Quote:
I certainly understand your concerns with the rumors that you mentioned. When we heard these same rumors more than two years ago, we hired an outside auditing firm to analyze our program's behavior to ensure that such activity was not occurring. After reviewing our programs, the IM Services auditing firm confirmed that our programs indeed do not interfere with affiliate commissions.
If you have any further questions on this or any other matter, please feel free to contact me.
Thanks,
Cory Magnus
|
I remember that audit. :D It came on the heels of them catching a lot of public heat originating from the mainstream affiliate community. They came out very publicly saying they were hiring PriceWaterHouse to do the audit. Then silence for a couple of months. The audit came out much more quietly and it wasn't done by PriceWaterHouse.
I don't think I ever saw them same publicly why the change from such a reputable auditer. I also never saw actually what was being audited and the criteria which was used to show the no interference with affiliate commissions happened. What exactly was considered interference? Zango spin. Gotta love it. Kind of like their move when they were taking a lot of heat for stealth installs of Zango by CDT through CDT's porn sites. Zango's reaction to it? To 'control' the rogue affiliate (CDT), they bought the company. ROFL.
I remember Cory also. I was engaged in a public Q&A with him on another forum to discuss 180's practices a couple of years ago. He wound up admitting some things their software was doing at the time that he probably really shouldn't have. They since stopped that particular one.
Quote:
|
I wish Kellie had permission from other sponsors to post videos
|
Well I can do whatever I want with my own videos (eg those from my own research outside of private consulting).
My policy is not to publicly post such videos (particulary on high traffic sites) involving affiliate's web sites. That's just out of respect for affiliates. Many affiliates are very particular about the knowlege of their web sites. ;) Also, there have been more than one case where the victimized affiliate experienced retaliation from the offending affiliate after some public 'outing'. So I tend to lean towards caution and respecting the privacy of the innocent affiliate. I've always only posted videos and such that contained aff web sites with the express consent from the owner of the web site. Don't know if you've noticed or not Missie, but on my service I blur out the URL's and any other identifying elements on the affiliate's site in the screen shots I post. Some of these companies don't play nicely in the sandbox. I know from first hand experience. I had someone literally knock on my front door who was sent by an adware company because they were 'displeased' with posts I'd made about their software in a forum. Never did tell me exactly what they had an issue with. But somehow I don't think that was the real point of the visit. I wasn't the only one who got the visit either. So I just don't post vids of aff traffic being popped on without expressed consent from the affiliate receiving the pop and they understand the full possible implications of such a public posting.