Forkbeard |
06-21-2011 06:08 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie
(Post 18227932)
Times are indeed getting desperate. And it's unclear to me that my services as a 100% affiliate are even viable anymore. I'm starting to feel like a blacksmith, or a telephone operator...like my job is becoming obsolete.
|
I'm not feeling quite as bleak about it as you are, but we are definitely experiencing the same trends my man. I'm branching out into ebook publishing and teaching myself HTML5 so I can do stuff that works better on mobile devices -- I'd be doing apps if the leading platform wasn't a walled garden owned by an anti-porn zealot (fortunately, he'll be dead soon, and good riddance to him!) My blogging network still brings a trickle of affiliate cash, but the bulk of my bills get paid for by brokered advertising (mostly JuicyAds) and at least half of that advertising is short-term and gives the impression of being desperation efforts by people still trying to find a way to sell the unsellable.)
My point in posting about the "pay on rebills for a year, then stop" model was not to claim that programs shouldn't use it, if that's what makes business sense to them. My point was to ridicule the attempt to label that model "revshare". At this point revshare has both a universally-understood meaning and a solid complex of business reasons why it works for publisher and affiliate alike; this model is not faithful to that meaning and does not support those reasons. It's every bit as "fake-revshare" as the fake PPS programs that convert your account (retroactively) to revshare if they decide they aren't getting enough cross-sales and upsells from your signups to justify the PPS numbers they pretended to agree to pay you (AFF, looking at you...).
|