4th June 2007

A Sad Day in Affiliate Marketing

posted in Affiliate Marketing |
Spread the love

It’s a sad day in affiliate marketing and the prevention in the freedom of speech when the bullies cry wolf & claim to be bullied in an attempt to suffocate comments, opinions & a few home truths about certain networks by possibly applying leverage of their own. The latest request on the affiliates4u forum may have brought this to the fore with regard to networks being asked to simply disclose which programs on their network have closed bidding groups with some being reluctant or refusing to do so like Buy.at (refused), DGM (reluctant), Affilinet (refused) & Commission Junction (no reply). You can see for yourself where comments may have been removed, but we have a copy on notepad for safe keeping to publish later pertaining to each individual network.

Unfortunately it may possibly be that Matt, who owns the forum is indeed in an unenviable position caught between a rock and a hard place … a gentleman to core & a friend who I have the upmost respect for.

Some of the networks involvement on the forum have traditionally been lacklustre or failed to address issues adequately, some have been very good, however it’s understandable that without network support the forum would not be able to continue with get2gethers, and events, and a4uexpo would certainly not be possible – these are all good things Matt & his team have done in helping to develop & shape the industry togther with the networks generosity.

Affiliates with blogs lend themselves to freedom of speech & to be unnecessarily censored which allow those affiliates to freely express their educated thoughts & experiences within affiliate marketing, they also cast a larger net capturing a wider audience. Something which certain networks are maybe trying to prevent from happening on the affiliates4u forum via their own leveraging & crying to mummy.

Affiliate marketing is a fantastic industry, more pros than cons, but it won’t mature & be respected unless there is trust & transparency.

Any of my observations are from personal experience & commenting, is not attacking, most of the time I am probably being quite placid and doesn’t intefere with my day to day workload, I could quite merrily skip through the daisies & daffodils and ignore it all, but sometimes aspects need to be commented upon. There are ways of doing things slyly or more openly. So are we now required to pretend that all is light & fluffy in the world of make believe with sugarplumb fairies & pixies dancing on the breeze? … cos some networks say so … what Twerps!

It just strikes me that some networks are trying to censor & gag the affiliate community with their own repressive actions and maybe about time they shed their excessive narcissisms and start actually realising that affiliates may actually have a point.

I think instead, I’ll keep my most of my opinions on the blog, but with the disposible income we have available, I could simply do paid search advertising and generate enough eyeballs via that route if we desired, most probably a lot more too, together with aggregating other affiliates comments or pointing to their blogs with their interesting observations . Maybe we could publish the programs we think might have closed groups too after we have contacted the merchants directly, if we can find the time & anyhow they are already in the public domain if you do a bit of searching, so most probably that task will be delegated.

PS Now it’s not purely pertaining to this closed group thread on the forum, though questions can now possibly be asked, how dependent is their fragile business model on closed groups? Do they have anything to hide? Is their reluctance to disclose can in part be inferred that they actually don’t wish to be transparent and thus untrustworthy? It’s not exactly spyware, but I wonder how they would react to more serious or probing questions than something which can be gleaned from the public domain.

There are currently 14 responses to “A Sad Day in Affiliate Marketing”

Why not let us know what you think by adding your own comment! Your opinion is as valid as anyone elses, so come on... let us know what you think.

  1. 1 On June 5th, 2007, Lee Mccoy said:

    I couldn’t agree more! The level of censorship is reducing the usefulness of the forum and has now turned it simply into a merchant advertising platform. I get far too many marketing messages as it is from networks and merchants and need to source a wide range of opinions from affiliates before i make decisions about who to promote and when to stop promoting a merchant.

    To deny free and frank discussion only serves to harm the industry in the long-run. Unless, that is, unless someone else provides an alternative!

    Lee

  2. 2 On June 5th, 2007, Matthew said:

    Lee, I don’t think thats really very accurate.

    We did not and do not censor the forum – we left the question and answer from each network up, how is that censorship?

    Matthew.

  3. 3 On June 5th, 2007, Jeff Molander said:

    Unless I’m mis-understanding something here I see this as the networks not wanting to offer up information that will, ultimately, be used against them by someone — namely someone who wants to suggest that some affiliate networks are a haven for “better” advertisers while others are not.

  4. 4 On June 7th, 2007, Jess1 said:

    Matt behave, of course the new forum is censored…, we kinda worked that out last week. But that’s up to you, its your forum for you to do what you like with and I have no problem with that at all.
    So long as the censorship is fair. Id be the first to put my hand up and say, the lack of good moderating was nothing short of a law suite waiting to happen before. Hopefully this will change… I remember the good old days when all the networks posted and joined in, would be great if you could get that back. Advertising… too much, tone it down, people will think you are in this to make money ;0)

    Paul, that closed group request compromised networks and confidentiality, its not a sad day in affiliate marketing, it’s same old same old. I see your frustration but in order to bring about changes you have to work from within the system. Some thing else, some of the networks are PLCs and the release of information has to be monitored and vetted before a public release.

  5. 5 On June 7th, 2007, Paul said:

    Jess it’s not confidential at all, I think Rich summarised it quite nicely

    “I can’t see this information as being confidential as I, or a competing merchant, can get a lot more information (at least affiliate ID, often contact details) by performing a search for the brand on the search engines. The only thing that can’t be found out is whether that affiliate has pemission to brand bid or the network is failing to police the brand and even that doesn’t really change if you just list whether a group exisits – other than we can tell you of affiliates breaking the rules if we know there isn’t a closed group.

    The other side to this is a new affiliate that doesn’t know about closed groups could see that a merchant says not to bid on some terms but also see that some affiliates are bidding on those terms. I think some affiliates in that situation would start bidding and that it could be avoided to a point by clearly stating on the merchant page if a brand bidding group exists.”

    So in effect affiliates are free to publish these if they desire. You are correct that it’s the “same old, same old”, it’s still wrong & thus we have had too many a sad day. Some Networks only posted if it reflected them in a postive light, and some are only happy to post advertising messages or disipate contentious issues away from the forum to hide from the affiliate community. Perhaps they have had too much of an easy ride. Maybe the future will see two types of network fragmenting, those which are genuinely affiliate friendly & those which maybe deemed as not. The merchant maybe caught in the crossfire as they maybe missing out on prospective affiliates by remaining on one network.

  6. 6 On June 8th, 2007, Jess1 said:

    Paul.. go grab a cuppa 🙂
    “Some of the networks involvement on the forum have traditionally been lacklustre or failed to address issues adequately” It never used to be like that Paul, this is the point Im trying to make and have been trying to make for ages. Go back to when the forum first started, there was open dialogue. Even Cj.com participated. The problem has arisen where by what started out as a sensible question, query from a respectable forum participator with regards to an affiliate network has in some cases (no all) quickly deteriorated into a full on open public attack. Back in the day, this was not so much of a problem as who knew about affiliate marketing then? Today, the affiliates4u forum is a high profile (ish) public space. It’s become synonymous with UK affiliate marketing the two walk hand in hand but its also become synonymous with “it’s a bad place to post if you are a merchant or a network” The culture of the forum (past tense) seemed to nurture (do to lack of adequate moderation) where by anyone could attack a merchant or a network and often was the case. Affiliates had and have their freedom of speech, the results of this are A4u (past) just added “the fear factor” Does this mean that affiliates have the power “The power of the forum strikes again”? No.. it meant that some affiliates were allowed to bully merchants (to a lesser degree) and networks, knowing full well, merchants and networks have to be professional, it was not a fair playfield. I defy any network to dispute that at least 7 public posts from affiliates asking “same old”questions have not contacted the network or merchant directly, we can debate if this is wrong or right, but it’s a fact. Its easier to post in the forum rather then email directly. The public signal this gives out, is A) the Network or merchant is unresponsive B) There is a problem with the merchant or network which in most cases is so far from the truth, but its all about perception, how is this being perceived to the outside world. Now if this scenario is repeated time and time again at some point the affiliate networks are going to have to allocate budget just to fire fight what is being said in the forum, are they going to do this? Evidently not. So this addresses your first statement, why are some networks failing to address issues inadequately in public. One network I spoke to ages ago said… some times they feel like nothing is ever good enough, so why bother. I don’t agree persay, but I understand. The next reason which may go in part to explaining why some networks cant supply public answers at the speed of light is as follows.

    (Id like to point out Im not having a pop at the moderators, Im aware it’s a voluntary position and you all have day jobs and the task, I dare say is a thankless one and Im not alone when I say, that it is appreciated)

    Ok… Re CJ.com (hope you don’t mind guys) all public comments have to go via their internal US vetting procedure, the UK posse effectively have to seek permission to respond. The staff have to follow procedures. We can debate until kingdom come if this is good thing or a bad thing, the fact remains, they themselves are under their own censorship, which must be quite frustrating for some of their UK staff. Now I have used CJ.com by way of example but we can apply this to the majority of networks. They would have been told well in advance to watch what they say and how to react to affiliates on the a4uforum. You can take that last part as gospel.

    “however it’s understandable that without network support the forum would not be able to continue with get2gethers, and events, and a4uexpo would certainly not be possible – these are all good things Matt & his team have done in helping to develop & shape the industry togther with the networks generosity.” Absolutely spot on (except google cart advert, how that helped shape our industry, more inclined to think it could dismantle our industry, not the time nor place to discuss) which, as we can see one party relies on the other and there has to be a fair balance. Networks should not be feeling like they are being used for target practice and if the above issue is left to fester or is repeated with the new layout, then the networks generosity may very well cease. As I believe my partner said quite recently, the networks participation should be seen as a privilege rather then assumed. Which is why if you ask a public question and the network chooses not to respond, that is their prerogative surely and should not be scolded for failing to respond publicly.

    “Affiliates with blogs lend themselves to freedom of speech & to be unnecessarily censored which allow those affiliates to freely express their educated thoughts & experiences within affiliate marketing, they also cast a larger net capturing a wider audience. Something which certain networks are maybe trying to prevent from happening on the affiliates4u forum via their own leveraging & crying to mummy.” I love that statement and hope that is not the case re the latter, maybe you can expand a bit for me, an example would be useful, Im not the sharpest tool in the box ;0)

    “Affiliate marketing is a fantastic industry, more pros than cons, but it won’t mature & be respected unless there is trust & transparency.” Trust now there is an interesting word and comes with many interpretations of the meaning. I would settle for proper standard business practice in terms of standardisation, clear layman’s ts and cs, the trust element will then follow on as this will separate the good from the bad and all will clearly see this.

    Paul, I do see your point re closed groups, brand bidding, I really really do, yes all we have to do is a search and we can see affiliates. But I still feel it had compromised the network (publicly). Also, perhaps the way in which the question was asked could be looked at again. Networks very rarely say “Paul no!” usually it’s Paul… Yes here you go or let’s see what we can do. You have more clout then most, if you really want the answers, try a different route ;0)

  7. 7 On June 9th, 2007, Paul said:

    Thanks for your reply Jess. I had cuppa in hand, but cheers for the response. I think generally at the start of the forum’s history there was a sense of naivity all round as well as a sense of togetherness. However at the industry grew, I use the word grew rather than matured, because it still has a long way to go until it reaches maturity … some networks chose a different path & operated with a different mindset to affiliates & during that time more affiliates wisened up & with tolerance levels being breached. In some ways they are very much chalk & cheese.

    However affiliate marketing consists of symbian relationships, but it is only workable if all parties toe the line, traditional corporate plc mindset and affiliate marketing mindset, are very different, perhaps the former should adjust to the latter?

    As to the phrasing of the question presented to networks pertaining to closed groups, this was discussed between the moderators. It was a polite & appropiate request to appropiate simple publically available information.

    In the short term some of these networks will alienate themselves still further & merchants who are seeking networks to join can make their own judgement call from the affiliates they wish to work with by either reading the forum or the ever increasing number of blogs around.

    With regard to affiliates making queries to the forum, this is a good thing, the good thing is that it allows affiliates to see if fellow affiliates are experiencing similar problems, some networks may not like this as they like to use terms like “isolated incident” to fob someone off and then maybe only remunerate (if they do that is) the affiliate who initially contacted them (if it was a tracking problem for example) rather than all affiliates. Cloak it, veil it, hide it, disguise it is not acceptable. I have lost count of the number of occasions problems other affiliates have identified we may not have done, where they posted on the forum, which helped us.

    As for the fear factor, I cannot agree with this at all, with the rise of affiliate blogs a clearer message will be sent out whether good or bad & will give it how it is, not how it’s spun.

    “”Networks very rarely say “Paul no!” usually it’s Paul… Yes here you go or let’s see what we can do. You have more clout then most, if you really want the answers, try a different route ;0)””

    Unfortunately, this is not the case.

    “”the networks participation should be seen as a privilege rather then assumed. Which is why if you ask a public question and the network chooses not to respond, that is their prerogative surely and should not be scolded for failing to respond publicly.””

    No vote no voice. So should affiliates humbly bow before the almighty networks & be eternally grateful, poppycock 🙂 ,they are as accountable & answerable to affiliates as much as what they demand from us affiliates at a moments notice. Fortunately we still have some very courteous networks.

    “”Trust now there is an interesting word and comes with many interpretations of the meaning. I would settle for proper standard business practice in terms of standardisation, clear layman’s ts and cs, the trust element will then follow on as this will separate the good from the bad and all will clearly see this””

    That is exactly what the closed bidding group question was asking. How will they respond to more probing questions?

    With regard to networks generosity in sponsoring events, perhaps with the emergence of agencies becoming small networks gradually increasing, the pool of choice will grow rather than dependency on the current crop (who have been generous), however I do think there should maybe be more events where affiliates should start contributing a bit by chipping in from their own pocket to attend these G2G’s. I haven’t checked figures, but the proportion of affiliates at events “seems” to be less and the attendees who leave early tend to be most bar affiliates .. granted there are a few party animals from merchant, network & agency side. Rapport building goes a long way and it maybe a suggestion that some of these attendees should stay longer or are they only there for the free booze tab?

    Re CJ.com, I am fully aware of their policy, it doesn’t mean that it’s right and perhaps why opinion of CJ US comes under a lot of criticism or scrutiny generally. With several UK networks following in their wake.

  8. 8 On June 11th, 2007, John said:

    Wholeheartedly support your position on the brand name bidding issue Paul. Certain networks like buyat have been hand-in-hand with select ppc affiliates for years. These affiliates and these networks have no consideration for the industry and their one and only motivation is to rake in the pounds.

    It is regrettable that said networks have been allowed to get away with doling out lucrative contracts to a handful of affiliates for years without any others being given an opportunity. It’s a secretive set-up which raises a lot of issues, but because it happens in the UK not Nigeria, nobody says anything about it.

    No wonder networks like buyat will not disclose anything publically or else their unethical stance would be revealed.

    As for CJ, they are my worst network in the UK. Support sucks – God knows where they get their interns from.

  9. 9 On June 11th, 2007, MattB said:

    Interesting thread Paul and Jess, with some very valid points from both sides.

    Firstly from a DGM perspective, we were not reluctant to post this information. We contacted every client with whom we operate a closed group and asked their permission to post details about this on a public forum. Some gave us permission and some refused, I think this was made very clear in Helen’s posts. I don’t like the insinuation that because not all of our clients decided to accede to the demands placed on the forum that it is down to network reluctance to be transparent.

    Secondly, regarding the forum I agree with Jess that there is a sense of people on the forum queueing up to have a pop at networks (with us having suffered more than most in the past!!). It seems to have become quite popular amongst certain members to use the forum as the first point of call. If we are found to be lacking in any respect then we are more than open to criticism, but I think that to give us the common courtesy of contacting us directly would lead to swifter resolution in the majority of circumstances. If networks were to act in a similar way, let’s say posting on the forum every time we find a affiliate brand bidding out of hours, mayhem would ensue.

    Please don’t get me wrong, this is not a criticism of anyone involved in this thread, as I know everyone involved here and feel we have the kind of relationship where people would come to me direct. However the forum seems to have become a victim of its own success and it seems that a lot of “smaller” affiliates have taken the view that the forum is the be all and end all.

    This is a justification of the work that Matt and the guys have put in that the forum is regarded in such high esteem, but I feel that expectations need to be fixed and guidelines put in place or the networks will walk away. We already see some networks not taking part, and I can understand why to an extent, not that I agree with it. I cannot justify spending time “arguing” with an affiliate on the forum, which will portray the network in a negative light.

    Ultimately I am a big fan of the forum, and amazingly we have seen some people posting good things about DGM recently!! However I think if it is to remain as well respected as it is now then something will need to be done.

    Look forward to hearing your response,

    Matt

  10. 10 On June 11th, 2007, Kevin Edwards said:

    Hmm, interesting points raised.

    The forum has always occupied a strange place for me. Having worked in affiliate marketing for four years I’ve seen so many half truths and actual lies perpetrated that I’ve always been suspicious of hidden agendas. I also have the badge of honour of having been personally abused on it so is it any wonder that networks/merchants/affiliates question its validity sometimes?

    Also, having worked for two affiliate networks I know the vast majority of active affiliates don’t even look at the forum, let alone post on it. Given we have limited resource I’m keen for all network staff to focus their energies on the most productive areas.

    Having said that, all new starters are made aware of the forum, encouraged to join and then post in due course.

    I’m all for transparency and openness but it has to work both ways. I think Paul has raised some pertinent points about PPC T&Cs but ultimately rules is rules. If they’re there stick to them, otherwise undermine network and affiliates alike.

    If rules aren’t there then that’s a different issue…

    Don’t get me wrong, I do enjoy the forum a great deal and the g2gs have been a fantastic chance to put ‘faces to names’ – I also have high hopes for the Expo later in the year when no doubt some of these issues will continue to be hotly discussed…

  11. 11 On June 11th, 2007, John Nichols said:

    I have proof of family and friends purchasing via an affiliate link on one of my domains and not being credited with the commission

    I feel that merchants should pick the domain that they want to advertise and negotiate a fee.

    Perhaps advertising agencies should become the broker for this facility. At the moment many companies are getting free advertising.

  12. 12 On June 12th, 2007, Jess1 said:

    “However affiliate marketing consists of symbian relationships, but it is only workable if all parties toe the line,”

    That’s just the point and the point that Kevin makes, a lot of the “trusted affiliates” on the forum are not towing the line, rules are bent, blind eyes are turned. Thing is Paul, we all know who does what and how, yet if the networks were to publicly oust these people, the rift it would cause in the community would be pretty explosive and we are all smart enough to know that we don’t need any more negativity. Why should “we” cause this rift when its only a few people involved, how would this help the majority of hard working, towing the line affiliates? It doesn’t. So the networks, affiliate managers don’t publicly oust the culprits, they prefer to send polite emails in private to the perpetrators, quietly, discreetly, no fuss, no drama. So you are right, all parties should be towing the line. It’s a three way street. Surely we have to strive for a balance?

    Paul reads like you are just trying to justify those affiliates attacking networks by using that same old excuse “With regard to affiliates making queries to the forum, this is a good thing, the good thing is that it allows affiliates to see if fellow affiliates are experiencing similar problems” We are not talking about “is any one experiencing log in problems with this network?” “Tracking seems to be down with this merchant!” We are talking about the queries like “Payment is not in my account, what’s going on!” (Transpires the affiliate has not entered his bank details correctly, these a true by the way) “I think all rogue affiliates should be named and shamed” said the affiliate stuffing cookies, breaching brand bidding terms and conditions. “TradeDoubler.com and Cj.com, if you continue to use spyware, Ill stop using you!”(back in the day) Said the affiliate who now uses spyware him self as he cant make it via the honest route. So networks chose to sit on their hands and have to just accept what is thrown at them, well that has been the case historically but the tide is changing and networks are becoming more high profile by the day. They now have PR agents, investors possibilities, shareholders, you cant change a century of traditional business practices over night. Some Blue Chips are struggling so badly with the online transition that a lot of them are at war with themselves and god give me strength, they turn to big digital bespoke “media agencies” whom some come from an offline traditional marketing background and have about as much aff marketing and internet savvy as a possum on lithium. Olympic Logo point in case, £400,000 done by a branding agency (this is nothing short of legal theft and its PINK? impo) a good graphics company could maybe have produced a better logo and a fraction of the cost. The point here is that there are so many reasons and variables attached to the outcome of any given situation and 9 times out of 10 not all is quite as it appears to be on the surface and each case has to be looked at from all sides of the fence before jumping to conclusions.

    All this highlights is that there is much work to be done to bridge a gaping whole that I believe the a4u, through lack of diligent moderation has allowed and facilitated and bred a culture of “them and us” to fester for too long. I no longer support that culture of attacking without thinking first and without doing proper research. Do we all really think that the Networks are out to get affiliates?

    “some networks may not like this as they like to use terms like “isolated incident” to fob someone off” so is what you are saying the norm, an everyday occurrence? If we look at the number of merchants across all the networks multiplied by the number of affiliates, what are the chances that one may have issues, be they tracking, be they payment, be they unresponsive? I would say, the chances are quite high it’s the nature of business I more surprised there are not more in reality, so something is working. Most networks have procedures in place to handle queries, some are more effective then others, no one can deny this. If there is a tracking issue.. its not in the networks interest to leave it as an issue, you can bet they are on the phone to the merchant as the affiliates and networks will now be the mercy of the merchant to sort it out. Even if the merchant does not sort it out, move on >>> go some where else, its their loss, don’t waste any more time. Re payment of commissions… Im sorry paul but unless you have experienced this first hand, what its like to work with prepayment networks (which was introduced for affiliates to protect your interests) you wont realise that it’s a complete and utter anxiety attack. It’s all based on prediction which is not an exact science. Example Astrobingo… takes 10 days to do a bacs transfer, affiliates are working so hard two invoices a month are now being raised, I cant see the stats until they are batched across, we have had a couple of occasions where by we go into the minus, I hate prepayment it doesn’t work for a lot of merchants and its not because they don’t want to pay either, it’s not a simple case to get their company credit card out. Its because their accounts procedure may some times be via a third party. The point I am trying to make is that not all networks are out to be difficult, there are other underlying factors that most affiliates will not even have thought about, but are happy to wade in and shout loudly so the outside world looking in star compiling a one sided view point and then make a judgement about if they are going to use that network or not.

    I spend a good 40% of my time fire fighting re some of my clients and I don’t have that many. Networks have hundreds of merchants and thousands of affiliates. They have to have procedures and if the procedures they have don’t suite you, you have choice, we all do. But no where is it written down in any affiliate marketing book that networks should a) compulsory reply to all queries via the forum b) set them selves up as target practice. Im sick of network bashing, none of them are perfect and the way to bring about changes as I keep saying, is to work with the tools we are given and advise how they can make things better, advise rather then “thy will be done” heavy handedness approach. Do we want to see them close their doors of dialogue completely? Drive them “underground” no of course we don’t. So that post that spouted off about buy.at not responding in the way some people wanted to hear, was not only unprofessional but it was rude and if I was that network, I would have said thankyou and goodbye. Its things like this that needs moderation. There is no them and us, it’s a myth that has allowed to grow and in some cases nurtured. We are all working in the same industry, we all have one goal and that is to make money. In the same way I wont have affiliates being clobbered (as a few of you have seen in recent months), equally, Im not going to sit back and let the networks get bashed either. We need to be working together and I hate to say this but the forum has never facilitated this, it tried many times to give it its dues, but it’s same old same old. You guys now have the chance to put this right, don’t piss it to the wind. Start from scratch and create a community, not a battlefield. I guess what I am saying is that you cant change things over night, softly softly does it.

    “As for the fear factor, I cannot agree with this at all, with the rise of affiliate blogs a clearer message will be sent out whether good or bad & will give it how it is, not how it’s spun.” Do a poll ask… how many people don’t want to post in case they get shot down in flames? A4u is a bubble, the real world is out here and again I have to agree with Kevin when he says “Also, having worked for two affiliate networks I know the vast majority of active affiliates don’t even look at the forum, let alone post on it”. Infamy is what drives that forum and if you have noticed, we are all trying to bring in some professionalism. Eyes are upon that forum and all it does is to fuel those doubting Thomas’s out there.

    “That is exactly what the closed bidding group question was asking. How will they respond to more probing questions?” Depends on the depth in which you want to go each business has a duty to protect its interests, if the question compromises their interests then they should be entitled to say back off and here is the reason why.

    Re the brand bidding question, I don’t think it was too much of a probing question, but if the networks chose not to respond and get attacked for not giving the right response or for not responding at all, its simple bullying and the doors will close and that’s that, now where is the dialogue? Poof all gone!
    Just my thoughts…

  13. 13 On June 13th, 2007, Paul said:

    The only way, it seems, “some” networks will be satisfied is if the forum becomes a purely commercial platform for beefing themselves via supelative language or promotional updates of their programs which we see within emails already. I have nothing against cross communications, but like to be given a choice. So if the forum became a simple beefing up / promotional forum then this leaves the blogs for merchants to make their own inference on specific networks. Some networks only want to be seen through rose tinted glasses.

    Again it’s no vote, no voice. If affiliates refused to answer questions in emails from some networks, then some networks get quite heavy handed the worst in the industry is CJ Network Quality control. If networks choose the perogative of not addressing issues, then they cannot go whinging if they merrily continue to post promotional messages. Perhaps they should be moderated on that? Again, wanting to have their cake and eat it. Granted no network, affiliates or merchant is perfect .. that is an irrelevant expression .. what is important is that some are much, much better than others and are either more transparent or trying to be. Good intent goes a long way, but we can see thru the bull.

    So I pose a question? What if there was no network involvement on the forum? Should they still be able to post promotional messages?

    Negative feedback can be interpreted as postive feedback if inferred in the correct way, granted there are probably a number of irrelevant postings.

    I must admit that many of the threads I get bored with reading as they are promotional or uninteresting, I even think one network in particular when something negative is posted about them they suddenly post a number of messages themselves to push that thread to the second page. Hence, why a moderators choice section was set up on the previous forum to bring attention to topics worthy of further discussion. I am sure Matt is continuously looking at ways of improving discussion on the forum, but if it simply becomes sweet & plesant niceties then it may allow some networks to get away with more.

    This blog is not purely about PPC, so it shouldn’t keep drifting towards it. Now, most networks are quite polite if a keyword policy is being breached. I do occassionally get an email informing me there is a restriction, is this deliberate … NO … It is usually down to not being notified of changes or they have been added without any notification at all or inadequate time to make changes. However most of the time it’s because a network does not understand broadmatch & that you don t have to be bidding on a keyword to appear for it.

    Over the years myself & some other affiliates have tried to promote topical discussion, barring a few affiliates, the response is generally apathetic.

    “”Re the brand bidding question, I don’t think it was too much of a probing question, but if the networks chose not to respond and get attacked for not giving the right response or for not responding at all, its simple bullying and the doors will close and that’s that, now where is the dialogue? Poof all gone!””

    As I said I personally will remain unwaivering on this issue, it’s not bullying at all. There’s that crying to mummy again, people using superlatives like “bullying” or “attacked” who make people feel sorry for them …. It’s called “HAVING AN OPINION” nothing more, nothing less.

    If a merchant asked for an honest opinion on a network, I will tell them & the reasons pertaining to that. There have been a few cases where merchants have acted on this in choosing or moving network as the comments aligned with other affiliates they have discussed with.

    ** One thing I would like to see more off is when a network have been supportive in an issue or have been innovative, from regular posters rather than from someone unknown that may raise an eyebrow. **

    Just, going back a few paragraphs, I posted a response about one network which could be deemed as negative which was simply a reply / opinion to their response, not exactly rocket science to ascertain who. But immediately they ping my mates via msn slating me to them, how about that for cowardness! You get those who say what they think to them in person or publically & you get those who do it behind your back.

    So how will it all pan out, I have my thoughts re forum issues, however I think we might see networks fragmenting into two camps.

  14. 14 On June 13th, 2007, Paul said:

    Hi Matt,

    Thanks for your response, I know you have been quite active in establishing communications with affiliates & it’s encouraging to see.

    I am listening to what you are saying, but may i be so bold as to pose a question.

    What if I asked you, that those programs with closed groups who didn’t wish the information to be made available, I no longer wanted to be affiliated with them & those are not the type of merchant we want to deal with, how would you address that?

Leave a Reply