(potentially?) controversial topic - Sponsors vs Affiliates

[desslock]

That's all well and good and of course happens. Certainly affiliates would have sponsors that perform much differently for them then others.

I have zero problem whatsoever paying out 50% to our best performing affiliates (in fact, many earn commissions even higher than that). But I'm having a little trouble believing any and all affiliates are worthy of 50% commissions with any and all sponsors.

Brian:

Here's a question - what specific behavior does this "grunge affiliate" do which deems him a fractional commission? Describe the behavior of, as you put it, an unworthy affiliate, as opposed to a properly performing affiliate.

Steve

[CorbinFisher_BD]

Brian:

Here's a question - what specific behavior does this "grunge affiliate" do which you do not want to pay him the full commission for? Describe the behavior of, as you put it, an unworthy affiliate, as opposed to a properly performing affiliate.

Steve

Let's say... an affiliate that does nothing but put up banners and FHGs provided to them by a sponsor. They don't write their own copy. They don't even have much invested in the way of hosting.

They have little to no bookmark or type-in traffic. Their traffic comes from, instead, submitting a FHG provided to them by a sponsor to a directory or TGP, getting traffic filtered through them for the duration of that gallery's posting, and then repeating that process over and over again with each of their sponsors' FHGs they can get their hands on.

Or even a blog site that does nothing but post free content provided to them by the sponsor and copy and paste the sponsor's update descriptions on to their blog with referral codes spread throughout. None of their own copy added to the blog at all. Traffic to their site comes from reciprocal links and directory submissions almost entirely (again, little to no bookmarked or type-in traffic by surfers inspired to return to that site on their own).

A TGP operator, even, who has nothing more to their site than FHGs and other galleries created by others, and traffic that is all from recips (many of which are often misleading, as with recips and trades between TGPs where a surfer clicks on a thumb to see a gallery but is instead redirected to another TGP).

There are people who submit great sites to directories and link lists and use them to build up dedicated and devoted traffic bases of their own. There are blog operators whose sites might very well be more interesting and fascinating than even the sites of the sponsors they promote. There are TGPs out there that have personality and unique elements that make them cool and fun. But they are far outnumbered by the former examples, I think.

[desslock]

Re: {{ ---- CorbinFisher_BD's list of examples from above --- }}

Ok --- well that was what I was trying to smoke out.

All those things you specify are differences in methods. Obviously there will be differences in creativity and imagination.

I don't understand what difference it makes to you. You are paying on performance. If affiliate A is crappy, then it will show in poor commissions. Are you trying to wag the dog here?

If there are certain behaviors performed by grunge affiliates where you feel they are getting something for nothing, then disallow it in your program terms.

I don't happen to feel these alternate explorations you are suggesting to be elitist. However my personal suggestion would be to pay everyone the same rate. If you have super affiliates, then pay them bonuses. Expire affiliates who don't send sales after a reasonable amount of time.

Steve

[CorbinFisher_BD]

If there are certain behaviors performed by grunge affiliates where you feel they are getting something for nothing, then disallow it in your program terms.

I don't happen to feel these alternate explorations you are suggesting to be elitist. However my personal suggestion would be to pay everyone the same rate. If you have super affiliates, then pay them bonuses. Expire affiliates who don't send sales after a reasonable amount of time.

Steve

See, that's precisely what we're doing