[TrishaLyn]

Here's an interesting hypothetical question for you all...

are we a serious industry without organizing?

(this might be best for a split off, so feel free Haiko if you feel that way)

[Daniel M. Clark]

No, I don't think so. There is legitimacy that is gained by organizing, and perception by other, related, industries is important.

[Jorge - JRami]

Organizing as a group and as an industry to help the industry would be great, and to be taken seriously with a purpose ofcourse, but never as a union or similar, Just mentioning that incase, as I will not join or support a union or controlled type organization.

[Alan Hamilton]

Originally Posted by Jorge - JRami

Organizing as a group and as an industry to help the industry would be great, and to be taken seriously with a purpose ofcourse, but never as a union or similar, Just mentioning that incase, as I will not join or support a union or controlled type organization.

Bravo Jorge. No union type mentalities driving the policies on this one. That would create the very problems that some have stated regarding interference with fair competition. Case in Our auto industry doesn't suffer because the Japanese compete unfairly. It suffers because counter productive policies imposed by "associations: make it economically unfeasible to make the same or better quality here at home and still keep the product affordable.

[Daniel M. Clark]

Agreed. No union mentality.

[Trust]

Originally Posted by TrishaLyn

Here's an interesting hypothetical question for you all...

are we a serious industry without organizing?

(this might be best for a split off, so feel free Haiko if you feel that way)

Yes, because there is serious money being made. Plus there are already online marketing associations in existence.

[Daniel M. Clark]

There is serious money being made in drug trafficking, too.. I wouldn't call that a legitimate industry

[Kevin]

That's illegal, this isn't, not a good comparison.

Some of what happens in this industry is... Literally in some cases, through extension in others.

No, not a great comparison for a few reasons. Unless you look at it from a Pharmaceuticals vs. Street Drugs mentality.

[Trust]

Originally Posted by HecticDMC

There is serious money being made in drug trafficking, too.. I wouldn't call that a legitimate industry

"Plus there are already online marketing associations in existence."

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4DKUS_enUS230US230&q=online+marketing+associations

And even if there were no associations, when you have most of the top merchants with affiliate programs, 9 out of the top 10, it's legit.

[Haiko de Poel, Jr.]

Majority of the money makers are doing so with illegal activity - ie spam, and many unethical means ... it is a relevant comparison.

[Kevin]

(You did it to me again, Trusty...)

[loxly]

We need a voice that can talk to the government officials about what we are and what our industry does. We need a "glossary" that is accepted that allows legislators, networks, new merchants and even affiliates be able to define what we do. Without one we are at the mercy of the public perception when they get adware/spyware on their computer and they blame the "evil affiliate marketers" they heard about.

Our industry in young, but every industry has a organization (or two) that legislators can call to get definitions and answers about that specific industry. Who do we have?

[Trust]

Originally Posted by Haiko de Poel, Jr.

Majority of the money makers are doing so with illegal activity - ie spam, and many unethical means ... it is a relevant comparison.

Don't know about majority. We usually don't talk much about the ones doing it right.

[Haiko de Poel, Jr.]

Fine maybe not the majority but a large preponderance of people / cos., doesn't diminish the relevancy of Hectic's response tho.

[Kevin]

I think the percentage of income is higher than the percentage of bodies. And that, to me, is the damning stat.

[Trust]

Pretty good argument against self regulation if you believe that.

[Daniel M. Clark]

It may not have been the most thought-provoking comparison, I grant that... it was just the first thing that came to mind (and I do believe that it is relevant).

My overall point is that the amount of money involved shouldn't determine the legitimacy of an industry.

[Rhea]

"Plus there are already online marketing associations in existence."

Reminds me of a Scottish toast (call and response style) that goes like this:

Here's to us!
Who's like us?
Damn few and they're all dead!

The quote isn't entirely relevant but our type of marketing is so different from mainstream marketing that I wonder how well we'd fit in or be represented by a mainstream marketing organization.

I'm not aware of any of them reaching out to us as a group. (Are we the red-headed stepchild of marketing?)

[TrishaLyn]

Originally Posted by HecticDMC

My overall point is that the amount of money involved shouldn't determine the legitimacy of an industry.

Right.

Remember, this is just totally hypothetical.

What, then, should define a serious industry? Money involved? Business acceptance? If you look at it from those angles I'd say we're a serious industry as most businesses accept affiliate and performance marketing as standard tools.

[Haiko de Poel, Jr.]

OK ... your point? Now we don't need an association? Hypothetically, of course

[Aunt Lily]

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), by Thomas Kuhn addresses how industries and groups grow from disorganized bodies to organized groups and why. He notes steps such as the formation of unions and industry watchdogs that dole out licenses, the creation of a stylized jargon to denote professionalism and exclude those that don't understand it and so forth. It was this source that first discussed the phrase "Paradigm shift." It's an interesting read. Especially as it described why some people want to use the creation of professional bodies to create their own oligopy and exclude others.

I must admit that I've never belonged to any professional or business organization that I've enjoyed belonging to or that didn't try to grab power from those on the outside. Industry groups don't guarantee anything except insiders and outsiders.

I think as long as affiliates make businesses money that's the proof that we are serious. That does not mean that there are dishonest people among us. And there are no guarantees that the dishonest folks eventually won't run any organization.

[Chuck Hamrick]

Bumping this as I was gone on the 17th.

IMO we will start an organization to give voice to affiliates but many will sit back and watch. If the org takes on steam people will lend their support and possibly join. It can become a focal point for conversation but members will drive that conversation. Its not meant to be exclusionary and may seem so because you will need to be a member to vote. Otherwise its a blog!

[smallaff]

The industry does need to organize! It is such a unique (somewhat secretative) industry it is still difficult for me to imagine this happening. I know this has been said many ways many times, but the bad guys ( the REALLY bad guys) are laughing at us all the way to the bank. Then you have the bad guys pretending to be the good guys and you think you're better off on your own.

From what I've seen and read here this seems like logical place to start.