DISQUS

Looks like Jeff reads the same productivity books I do :)

Here's my tip:
Don't waste half your day playing. LOL! I kill myself. Sorry, Sam, but I did the math on that and came up playing for half of the day. Not that this isn't practiced by highly successful people. It is. Ever hear of this guy Marc Allen? www.marcallen.com I had a chance to meet him recently... what a strange experience that was but refreshing; Sam you'll like him.

On the serious side I do use many of the techniques that Jeff uses. As well, and to Sam's point, it's critical to take breaks. As well:

SHUT OF IM AND EMAIL with regularity. That's my #1 productivity tip.

Congrats to each of you! However, I'll need some help on these images. I see feet but where are the earbuds?

May your months ahead be filled with joy, patience and good health!

Webtrends, Coremetrics, etc. This problem spells nothing but opportunity for them. Unfortunately, some of them are tied (but how exactly are they bound?) to affiliate networks via marketing arrangements.

Why track manually using multiple systems when you can track with one?

Why pay on a variable % of sale on one of your tracking/reporting systems?

The only reason affiliate networks are used at all to track affiliate marketing relationships is the belief that they are the only means to quckly, painlessly access affiliates. This is simply not true.

I have actually been waiting for someone to realize this.

This will depend on the revenue impact to the publishers. Please let me know if you can quantify the impact to your program.

Nuf said. Hello, McFly! Anyone home? Gosh, how dopey can CJ get?

If I were a CJ publisher I'd be stepping up my campaign to get advertisers off of CJ's platform and onto another. I say stepping up as many CJ publishers confide existing efforts to me regularly citing a desire on both ends for more reliable AND, of course, more cost effective tracking/reporting.

Since advertisers already know that there aren't that many good affiliates out there and have been working with them for a few years now they're looking to pay for tracking and reporting based on a fixed fee. Publishers are more than willing to play along and, in fact, encouraging defection as reducing the advertisers' costs put more money in the kittie for commissions and other media buys with publishers.

Between this and affiliates "going direct" with Yahoo and MSN (Google is clearly next) I'd be pretty embarrassed to be at the helm of a traditional affiliate network. From CPA networks to affiliates these guys are running circles around them.

Jeff, one thing that did sound interesting to me was the willingness to “give up” transparency in exchange for “more sales with less effort”. This sounds counter to me to advice that I’ve heard from you and conversations I’ve had with AMs on the issue. The majority of AMs that I work with want more vision into the whole process… not less.
How dare you suggest that I can recognize both sides of an issue?! Don't you realize that I'm only presenting one here and, in doing so, trying to push my slimy, ignorance-based agenda?

I’m not sure that it is gaining as much traction as is being suggested here.

Thanks for suggesting this. I'm not sure either. That's why I asked her and that's why we have comments on blogs (I thought). Good that you were late to dinner for if you were on time you would have ruined everyone's fun.

Your theory is one I agree with, Brian. Indeed, a "Big 3" affiliate network cannot be displaced by a technology advance alone. As I see it there are 2 pain points among advertisers:

1) Flexible payment options for (different kinds of) affiliates (who bring different kinds of visitors)

2) Affiliate networks don't bring unique (unattainable in other ways) affiliates - advertisers must work to go get them and/or do things to attract them

I'm constantly researching, yes, and advertisers tell me they are being offered no new options. Hence, companies like Mercent, ChannelAdvisor and others are jumping in to help them. Does this mean advertisers want to leave affiliate networks? Of course not. But what's the glue?

At the core here is "what keeps advertisers interested in working with affiliate networks?" What I posit is: Very little as time goes on as they realize 1 and 2 above.

I'm sure there are advertisers out there who do not find 1 and 2 to be valid in their situation. I simply don't know many. If you know one please ask them to post their thoughts and reasoning here or I'll invite them, gladly, to a podcast interview.

Example:
I just conducted an interview with JellyFish.com's CEO today. Here is another example of a company that is moving away from using affiliate networks as a means to access advertisers. Why? Their model involves advertisers using more flexible means to compensate affiliates (which is essentially what JellyFish.com is). Advertisers need the tools that Mercent, as an example, is providing in order to work with this innovative, search based affiliate.

Even affiliates are moving away -- toward companies that provide DIRECT access to advertisers and better technology tools that streamline... facilitate smarter, more flexible payment schemes.

Jeff (I never called you "Doak" in my life):
I never said, or implied, you didn't make your point well nor did I question its stance so please don't try and inject emotion or call this "confrontational." I dissected your points and presented a counter. To suggest that I think I threaten you is insulting! What would possess you to suggest that you know what I think about you... and in such an emotionally charged way no less?

Fact: after I posted that I called Sam to ask him how I did in terms of how I came across -- so as not to be too coarse or smug. Sam, at the time, said I did fine... not to worry. Feel free to confirm with Sam that I was overly sensitive -- being Molander and all. I have worked hard for over a year now to not appear to be a jerk when debating, Jeff, and it's reactions like yours that disappoint me -- as they improperly color my comments and dilute their value.

I appreciate your last set of comments but they do not address anything I put forward. You repeated yourself and claimed that I didn't listen to you. I did and I did my best to explain what I thought you were missing.

It's ridiculous to be acting like this when we each have longstanding, deep respect for each other's minds. I haven't been asked to admit I'm wrong nor have I suggested that I'm not wrong. I have not become confrontational and when I have on CPN it has been due to anonymous posters getting my goat.

By suggesting that one side of the argument that Sam puts forward is ridiculous you argue that Sam's having asked the question is ridiculous. By invalidating one of the two positions you take away debate. You have indirectly suggested that Sam's question is one that doesn't matter and undermined your having taken the time to reply to it. Clearly you don't like hearing one of the sides from Ms. X and you don't like hearing my side of a related question that Sam posed.

I don't think any answer is clear no matter how many no's you use. If you take that position let's see some reasoning, eh? I took my position and gave reasoning complete with examples. You have repeatedly laid out your thesis.

I believe there are significant differences between the two business models that prevent CPA networks from ever being a “threat.” Just because CPA Networks scale and traditional networks do not does not mean they are suddenly going to take over. There are very good reasons that traditional affiliate marketing cannot scale easily, and those reasons make it a profitable channel nonetheless and its the reason CPA Networks don’t start accepting revshare/retailer offers.

Okay. You've said this twice. I'm not trying to provoke you but why not lay out some reasoning for me to consider (when have I refused to consider your words, Jeff?).

I simply must address your comment re: how I create enemies for myself. If laying out only one side creates enemies then I am absolutely guilty.

It is not my job to present both sides. That's what the other side is for! I present my educated opinion. To suggest that I am only interested in debating for the sake of debate or listing to myself talk is pure insanity. When I closed Shawn's last summit my final comments were addressing how face-to-face interaction brings out the best learnings and how much David Lewis was able to teach me within the first 20 minutes of meeting him. It's not the first time I've learned on a blog or board and will not be the last.

Bottom line: I present my educated opinion and if others want to present the other they have their own blog or comments to do so. Or, yes, they can make a podcast.

Shmuel...
Excellent, insightful work with a payoff toward the end -- a great laugh. You should continue to show off your insights. I'm not sure that Time Warner doesn't understand the future so much as it is confused about it. I would guess that forces within the company restrain those which might be more aggressive about embracing new forms of digital rights management and/or the dismantling of it (new forms of monetization).

Now... all we need is for Chris Boyd or Wayne Porter to sluth out the trail on this and expose the "subscriber stuffing" sham!

Thanks to Sam for packaging this story in a way that is truly meaningful -- powerful.

Thanks for participating, Sam. Your contributions are invaluable.

So... CJ et al are not withering on the vine. Okay, I'll bite. What are they doing that is innovative lately? What are they offering advertisers? My statement on the program suggested that Mercent, ChannelAdvisor and others seem to be poised to eat affiliate networks' lunch by automating the bejeezes out of the affiliate, shopping comparison and search processes -- all while providing a business-rules driven dashboard that the e-commerce manager (now an analyst) uses to drive results.

Let's focus less on what they could do (we discussed this in the podcast) with regard to mobile (where Linkshare seems aimed) and becoming the affiliate (Performics as a search company). Let's talk about what Performics, CJ and Linkshare (the main players) are doing today that is innovative and promises to ramp revenue + deliver value to the advertiser.

Of course, there's MyAffiliateProgram/Kowabunga. Let's set them aside and bait readers to tune in next weekend when we discuss that on Weekly Insight. This is long overdue. They're worth talking about as v9 is truly innovative -- you and I seem to agree.

So, what about "the big 3?" How is it that they're not being out-innovated by companies who provide dashboards, automation and back-office (inventory) integration?

Hi, Shawn.

Actually, I accused you of smearing me and ad hominem attacks. You did the same thing that you always do. You didn't address the issue and tried to make it appear as if I'm drawing attention to myself.

I'm drawing attention to YOU and your pointless, baseless attacks -- not to mention your refusal, to my delight, to participate in Sam's invitation to think critically about the industry that you have associated so closely with your good name.

I hope you might approach the batters box and take an intellectual swing for a change and dismantle my logic... rather than embarrass yourself like this. Pick your post but let's start with this one for Sam's sake.

That's a long list. I haven't found anything yet but I'm curious given that Shawn and Jim find it relevant. It must have something to do with my promoting myself or putting something out there that misses the mark so badly that it takes an army of name-callers to balance.

Apparently people come here to CostPerNews.com to air dirty laundry and not discuss issues. As of yet nobody other than Jeff Doak and Kellie S. have chosen to offer critical thinking on anything I've put forward. I guess you all look at this as just another place to post your ad hominem attacks every time I post, create a podcast or type a comment. Somehow it all gets back to my slimy ways -- like asking the Abestweb community if they think there's a better way to meet up with advertisers. GASP! How embarrassed I am to have been caught red-handed by the guy who is the hands-down self promotion machine.

It's unfortunate. I was hoping that CostPerNews.com would end up being a place where people came to discuss the important issues Sam decides to publish viewpoints on. I guess it's just another place to call me names.

Hey, Shawn...
You're not forgiven. Good that you can own up to your actions.

Indeed, talking about products and conducting research that measures market acceptance is not only completely conniving, devious and unheard of in your mind but it is, also, a waste of time in practice thanks largely to an environment that answers like yours help create.

If you wanted to actually step up to the plate and take a swing at Sam's question you'd take my answer or Deanna's and offer critical thought against our points. Hey batta-batta-swing? Didn't think so. It's easier to reply with some pat "each can can learn from each other" and walk away.

Deanna:
If I wasn't married to my wife, Diana, (ironically pronounced Deeanna) I'd propose to you right now. Or perhaps in Second Life. Congratulations on being one of the few people who answered the question Sam asked.

No offense to everyone else (except for David Lewis!) but I don't think Sam asked about traditional affiliate networks needing to worry about being replaced by CPA networks. He asked if they compete, why or why not.

Oh, and Sam didn't ask if anyone was trying to drum up consulting projects but I'm impressed at the ability of my detractors to stick with this highly embarrassing situation -- pointing out that I earn a living and taking a swipe at CostPerNews in the same breath (for sponsoring my plea for money and positioning it as "news"). As we all know, conferences and books are all done for the love of the industry, not for the money.

Jeff:
While I enjoyed your reasoning and find it insightful I don't think you supported your thesis: they don't because they serve two different types of customers.

If any threat exists at all to affiliate networks it is that they may lose their current lead gen advertisers (if they haven’t already). But since most affiliate networks tout clients who are big brands and big retailers, this is of little concern.

I ask that you consider that the above statement supports a "yes" answer to Sam's question and that your rationalization ignores the fact that retailers are less profitable than CPA advertisers.

Suggesting that most affiliate networks tout brands is not relevant. I assume you meant that they do business with large brands as a practice -- they prefer it. This is only partially true. Linkshare, CJ and even Performics have more small brand clients than large brands but this, also, is irrelevant to the point you're making -- which agrees with Sam's question and undermines your argument. Thus, I suggest you're one of "us" (Deanna, should we let him into the club?). Watch your back at the Affiliate Summit, Jeff ;-)

By using the logic you presented, Commission Junction would prefer to take JC Penny away from Linkshare rather than Chase. Why? It's a big retail brand and that's what they court. CJ doesn't really cater to lead generation advertisers and would prefer a retailer. This ignores the fact that Chase, click for click, is a more lucrative customer for the network -- any network.

I suggest to you that the nature of clients which Kowabunga and your sister company target (small businesses) clouds what you're able to see happening in the realm of VCLK/CJ et al. Specifically, you may be able to separate your inbound client leads based on "product or service" but this is due to the phenomenon occurring within the small biz realm: one where brand loyalty does not drive volume.

Please consider: most of (not all) your clients don't compete on a level where brand drives sales or lead volume. As an example, Money Cares (your debt consolidation client) ended up inside Kolimbo (your affiliate network). Based on your description of the advertiser qualification process I'm not sure how that happened but it did and what I'm suggesting is that your sister CPA network isn't going to much care about losing out. Why? They simply cannot compete with you when catering to the same level of client -- those that don't have brand driving the volume. Does this make sense? Your sister company will simply go find another Money Cares-like advertiser. It won't be too difficult for them to do. This isn't slamming your smaller biz, smaller brand clients... it's just stating the way it is. Right?

Kellie:
Ms. X didn't focus her comments on quality but did not actively suggest that it didn't matter -- that all that matters is getting a form filled out or an email address. I'm simply not seeing this reasoning that supports an "anti-quality" philosophy on her part. This is another part of what's missing here: people actually taking what she said and debating her actual statements. Rather, it is simple to suggest that you got a visceral reaction without actually telling us how you rationalized having that reaction. I'm providing Sam with a piece that delves into this deeper.

As for your comments regarding CPA networks and affiliate networks each having "advertiser envy" you are on to something and frankly I've never thought about it as being dual before you suggested it -- but it is. What CPA networks "don't have" is rather high brow, retail advertiser relationships. Thus, they want them (regardless of things like profit margin being lower many times). They want what they cannot have (witness ShareResults trying to move into retail).

Thanks for showing up and making it seem more worthwhile.

Jonathan:
Why are you torturing yourself? If I'm not a serious threat to something (by doing what I do with podcasts, blogs, etc.) then you all have way too much time on your hands. Turn the channel. Your pick.

If you would do things like explain why her comments are mis-leading people would be less board.

"To complain about having to weed through affiliates at CJ or LinkShare but then say it is easier to just let the CPA networks do that for her and pick the affiliates is proof that this person doesn’t get much of anything when it comes to marketing online."

That's you're very best? Calling people names? Reap that lack of respect, bro. Although I can think of one lady (who is fond of you) who thinks and verbalizes her beliefs similarly. Logical argument starts and stops at "you don't get it."

Nobody... you've already told me who you based on your comments. No need to come out and I'll protect you; no worries. I'll also resist the urge to kick you around over the whole "CJ quality assurance" team that doesn't exist, as Ms. X points out. That stated, hey, CJ clients don't expect it to exist so I guess I'm wrong again... or am I? How many Ms. X's are out there, Nobody? Too many for your comfort I suppose and some with VP after their name. More Molander rhetoric!

Jeff, yes. Ms. X was not but you and others were. Somehow this whole discussion went in the direction of debating over CPA networks competing with "traditional" affiliate networks (true or false). Hence, your statement that it's a different business isn't really true. They compete for CPA offers... regardless of percentages of types of offers/advertisers.

As for Ms. X's assertion, this is your viewpoint. I'm simply suggesting that it may be clouded just as mine may be clouded. If you look at the entire nature of the "comments" on this string they are typical -- attacking me for presenting a viewpoint. Attacking me anonymously and, frankly, poorly... along side of people who literally make clowns of themselves. My what courage that takes.. to make poorly thought-out arguments under cover. What does that earn you? It earns people tuning you out.

Jeff, thankfully, put his name on your words; hence, I'm still here (I'm also here to continue to read Nobody who I've managed to finger this morning as he's as predictable as he is a coward; we've done battle before).

Ms. X is frustrated. She's told me as much. She's not suggesting that anyone is better served here or there. She's suggesting that affiliate networks have inherent weaknesses that have become outdated in a world that cares MORE about scale than it does "relationships." Her attitude doesn't shun affiliate networks. She still works with one although she questions the sense of it all. It's not her decision to dump a network... she is merely an influencer who thinks rather like a decision-maker.

Her words are honest, powerful and hence frightening to Mr. Nobody and Company. Who's to say she isn't influencing her boss right now? She may not be able to put her name on her words but she scares people... enough for them to come here and throw stones at the guy who offered her up.

Here's a thought: Change. Why not pick up a Seth Godin book and CHANGE, Commission Junction (et al)???

Jonathan:
While I appreciate and agree with the point you're making it does not refute mine -- affiliate networks like CJ, Linkshare, etc. all want to have the same offers (that CPA networks do). Typically, they're more lucrative. Hence, Porsche Boxters, flashing T&A at Affiliate Summits yelling "are these the hottest girls or what!?" into the exhibit hall during raffles, etc.

Do you believe that Azoogleads having launched an affiliate network called mPort and getting booted shortly thereafter from Commission Junction was coincidental? Perhaps now we're going to get into arguing the definition of a CPA network. I can just taste it.

Understood Jeff but what you (and everyone else) fail to acknowledge (including Trust over at Revenews) is that CPA-oriented (lead, service/subscription) based businesses represent a minority in advertisers but are far more profitable than retail advertisers. JCPenney who? Give me a unique credit card to push. I'm not sure if anyone in comments here has actually looked into an "affiliate network" at the P&L level. In fact you don't even need to do that -- just consider what a "sale" transaction nets an affiliate network (2-3% of a $60 ticket) versus a CPA transaction (25%+ of a $50 affiliate fee). If the affiliate network also runs search it gets fairly rich -- spend $1.50 on traffic to take in $50 from the advertiser.

Oh, and as for the other side's perspective... we have it. It's called Revenews.com. It's all butterflies and lollipops over there.

Jeff, you said, "CPA networks are absolutely the wrong place to run your offer for 95% of advertisers. If you are an advertiser gathering leads to sell to a list manager or to upsell yourself then CPA networks are fantastic. CPA networks don’t do percentage of sale, they don’t do retail, they don’t do anything except landing page lead forms."

This makes Mr. Nobody right? Okay but nobody (not I nor my guest) discussed anything in terms of retail or service/lead.

So, this makes Mr. Nobody and everyone else who showed up here (but you I think) just typical Molander-bashers with a side of Performics/AffTrack mixed in (shows creativity).

Ms. X shows disdain you say. That's your view. Mine: She is a realist who is tired of being tasked to do the $10 an hour intern job (at her salary which is higher). You are missing, I believe, her entire point. That is: Hire the intern to do that labor-intensive work called "affiliate marketing" and let a CPA network do the rest (a la Google AdWords). No relationship needed. You suggest that her not liking to go through apps all day long is linked intrinsically with her lack of interest in relationships.

Jeff, isn't life about presenting all sides so that people can draw a conclusion? Aren't my podcasts presenting sides that nobody has heard or blogged about before -- leading cowards who have paychecks rooted in the status quo to attempt to throw eggs at me? I think they are. That's not me bragging that's me simply stating fact.

In fact, I challenge anyone to find a place on the Web that presents a viewpoint similar to Ms. X's view.

The reason people are so upset with me (perhaps yourself included, Jeff) is because I'm presenting what they know is true about how their clients/advertisers think. If I keep this up advertisers might, some day, realize they all think alike -- and act on that realization.

Indeed, Sam, it's the use (by anonymous posters no less) of generalizations that they use which mis-characterize my statements. I find that to be a waste of Web page. If someone wants to have a debate and show me I'm "wrong" that's great... although I don't seem to be making statements here... I'm asking questions and my guest is answering them. Are they questions that have answers that I've discussed in the past? Yes. Are they logical? Yes again but when you introduce generalizations and play semantical games it ruins any chance at educational or meaningful discourse.

"Rev share." That's a fun term to use, isn't it? It's a shame that Sam's readers have fully functioning brains.

What's wrong, Mr. Coward, a CPA network eat your lunch?

Sam...
Anyone who links to me (although links are dead; I learned that -- FROM A LINK!) is brilliant but you take it to another level. Okay, brilliance aside I have to say that what you and Jeff may be neglecting here are the economics involved from the advertisers' perspective. What I'm getting: cost per acquisition advertising has, traditionally, been all about customer acquisition (not retention). It has FAILED (are you listening Commission Junction, Linkshare, Performics?) to adapt to what advertisers demand -- a model that includes cost mechanisms for customer RETENTION.

Affiliates maintain tight relationships with consumers? This translates to the same (existing) customers clicking through. Aside from "customer ownership" issues that can be debated endlessly I'm suggesting that we must also talk about changing the cost model. I'm confident you'll agree.

Indeed, "affiliate marketing" lacks creativity in the area of delivery! Innovators like FatWallet stand apart but not because of innovations in delivery (although affiliates have experimented none really stand out -- other than CouponCabin of course; nothing beats Yahoo.com as a delivery device). Some affiliates have achieved remarkable levels of success due to their ability to tap into **community** and a tangible benefit (chiefly discounts) to consumers. Even though these affiliates struggle with advertiser relationships from a pure economics perspective.

You can open up the delivery mechanism and explode the options -- let creativity run wild. It's exciting but I don't know that it solves the very real problem that exists for "affiliate marketing" which is a "pure CPA" environment. Why? It's been retarded by the cost structure. Mainly the vendor (affiliate network) structure that is tied directly to the affiliate fee.

Brief rant:
It's time for a change. Affiliate networks do not hold the keys to affiliate relationships. Who does? It's a long list: netExponent, PartnerCentric, PartnerPerform, Commerce360, The Partner Maker, LinkProfits... and on and on. Affiliate networks must be reduced to what they are: tracking and reporting tools, not business development tools.

Back to cost:
Perhaps what this may lead to is a new ad platform that is centered on widgets and blends the media cost models?

Why am I typing this on a blog? Why are you? Are we insane? Someone pay me now!