<?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"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Affiliate Window rant</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.here.org.uk/2007/02/affiliate-window-rant.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.here.org.uk/2007/02/affiliate-window-rant.html</link>
	<description>Welcome to Kieron's blog - the life and times of an Internet Marketeer</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2008 08:32:55 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: 2007 at Here.org.uk. The year in review</title>
		<link>http://www.here.org.uk/2007/02/affiliate-window-rant.html#comment-5747</link>
		<dc:creator>2007 at Here.org.uk. The year in review</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Dec 2007 19:00:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.here.org.uk/wordpress/?p=188#comment-5747</guid>
		<description>[...] emails to affiliates with deep links embedded. A week or so later however I have a bit of a rant at the way they &#8220;forced&#8221; affiliates to read emails. Happily they&#8217;ve stopped doing [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] emails to affiliates with deep links embedded. A week or so later however I have a bit of a rant at the way they &#8220;forced&#8221; affiliates to read emails. Happily they&#8217;ve stopped doing [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Graham Keen</title>
		<link>http://www.here.org.uk/2007/02/affiliate-window-rant.html#comment-508</link>
		<dc:creator>Graham Keen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2007 09:08:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.here.org.uk/wordpress/?p=188#comment-508</guid>
		<description>Hmmm it's a tough one from a Merchant perspective. I can see both sides of the argument and I don't really know if there is a solution that will suit everyone. Whilst emailing and getting affiliates to click a link to agree to the term, what will the merchant do if they don't, kick them off the program? I reckon if I did a trial on something like this less than 5% of people would click the link.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hmmm it&#8217;s a tough one from a Merchant perspective. I can see both sides of the argument and I don&#8217;t really know if there is a solution that will suit everyone. Whilst emailing and getting affiliates to click a link to agree to the term, what will the merchant do if they don&#8217;t, kick them off the program? I reckon if I did a trial on something like this less than 5% of people would click the link.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.here.org.uk/2007/02/affiliate-window-rant.html#comment-488</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Feb 2007 14:59:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.here.org.uk/wordpress/?p=188#comment-488</guid>
		<description>Kieron - thank you for bringing this subject up... it's been annoying the hell out of me!&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;I signed up to nearly all of the  Affiliate Window merchants (most of them I have yet to work with) and to have to jump through these ridiculous hoops just to check my balance or latest clicks is insane!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Kieron - thank you for bringing this subject up&#8230; it&#8217;s been annoying the hell out of me!</p>
<p>I signed up to nearly all of the  Affiliate Window merchants (most of them I have yet to work with) and to have to jump through these ridiculous hoops just to check my balance or latest clicks is insane!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Clarke</title>
		<link>http://www.here.org.uk/2007/02/affiliate-window-rant.html#comment-485</link>
		<dc:creator>Clarke</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Feb 2007 19:45:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.here.org.uk/wordpress/?p=188#comment-485</guid>
		<description>I am lucky, I have have 5 different members of staff for my Affiliate company and the first one to get on to the AW accounts is the first one to type I AGREE.. shame the rest of us have no idea what they agreed to.. I think this was a nice try but back to the drawing board.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am lucky, I have have 5 different members of staff for my Affiliate company and the first one to get on to the AW accounts is the first one to type I AGREE.. shame the rest of us have no idea what they agreed to.. I think this was a nice try but back to the drawing board.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matthew Lovett</title>
		<link>http://www.here.org.uk/2007/02/affiliate-window-rant.html#comment-483</link>
		<dc:creator>Matthew Lovett</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Feb 2007 13:14:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.here.org.uk/wordpress/?p=188#comment-483</guid>
		<description>Hi,&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;I totally agree with you.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Its getting really annoying.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Matt.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi,</p>
<p>I totally agree with you.</p>
<p>Its getting really annoying.</p>
<p>Matt.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Frost</title>
		<link>http://www.here.org.uk/2007/02/affiliate-window-rant.html#comment-481</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Frost</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:23:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.here.org.uk/wordpress/?p=188#comment-481</guid>
		<description>I'm sitting on the fence on this one. I totally understand why Affiliate Window do this, and also agree with the reasons and welcome their approach to making it a fair playing field to one and all.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;But...&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;I completely agree with how annoying the system/process is. I am a true believer in that any communication should be done by email, and email alone. This is MY chosen communication method and I don't want to be in a position of logging into every network on a daily basis making sure I haven't missed any CONFIRM THIS or CONFIRM THAT. I simply don't have the time!&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;I would be interested if you submission of 'I bloody confirm now sod off' was submitted, and if so, was it accepted?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m sitting on the fence on this one. I totally understand why Affiliate Window do this, and also agree with the reasons and welcome their approach to making it a fair playing field to one and all.</p>
<p>But&#8230;</p>
<p>I completely agree with how annoying the system/process is. I am a true believer in that any communication should be done by email, and email alone. This is MY chosen communication method and I don&#8217;t want to be in a position of logging into every network on a daily basis making sure I haven&#8217;t missed any CONFIRM THIS or CONFIRM THAT. I simply don&#8217;t have the time!</p>
<p>I would be interested if you submission of &#8216;I bloody confirm now sod off&#8217; was submitted, and if so, was it accepted?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.here.org.uk/2007/02/affiliate-window-rant.html#comment-480</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Feb 2007 14:59:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.here.org.uk/wordpress/?p=188#comment-480</guid>
		<description>Yeah I think Kieron has a point. An email with a link plus then they can see who is actually active.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;I personally find it annoying though. I am all for ease of flow when its comes to thought and usually I am after something quick if I am logging in. Don't want to be interupted.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Regards,&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;monk-i</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah I think Kieron has a point. An email with a link plus then they can see who is actually active.</p>
<p>I personally find it annoying though. I am all for ease of flow when its comes to thought and usually I am after something quick if I am logging in. Don&#8217;t want to be interupted.</p>
<p>Regards,</p>
<p>monk-i</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kieron</title>
		<link>http://www.here.org.uk/2007/02/affiliate-window-rant.html#comment-479</link>
		<dc:creator>Kieron</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:15:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.here.org.uk/wordpress/?p=188#comment-479</guid>
		<description>I agree that mercghant program terms are important but I still don't see why email can't be used to communicate this. For double insurance then maybe a hyperlink in the email that the user must click on to approve the terms. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;I just really don't like the way AW are doing it at the moment.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree that mercghant program terms are important but I still don&#8217;t see why email can&#8217;t be used to communicate this. For double insurance then maybe a hyperlink in the email that the user must click on to approve the terms. </p>
<p>I just really don&#8217;t like the way AW are doing it at the moment.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.here.org.uk/2007/02/affiliate-window-rant.html#comment-478</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:03:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.here.org.uk/wordpress/?p=188#comment-478</guid>
		<description>Hi,&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;I agree with the first comment. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;It maybe annoying but changing the programme's rules is big deal. A) Affiliates needs to know the rules of the game, so they dont break them. b) Merchants need to have evidence that the affiliates have read and accepted the new terms otherwise affiliate could break all the new programme guidelines then when it came to a court case they could just say "i was never told that the rules where changed".&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Its a pain but a necessary pain.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi,</p>
<p>I agree with the first comment. </p>
<p>It maybe annoying but changing the programme&#8217;s rules is big deal. A) Affiliates needs to know the rules of the game, so they dont break them. b) Merchants need to have evidence that the affiliates have read and accepted the new terms otherwise affiliate could break all the new programme guidelines then when it came to a court case they could just say &#8220;i was never told that the rules where changed&#8221;.</p>
<p>Its a pain but a necessary pain.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Moose</title>
		<link>http://www.here.org.uk/2007/02/affiliate-window-rant.html#comment-477</link>
		<dc:creator>Moose</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Feb 2007 20:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.here.org.uk/wordpress/?p=188#comment-477</guid>
		<description>I can see your perspective whereby it may seem instrusive in the sense that its the first thing you after you have logged in. But at least we are being notified &#038; can confirm we have read it. All too frequently keyword policies are changed without any form of notification, or non receipt of email from network or merchant. Worse culprits in the past i feel for this are Tradedoubler, Buy.at &#038; DGM. I think adding this extra communication layer ensures receipt of message and allows affiliates to be correctly informed about changes, whilst a few other networks sneakily claim they were there originally. What I always suggest is a screen capture any page with ppc policies &#038; time stamp it. Because there are bound to be a few occasions where you need to protect your hide &#038; pull it out of the archives. Generally I think there should be greater use of communicating within interface, with options to opt in to promotion correspondence from merchants we want to receive from as well as compulsary notifications like keyword policy changes that we can now see on AW. On the whole I think their idea is good and endorse it in principle.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;P.S. Great Blog &#038; Good Health to You</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I can see your perspective whereby it may seem instrusive in the sense that its the first thing you after you have logged in. But at least we are being notified &#038; can confirm we have read it. All too frequently keyword policies are changed without any form of notification, or non receipt of email from network or merchant. Worse culprits in the past i feel for this are Tradedoubler, Buy.at &#038; DGM. I think adding this extra communication layer ensures receipt of message and allows affiliates to be correctly informed about changes, whilst a few other networks sneakily claim they were there originally. What I always suggest is a screen capture any page with ppc policies &#038; time stamp it. Because there are bound to be a few occasions where you need to protect your hide &#038; pull it out of the archives. Generally I think there should be greater use of communicating within interface, with options to opt in to promotion correspondence from merchants we want to receive from as well as compulsary notifications like keyword policy changes that we can now see on AW. On the whole I think their idea is good and endorse it in principle.</p>
<p>P.S. Great Blog &#038; Good Health to You</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
