Click to Reveal Banned!

[KevinEdwards]

Tweet

I have to stick up for the IAB AMC here. There is an AMC bashing subtext to much of this thread that is unjustified.

It's a body that was formed to provide debate and regulation to boost the professionalisation of the industry as well as secure additional merchant opt in and budget.

Not all affiliate networks choose to members but until recently they were all able to attend the meetings. Networks have to be paid up members of the IAB but in the interests of openness and inclusiveness, all affiliates, merchants and other interested parties are able to attend. That so few do is obviously frustrating but anyone is able to attend and express their views and opinions.

I've attended all the AMC meetings over the past eighteen months including the meetings where CTR was discussed and whilst there was some debate I don't remember many dissenting voices or desire to end CTR as a viable action.

I agree the meetings could be more dynamically operated and minutes could be dispersed more widely but to peddle the 'old boys network' statement is boring, inaccurate and actually offensive to everyone who makes the effort to attend every month.

You have to remember why the AMC exists and why it's actually really important it continues to regulate.

I'm as guilty as the next person of getting caught up in the affiliate bubble as it's a fairly closed and perplexing world to outsiders but its for these reasons that work around voucher coding, rebate catchers, ethics is so important. As an industry we collectively drive nearly 10% of online sales; showing we regulate and have guidelines and codes of conduct in place adds significant credibility.

The chair of the AMC asks every month for points to be added and discussed at the IAB and whilst I can't say with certainty, I suspect you could count on one hand the number of topics to be discussed that have been submitted over the past six months.

As stated I certainly don't think the AMC is perfect but the spirit of collaboration and impetus to push through change that exists now shows how far we've come in such a short time.

[Leeky]

// EDIT// Posted the below before I read the above post.. not read it all yet but it seems to be explaining something.

I hadn't even heard of the IAB until recently, they seemed to just appear out of nowhere when vc arguments started, I still don't even fully understand who or what they are exactly, and even when I kept getting slapped by this Matt (via posts and pm's).. I didn't even know who the hell he was and got the impression he just enjoyed interfering / stirring.

I don't want to sound disrespectful or thick, or more than likely just ignorant. but is Matt the boss of this IAB and is the IAB i-level.com, and do they carry any sort of weight or is it just another big affiliate who decides they want to take control to keep eveyone in pecking order and everyone just agreed Matt should be the man to do this?

Perhaps I should do some research before posting this, or even visit i--level.com at least, but a bit of clarification would be nice... and then I may take it a bit more seriously.

How do the IAB make money to do what they are doing.. whatever they do.

Lee

[KevinEdwards]

Lee,

This should be a useful starting point:

IABUK : Search Results

As stated I appreciate it isn't viable for everyone to attend every month and I will ensure we discuss in the near future issues surrounding accessibility and dissemination of information.

Thanks,

[Leeky]

OK, so I admit i've been extremely ignorant about what the IAB, AMC etc is all about.. but this doesn't mean that my views on CTR are skewed in any way regarding what I believe is right and wrong.. but obviously my views on the IAB are perhaps way off.

Lee

[hpops]

Leeky, I'm a fairly big supporter of the AMC, I honestly can't think of a better way to form a consensus. I go to every meeting and am fairly vocal in certain areas. I personally feel (and argued) that CTR is against the basic principles of AM, however the consensus was that this was acceptable. I therefore, as a member, and a "player" in the industry support that decision and follow consensus. Otherwise we essentially continue to disagree, which is, essentially pointless. We will always look at issues again however.
We, as an industry body would welcome (actually, would love) to receive your comments and concerns. We do follow thread topics and many of these make their way into the agenda, but your representation can make a difference. If you can't attend, we understand, but please submit topics for discussion (even better, let us know your opinion) and we will ensure they are discussed and feedback as necessary.
For the record, Matt Bailey is the current chair (after a closely run contest with a more handsome and charming individual). The chair revolves annually and is voted on by members. We have been extremely lucky with our chairs, all of whom put in a considerable ammount of effort to "run" the Council for a year. The chair is representative of the council and does not represent the views of their company.
The difference made by the council (and its chair) cannot be overstated and has been overwhelmingly positive thus far.

[Mogga]

CTR is against the basic principles of AM, however the consensus was that this was acceptable.

So how many people would be needed to attend a meeting to get this overturned?
Is it possible?

[ian]

The chair of the AMC asks every month for points to be added and discussed at the IAB and whilst I can't say with certainty, I suspect you could count on one hand the number of topics to be discussed that have been submitted over the past six months.

Well, I've suggested 3 things to be discussed but have no idea if they were. Are minutes produced?

[dougs]

Mogga

Its not a matter of how many people. The idea is for everyone to sit and talk, many points get raised at the meeting that can change peoples views and opinions.

This forum is dominated by vocal affiliates and many companies, networks and agencies do not get involved here and cannot or will not express their views on such a forum. But at the IAB they can and do express their views more openly.

Doug

[hpops]

Ian, can I ask how you made these suggestions and what they were? PM if you don't want them to be made public, am fairly sure they would have been discussed

[ian]

Ian, can I ask how you made these suggestions and what they were? PM if you don't want them to be made public, am fairly sure they would have been discussed

A couple were on the IAB council section, and one was an email to matt.

1. Merchants closing down 'with immediate effect', non payment of cookied sales, and some networks inability / unwillingness to enforce the contract on behalf of affiliates.

2. Getting merchants to pay up on time. As an addition to this, I'm sure networks have clauses in the merchant contract referring to non-payment and penalties, yet some networks seem unable to get payment. Sadly it is considered to be normal these days if a merchant defaults on payment for a month or is a few days late, therefore missing out on the network payment.

3. Inclusion of the merchant T&C's in the acceptance email, so affiliates have a network generated point of reference when it comes to disputes over 'less than well advertised' T&C changes.



Please note that this mentions 'some networks'. Some networks and merchants are very good when it comes to payments, others are very, very bad. I'm not sure if the first two are considered in the ethical merchant charter, as it's they are unethical practices to a certain degree.

[mattb811]

I'm not going to join in with this debate. If anyone has any points that they would like raising at the IAB's Affiliate Marketing Council meeting then please contact me directly on matt.bailey@i-level.com.

The next meeting will be at 3pm on Thursday 29th October at the IABs offices nr Covent Garden, London.

I will ensure that the agenda is distributed on the forum well in advance of the session and will, once again, request that anyone with anything additional that they wish to be brought up can submit these to me.

Despite all of the "discussion" in this thread there has been conspicuously few responses to my requests for questions to be submitted ahead of the IAB AMC session at the Expo.

[mattb811]

Its not a matter of how many people. The idea is for everyone to sit and talk, many points get raised at the meeting that can change peoples views and opinions.

This forum is dominated by vocal affiliates and many companies, networks and agencies do not get involved here and cannot or will not express their views on such a forum. But at the IAB they can and do express their views more openly.

Doug, please stop trying to cause trouble.

Whilst the IAB AMC is a forum for healthy debate, it is completely understandable that not everyone is able to attend the meetings. We are very keen that these people still get the chance to participate. Therefore I will request again that anyone who wishes to raise a point to be discussed or put their opinion forward can contact me directly on matt.bailey@i-level.com.

[Mogga]

Despite all of the "discussion" in this thread there has been conspicuously few responses to my requests for questions to be submitted ahead of the IAB AMC session at the Expo.

I for one am rectifying this now.

[hpops]

I for one am rectifying this now.

Then this thread has done some good

[Mogga]

I still feel this forum is an essential part of the debating process though. I'm sorry that lots of agencies and networks don't use it. I do try to restrict myself to only saying what I would say in person too.

You should see some of the things I delete.

Cookie-napping needs to end!