<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Ineffective Affiliates Fail to Satisfy and Perform!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.onelittleduck.co.uk/affiliate-marketing/ineffective-affiliates-fail-to-satisfy-and-perform-1399.htm/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.onelittleduck.co.uk/affiliate-marketing/ineffective-affiliates-fail-to-satisfy-and-perform-1399.htm</link>
	<description>Online blog of Jason Dale, co-director of Loquax. My views on affiliate marketing, running a website and anything else that seems appropriate!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Sep 2011 14:55:23 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy</title>
		<link>http://www.onelittleduck.co.uk/affiliate-marketing/ineffective-affiliates-fail-to-satisfy-and-perform-1399.htm/comment-page-1/#comment-52461</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Feb 2010 22:23:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onelittleduck.co.uk/?p=1399#comment-52461</guid>
		<description>I imagine Ill be one of the culled by Ann Summers. Truth be told, I used to be one of their top affiliates on TD until they messed up the feed and refused to do anything about it for the best part of 2 years. That wrecked everything, probably forever on that domain.

On CJ, merchants are encouraged to cull under and none performing affs due to their EPC metrics which take into account the number of subscribed affiliates. Under performing affiliates dilute the metrics that are there to allegedly &quot;Entice bigger affiliates&quot;, I suppose the EPC metric on other networks could be thought of as similar.

TBH, it&#039;s all bollox and personally I think the only benefit is to the network as they won&#039;t need to pay for the extra emails that get sent out and image bandwidth. Lets face it, most merchants wouldn&#039;t question what the network says is for the best. So who do we blame? Keith or Orville?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I imagine Ill be one of the culled by Ann Summers. Truth be told, I used to be one of their top affiliates on TD until they messed up the feed and refused to do anything about it for the best part of 2 years. That wrecked everything, probably forever on that domain.</p>
<p>On CJ, merchants are encouraged to cull under and none performing affs due to their EPC metrics which take into account the number of subscribed affiliates. Under performing affiliates dilute the metrics that are there to allegedly &#8220;Entice bigger affiliates&#8221;, I suppose the EPC metric on other networks could be thought of as similar.</p>
<p>TBH, it&#8217;s all bollox and personally I think the only benefit is to the network as they won&#8217;t need to pay for the extra emails that get sent out and image bandwidth. Lets face it, most merchants wouldn&#8217;t question what the network says is for the best. So who do we blame? Keith or Orville?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard Longhurst</title>
		<link>http://www.onelittleduck.co.uk/affiliate-marketing/ineffective-affiliates-fail-to-satisfy-and-perform-1399.htm/comment-page-1/#comment-52440</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Longhurst</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2010 22:50:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onelittleduck.co.uk/?p=1399#comment-52440</guid>
		<description>Thank you for the mention, Jason.Yep, 16% of nothing is the same as 10% of nothing - but it has the potential to be a lot more. :-)

Richard
LoveHoney</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you for the mention, Jason.Yep, 16% of nothing is the same as 10% of nothing &#8211; but it has the potential to be a lot more. <img src='http://www.onelittleduck.co.uk/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>Richard<br />
LoveHoney</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter</title>
		<link>http://www.onelittleduck.co.uk/affiliate-marketing/ineffective-affiliates-fail-to-satisfy-and-perform-1399.htm/comment-page-1/#comment-52439</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2010 19:05:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onelittleduck.co.uk/?p=1399#comment-52439</guid>
		<description>Hi Jason, 

great blog post. It&#039;s amazing what strange business decisions people will make just so that their internal stats look better. Surely having an affiliate that only drives one sale a year is better than not having that affiliate on board? Even if they do make certain stats look worse?

I think credit should go to companies like Cocosa who recently emailed me saying i hadnt sent any clicks in last week and was i aware of such and such promotion. 

Great account management.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Jason, </p>
<p>great blog post. It&#8217;s amazing what strange business decisions people will make just so that their internal stats look better. Surely having an affiliate that only drives one sale a year is better than not having that affiliate on board? Even if they do make certain stats look worse?</p>
<p>I think credit should go to companies like Cocosa who recently emailed me saying i hadnt sent any clicks in last week and was i aware of such and such promotion. </p>
<p>Great account management.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/


Served from: www.onelittleduck.co.uk @ 2012-02-09 04:35:00 -->
