0% Commissions - H0% H0% H0% Merry Christmas (Not!)

[Shane]

very eloquent and detailed reasoning keith

my concern is that whilst I see your angle and can appreciate it, you value service to your users above company profit.. in the hope that being a resource will earn repeat business.. not much help if in a year that repeat business is mostly zero comms though is it .. ?

Keith you must be able to imagine how much dixons eyes light up with glee at the prospect of some affiliates willing to take zero commission products in a feed, it's affiliate marketing by donkey's.. these companies CAN afford to pay commission.. we are saving them money.. we make their offline shops viable !! not vice versa !!

zero feed products is the same as being given the choice of death by shooting or death by poison.. end result is same..

this is opening a door to a bad place. .currently it's the size of a letterbox, soon it'll be a catflap.. then garage door.. eventually it'll be a boeing hangar door !

Keith look at the flipside of your statement "I just don't happen to believe the removal of 0% items from product feeds achieves anything".. by removing 0% items it achieves the definite illustration of the fact we aren't stupid and willing to promote/carry/show/sell items for zero pay !!

I also disagree with your line on "if you don't want to include them on your site you have an easy way via a simple SQL statement to exclude them"

They shouldn't be in the feed in the first place.. IMO .. however if you are an affiliate dumb enough to work for free or your reasoning is inline with Keith's "service to my users at all costs" then you should have to specifically request to be given the feed of doom ! and don't dare whimper about how crap things are in a years time with zero comms as far as the eye can see next xmas !!

[Qui Gon Jinn]

this is opening a door to a bad place. .currently it's the size of a letterbox, soon it'll be a catflap.. then garage door.. eventually it'll be a boeing hangar door !

sorry to inteject, but that sentence made me laugh

Shane had a pertinent point about if accepting the feed of doom with 0% commissions / zero earnings, then the same people using cannot complain about lost tracking & zero earnings in the fiture, i guess.

Were Dixons at the IAB meeting yesterday? If they were it would be quite disconcerting if they had any involvement in shaping affiliates lives & businesses, and that the IAB actually took onboard what they were saying. And who's protecting who corner, was the affiliates of the merchants corner being protected.

[drivetowin]

Shane

I don't disagree with where your coming from. I'm not quite sure I agree that I put users before profit, to me users are synomynous with profit - happy users = more profit (or that's the way it's been for the last six+ years) but I do agree the business models are different - if you are a pure content site then you have to play the long game

What I hope I've made clear is that I am most definitely not happy about 0% items - I would argue strongly they should not happen, but you and I both know it has been going on for years (and not just in retail, I can remember a similar debate a couple of years ago about a credit card company who had other financial products which were non-commissionable on their landing page). Does the fact it's been going on mean we shouldn't try to change it? No, of course not - I just happen to believe that what we should be doing is pressuring Awin (in this instance) to negotiate more strongly on our behalf to get all items at least minimally commissioned and then we are all happy.

[drivetowin]

Originally Posted by Qui Gon Jinn the same people using cannot complain about lost tracking

Not at all, the two things are very different.

If an item is clearly identified as 0% commission and an affiliate promotes it then that is a conscious decision on the part of that affiliate - no different to a supermarket choosing to run a 'loss leader'

If an item doesn't track, the affiliate has not received commission that it was identfied they would - a whole different scenario.

[Qui Gon Jinn]

Thank you. You just proved my point for me.

[drivetowin]

No Dixons weren't at the IAB meeting, my discussion was with AWin.

There were no merchants at the meeting and I was the only affiliate present, which was a shame but not a surprise given a) the short notice on the forum of the meeting and b) (puts tongue firmly in cheek) that there are so few affiliates and merchants within a reasonable travelling distance of London

[drivetowin]

Originally Posted by Qui Gon Jinn Thank you. You just proved my point for me.

You've lost me on that one Paul - care to elaborate?

[Bud]

Originally Posted by Qui Gon Jinn Thank you. You just proved my point for me.

Not sure what point you meant there?

To go back a little though - I would hope the networks were/are helping protect the affiliates point of view, after all it's in their own interests.

[Elaine]

Well thank heavens I don't use automated product feeds as I would be getting myself in a complete tiz over this issue - suffice to say I don't promote anyone offering less than 4% (I get annoyed when I see I've only made a 2% commission through those merchants who have different scales for different categories).

I'm waiting for the day those merchants with High Street stores refuse to pay their inhouse staff if they sell any of these 0% items.

If you act like a doormat, don't be surprised if folk walk all over you. And as regards Networks working on behalf of affiliates - No No No No NO, the bottom line is they're working for the merchant and trying to get the best deal for them - the only person looking after the affiliate is the affiliate.

[Bud]

I stand corrected Elaine.

On a certain level though it is still in the networks interests; unhappy affiliates - less affiliates - no affiliates - no affiliate network

We've seen a few disappear haven't we?