MsHuggys - 7:13 am on Mar 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

This is where tightly defining the channels can pinpoint who is taking you to the cleaners, and who is performing. It is time to double those channels to 400 so the publishers can defend against an increasing number of advertisers who will squat on a site taking up space and giving nothing to the publisher.

It is not my fault:

A. Their site is a wreck, virtually impossible to find anything
B. Their shopping cart system was designed by a three year old child
C. Their customer support team was cultivated from 12th grade afternoon detention
D. Their products are overpriced
E. Product descriptions are overly inadequate
F. Their products are worthless
G. Their website fine print conjures up images of a dark crack house and the distinct impression the visitor will catch something that won't wipe off.

So, why should I give them space on my site, where they squat, pay me nothing, while they try to propell a 'brand' that shouldn't be on the web to begin with?

Take for example company A. Company A has an affiliate program with a major third party. They are a major company, with a fine product line. Upon arriving at their website, I am very impressed, Until I begin to add things to my cart, which will total over $360 by the time I am done.

This process has taken me an hour, though I am short on time, I love the product, I endure a website that goes to "the page can not be displayed" using my lightening fast internet connection, at a painfullly slow pace, more than a dozen times. Finally, I quit. I abandon my cart, never to return.

I do not call customer support. They have wasted enough of my time with their joke of a shopping cart system. I have wasted an hour. Later, they snail me, and ask if they can help me. Paper spam. Lovely. I don't think so. I shop online. Period. Take your paper goods and stick them in your own shredder. My local landfill has enough.

This company does exist, I am (now past tense) an affiliate of theirs, have been for many years. Only recently have I decided to visit their site and attempt to order from them. It is no wonder I have never made a cent from them over the years. They can't close a deal online, they close it via snail mail, and I don't get credit. Or like me, people refuse to go to that much trouble to order, with so many really savy ecommerce sites to choose from.

HOWEVER, they are also an Adsense advertiser now, and I have made a bundle off my visitors clicking on their ad in recent months. This is the way publishers need to be compensated, cpc.

They take up my space, skirt away my visitors, and should pay me for the click. Because almost certainly, they will muff up the transaction once they get to the advertiser's site and I will never make a cent on ppa. This comprises the mother load of those who will (have always) love(d) ppa.

Do I feel bad that I send my visitors to their site to browse, knowing fully well there will be no sale? No. I am doing a public service by letting the world know the company has no business being on the web to begin with, and driving them off the web, just asap. This will leave all those really savy ecommerce companies in the cpc pool, who can take that click, and make a sale on a great product, with great customer service.

This is my experience with ppa in the past seven, going on eight years. Many of my zero performance ppa partners are now Adsense partners. Finally, I am making some money. Of the over 1,500 affilate programs I have joined over the years, less than one dozen ever earned me a cent.

I put red widget ads on red widget pages, with search engines sending me traffic comprised of red widget lovers, big widget ads on big widget pages, upside-down widgets on my upside-down widget pages... a perfect scenario . I had the targeted traffic, they had the target product. But, because of incompetence on their end, all I really had was pretty site decorations.

PPA? *snicker* I think not. I will leave them for the newbie webmasters with the twinkle in their eye... such as I had way back when Alta Vista was king.