Affiliate Accountability
In last week’s article, we looked at something we called the Affiliate Divide, a term we defined to describe the gap that separates, and the one that some cross, when they go from being independents to owners of organizations, or what we called equity creators. Those that make the transition have the opportunity not just to make more money for themselves but provide a platform for employment for tens if not hundreds of other people. Creating equity means a more robust business, but this transition which can come with large rewards, also comes with equally high costs. Instead of just worrying about and having all decisions revolve around oneself, business builders have a responsibility for those that have joined them. Rarely, will the quality of life from being in charge of many come close to matching that of someone who manages just a few, if not only themselves. That is why, when given the opportunity to go from single affiliate to larger entity, more than a few will chose to remain the hired gun. The world of the hired gun though has changed, and this week we take a look a what it means to call oneself an affiliate.
While I never thought of being an affiliate as a way a life, for many living life as an affiliate equates to living the American dream – no boss, passive income, flexible hours, the house, car, pool, and everything else that disposable income brings. Those that have made it looking to convince others, and those in networking marketing wanting to make it depending on others, tend to sell the tangible results not the process. Those that have made it, though, know that it comes only through incredibly hard work and commitment. One of the factors not often mentioned, but one that we associate with those who have built organizations under them is responsibility. The same does not necessarily get associated with affiliates. Both those inside and outside the affiliate marketing space, including advertisers and occasionally affiliate managers, view affiliates as part of a pajama wearing, rogue sales force that doesn’t have the company’s interest in heart and will do more harm than good. The volume makes it a necessary evil, and if they could find a way to take out the necessary piece, they would.
To some extent, those that truly believe that affiliate marketing adds only marginal value have some merit. Anyone that has worked at an affiliate network, run an affiliate program, or simply had friends that did either can rattle off horror stories. One of my favorites being years ago when a very senior person at a major online education firm received a solicitation in his inbox for his own school. In that split second of confusion and frustration, no amount of revenue could make up for the brand degradation. For the most part, affiliates along with their account managers had only those type of instances to fear, i.e. ones that made affiliate marketing seemed too much like loose cannon marketing. Not to say that affiliates operated above the law, but lone guns have a tendency to lose their grounding and start to feel as though the broader consequences wouldn’t impact them. CAN-SPAM provided some levity to the affiliate marketing mindset, but it proved the equivalent of sending an elementary school to the principal’s office instead of a longer lasting deterrent against rogue behavior. Some people had to change, but for most, it simply meant abiding by some new playground rules with the penalty for breaking them still not a direct threat to not just their business but way of life.
Thus far in 2007, we have seen no federal legislation that would impact Internet marketing, specifically direct response marketing, and given that we have fewer than two weeks before the New Year, we won’t. The tail end of this year, though, has started to smell a lot like the email landscape did in 2004, except this time regarding the mobile subscription service space. Not two months ago, a press release went out announcing a deal between Azoogle Ads and the Florida Attorney General, and just this past week, a rather critical piece appeared in ClickZ that indicated that another of the larger players in the mobile subscription space, Mobile Messenger, has caught the eye of the Florida AG, and not in a good way. The article quotes Michael Palecki, Tallahassee bureau chief for the Florida AG as saying, "…We believe the advertising they (Mobile Messenger) are doing is in violation of Florida law." It’s a no-win situation when trying to assess levels of wrongdoing, if indeed any occurred, and unfortunately, our space has already started to become a little bit politicized over the recent investigations.
In our opinion, the combination of the FTC inquiry into incentive marketing and the Florida AG’s aggressive entry into the mobile subscription space, should act like the wakeup call for personal accountability that moves affiliate marketing from teenager to adult. Unlike the pre-CAN SPAM days, today’s performance marketer has much greater levels of trust and freedom; and much like a teenager who can now drive, this comes with greater consequences if mistakes happen. For those in the mobile subscription space, this comes in the form of never before seen levels of customization and creativity given to the marketer, and especially because this product deals with real money, not just data, it means everyone involved in the marketing must understand the legal ramifications. In the past the marketers have not, but like younger teen or child, mistakes come with as stern but less severe consequences. We need to realize that we as marketers have left this era of limited responsibility, little accountability. Even if we no longer promote subscription services, we will have a microscope on our actions, and if we don’t act properly, then the companies we rely on, the ones that provide the float, the support, the daytime chat companions, won’t stay in business.
