Affiliate Programs... Invite Only?

[dannyz]

Well, I'll fly in the face of criticism, I contend that it's a stupid idea.

I'd rather help affiliates better target their traffic and increase conversions then tell them 'you aren't good enough to join my program.' That just does not seem like a good business model to me.

Furthermore, I think that article is just a classic marketing strategy using a soft sell to get more affiliates. I see no proof this guy is making a million dollars. I will say it's a clever marketing gimmick.

Cheers,
DannyZ

[basschick]

i've seen some very large programs that worked with "invite only" affiliates that did extremely well. twisty's was invite only for years and it is way up there in quality and as a success story.

the big catch as i see it with invite only is that it's going to be much harder to find affiliates. the biggest advantage i see is that you will not risk having your program closed or legal action for spamming affiliates. but there can be other advantages.

i worked with one program that got over 100,000 hits per day of exit traffic. that traffic produced around 2 sales per day as it was often blind traffic or traffic from sites in niches other than the site it was sending to. it used masses of bandwidth and produced what would, if lucky, be $45 to the program. a site that doesn't have it's own multi niche exit console can't hope to monetize such traffic - and even so, since many of these people were sent forceably from a second or third exit console, it's just hard to convert.

programs like allamericanguys make potential affiliates write to them with info. although they partly do it to keep adult sites from sending them traffic, it's not a bad idea. that way program owners can check each potential affiliate's sites to make sure they are comfortable with it.

[maxpower]

i worked with one program that got over 100,000 hits per day of exit traffic. that traffic produced around 2 sales per day as it was often blind traffic or traffic from sites in niches other than the site it was sending to. it used masses of bandwidth and produced what would, if lucky, be $45 to the program. a site that doesn't have it's own multi niche exit console can't hope to monetize such traffic - and even so, since many of these people were sent forceably from a second or third exit console, it's just hard to convert.

I do not see why anyone would waist that much traffic, I could make a very good living off of just filtering that. I take it, it has already been highly filtered but still I would love to get those kinda of numbers a day and might even change the members site or ask them to change the exit link URL to better convert that. Both sides of this are a mess, but I am sure you help them out with this I hope with out dumping the traffic.

[Xstr8guy]

Hmmm, I suppose I shuld post here since our new site is "invite only".

We just opened our doors 5 weeks ago. And we just want to keep things subdued until we think the site is ready for the big-time. Developing an all-exclusive site from scratch is very difficult. You honestly don't know how well a site will convert and retain until you test it. In the few short weeks since our soft-launch, we have tweaked the tour considerably, added CCbill as a processor, changed our pricing and toyed with the idea of adding leased feeds.

A second reason to restrict the number of affiliates is to reward those affiliates that really want to promote your program. They have an advantage in promoting the site because it hasn't been seen all over the internet.

To me, overexposure can cause the death of a site. I prefer a more natural growth cycle and I think many of the best sites have used that approach. We don't want to be Topbucks, Condomcash or Pridebucks. We would rather emulate some of the smaller sites. They are more passionate and genuine about their sites. You can tell that the site is honestly a labor of love for the owners. And members and potential members can see that too.

[desslock]

In my opinion as an affiliate, I avoid "invite only" programs.

It just doesn't seem above board to me. As an affiliate, I have to rely on proper reporting and I have countless times been able to find problems by talking to other affiliates in the program. So it is one of those self-protection guidelines for me.

If they are an "exclusive club" it just seems to me like they are potentially hiding things.

That's one of my general rules, like avoid programs that tier their commissions.

Steve

[dannyz]

Xst8guy,

Congratulations on your new site! I do totally understand what you mean about smaller sites having more passion, and trying to keep that passion as the site gets larger and business grows can be difficult.

However, there is a difference between offering a new tour as 'invite only' to test it and saying you are never going to allow affiliates to promote unless they are invited. We do that as well, as we did with only allowing certain affiliates to promote Boykakke for the the first month. It also gave our top affiliates a chance to make more money by being the first to promote the new sites.

I also dont think heavily promoted sites have to spell 'death.' Look at Randy Blue. There are countless other examples. It's up to the webmasters to constantly keep their sites fresh and keep the members happy.

[basschick]

yes, but there are other issues. a couple large programs got stung with HUGE fines because their affiliates misbehaved and they were held responsible. also ccbill has previously turned off a couple programs where the affiliates linking to the site were using questionable language or models.

and then there's fraud. the larger a program is, the more fraud they risk encountering. we've had a couple people who used huge databases of credit cards that were not their own to sign up for a few new memberships per day.

[gaystoryman]

Why an Invite Only feature?

Simple answer, to avoid having webmaster's like me sign up or worse, like Maxpower. As a sponsor you want dedicated sellers not the part time hobbyist or schmuk who things they have a right to snatch all the free content and that's it.

In my case, I join, look around and 9 out of 10 times do nothing else. I am not a benefit so why should I garner access to the free content? I shouldn't and if you listen to all those who harp about Free Porn killing the industry, perhaps an Invite Only option would help reduce that. It would in essence separate a lot of the part timers from the working webmasters, increasing the revenues for those who work for it, not for people who simply surf, sign up, enjoy, then move on.

By limiting the affiliates you also help place a standard out there and avoid some of the shady types. Yeah I know, its a dream but doable under this type of program. There are many online who have certain shady reputations, that odds are, wouldn't get any invites, and so we police our industry to cut that crap down, by simply making affiliates invite only.

In the grand scheme of things it might not make a huge difference, but it could make some difference, and huge changes happen when a bunch of little one's happen. This is one of those changes.

As to the notion that person B can easily access your sponsors and lure them away, yes it is possible but it won't just be about money with Invite Only, but quality of the product and support. If person B is a scammer, odds are he won't make a dent in your preferred affiliates. And when does anyone selling limit themselves exclusively? So they sign up with Person B, in the long term it won't hurt and could even help as they market site B gaining more relevent traffic.

The odds of someone being lured and dumping Site A would not be in the interest of the affiliate, after all they didn't get the invite because they turned on their computer. They got it for a reason and part of that reason is that they had some professionalism. A Pro isn't going to turn down what they already are earning, just for a bigger slice. They would want Proof they would make the same sales first and even then, being a Pro, they would seek ways to have both programs operating.

That is just plain good business sense.

you got me up to a dime's worth Lee... :honest:

[basschick]

think companies can't be held responsible if their affiliates spam? from an article about marketing porn on the internet in the wall street journal:

"Last summer, the Federal Trade Commission accused seven online porn companies of violating the federal Can-Spam Act of 2003, which governs commercial email. The government said that affiliates of the porn companies violated a rule requiring the subject lines of emails with adult content to include the phrase "sexually explicit." The spam messages also failed to include a postal address and a means for recipients to block future e-mails, also required under the law.

The government reached settlements with four of the companies for a total of about $1.2 million in penalties. Three other cases are pending in federal district courts. Under Can-Spam, the government argued, the companies are liable for spam sent by their affiliates because they are essentially paying affiliates to send messages on their behalf.

Jon Kraden, an attorney with the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection, said the cases let adult companies "know they can't just set up an online affiliate program, tell them not to break the law, stick their head in the sand and let the money roll in."

full story here