<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Parasitic / Adware Affiliates Hinder Affiliate Program Growth</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.amnavigator.com/blog/2009/09/02/parasitic-adware-affiliates-hinder-affiliate-program-growth/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.amnavigator.com/blog/2009/09/02/parasitic-adware-affiliates-hinder-affiliate-program-growth/</link>
	<description>Geno talks about affiliate marketing, leadership, etc</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 00:14:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Geno</title>
		<link>http://www.amnavigator.com/blog/2009/09/02/parasitic-adware-affiliates-hinder-affiliate-program-growth/comment-page-1/#comment-7505</link>
		<dc:creator>Geno</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Aug 2010 12:37:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.amnavigator.com/blog/?p=3041#comment-7505</guid>
		<description>Joseph, thank you for your comment. I&#039;m with you on trademark poachers, and have listed them and a number of other parasites in my &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amnavigator.com/blog/category/spyware-parasites/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Spyware &amp; Parasites blog posts&lt;/a&gt;. 

As for the &quot;coupon sites&quot; I wouldn&#039;t exactly classify them as parasites. It is entirely the merchant&#039;s choice: to work or not to work with them. If the merchant sees no use in promotion via coupon affiliates, they can spell it out in their program&#039;s TOS, and enforce this rule.

If, on the other hand, the merchant does have room for coupons, but doesn&#039;t want its customer to &quot;leak&quot; to coupon affiliate sites between adding items to their shopping cart and checking out, they can offer a coupon search tool within their own merchant site (Macy&#039;s doing this).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Joseph, thank you for your comment. I&#8217;m with you on trademark poachers, and have listed them and a number of other parasites in my <a href="http://www.amnavigator.com/blog/category/spyware-parasites/" rel="nofollow">Spyware &#038; Parasites blog posts</a>. </p>
<p>As for the &#8220;coupon sites&#8221; I wouldn&#8217;t exactly classify them as parasites. It is entirely the merchant&#8217;s choice: to work or not to work with them. If the merchant sees no use in promotion via coupon affiliates, they can spell it out in their program&#8217;s TOS, and enforce this rule.</p>
<p>If, on the other hand, the merchant does have room for coupons, but doesn&#8217;t want its customer to &#8220;leak&#8221; to coupon affiliate sites between adding items to their shopping cart and checking out, they can offer a coupon search tool within their own merchant site (Macy&#8217;s doing this).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joseph Hansen</title>
		<link>http://www.amnavigator.com/blog/2009/09/02/parasitic-adware-affiliates-hinder-affiliate-program-growth/comment-page-1/#comment-7481</link>
		<dc:creator>Joseph Hansen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Aug 2010 20:02:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.amnavigator.com/blog/?p=3041#comment-7481</guid>
		<description>Geno, 

I would also view other types of affiliates as parasitic (to a merchant&#039;s affiliate program profitability):

Trademark poachers - As you have stated, affiliates using this practice are not contributing additional traffic to websites, but rather feeding off of traffic that is attributable to the brand/organic equity of that website. 

Coupon sites - specifically I mean sites that solely promote coupons (and earn affiliate commissions through such coupons)
Coupon sites such as Retailmenot or Coupons4u typically don&#039;t contribute additional traffic that would not have otherwise come to our website. Rarely do individuals go to a &quot;big&quot; coupon site, unaware of our site, and then click through to us. Instead, someone will get to our checkout page, see a coupon field, and then search for a coupon code in Google and find one to use from one of these sites. This leads to the affiliate receiving a commission for the sale and the customer receiving a discount on their purchase which, added together, significantly decreases our profit margin on those sales.  One point of clarification - I have no problem with affiliates making lots of money, as we generally make lots of money too.  When they don&#039;t actually contribute additional traffic &amp; sales, but rather feed off of our own traffic, I find it parasitic though instead of symbiotic.

One more important point to consider that could counter this parasitic effect of &quot;big&quot; coupon sites is the promotional effect of the coupons. Perhaps some of these customers would not have purchased had they not found a coupon to use? Our testing has found that few of these customers drop off completely without the promotion of a coupon, but that may be limited to our market. What have others found?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Geno, </p>
<p>I would also view other types of affiliates as parasitic (to a merchant&#8217;s affiliate program profitability):</p>
<p>Trademark poachers &#8211; As you have stated, affiliates using this practice are not contributing additional traffic to websites, but rather feeding off of traffic that is attributable to the brand/organic equity of that website. </p>
<p>Coupon sites &#8211; specifically I mean sites that solely promote coupons (and earn affiliate commissions through such coupons)<br />
Coupon sites such as Retailmenot or Coupons4u typically don&#8217;t contribute additional traffic that would not have otherwise come to our website. Rarely do individuals go to a &#8220;big&#8221; coupon site, unaware of our site, and then click through to us. Instead, someone will get to our checkout page, see a coupon field, and then search for a coupon code in Google and find one to use from one of these sites. This leads to the affiliate receiving a commission for the sale and the customer receiving a discount on their purchase which, added together, significantly decreases our profit margin on those sales.  One point of clarification &#8211; I have no problem with affiliates making lots of money, as we generally make lots of money too.  When they don&#8217;t actually contribute additional traffic &amp; sales, but rather feed off of our own traffic, I find it parasitic though instead of symbiotic.</p>
<p>One more important point to consider that could counter this parasitic effect of &#8220;big&#8221; coupon sites is the promotional effect of the coupons. Perhaps some of these customers would not have purchased had they not found a coupon to use? Our testing has found that few of these customers drop off completely without the promotion of a coupon, but that may be limited to our market. What have others found?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Geno</title>
		<link>http://www.amnavigator.com/blog/2009/09/02/parasitic-adware-affiliates-hinder-affiliate-program-growth/comment-page-1/#comment-3609</link>
		<dc:creator>Geno</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:35:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.amnavigator.com/blog/?p=3041#comment-3609</guid>
		<description>Ditto what &lt;b&gt;Matt&lt;/b&gt; said. 

Another post on the subject coming up today. Some people just refuse to admit how parasitic behavior is actually hurting affiliate marketing, saying that by by slandering adware &amp; parasitic affiliates I am &quot;bringing us all down&quot; making our industry look non-reputable [&lt;a href=&quot;http://econsultancy.com/blog/4525-toolbars-pop-ups-and-parasites-in-affiliate-marketing#blog_comment_12725&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;detailed wording here&lt;/a&gt;].</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ditto what <b>Matt</b> said. </p>
<p>Another post on the subject coming up today. Some people just refuse to admit how parasitic behavior is actually hurting affiliate marketing, saying that by by slandering adware &#038; parasitic affiliates I am &#8220;bringing us all down&#8221; making our industry look non-reputable [<a href="http://econsultancy.com/blog/4525-toolbars-pop-ups-and-parasites-in-affiliate-marketing#blog_comment_12725" rel="nofollow">detailed wording here</a>].</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt McWilliams</title>
		<link>http://www.amnavigator.com/blog/2009/09/02/parasitic-adware-affiliates-hinder-affiliate-program-growth/comment-page-1/#comment-3607</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt McWilliams</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:06:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.amnavigator.com/blog/?p=3041#comment-3607</guid>
		<description>Good affiliates outnumber bad affiliates (parasitic/scam/unethical) 20-to-1.  AMs ask yourself this, is that one worth losing the 20?  Because the 20 will never sign-up with your program if you allow the bad ones in.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good affiliates outnumber bad affiliates (parasitic/scam/unethical) 20-to-1.  AMs ask yourself this, is that one worth losing the 20?  Because the 20 will never sign-up with your program if you allow the bad ones in.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

