I’m the Affiliate Marketing Director for Clash. I saw the request, and I haven’t ignored it…. as you can imagine setting up a new network is an amazingly time consuming process. I’ll be announcing current and new merchants on A4U over time, but at the moment, actual signup of new merchants and affiliates has to take priority – once the mad rush has died back, I’ll be able to do things in a more measured manner

>> so far the main USP that I can see is that there are no setup and no monthly fees for merchants. So it looks like they are going for a bit of a landgrab and following a similar route to Affiliate Future

There are / will be some excellent USPs on the affiliate side too, but we’re still in the process of getting the best of these set up, so I’ll say “watch this space”, and I hope you’ll be pleasantly surprised, when we are in a position to tell everyone about it all.

I’d also say I’m not going for a landgrab here – I just don’t see the business logic in set-up / monthly fees these days. If we are doing out jobs right, the amounts generated by these feess should be dwarfed by the amounts generated from transactions. If, for whatever reason, a merchant isn’t doing a good volume through the Clash network, and we can’t resolve this over time, I’ll suggest that they reconsider whether they should be doing AM at all, in particular through us. One network can’t be all things to all men

but they started with kitbag. I pretty major brand.

The site also looks like a templatemonster jobbie to me!

Too many networks out there and joining everyone increases on admin. (chasing up broken links, non-payments, getting used to regularly-changing interfaces, staff leaving). Somebody told me at an affiliate event a few years down the line there will be only three major networks and a few niche ones. I more or less agree.

You only want to sign up to a network if the merchants are of interest and aren’t already on a different network (ok, rates or terms might be better – but not very often). Transparency is a must.