Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Johny Traffic
Just a month ago everyone was kissing Nats arse like it was a 18 year old virgin. It was pathetic how thread after thread people where asking for sponsors who use Nats and is was pathetic how thread after thread people talked about how Nats couldnt shave.
|
Unfortunately this industry is dominated by the cult of personality. And the other side of that coin is the delight people have when they get the chance to knock down those they put on pedestals in the first place. That's why you are on this thread now...
In reality NATS claimed only that their software made it difficult to shave and had no built-in shave functions, even though a lot of people chose to believe they had said much more than that. The only really significant claim they made, and then only if you take it at face value, was that they would come down on any clients who were caught shaving. In any case what have any of these claims got to do with the functionality issues that this thread was originally about?
You might better ask where the sponsors were - those who are now saying they already had some problems with NATS - when NATS was being boosted so outrageously...
But if we did operate more rationally, look at the choices. Most of those who have adopted script-assisted cascading billing are using either NATS or one of the Mansion products. Mansion has - at least in the past - made it easy for sponsors to cheat their affiliates, so why would any affiliate in his right mind forgive that? Against that, we haven't learned anything in this thread which suggests any widespread issues, so if an affiliate thinks automated cascading billing is a good thing, why wouldn't sponsors using NATS still be the obvious choice?