Forum Moderators: skibum
Does anybody believe that this is so much spin? Why can people sue new businesses for coming up with more successful models to serve customers? Surely taken to its logical conclusion this would mean that there would be no progress in a field?
Why should we expect just because a marketing model has worked in the past it should work for ever? Why didn't the railways sue the airlines for taking away their business?
My view (and im ducking as i say this as i know there are many here who receive much income from being an affiliate) is that the affiliate model was only a transient opportunity when Search engines were unable, as they developed, to pinpoint resources products and services effectively and efficiently and primary sellers or manufacturers needed to get exposure on many other sites for their on line exposure rather than search engines. Now that search technology has improved, and PPC has burgeoned, there is less need for affiliates - indeed google's PR and link popularity alogos makes it easier, rather than more difficult, for the actual producer or supplier to get their web site to get to the top with the absolute mimimum of SEO?
In the real world, distributors and franchisees are needed mainly for geographical distribution reasons, and web affiliates are born of the same model. But the web is a differnt matter. It knows less geographic barriers, (language and "cultural interpretors" being the major exception), and franchisees and local distributors are less needed, once the web starts to work as it was originally designed?
I tend to agree that the era of the affilate site is in it's sunset for the reasons above. On the side, Im not sure that suing is a good strategy, but maybe more positive is to look for other ways to make a living long term.
[Disclaimer: We do use some limited affiliate marketing on our sites, mostly totally unsuccessful, one or two quite lucrative. Those that are succedding are unqiue agreements with other sites, not those with major affiliates like amazon, or through befree, cj etc. However we do not have experience in publishing "100% affiliate sites" - those completely dependent on affiliate commissions/sales etc. so I accept my views are based on limited experience]
What do you think? Without going in to details of how to be a better affiliate or target/select/customise better (which has been addressed in other threads), do you think the days of the affiliate site in general are over, like the author of the PR - reportedly the owner of one of the world's oldest and largest affiliate site networks?
If you were to take a look at the site owned by the guy who is threatening this suit, you'd realize why he's had difficulties with Google. Let me put it this way. If I were a Yahoo editor dealing with submission of that site, I'd go ahead and take the guy's $299 and reject it.
But enough of that. There has always been intense dislike of affiliate marketing by a sizable and vocal segment of the web community. This is so notwithstanding the fact that utilizing sales agents (affiliates being their equivalent on the web) was long a method of doing business before the internet burst on the scene.
I pose these questions. Why should the search engines dictate how merchants do business on the internet? Why should the search engines discriminate against a class of entrepreneurs (affiliates) by denying them ranking while at the same time fostering purveyers of porn.
In my opinion, the task of the search engine is to provide relevance regardless of the source of that relevance. If a merchant isn't able to provide the requisite level of relevance for a given search, and an affiliate marketer can, what difference should that make?
Penalties should be strictly limited to sites that spam or violate the SE's TOS. If an affiliate site is in compliance, then the prevailing algorythm weightings should determine how that site appears in the rankings for a given search as against all other offerings.
Particular business models should not be the concern of a search engine.
If you're a merchant, and affiliates are out ranking you, and assuming they are in compliance with the SE's TOS and accepted practices, then you have no reason to complain. Look to what you need to do to improve your site in order to achieve the necessary level of relevance.
I'm cognizant that there are strongly held contrary views. That's what makes WebmasterWorld so stimulating.
That's it exactly. As long as a site does offer additional value (beyond affiliate links) there should be no problem. Pretty simple really. It seems to be only the lazy pin head types like the guy trying to sue Google that spend their time complaining instead of just getting into what needs to be done. How is it different than any other bussiness. Keep any eye on whats working at all times and remain flexible.
However i do disagree strongly with your statement Go60guy that
Why should the search engines dictate how merchants do business on the internet?
Search engines only affect web search and your online prescence through them. They dont dictate how businesses do business on the internet. They just dictate what sites appear in their databases and to what extent. They dont affect what other promotion you do such as arrangements with other sites, off line promotion, and many ways of doing on line promotion.
utilizing sales agents (affiliates being their equivalent on the web) was long a method of doing business before the internet burst on the scene.
I did refer to that in my first post. My argument is that on-line agents play at least a different role and at most a minimal role in promoting now that search engines can target the original manufacturer better. Especially geographic boundaries and "size" (the number of shoppers you can cram intoyour shop at one time) boundaries are reduced. However i do think that there are opportunities for affiliates to work within boundaries of culture and communities.
It is even broader than affiliates alone. The way the internet is set up means that agents and middlemen will have problems - there is less need for them and the publishing industry is already being affected with old time distributors, and sales agents, being affected by new online distribution options. For example in a publishing company i once worked in, the Japanese distributor tripled the UK price for shipping and distribution and guanxi (and we are talking of journals with a price of sometimes 1,000 Sterling Pounds a year!). Now the Japanese can buy direct from the publisher on the Internet for the same price and download PDF versions.
But most of all i agree with Go60guy that the great thing about WebmasterWorld is that we all have different opinions!
[edited by: chiyo at 6:35 am (utc) on Dec. 21, 2002]
On the contrary, I say that any ordinary mill run ecommerce site ought to be considered equally on its merits together with all other sites in its category, whether its an affiliate site, a drop shipper site or a merchant site.
It shouldn't be to tough to answer those questions.
Well the link is gone, but this isn't rocket science. Any affiliate site needs to offer added value. If it doesn't it's going to be toast. If you sell anything offline but offer no added value over and above what the maufacturer offers, would you expect to be in business very long? No, but an army of lawyers might be able to get a nice settlement for something or other. Same deal here.
[edited by: chiyo at 8:17 am (utc) on Dec. 21, 2002]
To be more honest, he should be suing the search engines for removing spam, not for penalising affiliate sites. If he has gone missing from the search engines its because of the pop ups, exit pop ups, coding, lack of any focus, rather than being an afiliate i would say.
On the other hand, there are affiliate marketers who take the task very seriously and strive to provide the visitor with a worthwhile experience by providing relevant information calculated to aid in decision making together with good design and clarity. I know many who operate that way, and I'd like to think that I'm among them.
>provide the visitor with a worthwhile experience by providing relevant information...with good design and clarity.
Go60Guy, I for one think that you are and I'm pretty sure that you know that you are as well. I say just keep up the good work and let people complain on and on about "affiliate marketers" while you cash the checks :)
The affiliate sites that should (and will) succeed are ones that give the user something they couldn't get by going directly to the merchant. As long as something substantial can be added to help the end user the search engines should list it.
I have no idea how this guy thinks he even has a chance of winning a lawsuit like that. Preposterous.
Only sites with original copyrighted content allowed, with NO selling (of items that 1000s of others offer).
or
Only mega-stores like amazon offering the most items @ the best price.
or
Only sites that offer one-of-a -kind craft type items for sale.
or
Only search engines and directories offering unique results.
Let's look at the real brick and mortar world. Do we only have only one Mickey D's franchise, one department store chain that sells a designer's clothing line, one book store chain that carries the top 10 bestsellers?
What really makes Internet business models that much different than their "real" world counterparts? Should the yellow pages list only one shoe store? One supermarket?
There are four cell phone outlets within one block of me. They all sell the same lines. Which three stores get the boot?
SEs can list whatever they want, how they want, though I tend to think that if the discussed site is listed in every SE or directory, sooner or later the same that applies in the real world would apply here: Quality tells and the buyer decides to go elsewhere.
And yes, more content, better content, helpful content, unique content -- just as more knowledgeable, helpful salespeople -- help buyers make decisions and make the sale.
Jim
...I tend to agree that the era of the affilate site is in it's sunset for the reasons above...
First, I'd like to refer people to a similar thread in the "Google News" forum at:
[webmasterworld.com...]
Second, I'd like to say that, while the days of pure affiliate sites may be numbered, there's no reason to assume that affiliate marketing is on the way out--or that it's being threatened in any way by the search engines. Affiliate programs were conceived as a form of advertising, with publishers being paid for performance rather than by the impression or click. That approach had (and still has) benefits for both the advertiser and the publisher.
FOR THE ADVERTISER:
- Little or no risk.
- A larger pool of targeted sites (including sites that are too small to justify the overhead of conventional media buying).
- No need to demand audited circulation data or audience research.
- Help with placement, copywriting, etc. from the person who knows his or her audience best: the publisher.
FOR THE PUBLISHER:
- The ability to obtain revenues from targeted advertising without having to sell and serve ads.
- No need to spend money on audited circulation data or audience research.
- Control over who's advertising on the site.
- Excellent revenue potential even in a weak advertising market if the publisher has the right topic, the right affiliate advertisers, the right advertising messages, and a large enough audience.
Note that I'm talking only about "advertisers" and "publishers" (terms that are still used by Commission Junction, which dates back to an era when most affiliates were still Web publishers and not virtual retailers). There may also be opportunities for pure "affiliate sites" that evolve into information sites that add value to their shopping-cart links with information pages. But no matter what happens to affiliate sites, there should continue to be a place for affiliate programs and links in the future.
However, I think the growth of online communities will provide the new reason for the existence of independent sales agents on the Internet. (The people who run these communities will be one new type of sales agent). When you think about it, a really good online community can virtually own the attention of certain interest groups. Think of Slashdot.
I think there are two states of mind for the internet surfer: 1) "I want to buy x product", and 2) "I want something else". The number one crowd most of the time will just type in the URL for Amazon or whoever else. However, I think there will always be value in being the website that the #2 crowd is interacting with. Even if you're not buying today, it doesn't mean you can't be influenced to buy in the future due to a website's content or interaction with other site visitors.
zeus
I have also made a good design...
Maybe what some of the people here are talking about is a "self-replicating" or "mirror" type of affiliate site that looks exactly like every other affiliate site from the parent company. They're "a dime a dozen" and therefore not unique.
What you seem to have done is created your own site which, although it "links" to your parent site in some way, is unique because there's only one "you" even though there's lots of other affiliates representing the same company you're representing.
You've taken a sow's ear and made it into a silk purse!
Regards, Elizabeth ...
P.S. Good for you! :)
zeus
