Quote:
Originally Posted by CunningStunt
Most of their jobs depend on working out how their top 20 affiliates get their money, so they can copy it, and save themselves the trouble of figuring it out themselves.
|
Do you really think it's that prevalent? I've worked with a handful of programs over the years and none of them operated that way.
I've had a few discussions over in house traffic generation vs affiliate model, and I think you need to have a mix of both- but when you break it down- at least in my opinion- I'd rather pay affiliates commissions all day long than take on full time employees trying to decode an affilaite's game and try to mimic it.
The way I see it, your BEST webmasters don't work for companies- they work for themselves, so if you're hiring someone to generate inhouse traffic to mimic affiliate methods and you're paying out not based on commission you're already not working with the sharpest knife.
If a company is writing checks they can afford to cash, keeping payouts within the limits of their own profitability, it seems more cost effective to focus on the affiliate model, IMO. Its running leaner. If we;re talking about a company that may already have large overhead and the weight of FT dedicated employees that need to be refocussed I guess maybe in that situation it might be better to focus them on inhouse traffic gen projects than to lay them off. I do see what you guys are getting at, that a company could save money if they efficiently and effectively duplicated a successful affilate's methods, but there's alot involved in doing that as an employer, you're putting out money w/o a promised return, there's no guarantee of success. You use the right tool for the job, and I still feel the affiliate model is just that.
