Sam Harrelson - Latest Comments in CostPerNews Special: Are CJ and Linkshare Worth Their Salt?

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

Jeff Molander — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 18:55:40 -0000

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.

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

Brian Littleton — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 17:05:32 -0000

I'm actually suprised at this discussion, and also a little late to the table! However, I will add a very brief point from my perspective. It is my opinion that the line is very clear between the value of an Affiliate Network - and that of a CPA Network. Namely, the affiliates (publishers) are different. Where I think Jeff M. is correct is in his suggestion that CPA Networks can be successfull (sometimes very successful) and have a higher profit margin per action at times. However, I'm not sure that being "successfull", or having a larger margin in certain cases makes them a threat to what is called a "Traditional Affiliate Network".

From what I see, advertisers who have offers that are suitable for a CPA type deal - and who also have multiple SKU rev-share % deals are using a combination of both mediums to attain their goals. It isn't my place here to provide the specific examples that I am thinking of, but they are out there to find. In reality I think they are being used as seperate channels, where appropriate. (Not all merchants can use "CPA", and not all can use "Affiliate")

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. So, my question is... Is this a "limited" viewpoint that is being voiced by Ms. X - is it really one that is gaining mainstream and grand scope amongst advertisers (that of desiring less work/more sales/less transparency) ... I don't doubt that Ms. X is sincere, and I can certainly understand the viewpoint - but I'm not sure that it is gaining as much traction as is being suggested here.

Sorry I'm late to the party, feel free to ignore me. :)

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

Jeff Molander — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 13:55:40 -0000

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

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

brianlittleton — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 12:05:32 -0000

Sorry I'm late to the party, feel free to ignore me. :)

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

Jonathan (Trust) — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 21:27:37 -0000

"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."

I've looked at various CPA networks and it's rare they carry an advertiser that one of the major networks do. I'm sure there are a few but I would love to see a list of what advertisers are available on CPA networks that can be found on Performics, CJ or Linkshare. Just post the merchants and what CPA network they're on. Also you might see a growing number of CPA networks but that doesn't necessarily correspond to a growing number of advertisers. There's not much variety, it's usually the same advertisers pushing their offers on as many CPA as possible.

"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."

There is a lot of talk about CPA networks and the major traditional networks, even tho they mainly deal in different type of offers. But where is the talk about the smaller affiliate networks that actually do rev share offers like the traditional networks? Like avantlink, affiliatefuture that I finally joined since they got DeepDiscountDVD, a favorite among many, etc. I would keep an eye on those.

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

Jeff Molander — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 16:51:50 -0000

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.

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

Jonathan (Trust) — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 16:27:37 -0000

"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."

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

Kellie AFP — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 13:42:12 -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: CostPerNews Special: Are CJ and Linkshare Worth Their Salt?

Jeff Molander — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 11:51:50 -0000

Thanks for showing up and making it seem more worthwhile.

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

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

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

Jonathan (Trust) — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 22:16:23 -0000

It wasn't directed at you. If it was I would have used your name. I'm saying that's what it's turned into for Jeff. And you do notice the comments leaning heavily in one direction. The whole podcast is rather ridiculous. Ms. X, changing the voice and then the actual content of it.

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

Sam Harrelson — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 22:04:13 -0000

Jonathan-

This is not Jeff's site.

This is my site. I went to Jeff with this idea and asked for a podcast on these topics because I do think this is an issue that needs to be discussed intelligently somewhere, and I knew Jeff would be able to ask questions that got people talking. He did, and it has. I also want to hear insights from others of you who disagree with Jeff so I will be calling on you to do similar projects if I can convince you of the common good in doing so. I did not foresee the number of back-and-forth comments with no substance from both Jeff and others, but I am glad that people such as Shawn and Jeff Doak have offered up creative and insightful thoughts.

Jeff M may use this as an advertising tool somewhere else, but this is definitely not an advertisement for him or for anyone else. Please don't insult me by claiming such a thing. Scroll down and take a look back at the content I've provided here (for free) before you continue down that path of specious reasoning.

And no, I'm not a consultant. I'm a college professor and someone with a long past in affiliate marketing who is still very interested in the space. If that's not objective enough for you, I don't know what could be.

BTW, if anyone would like to advertise here on CPN, it's rather cheap. Check out the "Advertise" page accessible from the home page.

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

Jonathan (Trust) — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 21:53:28 -0000

"We are all just here trying to fix the problems you are trying to create. I just don’t get why you are doing these things."

Good for business. Stir stuff up, sell fear, create problems/controversy etc. Hire Jeff The Consultant** to fix them for you or guide you. This just looks like advertising to me. I've listened to past podcasts where one of the merchants just happened to say: paraphrase "Isn't there somebody that had some sort of affiliate list out?" And then Jeff chimes in, Why yes, that's me. As if the merchants chosen for his podcasts had no idea he had an affiliate list out.

**Correct me if I'm wrong on that. That is what you do for a living? Consultant work.

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

Mr. Nobody — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 21:49:37 -0000

The last thing (I promise) I want to point out is that all of these comments somehow stroke Jeff's ego. In other words, we are helping create this monster.

Goodbye,

Mister Nobody

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

Sam Harrelson — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 21:08:00 -0000

Don't forget, it's not too late to get in on the special publication post tomorrow about all of this.

If you've got thoughts on this subject and want to develop them in an extended form, see the post above this one (homework assignment).

So far, we're up to 8 responders to my question (high quality and interesting insights btw) so I'd like to get a few more to round out the discussion.

Sam

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

Mr. Nobody — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 21:01:47 -0000

The point I was making in my last post is you are not a serious threat (in your dreams) - you are just a pain in the ass.

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

Mr. Nobody — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 20:55:44 -0000

My big take-away from all of this is, as usual, Jeff lives in his imaginary world that only he sees. This makes it difficult to argue points since he believes he is right even when everyone knows he is wrong. His "insider info" is outdated or merely opinion. My concern (on behalf of the industry) is that people read or listen to what he says and take it as fact or good advice. We are all just here trying to fix the problems you are trying to create. I just don't get why you are doing these things.

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

Jonathan (Trust) — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 20:44:22 -0000

It's the holidays, I'm being nice. I'm trying to keep you from embarassing yourself even further. This podcast does that. And you avoided my good questions. One day you're for transparency and picking your partners wisely, next day who cares who your partners are as long as you get traffic. Explain that one to me.

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

Jeff Molander — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 20:33:42 -0000

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.

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

Jonathan (Trust) — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 19:59:14 -0000

Ok, I just listened to it again.

It comes off as someone who should find another line of work, one big whine fest:

"You're the one stuck there looking at all the applications." At the beginning of the podcast.

Um, yeah that's the job. You're the affiliate manager for a merchant, you're supposed to look at who you let in, not the networks. It's your program, you should be running it. It seems like you're throwing up your hands and don't want to do the job and have the networks pick and choose who they let in YOUR program.

And Ms. X said one of the benefits of the CPA network is they do all the work in choosing the partners

Paraphrase from Ms. X
"You should care where you stuff is being shown. You should but at the end of the day if you want to get your approvals, you need volume"

"Similar to what Google does, not a lot of transparency in terms of partners that send traffic, you just get the trafic."

And that's a good thing Jeff, Ms.X ? Who cares who your partners are as long as you get traffic. Do Wayne and Ben need to have a sit down with you?

And of course you throw in you're a consultant, as usual in these podcasts.

If anything this podcast make the both of you look bad along with CPA networks.

Like I said before, no competition to traditional networks. Of course there is always room for improvement.

Again at 6:30 more complaining. "You're the one stuck there having to go thru the applications"

That's the job.

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

Jonathan (Trust) — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 19:06:39 -0000

I can email you Jeff to verify if you don't believe how easy it was to figure out.

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

Jonathan (Trust) — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 19:05:06 -0000

On a side note, I knew who Ms. X was first few seconds. Thing with these kinds of things is you can make someone sound like a chipmunk but people have a certain way of speaking, certain style. And you keep using the same people in your podcasts. I thought I would just throw that out there because she is a good AM and if you wanted to keep it a secret for some reason, this isn't the way. You might just want to have a tracscript or something instead of the podcast if this is something that could get you in trouble.

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

Mr. Nobody — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:21:56 -0000

This has all been explained above by everyone participating.

Now it is getting more boring - yawn.

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

Jonathan (Trust) — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:16:23 -0000

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

Sam Harrelson — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:07:48 -0000

Remember, conversations are participatory... they are what you make them.

So, let's define the key questions and move from there (see next post).