Comments:
Hey Jeff -
I know you like the clip art, but that’s the logo for the Java™ technology from Sun Microsystems - nothing to do with JavaScript.
They are two different languages that happen to share a name. Sort of like Latin and Pig Latin. ;-)
I also must take out my red pen and slash through this statement in your blog:
“CJ is eliminating most of the existing poorly-executed affiliate sites AND pleasing Google. Two birds, one stone. Quite literally this happens overnight in June as the HTML links go dark.”
Not true. According to CJ, publishers that form relationships with advertisers prior to June 23, 2006 will have access to “Legacy links” - the link code format currently being used.
In fact, these Legacy links will be made available to publishers for an undetermined amount of time, and CJ will be giving a minimum of six months notice before taking away the Legacy links.
That said - any new publisher/advertiser relationships formed after June 23, 2006 will only have the JavaScript links (with the exception of Keyword and e-mail links).
The Net-Net - the sky isn’t falling. Just a bunch of misinformation.
Hi, Shawn…
I don’t think that anyone knows all the details yet since CJ isn’t discussing them. My comments don’t preclude the grandfathering that you refer to and that others are discussing widely (I’m aware). I also think it’s a bit pre-mature to suggest what CJ will or won’t due with regard to timing. There are plenty of advertisers out there who would like to see many of their affiliates go away—in my world of course ;)
We could nit pick about speculation until the cows come home. If you have a quote from CJ to share, feel free to share.
I am amused that you think what I’ve said mis-informs and that this entry suggest that the sky is falling. You (and many others) seem to think every entry I make is of this flavor. I’m not sure why.
I just noticed… you take my quote and change context, friend. I noticed you stopped quoting me directly before I state that which you claim I ignore so as to cause an un-due clammor.
The full quote:
“CJ is eliminating most of the existing poorly-executed affiliate sites AND pleasing Google. Two birds, one stone. Quite literally this happens overnight in June as the HTML links go dark. The new network-provided Javascript links give advertisers total control in the future if affiliates mis-behave.”
Please note use of the words “in the future.”
CJ has not been too good at patrolling their affiliates re parasite spyware/adware affiliates. While their cause is worthy re cleaning up the scammyaffsite.com’s, I don’t see how a link format change will make them any more diligent.
Jeff -
> I don’t think that anyone knows all the details yet since CJ isn’t discussing them.
They are with their advertisers - there is an FAQ that lays it out.
> My comments don’t preclude the grandfathering that you refer to and that others are discussing widely (I’m aware).
What happened to the HTML links going dark in June, as you stated?
> There are plenty of advertisers out there who would like to see many of their affiliates go away—in my world of course ;)
You do know advertisers can expire affiliates, right? If I determine there is an affiliate that doesn’t belong in a program I manage, I expire them.
> If you have a quote from CJ to share, feel free to share.
Call CJ for a quote. I read the advertiser FAQ and it spells things out with clarity. All about the Legacy links, as well as the ongoing access to Keyword and e-mail links for affiliates that join programs after June 23.
> I am amused that you think what I’ve said mis-informs and that this entry suggest that the sky is falling.
You didn’t mention the whole issue of the Legacy links - I think that significant omission amounts to misinformation.
And your comment, “All of this said, this is bound to be frightening for advertisers at varying degrees” is what gave me the impression you thought the sky is falling.
How is a gradually implemented change in links frightening?
> I just noticed… you take my quote and change context, friend. I noticed you stopped quoting me directly before I state that which you claim I ignore so as to cause an un-due clammor.
Not at all - your comment about the future refers to the upcoming JavaScript links.
The future includes the current Legacy links for no less than 6 months.
Your “full” quote makes no mention of Legacy links, so I fail to see how that last sentence clears anything up.
Duly noted as your opinion, Shawn:
1) The strategic significance of what is taking place (a power grab by the network and, hence, passed on to advertisers) in June is less important than the fact that some links will be grandfathered.
2) Like “mission accomplished” and “They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat” the word “future” has a vast array of meaning if you really think about it.
3) Either you don’t read my entries, you don’t think that the issue of OEM’s pressuring retailers is worth discussing or you, again, believe that I fabricate trends which have been around for years now (since you repeatedly suggest that expiring affiliates solves problems that retailers have with affiliates who distribute); merchandising guruess, Lauren Freeman discussed this issue at various conferences in 2001.
Also, please consider that blogs happen in real time and at the time of publishing I don’t have everything that you have a half day later (i.e. advertiser FAQ’s).
Jeff -
Sorry if my correcting you is a sore subject. The FAQ isn’t a new thing - I received an e-mail, as an advertiser, about it 48 hours ago.
I am not writing opinions or speculating - my information comes from CJ (except the Java/JavaScript thing - I just knew that one).
Jeff,
I see your point that CJ wants to clean up their less professional affiliates, but what about the professional affiliates running legitimate shopping portals? I run a price comparison engine and rely on HTML links for each of my listed merchants. I have a great deal of value added and this system has taken over 2 years to develop. If what you said is true, doesn’t CJ want publishers like me? Publishers that Google respects and lists alongside Pricegrabber and Shopping.com? I really can’t see how adding Javascript to product datafeeds will improve anything. And if the data is sent in a format like GoldenCAN or Chitika I simply won’t be able to use it. Price Comparison has very specific data format demands and Javascript just won’t cut it.
- Scott
Hi, Scott…
Indeed, CJ does but does Valueclick? I maintain that VCLK is torn. They become less torn when they consider the lack of scale that affiliate marketing provides. They become more torn when they realize that they own Pricegrabber.com. I’m suggesting that the love affair with affiliates is a strained one on many levels (i.e. affiliate marketing flourishes but Google takes the *real* money to the bank and leaves affiliate networks with tollway change).
Did you read the news about Performics today? I blogged it this morning. VERY interesting. THEY value affiliates like you… at least moreso than CJ / VCLK does!!!