| 2:03 am on Nov 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I got one lead.
| 6:41 pm on Nov 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
i got some sales yesterday, but they were very low (about %50 of normal)
| 11:26 am on Nov 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Whenever I get upset with Adsense, I will try to console myself with the fact there there are so many junk per-sales networks, one of them being CJ.
On other smaller networks, you will get 1 sales every 30-40 clicks but CJ? You can be sending them 300-400 targetted clicks but get 1 and if you're lucky 2 miserable sales.
Don't really know where the fault is with CJ lately. Used to be better before their upgrades. Probably due to the amount of parasitic partners they are working with and their 'improved' tracking.
| 1:46 pm on Nov 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|On other smaller networks, you will get 1 sales every 30-40 clicks but CJ? You can be sending them 300-400 targetted clicks but get 1 and if you're lucky 2 miserable sales. |
Kwngian, with which smaller networks have you had success?
| 3:33 pm on Nov 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
How does CJ know that the advertisers arent cheating them (us?) by not including tracking on their conversion pages, etc? As you said, we send a lot of targetted clicks, but get very few conversions. Is it possible the advertisers are cheating?
| 8:14 pm on Nov 29, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Well, CJ's parent company Valueclick is doing very well right now on Wall St, so *they're* getting paid. Anyone know what % of transactions don't get credited to affiliates? I heard from one really knowledgeable & large affiliate that it's something like 20% of conversions he drives go uncompensated.
| 8:28 pm on Nov 29, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Of course they're cheating. They wouldn't dare report ACCURATE conversions - then they'd have to pay more.
| 11:21 pm on Nov 29, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I am sure merchants have previously and continue to cheat our affiliates and the networks. As it has been mentioned, CJ and other and other networks actively seek out fraud as their earnings are directly related to those of its affiliates.
As for allowing malware and the like, I think you'll find that in the past networks have being fairly relaxed about such activity but are now much more vigilant about stamping it out. There is a feedback loop which means that if networks allow malware, other affiliates will move over to competing networks or drop out of the program. Additionaly, malware generally produced poor quality leads/customers and so if a network allows for the majority of sales via this channel then the merchant may leave the network also.
| 11:41 pm on Nov 29, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I would like to believe that most merchants are honest. HOWEVER sometimes techies change things and there is an honest oops with tracking. I see it and hear about it on the consulting side of things every now and then. Have never been involved in a situation that was deliberately done to rip off affiliates. Course I only work with high integrity merchants too. There could be some that are shady although it's hard for me to imagine. The way I see it and most of the people I know in the idustry see it - the more affiliates make, the more the merchant makes so it's a Win/Win.
A growing problem with tracking is still cookie blocking and/or removal either by consumers themselves or by the increasing # of anti-spyware apps that consumers are buying that flag, block and delete cookies. And of course we can blame that increase on the parasites themselves and others that serve excessive pops or promote activeX downloads that are full of malware. I feel a rant coming on... shutting up now.