Receiving Underlying Threats from Network

[Qui Gon Jinn]

Tweet

Good afternoon forum, we have just received an email from a network and basically it's along the lines of.

> Apparently getting word from Advertisers we are soliciting them to do business directly.

> Saying that as an active member of their network, it is against the Publisher Service Agreement

> Also claming these actions are against the law – with respect to breach of contract, interference with contractual and business relations, and unfair business practices.

------------------------------------------------------

I am just getting legal advice on this one to ensure I can publish who the network is on the forum.

The undertones & previous correspondence from them have rarely been savory, even a recent 'ish PM via the forum.

For the record there this one network we have really cut back on pushing traffic via, as a result a couple of merchants have asked why we have reduced traffic levels to them. Obviously we have had to duly explain and something we "will" publish on the forum & in our blog in due course.

In reply we asked a couple of merchants if they were on an alternative network due to regular problems we were experiencing with this same network and the intermittent problems on what can only be inferred as threats over our account. Without the reassurance that our business relationship with ANY merchant on the network is ever safe, because of the network, you have to hold back on all business. Where we confidently know we could be a top 10 affiliate on that network.

One came back and said they had a direct program, which "we didn't" push or pursue further (though they may have enquired with the network as to whther it was an option) as we would have preferred an alternative network as against a direct route, if one was available.

Anyhow during the interim both of these programs were soon re-promoted in the sense we have put their links up again & re-started actively promoting some time ago, becuase of the merchants not network's pleasant approach. However, barring these two most other programs we have held back on. Also for the record we don't have any direct deals with programs within their network that we are aware off.

I have to & will put this all in our blog & publish the full history sometime, if anything to stop this happening to other affiliates.

[Azam.net]

It would only take me two seconds to guess which network it is and, believe me, if there was a choice between indy and this network I would always take the first option. Pity most affiliates don't know what they really are like

[3wdl]

The whole independent vs network thing is a very gray area - as most people know, we have our own software and also work with networks - the way we see it is that it gives affiliates the choice which is quite important. We're happy to be promoted and don't mind how we are promoted

I really am shocked that this network would take this kind of action - I would have thought that if they had an issue it is something they would take up with the merchant, not an individual affiliate (and especially not such a vocal one).

So what are they trying to get you to do? Take down your links to the other merchant?

Personal opinion is that it's a very stupid decision bythis network, but I’m not completely surprised... Hopefully they will realise their mistake and make an effort to apologise.

[getvisible]

And a couple we have asked if they were on alternative networks. One came back and said they have a direct program,

My view is that there shouldn't be a difference between asking if a merchant is on another network and if they have an indi prog.

It is every affiliates' duty to get the best deal for them.

It is every networks' duty to earn as much from each affiliate in the short, medium and long term.

If a network can't offer higher commissions than another or an indi prog then they should be looking at what added value they can add.

If a network said that to me, I'd tell em where to go!

p.s. cheers Loquax - was just removing.

[hpops]

Landmark moment Paul, virtually every network has a clause in their publisher contract that states that we shouldn't do business outside their walled garden (or certainly used to four years ago). I would have thought that this was mostly there on the merchant side to stop merchants launching on a network for three months - getting loads of publishers and then leaving with them.
Very suprising to see it used the other way around and will follow with interest. - Hope it all goes your way

[Supercod]

It’s not POR However as a Network we have rules in place that don’t allow Merchants to do direct deals with Affiliates we have introduced to them, as we not in the business of getting people all the good contacts so they can then shut us out of the deal. When it comes to Affiliates they are free to move from Network to Network, if they think we are rubbish and want to use the Merchant on another network then we have nothing stopping them, again as for dealing direct while we have nothing on the Affiliate terms to say you can’t, the Merchant terms stops that from happening.

We have an exception to this rule, if a Merchant has an Indy Program before they join our Network and they allow their Affiliates to transfer from the Indy to the Network Program, then we allow for the Affiliates to transfer from the Network to the Indy program, it’s called being fair and balanced in your approach. Also as you know Merchants agree to always match the same rate of commission on POR as they do on any other Network or Indy program so you don’t have to play musical chairs to get the best rate, we simply enforce the new rates and back date it, it’s in the contract.

I did make note that a Merchant recently on a few Networks opened for a while and then closed all the Networks inviting affiliates to the Indy program, now don’t know the ins and out’s but I sure hope that wasn’t a ploy to have someone else get all the contacts and then remove them from the deal, that to be is not way to run a business.

If an Affiliate when asked by a Merchant was to say, I am not using you because of this or that at POR but I would if you where on another Network and the said Merchant then opens up on the other Network and the Affiliate moves/starts promoting again, then that really is just tough luck for POR. You can’t have it both ways as we know a number of Affiliates would rather use some of our systems and move to us and the same goes for many a Network. The only folk that really need to worry about that are the ones providing really bad service, crap tracking and shocking tools for Affiliates because if you can’t keep up with the pace then you don’t deserver to have the Affiliate.

Next Google will be issuing us with terms saying you can only do PPC promotions via them LOL ;-) yeah that will be the day! (Note: Google are not and have not said they would ever do that as far as I know).

Just imagine if you had no choice in what Network and Tools you could use based on the fact you signed up to some one first.. What a horrible day for Affiliates in Affiliate Marketing that would be, I would even go so far as to say such a practice would destroy this industry and all Affiliates should take serious note that if you allow fellow Affiliates to be bullied then you will be next!

[pistol101]

We've had plenty of merchants try and pull affiliates internally or to other networks. It's part of doing your network job properly that affiliates don't leave and actually back you up.

[pricethat]

We have detected tones before, for the record affiliate networks are "starting" to become a hinderance rather than an aid to us of late and unless some serious effort is put into our accounts then the links will gradually start coming down.

I think networks should be weary, the networks as whole do not grow affiliates, we do that in spite of networks for our own businesses. Eventually affiliates outgrow networks and gain a position where they can bargain with merchants a lot better than the networks can themselves. I guess this is how most of the networks here started anyway.

I am quite happy to keep things inside the networks, keeps life easier but i think one day we will be forced to come to a halt and get the terms revised as we seem to be able to sign up merchants faster than networks can at the moment.

[Qui Gon Jinn]

Just to add, we are & will be gradually communicating with each network to ascertain their official stance or perspective on the forum. Those affiliates who do have established contacts with a network, if you have the time, maybe encourage them also.

It really is about time this network started demonstrating a civilised decorum rather than a dictatorship approach wielding a big cane & stopped treating affiliates like unruly school children, when they are themselves the class bully.

[8601cam]

Paul, for the record it's not Affiliate Window. Networks have to prove to merchants and affiliates alike that they add value either through sales, service, technology or innovation and ideally all four. Like respect, it needs to be earned and maintained and is a reciprocal deal.

To my knowledge you've never been one to actively promote working directly with merchants, in fact quite the opposite. Your input is valued where we/they may be going wrong and constructive criticism is always welcome if it improves matters.

As supercod highlights it's still in the best interests for a network to protect what it has grown and whilst an affiliate may wish to deal directly, the merchant may prefer dealing through a network. From what you highlight this is not the case and the merchant would prefer not to lose you, hence the direct arrangement.

This should really be a wake up call to the network in question.

Kind Regards

Mark

[a4uforummember]

it looked as though this thread was going to develop... and then it stopped short.

like so many threads.

[bapages]

I am sorry, but are with the Network on this issue. This is no differance to the stance taken in many area of industry, especially recruitment etc that provide a service of introduction.

It's nice too see that a network has finally the balls to stand up to protect there intrests than bending over backwards.

[flippinfishster]

Any update to this thread?

bapages - That may be fine for an agency which makes contact between unknown parties. However I would say the vast majority of people using affiliate programmes already knew of the merchant and use the network for the functionality.

[hpops]

However I would say the vast majority of people using affiliate programmes already knew of the merchant and use the network for the functionality.

But is the other way round true, ask a new merchant to get twenty performing affiliates without a network.

I think its an interesting topic, but there is no doubt that networks act as introducers.

[flippinfishster]

Yes I agree that a new merchant uses the networks as an 'introduction' service. However I would also say that most merchants that would be worth working with directly are going to be merchants that already have a known brand name.

It's not a cut and dry point but also it seems that networks which have open direct communication channels (CJ/AW etc) are not suffering I think discouraging direct communication and silly threats are symptoms of paranoia and insecurity on the part of the network. Not exactly a healthy base for a relationship...