages. They no longer care, or call, as they can't reach their numbers with a slow steady growth pattern devoid of the mass advertisng white noise. They have gleened all they can from clickstream data mining from the legit affiliate's pages and advance into leveraging that insider knowledge to fuel the cookie cannons.

    Perps walks , huge Fed fines, Anti-Spyware/adware legislation, and hopefully wholesale firing of the responsible AM firms, by actual merchant management, will tilt the scales for legitimacy and partnership transparancy in 2006.
    Webmaster's... Mike and Charlie

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

  4. #4
    Member mrmerchant's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    137
    Yes, Mike. You know what I'm getting at here and 2006 will, likely, be different but not unless someone stands up and actually does something dramatic IMO. While I'm tempted to just ignore Uncle Scooter based on his crass comments it wouldn't serve my purpose: discussion.

    I'm here to have some and hope that we might be able to set aside rhetoric of the past and examine things honestly, openly and at point blank range. I don't promote the use of adware, I write blogs that point out the dangers of engaging in see no evil, hear no evil marketing.

    This month, an editor at Internet Retailer picked up on my blog... called the FTC to discuss things and got some great quotes from them (warning advertisers). Of course, she also called the networks -- everyone but Linkshare, mind you, who is actually moving in a direction to do something about these problems. I have this confirmed from Linkshare that they were not contacted after I specifically mentioned Athena and its main objective (network quality issues like adware, spam, etc.). I urged IR to contact a company that sued me so that they could discuss what they're doing to combat such problems. I hardly think I promote adware and this is merely one example. For the record, much of my work today is resented by companies like Commission Junction as I'm busy helping financial analysts (who study the public markets) make sense of what's really going on versus what companies like ValueClick discuss.

    Candidly, I've said a lot about ABW in the past and engaged in some not so friendly words. As I reflect, such words are not solving anything and not good for the industry. I'll take all the heat you have laid on me and might continue to... but I'd like to have some constructive discussion around what to do next. I have ideas but I'm more interested in hearing yours.

    This may seem unusual (coming from me) but when forced to look at the reality of it all, this forum has caused change in the past -- change that, at its core -- was needed and just... good for building an industry with integrity. It continues to work for the right cause and I hope that at least some of you might see my efforts to place Ben Edelman on a higher pedestal as a sign of common objectives.

    Education is needed in this market and, yes, Mike... many AM's have head buried in sand; as do their bosses. Why? IMO, systems are in place that keep information that is common knowledge here at ABW out of the public limelight - away from merchants. Remember the big meeting in NYC a few years back when I actually got to lay eyes on Haiko over pizza and beers? The industry accomplished something back then. Of course, it was a small step but why did we accomplish even that? Attention. Media attention. Merchants "started to know" and networks moved quickly to address the issue and then, of course, sweep it under the rug. What have we learned? I suggest to you that we've learned something as an industry; I sure did. I learned that next time we shouldn't let them sweep it under the rug.

    I'm interested in talking about the real issues and bringing them into other venues... areas where merchants live. Podcasts might work. I'm experimenting with that lately and it's catching on in the security community -- but what about retailers and marketers? How can we access them? Internet Retailer looks to be of little help as they continue to poo-poo the FTC and quote networks promoting the status quo.

    I'm interested in helping companies like Lashback succeed. Why? Because they expose truth and risk tied up in current affiliate marketing practices rooted in "bad actors."

    Again, I'm forced to look at the beginning of the cycle. There must be a better way for affiliates and marketers to seek each other out and qualify each other -- one that offers balance on both sides. If relationships start out through a process rooted in integrity doesn't that make executing marketing and advertising practices on the Web follow suit?

    Wait did I just say that or did Steve Messer? Oof.

  5. #5
    Member Chocolate_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 19th, 2005
    Location
    The Hen House
    Posts
    1,227
    Wait did I just say that or did Steve Messer? Oof
    Must have been you; it was in plain, coherent English.

  6. #6
    ABW Founder Haiko de Poel, Jr.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    21,609
    Dude, I see this a mile away, PM sent.
    Continued Success,

    Haiko
    The secret of success is constancy of purpose ~ Disraeli

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    January 19th, 2006
    Location
    Cyberspace
    Posts
    82
    Here is a question for you...
    ... and before I ask it, I will tell you that I am an born-again affiliate marketer (back after 3 years of building content sites only and keeping advertising to a minimum) with over 1000 merchant relationships spread across seven networks (I could write a book on the differences and will certainly write some articles that may help all sides, at some point!).

    My question is this: How much effort do merchants, affiliates and network managers make to check up on the sites they approve/refute, at the start? How much effort do other affiliates make to check up on merchants' sites? Does everyone rely on the networks to keep the baddies out and then stab a guess at whether fabulouslywonderfulcommerce.com (I hope that domain name doesn't actually exist and apologise in advance if it does!) will turn out to be a model merchant/affiliate or a scammer, or is time allocated to proper assessment?

    Personally, I try to look at every site for long enough to establish that these are genuine merchants, not email harvesters or scammers of any kind. If the home page takes too long to open, I close it and strike that merchant from my list, and so on. In other words: I take my business very seriously.

    Is that generally true or am I some old-fashioned (the old part is right enough) dinosaur?

  8. #8
    2005 Linkshare Golden Link Award Winner  ecomcity's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    St Clair Shores MI.
    Posts
    17,328
    mrmerchant you've always been one smart cookie to decipher both ecommerce trends and the marketing forces at work to get at ...and drain... those marketing budgets. Third party and network AM firms prospered in the darkness and smoke-n-mirrors era of the .com bubble. (hint: most major budgeted merchants didn't want to know specifics) No better entity existed to fleece the free flowing VC funds then the Ad agencies and their non-transparent siblings running startup affiliate networks. Billions were poured into trafficking sites trying to reach the 1 million/monthly eyeball bar where the VC and private investors could unload the .com bomb.

    You and I were both there before the bubble burst. Me yelling for creatives tied to conversion ratios, meaningful return days, transparent reporting, consolidate funds, network merchant escrow accounts, monthly merchant payments on $25 minimums. I assume you were leveraging insider online Ad industry info, and data, to herd the Adwhores into finely tuned commission and Ad budget churning machines. Back then we both got the job done with a few cuts and bruises along the way.

    The .com bomb implosions rattled the network TRUST factor throwing media attention on the likes of Pets.com, eToys, and other affiliate enabled properties. Your correct MEDIA attention is the only spotlight that brings about needed changes on a broken or flawed ebiz plan. I warned Linkshare in the late 90's their only path to legitimizing a pay-per-performance 1099 marketing engine was to learn the documented lessons of the computer VAR industry. The further they distanced themselves from the advertising mindset the more legit they would get in the eyes of the merchants, consumers and affiliates.

    Amazing CJ listened back then and was the only network that digested the above advice. They booted out all the CPC crapola, and too bad they didn't also give the info peddling lead fee group, freebie sites at the same time as I suggested. They brought in EPC and meaningful reports. Meanwhile ABW had proven the right AM, empowered by their merchant boss, could take 2 untrusted losers like TigerDirect and Overstock to new heights in record time. That folks was a real challenge as no one had faith in BeFree or Linkshare. Next came AM's like Essential Apparel's Akiva to follow the proven path for the growing CJ crowd of consolidate payment affiliates. Notice all the initial movers and shakers in the AM field were employees of the merchants they represented. Only they could be empowered to wear a sales managers cap and be held responsible for conversion on targeted traffic. Those wearing the Adwhore caps never take responsibility for their actions.... or inactions.

    That folks was the pinnacle of Network legitimacy and the opportunity promise for domain bound value-add affiliates. What derailed it? I lay the blame upon the 3rd party AM firms controlling the major budgeted merchants to lazy and too greedy to tie their paychecks to targeted domain traffic, time consuming creatives and landing pages. They sought a easier way to get eyeballs (Merchants were snaked charmed with clicks) and set mass cookies.

    Maybe mrmerchant knows who the wank was who outlined a way to monetize & cookie ALL traffic to any merchants site on the back of a cocktail napkin. Linkshare's merchants refused to consolidate payments and work under a 30 day payment basis. The LS and the BeFree AM's balked at dropping quarterly payments and huge minimums. Now some sleazebag comes up with mating contextual advertising with a downloaded browser hijacker to force set cookies without even the need of domain traffic. The networks give the wink wink and turn over the BHO integration and reporting to their IT staff and alerted the IAB/DMA ruled AM's onto their secret cookie cannons... with double dipping bonuses thrown in for smoozing up to the lowly domain bound affiliates.

    CJ shot to the top of the network food-chain and the pro-affiliate friendly programs on all networks grew and prospered, till they got tainted and snake charmed by the lure of the easy money BHO's. Andy Rodriguez (TD) and Shawn Schwegman (OS) learned early on from me that all trust and ethics begins and ends with those who control the affiliate enabled shopping cart. It was true then and it is more so now.

    That was the cornerstone of my SafeHaven Network model that took all the shenanigans out of the advertising networks merchant AM marketers. www.ecomcity.com/safehaven-network.htm No AM there would ever have to waste time on network reporting issues and could spend their time on helping affiliates get physical click targeted traffic to their published conversion ratio pages. Maybe MrMerchant knows an Angel investor to get that one off the ground, as even Obstinate Don would be impressed with the simplicity and honesty of the SHN model.
    Last edited by ecomcity; January 20th, 2006 at 11:44 PM.
    Webmaster's... Mike and Charlie

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

  9. #9
    Resident Genius and Staunch Capitalist Leader's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    12,817
    I smell a "jailhouse conversion" on the part of mrmerchant. So who sued?!

    The guy who was deleriously trouncing all over the rights of affiliates just months ago, and who still, qoute, "cringes" at the idea that anyone has privacy rights--trying to protect affiliate rights?

    Even a class-C bar would think that was too sick of a joke to laugh.

    AT BEST whatever you're up to is probably just some other way to try to mess with people's businesses against their will. Making it worse is that all the stuff that's been attributed to you would be a bad business move: Your programs were (and likely still are) parasite-ridden, you tried to arrogantly FORCE people into your anti-privacy mold, and now this. I'm going to go ahead and bet based on past performance--and expect yet another anti-affiliate maneuver from you!

    And for the record:

    Isn't the process of "affiliate meets marketer" screwed up (deficient) and, hence, a good place to start?
    NO!

    Dammitall, there's nothing wrong with the meeting process!!!

    I've seen time and again that the real problems are when the merchant goes bad AFTER originally being fine. Sometimes long after! And from the merchants, it's been said by many that, "the affiliate was fine when they were approved; they added the [bad code/mal-advertising] only X-time ago."

    Mucking up the "meeting process" isn't going to change the REAL problem: Merchants and affiliates who go bad *after* passing even stringent criteria. (Not that the networks are the ones being stringent. But after running across a few deadbeat merchants, *I'm* certainly stringent about which ones I'll run!)

    RIGHT NOW someone who does good due-diligence can spot a bad merchant 10 miles away, with extremely rare exceptions. With experience, the scent of hidden mold becomes quite recognizable. This is also true about predicting which ones will abscond after several months, and take my last commission check with them.

    I don't think it's somehow mysteriously harder for merchants! I'm sure there's a pattern that becomes just as obvious, to any who both care to look and bother to fire a neuron rather than waiting (or settling) for some straitjacketing For Dummies "solution" that likely will only stifle legitimate opportunity.
    Last edited by Leader; January 21st, 2006 at 01:03 AM.
    There is no knowledge that is not power. ~Hemingway

  10. #10
    Troll Killer and best Snooper!
    I decide when the pigs fly!
    Rhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    New York, USA
    Posts
    6,195
    What are you proposing, mrmerchant? A dating service for merchants and affiliates?

  11. #11
    Internet Cowboy
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    4,662
    Quote Originally Posted by mrmerchant
    While I'm tempted to just ignore Uncle Scooter based on his crass comments it wouldn't serve my purpose: discussion.
    For anyone who doesn't know, mrmerchant is our friend who compiled personal and proprietary information on hundreds of affiliate marketers and sold it on the open market. Name, contact info, web address, marketing techniques etc. were only a few of the fields from his list. From what I hear, he gathered this information while employed by a network. He was nice enough to offer an opt-out option after the first list had been printed and sold.

    Keep an arm's length.


  12. #12
    Outsourced Program Manager Chris -  AMWSO's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    11,273
    Dammitall, there's nothing wrong with the meeting process!!!
    I beg to differ... the largest number of Adware based partners on Networks right now are not the adware themselves, they are people pretending to use their sites to drive traffic but then using adware to drive that traffic.

    For example, I might meet someone online at an event or through direct recruitment, on the surface their site looks great, traffic looks good , PR looks nice and even has decent SERPS and yet a few months after hooking up with them, we find them driving more traffic by useing Adware from firms like Metrics Direct to target a clients domain name than from their web site.

    Face value is not what it once was when, Adware was Adware , web was web and very few people said web and did adware.

    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

  13. #13
    http and a telephoto
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    17,708
    One of the tenents I am starting to preach, although I don't have the reach in the industry of Haiko, or others, is "Educate not alienate". We need to work together as a team to educate the merchants and affiliates as to what good practices are. I may be way off base, and it seems there is history to the conversation above that I am not aware of, but if the people that have the power to educate others in the industry can begin to work together again instead of beating our heads individually, maybe we can all accomplish something historical. We keep saying our industry is young, we are the leaders, we are the future, we are shaping this industry. Some people of course have hidden agendas, but what if we forget the hidden agendas and just try and work together to create effective and far reaching change?
    Deborah Carney
    TeamLoxly.com BookGoodies.com ABCsPlus.com

  14. #14
    notary sojac Herb ԿԬ's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Central/Western NY State
    Posts
    7,741
    Talking
    Quote Originally Posted by loxly
    Some people of course have hidden agendas, but what if we forget the hidden agendas and just try and work together to create effective and far reaching change?
    and never forget to count our fingers after the handshake . . .

  15. #15
    Internet Cowboy
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    4,662
    Quote Originally Posted by loxly
    ...but if the people that have the power to educate others in the industry can begin to work together again instead of beating our heads individually, maybe we can all accomplish something historical.
    This is exactly my point. Look at mrmerchant's consulting web site, specifically his client list. Then go to every parasite web site you can think of and look at their merchant list. You will see many, many matches.

    For this man to come here and say something like
    I don't promote the use of adware, I write blogs that point out the dangers of engaging in see no evil, hear no evil marketing
    when most (if not all) of his merchant clients are in bed with just about every parasite in the book shows me that he is here for other reasons.

    Research his previous posts here over the past few years and see who he has gone out of his way to stick up for. Draw your own conclusions.


  16. #16
    http and a telephoto
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    17,708
    Well, then lets take some of the ideas presented and discussed and make something out of it with or without mrmerchant and lets get some changes made. Discussion can be good whether we like the discussion initiater or not (is that a word?). My own thinking is that we can effect some changes by moving forward, regardless of *who* intiated the discussion or got the wheels turning. If we don't like who started the discussion, does that mean we discount the ideas? If we don't want to talk in public to give mrmerchant the feedback he is looking for, then let's take it private or to a closed forum. Personally I think that discussion leads to education and leads to empowerment for us all. You know that I don't pull punches, I want what is best for the industry as a whole. Who starts discussions that lead to positive changes is irrelevant, as long as POSITIVE changes come about.
    Deborah Carney
    TeamLoxly.com BookGoodies.com ABCsPlus.com

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    January 19th, 2006
    Location
    Cyberspace
    Posts
    82
    Now you're talking!
    I would be quite happy to contribute to a closed forum - though how the parasites would be screened out is beyond me - I wrote an article, for example, that I share with merchants that I have faith in, through a partner area on one of my sites. I would be happy to share it with anyone who intended to use it to improve real affiliate marketing but there is no way I am willing to put it in the hands of those who would simply use it to get better at understanding affiliates without intending to implement it to help make things better for both sides.

    I'd even be happy to let you guys take it in there and leave me outside - I am after all, an unknown quantity on this forum and do not expect to be trusted easily. There is no doubt that there needs to be a body of people working to try and bring some uniformity of purpose and even of method to the industry and you guys sound like you have all the knowledge, skills and experience between you. It needs to happen before cynicisnm pervades all...

  18. #18
    Resident Genius and Staunch Capitalist Leader's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    12,817
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris - AMWSO
    I beg to differ... the largest number of Adware based partners on Networks right now are not the adware themselves, they are people pretending to use their sites to drive traffic but then using adware to drive that traffic.

    For example, I might meet someone online at an event or through direct recruitment, on the surface their site looks great, traffic looks good , PR looks nice and even has decent SERPS and yet a few months after hooking up with them, we find them driving more traffic by useing Adware from firms like Metrics Direct to target a clients domain name than from their web site.
    ?!? I mentioned that very type of thing in my prior post--as evidence that the meeting proccess is NOT what's flawed!

    This is a problem of ONGOING COMPLIANCE, not a problem with the meeting process. Those are changes that happen AFTER meeting, and may not have even existed at the time of the meeting (the bad apple was just *planning* to pull stuff then [if such plans had even crossed their mind then], but hasn't done it yet-- and therefore there is no evidence of wrongdoing to detect at that time).

    Your complaint is the same thing I was talking about when I said,
    Quote Originally Posted by Me
    I've seen time and again that the real problems are when the merchant goes bad AFTER originally being fine. Sometimes long after! And from the merchants, it's been said by many that, "the affiliate was fine when they were approved; they added the [bad code/mal-advertising] only X-time ago."
    There is NO change that can be made at the point of meeting which will ensure that a site, advertising method, etc. will not mutate later.

    Having a site that matches what merchants like, and using that one to sign up for things, is the oldest trick in the book! Sometimes that's just used to get by dumb requirements--but, as you've seen, other times it's used for truly blighted intentions.

    You aren't going to meet those "other" sites at the meeting stage. And if there comes a way to advance-detect them, crooks will soon learn to just wait until AFTER the meeting to make those "other" sites (since you can't detect what doesn't exist yet)!

    Ongoing compliance issues are not going to be solved by mucking with the meeting process.
    There is no knowledge that is not power. ~Hemingway

  19. #19
    Outsourced Program Manager Chris -  AMWSO's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    11,273
    Ongoing compliance issues are not going to be solved by mucking with the meeting process.
    Dissagree

    They will if there were a better way to know what an affiliate does with "other" merchants before they sign. If a merchant could view an affiliates marketing habits in the network then they could make a far more informed decision before partnering with someone. Granted you enter a whole mess of privacy issues here, but assuming that can be got around, then a merchant with access to an affiliates marketing habits across a cross section of other merchants could make a far more informed decision about who they work with as part of the "meeting" process.

    Ongoing compliance would be a far smaller issue if access to previous marketing practices was known.

    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

  20. #20
    Internet Cowboy
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    4,662
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris - AMWSO
    They will if there were a better way to know what an affiliate does with "other" merchants before they sign. If a merchant could view an affiliates marketing habits in the network then they could make a far more informed decision before partnering with someone.
    Sorry


    Too many AMs admittedly maintain their own affiliate sites for that to sit well with the masses. It's fine that some AM and OPM maintain their own affiliate sites, but for them to be able to put the pieces together and possibly copy someone else's marketing plan won't work.

    Separation is healthy in this business and it should stay that way.


  21. #21
    ABW Ambassador Trying to Win's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 7th, 2006
    Location
    Harrisburg, PA
    Posts
    503
    Quote Originally Posted by loxly
    We need to work together as a team to educate the merchants and affiliates as to what good practices are.
    I totally agree with loxly, if merchants and affs work together and be honest, all things are possible! I work with many merchants, and also have an affiliate program that I run for one of my sites. I recently found out that one of the merchants that I was involved with, bundles a bunch of adware or whatever it is with their downloads. I dropped them like a rock! Im sure that it hurt me more than it hurt them, because Im not that big and was making good cash from them. But as a matter of principle, I will not promote a scum bag, no matter how much money it makes me! Both Merchants and Affiliates need to do the same thing! Just because a scum affiliate, can make you money with adware or whatever dose not make it right! Same thing on the affiliate side, just because you can make money promoting some scum bag merchant dose not mean you should! It all comes down to the basics of what is right and wrong, I should also include those 3rd party networks that dont mind skimming off leads or sales, just to make their bottom line look better.

    What really blows my away, is that everyone already knows the answer! Honesty is the best policy!

  22. #22
    pph Expert! Gordon's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Edmonton Canada
    Posts
    5,781
    What really blows my away, is that everyone already knows the answer! Honesty is the best policy!
    I agree with this but only as far as people who are prepared to work for a living.
    The thieving scum parasites and cookie stuffers are not/can not get their own customers in the numbers the want so they resort to stealing the honest affiliates customers with the full co-operation of the Networks like CJ, Linkshare and Performix do not think honesty is the best policy, in fact they know it isn't for their mode of working.

    Incidently if anyone from one of the above named Networks ever starts a sentence off with "Honestly blah blah blah ....." run like hell cos it will just be another pile of crap.
    One day parasites and their ilk will be made illegal, I bet a few Lawyers will be pissed off when the day comes.
    Mr. Spitzer is fetching it nearer

    YouTrek

  23. #23
    ABW Ambassador Trying to Win's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 7th, 2006
    Location
    Harrisburg, PA
    Posts
    503
    I totally agree Gordon! But the only true answer, is for networks, affiliates and merchants to follow the honesty policy! Now I know Im just blowing smoke up my butt!
    Making that happen is easier said than done. But it is the true answer to the problem. Maybe we should all get together and stage an affiliate strike for a month, and pull all the ads.

  24. #24
    ABW Ambassador Trying to Win's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 7th, 2006
    Location
    Harrisburg, PA
    Posts
    503
    I know that the aff stike is way out there. But just picture in your mind CJ, Linkshare and Performix trying to explain to their merchants why sales dropped so much.

  25. #25
    Resident Genius and Staunch Capitalist Leader's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    12,817
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris - AMWSO
    Dissagree

    They will if there were a better way to know what an affiliate does with "other" merchants before they sign. If a merchant could view an affiliates marketing habits in the network then they could make a far more informed decision before partnering with someone. Granted you enter a whole mess of privacy issues here, but assuming that can be got around, then a merchant with access to an affiliates marketing habits across a cross section of other merchants could make a far more informed decision about who they work with as part of the "meeting" process.

    Ongoing compliance would be a far smaller issue if access to previous marketing practices was known.

    Cheers

    Chris
    *Chills* *Shudder*

    Disagree, unless you're talking about very general information.

    No Way would I want such a thing if there was any specificity in the info. It's none of Merchant A's business, that I chose to buy PPC traffic for a page dedicated to Merchant B, or that I 0wn Goofle under Merchant C's keywords!

    Reason 1) Based on your post, the info you'd like to get at is proprietary information. Not only could some crook merchant do what Uncle Scooter said, and try to use that info to actually compete against me, but even 99.999% of the honest ones couldn't resist the temptation to try to dictate that I promote them in one of the ways I was doing for some other merchant. Fact of the matter being, that different merchants get different methods for a reason--for instance, if I send PPC traffic at one of my pages, it's because whoever I'm featuring on it is a proven winner. I don't want to be hounded with "But you're doing X for Merchant Z!" pitches, or worse yet, demands.

    Reason 2) Too many merchants have a very narrow, in-the-box, and often plain-out wrong idea of what can work with their products. Those merchants would be too quick to reject legit affiliates who didn't fit their personal prejudices.

    Reason 3) And there is also the fact that some AMs have loose lips (or keyboards) and would be spreading the fact that "most people do X" or even that "Well, Leader does it by [info that's way too specific goes here]..." all over the place. Like in their newsletters etc., or even on ABW!

    NOT having the whole wide world trying to do the exact same thing is what allows affs to make more than McDonald's money at this.

    Reason 4) Then of course there's just the seemingly-insatiable desire on the part of some AMs to meddle just for the sake of meddling. There's always some clod who thinks that if a site doesn't do X, Y, and Z, that it needs some kind of help. Whether or not X, Y, or Z are actually smart things to do or not.
    There is no knowledge that is not power. ~Hemingway

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •