Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    Full Member AAnnAArchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    206
    Forgive me if I've missed this, maybe there's a simple answer -- why would blocking parasites harm merchants? If a sale is being made, it's being made no matter what site is making the sale, correct? So, whether a parasite makes the money or we make the money, the merchant gets the sale, right?

    Talk to me slowly, it's been a long couple of days of reading posts.

    AAnn

  2. #2
    ABW Ambassador Nova's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    home
    Posts
    2,395
    Hi it will take a lot of time to read around here. lol...


    and you are right in your post.

    I have read this one post and I think I will post it here again!


    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> There is only one solution that we ALL should be pressing for. The networks must simply not allow any "affiliate" to overwrite another affiliate's links, or otherwise divert or intercept their traffic.

    This is the one and only solution. There can be NO alternative. Anybody who is working on an "alternative" is either fooling themselves, or trying to fool somebody else!
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Love Life to the fullest. we only get ONE chance! :-)

  3. #3
    ABW Ambassador CrazyGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,463
    Short answer:

    Offering rebates is a sales closer - merchants believe offering rebates closes more sales.

    Some of us would argue this is more than offset by yanking a prospect away from a product link and dumping them at the merchant's front door.

    Are you Crazy?

  4. #4
    Full Member AAnnAArchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    206
    Crazy Guy <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Offering rebates is a sales closer - merchants believe offering rebates closes more sales.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    So, then giving affiliates the equivalent in instant coupons to offer buyers would close sales even faster, right? No one likes waiting for rebates, so merchants should dump the parasites and offer up slightly better deals to close the sale. They could even use that in their marketing, "Don't wait for rebates when you can save RIGHT NOW!"

    AAnn

  5. #5
    ABW Ambassador CrazyGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,463
    It's another tool in a varied armoury.

    The fact that many people don't claim the rebates - or meet the minimum for payout - is one of the reasons they (ebates etc) can "give back" a high percentage of their commission.

    There's nothing inherently wrong (I think) with the shopping club/rebate type model. Hijacking affiliate links and overwriting cookies are the problem.

    The link hijacking may well be getting controlled, overwriting cookies is the next big fight.

    Are you Crazy?

  6. #6
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,118
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> So, then giving affiliates the equivalent in instant coupons to offer buyers would close sales even faster, right? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Correct. Or Overstock et al could pop up their own, non-stealing, pop-up. They have to pay whether or not the ebates customer gets the rebate anyways (partially defeating the whole appeal of rebates to manufacturers and retailers), so why not just give the customer an instant discount.

    Well, because eBates and their supporters have Shawn et al by the balls.

  7. #7
    ABW Ambassador Nova's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    home
    Posts
    2,395
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jimbo2002:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> So, then giving affiliates the equivalent in instant coupons to offer buyers would close sales even faster, right? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Correct. Or Overstock et al could pop up their own, non-stealing, pop-up. They have to pay whether or not the ebates customer gets the rebate anyways (partially defeating the whole appeal of rebates to manufacturers and retailers), so why not just give the customer an instant discount.

    Well, because eBates and their supporters have Shawn et al by the balls.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    LOL...

    I like this one...

    I just ask the question on what is it that the Parasites has more control when Affiliates are the one that really give the traffic!

    You just answer my question!

    Thanks.

    Love Life to the fullest. we only get ONE chance! :-)

  8. #8
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,086
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AAnnAArchy:

    So, then giving affiliates the equivalent in instant coupons to offer buyers would close sales even faster, right? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    The problem with giving the coupon to the affiliate is that the affiliate would give the coupon to everyone. With the eBates model, they think they are reducing their exposure to the population that is enticed by rebates.

    Personally, I would always take lower prices to rebates.

    eBates evolved from the incent site idea. The incent site looks at their 10% commission and thinks? I would be more than willing to give half this commission back to the customer if it means more sales.

    In the incent model, the rebate isn't coming from the merchant, it is coming from the affiliates commission. Buying the customer's loyalty increases sales, and gets performance bonuses.

  9. #9
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,419
    There are multiple reasons at work here

    The Networks
    1) Networks like the idea of parasites because it makes them more money. You see they get a bigger cut on sales - assume you get 5% but the parasites have negotiated 10% and give 5% back to the user. The networks get lets say 3% of the affiliates commision. If it were you would you rather get 3% of a 10% commission or 3% of a 5% commisision? No brainer right. OK - with this in mind you have to consider that the networks have done there best to influence merchants that parasites are great for their affiliate programs and have done nothing to honor their terms of service and you will very likely see the networks not honoring the COC and all efforts up to now.

    Another factor is the networks would rather cut a single big check to a super affiliate that is diverting commisions than 10,000 small affiliates that total the same amount. Remember, it costs the networks money to process and send out checks and manage accounts and bandwidth, etc, etc. With parasites their overall cost in operating is greatly reduced on a per affiliate basis.

    The rub is the networks know they can't eliminate ALL the affiliates because the the parasites have no lifeblood to feed off of. If the host dies (the affiliates), the parasite dies along with them (wealthy of course).

    Merchanmts - they want results. Lets face it - most of the merchants have a crappy cookie and or a crappy commission in the overall percentage of what they pay us for bringing a new customer to them. I send them a customer (potentially for life) on a merchant like Chadwicks who has a 30 day cookie but once a sale is made the cookie is killed. Lets say trhe first purchase is for 50 and for that I get a miniscule $2.50. The merchant charges the new user 10 bucks or so for shipping a lightweight blouse and they make money of the sale as well. Now was that 2.50 really a "fair deal"? Of course not. Do they mind paying 5.00 to the parasite instead of the 2.50 they pay us? Of course not - they still make money hand over foot in the deal.

    I too have said that merchants could save a great deal of money and cut cost by not participating with parasites - just realize - the amounts they pay are neglible even what they pay the parasite.

    The merchants don't mind paying (what little they do) for those who really produce - and in their minds with all that they've been told and see in real dollar transactions, they somehow turn their head and say that the parasites are not really stealing because there isn't a law currently on the books stopping them.

    Another item mentioned in another thread is that AM's likely have part of their pay based on performance levels of the affiliate program. They are scared to death to make a change that will earn them less and ethics take a back seat as a result of it. If AM's pay was not based on performance, this issue would probably not be nearly as problematic as what it is.

    The solution is status quo until the legal authorities become involved enough that a final court decision is made on the matter.

    Does it make sense for networks and merchants who deal will millions upon millions of dollars in online transactions to participate with thieves that operate via a downloadable application that watches a users every move and can capture an end users finacial information as well.

    I've said many times before and I'll say it again - The stage is being set for fraud of massive proportions and the networks and most merchants simply turn a blind eye.

    Incredible right.

  10. #10
    ABW Ambassador Packy's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    4,205
    Happypoon,

    Lets not forget one more of the main reasons the Networks like the Parasites. From what I've heard;

    If an online surfer types in to their browser the name of a company such as xxxxx.com its a free for all for the Parasites. Now what should of been a non-commissionable sale and a dirrect sale to the merchant without having to pay commissions now turns into a commissionable sale that the merchant must pay.

    Take CJ as an example. That sale would of went right to the merchant with no commission to pay because the user would of went right to the site. Now that the Parasite took over, they get their commish and CJ gets a 30% cut of the Parasites commission. Something they would not of gotten if the Parasite didn't exist. It just amazes me that merchants don't mind paying out all that extra money for a sale that was stolen from the merchant. JMO of course.

  11. Newsletter Signup

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. What good are parasites for the merchants?
    By raywood in forum Merchants opposed to ParasiteWare
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: January 5th, 2005, 10:48 AM
  2. Will you Drop merchants associated with Parasites?
    By happypoon in forum Midnight Cafe'
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: December 15th, 2002, 03:31 PM
  3. Merchants Against Parasites
    By happypoon in forum Midnight Cafe'
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: November 3rd, 2002, 09:08 AM

Posting Permissions

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