Webmaster Forum Rules | Posting Guide | Contact Us | Testimonials | Contributing Geek Program | Advertise on Geek/Talk
Welcome to the GeekTalk Webmaster Discussion Forums from GeekVillage.com

Click Here To Register. It's Free!

Go Back   geek/talk: Signature-free discourse for serious web publishers > YOUR REVENUE: Making Money On The Internet > Making Money with CPA Programs
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-28-2003, 01:21 PM   #16
firstmark
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 836
Default

Todd the reasoning you have makes sense in theory.
But what about large web publishers that have inactive cj accounts because they think they might need them one day?
This is in effect abandoning them which is not so wise.
If large publishers know they have to be "active" to remain in CJ they will implement a few links just to remain active. This will give you a false idea of who your potential big publishers are too.


Also if scores of small publishers who have signed up for cj and not implemented them log in months later to discover their accoutns closed might they then spread bad PR about CJ to their site's visitors? If the aim is to weed out "nonperformers" this will be what happens on some level.
It just seems a nice cheap advertising campaign for your competitors. Linkshare or Befree could not have designed a better campaign for themselves if they tried. Nothing is better for the competition than bad publicity brought on by a company itself. If 10,000 or 100,000 nonperforming webmasters are dropped from CJ just how much noise do you think they can make? The non professioals are the ones that compalin the most in message boards like this and on their own sites.


If publishers are already ranked by earnings performance why not just remove inactive publishers from this figure and make it so they can become active again without any funny fees being removed?

I would imagine it costs far more time and money to get a new publisher active or not than it takes to maintain a few stats reports for publishers that are inactive and may wish to log in sometime in the future. If the strains of low performers checking stats is too much why not implement ads of some sort to be shown to these low performers which would pay for the costs of processing their reports.

There are wiser solutions that would enable CJ to focus on its cash cow publishers better. This type of thing makes CJ's larger affiliates question the long term viability of CJ as well. Thats what is happeneing here isn't it?
firstmark is offline  
Old 02-28-2003, 01:32 PM   #17
Todd_CJ
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 21
Default

Most publishers register their multiple websites under one account and do not create several accounts. Those that have created multiple accounts tend to never access the unproductive ones - they usually forget they created them.

I appreciate your opinion firstmark but I am confident, based on our research on the accounts that will get deleted and our overall strategy, that this is the right way to go about it. A lot of thought and research was put into this decision - we didn't just make this decision over night. Many people were involved and a lot of data was crunched.
Todd_CJ is offline  
Old 02-28-2003, 02:41 PM   #18
Steve_S
I am a Contributing Geek. Are You?
 
Steve_S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
Posts: 5,224
Default

Some respectfull thoughts in no special order:

1. I like the idea and support it.

2. I have viewed this topic on a number of Communities and I don't see any "large publishers" complaining. Perhaps I missed a post or two?

3. Inherint in this issue is the diverse cross section of "Webmasters". Respectfully, the term could use a bit of refining. If you can't generate $ in 6 months you don't belong in the network. I really don't see that much difference than trying to get into tribalfusion. Sure, I would love to have one of my sites in the network but I need more traffic. You can use this procedure as a goal to strive for but really, 6 months is a very very long time.

4. I wouldn't call me a large publisher by any means but my cj profile may in fact be rather typical of a lot of folks. I have 2 sites which generate sales and one site that has not generated a single sale in over 125K views and the adverts are very targeted. They all get lumped together into a single account so I can stay in the network and since I'm attempting to do this full time I have another goal to shoot for with my non productive site.

5. An email was sent on this new policy. If folks don't read their email or frequent Communities then thats their problem. However, I would suggest a "pop" with the new policy which displays as soon as a geek hit's cj.com and then logs in.

Edit: 6. This space has plenty of room for lots of players. A single network can't be all things to all people and if they try they will fail. Smart geeks (YOU) understand this so here is an example: alertra.com is a great service which I use and endorse. So I plan to join shareasale.com to earn money from the sales since they don't belong to cj.com and currently, shareasale does not require a sale to stay in the network.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Last edited by Steve_S; 02-28-2003 at 02:54 PM.
Steve_S is offline  
Old 03-01-2003, 03:34 AM   #19
singloon

GeekGuide
 
singloon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 2,167
Default Re: CJ change - charging for dormant accounts

Quote:
Originally posted by jokearound
Just received an email from CJ..it contains this :



thats not a good thing I hardly ever use CJ anymore..but I guess ill have to start, just incase.

I guess six months is a long time not to get a commission, but $10 a month? whats the point? its not like it costs them anything to have the publisher on board..
this really does sux, what happens if the publisher wants to use their program in the future, they'd have to resignup etc etc.. would it cost them more to retain a publisher or resignup the same publisher?

i'm speaking from both a publishers point of view as well as an employee of a merchant (vbulletin.com) who uses cj.com for their affiliate program
__________________

.
singloon is offline  
Old 03-04-2003, 03:42 PM   #20
bruin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Newport Beach, CA, USA
Posts: 55
Default

clickXchange does have an inactive fee but it is different, and I believe better.

clickXchange will bill $2 a month for an account not logged into for over 6 months if there is any outstanding balance. So nothing will be taken out if someone logs in at least twice a year. We had a considerable time sink in dealing with all of these old accounts and needed a way to deal with them.

This has the same effect of closing out old accounts without punishing affiliates with a very slow developement time.

Craig Tammel
clickXchange.com

Last edited by bruin; 03-04-2003 at 03:47 PM.
bruin is offline  
Old 03-04-2003, 05:19 PM   #21
joma
Registered User
 
joma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 294
Default

It's not really a big deal since the most one can lose is $24.99, and you can avoid that if you stay on top of things.

I don't see the need for it, though. I've received some big (multi-thousand dollar) checks from CJ in the past; why nickel-and-dime me now, cancel my account, and create a disincentive for me to work with CJ in the future? I'm not even sure I would be able to scope out potential programs if my account was cancelled.


If they want to encourage publishers to use their site, why not encourage publishers to pay realistic commissions (i.e. > 5%)?
Why not structure their fees so that merchants don't find it cheaper to start their own program once they get big?
Why not require merchants to spell out EXACTLY what constitutes a sale/lead? I was looking at programs a couple of days ago and found that many merchants are missing specifics.
joma is offline  
Old 03-04-2003, 10:05 PM   #22
firstmark
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 836
Default

Bruin I agree Clickxchange went about closing inactive accounts in a much better fashion.
With the way CJ went about it they just create multitudes of dead links from those who may generate one sale a year even if they can not every 6 months.
firstmark is offline  
Old 03-05-2003, 06:37 PM   #23
Catalyst
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 90
Default

Hi Everyone, I'm new to this dynamite forum!

I wear 3 hats. I am an affiliate - an Affiliate Manager and an AM consultant so I think I can see all sides of the game.

I think I understand the motive and I believe it's more about efficiency and helping Merchants be successful than it is about money.

I have been consulting with 4 CJ merchants to help grow their programs. All VERY different companies & all great programs. They all have around 2,000 affiliates signed up. They each have ONLY about 600 ACTIVE affiliates.

Coincidence? No, I think that because CJ is so well known and easy to join that many people who are not even serious about Internet marketing join because it's so easy. And many of them join every program in the network, even if there is no compatability with their site and then they just never get around to even adding links.

Having a large number of non-performing affiliates can hurt a merchants EPC rating, Then when you affiliates go in to evaluate a program you may look at a merchant and say "wow, they have a low EPC, I won't bother with them." Many times these are great programs, with high earnings but if they have too much dead wood it can make their ratings look bad.

So I think the $10 is making a strong statement to Merchants that CJ is trying to help them clean house. Like Todd said, it's very time consuming for Merchants and slows the network down for us all to have so many affiliates that aren't really even affiliates and don't even put up any banners.

I am an affiliate as well as an AM and consultant so I can see all sides of the game. I have joined many programs that sound good one day, then just never got around to promoting. I don't blame them for trying to make the network more dfficient. I see affiliates as very similar to an outside sales force. Merchants should offer training, support and tools to help them be successful, plus be there to motivate, listen and help set your affiliates up for success. But in the real world if you don't make sales within the 1st 3 months you are certain to be fired. So I think a little $10 warning after 6 months is justified.

However I do sympathize with new affiliates and affiliates who REALLY ARE trying and just have not made it. I am very PRO affiliate, not just on the merchants side but I think clearing out the real dead wood will help us all. Maybe with enough feedback CJ could offer an extension to affiliates who are really trying and committing to make some sales somehow. I just think all the ones that join and then never lift a finger should be out. In fact that's an even better idea. Just like a lot of other sites - if your account is inactive or dormant for X months you get a warning email and then it's closed.

(Sorry to write a book!)

Linda Buquet
Affiliate Program Optimization, Consulting & Recruiting
For High Integrity, Affiliate-Centered, Parasite-Free Merchants
www.catalystEmarketing.com

Last edited by Catalyst; 03-05-2003 at 06:38 PM.
Catalyst is offline  
Old 03-05-2003, 07:21 PM   #24
Steve_S
I am a Contributing Geek. Are You?
 
Steve_S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
Posts: 5,224
Default

Linda said: "......(Sorry to write a book!)"

No problem. Keep those fingers on the keyboard as I'm confident your multi-perspective on this issue and many others will help all of us.

Welcome to the "Village" and good luck!
Steve_S is offline  
Old 03-05-2003, 10:07 PM   #25
Rhea
Registered User
 
Rhea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex. I could pinch them.
Posts: 1,887
Default

What keeps running through my mind is that CJ's overhead is also our overhead. If non-productive affiliate accounts cost CJ money then CJ passes that on to the merchants, who in turn pass it on to us in the form of reduced commissions and incentives.

I was bounced from a program I joined but never 'worked'. It didn't bother me.
Rhea is offline  
Old 03-05-2003, 10:59 PM   #26
firstmark
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 836
Default

If non performers can hurt a CJ merchants EPC just what do you imagine loads of dead links describing the company which were put up by now deactivated nonperformers will do for their brand and their future sales?
Also is it really so wise to abandon nonperformers just because they have not generated results in a 6 month time period?
People with websites have influence even if they are not good at affiliate marketing, to deactivate them and let them have lots of dead links can only be bad for public relations.
firstmark is offline  
Old 03-05-2003, 11:26 PM   #27
jkcity
Registered User
 
jkcity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: England
Posts: 427
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by firstmark
If non performers can hurt a CJ merchants EPC just what do you imagine loads of dead links describing the company which were put up by now deactivated nonperformers will do for their brand and their future sales?
Also is it really so wise to abandon nonperformers just because they have not generated results in a 6 month time period?
People with websites have influence even if they are not good at affiliate marketing, to deactivate them and let them have lots of dead links can only be bad for public relations.
I thinkt he links will still go throught o there site just no one will get commission or does cj collect commission on them I wonder.
jkcity is offline  
Old 03-06-2003, 10:52 AM   #28
Catalyst
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 90
Default

Thanks for the warm welcome Steve!

You know the other thing I was just thinking which firstmark alluded to is Branding. Merchants are getting a ton of free impressions and branding and clicks through sites that may not be generating any sales. So the merchants will be losing out on some benefits too. There are always pros and cons to everything I guess.

OT Steve,
I've been looking for a good online position checker and I love yours. I started a pretty popular thread on another board for people to list good web "power tools". I'll add a link to your site and get you some traffic.

Linda Buquet
Affiliate Program Optimization, Consulting & Recruiting for
High Integrity, Affiliate-Centered, Parasite-Free Merchants
www.catalystEmarketing.com

Last edited by Catalyst; 03-06-2003 at 10:53 AM.
Catalyst is offline  
Old 03-06-2003, 07:47 PM   #29
Timo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 159
Default

I think cj is doing a good thing, but I do believe that they should make allowances for those new on the scene. It took me a year and a half before I figured out what made my users tick, and months of work to start making decent money at it. Now with the changes in the tracking at CJ, figuring out what works is much harder to do.

It shall be interesting to see the impact on network standings $$$$$.

I currenly have a 3 month epc of $9.25 and am in the $$$$ for network earnings. With all of the non performing accounts removed I assume that there will be a downward pressure on my $$$$ rating.

If 20% to 30% of the accounts are culled, I would imagine that a $9.25 EPC will become closer to the average rather than outperform.

I would also like to see CJ charge a fee for non performing merchants. While I realize CJ gets a $250 fee every month, lets face it, many merchants are dead wood and should be gone.
Timo is offline  
Old 03-06-2003, 11:45 PM   #30
firstmark
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 836
Default

Deactivated merchant links yield dead links, I imagine the same would be true of deactivated publisher links.
Maybe not but I imagine it would.
If deactivated publisher links still could go through to a CJ advertiser and be tracked that would be a less than honorable practice.

Either way either massive dead links or links that were meant to be potentiallly paying but no longer can is the result.
Not good for business and very bad for branding.
firstmark is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AdWords Starter Accounts Larwee Google Search Engine and AdWords 0 03-17-2006 06:22 PM
CJ change - charging for dormant accounts jokearound Archives of the best threads 27 03-06-2003 10:52 AM
Free AdvertisingResults.Net Accounts suresk Archives of old posts from Let's Barter/Trade, Buy, & Sell 2 06-27-2001 10:24 PM
All my many accounts... Toefur Web Design and Webmaster Issues 5 09-28-2000 09:14 AM
Free DNS for you to change record online immediately CYBERWORLD Web Design and Webmaster Issues 2 08-23-2000 06:19 PM

Please support our advertisers. They ensure our survival.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:41 PM.


GeekVillage.com is copyright © 1998-2015 Curiosity Cave - Science gifts for clever kids. All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.