Quote Originally Posted by HotMaleVideos View Post
Which is why I qualified the question with "unusual circumstances." I don't think many would disagree that they were likely reasonable terminations.

I'm just saying "as I see fit" is a very broad entitlement and potentially subject to abuse just as much as it is for legit/legal reasons. I'm trying to find where some program owners and affiliates might be at such a crossroads in some (apparent) cases that could tempt owners to find ways to penny-pinch ethical partners.

Relating to the other thread, I don't think an owner is entitled to 100% of rebills if an ethical affiliate can't deliver or convert traffic any longer, for example. I would suggest they legally and legitimately earned their share. Is that an unfair sense of entitlement on my part?
Mike,

Thats isnt really a 'program owner entitlement' or even an 'affiliate entitlement' issue though, its a trust issue, if you cant trust that a program owner isnt going to rip you off for no reason, you shouldnt be sending them traffic/sales.

Penny-pinching, to some extent is a good thing, for example a sponsor a couple of years back announced they were going to be adding a bunch of new upsells to their members areas, affiliates went crazy about this, until they realized that the sales to these new upsells were being split between the SPONSOR and the AFFILIATE.

Methods of generating additional income on paysites is something that everyone should be concerned about, program owners, affiliates, content providers, even designers, its when these new income generators become counter-productive that affiliates need to start worrying and again, in instances where that does happen, all the affiliate has to do is switch their traffic to someone else but what can the program owner do if they have un-productive affiliates, absolutely nothing it would seem.

Regards,

Lee