HAHA Thanks Red! :)

Unlike many here, I didn't just find out about this 2 weeks ago. Been battling this for years already in mainstream. The only difference is that when I was first introduced to scumware problems, I took all the time I needed to educate myself, I've read everything on the subject at the time, I got in touch with those in the know, and learned as much as I possibly could. That's how I met Kellie and Ben and a few others, seems like a lifetime ago now.

There is so much more to this, all these threads have only brushed the surface of it. Still a good start!!! Look for more "news" on this, it's far from over. :)

Missie

excuse my ignorance, but this is a serious question.

when you use PPC programs, they will decline ads for trademarked terms. create a test ad with Adwords and throw Sony, Toyota, Nokia, Sprint and so on in the ad text and it will usually not go live. if it does, it gets deactivated fairly quickly. i noticed that yahoo won't let you bid on "xxxx.com" usually and the ad is deactived - reason "trademarked term". With yahoo they usually dont go live. the reason is always "trademarked terms"

is someone "forced" to bid on their own company and product names if they have them trademarked? can't a legal letter be sent to the company thats allowing users to bid on those terms or to those bidding on them demanding them to stop?

Let's just say that Zango doesn't have the corporate profile of a yahoo yet.

Nbody "Forced" them to do anything, they made their choice to scam everyone, knowing perfectly well what they were doing, and anyone that believes their garbage excuses they are giving now is a fool.
After reading this whole thread the only conclusion one can draw is the Legendary Lars now = Legendary Liar.:2 cents:

This is very well said and quite true.:2 cents:

bump .....

lars you are a fucking idiot

You mean you think Lars lied to you?

NO SUSHI FOR YOU!!!

Paul that shows a serious lack of character. I wouldn't even post ICQ convo with people even if they didn't ask me not to. For someone to give you good info (whether you think it is good or not) and take the time to reply back with a long detailed email, you think you could have been a little more cool about this. IMO, it shows a lack of integrity on your part to post, at the very least, the parts that she specifically said she would not want to be made public.

Everyone should

SEE YOUR SIG!!!

I may be ignorant as well but what you said seems like it makes perfect sence. it seems like AFF could sue sexsearch for bidding on their keywords, but since AFF bought sexsearch's keywords... i don't know if they would want to go that route.

Sueing zango and other "adware" companies to remove your keywords would be the best soultion for AFF.

in a situation where a company buys from a compny - like say zango - that shaves from lots of little people that don't make it to the top payout levels- isn't aff paying more with bonuses and such dealing with one big guy than many little guys?

i'm thinking it's way cheaper to support the little guys as there is more of them with more volume :2 cents:

Sleazy, in theory yes... but the amount of work often required to keep a larger number of small traffic producers going is almost not worth the effort. The 80/20 rule applied here, 80% of your sales will come from 20% of your people... and conversely 20% of your sales will require 80% of your support staff time to make happen.

Buying from Zango is the ultimate "cut out the affiliate" move, especially if you buy your own keywords. It means you pay Zanog a pretty much fixed fee per click regardless of what you do. If you manage your traffic well, you can always make a profit.

Nice post :thumbsup

Only if you have competent legal advice. From earlier Lars posts it's very clear that they don't. As has already been pointed out there are plenty of examples of how it's easy enough to stop shit like this happening by taking legal action against a scumware company.

However, that's if you believe that the legal advice really is that bad. A less trusting person than myself may think that they simply prefer to screw their affiliates and profit (in the short term) from scumware rather than pay money out to resolve the situation using expensive legal means, which would be to the affiliates (and surfers) benefit.

I'm beginning to think along the same lines...Gutted. :(

So what is the position of AFF? Will they keep supporting Zango or is it going to be dropped?

They will continue to spin the situation as they are concerned and are seeking alternative measures but in the same breath, they are increasing their bids on Zango for top positions.

I'm so glad I am retired from this shit.

Which sounds like a smart business plan... to someone who knows nothing about business.

But frustrating as it may be, the 20% who make most of your money, don't simply appear out of thin air. They come from within the ranks of that 80%. Those sponsors who squeeze - honestly or not - their small affiliates to pay extra to the "whales" fail to grasp that point and the impact will increase as competition gets tougher. What happens is that newcomers who have what it takes, join this kind of sponsor and soon move on to someone more productive. In the end that 80% is made up entirely of no-hopers and you have no-one left to replace any who cease to be top-rank producers.

Similarly, the present affiliate model needs, if not to be replaced, at least a complete overhaul. But becoming dependent on just a few traffic sources, particularly if their life expectancy is limited, is madness. You would basically be making your own business hostage to their fortunes and policies.

jayeff, I agree with you, but businesses like AFF are "mature" in that they have already set up who their 20% is. It truly isn't worth it for them to both fishing around the 80% looking for 1 more good one... the return on Zango I am sure far outweighed the effort to actually deal with affiliates.

It is also important to remember that they have also reached the point where at least a good part of the clicks every day come from surfers who are already members. They don't pay out on these people.

AFF / Cams could stop paying for new customers tomorrow altogether and still cruise out for the next 2 - 3 years without a blink. In the short term, medium term, well... affiliates aren't important.

Your points are well taken, but that would be for a business model that hasn't matured.

Alex

There are many reasons people drop out of business or move out of the sphere of influence of another business, so that "20%" is not a permanent fixture. That 80/20 cliché started out as a statement of fact and not as a call to action, but as if often the case it became misunderstood once it reached a wider audience.

Sleazy, not sure if your question is in reference to something else or not but going to answer as a standalone question.

If a company is 'BUYING' from such companies, then they are paying for the traffic themselves and it is surely costing less than the $XXX amount they'd pay to some "TOP" affiliate earner.

Also, let's say if a "TOP" affiliate is doing this - well then they are also 'getting' traffic that is destined for their competitor so it's win win for them BUT screwing people along the way. Their own affiliates too - since most affiliates promote more than one company in the same target market or niche.

Suffice to say a lot of affiliates are getting screwed.

Paul loves taking over the negativity of some threads on himself...

While it is possible AFF/Cams may have the ability to ride out a cpl years on what they have, I think they DO need the affiliates..whether it be the big fish or the occasional sale maker..it all adds up...if it didn't, they (and other sponsors) wouldn't work so hard to garner new ones.

I will say tho..it does appear that the stance AFF/Cams has taken basically says "fuck the affiliates, we don't need em"

and though some may disagree, this entire issue and especially the statement Lars made is going to haunt them for a long time to come.

bump for the 1st page

I believe AFF will go the AdultCheck route and close out all affiliates (maybe keep the biggest whales) in the near future. They clearly don't care anymore about their (formerly fabulous) image. And just like AC they aren't announcing anything beforehand, it'll happen overnight.

Interresting point.:2 cents:

For this I don't disagree. My feeling is that their business model has reached a point of saturation that means they can just buy adwords / adsense and scumware traffic and pretty much keep the position they are in for a long time to come... plus of course all that affiliate traffic that will still come in even if they are not getting paid.

That is a real possibility! They may think they can go it alone.

i support LegendaryLars prospective on this one

you don't change the world , you don't make the rules you can only Use the system to the best of your interest.

AFF , didn't put the spyware and they can't stop them.. but they can buy traffic and make sure they take advantage of it ..

when the law will change and adware will be illegal they will be more then happy to kill it.

its better to deal with zango then google any day..

lets hope not, but if they do where would we be without the spyware and zango to take all our traffic back by force

So you are saying its ok for AFF to take the sale from YOU using zango as the vehicle and not pay you a dime for the sale that you would have been paid for otherwise?

You are very generous..you should just send Lars your bank account number so he can make direct withdrawls at his leisure.

Bump for LL :)

Another bump for the cause

The true colors of people really come out....

Utter nonsense.

Order, in our families, in our communities, at whatever level, is not visited on us by passing aliens and most of our behavior is dictated by what we recognize is deemed acceptable by those around us. When that is not enough by itself, we write laws to deter and punish those who (might) choose to ignore those standards.

But we set the standards and in doing so, we do change the world. That is the only thing which can. The only time that intolerable behavior is not treated as such, is when the majority of its (potential) victims refuse to condemn it.

I will agree to the extent that you cannot change human nature. Being a thief is a state of mind. A real thief is someone who, regardless of how much he has and whether he has the ability to earn more, wants to take what is yours. If you manage to block him one way, he will try to steal from you in another and sometimes he will be successful. But the number of real thieves is much smaller than the number of people who will steal when the opportunity is stuck under their noses. Failing to oppose scumware is the same as inviting all these bottom-feeding opportunists to rob you.

sig spot

You had my attention for a while with your previous posts, I thought you had a point to make - my error.

what he said.

The only reason anyone appears to have your attention is if they provide you with some excuse to attempt gloss over what is going on. Until you are willing to be honest about your agenda, your comments - personal or otherwise - will continue to be a waste of time.

Lots of words that mean nothing. That seems to be your style.

I dont have any agenda, and THATS the point.