Forum Moderators: skibum
"<snip>
I have no clue how they will collect this. I'm figuring it is designed to get rid of a lot of non-performing affiliate sites. But isn't it a bit harsh? What do you all make of it?
Spike
[edited by: Woz at 2:33 am (utc) on Feb. 27, 2003]
[edit reason] TOS#9 no email excerpts please. [/edit]
What harm does "dead wood" have on CJ's bottom line? Is there some kind of administrative procedure they have to do on a monthly basis that is costing them money?
Please don't construe this as criticism, I'm just curious because I don't know anything about affiliate sales, but am looking into it.
Thanks.
I run a program that has a minimum check of $300.00
We don't have this problem ;)
I don't see how this could be a problem? I mean any network I have ever signed up for, if I don't earn a check in 6 months, heck in a month or two - I don't want to be on their network. What's the point?
Additionally, you seem to make an assumption that for every program that folds, there is a like replacement program out there in each and every category of business being conducted on the Internet, and that the replacement product, and the affiliate program they are in, are upstanding and legitimate and "easy" to join, without any business concerns. Or am I misinterpreting your point?
Regardless though, if a publisher or advertiser can't make 100 bucks in 6 months time, I don't see the use in promoting links/content/whatever there is to offer.
Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying?
What harm does "dead wood" have on CJ's bottom line? Is there some kind of administrative procedure they have to do on a monthly basis that is costing them money?
Please don't construe this as criticism, I'm just curious because I don't know anything about affiliate sales, but am looking into it.
Thanks.
Still, it's not very smart or fair. My best performer from CJ was Alibris, which abruptly moved to Linkshare. I'm still doing ok with other programs, but I can see a situation arising where suddenly I'm not earning and it takes me a while to find replacements at CJ.
They should consider this and not automatically drop people (and what about new webmasters who need some time to get their feet wet and learn what's what? I certainly didn't start earning money overnight.)
CJ may be trying to address the issue of not only "inactive" publishers, but also publishers with low click-through rates. The latter publishers use up resources in terms of bandwidth by serving ineffective ads. This new policy may be a push to encourage some webmasters to focus their marketing efforts. The dating and personals category may have high payouts, but be a poor choice for a website that caters to the college crowd (as I mentioned in a different thread).
Ted
I have been working with 2 CJ merchants to help grow their programs. 2 VERY different companies and markets.
They both have around 2,000 affiliates signed up.
They both have ONLY about 600 ACTIVE affiliates.
Coincidence? No, I think that because CJ is so well known and easy to join that many people who are not even serious about Internet marketing join because it's so easy. And many of them join every program in the network, even if there is no compatability with their site and then they just never get around to even adding links.
Having a large number of non-performing affiliates can hurt a merchants EPC rating, Then when you affiliates go in to evaluate a program you may look at a merchant and say "wow, they have a low EPC, I won't bother with them." Many times these are great programs, with high earnings but if they have too much dead wood it can make their ratings look bad.
So I think the $10 is meaningless to affiliates but making a strong statement to Merchants that CJ is trying to help them clean house. My Merchants loved the jesture.
I have joined many programs that sound good one day, then just never got around to promoting. I don't blame them for trying to make the network more afficient. I see affiliates as very similar to an outside sales force. Merchants should offer training, support and tools to help them be successful, plus be there to motivate, listen and help set your affiliates up for success. But in the real world if you don't make sales within the 1st 3 months you are certain to be fired. So I think a little $10 warning after 6 months is justified. Like others have said, if you can't make a sale in 6 months than why bother anyway?
Linda
[edited by: eljefe3 at 4:34 am (utc) on May 20, 2003]
They have reports, databases, emails to send out, etc etc etc, for all affiliates. There is no need to waste time and money on that for affiliates that are doing nothing.
I didn't even think about the bandwidth issue mentioned above.
P.S. I believe I've done $300 this month, but if I take down a link for a month, it will now be gone forever. The more I see the less I like:
linkshare,
cj
reporting.net
and
amazon (who used to produce more than all 3 combined and has now instituted some ridiculous policies)...
It's another example of why CJ is the best network out there. If you're a good advertiser, you get good publishers. If you're not, and your EPC is low, the good publishers go somewhere else.
Same is now true on the other side. CJ wants more quality advertisers, and now they can say they proactively manage deadwood affiliates out of the network.
C'mon , if someone dont make anything for 6 straight months then AM is not their thing :)
Clerk , i agree CJ have occasional tracking problems , but thats just a tech glitch , nothing intentional ...this guys make money only if affiliates make money ... I think merchant fraudwise CJ is the best network out there
I would like to talk to you about using some of your consulting services, please email me
It really annoys me that CJ think they have the right to market to me as a webmaster and then to charge me if I don't use their service for whatever reason. For what? The one email I get from them a month?
It's a bit like inviting someone into a shop then charging them for the electricity on the way out if they don't buy anything.
This company obviously has no marketing or customer service people in it. Instead of a legal notice a pleasant email that said something like "we are going to turn your account off, do you mind? You can always come back later" would have been sufficient.
On a slightly different note, is anyone actually making serious money from CJ or other affiliate programs?
Yep.
I wonder why they made it so difficult to opt out? I had to read their legalese twice to understand what it was all about. Then I had to follow a set of step by step instructions to get to the place where I type in "f-off" and submit. Why not a simple opt-out on the original e-mail they sent?
I don't deal with CJ, and having read this thread I'm glad I don't.
I only have affiliate relationships with two companies. They generate about $3K per month total. Both complement my own products and therefore any cash generated is an added bonus. If you get a visitor that found you, but wanted something a tad different then you may as well provide it via an affiliate relationship, especially if it would be impossible to provide yourself.
I wouldn't recommend "pure" affiliate marketing to most people. But, if you can find other companies that provide products or services that complement yours, and allow you to interact with them in a fashion that is acceptable, then they can at least pay for your hosting/bandwidth bill (about $2,500 per month for me).
I need approximately 10,000 page views offering the affiliate link to make $1.00 per month until the sale is cancelled. The product sold by the supplier partners incurs recurring monthly billing (which in my opinion is the best type of affiliate relationship because you can build a semi-stable revenue stream).
Back to CJ. I understand from an accounting point of view why they don't want to load up their "books" with possible future debts caused by people who make $10 per year with a minimum payout of $100. It is the same problem the companies offering reward programs have (e.g. Airlines). There is a potential liability in the future that "screws your books".
Having said that I think from a political stance CJ could have simply changed their terms to say that anyone who doesn't make the minimum payout amount within 12 months will be cancelled, with a check issued for the outstanding payment due.
The concept of charging "inactive" affiliates seems totally ridiculous and I can only believe it was put in place to actively encourage folks to cancel who are in the failure boat.
IMO affiliate programs rely on a sense of trust and stunts like this don't instill trust in potential publishers.
I think with affiliate programs, you win some and you lose some.. for every active affiliate there are perhaps two inactive ones. If you haven't taken that into account when calculating profit margins from their earnings, then you have a flawed business plan to start with. To try and start fixing that by charging those who aren't performing is only going to make their problems worse. If I WAS a CJ affiliate and wasn't performing terribly well, but still performing somewhat - I would get out of there before they come up with even more stringent rules.
Something smells bad about that $10 charge. Smells like L$.
