Disqus - Latest Comments for Kellie

Re: Is There Room for Two Affiliate Marketing Organizations?

Kellie — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 10:34:37 -0000

I'll disclaim as well: I'm a member of the FAB and I have joined the PMA.

I think there is room for 2 organizations. I think there is room for mroe than 2. This industry is very diverse with many different points of view and interests. Any consolidation of the voices is much needed for our industry. The fragmentation has not served us well in the past. For our indsutry to truly mature, there must be some degree of more formal unity amongst ourselves. Only then we can we begin to lookout for our own best interests and not rely on others outside of our industry to do so, as has happened in the past.

Personally, I was not happy about some of the mud slinging that has happened in the past. But that is really neither here nor there in the big picture. It in no way takes away from the potential benefit AV can bring to our industry.

When I became involved with the PMA, I expected there would be things I both agreed with and disagreed with connected with the PMA. That will probably be the case with AV. But that is the case with most organizations, whatever they may be. It's just a fact of life.

If there ends up being differences of opinion between the PMA & AV (or whatever other groups may form) over specific industry issues, that's not necessarily a bad thing either. People will at least be standing up for what they feel is best for this industry...being active instead of passive. But there will also be issues where there is common ground (such as the tax issue..no doubt there will be more in the future). When groups come together on the common issues, when they disagree on others, that is where the real power behind trade groups lie.

The more people who become involved in actively molding our industry, the better.

Re: Amazon Kills Associate Direct Paid Search

Kellie — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 10:46:30 -0000

I'm really curious as to the WHY behind Amazon's decison, outside of their generic statement of a look at how they are investing their advertisement dollars.

I have a feeling there is more to the decision as well. I'll not speculate though and wait to see what Jango as to say on it. :) A couple of possibilites come to my mind though.

Pat's points are valid as well though & extend well beyond just Amazon's program. I know some affiliates who do DTM PPC Search and do bring value to the table for merchant's. But there is also a lot of crap out there as well. I've always thought though that DTM Search needed more solid justification to merchants for ti being in the affiliate channel vs the merchant's search channel. I'm talking about when it's done right & not all the shennigans.

I do think it's possible some merchat's may follow Amazon's policy, regardless of what Amazon's reasons may or may not be...just from the fact that Amazon has done it. There are always some who will make decsions for their own program based on what a big name merchant does. It's the "If BigBoyMerchantX is doing it, then it must be a good policy" mentalitly I've seen so many times in other areas of the biz.

I do think these are the types of issues that an industry organization can help to educate merchants on best practice policies. The key there IMO will be if best practices policies can be formulated in such as way as to remove built-in biases to those policies (eg best practices statements from networks aren't always really 'best practices' but rather marketing for the network for practices that ultimately benefit them).

Re: Affiliate Marketing, Get Paid for Nothing

Kellie — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 07:48:52 -0000

Or Miro could have given you the option of installing a shop at Amazon to support Miro browser button. When you click the browser button it takes you to Amzazon via their affiliate link. Wow, thta would easy and remove doubt.

But wait, it would then actually distinguish that consumers were being motivated to some extent to shop at Amazon to contribute to Miro..that they were actually involved in driving traffic. Oops, there goes the low lying fruit for commissions.

Re: Coupon Affiliates Under Scrutiny

Kellie — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 06:07:55 -0000

"Of those 2, 3, and 6 sites with forced clicks, whatâ€™s the unique number of affiliate sites? Were they the same sites with a total of 6 unique sites?"

It was 2, 3 and 4 for forced clicks. The 6 was deceptive linking. There was a total of four uniques sites found to be using forced clicks. But yes, some of sites accounted for more than one of the postive tests.

What is more interesting is that some of the sites which tested postive also tested negative on a separate test. Which leads to your second question....

"And if not, did some of the sites behave differently depending on the source of the traffic?"

That is somewhat difficult to say without testing every merchant each affiliate promotes. An affiliate may not use forced clicks across all their merchants. This could be due to traffic source, Network involved, merchant involved, mucked up site programming, lunar cycle, etc etc etc.

There was one site using deceptive links which controlled the behavior via cookies. Once cookied it wouldn't happen again.

Re: CashAddOn – What’s Wrong with Incentive Publisher Browser Plugins

Kellie — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 05:01:49 -0000

There are definite pros and cons to both methods. And from the Networks perspective, it really is a decision that is often times grabbled with. There are so many different possible scenarios, all of which I'm sure Networks consider.

There are other situations which might support passing the traffic through. For example, when the originating traffic source is the Merchant's own PPCSE listings or direct type-ins. Undoubtably the merchant would like to still receive the traffic and not have the consumer end up on a splash page for the Network. The reasons for an account deactivation can be so varied.

OTOH, there are certainly advantages for it being obvious that an account showing up in questionable situations isn't an active account on a Network and tracking isn't happening.

While I've thought about the different pros and cons, I guess I haven't thought much about possible solutions. Maybe an intermediate page with whatever messaging the Network wants that then automatically redirects directly to the merchant?

Re: CashAddOn – What’s Wrong with Incentive Publisher Browser Plugins

Kellie — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 04:29:14 -0000

Echo Scott...thanks Dan and Larry for posting. The status of implementation of the change on deactivated accounts is something I've been wondering about. Glad to see the change is close to being implemented. I've seen it in some instances, but glad to hear it's coming for across the board. There are certainly affiliates who will continue to run links once accounts have been terminated, sometimes for months, for whatever reasons.

Re: CashAddOn – What’s Wrong with Incentive Publisher Browser Plugins

Kellie — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 13:02:06 -0000

"That was sarchasm in the extreme. Itâ€™s no fun at all."

Come on...you know you loved those late nights scouring over sniffer logs figuring out what in the heck IPInsight was doing and how. :D

"Not that they donâ€™t deserve any heat, but they seem to take a disproportionate share, no?"

Have to agree they do get talked about more anyone else and on some things that are happening other places as well. I've always attributed some of that towards them being the largest. The biggest are always going to be talked about the most. But again, I think the issues are more global and not related to any one particular Network.

What I find frustrating is that I really do feel what you posted is much needed....after what something like 7 years?

Re: CashAddOn – What’s Wrong with Incentive Publisher Browser Plugins

Kellie — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 11:58:32 -0000

Good recap of the issues Scott. I agree that they probably don't have a large install base yet. I think the bigger picture this brings up goes to exactly what the Networks views are on this types of applications. It's something I've been concerned about for more than a year now. I'm no longer convinced what you outlined as acceptable behavior by the some of the networks is necessarily true anymore. What you outlined as far as behavior with the older mainstream (and known) loyalty/incent applications still holds true. But it's not the behavior I've been seeing allowed with newer more recent applications. It has appeared for awhile now that as long as "consent" is gotten from the end user at least once (presumably with the installation), then automatic redirects, including those which are overwriting other affiliate links in first edition COC ways, is being allowed. The latest update to CJ's COC seems to back that up. It focuses on the affiliate getting an affirmative action from the end user (consent for the installation). Somewhere floating around on ABW from quite a while back there is a post by Todd where he very clearly states that the "affirmative" action is consent for the install, then automatic redirect can occur. And if you look at how SaveNDonate behaves, going to extreme of explaining to the end user about affiliate marketing, how aff links work and even by setting it to automatically credit them a savings it could take away another aff's commission, this seems to meet the standard of affirmative action. It would seen to be in violation for LS, though like many networks they seem to give a chance to fix the behavior. I'm not too sure about Peformics, though they are still using the last version of the COC which was joint with CJ and substantially different than being used by CJ now.

Overall, even outside of affiliate marketing directly, what I've been seeing for quite some time is a trend focusing on consumer consent as the end all for "legitimate" adware. This is irrespective of exactly how revenue is earned by the adware. I personally have problems with that and don't feel comfortable with consumers being given control over how and who gets paid. I think it's a slippery slope.

The other issue is that isn't the only such plugin by an affiliate being offered on Mozilla right now. I found several, most of them pretty recent additions. For me, outside of what really is being considered compliant by networks these days, is if monitoring for new software by the networks has become a bit slack as other concerns have taken precedent, such as 3rd party adware use. I know "technically" any affiliate using software is supposed to submit the software for evaluation before it's in use within the network. At least for CJ and LS. Again I'm just not sure with Performics. Of course, that doesn't the affiliate will. :) However, for me it does mean the Networks should have something in place to at least attempt to monitor for such. And maybe they do. But I did find 10 or so such plugins just being offered on FireFox itself. Because I know many merchants who see a download on an active affiliate's site assume that process has happened and the software is "compliant".

Often times it's easier to deal with wayward behavior before there is significant revenue being generated than once there is. Just a reality.

It might be fun to reminisce, but maybe it's necessary to reassess, especially with the barriers for having your own plugin or whatever are much lower now.

"Commission Junction has taken probably the strongest and have kicked at least one large affiliate out of the network for automatically overwriting affiliate clicks (ShopAtHome Select)."

I don't really want to get into which has the best or worse compliance efforts, because of course I'd like to see all of them doing things differently along those lines. :) But I don't think that's the best case to use to make your point. SAHS was out of CJ for only a year. They were let back in last year in time for Q4. Lots of CJ merchants with them currently. I've seen no significant changes in how their software behaves regarding overwrites from prior to being temporarily booted and now. Only major difference is they have a toolbar as well as the desktop portion now. CJ's public comments regarding the termination is it had to do with distribution methods of the software. I never heard anything about it being about overwrites.

Re: Congrats to Kellie Stephens!

Kellie — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 18:37:33 -0000

Oh great, now I have an identity AND gender crisis going on. I think I preferred it when I thought you just couldn't spell. :p

Re: Congrats to Kellie Stephens!

Kellie — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 16:58:57 -0000

Thanks Scott and Sheryl. Now I have to wait and see if Angel actually sends the trophy to me. He was mumbling something on the phone last night along the lines of "hmmm....the person's name isn't actually engraved on here...hmmmm." :)

I'm used to both my first and last name being spelled wrong. Don't ask me what my middle name is! Call me whatever you like, just don't call me late for supper.

Re: BUMPzee’s 1000th Member

Kellie — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 09:28:33 -0000

Congrats on the success Scott. It's well deserved!

Re: John Chow’s Dangerous Advice

Kellie — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 04:35:36 -0000

Sheryl,

I have to disagree as well. People were commenting on John's blog that the move was ill-advised. ShoeMoney posted himself it was considered fraudulent activity. And still people were commenting saying woohooo...I'm going to try that.

There is a certain mentality of the basic readership over at John's. A lot of AGLOCO folks building up the downlines for a to-be-released sometime in the future parasitic toolbar. John included. You're only going to get so far preaching to that crowd.

OTOH, many networks, managers and merchants read here and at bumpzee. So now they are clued in to put Chow and others posting over there (rather silly to say..oh good idea...I'm going to do that...here's a link to my aff site) on their radar.

Personally I hope other folks boot him from their programs for just promoting the tactic.

Re: Hug a Blogger

Kellie — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 07:36:10 -0000

Kick in the ass....I have a reputation to uphold. ;) Real work?? You act like it's Q4 or something. :)

Re: Hug a Blogger

Kellie — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 08:46:17 -0000

Comment blog hug so Scott will feel loved and blog something new soon. It's been awhile now and I'm starting to get the first signs of Jangro withdrawl.

Re: This is Your Website…

Kellie — Mon, 03 Jul 2006 12:32:55 -0000

Ouch. Knowing something and then actually seeing it in action has an impact often times. Those links can't be integrated into her RSS feed and most likely forum either.

Re: CostPerNews Special: Are CJ and Linkshare Worth Their Salt?

Kellie — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 08:42:12 -0000

Comments seem to have diverged somewhat from what was actually said in the podcast, which tends to happen. :) I'm going to try and focus more on what was said in the podcast itself. I had a very visceral reaction to the comments and it wasn't along the lines of warm and fuzzy. I strongly disagreed philosophically with most of what was said.

Jeff D. said:
"Ms X wasn’t debating the relative profitability of different advertiser models for ad networks, she was saying, essentially, that if you are an advertiser of any kind you are better served going to a CPA network than to a traditional affiliate network"

That's what I took away from her comments as well. She further gave a bunch of reasons why. Again, I strongly disagree with that point of view. There were many factors that I feel *should be* extremely important in the overall decision making process for an Advertiser that were completely left out. And hell must have frozen over for me to say this next thing, but.....I actually agree with a point that Jeff M. makes (at least it seems to be a point he is trying to make) is some of his comments. And that is, you may not like or agree with what Ms. X said but it is a point of view that *is* held by a growing number of Advertisers. From my own personal experience, as well as seeing the grow of CPA Neworks overall, I'd have to agree with that. It is a veiw held by some within this Industry. Again, I don't agree with the view and feel that it is a view ripe with pitfalls (and some potentially serious ones) for advertisers.

What I feel was missing from the discussion (which definitely was one-sided so here goes a bit of the flip side) is that quality should factor into the equation and not just volume. Who and how your offer is bieng promoted should matter. If it doesn't matter to you as an Advertiser, then you might want to consider popping you head out of the sand and taking a careful look at the current environment. Because a very clear message is being sent that as an Advertiser you as the Advertiser are going to be held accountable for the how and where. And laying it off to an affiliate did the bad deed isn't going to cut it. In that context, then transparency would seem to be something that is important. Or at least the abililty and willingness of the CPA Network you are dealling with to care about it. Volume does not necesssarily equal quality. Volume and sales are easy to manipulate. I look at it day end and day out. There is such a thing high risk sales/leads for an advertiser and there should be a risk assessment process being done by Advertisers along those lines. JMO of course. :)

Of course volume in and of itself can be a great enticement to an Advertiser. And it is marketed quite well to Advertisers. But I kept waiting to hear Ms.X say such words like ROI, ROAS, incremental sales, true profitabililty of the Advertiser's campaign but either I missed it or she didn't say it. Are those things which an Advertiser should no longer give thought to?

As I got my gut reaction under control (which was along the lines of wanting the throw my speakers against the wall), I thought about what the real message Ms. X was wanting to send out. And while the comments about CPA Networks being about lead-gen and traditional networks retail rev-share have validity, is it possible something is being overlooked here? Online marketing is a very dynamic and rapidly changing arena. I've been under the impression for a while now that there are some CPA Networks who have decided to expand their model beyond the types of offers traditionally thought of consisting a CPA Network. Could it be that CPA Networks are wanting a share of the retail rev-share market held by the likes of CJ and LS? These types of offers are not non-existent on CPA Networks anymore. I'm seeing an increasing number of them. And while it might not be Walmart, Dell, Target (free gift card offers on CPAs for these merchants don't count), I am seeing increasing numbers of retail rev-share merchants (who may also be on a traditional network) being offered through some CPA Networks. I can certainly see some very good reasons that CPA Networks might want to diversify their Advertising offerings along these lines. It's not a trend I'm particularly happy to see considering how voluem is generated by some CPA Networks, but it doesn't mean that it isn't happening.

And whether or not I agree with Jeff M. on many things, it doesn't mean that it isn't an issue that bears discussing within our Industry.

Re: How Does YouTube Rank Videos For Organic Search?

Kellie — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 14:53:37 -0000

I've seen some tutorials on it and know it gave me a headache just thinking about it. :) Has to do with tags, description, etc, etc. Lots of tricks just like in how you would code a web page. I'll see if I can find some of the links again for you if you're really interested.

I just remembering thinking...dang that looks like an awful lot of work for one video. :)I suppose once you are familiar with the layout/format/process it becomes fairly quick.

Re: How Does YouTube Rank Videos For Organic Search?

Kellie — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 15:40:19 -0000

Yep, definitely about a lot more than just that. What came to mind off the top of my head. What I've seen was very involved and my brain somewhat seized up. I'll see if I can find the links again.

Re: Can parasite affiliates massively affect other affiliates?

Kellie — Sun, 15 Apr 2007 06:52:47 -0000

These are my views:

1) The study on anti-spyware cookie crunching (washing) has nothing to do with loyaltyware and bringing it up just adds more confusion to a topic where a lot of confusion already exists.

2) That question posed to you by CP seems to be floating around a bit. Maybe if the Affiliate Team over at CP asks around enough, they will eventually get the response they are *wanting* to hear and ignore all the factual information they have been repeatedly provided. And they won't have to grossly misrepresent the answer to their question "they in any way hijack commissions from your company" when they are shown evidence, which is what they did on the CP forums after viewing my video tutorials on loyaltyware. The answer to the question, of course, is yes. CJ's TOS allows "technology" partners to redirect the any traffic to the merchant's web site except traffic from other affiliates using CJ network links or afsrc=1 on server-side links. It is allowed and is considered compliant. CP just keeps ignoring that fact.

3) "we factor in any losses like this into our ROI calculations, so even if they do affect us, we maintain margin."

I realize that many merchants and managers approach the issue from this perspective, so you aren't alone with this approach. It's not an approach I particularly care for however. It's still not without problems.

First is, from my own personal experience of speaking with merchants, many don't have the backend analytic systems in place to adequately assess the *true* ROI associated with a particular loyaltyware affiliate. That is they can't truly back track on the data and determine exactly which sales from say their PPCSE campaigns were redirected by the loyaltyware and also received a commission. Unless the merchant can do that type of in-depth analysis, they can't truly assess the ROI and make sure they are witihn ROI margins.

Second is, it just doesn't seem to make for a particularly healthy affiliate/merchant relationship. The merchant seems to be helding somewhat hostage and forced to accept the adware part of the affiliate's business model. That's not exactly how I personally want the Affiliate Marketing channel to be represented to merchants.

And while ulimately it is up to a merchant on who and what kinds of practices they want to allow into their affiliate channel, the issue as it applies to CP is a bit different. So while you or CP or any merchant may crunch numbers and reach a decision on whether you are within acceptable ROI margins, there's a twist with CP. And that is because CP is passing the cost onto their shopkeepers as well. Shopkeepers will be required to pay 20% of their mark-up on affiliate sales! They don't have the luxury of determining if *their* ROI magin is maintained or not. They can either pay on the traffic or they can opt-out of the CP marketplace, hence losing all the other traffic they normally receive from the marketplace. Not exactly appealing options for many of the CP shopkeepers.

4)"the market share that those individual companies have is not big enough to impact any one affiliate’s campaigns"

Your data source to back up that statement? Hopefully not the cookie washing study...since that's apples and oranges. I've never seen any such data published showing exactly what the impact is. I'd be interested in seeing just information.

But in reality is not the impact from individual companies, but rather the cumulative impact of all such companies. And not just loyaltyware companies, but all adware companies playing in the affiliate marketing channel. I just put out a study showing almost 40% of the top online retailers domains minimally being targeted by just *one* adware application with 20 million installations. And while that certainly doesn't show specific impact in dollar amounts, I do think those numbers are significant. And I can't imagine there not being an impact. And with CP seeming to have such a hard time grasping loyaltyware, I can imagine them trying to police that kind of behavior in their program.

You did ask for views. :)