So What Defines A “Pretty Good” Affiliate?
Posted under: I was reading Kirsty’s blog about What’s Wrong With Being A “Pretty Good†Affiliate? and one question came to mind. It was posted in comments and is either stuck in moderation or gone awol, but it’s worth putting down here. In her excellent post Kirsty says:
“I’m not a super affiliate in terms of turning over millions of pounds a month (and that’s what I reckon a real super affiliate is)…”
If the definition of a “super affiliate” is determined in monetary terms, how therefore should a “pretty good” affiliate be defined? Should they be defined in monetary terms as well? How will merchants be able to distinguish between the “supers” and this new breed of “pretty good” affiliates?
Will we see blogs and forum posts from wannabe newbies aspiring to be “pretty good” or perhaps even just “above average” or “a bit above mediocre” as they take their first tentative steps in online marketing?
There’s nothing wrong with being a “pretty good” affiliate, but if you define one affiliate group (the supers) by pounds or dollars, then in essence another group (the pretty goods) must be defined in the same way? Yes or No?
Am I a “super affiliate”? Not in the terms Kirsty defines, but anyone who works in this industry and puts up with the many issues that Santa can’t solve should be deemed “super” – either that or just plain nuts!
Hey Jason, was out on a long drive today so your comment was delayed. In what terms can you define a pretty good affiliate? Weeelll, I think much like these “super” affiliates so many people seem to be obsessed with, it can depend on your viewpoint.
Personally speaking, I think a “pretty good” affiliate is someone who has a reasonable ability to drive sales and understand the sector. Making their own living on their own terms is an even more pertinent defintion of this. After all, isn’t feeling like a success in your own right more important than pre-defined benchmarks imposed by others?