Originally Posted by Relentless

Most of what you have said on this thread is honest, well thought out and absolutely true. The quote as stated above is absolute bullshit at best. There are hundreds of paysite programs. The idea that they need cross-sales on RevShare links without any revenue going to their affiliates 'so that they can survive' is ridiculous. That logic leads to absurd conclusions like 'Wouldn't an affiliate rather have a sponsor who shaves them because it makes more money for the sponsor and therefore makes them a more stable entity for future sales that they can also shave?'

It is not the goal of any Sponsor Program to earn money for any affiliate. It is also not the goal of any affiliate to 'keep a Sponsor in business.' Affiliates and Sponsors have a mutual goal of making money from consumers. Nothing more, nothing less. When an affiliate does something that damages the Sponsor's income they are dealt with in exactly the same way that a Sponsor should be dealt with when doing things that damage the affiliate's income.

Being for xsells or against them can be sensible. Being willing to send traffic to a sponsor who does phenomenal ratios even though they are xselling the traffic and not paying out on that additional revenue may even make some sense in certain instances. However, the idea that an affiliate is better off letting a 'weak' sponsor pay them $12 a sale on a RevShare link while earning an extra $50 on xsells 'so that the sponsor can make money during these tough times'... because in the long run it's somehow better for the affiliate is absolutely laughable.