2007
My good friend Jason has posted a thought on the forum asking ‘why network staff back “social” blogs but not one’s with real issues about AM written by affiliates?’ He is of course referring to another newbie blogger, like myself, Robert B. Now while I’m sure Robert is a very nice guy and this is not in any way a dig at him, he’s blogged about how wonderful Mal is and of course shot straight to the ‘Top of the Blogs’ being backed by everyone at Buy.at and their mothers, grandmothers, next door neighbours, etc (I know I am liable to exaggeration at times), yet these same people never back a blog about Affiliate Marketing! Are networks too PC or are they a little bit scared of backing a controversial post? If affiliate A posted about network X would it be backed by any staff from network YZ? I doubt it very much, maybe because the way staff move around, maybe because today’s competitor could be tomorrows boss? maybe it’s simply because they lack the balls! Of course this doesn’t apply to all as some network staff are very supportive of affiliates issues and will back certain blogs.
What are your views on this?
Hi Julie, good post and as a Network member of staff who sometimes backs posts on here i thought i’d reply from a personal point of view as i’m sure everyone has different opinions! I tend to back any blog which i agree with whether it be a ’social’ or a ‘real issue’ blog. I tend to stay clear of commenting/backing any blog which criticises other Networks not due to a lack of balls more due to the fact I cant be 100% sure all the time that the full story is on the blog! I know if there was a blog criticising something i’d worked on at a Network but failed to tell the full story i’d be disappointed to see other Network staff backing this blog! I’m not for one moment suggesting that the majority of blogs do not give a good and balanced argument but this is where i stand on this issue!! I’d be interested to know what others think?
Well said Luv, you’ll be making me redundant soon by making me look politically correct.
Wicked blog design.
> “maybe because the way staff move around”
There are other reasons, but I think thats the crux of the matter. The bloke on Network X will be moving to Network Y in 12 months (whe s/he gets the sack or is offered another £5k) and at Network Z in 24 months time. So they dont want to cuss their future employers.
I am always amazed at how even the worst network/agency staff who get the boot are working at another network/agency a few days later.
Hi Julie,
I’ve spoken to a few networks and all have said they read my blog and quite a few actually comment on it and back it via A4U.
I do know some networks have decided not to contribute to the forum other than new programme launches.
With so much at stake these days I feel that most view any sort of “unofficial” communication as a potential to “do a Ratner”!
My Post about brand bidding:
http://www.leemccoy.co.uk/2007/10/another-look-at-brand-name-bidding.html
brought some out of the woodwork - but that’s a very rare occasion
Let’s hope that at least some stuff feel able to show their indepth knowledge of the industry by backing comments about it.
Hi Lee - I do agree that some Networks do reply and also back blogs. Now what if say .. hypothetically speaking Jesus himself wrote a blog - how many backs from how many networks would he get
? You know the answer to that one!
Hi Julie,
Surely you can understand that whatever network you work for as soon as you post on any public forum that you are representing your company and it’s views on the matter, no matter what the disclaimer. I’ve discussed several issues with people internally at both dgm and buy.at that I would like to contribute to publicly but have accepted that I am not in a position to do so, for reasons that may be both strategic and due to time management.
We’re not paid to blog (hence it’s gone midnight when I’m doing this!), we are employed to be of service to our affiliates and our clients, but it is only higher management that can take a position on ‘real issues’ and discuss it in a public forum.
To answer your question probably - but I don’t think you’ve seen the end of the likes of Matt or Mal as yet!
Cheers
Ben C
Hi Ben, Very surprised to see you here ;-). It’s not about the posting mate, it’s about the backing. There is nothing more annoying than half the staff at a network backing a blog that is basically saying ‘this bloke is the dogs .. ‘ Let us decide that - the affilaites, merchants and agencys that work with people. It’s not about discussions on a public forum, it’s about back slapping - hypothetically and literally. Matt’s was a different story - while there were backs from DGM staff most were from ‘ordinary folk’. To top it off Robert B’s last blog was blatently promoting buy.at and even at Laura’s request. Go figure!
Thank you for responding - although I notice you didn’t back me, then again you didn’t slap me either! I must be getting something right.
Jules
As an edit - That’ll teach me to comment when rushing to get the kids ready for school! I missed out a vital part - it’s the backing of the ’social’ blogs and not the ’serious issues’ ones. Sometimes I feel you need to take off your day job hat and say / back what you know is right or of course wrong. I upset so many people on a daily basis because I can be seen as sometimes being outspoken, but believe me if I posted what I really thought I’d have a hit man after me ;-).
xx
I’d rather employ someone who had opinion & passion (knowledge is an advantage though not essential) than be an apathetic sycophant. The echelons of any management maybe should respect that of an individual (employee), not veil it, if they want that respect to be reciprocated themselves.
If your boss is wrong tell them they are wrong, if another network is right or wrong tell them. If an affiliate is right or wrong, back them or slap them. There is lack of slapping on the blogs at the moment.
Perhaps if a few networks started being a bit more upfront, and yes even with each other, it might clear the air slightly taking views onboard & giving a chance to reflect on those to improve their standing, because a few may hear but don’t actually listen to the affiliate or each other.
Instead of using as affiliates as the conduits of information flow to build up their leverage of one network over another, when affiliates who in essence are competitors to each other can get along just fine, perhaps networks should take a paragraph out of their book.
Affiliates generally speak their minds on a forum or blog echoing much of what they perhaps chat about in person at a g2g for example. In private you can have a similar conversation with a network employee to a certain degree, but they wouldn’t dare comment those formed opinions in an affiliate environment.
Take Hero from Webgains for example, she didn’t win the award for nothing and one of those was because on the forum she sometimes spoke her mind, being her own woman, you’d agree or disagree, but she was involved and wasn’t perceived as drone or clone. Plus the fact she grafts.
Basically networks, back or slap whatever you want, but if you want to be attuned to the affiliate mindset, be your own person & not apathetic sycophant with a small twist of spin.
You have a good point Julie, who knew that a quick post about good night out would lead to a more deep-routed discussion?
I am not sure i have an answer, i suspect it is easier to back a post about something like this than something more “controversial”.
I remember in my days at DGM comments from the a4u forum making there way onto financial forums and possibly affecting the share-price.
Most network staff do have strong opinions if you chat to them in person, but would be very weary of putting them in writing, and what that might mean for their jobs if the CEO didn’t agree with what they said.
As I said Rob it’s nothing against you. I don’t remember if we’ve ever met but I’m sure you’re a nice guy, so please don’t take it personally. I do speak to a lot of network staff in person and on MSN and when they leave the jobs at the door some of them aren’t half bad!
What kind of message does is send out to affiliates that network staff are quite happy to back the next “great booze up” (Blackadder) but have no opinion whatsoever about proper issues that are affecting and often disenchanting their affiliates day to day.
The message it gives out is covered quite nicely by Frostie..
http://www.webaffiliate.co.uk/blog/networks/do-networks-give-a-flying-f.html
I can’t believe that “A Network Staff” member reading an affiliate blog (assuming that they take the time to research the views of affiliates) never thinks “gawd blimey guv that’s a shocking state of affairs, I’ve read this blog, will back it, and will raise it with other members of staff to make sure our affiliates aren’t treated this way” or (in a postivie slant) “that’s a great blog post, wish we’d thought of that as obviously this affiliate is happy with Network A as they’re doing something right”
As I’ve posted before if network staff wages were affected day to day by tracking issues, merchants chopping changing terms, sales going missing, spyware, 100% cashback, sites nicking codes etc (i.e. if these happen you go home that month with nowt.. of course if it works well then happy days)… then network staff would be a lot more involved and vociferous when it came to the crux of the many challenges affiiliates face day to day.