InTheCrack Affiliates ||||WARNING!|||| - Page 4 - GoFuckYourself.com

StinkyPink · 08-29-2011, 10:15 PM

150 rogue affiliate managers.

96ukssob · 08-29-2011, 11:06 PM

these days programs look for any stupid reason not to pay. stick with the winners and the ones who have a record of paying and always ask what you are going to do is ok with them so you have a paper trail.

will76 · 08-29-2011, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by inthecrack

I think we can all just use common sense to determine what a thumbnail is. It's a small version of a picture that links to a full size version of the same picture. Do we really have to spell everything out for you or are you are just deliberately trying to be difficult?

Apparently you need to spell it out since you are the one telling affiliates that they have 24 hours to change the images or they will be banned. You are the one being vague, you are the one coming up with these rules that the majority of programs either don't have or don't enforce. So yes, I think it would be wise for you to clarify the specific size *YOU think* is small enough that it was ok to edit and not have a water mark on it. Some TGP sites have really big "thumbnails".

Especially since your TOS says one thing (can't alter anything) and you are here saying another (*thumbnails* are ok).

inthecrack · 08-29-2011, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by looky_lou

See, that's the problem here. You obviously do not know what I was doing or even looked at the blog.

I had no ulterior motives.

My objective was simple. Sell as many memberships to In TheCrack as possible. How will I do this?:

1. register a domain pussyncrack.com that relates to the subject the best I can with out infringing on the original name or TM.

2. Set up the hosting for the domain on my server.

3. Install WP and configure for best SEO for the subject, in this case InTheCrack.

4. Select an attractive, professional looking theme and modify it to best show off and represent InTheCrack.

5. Start by writing 10 200-300 word descriptive posts that are keyword rich towards the subject and InTheCrack.

6. Put these posts into categories and tag them with keyword rich words including InTheCrack.

7. Crop 2 photos from the FHG featuring the highlight of the photo for best representation in the smaller format to get the surfer to click it. (Getting clicks on the photos is essential to keep bounce rate as low as possible. This is one of the key factors for ranking well in Google.) Link those photos directly to the FHG containing the full size sample photos in hopes that they will then click through from the gallery to InTheCrack and buy a membership.

8. Place a large H3 text link at the bottom of each post linking directly to the InTheCrack site, stating SEE MORE! or JOIN NOW!. Most of these links contain the name InTheCrack right in the link.

9. Place hard links from my already established, relevant sites to get indexed immediately by all of the search engines.

10. Submit to as many blog directories as possible for more back links.

11. Feed some traffic from my existing sites to get it some exposure to start it out.

12. Continue writing 2-3 posts per week indefinitely. (If it takes off and starts to produce some sales, up it to 3-5 posts per week.)

Then tweak, tweak, tweak constantly to improve quality and relevancy in the effort to rank better in the Search Engines and build as much traffic as possible. Sell more memberships.

This is how I try to obtain my objective. And my objective was to sell as many memberships as possible to InTheCrack.

It is a bit unfortunate that you felt the need to start a shitstorm of negativity in public before I had a chance to address this. I'm sure I could have directed you in creating a blog that works for everyone. Assuming you are willing to make the necessary adjustments, work within the rules and not cause any further trouble then I would be more than willing to work with you to create the ideal blog. Why don't you put your blog back together and let me review it in a more professional manner AWAY FROM GFY. I know you at least believe in our product and we can always use an additional affiliate so it behoves us to burry the hatchet and get things worked out. info at inthecrack dot com.

Note that I am going to be shooting in Palau and staying on a boat without internet for 2 weeks starting Sept 1. We'll have the pleasure of 4 great Budapest models but unfortunately no internet during this time which means I cannot contribute to this forum or work on your project then.

StinkyPink · 08-29-2011, 11:39 PM

Crackhead.

No offense, but the OP did mention in his first post EXACTLY what he did. Now if you read your statements regarding his concern, you may see why some of us were debating as we were.

inthecrack · 08-29-2011, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by will76

Apparently you need to spell it out since you are the one telling affiliates that they have 24 hours to change the images or they will be banned. You are the one being vague, you are the one coming up with these rules that the majority of programs either don't have or don't enforce. So yes, I think it would be wise for you to clarify the specific size *YOU think* is small enough that it was ok to edit and not have a water mark on it. Some TGP sites have really big "thumbnails".

Especially since your TOS says one thing (can't alter anything) and you are here saying another (*thumbnails* are ok).

OK. I never expected that this would come down to having to spell everything out right down to the exact pixel. Now that you mention it it's not a bad idea and I might do exactly that.

inthecrack · 08-29-2011, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by will76

Apparently you need to spell it out since you are the one telling affiliates that they have 24 hours to change the images or they will be banned. You are the one being vague, you are the one coming up with these rules that the majority of programs either don't have or don't enforce. So yes, I think it would be wise for you to clarify the specific size *YOU think* is small enough that it was ok to edit and not have a water mark on it. Some TGP sites have really big "thumbnails".

Especially since your TOS says one thing (can't alter anything) and you are here saying another (*thumbnails* are ok).

OK. I never expected that this would come down to having to spell everything out right down to the exact pixel. Now that you mention it it's not a bad idea and I might do exactly that.

epitome · 08-29-2011, 11:47 PM

The lesson here is that sometimes affiliates need to crop photos to fit their websites. For the most part, programs do not care about cropping, but want their watermark on the image still.

Simple solution is to provide a link to your watermark at the bottom of every promo mailer.

bigluv · 08-29-2011, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by inthecrack

It is a bit unfortunate that you felt the need to start a shitstorm of negativity in public before I had a chance to address this. I'm sure I could have directed you in creating a blog that works for everyone. Assuming you are willing to make the necessary adjustments, work within the rules and not cause any further trouble then I would be more than willing to work with you to create the ideal blog. Why don't you put your blog back together and let me review it in a more professional manner AWAY FROM GFY. I know you at least believe in our product and we can always use an additional affiliate so it behoves us to burry the hatchet and get things worked out. info at inthecrack dot com.

Note that I am going to be shooting in Palau and staying on a boat without internet for 2 weeks starting Sept 1. We'll have the pleasure of 4 great Budapest models but unfortunately no internet during this time which means I cannot contribute to this forum or work on your project then.

It was your employee who started this, and your first post and subsequent posts supported those dumb moves. If now you wish you hadn't been so quick on the draw,
thats really your problem not his. Personally although your content looks great I won't be promoting you because you've acted like a jackass and I don't feel like putting in a bunch of work to benefit us both only to have the rug pulled out from under me.

And I bet a lot of other affiliates who see this will think the same.

So, once again, it wasn't the OP's fault. It was your fault for poorly supervising your employees and/or giving them poor direction and not clearly thinking out your policies.

It was easy to give ultimatums and send out vague emails when it was only his ass getting burned wasn't it? Now you've got some skin in the game, suddenly its, I wish you came to me? Yeah, right.

NetHorse · 08-30-2011, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by looky_lou

-snip-
I had a 3-4 month old blog pussy-n-crack.com that was originally 100% dedicated to the promotion of InTheCrack.

-snip-along with 2 500x700 pixel cropped photos from their FHGs in each post.

-snip-
I had not received any sales from that blog for InTheCrack, so I figured I would try adding other sponsors to the mix to see if I could generate some income from the blog.

Hmm, without taking what they have in their TOS into consideration, as a rule of thumb I never promote other sponsors on the same page / blog if watermarks have been cropped.

I'm not sure if it's in their best interest to enforce it in your situation, but with any program, whether it's in TOS or not, it's not a rule I would find unreasonable to enforce.

epitome · 08-30-2011, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by inthecrack

It is a bit unfortunate that you felt the need to start a shitstorm of negativity in public before I had a chance to address this. I'm sure I could have directed you in creating a blog that works for everyone. Assuming you are willing to make the necessary adjustments, work within the rules and not cause any further trouble then I would be more than willing to work with you to create the ideal blog. Why don't you put your blog back together and let me review it in a more professional manner AWAY FROM GFY. I know you at least believe in our product and we can always use an additional affiliate so it behoves us to burry the hatchet and get things worked out. info at inthecrack dot com.

Note that I am going to be shooting in Palau and staying on a boat without internet for 2 weeks starting Sept 1. We'll have the pleasure of 4 great Budapest models but unfortunately no internet during this time which means I cannot contribute to this forum or work on your project then.

Why not just ask him to continue promoting you and shoot over your watermark and have him insert it in all of the cropped photos?

By now, after hearing from so many affiliates, I'm sure you've picked up that for a few different reasons we may need or want to crop. Make it so that affiliates can crop, but still protect your branding.

I get that you're a photographer and each photo is a masterpiece but as a program owner you also have to understand that blogs, while amazing marketing tools, can be somewhat restrictive in layouts.

inthecrack · 08-30-2011, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epitome

Why not just ask him to continue promoting you and shoot over your watermark and have him insert it in all of the cropped photos?

By now, after hearing from so many affiliates, I'm sure you've picked up that for a few different reasons we may need or want to crop. Make it so that affiliates can crop, but still protect your branding.

I get that you're a photographer and each photo is a masterpiece but as a program owner you also have to understand that blogs, while amazing marketing tools, can be somewhat restrictive in layouts.

Yes that is a good idea, although some people have already mentioned that this is too much work for them to have to manually add watermarks when they like rely on automated systems to make the gallery quickly. It's quite apparent that people just want things spelled out in more detail.

StinkyPink · 08-30-2011, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by inthecrack

Yes that is a good idea, although some people have already mentioned that this is too much work for them to have to manually add watermarks when they like rely on automated systems to make the gallery quickly. It's quite apparent that people just want things spelled out in more detail.

So what IS your final spin on this issue so affiliates know what is acceptable?

As I see it, you are OK with affiliates cropping the images (watermark or none) so long as they ARE linking it to a gallery, full size photo w/watermark intact, or otherwise linking to the site within that particular publishing? And you will outline these conditions in your future TOS?

Is this so?

I ask because I use automated means to create my wordpress posts and create a large thumb (like I mentioned previously about 540 px I believe, cropped with no watermark) which links to a post containing the full gallery of small thumbs (again automatically cropped) that links to the full size images. I would like to continue this practice, as my other sponsors are ok with this, I would like you to be as well.

http://www.poonmoon.com/weblog/pics/...r-a-full-moon/

inthecrack · 08-30-2011, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigluv

It was your employee who started this, and your first post and subsequent posts supported those dumb moves. If now you wish you hadn't been so quick on the draw,
thats really your problem not his. Personally although your content looks great I won't be promoting you because you've acted like a jackass and I don't feel like putting in a bunch of work to benefit us both only to have the rug pulled out from under me.

I'm not going to disagree on all of this. I said in my very first response that my employee was a bit too harsh. Yes she was too quick on the draw. I do however resent being called a jackass for defending our copyright on pictures that were clearly of a substantial size with the watermark clearly removed.

Jel · 08-30-2011, 01:49 AM

Well I learned something, anyway.

inthecrack · 08-30-2011, 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StinkyPink

So what IS your final spin on this issue so affiliates know what is acceptable?

As I see it, you are OK with affiliates cropping the images (watermark or none) so long as they ARE linking it to a gallery, full size photo w/watermark intact, or otherwise linking to the site within that particular publishing? And you will outline these conditions in your future TOS?

Is this so?

Absolutely. I just need a dimension that is reasonable for a thumbnail which I am not going to quote at this exact moment because I want to do more research on this.

AmeliaG · 08-30-2011, 03:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by will76

...

Also, what you photographers don't understand is that you may have an "eye" for the best shot, but the affiliate will know what works best on his site with his particular traffic. There is the people with t he passion to take the best photographic shot then there are people who knows what sells the best to their particular audience. The two points of views can still be right, but different. If the photographer's main concern is producing works of art and not making money, and doesn't want anyone to question his creativity/skill nor touch his works of art in anyway, then said person should not only NOT have an affiliate program but they should never put their images online. ...

I agree with this 100%. As someone who shoots on the one hand and runs a program and pushes affiliate sales on the other, I am acutely aware that what the photographer in me wants to do and what the marketer in me requires are often at odds. When I spend literally fifty times what I need to on a particular shoot, I'm aware that I am entertaining my photographer side and that marketing could sell something a fiftieth the cost.

Because I am primarily on GFY to represent SpookyCash, and I don't post my CV every five minutes, but I do see both sides of this issue, it kind of irritates me to see some shooters on here acting like the photographer point of view is clearly the only remotely valid one and nobody else could get it.

For what it is worth, I really don't think surfers ever type something in, when they could just click, given that clicking is so much easier.

xholly · 08-30-2011, 03:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

For what it is worth, I really don't think surfers ever type something in, when they could just click, given that clicking is so much easier.

before getting into affiliate marketing i always did the type in rather than click, of course i dont know percentages who do this, i just know i did.

candyflip · 08-30-2011, 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by inthecrack

It is a bit unfortunate that you felt the need to start a shitstorm of negativity in public before I had a chance to address this. I'm sure I could have directed you in creating a blog that works for everyone. Assuming you are willing to make the necessary adjustments, work within the rules and not cause any further trouble then I would be more than willing to work with you to create the ideal blog. Why don't you put your blog back together and let me review it in a more professional manner AWAY FROM GFY. I know you at least believe in our product and we can always use an additional affiliate so it behoves us to burry the hatchet and get things worked out. info at inthecrack dot com.

Note that I am going to be shooting in Palau and staying on a boat without internet for 2 weeks starting Sept 1. We'll have the pleasure of 4 great Budapest models but unfortunately no internet during this time which means I cannot contribute to this forum or work on your project then.

You have said you aren't an affiliate marketer and it's obvious you aren't after what has been said here. What makes you think that you, someone who isn't an affiliate marketer could have "directed him in creating a blog" of any sort?

Jel · 08-30-2011, 05:04 AM

"we can always use an additional affiliate"

huh? I thought this was nothing to do with money whatsoever, why would you be in a position to need any additional affilates, or even have an affiliate program in the 1st place?

In fact, if it's only about 'the art', why do you even need a watermark?

Jel · 08-30-2011, 05:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by will76

I reply how I reply, take it or leave it. If you don't think it was professional enough for GFY then you can go fuck yourself.

The message and advice was solid, shouted or whispered, he can listen to it or shove it up his ass, I really don't care.

AND THIS IS SHOUTING!

I have a habit of seeing the 'good' in those who fuck up. Maybe I just don't read gfy enough to have seen how this one was going to pan out - my apologies

AmeliaG · 08-30-2011, 05:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xholly

before getting into affiliate marketing i always did the type in rather than click, of course i dont know percentages who do this, i just know i did.

Really? That's interesting. The only folks I've ever come across, in the past, who do this, are affiliate marketers who don't want another affiliate referring them and seeing their volume. What was your reason as a surfer?

Jel · 08-30-2011, 05:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epitome

Holy shit, I agree with you on something.

At the end of the day, if you aren't sending sales to the program your argument means nothing.

If it were some huge review site sending dozens of sales a day ... I'm sure ITC would be willing to meet halfway or at least hook them up with a watermark so they can edit with credit.

See to me, that's fucked up. You are sending traffic directly to where the content was produced, regardless of whether you have made 1 sale, or 5,000 sales.

Jel · 08-30-2011, 05:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

Really? That's interesting. The only folks I've ever come across, in the past, who do this, are affiliate marketers who don't want another affiliate referring them and seeing their volume. What was your reason as a surfer?

I know loads of surfers who do this - their reasoning, bizarre as it may seem, is that they don't want 'the middle man' to benefit. Another reason I switched to php redirects rather than use blahblah.com/?querystring_x5B7m1XXupb-etc.php

xholly · 08-30-2011, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

Really? That's interesting. The only folks I've ever come across, in the past, who do this, are affiliate marketers who don't want another affiliate referring them and seeing their volume. What was your reason as a surfer?

couple of reasons,

the code itself would often scare me off with all that crap characters and therefore couldn't be trusted to take me where i wanted to go. I always hover over a link and check it before clicking.

landing on some dodgy or annoying site but wanted to click through to something that interested me but didnt want the shit annoying site to get any credit.

basically the internet is a dodgy place full of tricks, the less you click on dodgy looking links the saferyou are. I use this knowledge to help in my marketing now with things like .php redirects and creating a nice tidy link, i don't generaly remove watermarks however because its just not worth my time as far as time spent / benefit.

12clicks · 08-30-2011, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by will76

Apparently you need to spell it out since you are the one telling affiliates that they have 24 hours to change the images or they will be banned. You are the one being vague, you are the one coming up with these rules that the majority of programs either don't have or don't enforce. So yes, I think it would be wise for you to clarify the specific size *YOU think* is small enough that it was ok to edit and not have a water mark on it. Some TGP sites have really big "thumbnails".

Especially since your TOS says one thing (can't alter anything) and you are here saying another (*thumbnails* are ok).

wrong, shitstain.
The entire adult community knows the difference between a thumbnail and a 500x700 image with the watermark removed.
Anyone *confused* by that is either a thief a liar or an idiot.
which one are you?

12clicks · 08-30-2011, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

Really? That's interesting. The only folks I've ever come across, in the past, who do this, are affiliate marketers who don't want another affiliate referring them and seeing their volume. What was your reason as a surfer?

exactly, pretty.
surfers don't do it.
This whole affiliate nonsense about "oh no, they'll type in the watermark instead of clicking the pic" is nonsense. It shows the level of intelligence you're dealing with.

BlackCrayon · 08-30-2011, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

exactly, pretty.
surfers don't do it.
This whole affiliate nonsense about "oh no, they'll type in the watermark instead of clicking the pic" is nonsense. It shows the level of intelligence you're dealing with.

with tubes, i expect its becoming more common.

12clicks · 08-30-2011, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon

with tubes, i expect its becoming more common.

completely different subject.

excuse me for not sharing your surfer mentality and shed a tear for tubes.

inthecrack · 08-30-2011, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jel

"we can always use an additional affiliate"

huh? I thought this was nothing to do with money whatsoever, why would you be in a position to need any additional affilates, or even have an affiliate program in the 1st place?

I never said that at all. I said the making money was a secondary priority.

StinkyPink · 08-30-2011, 09:34 AM

Duh, everybodies in it for the money. We gotta eat. Nobody says you can't have passion for something and still make a profit.

mountainmiester · 08-30-2011, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tempest

"Technically", once you crop/resize etc the images you are protected under fair use provisions as has been upheld in a US court of law. If that wasn't the case, none of us could have been doing what we do in this biz for all these years, nor could google have their image search etc. That means you can use the pics however you want really and tell them to fuck off while you redirect the traffic elsewhere.

Yep, I'm in a pissy mood tonight

Perhaps you can post a link to the "Fair Use Provision" as I cannot find where there is any such law or "Provision" existing in law. While you are at it, perhaps you can show me a link to where any notion of this "fair use" supersedes a legally binding ToS?

As far as I remember from my days at Gonzoga Law School, it is strictly a term that was used in Sony's defense against their Universal/Disney suit back in the 80's. It is not a legal precedent.

StinkyPink · 08-30-2011, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainmiester

...perhaps you can show me a link to where any notion of this "fair use" supersedes a legally binding ToS?

Too true!

will76 · 08-30-2011, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

I agree with this 100%. As someone who shoots on the one hand and runs a program and pushes affiliate sales on the other, I am acutely aware that what the photographer in me wants to do and what the marketer in me requires are often at odds. When I spend literally fifty times what I need to on a particular shoot, I'm aware that I am entertaining my photographer side and that marketing could sell something a fiftieth the cost.

Because I am primarily on GFY to represent SpookyCash, and I don't post my CV every five minutes, but I do see both sides of this issue, it kind of irritates me to see some shooters on here acting like the photographer point of view is clearly the only remotely valid one and nobody else could get it.

For what it is worth, I really don't think surfers ever type something in, when they could just click, given that clicking is so much easier.

I agree, what makes this even more *tragic* and a train wreck is that is all over a water mark, which I believe they want there because they want to pick up free traffic.

From looking at In the Crack's site, all of their images have a url on them. People say "watermark" you can have a watermark with a logo on it for your company name without having the url on it. The fact that they want their URL on the images as part of the watermark is proof to me that their main concern here is the belief that they will get free traffic from people seeing the images and typing in the url. It's that belief or motives that makes all of this such a clusterfuck and ultimately shooting themselves in the foot on this situation... the amount of sales/traffic In the crack would have gained by the OP having the url on the images is so small compared to the traffic/sales he was sending and would continue sending as an affiliate.

Besides, no one is going to type in the url when there is a link there for them to click.

Like I said earlier, this is 2011 not 1996. People really don't download images and post them on newsgroups, email them to friends etc... at least not .0001% of what they use to. Now if it was videos, it would be a different story. But to put your url on every single image you produce is more of a waste of time these days and to kick out an affiliate and potentially lose lots more over this is beyond retarded... from a business stand point that is.

will76 · 08-30-2011, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon

with tubes, i expect its becoming more common.

Shhhh , to this point everyone has been ignoring the village idiot. If you reply to him he might stick around and make some more of his witty 1950s jokes.

I would have thought with all of the bad weather in the NE he would be away from his pc busy fixing roofs...

12clicks · 08-30-2011, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by will76

Shhhh , to this point everyone has been ignoring the village idiot. If you reply to him he might stick around and make some more of his witty 1950s jokes.

I would have thought with all of the bad weather in the NE he would be away from his pc busy fixing roofs...

what?
they've been replying to you just fine.

now that you're back on GFY, go ahead and continue your idiot prattling about 500x700 being a thumb nail.

its exposing why those of us that matter, know you don't.

12clicks · 08-30-2011, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by will76

I would have thought with all of the bad weather in the NE he would be away from his pc busy fixing roofs...

I thought with all the bad weather in the NE, you'd be busy offering your help to click cash affiliates so you could "borrow" the successful stuff you saw them doing.

will76 · 08-30-2011, 10:37 AM

Oh geesh, sorry everyone, looks like I poked the troll and he is here to stay.

helterskelter808 · 08-30-2011, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

surfers don't do it.

I think some surfers would do it, but I think they're the kind who won't sign up anyway. Anyone with the insight to know about the "middle man", and want to cut him out, is probably going to be clued up enough to know it's available somewhere for free, if not know exactly where to get it.

Or to put it another way, if you're dumb enough to sign up to a porn site, you're dumb enough to click on any old link without checking it. The spread of malware, like the continued sales of pornography, demonstrates that there are no shortage of dummies in the world.

Quote:

This whole affiliate nonsense about "oh no, they'll type in the watermark instead of clicking the pic" is nonsense. It shows the level of intelligence you're dealing with.

I assume what people mean here is not that they'll look at a pic and decide to type it in, rather than just click the direct link, but that a day or so later they're not going to remember some crazy blog address they were at, but will remember the short, memorable URL that was plastered on all the pics at that blog; even more so if they saved the pics.

StinkyPink · 08-30-2011, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by will76

Oh geesh, sorry everyone, looks like I poked the troll and he is here to stay.

Now I see why Jersey Shore never called him back after the initial audition.

will76 · 08-30-2011, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StinkyPink

Now I see why Jersey Shore never called him back after the initial audition.

Its pretty funny watching a guy who only makes sales off of cross sales try to contribute to this thread with his *wisdom* like he has a clue what surfers do or what makes them buy. Also a person who has no affiliates either

Takes a lot of insight to make sales from "cross sales" lol.

StinkyPink · 08-30-2011, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by helterskelter808

I assume what people mean here is not that they'll look at a pic and decide to type it in, rather than just click the direct link, but that a day or so later they're not going to remember some crazy blog address they were at, but will remember the short, memorable URL that was plastered on all the pics at that blog; even more so if they saved the pics.

Bingo! That is why they are all in here crying about it... almost 5 pages all over a watermark, or cropping creative matertial? We let the cat out of the bag, yet again since this topic has been around since the beginning of the affiliate market business model.

12clicks · 08-30-2011, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by helterskelter808

I assume what people mean here is not that they'll look at a pic and decide to type it in, rather than just click the direct link, but that a day or so later they're not going to remember some crazy blog address they were at, but will remember the short, memorable URL that was plastered on all the pics at that blog; even more so if they saved the pics.

so in that 1:10,000 chance scenario where the surfer would not remember the blog but WOULD remember the short, memorable url, the affiliate would prefer that the program giving him all of his material to build his blog around be screwed out of a sale too.In the affiliate's mind, better that no one makes a sale. that would be quite the expression of gratitude.

12clicks · 08-30-2011, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by will76

Its pretty funny watching a guy who only makes sales off of cross sales try to contribute to this thread with his *wisdom* like he has a clue what surfers do or what makes them buy. Also a person who has no affiliates either

Takes a lot of insight to make sales from "cross sales" lol.

still trying to pee pee up at your betters willie?

isn't it time for you to make another announcement about you sig whoring for click cash again?

oops, my bad, its time for you to stomp your virtual feet and storm away from the board again because no one takes you seriously.

inthecrack · 08-30-2011, 11:18 AM

It is regrettable that many people who were pissed at us took the whole argument to mean that you cannot make your own thumbnails without having a visible watermark on it, or that you cannot make your own thumbnails period. That was never my intention. Perhaps blogs are still a new enough phenomenon that this has not been dealt with up until now. I would have never considered a 700 pixel image to be a thumbnail. Depending on how you use it a 700 pixel image with the watermark removed can very easily look like an attempt to pass it off as your own picture, or at the very least, careless use of copyright material. I can be even worse if the image does not go directly to our gallery or it takes multiple clicks to figure out what you are really looking at. Perhaps a blog template may require images of a certain size or aspect ratio which is fine, though there seems to be a need to do some refining of the definition of a thumbnail and some ground rules as to what can be acceptable. I'm also thinking that providing a watermark psd or png may be the best solution for "giant thumbnails" if you really must use them for your format. Those that believe this is too much work can restrict themselves to a smaller thumbnail. I will create a watermark and update our TOS shortly.

12clicks · 08-30-2011, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by inthecrack

I would have never considered a 700 pixel image to be a thumbnail.

neither would anyone else of any intelligence.
this is simply the GFY monkeys throwing shit. nothing more.

inthecrack · 08-30-2011, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by will76

I agree, what makes this even more *tragic* and a train wreck is that is all over a water mark, which I believe they want there because they want to pick up free traffic.

From looking at In the Crack's site, all of their images have a url on them. People say "watermark" you can have a watermark with a logo on it for your company name without having the url on it. The fact that they want their URL on the images as part of the watermark is proof to me that their main concern here is the belief that they will get free traffic from people seeing the images and typing in the url. It's that belief or motives that makes all of this such a clusterfuck and ultimately shooting themselves in the foot on this situation... the amount of sales/traffic In the crack would have gained by the OP having the url on the images is so small compared to the traffic/sales he was sending and would continue sending as an affiliate.

If it were our intension to short change any affiliates of potential sales we would not have set our cookie length to 100 days. This was the maximum possible with a CCBill program when we set it up and as far as I know it is still the case. Most other CCBill affiliate programs leave it at the default of 3 days. I think we are maximizing the affiliates chances to capture a sale with this.

The URL on the picture has nothing to do with free traffic or circumventing the affiliate. They're gonna click it if it's on your site. The URL is there for people who have a large assortment of random pictures on their own hard drive to identify where it came from and for any event where the picture ends up on a forum or any other unauthorized posting. I don't think there is anything wrong with this.

Far-L · 08-30-2011, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tempest

"Technically", once you crop/resize etc the images you are protected under fair use provisions as has been upheld in a US court of law. If that wasn't the case, none of us could have been doing what we do in this biz for all these years, nor could google have their image search etc. That means you can use the pics however you want really and tell them to fuck off while you redirect the traffic elsewhere.

Yep, I'm in a pissy mood tonight

That isn't exactly true. As an affiliate, he wouldn't be able to use copyrighted content any way he saw fit and would be bound by his affiliate terms/contract. Fair Use would not even remotely apply.

(oh, I see someone that actually has a law background said the same thing...)

will76 · 08-30-2011, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by inthecrack

If it were our intension to short change any affiliates of potential sales we would not have set our cookie length to 100 days. This was the maximum possible with a CCBill program when we set it up and as far as I know it is still the case. Most other CCBill affiliate programs leave it at the default of 3 days. I think we are maximizing the affiliates chances to capture a sale with this.

The URL on the picture has nothing to do with free traffic or circumventing the affiliate. They're gonna click it if it's on your site. The URL is there for people who have a large assortment of random pictures on their own hard drive to identify where it came from and for any event where the picture ends up on a forum or any other unauthorized posting. I don't think there is anything wrong with this.

Then why put the url on your images if you are not looking for free traffic? You can "brand" the image with your site name with a nice logo, by also putting www.inthecrack.com on the image just shows you are trying to get people to type in the url either then or at a later date, which your affiliate would not get credit. There is no other way you can explain this. You want the url there so you can get free traffic, period. The affiliate removing the url pissed you off because you worried about losing free traffic. The amount of free traffic you would have gotten is so small that it makes you getting mad over this and losing affiliates over it really retarded.

Pretty sure I remember seeing people as far back as 2004 saying ccbill cookies could be set to 180 days, have no idea if they are longer now. I am sure someone can confirm this. But pointing out that yours are still set to just 30 days and that you haven't inquired about it since you set it all up many years ago, I think is just further proof you not going out of your way to help your affiliates.

Perhaps you should hire someone to run your affiliate program and advise you on these matters. Apparently photographers don't always make the best affiliate program owners.

Hire 12Clicks, I hear he is looking for a job and can get you lots of cross sales.

inthecrack · 08-30-2011, 01:54 PM

The TOS has now been updated as follows...

Any content taken from our affiliate content page for promotional use may NOT be altered in any way other than to make thumbnails or modified images to fit your format. A thumbnail is defined as an image less than 400 pixels on the long side. An image that is 400 pixels or more on the long side will be considered a modified image and MUST have our provided watermark on it. Any thumbnail or modified image MUST link directly to the corresponding full size unaltered picture or gallery. You may NOT remove or alter the copyright information from our full size pictures. You may NOT crop, alter size or further compress the full size pictures.

08-29-2011, 11:06 PM	#152
96ukssob So Fucking Banananananas Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: If I was in your ass you'd know it Posts: 12,991	these days programs look for any stupid reason not to pay. stick with the winners and the ones who have a record of paying and always ask what you are going to do is ok with them so you have a paper trail. __________________ Email: Clicky on Me

08-30-2011, 10:37 AM	#188
will76 Making $$$$ w/ ClickCash Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Location: USA Posts: 18,037	Oh geesh, sorry everyone, looks like I poked the troll and he is here to stay. __________________ ICQ: 86364801 Email: will [at] innovativeassets [dot] com PROGRAM SHIT LIST - DO NOT PROMOTE (click link for gfy thread) FNCash \| Media Revenue

08-30-2011, 11:18 AM	#195
inthecrack Confirmed User Join Date: May 2006 Location: Canada Posts: 533	It is regrettable that many people who were pissed at us took the whole argument to mean that you cannot make your own thumbnails without having a visible watermark on it, or that you cannot make your own thumbnails period. That was never my intention. Perhaps blogs are still a new enough phenomenon that this has not been dealt with up until now. I would have never considered a 700 pixel image to be a thumbnail. Depending on how you use it a 700 pixel image with the watermark removed can very easily look like an attempt to pass it off as your own picture, or at the very least, careless use of copyright material. I can be even worse if the image does not go directly to our gallery or it takes multiple clicks to figure out what you are really looking at. Perhaps a blog template may require images of a certain size or aspect ratio which is fine, though there seems to be a need to do some refining of the definition of a thumbnail and some ground rules as to what can be acceptable. I'm also thinking that providing a watermark psd or png may be the best solution for "giant thumbnails" if you really must use them for your format. Those that believe this is too much work can restrict themselves to a smaller thumbnail. I will create a watermark and update our TOS shortly. __________________ High on crack. www.inthecrack.com

08-30-2011, 01:54 PM	#200
inthecrack Confirmed User Join Date: May 2006 Location: Canada Posts: 533	The TOS has now been updated as follows... Any content taken from our affiliate content page for promotional use may NOT be altered in any way other than to make thumbnails or modified images to fit your format. A thumbnail is defined as an image less than 400 pixels on the long side. An image that is 400 pixels or more on the long side will be considered a modified image and MUST have our provided watermark on it. Any thumbnail or modified image MUST link directly to the corresponding full size unaltered picture or gallery. You may NOT remove or alter the copyright information from our full size pictures. You may NOT crop, alter size or further compress the full size pictures. __________________ High on crack. www.inthecrack.com

08-29-2011, 10:15 PM	#151
StinkyPink It's all goooood. Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: The Hoe Stroll Posts: 1,591	150 rogue affiliate managers.

08-29-2011, 11:39 PM	#155
StinkyPink It's all goooood. Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: The Hoe Stroll Posts: 1,591	Crackhead. No offense, but the OP did mention in his first post EXACTLY what he did. Now if you read your statements regarding his concern, you may see why some of us were debating as we were.

08-29-2011, 11:47 PM	#158
epitome So Fucking Lame Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: St. Petersburg, FL Posts: 12,156	The lesson here is that sometimes affiliates need to crop photos to fit their websites. For the most part, programs do not care about cropping, but want their watermark on the image still. Simple solution is to provide a link to your watermark at the bottom of every promo mailer.

08-30-2011, 01:49 AM	#165
Jel Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 6,904	Well I learned something, anyway.

08-30-2011, 05:04 AM	#170
Jel Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 6,904	"we can always use an additional affiliate" huh? I thought this was nothing to do with money whatsoever, why would you be in a position to need any additional affilates, or even have an affiliate program in the 1st place? In fact, if it's only about 'the art', why do you even need a watermark?

08-30-2011, 09:34 AM	#181
StinkyPink It's all goooood. Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: The Hoe Stroll Posts: 1,591	Duh, everybodies in it for the money. We gotta eat. Nobody says you can't have passion for something and still make a profit.