This is getting beyond a joke.

[lauriebred]

I've just received the following message:

<<<
In order to comply with its internal policies, Saga require all its external third party suppliers to provide the information listed below.

These guidelines ensure affiliates partnering with Saga are registered business partners who offer low risk to their brand.

We appreciate a lot of affiliates may not fall within the requested credentials, however, we have to recognize the threat of exploitation on the programmes and the precautions that have to be taken to protect and combat it in the modern online climate.

Therefore, from 1st September 2008 affiliates will have to meet the following criteria in order to remain on the Saga programmes:

Valid contact details provided:
Affiliate handle
Genuine name associated with the account
Email address
Telephone number (preferably a landline)
Postal address
Valid bank account details provided for payment
The affiliate must be VAT registered
The affiliate must be registered with Companies House
The affiliate should be UK based (until further notice)
URL works and links through smoothly
The site is well designed graphically with relevant content, e.g. not just a flat site filled with banners
Preferable if the website already has banners in-situ
On 1st September 2008, all affiliates not meeting these criteria will be suspended – this decision could be looked into on a case by case basis if improvements to the affiliate website are made.

I’m sure you can appreciate Saga's point of view and equally we appreciate yours. So, if you have any questions please don’t hesitate to contact me.>>

..............................

This follows on the heels of a similar message from BuyAt about the AA.

Frankly, I am getting rather hacked off being treated like a potential crook.

I do not run a limited company and I have no intention of becoming VAT registered just to suit a network. If there is fraudulent behaviour I suggest that you apprehend the culprits and have them prosecuted instead of insulting long standing affiliates, many of whom were trading (honestly!) on the web long before BuyAt was even dreamed of.

Emails like this will, IMO, only serve to infuriate affiliates, and your company will look pretty threadbare without us.

I am going on a month's holiday at end of August, should I delete all BuyAt links before then?

[pandadragon]

This follows on from my thread: AA Affiliate Audit (Disgusted)

This is getting appauling, now does this mean i need to plead my case to Saga, like i did with AA.

I feel like im on trial.

I wonder who will follow on this awful trend, someone needs to stamp this out.

Why im at it i get numerous emails about no sales, im doing my best in getting my site established, i dont think some merchants apreciate our efforts.

Phil

[Nick Caulfield]

Hi Lauriebred,

I can understand your frustration with the above e-mail but please appreciate that decisive measures had to be taken in order to cope with the threat of fraud on Saga.

“If there is fraudulent behaviour I suggest that you apprehend the culprits and have them prosecuted….”

This issue was first raised by Saga in July and buy.at immediately dealt with the Unethical Affiliates and removed them from the network.

However, the reason Saga has now taken this stance is to protect its brand in the future and put in place a process to monitor who promotes their brand.

“I do not run a limited company and I have no intention of becoming VAT registered just to suit a network.”

This criterion is by no means set in stone by Saga as they are prepared to look at each individual affiliate on a case by case basis. Saga basically wants to have assurances that this channel is controlled effectively and that their brand is protected.

This has inevitably followed on from the AA 's decision to audit their programme but buy.at are reacting positively to this news and are looking to implement new processes to ensure merchants are not forced into making this decision again.

I will happily continue this discussion with any affiliate and will endeavour to help keep as many affiliates on the programme as I can. Please give me a call on 0191 241 6500.

We apologise for any inconvenience this has caused, it was not intentionally sent to anger or infuriate affiliates but was meant to keep you informed on what is happening on the Saga programme so that we remain open with everyone involved.

Please get in contact with me if you have any questions

Kind regards,

Nick Caulfield
Account Manager
buy.at
nick.caulfield@buy.at

[lauriebred]

Originally Posted by Nick Caulfield This issue was first raised by Saga in July and buy.at immediately dealt with the Unethical Affiliates and removed them from the network.

If these people defrauded someone it isn't unethical, it's criminal and they should be reported to the police with a view to prosecution. Fraudulent behaviour is a threat to every single one of us, merchants networks and affiliates so if you have evidence against these people it is your duty to report them, not just 'remove' them. In the meanwhile, if you're going to insist that every affiliate is VAT registered and listed at Companies House (ie trades as a limited company) then the end of BuyAt as an affiliate network is the logical conclusion of that exercise.

I'm willing to bet that many of your affiliates have been with you for years. How do you think they feel when you cast doubts on their honesty? Frankly, I think that you have performed a knee-jerk reaction and asking us all to prove our bona-fides after we've worked with you over a period of time demeans everyone.

[ash]

Originally Posted by Nick Caulfield “I do not run a limited company and I have no intention of becoming VAT registered just to suit a network.” This criterion is by no means set in stone by Saga as they are prepared to look at each individual affiliate on a case by case basis.

Is this section of teh SAGA (and AA) email worded incorrectly then?

this decision could be looked into on a case by case basis if improvements to the affiliate website are made.

Whats the connection with SAGA and the AA programmes, and who is advising them to take this action?

[Nick Caulfield]

Hi,

Saga merged with the AA in 2007, which is why the AA's stance on affiliates is reiterated across Saga.

It is natural for companies of Saga and AA's size to react like this when there has been fraudulent activity through third parties especially when they have a very limited relationship with affiliates.

buy.at would be able to vouch for the majority of affiliates on the Saga programmes as they have built relationships with their affiliates and understand how they operate but Saga doesn't have this luxury and have therefore reacted appropriately to a problem that seriously threatened their brand.

I have already received several e-mails and calls regarding affiliate's businesses and they have all passed on their details and explained why they don't meet certain criteria. I will collate all this information and pass it across to Saga for review so that everyone has a chance to put their case forward.

This process is not meant to be demeaning in any way but it is an effective and efficient way of ensuring Saga understands who is promoting their brand so that audits like will not happen again.

Please call or e-mail me if you have any further questions.

Kind regards,



Nick Caulfield
Account Manager
buy.at
nick.caulfield@buy.at
0191 241 6500

[lauriebred]

Originally Posted by Nick Caulfield I have already received several e-mails and calls regarding affiliate's businesses and they have all passed on their details and explained why they don't meet certain criteria. I will collate all this information and pass it across to Saga for review so that everyone has a chance to put their case forward. Nick Caulfield Account Manager buy.at nick.caulfield@buy.at 0191 241 6500

Put their case forward????!!! I shan't bother to 'put my case forward', I've deleted all Saga and AA links already so you can scratch my name off at the end of the month with a clear conscience. The business that would have gone to them will probably be picked up by other insurers anyway, I can't remember the last time that search terms containing "saga" or "aa" were used by visitors to my main site.

The arrogance of this merchant is astounding, frankly. Anyone would think that they are doing us all a great favour by allowing us to sell their products for them.

[justnozy]

I have just got to first thank 'lauriebred' for saving me the time putting my thoughts down in words - I doubt I could have expressed them better myself. I agree 100% with every thing said.

The merchants can 'knee-jerk' as much as they want - in this case they are insurance experts not affiliate experts. As far as I am concerned this is yet again an example where the network does not have the balls to stand up to a merchant. BuyAt is the affiliate expert and, especially after reading the AA thread, should have advised Saga that such a stance would not be well recieved by some affiliates. If they did either they did a bad job or the merchant doesn't care - either way is a bad attitude IMHO.

I have been with BuyAt for around 4yrs & to my knowledge have never sent a single fraudulent click to any of their merchants. I have also promoted both the AA & Saga via other networks & I KNOW they have never recieved a fraudulent transaction from my sites - so why now do I need to 'put my case forward' ? Feck that - I have better things to do than beg for the privilege of promoting a merchant/network that easily (on a whim) will regard me as a criminal.
Incidentally I have also promoted other BuyAt merchants via other networks but am now finding extraordinary 'rejections' via BuyAt for these same merchants.

I also second that BuyAt need not waste time 'auditing' me - I have/am removing all AA & Saga links. To take it a step further I am actively looking for alternative networks for all BuyAt merchants I currently promote - enough is enough.

As the unapproved affiliates fall by the wayside no doubt the slack will be taken by those affiliates that are less concerned about their basic human rights being abused & consequently I doubt neither AA,Saga or BuyAt will feel any initial loss/drop in volume - but then of course there is always 'too many eggs in one basket'.

In other words there will always be other affiliates prepared to promote these merchants/networks - but on the flip side there will always be alternative merchants & networks for affiliates to promote.

At the end of the day these are simply brokers and despite their 'brand' the product is available elsewhere.

[Barry]

I will illiterate my quote from the AA thread.

I would be happy to supply that information as I know that I do not undertake any fraudulent activities.

So I think I am safe.

For the moment I am happy to send SAGA (and AA) traffic that I think will convert into sales and as part of that business relationship I will tell them what they want to know. I have nothing to hide and I will have probably spent longer writing this post that it will take to get the details of their requirements typed up and to hand.

However I am in no way saying that they have not acted 'out of the normal'.

I have seen and heard from many merchants who just 'want to know more' about me, loads of them have asked for personal meetings in various cities around the country, maybe thats just to be nice or maybe its to try and see where all those sales are coming from and if its legit. I never go to any of them because I have no suit and hate cities, but have managed to engage in dialogue via other means to act in a business like manner.


One thing always sticks in my mind is that if I goto a website and their is no compnay address, VAT, email or telephone number then I will think twice about shopping with them. I can see the (extreme) reason why some merchants may want to know a little more about their affiliates.

I really wish that it was in a networks terms and conditions that all merchants had access to my affiliate/business details. It would mean a little more transparency for the relationship of merchant/affiliate.

Ta

Baz

[justnozy]

This is not merely about 'having something to hide' - if it were then these actions would have my support 100%. Its about being dictated to about how I must conduct my business.

If these conditions were imposed to NEW affiliates then again I would not have an issue ( & no doubt comply) but I have previously entered into an agreement both with the network & merchant - now they want me to change things at my side because they have a problem with individuals that have nothing to do with me.

The network already knows my real name ( & no doubt my handle ), my real address and my real telephone no. + I dont have any issue supplying my real bank details. The network also has a history of my traffic & a full list of my relevant sites.

If this were a real 'audit' the network & consequently the merchant(s) have all the information they need without disturbing me nor telling me that I must change my business structure or 'plead my case'. But that would of course mean 'they' would need to do some work - much easier to make the affiliates do the work to solve 'their' problem.

As I said in the AA thread I do in fact have a VAT registered Ltd company & could easily pass the business/traffic through that vehicle via UID's & thereafter channel the commission to where it belongs - but I have a basic right of choice - I choose not to. Therefore, by what appears to be default, I am effectively choosing not to promote The AA & now Saga, because they choose to change the terms of our original agreement without consulting me beforehand. Of course they have the choice on how they conduct their business & whom they associate with - well so do I !

BTW Baz - I agree I also like to see the full company info before I buy online - but my visitors dont buy from me they buy from the merchants.