Affiliate Association - Who should the membership consist off?

[drivetowin]

QGJ

Good points

I'm not for one minute knocking the achievements of Matt and all of the members of this forum - far from it - this forum has achieved many milestones in affiliate marketing and I am sure will achieve many more - I dont think I would be so proactive on this forum if I didnt believe in it and all that it stands for.

I have made a good many contacts through this forum (and I would like to think a lot of friendships too, you and Matt included) and have no intention of the association competing with / fragmenting this forum. It is my intention that all association activity/policy will be reported/discussed on the a4uforum.

As I have tried to explain a fair few times, the aim of the meeting at the end of June is simply to establish a framework of points for discussion before a more formalised structure for the association is proposed, which will incorporate everyones wishes as far as is practicable - nothing more, nothing less - there is no hidden agenda to set up an association behind everyones backs and come back and say here it is.

It is not my association, it is not Jess's association, it is not Matt's association, it is everyone's association - but - unless we formalise a framework for discussion so that key issues can be decided (and yes - what the membership should consist of, who should have voting rights, membership fees etc etc are all key issues)

Once each of the points has been discussed (and where appropriate put to a vote of a4uforum members) then the first draft of an association constitution can be circulated. The aim at this point is simply to get to the stage where we have the framework to discuss - of course I have my opinion on things but if the majority decision at the end of the day is that the association should be affiliates only then that is what we will have - thats democracy.

I take your point about who should be privy to what discussions (particularly in the arbitration process) and again that is something that will need to be discussed as part of the framework.

Yes there was a poll but it didnt exactly ask that question, it asked if there was an association would you join ? and the vote was something like 29 yes 4 no from memory but 33 is hardly a large enough sample to draw a conclusion.

Keep it coming - I dont profess to know all the answers - or even all of the questions!!

[EyeOfTheTiger]

Originally Posted by Qui Gon Jinn One network has quoted to me on several occasions in person, that because they are a plc company they can't respond on a forum...

Does this comment stem from my understanding that the network has shareholders whose interests it has to protect and thus cannot go wading into a forum such as this with comments that may be misconstrued as being the thoughts of the poster and not of the PLC as a collective ?

If I was an investor in said PLC network then I for one would openly welcome any advance they made in positively receiving feedback and adapting proactively and responsively to comments and concerns fed through to them from their "network of affiliates", this public forum or even at any said affiliates association meeting as I would hope that positive change would be embraced as quickly as possible which would with hope and almost certainty increase my share price as shareholder within said Network PLC as the NETWORK PLC would be assuming a stance of continued positive growth and that's a company I want to invest in both as a shareholder and as an afiliate who generates their profits and keeps all of their account managers, admin staff, payroll and accounts and the company dog in jobs and business.

Yes I would join, Keith I have PM'd you, about this and QGJ I look forward to meeting with you in person as well as anyone else.

Tiger

[Mogga]

I think this is mentioned this elsewhere - should members have to declare their interests.

There seem to be so many sub-divisions of people now that edges are very blurred.

And is there a list of who is attending the initial meeting? (and perhaps what their hats are?)

[renegade]

I'm pleasantly surprised the vote is swinging in favour of affiliates only, from previous discussions I thought I was in a clear minority.

[Spreader]

Hello All,

I think I'm the only merchant to have replied so far so don't get picking on me (I know how nasty you affiliates can get ).

I can appreciate the sentiments of having an affiliate only association. This would have all the obvious merits discussed previously such as enabling you to speak as a united voice, code of practice, regulation inter alia and this obviously happens in other trades and industries.

However I feel it would be better if an association included all parties. Without going into all the 'whys and wherewithalls' there are always two sides to every coin. The more G2G's I attend and the more I speak to affiliates, the more I appreciate how our actions as a merchant effect the business of an affiliate. I would also suggest that this situation is recriprocal in that Affiliates appreciate how their actions affects that of a merchant.

And hypothetically, what if a merchant association then forms? And what if they have conflicting codes of practice with the affiliate association? Are we back to square one?

Barry quotes (and please don't take this as a dig )

We affiliates ARE their business without us - networks have nothing and without networks merchants have to compete in the market without the expertece of a thousand affiliates.

What if then, the (hypothetical) merchant association says "We are Merchants. Without us, they have no one to promote"?

Now, I'm only playing devils advocate, and hopefully those of you that know me and have read my threads in the past know that I am 100% dedicated to affiliate marketing and fully appreciate the importance of our affiliates and the impact they have on the success of my business.

I just really think that we need to work as a united front, to have one industry standard code of practice which everybody adheres too.

Thats my two penneths worth anyway. I personally guarantee that Prezzybox will always work with and value our affiliates, regardless of whether or not an association (including any parties) is formed.

Cheers,

Zak.

[mibut]

I think this is mentioned this elsewhere - should members have to declare their interests. There seem to be so many sub-divisions of people now that edges are very blurred. And is there a list of who is attending the initial meeting? (and perhaps what their hats are?)

Any answers to this?

[Barry]

Zak - no offence taken! m8 - you are right of course with that analogy, it does swing both ways maybe I was a little 'big headed' with that statement.

Perhaps the name 'Affiliate Marketting Association' fits better to an association that 'includes all' - rather than just an 'affilaite association', which to many people seems to bring to mind an association of just affiliates?

Personally I would take an interest in any association, nomatter how is was formed or who it consisted of, as long as it gave me a route to voice my opinions and problems and have them listened to, rectified or justified.

[drivetowin]

The attendee list for the initial meeting will be published here on the forum as soon as it is finalised - as a result of all of the recent activity concerning the association there are now more people wanting to attend the initial meeting and so finding a date when everyone is available is becoming trickier. The room where we are holding the meeting is also currently being refurbished and we will not have a definite date for completion of the refurbishment until early next week.

[Jon]

I don't mean to be rude - and perhaps I have missed something - but I don't see how this poll can help inform a decision regarding the scope of the association's membership when voting on the poll doesn't appear to be restricted to affiliates only.

[jess1]

The only way forward is to bring all groups together and help each side understand what the other is doing

Agree Agree Agree (repetition as you cant just post one word )