Would you consider using NATS for your program after this NR Media situation?
 

Let's ignore the actions of NR Media in this thread. Leave that discussion for another day and another thread.

After the way Too Much Media (NATS) has handled this situation, from the original thread that started it to the countersuit they announced today, would you still consider NATS as your backend for a new program? Do you think they did the right thing, or do you think they should have used more discretion until all the facts were available?

Personally it seems to me, they basically ruined the reputation of NR Media because of an as yet unexplained discrepancy in rebill statistics, and because they were treated rudely in one phone call to NR Media. Personally I wouldn't use NATS because of this, regardless of whether or not NR Media was shaving. They should have waited until there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt of shaving before they brought this issue to the public, regardless of how they were treated by their customer.

What do you guys think?

yes


45678

sig spot

nope probably not

I do use NATS and will continue to use NATS.

ohh and yes! john and tmm are good in my book.. honest people. why not?

NATS protected its brand name...If they suspended someones license...Its going to come to the boards regardless...Better you hear it from the horses mouth?

its an amazing program but yes many will wanna see proof

Hey Alley...I dont think it had anything to do with policing the internet...It has to do with protecting your product and its integrity...Like I said before...If they suspended their license...Its going to come public...One form shape or another...

Show me once were TMM said anything about shaving....

I agree.

Just for the record, I'm not questioning the quality of their software. This thread should not be about that. I'm not asking if you'd definetly use them, I'm asking if you would still consider them, and judge them based on their software vs. the competition, as you would have if this had never happened. Or, would you rule them out, because of their actions on this issue.

They are not being the police of the web, they are being the police of their own software. If you purchase their software and license, you must abide by their terms of service. Not only to protect their software, but the reputation it has in the community.

Would you say that Visa doesn't have a right to police their transactions they process? If a guy chooses to sell weed with his merchant account, should Visa sit back and say "well we can't police the world". Do they not have a right to shut down the account?

NATS thrives on being a trusted software that affiliates know will be fair. It's a huge selling point for affiliate programs and there are a lot of affiliates who will pick programs with NATS because of the reputation. TMM has every right to ensure their reputation isn't hurt by someone shaving with their system. If the other company doesn't like it, they should choose another software to run their aff program on.

The first thread. Anyone who has been in this business for more than five minutes knew exactly what that thread was about. It did the exact same damage to the reputation of NR Media as if they had come out and said NR Media was shaving. How they worded it is irrelevant. It's the damage done to their customer vs. the proof they had and their obligation to make this public. I'm not talking about whether or not NR has the basis for a liable lawsuit, I'm questioning whether or not you would use NATS after this.

I agree with the starter of this thread. I do think Nats should not have come forward until there had been a lot more to it then suspicious looking stats and a bad phone call...


spaz

Yeah but remember, MPA had no choice after every affiliate on the planet found out that they had a built in shave option. It would have been the end of them and any program using them if they hadn't done a 180. :2 cents:

I have been planning, researching & working on mine for months now. At one point, i was considering nats. because their staff was so flippant & cocky on the phone, NO. I will NEVER use them. Personally, I think John is a big mouthed prick as well as a hypocrite & I hope the lawsuit makes him piss fucking broke. I have already begun working on all my sites to remove all links to any program using nats. I am going to drop & stop sending traffic to any sponsor using nats.. I don't trust the software one friggen bit & since all this drama's come out, I sincerely believe we were all misled & lied to.

i would use them, this drama hasn't deterred me any.

If you're considering using NATS, then you're doing it because you want to benefit from their reputation as being a no-shave, honest stats system. When you use their software, you know ahead of time that if you fuck up there's going to be a price to pay, there HAS to be for NATS to maintain their integrity.

I have nothing to hide from my referrers and I want them to know that, therefore I would certainly use NATS, and in fact I WILL be using NATS in a new release of fetishbucks.com, coming shortly.

I understand where you are coming from...But the relationship between NATS and the affiliate program is not simply over whenever you buy the software...You basically are partnering up with them to provide your affiliate backend...They have to monitor to make sure CCBill doesn't change something or whoever doesn't change their design so it comflicts with NATS...

Again...my biggest point...Is that whenever NATS suspended their license...It would have came to this board regardless...So it came directly from the person who suspended the license...So no misinformation was spread about why NATS suspended the account...

All this speculation talk is pretty pointless as we don't have all the facts or details...Lawyers won't let anything be released info wise...So we only know what people think they know or what has been posted...which wasn't much...

Again...Just responding...Not bashing...Everyone has their :2 cents:

if you own a program or work for a program and you're making a big point out of coming out publicly against NATS, I'd say odds are you're shaving your affiliates traffic pretty severely. Those who read these threads should keep that in mind.

spacedogcash, I can't wait. :) :thumbsup

actually, I think the opposite is more true.. Those who stand by it are pretentious in wanting to perpetuate the big lie that nats is/was shave proof, that there's no flaws/glitches in it...

I disagree with that. So far TMM has offered no real proof that NR Media has shaved anyone. It could have been a programming error for all we know. To me it looks as if TMM destroyed NR before all the facts were in. Although, all I know is what has been posted on the boards. There could be a lot more to it that we have yet to hear.

You can't just buy your reputation by buying NATS software. The biggest and most respactable programs in the industry are NOT using nats (a few exeptions) but custom scripts. They earned their reputation by long, hard work. Every 1 day fly can buy/lease NATS software.

I know Tucker, and I know he's a good guy and I would have no problem in doing biz with him. It COULD have been a programming error and you're right, we just don't know. At the very least I can say that somebody in the NR office fucked up, and had to know that this was a problem that should have been addessed immediately given that NATS was running their entire back end. The smart thing for NR to do would have been to come to the board and say 'We fucked up. We're fixing it.'

That would have short circuited the whole controversy. imho their threatened lawsuit makes things much worse than they have to be.

Well to anwser your question yes i would and will use NATS as of now anyways. I see were you are coming from thu. The whole thing is one big mess. Its a catch 22 really for both parties involved. Now if NR Media would of came out and said hey NATS suspened us bla bla all these threads would of been alot diffrent.

Now im not gonna pass judgement based on whats writen on a message boad. I see both parties have file lawsuits and i will wait to the discovery phase and see what comes out of that. Then once all the legal stuff is out of the way the i will decide to continue to use NATS or to move on to a alternative.

It costs a little something to use NATS, there's a little barrier to entry. I wouldn't mind if it costed more. In fact I'd like to see domains cost 10k each, but the cat's out of the bag and the little guys are going to keep coming, there's no way to stop it.

For me, using NATS is cheaper than what I pay in programmer time to keep the custom solutions working flawlessly. I'd rather let someone else have that headache so I can focus on developing new projects.

Yes :pimp

I'd say your wrong. What is this mccarthyism, where If you disagree then you're defrauding your affiliates?

I can see the inquisition now "are you now or have you ever thought that nats made a bad choice by terminating a license and making it public? if you have then my friend, you are a communist. If you haven't then please give us the names of 3 programs who have."

Plenty of current, former and potential nats clients have always detested their arrogance.

We don't shave and I think they made a fucked choice.

(insert country song praising freedom of speech here)

being a noob and sigwhore that I am, I find what boyalley is saying very concise and agree with him on this one.

haha, I was coming back to post that his comment had shades of MCcarthyism.

better yet, fuckit,, not pulling links,, that's just fucking crazy..would be like pissing money out the window..:1orglaugh

lol, umm, that's the form of persecution that you can get at McDonalds.

Not true.

You can substitute ANY service provider into this situation -- NATS, MPA, ES, ObjectCube, even CCBill or Paycom -- and the situation still looks ugly.

Profanity and a hang-up does not constitute a breach of normal contract terms. Posting on a message board that you're suspending someone's license because of these things (not completely but making reference to them DOES include them in the situation to be thought through) is just insane from a marketing point of view.

No one wins in this situation, no matter what happens in court. NATS has shown themselves to be willing to hold programs hostage, XClusive Cash have shown themselves to be perhaps unwilling to sort things out without resorting to attorneys/lawsuits and the webmasters who send traffic to XClusive Cash are the ones losing out no matter how you look at it.

Frankly, if I were XClusive Cash, I'd say fuck it, and send my webmasters a check based on their last months payouts IMMEDIATELY, or I'd average their last three months payouts and send them a check for that amount. You don't need NATS to do that, you can look at the checkbook and figure it out. That alone would take care of alot of the ill-will towards XClusive Cash while the rest is sorted out.

If I were NATS, I'd have kept my mouth shut on the boards about it all and let XClusive shoot themselves in the foot having to bring it to the boards without some serious answers for the situation in hand.

But of course, my post supposes a lot of what if I weres... this is a bad situation that will probably get worse. Deposition is a bitch and both sides are entitled to their days doing it. Many things that both sides probably don't want to talk about will be fair game during that time.

Further, when someone like CCBill or Paycom terminates an account, it's not their general policy to announce it on the boards. Nor do most webmaster programs post a list of the affiliates they've terminated either.

i would have no problem using NATS.

it's total bullshit the way people claim that their first post about xclusive cash claimed shaving. have we really gotten so stupid that when a person states cold, dry facts that we interpret them so as to suit our own needs for drama? the guy simply stated what happened - which, if correct, isn't actually open to interpretation. he didn't claim the program shaved - he said there was a stats anomaly they were contractually obligated to help him solve.

if you want to say "that means they're shaving", that is YOUR conclusion of the fact there was a reporting issue, not his. if there was a possible reporting issue, that is ALL that that means.

you know, there have been issues like this in our industry where the program WASN'T shaving - so having such an issue does not mean you shave and posting such an issue doesn't mean an accusation of shaving.

12clicks, while liking the poster, ccbill, and paycom, believes that not doing this doesn't make it right.:thumbsup

Agreed.

12clicks, while liking the poster, ccbill, and paycom, believes that not doing this doesn't make it right.

wha?